…and this is a 
I get email
Category: Creationism
Posted on: September 29, 2007 1:00 PM, by PZ Myers
My crank mail can be categorized into several categories. There are the short, barely literate splutterings of abuse; the weird rants and threats; the reiteration of long-dead creationist talking points (yeah, I get email where the writer thinks he's trumped me by saying "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?"); and then there are the long, rambling lectures from deeply clueless individuals. I'm afraid this is one of the latter. I'll understand if you fall asleep partway through.
By the way, the author actually sent this to me pre-formatted in Comic Sans. I'm also rather peeved that he's sending me a letter addressed to Eugenie Scott.
an open letter to eugenie scott
Dear Professor Myers: If you can refute this argument, I will commit myself to Darwin. As it stands now, I remain in doubt as to which theory is true: Darwin or intelligent design. Sincerely, Robert wood
Dear Eugenie Scott,
I am willing to be convinced of the truth of the theory of evolution—I mean as a final explanation for the origin and variety of species. However, as a non-scientist and someone who deems himself unequal to the challenge of debating this issue (evolution versus intelligent design) on its scientific merits, I can’t help but make one important observation concerning the respective disputants.
Those scientists who believe in evolution and who are strongly opposed to the idea of intelligent design, give the impression (tell me I am wrong in this, Eugenie) of being incapable of doubting the validity of the theory of evolution. Now let me explain. I believe that 2 plus 2 is 4; I believe in the theory of gravitation; I believe the earth goes around the sun—but should any of these beliefs be questioned, I only have to recall how it is and why it is I believe them to prove the falseness of any theory which would contradict those beliefs. In other words, I don’t just believe in the heliocentric theory; I have the satisfaction of confirming it by the manner in which I believe in it. The issue never touches me personally; therefore I take refuge in the objectivity of the truth of this theory, should it be challenged in any way by some competing theory.
Now the theory of evolution is deemed by the majority of scientists to have the status of scientific truth equivalent to that of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity. Good. But, when it is questioned (perhaps by those who are willfully ignorant, or prejudiced, or fearful, or obstinate), do its proponents make contact with the inherent truth that would afford them a stance of detachment and sobriety?
In many cases they do not. Instead they act as if this is an ideological issue in which these supporters of Darwin are defending the honour and reputation and prestige of a theory without regard to a true assessment of its validity considered in the light of a context created by a competing theory (intelligent design).
And so what happens is that the theory of evolution does not provide on its own merits the same kind of confidence and equipoise that other scientific theories automatically provide in the face of possible criticism. The belief becomes just that: belief; and the exhilarating and vital contact with the empirical truth of the theory of evolution no longer can determine the experience of the person who is defending Darwin against intelligent design. The belief in the theory overwhelms the intrinsic truth of the theory—in the context of this debate.
And it should not be this way were Darwin’s theory comparable in its accordance with physical reality as other scientific theories are. And this is where it gets interesting. You see, if a scientific theory is correct (there is an agreement with reality), then in a sense the more it is challenged, the more it proves itself under this adversity. This is always the case. But this is not the case with Darwin in the present circumstance. The more the theory is criticised, the more the alternative theory (intelligent design) is attacked. But this is absurd. Darwin’s theory stands by itself. And if this is true, why is it that scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, separate themselves from the context which is provided them by the fact that Darwin’s theory is true, in order to make it seem that the only way the theory of evolution can survive is by making certain the opposition is silenced, censured, stigmatized, and punished.
This is a great paradox. But it points up an extremely important fact: the hard-core Darwinist is not existentially in control of his belief in Darwin, for if he were, he would not be capable of acting with passion, vehemence, hostility when he finds this theory challenged.
If someone successfully mounted a campaign that attempted to bring into question any other scientific theory, what would be the response of a given individual scientist to this campaign? Would it, Professor Scott, take the form of the attitude of the National Center for Science Education on their website? As I read that website, it strikes me that the enemy is at the gates, and we must put down these insurgents with whatever force is required.
We have given up the project of converting them, They are mysteriously perverse; they refuse to be reasonable, they refuse to look at the facts impartially, they are determined to destroy the very integrity with which science is done. What can we do but fight back—with everything we have?
But I ask you, Eugenie, is this the scenario which will meet with success, triumph, and eventual vindication?
