…and this is a 
Get meaner, angrier, louder, fiercer
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 1, 2007 11:45 PM, by PZ Myers
The IDists love to quote me, because I am rather militant in my opposition to their lies. They are particularly fond of one particular quote* that they've even used in their fund-raising literature. They think it's damning; some of my fellow anti-creationists swoon and protest when they hear the words, but they tend to be faint-hearted anyway. But here's what's really amusing.
I get fan mail from people all the time who are overjoyed that someone out there on the evolution side isn't an apologetic ditherer.
Even better, one ID-friendly conservative tried to rouse his audience with the horror of my words, and got a response that surprised him.
Perhaps the most telling moment came when I read this quote from evolutionary biologist Paul Myers of the University of Minnesota, telling us what he thinks should be done with intelligent design advocates:
The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. 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.
The pro-ACLU crowd actually clapped in approval in response.
Poor Casey Luskin can't comprehend it, either. It is telling; it should tell all of us that there are many people out there tired of making nice with liars and frauds.
I'm pleased to see it. You know, there are debates about tactics on the evolution side all the time — one of the messages of the movie Flock of Dodos is that scientists need to get more media-savvy, for instance — but one of the things that really annoys me about my side of the debate is that so many sit in such terror of making anyone unhappy that they avoid any vigor in the arguments; they seem to blanch in terror that whomping down hard on the stupidity of their so-called "allies" will cause them to run away. Their strategy is to toady up to creationists and fencesitters and pious twits and ignorant theologians and little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys, and hope that mewling softly will win them over. Well, they're welcome to try. My belief is that those creationist-sympathizers aren't on our side at all, but do enjoy the thought of the heathens kowtowing to them, so they'll play along until the issues that count come up…and then they'll break for whatever their preacher says.
I think there is a place for ferocity and partisanship, too. We do not compromise on the science, ever; that is the thin bright line that we do not cross. And we should always make that clear. Others can coddle the fools who dither and simper wishfully over gods and old myths and apologetics, but some of us have to charge forward and stake out a solid position, one that excludes altogether the ancient fairy tales.
There is a lot of support out there for that kind of fiery confidence. Let's see more of us stand up and speak out, and devil take the milksops.
*Actually, the quote is a pastiche of two completely different comments (the IDists seem to have to mangle a quote, even one that doesn't need twisting; it's like a reflex with them). You can read the originals in context here and here. I stand by my words without hesitation.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
I'm no good at righteous fury; the best I can summon would be incoherent babble. :p
I agree though: after seeing how incredibly dishonest these people are, there's no point in trying to play nice.
Posted by: Raguel | March 2, 2007 12:08 AM
Would it be impolitic to ask for an 'amen' about now?
I cringed when following the link on 'the response surprised him' and found the Idaho Values Alliance. *sigh* We do keep most of the wacko conservatives down in the southern half. Up north we are split mostly between old school Republicans, college liberals and imported liberals.
Posted by: Sean | March 2, 2007 12:09 AM
I.D should be synonymous with creationism and stupidity. Period.
It has to be repeated over and over again. Despite the ignorance of what evolution is to the general public, the fact that I.D. is nothing but a ruse cannot be conveyed enough.
Keep up the fight. I'm tired of all the "concerned" people averse to confrontation.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 2, 2007 12:10 AM
I was amused by the Discovery Institutes use of the term "Darwinist Biologist" Are there any biologists worth their salt who aren't "Darwinists"?
Posted by: Matt | March 2, 2007 12:16 AM
Sean:
Bryan Fischer, UGH. Well, you're right about southern Idaho, at least as far as the Treasure Valley is concerned. You can thank all the suburban yahoos in Meridian and Nampa for the fact that you are now represented in Congress by Bill "Let's Abolish Gravity" Sali. I still like Boise, but the west valley is testament to how well the Christian exodus strategy works, it's where people from all over the West and Northwest move to be white and xenophobic.
I'm kinda miffed that I missed that debate though, never heard about it. Guess I'm out of the loop.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 2, 2007 12:30 AM
*clap clap clap*
Posted by: melior | March 2, 2007 12:39 AM
I don't know why, but I am constantly surprised at the lies told by those supposedly standing up for values, e.g. our Idaho friend.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | March 2, 2007 12:52 AM
"We do not compromise on the science, ever; that is the thin bright line that we do not cross. And we should always make that clear."
I definitely agree PZ. On that note, I have to mention this press release that I saw today (http://www.apa.org/releases/design.html), in which the American Psychological Association officially adopted a policy against the teaching of intelligent design. I guess it's not big news really, but being a "future" psychologist myself, I was happy to see it. The only question I had was why the heck did it take so long?
