…and this is a 
Hilarity in the recent ID creationism escapades
Category: Creationism
Posted on: September 18, 2007 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Here's a hot prospect for the Discovery Institute: Fred Sigworth, a professor of Cellular and Molecular Physiology at Yale. Snap him up, quick! He'll fit in perfectly! He gave a talk to the Yale Christian Fellowship which sounds like it was hilarious.
"Being a Christian is good preparation for work as a scientist, and science can help prepare you for being a Christian," he said.
Oh? How does faith help you be a better scientist?
Sigworth said that both religion and science require working with incomplete data…
That's a revelation right there. Science does require working with incomplete data, and religion requires working with no data at all. Therefore, religion must be more powerful than science! I am converted! Hallelujah!
OK, seriously, it sounds like a very silly talk by yet another gomer striving to invent rationalizations for his ridiculous religion. No news there.
Wait…how does that qualify someone to be a fellow of the Discovery Institute? Isn't ID a secular theory?
Not if you listen to Bill Dembski's Q & A last night…where he said, "I've got plenty of ulterior religious motive, I'd like to see ID succeed because of my Christian background and beliefs." In addition, it sounds like not only did a professor get up and rip him apart on the flagellum, but the audience was laughing at poor Dembski. That's what we need more of: the creationists getting laughed off the stages at their propaganda ops.
ERV was also at the Q & A, and recorded the audio. We'll have to check later and see if she's put anything up on it … although I'm a little concerned about the sound quality. It sounds like she might have been laughing hysterically the whole time, which could have drowned out some of the juicy bits.
Comments
"rip him apart on the flagellum"
I think that should become a euphemism for "tearing him a new one."
Posted by: Eric | September 18, 2007 7:07 AM
PZ, you do realise there's bound to be at least one cretinist out there who's gonna quote you on "religion must be more powerful than science! I am converted! Hallelujah!", right? ;)
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | September 18, 2007 7:30 AM
PZ-- Gimme a minute! Lots to type, didnt get home till midnight :(
Quick comment: It wasnt just that the questions were good.
Its that the questions were good, and a strong majority were from students. The only Creationist comments were from two adults.
Awesome :)
Posted by: ERV | September 18, 2007 7:50 AM
OH YEAH!
And to make you antsy for the audio-- I was the person at the mic when the Prof spoke up and said "Can I explain the flagellum to you?"
I offered up my turn, but Dembski would have none of it. For several minutes he whines "YOU HAVE TO WAIT YOUR TUUUUUUUURN!"
Thats when I decided to change my question. :)
Posted by: ERV | September 18, 2007 7:53 AM
> "rip him apart on the flagellum"
>
> I think that should become a euphemism for > "tearing him a new one."
"Flagellated him with the flagellum" too obvious?
Check out the example of "flagellate" on dictionary.com:
verb
1. whip; "The religious fanatics flagellated themselves"
Posted by: SteveC | September 18, 2007 8:39 AM
Understatement of the year:
"We have to approach Genesis with caution."
How about approaching it with incredulity, Sigworth?
And laughter doesn't hurt either.
Wake up!
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 18, 2007 8:57 AM
/delurk
I don't think things went well for our side.
Yes those who are familiar with the material will see through dozens of Dembski falsehoods, some subtle and some blatant. But anyone not familiar with the material will be deeply impressed. Indeed Dembski was able to use an error made by the anti-Dembski ad in the student paper to great effect. The first Q&A was person who helped put up that ad made it even worse. To anyone unfamiliar with the material will likely be telling how Dembski made the questioners look like a bunch of monkeys. Many clearly are not effective public speakers going against a very smooth talker who was very much in control. Yeah, he did not impress the science people. Unfortunately he did not have to. ID tries to win outside of professional and scientifically informed audiences. This is why speeches and/or debate formats are useful for quacks. In a written format with no space limitations, they exposed to point by point refutation.
He really used the AMNH debate as evidence that he is respectable. One fast one is that he used the fact that "Beautiful Mind" Nash was an editor of the series where The Design Inference was published as evidence of respectability. Those not expecting a "fast one" and thus did not carefully parse his text might not notice he did not provide evidence that Nash actually supported his conclusions. He mentioned Chiu's citation of his book which was done, in Chiu's words, "as a courtesy" (i.e. so Dembski could say he was cited) as documented by Jeffery Shallit in his Dover statement which was passed out by the pro-science people outside.
