…and this is a 
John G. West of the Discovery Institute wants all you conservatives to know that the Debate Over Evolution Not Going Away, and that you need to join up with his side and question "Darwinism", because of all those intolerant nasty dogmatists who want to suppress the truth. You know, people like me.
Biology professor P. Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota, Morris, has demanded "the public firing and humiliation of some teachers" who express their doubts about Darwin. He further says, "It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots."
I've been over this before, but OK, one more time. I have no problem with doubts about Darwin; in my classes, I'll even get explicit about where Darwin was completely wrong. So does West think I'm asking to be fired over that? Never, ever trust a Discovery Institute fellow when he starts chopping up quotes; here's my comment in full. I still stand by it.
Yeah, I'm afraid the "civilized academic debate" was settled about a century ago. Scientists have been engaging in that ideal, non-militaristic fashion for quite some time, and still are — those discussions go on in the pages of the journals. Unfortunately, while we have been doing everything in the proper civilized way, the forces of ignorance have not; they have lied their way into considerable power.
Here I am, a biologist living in the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world, and one of the two biology teachers in my kids' high school is a creationist. Last year, the education commissioner in my state tried to subvert the recommendations for the state science standards by packing a hand-picked 'minority report' committee to push for required instruction in intelligent design creationism in our schools. All across the country, we have these lunatics trying to stuff pseudoscientific religious garbage into our schools and museums and zoos.
This is insane.
Please don't try to tell me that you object to the tone of our complaints. Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.
Do not sit there placidly while lies and nonsense are being peddled to your kids; why aren't you fighting back? I think my tone was spot on. What we have to do is get vocal and angry…and then these creationists come along and pretend to be all concerned and worried and fretful; "Oh, how can you be so mean?" they squeak, "We're just trying to have a polite, civil discussion!"
No, they're not. They're trying to junk good science and replace it with religious ideology. Don't let the smarmy smile fool you, they are like unscrupulous used car salesmen trying to snooker you into buying a POS crapmobile with shiny new sidewalls and an engine that's going to burst into flames once you roll off the lot.
West is just trying to pretend that he's the good guy, but seriously, when you read his plea you should smell the reek of greasy pomade and cheap cologne, see the glitter of his garish pinky ring, and hear the false promises of the carnival barker, the snake oil salesman, the sweaty revivalist promising eternity in the canvas tent. It's all lies.
Whatever one's personal view of Darwinism, the current atmosphere of intolerance is unhealthy for science, and it's unhealthy for a free society.
Conservatives who are discomfited by the continuing debate over Darwin's theory need to understand that it is not about to go away. It is not going away, because the accumulating discoveries of science undercut rather than confirm the claims of neo-Darwinism. It is not going away, because Darwinism fundamentally challenges the traditional Western understanding of human nature and the universe. Finally, it is not going away, because free people do not like to be told that there are some questions they are not allowed to ask and some answers they are not allowed to question.
If conservatives want to address root causes rather than just symptoms, they need to join the debate over Darwinism, not scorn it or ignore it.
West is not dealing with science; he's got a game he's playing, with this silly fake dogma of Darwinism against his god of the gaps. The DI does not address science, so his sanctimonious concern is phony.
He is correct that the creationists are not going to go away, but his reasons are all wrong.
Scientific discovery is not undercutting evolution, it's reinforcing it. Molecular biology is not an anti-evolutionary discipline, nor is modern developmental biology, nor is ecology or genetics or systematics. In fact, there isn't a single biological subdiscipline where the evidence is driving its members to argue against evolution.
His second argument might well be an appeal to conservative minds whose knees jerk at the thought of questioning traditional Western views, but it's not an argument against science—it's a naked appeal to an ideology. He could at least be upfront about it and admit that the reason to oppose evolution is that it makes fundamentalists, unquestioning evangelicals, and panderers to the religious right queasy. That, at least, is true.