Posted by: ricky | March 2, 2007 12:57 AM
This is actually kind of coincidental. I've just posted some writing to my blog, half in jest and half for real, about how I'm having a hard time summoning my rage. I've tried to over the past couple of weeks, but it's just not in me.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 2, 2007 1:10 AM
P.Z.,
they seem to blanch in terror that whomping down hard on the stupidity of their so-called "allies" will cause them to run away.
There's a good reason for this. I've seldom seen an argument won by calling the other side stupid, and I've never seen that tactic succeed outside of the ivory tower.
So it's outright offensive that you would accuse the majority of professional evolutionary biologists who recognize this of being closet creationists:
"Well, they're welcome to try. My belief is that those creationist-sympathizers aren't on our side at all, but do enjoy the thought of the heathens kowtowing to them, so they'll play along until the issues that count come up...and then they'll break for whatever their preacher says."
They sure as heck aren't closet creationists. Rather, most of them see their position as the effective and expedient route the same goal you want. Disagreeing with them over tactics is absolutely no excuse for accusing them of being on the other side.
Sorry, PZ, but this this is classic Bush administration rhetoric, the old "those who question our tactics in this war are traitors for aiding Al Qaeda" trick.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 2, 2007 1:16 AM
Huh. Forgive me if I don't applaud. Is it really wise to use the rhetoric of violence? I assume you meant the bit about "steel-toed boots and brass knuckles" metaphorically, but there's no reason for your enemies to assume that, and it gives them more excuse to use violent rhetoric themselves, possibly leading to real violence. What would you say to some preacher who exhorts his flock to use brass knuckles on scientists?
This is an entirely different level from calling religious people morons. I'm not fond of that tactic either, but I can see justification for it. I can't really see any justification for this kind of language.
My mother grew up in Weimar Germany, where people really did settle their political differences with steel-toed boots. The results weren't pretty, and the good guys didn't win.
Posted by: mtraven | March 2, 2007 1:25 AM
I regret to inform you I will now be removing Pharyngula from my blogroll. I do not advocate or intentionally link to advocation of violence.
Posted by: whig | March 2, 2007 1:29 AM
I don't think PZ's calling the more conciliatory biologists and other pro-evos closet creationists, but rather the "fencesitters and pious twits and ignorant theologians and little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys." Hence, it's futile for said conciliatory pro-evos to try to win them over.
Posted by: Anton Mates | March 2, 2007 1:33 AM
Crow, I think you are reading PZ's words in a different way than me. Its not fellow scientists that were accused of being closet creationists, it is the religious section of the general public (you know, the 53% that believe the earth is 6000 years old and was made in six days by a santa claus lookalike).
Posted by: MartinC | March 2, 2007 1:37 AM
"I regret to inform you I will now be removing Pharyngula from my blogroll. I do not advocate or intentionally link to advocation of violence."
Did you miss this the first several times it was posted. I'm not a "long-time" reader by any means, but I've seen these quotes a fair few times.
But, you know, I kind of agree. The only discipline worth brass-knuckling is organic chemistry.
Posted by: April | March 2, 2007 1:39 AM
Seems Fisher doesn't know or rather care about the difference between an attorney (Walczak) and a biologist. He covers up that he had no answers to DI's legal problems from Dover or its lack of predictive (scientific) arguments from ID.
A Paleyist got his clock cleaned. I call that a good start.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 2, 2007 1:41 AM
PZ, who exactly are these cowardly appeasing "allies" that you speak of? I can't think of any prominent evolution defender that fits the description you give.
Posted by: Carlo | March 2, 2007 1:42 AM
Not to mention people like you and Dawkins generate orders of magnitude more publicity, very little of which polarizes people against us. I totally agree with you, and wish other people on our side would start to adopt similar tactics.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | March 2, 2007 1:44 AM
I regret to inform you I will now be removing Pharyngula from my blogroll. I do not advocate or intentionally link to advocation of violence.
This quote has been floating around for a while, whig. I don't know how you missed it.
And does metaphorical violence fall under this policy, too?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 2, 2007 1:45 AM
Anton and Martin,
I certainly hope you're right, not that it makes the post all that much better. If you're going write off the ~90% of the American populace who believe in some sort of higher power as idiots and creationist sympathizers, I'm not quite sure how you hope to sway a majority of popular opinion to your viewpoint.
Again, I've never found that insulting my audience is an effective way to persuade them of my perspective.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 2, 2007 1:52 AM
Go sign up to be an Intelligent Design advocate Crow. You've got the blatant misrepresentation part of the game down pat.
It is time to stop playing nice. No real violence obviously, but no bullshitting either. They are liars and frauds and should be called out as such.
Intelligent Design is not science, it is a con, and it's advocates are con artists. Give them no quarter.