No, it is not. And this is because it is being driven by a psychology which finds it impossible to conceive that Darwin might be wrong. You see, Eugenie, it doesn’t matter if I decide, for purposes of clarification, to doubt what I believe in—in this case, the theory of evolution. In fact, just like entertaining, for the benefit which might accrue from thinking against what I knew is true, the thought that: perhaps the sun does indeed go around the earth, so too it is an intellectually salutary act to wonder: on what basis, in the face of what evidence, could I conceive it possible that I could doubt Darwin (or conceive there to be an “edge of evolution”)? If I am secretly terrified by the thought (without knowing why) this may very well mean that I am invested in the idea of the truth of the theory quite independently of whether in fact that theory can stand the test of objective critical examination. You see, I won’t know the answer to this question (and therefore won’t have the tremendous satisfaction of re-believing in Darwin in the innocent way that I first came to believe in his theory), if I find that I cannot doubt the theory of evolution right now.
If my belief in the theory of evolution was predicated strictly on my own determination that it was true, then, when challenged by the theory of intelligent design, I could discriminate as to exactly why I still believe in Darwin, why I cannot believe in intelligent design.
But if metaphysically and psychologically I witness in myself that I will not, I cannot, I must not, doubt Darwin, then this, it seems to me, is prima facie evidence that my continuing to believe in Darwin is being determined by something outside of the control that I could exercise by my own will.
Do the intelligent design people (not the young earth creationists) conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong? I believe they do, Eugenie. Sure, they are confident they will displace Darwin at some point—for them this seems, based on the evidence, inevitable. But just as a private exercise in Socratic doubt, are they prepared to imagine they have been deceived and that Darwin’s theory will once again demonstrate itself to be a superior theory of speciation to that of intelligent design? I think (among those who are practicing scientists) they are. And so, what does that mean?
It means that their commitment to the validity of intelligent design is not being determined by their metaphysical and psychological need for it to be true. More than this, it means that whatever they are in contact with in expounding their views, it affords them a sense of normalcy which makes them naturally sensitive to the reasonableness and persuasiveness of the other side (the evolutionists). Simply because, evidently the belief in intelligent design stands or falls with the evidence; it is not being driven by a personal unwillingness to believe in the theory of evolution. More than this. It means that to believe in intelligent design is a personal choice, fully under the control of the individual scientist.
And this is the terrible irony, Eugenie: that the intelligent design theorist can see for himself the furious subjectivity of the ultra-Darwinist in his determination to destroy the reputation and credibility of a scientist who believes in intelligent design; this alerts him to an important fact: the Darwinist is not in control of his belief. His belief is held in place by something that exceeds even his (the evolutionist’s) assumption as to why he wishes to continue to believe in Darwin no matter what.
The conclusion I must draw, Eugenie, is that the reaction of the Darwinists is precisely the kind of reaction that is designed to bring about the most meaningful triumph of intelligent design, for without this intense opposition, the theory of intelligent design it could be inferred, can’t be true, because the real scientists, to a person (in this theoretical scenario) are treating it exactly like they would treat a challenge to the belief that the earth revolves around the sun, that 2 plus 2 is not 4, that quantum mechanics is wrong. They are letting the theory of evolution prove itself; and thus welcoming opposition, because as it turns out, opposition works on behalf of the theory of evolution to make it even more convincing.
Now the question you are no doubt asking, Eugenie, is: well, if we know a theory is true and people question its truthfulness, are we therefore just supposed to let this opposing (and unproven) theory have a respectable place in science? Well, of course not. But, you see, Eugenie, as a scientist you must proceed on the basis of a fair-minded, disinterested, and dispassionate investigation of the evidence which constitutes the competing claims of this rival theory. That rival theory must get exposure; it must be subjected to intense scrutiny—but impartially, not vindictively. The beauty of science is that it seeks to know what is factually the case. A fact is a fact. There is no excuse for scientists who believe in the absolute sufficiency of the theory of evolution, to act outside the role of a scientist in attempting to refute the validity of an opposing theory. And this is exactly what has happened.
In studying your own writings, I have to conclude that you are unable to contemplate the idea that intelligent design might have merit. For reasons which go well beyond science, this proposition is like a death threat, and it must be excluded from the realm of your experience. This is not the response of someone who knows something is true; it is the response of someone who (even if the theory is in fact correct) no longer has control over how that belief is acted out in the opposition to that belief.
And so, the Darwinist can’t help himself. The intelligent design theorist, he finds his theory does not and cannot create the existential inhibition of fanatical certainty that the theory of evolution must and does create inside the consciousness of the evolutionist.