There are no questions you aren't allowed to ask or answers you can't question. The simple truth is that the questions the DI asks have either been answered or are so damn stupid that they are bad questions, and the answers they question are backed up by evidence they're too lazy or ignorant to refute.
The real reason that creationism is not going to go away is that there will always be a market for pious lies. So, yes, conservatives, if you want to address root causes, I recommend that you ignore the unctuous, self-serving swill that John West slathers over his pleas, and go straight to the real problem: the promoters of creationism don't do science, have no scientific evidence, and ignore the evidence we do have for evolution. If you think the fact that some of us evolutionists are big, uncompromising meanies is reason to neglect a century and a half of detailed evidence, though, don't lie to yourself and claim your concern is about the substance of the science.
Comments
Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2006 2:27 PM
I wonder if I should inquire the Discovery Center to see if they have any projects concerning the genuine study of prehistoric organisms like placoderms.
Or, I wonder if I should do something more constructive, like, say, snorting markers.
Posted by: 99 bottles | November 15, 2006 2:31 PM
I wonder if it bothers people like JG West, that Jesus commands him to love PZ Myers.
Posted by: Alex | November 15, 2006 2:37 PM
Ok,
That one is out of the park. Grand slam PZ.
Posted by: Jud | November 15, 2006 2:39 PM
JG West: "[F]ree people do not like to be told that there are some questions they are not allowed to ask and some answers they are not allowed to question."
Guess that's why PZ's an atheist.
Posted by: C.Loach | November 15, 2006 2:51 PM
I think that ID should be given a free pass one day, access to all the labs, resources etc. Just for a day.
Let them at it, the poor supressed blighters. Let them do the science that they crave so much. Then these free people who dont like the answers they've been 'forcefed' can generate new fresh answers.
They have to tell us what they find out mind :) and I cant promise not to laugh.
What is it, exactly, they would do if given the chance?
Not that they dont have it already (money on offer, plenty of countries selling lab space that would never even have heard of ID or the 'controversy' and would not care if they had).
Seems to me you dont need to do any research to proclaim "goddiit". Is it all a big ruse?
Posted by: misterbowen | November 15, 2006 3:02 PM
> Is it all a big ruse?
ummm... yes?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 15, 2006 3:02 PM
C. Loach wrote:
Eh, they'd probably break something expensive, either because God told them to "destroy the tools of the infidel" or just because they're too fundamentally incompetent to be trusted with a burnt match.
Posted by: Warren | November 15, 2006 3:09 PM
Yes. Yes, that is precisely what it is. It's all propaganda in the name of shoving creationism into schools -- which is synonymous with stuffing god back into the classroom. This is in direct response to the banning of public-school prayer, which happened in the 1960s.
I realize this reads like sarcasm, because it's just so damned outrageous -- but that is precisely what is happening.
Posted by: Alex | November 15, 2006 3:11 PM
Loach,
They don't even need that. All they need are some remotely compelling ideas. Something describable and measurable. Gee whiz, maybe even a hypothesis to start testing. Funding and lab time would follow in huge amounts.
When your "scientific ideas" can't even pass muster in a court of law, you don't have much need for a lab.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 15, 2006 3:22 PM
C. Loach - ID isn't being championed to scientists. And not to be snarky, but it's not even for people who are fairly bright about anything else. As PZ implies, it's a con job for the willfully gullible. Like laetrile, only for education instead of cancer.
So if you let them into the lab, after a day (or a month even) of wandering around, the pigeons still wouldn't have a clue (or else they wouldn't be the pigeons); and the scam-artists aren't in the business of wising them up.
Posted by: lo | November 15, 2006 3:24 PM
Well the interesting part is that it`s pure nonsense. Knowing you as a scientists you would be rather delighted to have some one come up with a rational, progressive explanation about how we came into being. But the emphasis lies on rationality. It would dictate that we would have to deny/defy all of science, all of human knowledge starting with cosmology, quantum theory and everything beyond. The likelihood of something like this happening, of thousands of years of accumulated empiricism being false is really just possible if we were all living in a large simulation and have never ever had anything todo with reality.