Posted by: MarkP | March 2, 2007 2:01 AM
Bravo! I've always thought that "ignoramus" or "idiot" are the kindest words one can use when describing them. If not ignorant and/or stupid, they can be accused of much more serious offences--such as lying, hate-mongering, fascistic tendencies to control others, etc.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with intellectual steel-toes!
Posted by: Jorg | March 2, 2007 2:09 AM
Metaphorical violence rhetoric is commonplace on both right and left; it's hardly shocking.
Cenk Ughur, on the right wing media, 9/25/06:
"In fact, as Marsellus Wallace would say in Pulp Fiction, pick up a lead pipe and a blowtorch and let's go to work on these guys."
PZ: "Others can coddle the fools who dither and simper wishfully over gods and old myths and apologetics, but some of us have to charge forward and stake out a solid position, one that excludes altogether the ancient fairy tales."
Who are the coddlers?
Who are the fools? IDists obviously. Anyone else?
Any names?
Posted by: Colugo | March 2, 2007 2:12 AM
Again, I've never found that insulting my audience is an effective way to persuade them of my perspective.
it entirely depends on the audience.
have you ever TRIED arguing with a creationist?
oh wait, I forgot, you're the one who thought the kids4truth site was just a sweet little spectacle.
nevermind.
maybe you should try arguing with a real YEC and see how far you get:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45e7d186d888724e;act=ST;f=14;t=1958
i highly recommend you spend some time wading through that thread; it's an excellent object lesson on the "audience" you seem to think will be convinced by pleasant words and rational thoughts.
after you wade through the first 7000 comments (first thread), it continues on for another 5000 comments in a second thread, before the redudancy got too much for even the regulars there, and AFDave was told to go post on dawkins website (which, at last count, also now has thousands of posts relating to the same topic).
really the ONLY value to arguing with these idiots at ALL is simply for the spillover into the crowd gathered to watch the spectacle.
after you make your substantive arguments, his responses are worth nothing more than ridicule.
really, I again doubt you have spent much time actually debating these people, or you would realize that there is some psychological malady that simply prevents them from being rational.
for anybody else who doubts why PZ and so many of us rail on these idiots, please, do check out that thread, or heck, go to the Dawkins website forum, and attempt to argue with him yourself.
it's quite educational.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2007 2:31 AM
What would you say to some preacher who exhorts his flock to use brass knuckles on scientists?
Paul Mirecki would be happy to inform you that they already do, as he has the bruises and hospital bills to prove it.
You guys criticizing PZ REALLY need to get out and see what the hell these people ARE saying.
trust me, the violence was on their side LONG before the reaction from the science side ever existed.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2007 2:36 AM
Great post, Mr. Myers.
I am optimistic about the future when it comes to the science vs. ignorance question. I recently moved to Texas and I've found many reasonable people who can stomach my uncompromising, anti-religious attitude. Granted, I'm in a relatively godless field (videogame development). Still, Texas!? Reason must be spreading...
Posted by: Graxthal | March 2, 2007 2:50 AM
Ichthyic wrote:
it entirely depends on the audience.
have you ever TRIED arguing with a creationist?
I realize that one has next to zero chance of persuading a hard-core young earth creationist to accept evolution (or any sort of evidence based reasoning, as best as I can tell).
But PZ is not just dismissing young earth creationists. He's dismissing Catholics and Jews and Methodists and Buddhists and Lutherans and you name it. That's poor tactics. I know first hand from personal interactions and public speaking engagements alike that people of those faiths are receptive to learning about evolutionary biology. Moreover, these folks are much more likely to be our allies than creationists' allies -- they don't believe in literal interpretation of scripture, they don't want their kids taught that type of theology in school, and frankly, many of them are tired to hearing from American evangelicals that they are going to hell if they don't become born again and start attending a "bible-believing church."
Why alienate these people?
I can see wanting to do so if one is interested in promoting atheism over all else. Fair enough. But if one is genuinely interested in promoting the public understanding and acceptance of evolutionary biology....?
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 2, 2007 2:53 AM
I have no doubt that there's plenty of people on the other side that are prone to violence. Do you want to give them an excuse to practice it? What do you think widespread violence between religious extremists and secularists would look like? (Hint -- there are more of the former, and they have more guns).
Posted by: mtraven | March 2, 2007 2:54 AM
Why alienate these people?
he's not.
he's asking them to frickin' stand up and dismiss the drivel and anti-science sentiment that is so common to evangelical xian sects.
he's asking them to stop putting up with the Pat Robertsons, and kick them where they deserve to be kicked.
In short, stop being apologetic for the idiots in the crowd, and kick them the freak out already.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2007 2:58 AM
Do you want to give them an excuse to practice it?
they don't need an excuse. again, look up Paul Mirecki. You keep seeming to think that the scientists are the ones driving this violence, when it's entirely the other way 'round. You should read the posts on AIG and UD sometimes; even Dembski has very violent fantasies.