Got to love his video. It makes the operation of biomolecules look like magic. Look at that walking molecule. Enzymes just fly to exactly where they are needed and exactly when they are needed as if they where intelligently piloted.
While Dembksi might not be a YEC, he certainly is not above recommending the True Origin Archive in the pamphlet that was placed in every chair prior to the doors opening.
/relurk
Posted by: Perplexed in Norman | September 18, 2007 9:00 AM
Agree completely. I'm not a scientist, but I've never understood the notion of having a "debate" with these folks.
Let them speak ... ask tough questions ... laugh as appropriate. But having a "debate" inevitably implies some uncertainty as to the outcome.
Same comments would apply to a historian "debating" a holocaust denier, or an engineer "debating" whether the evidence shows that the moon landings were a fraud.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | September 18, 2007 9:09 AM
[Sigworth] said that his belief in God makes his experimental results no less valid, and that his religion enhances his work by giving him a unique perspective.
u·nique /yuˈnik/
adjective 1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unique
Ha ha ha! Unfortunately, Sigworth, your god intoxication is far from unique. In fact, it's depressingly common.
Wake up! It only takes a second. Do it today! Join the modern world. Future generations of Sigworths will respect you! Think of the grandchildren!
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 18, 2007 9:14 AM
About him dissing the ad- I brought my laptop up with the Dover transcript to point out that ID Creationists admitted under oath that those articles did NOT support ID. But then he started whining "Wait your tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn eeeeeee!" and I got distracted.
I do NOT think he came off well, at one point jabbing at all the students that got him by saying "Theyre just doing it to impress their professors." Yeah, thats why Billy. Thats why. Ass.
:(
Posted by: ERV | September 18, 2007 9:38 AM
Speaking of hilarity, Nisbet's at it again, comparing framers to a candle in the dark (and by extension, suggesting that PZ and Dawkins are the dark).
He emphasizes "shared values", and then names a variety of sociocultural and political positions, none of which are necessarily held by defenders of reason and rationality. Ironically, he shares most of them with PZ, a person he rejects utterly because of the way he frames (or doesn't frame) his messages. But does he emphasize his shared values? No, he discards the message and the person who carries it.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 18, 2007 9:43 AM
ID proponent abandons pretense of secularity. Film at 11.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 18, 2007 9:52 AM
The weird thing about the Yale Daily News story is that Fred Sigworth actually is an excellent scientist. Anyone interested in ion channels or structural biology should definitely do a pubmed search.
The Yale Daily News piece really isn't the most well-written article in the world. I would be interested to read a transcript of what Sigworth actually said. It seems possible that something might have been lost in the transcription.
Posted by: lastplaneout | September 18, 2007 10:09 AM
Not to diss the U of M at Morris, but I've looked at the website and suspect that being a Professor at Yale is a few steps up from being, what is it, an Associate Professor at Morris. Sigworth, like Collins, seems to have a career in real research science, someone that the classroom and blog bound are bound to envy and jape at. You have any evidence that his religion has tainted his publications? What next, tests of political and ethnic purity?
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 10:14 AM
Yes, that's certainly the next logical step after mocking someone for saying something stupid.
Posted by: MartinM | September 18, 2007 10:19 AM
Martin M. I'd rather listen to what someone who has actually produced science thinks about it than wannabes and blog poseurs.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 10:26 AM
I don't recall mocking Sigworth's science, only his religious rationalizations.
Oh, but I forgot! No one is allowed to criticize anyone above their academic station. I must not disagree with anyone at well-endowed private universities with prestigious reputations. Of course, the flip side of that is that olvlzl isn't allowed to criticize me, unless he/she/it is a professor at Harvard or something. So by your own logic, shut up, olvlzl.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 18, 2007 10:32 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 10:35 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 10:38 AM
Since Sigworth has got a record of published research, he's qualified to talk about his personal experience of what he found helpful. Certainly more than someone who is only interested in enforcing his ideological purity standards on real scientists and others. You saying he's lying about his personal experience? You have any data to back that up?
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 10:49 AM
You do not appear to realize that Professor Myers is asking how faith can prepare one to become a scientist, when he has seen so many people of faith become rabid anti-intellectuals devoted to the intellectual destruction of America, especially as demonstrated by the Discovery Institute.
Posted by: Stanton | September 18, 2007 10:54 AM
Who here is interested in 'enforcing ideological purity standards?'