But this itself is a futile argument, and one completely out of question by using logic.
Then again it is futile to even bother writing this since religion never was about reason it was about control, power and since the rise of economy inherently tangled with the rise of modern society it is merely another vast part of economical power and influence.
Posted by: Mena | November 15, 2006 3:24 PM
Actually the only argument that needs to be made (loudly) about the whole ID thing is "follow the money". There is more of it available to them than there is, for example, for a public school teacher. Of course it's a scam, it's a very profitable business!
Of course the fundies don't believe this...
Posted by: J-Dog | November 15, 2006 3:26 PM
I think John G West's whole point is that as long as there are quotes to be mined, he'll be digging. As long as no real work or research is involved.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 15, 2006 3:27 PM
This has to be the worst argument against evolution I've ever heard. You can have lots of fun with it though:
Posted by: hoody | November 15, 2006 3:37 PM
More self-serving nonsense. You're angry cause you LIKE it PZ, your addiction is then sprinkled with a dollop of good, old-fashioned hatred. Stop spewing righteous. It's sanctimony, not the high ground, you've achieved.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 15, 2006 3:40 PM
OK, this means war! If they want to take my hamachi and unagi away they'll have to pry them from my cold, dead fingers. ;)Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 15, 2006 3:41 PM
You should konw all about sanctimony, hoody, my man.
What is it with religious cretins and projection? They all seem to be positively filthy with the stuff.
Posted by: Martin Wagner | November 15, 2006 3:45 PM
When you ain't got facts or arguments, it's all you got.
Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2006 4:26 PM
What is it with religious cretins and projection? They all seem to be positively filthy with the stuff.
Ever see a little movie called "The Exorcist"?
Posted by: XPM | November 15, 2006 4:34 PM
It is not going away, because relativity fundamentally challenges the traditional Western understanding of time.
I seem it recall it taking upwards of fifty million deaths before *that* one went away. :(
Posted by: JackGoff | November 15, 2006 4:46 PM
sprinkled with a dollop of good, old-fashioned hatred
Hatred of pseudoscience trying its damnedest to suppress real science? I see no problem in that.
And self-serving nonsense? Isn't that the definition of Intelligent Design?
Posted by: George | November 15, 2006 5:01 PM
If there isn't one already, there needs to be a parody D.I. site.
Also devoutly to be wished: a version of Whac-a-Mole featuring John G. West (and all the other creationist dingbats).
Whamo!
Posted by: gwangung | November 15, 2006 5:07 PM
More self-serving nonsense. You're angry cause you LIKE it PZ, your addiction is then sprinkled with a dollop of good, old-fashioned hatred. Stop spewing righteous.
Then stop LYING.
You first.
Posted by: Kristine | November 15, 2006 5:07 PM
One suspects that this concern for being fashionable has something to do with the dismissive attitude taken by conservative columnists such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer, neither of whom, however, shows evidence of having read or considered the arguments made by intelligent-design proponents. If they had, they would not assert tritely that intelligent design is merely "warmed-over creationism" (Krauthammer) or an attempt "to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education" (Will).
Oh, they read and considered it all right! But it's everybody else's fault that no one groks poor little old misunderstood ID.
/irony off
I predict new predictions from the creationist cabal:
-More statements that the increasing number conservative opponents of creationism "don't really understand" the latest hip new trend in creationism.
-More statements that the increasing number of atheists "don't really understand" the latest hip new trend in Christianity.
-More hand-wringing that "scientists refuse to consider [insert latest form of creationism] despite the fact a majority of Americans favor creationism taught in schools."
-More hand-wringing that "if future trends continue, only 4% of America's youth will be Christian."
And I predict a new, growing threat:
-More atheists and more opponents of creationism, conservative or otherwise.