(Hint -- there are more of the former, and they have more guns).
a silly argument that should be given a silly answer:
we have bigger bombs.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2007 3:02 AM
Crow, why don't you write to PZ directly and ask him to clarify his position?
it's not like he hasn't on this issue many times, so I'm sure he would be happy to do it for you.
to be sure, I looked at his argument just like you did when I first saw it years ago, but it really isn't a simplistic dismissal of ALL religious supporters of evoltionary theory.
It's a kick in the ass to get them to stop apologizing for the cretins hiding in their midst.
but, as i said, don't take my word for it, ask him yourself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2007 3:07 AM
Anybody who reads PZ's words as a physical threat is surely being intentionally dense?
Why should scientists be polite about labelling stupidity and lies for what they are? Is it polite to threaten people with hell if they don't believe what you believe? Because basically that's what the fundies do, however 'nicely' they phrase it. Especially when the IDists are teaching their nonsense to children it is emotional abuse of the worst kind, because it prevents children from learning to think for themselves.
Posted by: BadAunt | March 2, 2007 3:23 AM
In the press, on television and radio, even in personal conversations I have often heard that we should "respect" people's religious beliefs.
Why? Are we supposed to place reasoned thinking and argument on the same level as fanciful superstition?
The religious never show any respect for reason and people like us who rely on it. A good example was on the CNN show where the Jesus freak and the Jewish godophile told us to "shut up".
Posted by: bernarda | March 2, 2007 3:24 AM
Ichthyic wrote,
Why should religious people who support science be held responsible for the crimes of fundamentalists? That's like all men being held responsible for the crimes of mysogynists.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | March 2, 2007 4:05 AM
He (PZ) is askin people to notice, and act on something I've been saying for some time.
You are all free to use it as a slogan, and what is more, it happens to be true:
"All religions are a form of moral and/or physical blackmail"
And, for the USA - remember also that communism is a classic religion - false predictions and all...
Posted by: G. Tingey | March 2, 2007 4:06 AM
Which of course wasn't what PZ did. Something that would be entirely clear to anyone who read the original comments that PZ linked to.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | March 2, 2007 4:34 AM
"Why should religious people who support science be held responsible for the crimes of fundamentalists? That's like all men being held responsible for the crimes of mysogynists."
Because, as the old saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
If you align yourself with mysogynists by defending their views (like defending oppression of women as 'cultural practices'), then you ARE a mysogynist.
If you align yourself with the enemies of science by defending their right to attack science, then you ARE an enemy of science.
Posted by: Ruth | March 2, 2007 5:32 AM
David Ratnasabapathy wrote:
Why should religious people who support science be held responsible for the crimes of fundamentalists? That's like all men being held responsible for the crimes of mysogynists.
Good question, but are the men who are not mysogynists yet say or do nothing to the men who are not, in some way, responsible for its continued existence?
Posted by: Jeremy | March 2, 2007 5:41 AM
PZ,
I taught high school science in Indiana for three years. While I agree with you in every particular about the dishonesty and stupidity of creationist arguments, I hope you do realize that any public school teacher who behaved as you do would face certain dismissal and probable bodily harm in many parts of the country.
I'm glad you're out there fighting the good fight--and you're right, more scientist should! But not all of us are tenured university professors, man.
Posted by: Thengel | March 2, 2007 6:41 AM
whig said:
That is your choice. In the meantime, here is a lovely article for
you to read about the advancing front of our friends the fundamentalists...
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=319152007
-------------------------------------
Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots
BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who aims to relaunch the EU constitution, made a plea on Wednesday for the bloc to include references to its Christian roots in the document.
"The period of secularisation was important, but I see us living in a changed world where it is incumbent on politicians and political documents to spell out more clearly their spiritual roots," Merkel said in a speech on Europe to members of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
-------------------------------------
Later in the article-
-------------------------------------
Some countries, notably Poland, favour reintroducing a reference to Christianity in the new charter.
French conservative presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who has criticised France's official secularism as too rigid, may also support such a campaign if elected, some German officials are hoping.
"I can't deny that I would have preferred to see a clearer reference to God based on Christian ideals in the constitution," Merkel said.
-------------------------------------
Posted by: Dark Matter | March 2, 2007 7:48 AM
whig said:
That is your choice. In the meantime, here is a lovely article for
you to read about the advancing front of our friends the fundamentalists...
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=319152007
-------------------------------------
Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots
BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who aims to relaunch the EU constitution, made a plea on Wednesday for the bloc to include references to its Christian roots in the document.
"The period of secularisation was important, but I see us living in a changed world where it is incumbent on politicians and political documents to spell out more clearly their spiritual roots," Merkel said in a speech on Europe to members of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
-------------------------------------
Later in the article-
-------------------------------------
Some countries, notably Poland, favour reintroducing a reference to Christianity in the new charter.