Sincerely,
Robert Wood
Lord, how tedious. This fellow assumes the premise that scientists do not question evolution, that we think Darwin was never wrong, and that we never present evidence against Intelligent Design creationism or for biology, and that therefore the argument is all about ideology. And he's wrong in every particular, but that doesn't stop him from babbling at length.
We question evolution every day. Every evolutionary biologist is testing it continually — that's his or her job.
We do not regard Darwin as infallible. In fact, there are huge chunks of Darwin's version of the theory that we know are wrong (pangenesis, for instance).
It's the job of the Intelligent Design creationists to propose ideas that show merit. They have not. They are not even a serious challenge that might drive new science — they are entirely ideologically driven, trying to find a pseudoscientific rationale. Evolutionary biology has come to the conclusions it has because we've been bouncing around tests of the idea for a century and a half, and it has held up well under a barrage of critical thinking and evidence-based testing by people much cleverer than the gang of religious apologists at the Discovery Institute.
Politics
Comments
Wait, we're loud, unlike the gravity defenders... therefore, we're wrong?
(Runs over to find the right Doggerel entry...)
is it arrogant? or is it being defensive?
Maybe a new suggestion for Bronze Dog...
Posted by: MikeG | September 29, 2007 1:18 PM
My eyes crossed a quarter of the way through and that saved me 2 minutes out of my life.
With guys like this, just point them to the excellent talkorigins.org and/or PT sites. If they are too lazy to read up on evolution, that is there problem.
IDist and creos don't do science. They sit on the sidelines and take potshots at real science. This shows the emptiness of their position, right there.
The only people who buy creo nonsense do so for religious reasons and they freely admit that most of the time. Xian and Moslem fundamentalists mostly.
Posted by: raven | September 29, 2007 1:28 PM
ZZZZZ.....
Posted by: RamblinDude | September 29, 2007 1:30 PM
Robert's letter has so many things backward, I had to hold a mirror to it to read it.
Evolutionists are convinced of the theory because that's where the evidence leads. ID proponents are convinced that God...well, that's it. Their theory comes first, and to hell with the evidence.
Posted by: Brownian | September 29, 2007 1:38 PM
Ooooooookay. This missive also requires that meth-steroid cocktail you mentioned.
Posted by: John Danley | September 29, 2007 1:39 PM
Nitpick: There's a missing right-paren up there, after the words "still monkeys?".
Shorter Robert Wood: "I'd rather pontificate on the whys and wherefores of the whichness of what than pick up a damn book on evolution and read it. And I want a personal explanation from an evolutionary biologist on why my pontification is wrong, because otherwise I'm right."
There's a very special sort of dumbness that only the overly-educated can aspire to.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 29, 2007 1:41 PM
Robert Wood said:
"In studying your own writings, I have to conclude that you are unable to contemplate the idea that intelligent design might have merit."
Obviously this guy has not asked the most important question: What does ID propose as an alternative to Darwinian evolution?
"Gosh, gee, (head scratch), I just don't understand how this could have evolved by means of natural selection." And thats about all the merit it has, incredulity and ignorance.
Posted by: Sheldon | September 29, 2007 1:42 PM
That letter is so sprawling and pointless, it is turning most of the letterings underneath it blue. Truly a strange letter.
Posted by: Janine | September 29, 2007 1:43 PM
So the good Mr. Wood has more trouble with the concept of descent with modification from a common ancestor (a notion amply supported by DNA evidence from surviving species and fossil evidence from many of the extinct ones) than with quantum mechanics or relativity? Would Mr. Wood care to tell us how well he grasps the non-intuitive consequences of quantum theory? Does he understand spacetime metrics and the reason Einstein's theory requires that the speed of light be a universal speed limit?
After he gives a cogent defense of quantum mechanics and general relativity, perhaps I'll listen to his concerns about the reigning synthetic theory of evolution. Perhaps.
Posted by: Zeno | September 29, 2007 1:47 PM
Why do kooks just love Comic Sans?
Posted by: Shalini | September 29, 2007 2:02 PM
The answer is simply perfect. I have reading this blog for a log time, now is time to speak.
It is incredible how outsider people are ignorant about the scientific method... and of course they also don't know who is Popper and the falsifiability. It is strange, but in Europe, at least in Spain, every school of the country is obligated to teach this milestone principle to the children. Indeed this is quite a important principle in order to understand how science is made.