Posted by: George | November 15, 2006 5:12 PM
This isn't bad for a parody:
The reDiscovery Institute
http://www.re-discovery.org/
The reDiscovery Institute is non-profit, public-policy think-tank located in Tacoma, Washington, with branches in Atlanta, Georgia and Fort Worth, Texas. The reDiscovery Institute fosters integration of science education with traditional Judeo-Christian principles of free market, limited government, property, faith, and corporal punishment.
Posted by: Kristine | November 15, 2006 5:13 PM
If there isn't one already, there needs to be a parody D.I. site.
Here.
Posted by: JamesR | November 15, 2006 5:21 PM
It annoys me to no end. The pompous little liars always resort to the claim that they are being polite and civil. But they expect the same from us even when we catch them lying.
Believers become so angry when we (immoral atheists) hold them to the standards of morality that they have decided is best for society. Hmmmmm?
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | November 15, 2006 5:49 PM
"The pompous little liars always resort to the claim that they are being polite and civil. "
Only on the surface -- underneath they're some of the meanest SOBs you'll ever have the chance (or the mischance) to come across, with serious anger-management issues and an obsession with violence and control.
Posted by: James | November 15, 2006 5:53 PM
I have said before (and will probably continue to say it, persistant twit that I am), that some of the attacks on Darwinian evolution spring from the mistaken belief that it is the same as Social Darwinism, and that Social Darwinism holds that people at the bottom of the social heap (which includes many fundamentalists, and quite a few minorities) are evolutionary "losers" and on the way to extinction, as it were.
This is entirely wrong, of course, but it is a mistake that is not confined to religious people, or even those against evolution. There are some people who confuse biological evolution with Social Darwinism who are actually in favor of evolution because they believe that it makes them evolutionary "winners," and the rightful rulers of the world. I don't care much for those folks either.
Posted by: edarrell | November 15, 2006 6:58 PM
That's a fund-raising letter, right? Is it done by Richard Viguerie's bunch?
Who did it is really rather academic. But the letter's mere existence tells us that "intelligent design" has given up on ever doing real science. They're not asking for grants to do research, not at all. They're asking for money for the next election.
Intelligent design is just one more special interest now, just one more political view that no one of any sense claims. Sure, ID has a right to exist, and its few advocates have a right to claim they should be heard. They don't have a right to teach garbage to kids. They don't have a right to lie to kids. They can lie to the people who fund them, the fundies who will gullibly accept what they want to hear instead of the truth -- that's a protected political right.
But once they strive to claim the mantle of science, politics goes away. There are real standards in science, real tests, and real lab benches to run the tests on.
Scientifically, we can't "prove" that either the Democrats or the Republicans are the favored party. Intelligent design has now entered that political fray, where wrong ideas can be perpetuated merely by idealogues with money and without regard for the truth.
Is Discovery Institute now also a 501(c)(4) organization, instead of a 501(c)(3)?
Posted by: Kurzleg | November 15, 2006 7:28 PM
I'm sure this is old news, but isn't the "inevitable" product of modern scientific inquiry, materialism, the root of DI's attacks:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
"The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth."
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | November 15, 2006 7:52 PM
There is, as it happens a website/forum/blog for pro-science (and that of course means pro-evolution) conservatives, at www.darwincentral.org. We're up to about 200 members, with a fair number of scientists as well as scientifically literate laypersons. The membership tends towards libertarian conservatism/libertarianism rather than social conservatism; it's decidedly anti-fundie; but we have everything from proudly rabid atheists like myself to Buddhist, Catholics, and mainstream Protestants.
I think it's in everyone's best interest that there be a secular right in the US (as there is in most civilized countries), and the current state of the GOP is just deplorable.
Posted by: Ted | November 15, 2006 8:09 PM
Why can't 85% of this country not accept their own mortality?