Posted by: MartinM | September 18, 2007 10:56 AM
Am I missing something? It seems like PZ is criticizing the strained defense and rationalization of Sigworth's religion, not any of his scientific work. Yet olvlzl keeps asking for evidence of Sigworth's religion interfering with his scientific worth, which is not something that was ever brought up in the post.
Posted by: JPG | September 18, 2007 10:57 AM
I don't recall mocking Sigworth's science, only his religious rationalizations.
It reads to me like penis--er-academic envy. It can't be that someone reads the evidence differently than you do. They must be stupid or delusional or perhaps mentally ill. It must be tough living life so much smarter and better than everyone else and without at least the paper credentials to back it up.
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 11:04 AM
Dembski's slide into madness and irrelevance really is a wonder to behold.
In five years time he'll be riding the bus all day, arguing with anyone who makes eye contact.
Posted by: minimalist | September 18, 2007 11:06 AM
"We have to approach Genesis with caution."
Who in their right mind would name a rottweiler "Genesis"?
Posted by: Kseniya | September 18, 2007 11:11 AM
Sigworth said his religion was useful to him in his scientific work, he's the one who did the work, he knows, you don't. PZ hates religion, well, big deal. He didn't do the research.
Someone who has a record of publication has a right to their personal views about other things without having to be answerable to PZ and his Amen choir here. It's a real spectacle, how people put up with PZ's playground bully act and real scientists seem to be cowed. I'd like to know just what those with some scientific credibility think about this kind of thing. Are they too scared to say?
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 11:16 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 11:22 AM
[QUOTE]I certainly hope that's the case. It would hurt me to know that a professor of cellular and molecular physiology does not understand the distinction between evolution, genetics and abiogenesis.[/QUOTE]
I'm much more inclined to think that a Yale Daily News reporter has a hazy definition/understanding of evolution, abiogenesis, and intelligent design than I am to think Fred Sigworth does.
Posted by: lastplaneout | September 18, 2007 11:23 AM
So, just out of interest, are we going to apply this equally to, say, Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate and AIDS denialist? Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate and vitamin C crank? I'd love to know where the line is. Whose opinions are beyond criticism, exactly? Whose opinions are we allowed to deride as foolish, and whose are automatically out of bounds?
Posted by: MartinM | September 18, 2007 11:27 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 11:31 AM
The only person who has objected to anyone expressing an opinion here is you. Everyone else is discussing content. You seem to be outraged that anyone would have the temerity to discuss such opinions at all.
Posted by: MartinM | September 18, 2007 11:31 AM
Hey Olvlzl, why don't you just keep posting the same thing over and over. I mean, why bother waiting for somebody else to post before you repeat the same tripe you posted moments ago?
And nice job jumping to the Godwin plateau so quickly.
Your trolling strategy is old hat, and nobody here is buying it.
Posted by: Stephen Occam | September 18, 2007 11:36 AM
"Someone who has a record of publication has a right to their personal views about other things without having to be answerable to PZ and his Amen choir here."
No. They don't.
"It must be tough living life so much smarter and better than everyone else and without at least the paper credentials to back it up."
Actually, it's pretty fun. You'll notice how we're always cracking jokes here while the complainers seem to be a very humorless lot.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 18, 2007 11:44 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 11:47 AM
Selkirk, I'd assumed that anyone who could read this blog would have at least the attention span to be able to follow that we were talking about what an individual scientist had said helped him in his research. I'm glad you agree with me that people have the right to their own ideas, apparently PZ doesn't. But, wait. Then you said that Sigworth was overstating the value of religion in his own work. You a mind reader or something? I can point out that if you're not a religious believer, you have no grounds for thinking you know that.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 11:48 AM
Stephen Occam, is that really your name? I always think it's a mistake to let the children handle the razor, they really don't have any idea what it does and doesn't do. And they are so liable to get cut. But, since it's just about only the words they've got a handle on, it's just make believe.
Martin M. I seldom wade into this blog, I'd expect a lot of people feel that way. Especially if it's not their day off, as it is mine.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 11:53 AM
I'd love to know where the line is. Whose opinions are beyond criticism, exactly? Whose opinions are we allowed to deride as foolish, and whose are automatically out of bounds?
Nobody is above criticsm and I don't object to criticism in the least. It's the arrogant dismissal to which I object. I could characterize and categorize Ernie Chambers as a typical atheist, liberal crank or dismiss those like P.Z. who (irrationally?) object to and resent free markets under the guise of progressiveness despite its obvious record of success compared to the stagnant bureaucratic alternatives he'd prefer (academics love bureaucracy donchaknow), but I think it better actually to engage people with whom I disagree on the merits rather than label, misrepresent and dismiss them out-of-hand, especially when they represent a major political, cultural or economic force. Novel concept, huh?