French conservative presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who has criticised France's official secularism as too rigid, may also support such a campaign if elected, some German officials are hoping.
"I can't deny that I would have preferred to see a clearer reference to God based on Christian ideals in the constitution," Merkel said.
-------------------------------------
Posted by: Dark Matter | March 2, 2007 7:49 AM
Sorry about the double post...I got a error message about
the server there so I sent the post again....
Posted by: Dark Matter | March 2, 2007 7:53 AM
Keep it up! Tell the creationist scum that they are going to be stopped! Tax their churches! Sue 'em! Shut em down, they have NO right to speak because they are STUPID!
They should not even be allowed to vote!
And I love your comment about the steel toed boots!
Posted by: Quark | March 2, 2007 8:15 AM
In an article for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Richard Dawkins quotes the following from Douglas Adams:
And it applies doubly when the religous expect to be treated seriously when it comes to matters of science. When scientists criticize Intelligent Design they are told not to be so strident, don't make people mad. When the religious say things like "Science may tell us how the world goes, but it doesn't tell us how to live our lives" then they should be told not to be so strident, they will make people mad. They should be told to sit down and shut up.
Religion may or not be a cause of most of the wars (I think religion at least facilitates war) in humanity's history, but they keep on telling us that it can bring us peace. It has failed miserably. It has failed miserably at almost everything except provide wealth to its leaders, and if the people who see that the Emperor has no clothes are told to shut up for fear of antagonizing, then who is actually going to point out the emperor has no clothes?
Instead we would rather stare at a naked emperor; hoping that if we wish loudly enough he would go put on a pair of skivvies.
Lock and Load, PZ. I'm ready.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | March 2, 2007 8:20 AM
I'm of two minds about this. I can see the argument that being rude really turns people off, and that it can be counter-productive. But on the other hand, the people doing the real advocating for creationism are no-holds-barred attack dogs, and anything less than an equal response is just blood in the water for them. (can I mix a few more metaphors in there?) Plus, the attitude and language has filtered down to almost all levels. I've heard small church pastors in upstate New York talk about the "war" on Christianity, and use all fighting terminology to go fight the evil.
There's a difference between passion and rude offensiveness, but people have in general gotten so trigger-happy that they see any strong display of opinion as somehow offensive. However, if a person then backs of of the strength, it's seen as being wishy-washy on position. I think that's what we really need for people to see - that it's not something we'll roll over about, but that we have the facts, we have the explanations, and we stand fully, strongly, passionately behind them.
The name-calling is a response that comes out sometimes, but people new to this have to realize it's been years in the making. There are only so many times one can respond to idiocy with calm statements of fact before one just gets frustrated and calls an idiot an idiot. I also don't think that calling a delusional position delusional is name-calling; it's calling it what it is. Perhaps it would be a good strategy to refine it to ensure that it's the ideas we're calling delusional and stupid rather than the people holding them, but it still needs to me made clear that the ideas are not just different, are not just an alternative explanation, but honestly and truly stupid.
Posted by: Carlie | March 2, 2007 8:21 AM
Dark Matter | March 2, 2007 07:48 AM
Two points. One, it was been reported that the Harlot Vatican, the Whore of Babylon, was pushing gor the admission of Poland into the EU because it (the Harlot Vatican) believed that Poland would help re-sectarize (is that a word?) the largely secular EU. They never should have admitted Poland, or any other of the Eastern European hell-holes. But, then again, the US North should never have re-admitted the South after the War of Northern Aggression--certainly not on the same terms as before.
Two, Angele Merkel's party, the CDU/CSU (actually, it's a coalition, the CSU is the Bavarian "branch" of the CDU) is very close to the RCCi (the Roman Catholic Church, Inc.). Merkel's comment is probably only being given converage now because Germany has assumed the periodic presidency of the EU commission. I'd be surprised if the proposal went anywhere.
BTW, I've given up posting apologies for multiple posts or comments. All that accomplishes is adding yet another post or comments to a string of posts or comments. People know what's going on with the glitch in the software--software is always in beta.
Posted by: raj | March 2, 2007 8:36 AM
I am thinking finally going to church (fundy and lefty). Just so that I can tell them to abandon irrationality and dogma. I don't think that is militant. Just will allow me to see how open minded they really are.
Posted by: daenku32 | March 2, 2007 8:38 AM
Rational grown-ups understand when other rational grown-ups are verbally expressing frustration and anger using verbal symbols of aggression. Ignorant, immature twits can't tell the difference between verbal and physical, or between symbol and reality. Cynical propagandists get in the midst of the ignorant cattle and loudly pretend to be scared just so they can start a stampede.
Posted by: speedwell | March 2, 2007 8:55 AM
... screw the polite words and careful rhetoric.