But, I think mister PZ Meyer that you can wield whatever theory, fact, proof... whatever you want, to people like this poor devil. You will never make this people understand the theory of evolution and its implications. By the way... why they are always insisting on Darwin? they don't know what is the new evolutionary synthesis?. In my opinion you shouldn't waste your time answering stupids letters that are unsubstantiated as they stands. Intellectually speaking you are far away from them.
I'm going to move from Spain to La Jolla to do my PhD and I am very concerned about how is going all this creationist - ID issue. In my opinion the real problem here was addressed by S.Stent in his book Paradox of Progress. I quote verbatim: "when the virus of uncritical imagination infects a territory of human inquiry to which science can lay claim, the scene became corrupt, a turf for mischief makers". It was said also by Gould in "Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life": Science and Religion are different worlds.
I hope you understand my point, my english is quite poor. I don't have the literary resources of Robert wood.
Posted by: Rembukai | September 29, 2007 2:03 PM
"The more the theory is criticised, the more the alternative theory (intelligent design) is attacked."
Bearing in mind that intelligent design is a "theory" whose entire basis is supposed gaps in evolution, this is surely hypocritical?
When intelligent design only has arguments which attack evolution, any defence of evolution obviously also becomes an attack on intelligent design.
(That's about as far down as I got... my eyes refused to focus anymore, for the good of my brain.)
Posted by: CraigF | September 29, 2007 2:22 PM
"commit myself to Darwin"
This little turn of phrase is an amazingly revealing example of IDers' total inability to think of science in nonreligious terms -- indeed, their unawareness that there's even any difference between religion and science.
"Yes, today I have accepted Charles Darwin as my personal savior." Groan.
Posted by: George Cauldron | September 29, 2007 2:26 PM
Oh crap on a cracker, PZ.
You just know some poor creationist nit is going to gobble that little phrase up in his or her tireless effort of quote mining.
Posted by: Dan | September 29, 2007 2:27 PM
The only way I can think that Dr. PZ could read that whole load of crap would be that he has trained for years by reading thousands of vapid undergrad papers. I don't think the average civilian should be expected to read the whole thing without losing consciousness.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | September 29, 2007 2:29 PM
I think creationists, because of their own mindset, seem to think that scientists hold some sort of special reverence for individuals rather than ideas.
While Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, and all the rest have made brilliant contributions, scientists to not view them as inerrant or hold the original ideas of the scientists to be the exact equivalent to some particular modern theory.
We don't, for example, regularly speak or "Galileism" or "Copernicism" for obvious reasons.
Posted by: PalMD | September 29, 2007 2:35 PM
Craig (#12) says:
Eh? I was unawares ID had any basis other than "big nasty bullies in the skies dunit"?
Posted by: blf | September 29, 2007 2:37 PM
...
...
I got as far as the phrase "the same kind of confidence and equipoise" and then started lightly skimming, and then stopped even that.
PZ, I think there should be a quiet little in-house award, call it the Honorary Garbageman Award (maybe Honorary Dustman in Britain) among science bloggers or rationalist writers, for people like you who actually READ stuff like this all the way through. For me, taking out someone else's bag of sodden, reeking garbage would be a comparative pleasure. Yet you and so many of the other science bloggers apparently handle this stinking, rotting refuse day after day after day.
Damn.
I feel a worshipful awe, combined with a massive amount of the exact opposite of envy.
(And I hereby nominate PZ as the first recipient of the Honorary Garbageman Award, if it turns out there should be such a thing.)
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | September 29, 2007 2:37 PM
Does anyone actually read these e-mails in full?
Just curious. :)
I usually stop a few sentences in.
Posted by: Jon | September 29, 2007 2:38 PM
In studying your own writings, I have to conclude that you are unable to contemplate the idea that intelligent design might have merit.
Bravo, Robert! Not so clueless after all.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 29, 2007 2:38 PM
Interestingly, it's not unique to creationists. I once encountered a fellow who rejected relativity; he had a tendency to refer to his opponents as 'Einsteinians.'
Posted by: MartinM | September 29, 2007 2:40 PM
Please close your parenthesis in your first paragraph. :-)
Posted by: Mike Fox | September 29, 2007 2:46 PM
Gratuitous Use of Italics meter... overloading... can't... stand... all the... emphasis...