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 11:54 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 12:07 PM
I've got a lot of clients, many of whom are deeply religious. Over the years I listen to what they say and rationalize. Based on 15-years of listening, I've concluded that the deeply religious typically credit everything positive in their lives to God and everything negative to themselves.
The mere fact that these individuals, through hard work and mostly-good, common-sense decision making have made themselves successful doesn't seem to enter their world view. I have no doubt that many religious scientists, who don't deal directly with evolution (and thus can ignore its implications or have the ability to rationalize them away) have the same view. After all, for deeply religious, this belief is "common sense."
Even if it is a fallacy.
Posted by: Moses | September 18, 2007 12:10 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 12:12 PM
I think what is escaping you is you have no grounds for any of your criticisms based on your arguments and assertions.
And with that, I'm done feeding the troll...
Posted by: Moses | September 18, 2007 12:12 PM
For the record, "free markets" don't work because they are neither safe or self-regulataory. The only question is how much over-sight to prevent fraud & corruption is necessary. And while many people call them "free markets," they're actually "regulated markets."
We have the FDA because of the dangers to our food supply and quack medicines that were the product of the "free markets." We have the SEC because of the rampant financial fraud we frequently saw in the "free markets." We have automobile safety regulations because Ford would rather you DIE than fix the exploding Pinto because it was cheaper...
Posted by: Moses | September 18, 2007 12:17 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 12:25 PM
I'm not an academic, but I love beaurocracy. Sometimes I lie awake at night wishing I could spend more time filling out forms during the day. When I was in university, I would purposely misunderstand directions just so I could stand in line at the wrong buildings.
Seriously. Who are you trying to kid?
*Actually, I suspect Sinbad was writing tongue-in-cheek to illustrate a point with the quoted line. Nobody but a farmer beset by crows should craft a strawman so well.
Posted by: Brownian | September 18, 2007 12:25 PM
olvlzl is on record of knowing what Occam's razor is and knowing that it isn't what most of the wannabe-logicians of the blogs are entirely clueless. Cluelessness about Occam's Razor (he was a Franciscan, by the way) is endemic in the neo-atheist blogosphere. Though clearly reading deficiency isn't. If only Carl Sagan had been more careful.
Selkirk, you have no idea what Sigworth finds useful in his scientific research without him telling you. If he'd said playing bridge or doing needlework helped him, would you still call him a liar?
Moses, you a shrink? Jesus help your clients cause someone looking down on them like that isn't going to.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 12:27 PM
PZ, you claim that Sigworth is "yet another gomer striving to invent rationalizations for his ridiculous religion." In what way did he do this? I just see him drawing parallels between his religious belief and his scientific work. How is that a rationalization for religion?
And yet you think it is incredibly important to point out that science is incompatible with religion. And yes, certain kinds of religious belief are incompatible with science. But not all are. It is simply an empirical fact that there are thousands of religious scientists. They are in all fields. They are good scientists, bad scientists, and the entire range in between.
So your continued insistence that attacking is a necessary part for the advancement of science is simply wrong since many religious people make good scientists. If Sigworth does good scientific work, despite the fact that you find his religious views ridiculous, how does attacking his religious belief help the advancement of science?
Posted by: fardels bear | September 18, 2007 12:28 PM
Well, I'm a bureaucrat, and I love academia. So there you go.
Posted by: True Bob | September 18, 2007 12:34 PM
Actually, I suspect Sinbad was writing tongue-in-cheek to illustrate a point with the quoted line. Nobody but a farmer beset by crows should craft a strawman so well.
Stop talking sense. It interferes with the assumption that everyone who believes and thinks somewhat as I do is a troll to be dismissed and ignored. We're all stupid, delusional, mentally ill child-abusers donchaknow....
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 12:39 PM
"God of wonders beyond our galaxy / You are holy, holy / The universe declares your majesty / You are holy, holy."
I'm glad I wasn't in the room. Brain rot is a terrible thing to witness.
Whenever I read about these gatherings, I imagine the skeptical Richard Dawkins as an invisible presence in the room, sitting quietly in the corner, looking at the participants with that look of his - bemused, slightly contemptuous, ready to rip their delusions to shreds.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 18, 2007 12:53 PM
CalGeorge, you aren't into "invisible presences", are you? A holy Dawkins moment?