Woo hoo! Fuck the civility meme!
Verbal tar and feathering for all creationist wackos. They are batshit crazy and polite argument will never dent their idiot skulls.
T and F the idiot Pope who brainwashes millions.
End religious slavery!
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 2, 2007 9:17 AM
I find that Sean Carroll has summed up my thoughts pretty well:
When all we've got to offer is the truth, as best human brains can figure it out, it's hard to think of a reason to tell people anything less.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 2, 2007 9:27 AM
Here we go again...
FWIW, I do think PZ has been clearly nonviolent in his rhetoric, and careful to avoid further "sound bites" that could be exploited. But I doubt he'll completely renounce the right to say "these people need a swift kick upside the head." Neither do I.
Posted by: rrt | March 2, 2007 9:31 AM
I think the point is: we need to get mad. I'm sure the people who put together talkorigins felt/feel some kind of anger at what is happening to this country, and it spurred them to action. We need more of that. Anger and indignation leading to a positive, constructive opposition.
The sudden, responsive bursts of anger are okay with me, too, because the creationist nuts are incredibly manipulative with their media campaigns and their web sites and their museums and their conferences. They are not politely writing papers and publishing/advocating quietly, they are shoving their shit in our faces 24/7.
They are propaganda-savvy and sometimes the only way to fight that is with a satirical, mocking, full-blown trashing. We need to become ever more creative about how we do that, because the hyperbole tends to get stale awfully fast.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 2, 2007 9:37 AM
All the talk about rhetorical violence reminds me of the George Carlin routine:
"Let's face it. We're a warlike culture. If we don't like something, we declare 'war' on it. The war on drugs, the war on cancer, the war on poverty. [We can add the recent war on Christmas].
"We've got the only national anthem the mentions rockets and bombs in it."
Posted by: Ted | March 2, 2007 9:44 AM
Dudes, I totally want to TP the Pope's house. Who's with me?
Morph
Posted by: MorpheusPA | March 2, 2007 9:46 AM
The rules and standards of courtesy are important, and I value them highly. So highly, in fact, that I would rather see them utterly destroyed rather than let them become havens for fools and charlatans.
When we cease making criticisms because it would be 'impolite', the forces that criticism is lethal to begin to accumulate within those boundaries. It's simple ecology.
By backing down, you permit the creationists to frame the debate, establish an association between your claims and improper social behavior, and further cowtow to the idea that creationism and creationists are worthy of respect and deference.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 2, 2007 9:52 AM
Icthyc - Excellent comments.
Crow - Read Icthyc
Whig - As I posted to you on your blog, you should look into signing up for a remedial reading comprehension course.
BTW - Let me update your post, and adapt it to fit your special needs:
I will now be removing Your Blog from my future blog reading. I do not advocate or intentionally read advocation of idiocy.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 2, 2007 9:56 AM
hmmm... I'm kinda torn about this.
First off, I've just about had it with the rabid hard core creationist advocates who have double standards in how the debate between creationists and scientists is handled. Creationists state that scientists are evil, liars, and need to be muzzled, and no one has any problem with that... but when scientists say that Creationists are uneducated and misunderstand evolution they are "attacking"
Of course I think that Creationists are "allowed" to be angry and violent in their argument because God is on their side (or so they think) and that they have to do that whole "put on the whole armor of truth" thing. Scientists are still expected to be mild mannered and logical, even under attack, and God forbid (lol) that they should EVER strike back.
It's kinda funny to read this today, because I talked to my daughter last night, who referred me to her hubby to be for the story du jour. Seems my future son-in-law had another interesting encounter (He works at the Natural History Museum, so this happens on a fairly regular basis) with a creationist who apparently thought he was being clever when he said "Do you believe in science?"
Now, pretty routinely they get groups in there of church goers and little kids who go through and go on the tours to heckle the museum interpreters and tell the kids (loud enough so that the staff can HEAR them of course) how the person leading the tour is a liar, and how all the stuff in the museum is fake, and how far the minions of Satan go in deceiving them. Of course, the Museum employees have to be polite and smile and take it, although they can continue to present the evidence, they can't really counter what's being said... Personally, I'd LIKE to see the (metaphorical) brass knuckles come off in situations like that.
On the other hand, there are a lot of really ignorant people out there who are parroting what they've heard because they DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. They don't really have any ulterior motive than to express their faith. They aren't charlatans themselves, although they've been taken in by them. These people deserve to be taken aside and EDUCATED, not necessarily attacked, although with the well brainwashed ones that's hard to do.
Now when it comes to dismissing all people with religious beliefs as creationist sympathizers, I have to disagree.
Now, am I going to get all bent out of shape about that? no, because when I come to a blog subtitled Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal I'm pretty sure I'm going to see some anti-religious rhetoric. Considering all the rhetoric coming from the OTHER side, I find it a refreshing change.