Posted by: Andrew Wade | November 15, 2006 10:36 PM
In a word, no. If it was, they'd be along side the Scientologists protesting psychiatry. And anthropology would drive them around the bend. And almost all of paleontology would be a complete non-issue. In short they're lying. What paleontology destroys (or at least makes look very silly) is the chauvinistic notion that the universe was created for us. But morals, objective or otherwise, don't fossilize very well.
Posted by: Robster | November 15, 2006 11:20 PM
JG West: "[F]ree people do not like to be told that there are some questions they are not allowed to ask and some answers they are not allowed to question."
Unless it happens to be religion, because then you can't ask questions.
Posted by: sparc | November 16, 2006 12:01 AM
Too true. It is rather funny that the very same guys proclaiming a "Free Market" ideology accuse others of Social Darwinism. They are just ignorant: One reason for the quick public acceptance of Darwin's work in the 19th century was that it appeared to be fitting well to the prevailing economical opinions of the victorian empire. Or will the DI claim to ban capitalism? (Please note that I distinguish public acceptance from acceptance by scientists)Posted by: Bryson Brown | November 16, 2006 12:10 AM
I thought it was pretty peculiar that West could recognize the gap separating normative and descriptive claims in a paragraph immediately following one where he claims that evolution implies that all behaviours that have been selected for must be 'right'. Makes you wonder about his sincerity (or mental competence)...
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 16, 2006 1:08 AM
It annoys me to no end. The pompous little liars always resort to the claim that they are being polite and civil.
Even when they're politely, civilly explaining that everyone who believes in evolution is an amoral sociopath and an incipient Nazi/commie. Or that Kevin Padian hates Asians. They're nice about their vicious, hurtful falsehoods, you see.
Posted by: 386sx | November 16, 2006 2:01 AM
Debate Over Evolution Not Going Away
Well of course not. We haven't evolved enough intelligence for that yet. We all just have to pray that the good lord will let the path of evolution lead us into a more intellectually advanced species. We got a long way to go, and we won't be here to see it, but when it does happen at least we can all look down from up there in heaven and smile.
Posted by: EJ | November 16, 2006 8:22 AM
The views of the owner of a very conservative forum can be found here. He essentially says science is fundamentally anti-American if it denies Christianity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732037/posts?page=84#84
In summary, if science disproves the Bible, then Christianity (and all other religions) are a lie. Then the Declaration of Independence is a lie because we would not have inaliable rights from our Creator since we wouldn't have a Creator. Hence, the founding of America is a lie. That's why evolution (and science) are anti-American.
Posted by: khan | November 16, 2006 1:19 PM
In summary, if science disproves the Bible, then Christianity (and all other religions) are a lie. Then the Declaration of Independence is a lie because we would not have inaliable rights from our Creator since we wouldn't have a Creator. Hence, the founding of America is a lie. That's why evolution (and science) are anti-American.
That hurt my brain.
Posted by: CaptainCaveman | November 16, 2006 3:30 PM
"The views of the owner of a very conservative forum can be found here. He essentially says science is fundamentally anti-American if it denies Christianity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732037/posts?page=84#84
In summary, if science disproves the Bible, then Christianity (and all other religions) are a lie. Then the Declaration of Independence is a lie because we would not have inaliable rights from our Creator since we wouldn't have a Creator. Hence, the founding of America is a lie. That's why evolution (and science) are anti-American."
That's why a large number of pro-science conservatives/libertarians have left that site. It's not easy staying on a website where the owner insists that accepting evolution is a Marxist/homosexual plot to undermine God.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | November 19, 2006 10:33 AM
James: Quite correct - anecdotally I have run into Catholics who cite what you mentioned as their reason.
Andrew Wade: Don't be so sure. I see a coming conflict in the area of the law as neuroscience and psychology stomp our traditional understandings of responsibility, control, will, and so forth into little pieces. How do you think conservatives are going to like hearing about all of that and what it will do to our understanding of punishment and other things traditional?