*kaboom!*
Posted by: Damon B. | September 29, 2007 2:47 PM
Dear Mr. Robert Wood,
It is just very difficult for me to follow the socially "hotpoint" controversies that tend to "crop up" in this forum in a genuine discussion of life system "origins" and what some might refer to as "Intelligent Design" supported resolutions to the vast array of (just and ONLY JUST) humanly perceivable questions regarding the "creation to living ecosystems" splay of assertions that have historically (within the past decade or two) been (for understandable reasons up and to about 1959) been accepted as legitimate claims regarding how in the mighty unknown realm (you 20 to 90 and beyond if you are there, year old lovers of your masturbatorial philosphy) you could actually BELIEVE IN THESE RIDICULOUSLY OVERSTATED CLAIMS (UNDISCIPLINED IMAGINATIONS) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STUPIDLY INTERPRETED RESULTS OF POINTED INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE SET UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMOSTRATING THE VASTLY FAR FRICKING FETCHED PHILOSOPHICAL PREFERENCES OF THE "EXPERT" OVER THE PUBLIC, SELF PROCLAIMED MASTERS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
( YOU JACKASSES!!!!!!!)!!!!!
Posted by: gingerbaker | September 29, 2007 2:59 PM
I couldn't get through the whole thing, but why is it that these doubters expect you personally to explain everything to them. They can't bother to educate themselves but believe you should spend hours educating them. They truly believe they are privileged, that they should get a college education for free.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | September 29, 2007 3:06 PM
I barely made it to the third (or fourth?) paragraph...
I think, no, believe he's stupid. Oh, it feels soooo good to say this.
It actually does. Oh shit, maybe I should read the rest, some time, some day... Ah, whatever.
Posted by: SoE | September 29, 2007 3:10 PM
Meh, anyone with the discipline and drive can get a college education for free. All those textbooks are in the library, you know. Granted, there's a lot to be said for a good teacher, but reading at the public library is a Hell of a lot more effective than listening to a poor teacher.
Posted by: Rystefn | September 29, 2007 3:24 PM
I believe in the 'theory of gravitation,' too. The hungrier I am, the more I gravitate towards the donut shop. It's just a matter of working out the details; is this relationship of hunger to gravitation-to-donuts linear or exponential? I'm thinking the latter, but I'm still tweaking the equation...
Posted by: cyborgsuzy | September 29, 2007 3:29 PM
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Cheers,
Rich
Rational Engineer
Posted by: Rich | September 29, 2007 3:29 PM
...while the proponents of Intelligent Design are driven by a commitment to pure science and entirely free of any other ideological or religious commitment, as exemplified by a statement like this...
...or this...
...or this...
...or this...
Perhaps you should ask Robert Wood if he has written to William Dembski or Jonathan Wells or Phillip Johnson to ask them how they square views such as these with empiricism and scientific objectivity.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 29, 2007 3:39 PM
I'd like to say this is deja vu, but it appears Wood has actually reconstructed this entire screed from scratch instead. This is the same bogus Wood argument you defied us to read through a few weeks ago, but even longer if such is possible.
I believe it was Wittgenstein who wrote something like, "whereof one cannot speak, one must therefore write to those who can and demand they defend themselves in the vain hope one will be considered Socratic instead of a simpleton."
I'm going to refute Mr. Wood by analogy:
Dear Eugenie Scott,
I have never tried to see a soccer game or looked up the rules of soccer, and therefore I am not qualified to take a position on the vigorous debate whether soccer is a sport or an elaborate made-up hoax. I have seen baseball and played tic tac toe, so I believe in those. If someone challenged me about those the way soccer skeptics challenge soccer, I could refer to my own knowledge and experience to refute them.
Most of the world claims soccer is a sport the same as baseball or basketball. If they were confident in that belief, you would expect them to answer calmly, confidently and persuasively when someone suggests to them, as they exit a soccer stadium, that there is no such thing as soccer. If the truth is on their side such a response should be easy. Instead they say things like "stop following me, you lunatic" and "sorry, I don't have any spare change." When I leave a basketball game, we talk about the game, not whether the game existed at all. Nobody ever threatens to call the cops on me after a basketball game. The fact that soccerists do just proves how pathologically defensive and ideologically-driven they are.
The noted soccerist AYSO has a web page decrying soccer skepticism, and for no better reason than that soccer skeptics have been waging an unremitting campaign to eliminate youth soccer programs and instead teach the controversy over the existence of soccer. If soccer skeptics didn't have a genuine point, AYSO would not bother opposing them, because certainly no ignorant lie has ever hurt anyone.