Posted by: True Bob | September 18, 2007 12:57 PM
That's a lovely troll infestation you got there, PZ. You been hanging around the Friendly Atheist recently? Fluid transfer's pretty much the only thing that'll transfer an Olvlzl infection, and Hemant's had a nasty case since before my time.
Always use protection to prevent troll transfer, kids. Always.
Posted by: stogoe | September 18, 2007 1:13 PM
you aren't into "invisible presences", are you? A holy Dawkins moment?
Just like his invisible memes and his physical evidence free Just-So stories of family and social life in the Pleistocene. Dawkins isn't skeptical, he knows exactly what he insists everyone should believe, even with absolutely no physical evidence that it is or ever was there.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 1:16 PM
Richard, Richard Dawkins / You are wholly unholy / I declare your atheistic majesty / You are wholly unholy.
Fewer anthems to God, more anthems to Richard Dawkins!
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 18, 2007 1:17 PM
"Which blogs would Jesus troll?"
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 1:19 PM
[Y]ou aren't into "invisible presences", are you?
In his Real Presences, George Steiner makes the argument that any coherent account of meaning in language and experience must be "underwritten by the assumption of God's presence." Of course, it can be dismissed out of hand as the ravings of an ignorant lunatic, based entirely upon preconceived notions, obviously.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pBn5PzaWdlQC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=qPz0N7seUJ&sig=Qxl2SIUvlWLu5A98wr5EwhoPkBM&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fsource%3Dig%26hl%3Den%26q%3Dreal%2Bpresences%2Bgeorge&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPP3,M1
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 1:21 PM
Gee, stogoe, I voluntarily told Hemant that I'd stop posting there because you guys were whining and crying that I was playing too hard. And here I thought that it was on the atheist blogs that the boys with the big ones played ball. Rationalism, yeah, right. Just like you're all power rangers of Occam's razor.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 1:22 PM
Wrong again, Selkirk. Your mind reading act's gone stale. I'm not a Christian.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 1:23 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 1:27 PM
Selkirk in his last response demonstrates one of the more common lapses in scientific understanding among atheist fundamentalists. Science was developed only to study the physical universe and developed means to study the physical universe. Anyone who proposes using it to look for anything else is only demonstrating they literally don't know the first thing about science. Not that it doesn't stop them from saying such stupid things.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 1:41 PM
You aren't playing too hard. You are ranting and raving and jumping from subject to subject while babbling incoherently. This is because you are mentally ill and a troll.
I (or anyone) could easily demolish your nonsense but am too busy to feed the trolls today.
Posted by: raven | September 18, 2007 1:42 PM
olvlzl, What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? I am honestly confused.
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | September 18, 2007 1:49 PM
gibberish moniker, you aren't presenting cogent arguments. You are not an intimidating debater. You are merely trolling for effect, and not very effective. Does DU pay you for this blather?
Posted by: True Bob | September 18, 2007 1:49 PM
Unlike Nisbet, I won't complain about people posting under net handles, but I sure get tired of the ones that look like they were made from a random handful of Scrabble tiles.
(Oh noes, there goes the PZ echo chamberian again, being meeeean)
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 18, 2007 1:51 PM
My posts are now being delayed or withheld. Why is that I wonder?
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 1:58 PM
toobz clogged on teh internets
Posted by: True Bob | September 18, 2007 2:00 PM
Is the occurence of belief in scientists greater or lesser than in the general population? (Hint: it's lesser and that is an empirical fact.)
Is the occurence of belief in women greater or lesser than in the general population? (Hint: it's greater and that is an empirical fact.)
Is the occurence of belief in blacks greater or lesser than in the general population? (Hint: it's greater and that is an empirical fact.)
Your point?
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 2:02 PM
My point is that religious belief is certainly not neccesary for the conduct of science, and there is no reason to believe that it contributes to the conduct of science. What is your point?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 2:15 PM
Sigworth said that religion aids in science because both involve incomplete data. By that standard, everything can potentially aid in science, because there is no "complete" self-contained branch of human ideation, and I suspect that there cannot be, given that any such field can generate questions that it cannot answer at a given time.
I know of no "complete" area of human knowledge --math, philosophy, physics, religion and even the arts are all on a par there so far as "working from incomplete data" are concerned -- this seems to suggest that Sigworth is merely selecting out religion on an emotive basis, since logically its incompleteness is no different than any other field.
The real problem becomes, as PZ mentioned...that the Abrahamic religionist has no data at all to point to.