As far as I'm concerned, people can have whatever social delusions work, that keep society running smoothly, that helps them deal with death, or gives them the motivation to NOT do those things destructive to other humans, like killing or stealing... let them HAVE their faith. BUT, I do object when faith crosses the line, where it impinges on the rights of others of different (or no) beliefs... and ABSOLUTELY object when faith is taught as truth by public institutions.
I guess that "compromise" is best summed up in one of my favorite bumper stickers "don't pray in my classroom and I won't think in your church" I believe there is a time and place for religion, but the time for rational thought is always.
if that makes me a milksop, so be it.
Posted by: dorid | March 2, 2007 10:01 AM
The tone of the rhetoric used in this debate shouldn't be calibrated for the hardcore young-earth creationists. Those people are lost to us. They aren't interested in anything that hasn't been handed down to them from the Bible. We should be calibrating our tone based on the undecided or uneducated folks in the middle. They're the ones who can change their minds.
I've personally argued with many members of my family about this (my extended family is highly religious). I've found that the most effective technique is not to tell them about experimental data, not to explain how evolution works (for most of them, their eyes glaze over), but to tell them what the real world consequences are for taking a religious viewpoint on this. (i.e. jobs, medical advancements, etc). *Most* people are relatively practical, and if you tell them this isn't merely an esoteric debate similar to a "are we all just brains in vats" debate, but a debate that has very real consequences.
I'm not sure that telling people that their pastor is an idiot is a good opening line for that type of argument (though you can go there later, I suppose). I'm not one for biting my tongue or holding back the truth, but you get peoples' backs up when you tell them that someone they trust is an idiot.
Posted by: factician | March 2, 2007 10:03 AM
What shameless distorters. And where did the ACLU thing come from? People like Bryan Fischer seem to enjoy, while beating themselves senseless with their projections of others, throwing some habenero pepper sauce on their personal cudgel, just to add that extra kick to the pain.
A look at the sources for his other links is quite telling. WorldNutDaily and Townhall.com dominate. Need more be said?
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 2, 2007 10:09 AM
Well, I agree, of course. And let me take this opportunity to thank you, PZ, for doing what needs to be done. Placating religious wackos does about as much good as placating the Germans during the lead up to WWII.
Posted by: Ric | March 2, 2007 10:10 AM
You're missing the point. The specific conclusions, either of biology or of atheism, are secondary. What is primary is the method used to reach those conclusions: methodological naturalism, critical thinking, insistence on evidence. In short, rationality.
Atheism isn't a dogma held a priori. Well, it could be, but that's not the way I do it and I don't think it's the way PZ or Dawkins do it. My atheism is a conclusion from observations, just like my belief that there is no elephant looking over my shoulder as I type this. Like all such conclusions it is subject to revision by new evidence. I might at any moment feel a trunk tapping me on the shoulder... Hasn't happened yet, though.
Once more people think rationally and critically, they will reject groundless religions (which appears to be all of them) and accept science supported by evidence. Belief in specific false propositions, whether it's the existence of gods, the wrong age of the earth or the idea that life couldn't possibly become more complex by undirected processes, is only a symptom. Irrationality is the disease.
That's why we don't think that accepting the conclusions of one or more sciences and rejecting the method is an acceptable compromise - because it's not a compromise at all, it's a diversion. The method is the whole point.
Posted by: Chris | March 2, 2007 10:12 AM
Crow - as a long-time Methodist, I assure you that I am not at all dismayed by P.Z.'s fiery rhetoric. I know it is rhetoric only. I also agree with P.Z. that the truth needs to be stoutly defended against those who would undermine it. After all, Jesus was on the side of truth.
Posted by: bc | March 2, 2007 10:14 AM
Maybe so, but I don't think La Marseillaise is all about peace and love.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | March 2, 2007 10:20 AM
"Do you believe in science?"
Science!? Has it come to that?
The fundies are out of control. This is stupid people maliciously brainwashing their offspring, many of whom will fall behind in school and in life because their parents are nuts.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 2, 2007 10:22 AM
I am looking into my crystal ball...
I see...IDiots quote mining the comments to this thread...
and waxing fauxrious about the extremism of evolutionists...
[Snaps out of it]
Not, of course, that that should stop us calling them forthrightly on the mendacious Dark Ages bullshit they peddle (and you can quote mine me on that).
Posted by: Paul | March 2, 2007 10:22 AM
Seems like an appropriate spot for one of my favorite Bible verses (mainly for the way the cows are thrown in at the end):
"And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
I'll leave it to readers whether to think of either the general public or IDists as folks who don't know their right from their left, or cattle.