All of this demonstrates a clear mental pathology on the part of soccerists. After having seen soccer games, they no longer have free will to question whether soccer exists. This is not the case with soccer skeptics. They secretly are prepared to imagine that perhaps there really is a game being played in those stadiums of which they are completely ignorant. This gives the skeptics a sense of moderation that makes the shrill "what the hell do you think I've been doing for the last few hours" response of a soccerist seem extreme and unreasonable.
It is this unreasonability that proves soccer skeptics right. People who really believe what they're saying don't react that way, and it's certainly not the way to win an entirely legitimate and in no way fatuous debate.
Sincerely,
Robert Wood, local sane and reasonable person.
Posted by: Gelf | September 29, 2007 3:40 PM
I hope you understand my point, my english is quite poor
Rembukai, I wish my English was as "poor" as yours...
Posted by: Abie | September 29, 2007 3:43 PM
ROTFL!!! You start formatting all kook quotes in Comic Sans, and a few weeks later, the kooks follow! PZ MEIERZ HAZ CRAZEE POWERZ!!eleven! If only I could stop laughing!!!
My whole larynx apparatus hurts. (Not the jaw joints this time.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 29, 2007 4:12 PM
Yoiks, next time I have insomnia I'll start reading this again. If you're going to be a crackpot, at least be an entertaining one...
Posted by: Sam | September 29, 2007 4:23 PM
Damn it. What little I could stay awake for DID have a point: Science has to be open minded about these things, and if there's conflicting evidence be ready to change their understanding of the world. I'm not going to take scientific theory for granted ANY LONGER! From now on, when my alarm clock goes off in the morning I'll knock it off the nightstand. If it falls DOWN, I know the theory of gravity is still the most valid theory, and that it's perfectly safe to try to get out of bed.
Posted by: dorid | September 29, 2007 4:27 PM
Rembukai: I'm going to move from Spain to La Jolla to do my PhD and I am very concerned about how is going all this creationist - ID issue.
Don't worry. You'll be having too much fun on the beautiful beaches to be bothered with such nonsense.
Posted by: Dr Benway | September 29, 2007 4:30 PM
The writer said: "Now let me explain. I believe that 2 plus 2 is 4; I believe in the theory of gravitation; I believe the earth goes around the sun--but should any of these beliefs be questioned, I only have to recall how it is and why it is I believe them to prove the falseness of any theory which would contradict those beliefs."
That's exactly the point. One who holds the theory of evolution to be true can indeed simply recall how and why he believes the theory to be true to prove the falseness of contradictory theories. But since this theory is under ideological attack it needs to be defended. Where gravity under attack it would be defended as vocally.
This guys logic seems to be essentially that because evolutions defenders actually defend it in the public arena, their belief must be ideologically driven, because we all know that those whose beliefs are not ideologically driven do not ever vocally defend them. (!)
What kind of screwy logic is that? Oh yeah, it's creationist logic.
Posted by: Ric | September 29, 2007 4:30 PM
No, no, no, Abie. You meant to say, "I wish my English were as 'poor' as yours...." You need the subjunctive.
Of course, if you had used the subjunctive, then that would have tended to contradict your self-criticism, rendering that statement void. So the sentence would not be true if it were true...
AAAAAAAuuuuuuuuuggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!
Posted by: Zeno | September 29, 2007 4:32 PM
Instead they act as if this is an ideological issue in which these supporters of Darwin are defending the honour and reputation and prestige of a theory without regard to a true assessment of its validity considered in the light of a context created by a competing theory (intelligent design).
You mean the one where Jonathan Wells says that T. rex can't possibly turn into birdies? That's all it amounts to, really. Evolution can't do this, evolution can't do that, blah blah.
Posted by: 386sx | September 29, 2007 4:35 PM
Magari PZ you done did it! I would never believe I would say this but I now see the wisdom and rightgeousness of the believers' claims that atheists are an immoral, uncharitiable, and uncaring lot!!
Your publishing of that letter and suckering us into reading it was cruel and heartless. My headache will probably last for days and it is all your heartless/godless fault!!
A pox on you and your godless unthinking Darwinist Minions!!