Posted by: deadman_932 | September 18, 2007 2:18 PM
Aside: Doesn't the unpronounceability of it make him a demon rather than a troll? Or is there some part of the bestiary of imaginary supernatural entities I've missed?
On topic: Any sign of an ERV transcript? (I'm not a YouTuber - by reason of largely incompatible format. I like text - in properly written form.)
Posted by: SEF | September 18, 2007 2:20 PM
Another point: surveys have shown that the higher up the ladder of scientific success you go, the lower the incidence of religious belief amongst scientists. link
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 2:21 PM
I'll put it in another way, slightly more sarcastic:
Astrology is an "incomplete" field of human knowledge. Sigworth is essentially saying that thinking about incomplete things helps you to think about incomplete things...thus, by his logic, thinking about astrology aids the scientist.
I suspect you might get Behe to agree with that, but most scientists would simply laugh at that suggestion.
Posted by: deadman_932 | September 18, 2007 2:26 PM
"Anyone who proposes using it to look for anything else is only demonstrating they literally don't know the first thing about science."
Yes, of course, because practicing scientists don't know the first thing about science, but a wanna-be philosopher posting on a blog does.
Give me a coherent definition of "non-physical" and we can actually have some substantive discourse.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 18, 2007 2:27 PM
My point is that religious belief is certainly not neccesary for the conduct of science, and there is no reason to believe that it contributes to the conduct of science.
Since Sigworth made no such claim, your comment -- even if true -- is a non sequitur.
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 2:27 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 2:28 PM
My point is that religious belief is certainly not neccesary for the conduct of science, and there is no reason to believe that it contributes to the conduct of science.
Actually, to be clearer, my non sequitur charge relates to the first clause. There is reason to think that "it contributes to the conduct of science" because Sigworth suggested that it helped him and he's a practicing scientist, even if we stipulate that it isn't necessarily helpful.
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 2:32 PM
From the article:
Suck on it.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 18, 2007 2:33 PM
Reginald: yep, those algorithms have been nailed down, but I was thinking more about broad areas and fields rather than specific problems -- math was used in those instances and remains incomplete.
Godel told me so last night in a dream, when he was bitch-slapping Behe and Sigworth.
Posted by: deadman_932 | September 18, 2007 2:34 PM
By your phrase 'even if true' are you trying to assert that it is necessary?
Posted by: Josh | September 18, 2007 2:34 PM
Raven, I thought we were only supposed to believe claims backed up by empirical evidence and not accept the far fetched on faith.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 2:35 PM
"Actually, to be clearer, my non sequitur charge relates to the first clause. There is reason to think that "it contributes to the conduct of science" because Sigworth suggested that it helped him and he's a practicing scientist, even if we stipulate that it isn't necessarily helpful."
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I think it raises serious questions about his intellectual honesty. Much the same way as Collins' being convinced to "surrender to Jesus" by a frozen waterfall. What is being discussed sounds more a coexistence of partition than mutual aid and reinforcement.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 18, 2007 2:37 PM
Tyler, so you think that science being for the purpose of studying only the physical universe isn't important? Well, that would explain a lot.
The "non-physical. " How about an example of the non-physical, memes. Or how about the Just-so stories of evolutionary psychology based on nothing but self-serving necessity and let's pretend, since there's no evidence to back up our claims. Now, I'd never call those science, though someone who doesn't understand that first and most basic fact about science would. And does, frequently.
I see you're lying here since Alon gave up blogging. Not that I've been looking for you, just that I've got a long memory.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | September 18, 2007 2:41 PM
Suck on it.
That he thinks it enhances his work says precisely nothing about the conduct of science in general.
By your phrase 'even if true' are you trying to assert that it is necessary?
No. I suspect dear Reggie was trying to insinuate that atheists are smarter and better because scientists, and particularly esteemed scientists, are disproportionately atheist.
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I think it raises serious questions about his intellectual honesty.
That can only be so if you assume based upon preconceived notions writ large that he simply can't be speaking honestly. He can't be that stupid, can he?
Posted by: Sinbad | September 18, 2007 2:47 PM
olvlzl: Feel free to comment on what I wrote rather than grasping at irrelevant side issues.
The question was whether PZ's criticism was warranted, given Sigworth's actual claim that thinking about incomplete things aids in thinking about incomplete things. Astrology, olvlzl.
Do try to stay on point. There's a good lad.
Posted by: deadman_932 | September 18, 2007 2:47 PM
"Tyler, so you think that science being for the p