But I suppose the basic point of the quote is that to me calling people "stupid" is effectively saying that trying to use reason to persuade them of scientific fact (trying to save Nineveh) is worthless. My position would be that it's not, from two perspectives:
1- I've commented on Uncommon Descent on such topics as proper interpretation of Sean Carroll articles regarding the Cambrian explosion. While most responses have been as expected, I have been surprised by at least one commenter who had obviously read and thought about some of Carroll's writings. It seemed to me that this commenter had been persuaded to pro-ID views by a typical misapplication of probability (the "tornado in a junkyard" stuff that misconstrues evolution as progress toward a specific, identifiable goal, i.e., humans, in the same way as monkeys-typing-Shakespeare miscontrues random activity as goal-directed). Whether such people might be reached by a suitable explanation of probability, I don't know, but my inclination would be that it'd be worth a try (or another try, or a better try - what explanation can you come up with that is as good at evoking images as, but shows the error in, the "tornado in a junkyard" metaphor?).
2- Years ago I did some work with abused children and their parents. Abusive parents, particularly those who are sexually abusive, are widely thought of as monsters, near-incorrigible monsters at that. Of course, it is easy to see that if one hopes at all to do any good when working in this area, one cannot approach an abuser with the mindset, "OK, I'm speaking to an incorrigible monster." Difficult as it is, one must approach people from a point of common humanity in order to have any hope of communicating. (I did see families helped, or at least seeming to make some progress. And even short-term amelioration is a blessing in such situations.)
Now, I'm not going to get up on a soapbox and preach that indignation isn't soul-satisfying and often fully merited, particularly when directed at ID leaders whose stock in trade is knowingly papering over a political-religious position with plausibilities in order to make it appear scientific. Indignation at such egregious behavior quite likely is part of the fuel that keeps folks like PZ and Dawkins from burning out, and anything that helps them to continue educating people about science is OK with me. My own preference, though, is to communicate in a way that allows for the possibility of righteous individuals in Nineveh.
Posted by: Jud | March 2, 2007 10:32 AM
I went to this debate the other night. The room was packed and the crowd was split about 50-50 in support of ID. I was actually surprised by this because Idaho is the most religious state I've ever seen. I am the only atheist I know. Mr. Walczak was great, however he is not a scientist and he stated that he would not be debating science, but rather the legality of ID in schools taught as science. Mr. Fischer took advantage of this and spewed inaccurate scientific "facts" out of his ass. It was horrible. What pissed me off was that nobody challenged him on his "facts".
It was sad seeing people nodding their heads in agreement eating up everything he said. After hearing Mr. Fischer, I have no doubt that he is mentally handicapped. The ACLU video taped the debate. I hope they make it available on YouTube or something. By the way, I clapped for the butt-kicking statement, but I don't feel good about it.
Posted by: Mark | March 2, 2007 10:46 AM
Uhg. All this concern about "tone" and "attitude" is ridiculous.
ID/Creationism is STUPID. It's bullshit. It's fucking nonsense. So is a flat earth, a geocentric universe and a moon made out of fucking cheese.
You don't call the public stupid for listening to the stupid. But you call ID stupid every chance you get so that you get through to them.
Jeebus some of you just don't get it. Snap out of it.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 2, 2007 10:48 AM
The hesitance for some bloggers to approve PZ's comments is understandable. Personally I do not believe he is advocating any direct, actionable violence. If in fact he ever did or is, I would also remove myself. Plus, PZ uses the term "butt-kicking"; who could possibly take that as a serious implication? ;) A street thug is going to use far more choice words than saying you're in for a "butt-kicking". As for PZ's brass knuckles/steel-toed boots comment, it's linked to a statement about rhetoric, not fists, feet or illegal "physical activities".
PZ's point is that there are people who can be educated about the issues of the debate and why one side is wrong and the other right. Additionally, there are people who refuse to *LET* themselves be educated. They could, if they were not so ego-driven, allow facts into their brain to formulate the more cogent reality that is, rather than their incoherent reality that is not. It is the people that refuse what is freely given - while continuing to act aggressively towards what is being given as a negative force - that the rhetoric is geared toward. The most active creationists are active in ways that are pretty well analogous to brown shirts spreading complete fallacies about Jews and gays, and orchestrating public hate and villification of subgroups. Some people may take offense to my characterization - and I admit it sounds pretty strident - but it's not totally off, at least in its correlation to historically deleterious rhetorical campaigns.
Personally I am sick of the even-handed rhetoric by scientists too. This is where I disagree with Mooney as well. I don't think scientists need to change terms like evolution for any reason whatsoever. What are they supposed to call it? "Biological change variance over time"? As long as scientists don't let it devolve into an exchange of profanities (something they could very well be incapable of anyhow), stick hard and long to facts, and don't budge, and things will be fine in the end. Also, this is a competitive society, so it's time scientists take up the mantle of a fighter and start throwing, since they have the target