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | September 29, 2007 4:36 PM
Normally I do. Yes, even with Neal's. But not with this one. It repeats the same point over and over and over and over and over and over... I don't so much fall asleep as unconscious after a few paragraphs (unlike other kook mail, this one has paragraphs -- lots and lots of them!).
OK. Now, how many Timecubes. 0.2?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 29, 2007 4:37 PM
Rembukai @ #11 You said, "I hope you understand my point, my english is quite poor. I don't have the literary resources of Robert wood."
I had no trouble at all with your English - it was perfectly intelligible. As for Robert Wood, he obviously doesn't have your scientific resources. Your commment re the education system in Spain - "It is strange, but in Europe, at least in Spain, every school of the country is obligated to teach this milestone principle (Popper and the falsifiability) to the children. Indeed this is quite an important principle in order to understand how science is made." - is most apposite & instructive.
Good luck to you in La Jolla.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | September 29, 2007 4:44 PM
"ROTFL!!! You start formatting all kook quotes in Comic Sans, and a few weeks later, the kooks follow! PZ MEIERZ HAZ CRAZEE POWERZ!!eleven! If only I could stop laughing!!!"
Ooooh! Nifty idea! Instead of disemvoweling trolls, comic sansify them!
Posted by: craig | September 29, 2007 4:52 PM
Isn't this *precisely* the same Robert Wood that sent you an equally long and inspid email arguing that Evolution is wrong because biologists get angry?
Posted by: James Stein | September 29, 2007 5:30 PM
"I believe the earth goes around the sun"
Well, that's a start. He's accepted a proposition put forth by Aristarchus of Samos a mere 2300 years ago... AaaagggHHHhhh! What the hell is wrong with these people?!
Posted by: Dahan | September 29, 2007 5:37 PM
Zeno,
Maybe you should have said "had you used" instead of "if you had used".
HTH,
The Subjunctive Junky (subjunky?)
Posted by: don Smith, FCD | September 29, 2007 5:40 PM
I think there is one further hurdle in trying to educate such people in that education itself is a sin. It says so right there in the Garden of Eden story. Eating from thr tree of knowledge got "us" kicked out of paradise. Therefore remaining ignorant is staying holy, just the way religion requires it to be.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | September 29, 2007 5:48 PM
PZ, I have to ask: Do you ever wonder if some of readers get such a kick out of these e-mails that they make up their own stupidity to send to you under a pseudonym in hopes of showing up on your blog? Some of these letters do such a good job of looking ridiculous that you have to wonder, and it being pre-formatted in Comic Sans makes you think.
Posted by: Infophile | September 29, 2007 5:52 PM
LOL at Gelf! That was brilliant!
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | September 29, 2007 5:53 PM
Idiot!
Did I make the 500,000th?
Posted by: Lynn David | September 29, 2007 6:48 PM
I wonder if these guys come back to the site to read the comments? I don't think so because they would naturally assume you would censor them, of course because you/we are dogmatic Darwinists. Of course ridicule is hard to take for anyone, he would not get beyond the first few.
The only appropriate responce to his long and distorted argument is a short statistic (google search only) of scientific papers that support evolution vs papers supporting ID.
Posted by: Dennis | September 29, 2007 6:51 PM
It's sad enough that the science section of my local Barnes and Noble is probably the smallest section in the entire bookstore.
To make it worse, it seems someone who is just as confused in his thinking as Robert Wood, makes the decision to place books like "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe on the same shelf as The Complete Works of Charles Darwin.
I know this issue has been addressed on other posts but WTF is wrong with the folks at Barnes and Noble. I was having a good day until I went there this afternoonand saw that. Argh!
Would it be ethical to print cards stating that this book is not science but rather religion and just slip them in the book jacket and maybe include Pharygula's or Panda's Thumb's urls?
BTW I went up to the front desk and mentioned this to the nice lady behind the register and she said she would let someone know, somehow I bet it will still be in the same exact place next time I go there.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | September 29, 2007 7:26 PM
What makes Bobby boy think that he's on a first name basis with Dr. Scott?
Posted by: windy | September 29, 2007 7:36 PM
Too much verbal diarrhea for me. If you read it, you're a well of patience.
Posted by: k | September 29, 2007 7:51 PM
This has been pointed out many times before but here we go again ...
All of this person's comments about the "emotional" reaction of supporters of evolution against Intelligent Design more accurately describe the typical reactions of ID-ers and other theists to the theory of evolution (not to mention their reaction to anyone who dares criticize their pet religious fantasy). I think there is a technical term for this ... "transferance" ... or something like that.
Posted by: Axolotl | September 29, 2007 8:17 PM
It's projection, pure and simple.
Posted by: dwarf zebu | September 29, 2007 8:51 PM
gingerbaker (#24), that is pretty cool, you have written a computer program to turn out crationist style craptrap and ADD THE UPPER CASE). You feed in the offending letter and then let it put out a meaningless reply in the same style... What a time saver!
Posted by: sailor | September 29, 2007 8:53 PM
Comic sans is fine, but I would recommend a font called 'Marigold', which is entirely unreadable for extended text (it's a display font). But I doubt most computers would have it installed. Just exasperation at trying to slog through the verbiage above.
Posted by: VJB | September 29, 2007 9:21 PM
blf(#17):
Well, duh. Nasty sky bullies LIVE in those gaps. That's just science, innit?
Posted by: CraigF | September 29, 2007 9:27 PM
Like many others, I gave up about halfway. Does this guy seriously think he has a point? Funny how these folks are happy to drone on and on and on about evolution's defenders supposedly being ideologically driven and too emotional and yada yada while at the same time failing to debate the issue on the facts for even a single word. I might as well say that ID proponents must be wrong because they're insufferably pompous and attentive to these stupid meta-issues.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 29, 2007 9:49 PM
How is that PZ is "Professor Myers" but Dr. Scott gets only "Eugenie"?
Rembukai: A preemptive welcome to La Jolla! You'll love it here. Maybe we'll be classmates.
Posted by: rhian | September 29, 2007 9:49 PM
I thought that Gingerbaker was quoting the beginning of Neal's letter from the other day. It certainly sounded familiar.
Gelf, thanks for the analogy--it's perfect. Now I don't have to bang my head on the keyboard and yell, "You've got it exactly bass-ackward, you moron!" to R. Wood.
Posted by: Monado | September 29, 2007 9:59 PM
Oh boy! More training material for the Wood Generator v2.0!
Here's the output:
Makes more sense, no?
Posted by: fontor | September 29, 2007 10:04 PM
You can dress religious idiots up, but they're still idiots.
What's annoying is that the guy obviously thinks he's smart and clever and making a sophisticated argument. This is what happens when rational people try to argue with the faithful instead of laughing at them: they think they actually have a point. We shouldn't encourage this kind of silliness. They understand ridicule much better than reason.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 29, 2007 10:05 PM
Well, if someone questions gravitation or 2+2=4, they usually are uninformed, so going back to principles is easy...it's the first time they've heard it. Evolution is pretty much the only theory I can think of in which large numbers of people are educated in the facts and still choose to reject it. So there's no point in going back to basics at all.
Posted by: Melanie S. | September 29, 2007 10:12 PM
Windy, I couldn't agree with you more.
Obviously, he's just an idiot and his "arguments" aren't even really that (and honestly I felt like I was watching my dog chase his tail)... but I have a real problem here. If Eugenie Scott were a man, would this person continually refer to a man with his first name in such an obviously condescending manner? Maybe... but probably not.
Posted by: Nutmeg | September 29, 2007 10:24 PM
In the protesting too much department: it seems to me that those who deal in belief show off their uncertainty about certainty when they invest so much energy in evolutionary theory. Darwin questioned the literal interpretation of scripture, so these guys have to point out his error by masking ideology as rational inquiry. If Darwin is right, they have to rethink their entire belief system (if thinking is really how they arrived at it in the first place). Big stakes require noisy defenses, apparently. If they understood the nature of metaphor better, they'd get a lot more out of their scriptures, and might even be able to marvel in the metaphorical potential of evolution.
Posted by: Owlfarmer | September 29, 2007 10:34 PM
I only read Neal's rants in full. There's a certain entertaining quality to them.
Posted by: Dan | September 29, 2007 11:18 PM
couldn't read it. too stupid.
Posted by: kristen in montreal | September 30, 2007 12:00 AM
Gelf, we need an award for "best satire completely deflating a pompous idiot's tedious and tendentious screed". We can call it the Gelfie.
Isn't there a charity someplace that sends free copies of "The Elements of Style" to these poor people? Like the Gideons, only rational. Well, perhaps not, but maybe we should start one.
Posted by: Leigh | September 30, 2007 12:50 AM
I was disappointed. Email rants are not what they used to be.
Posted by: tourettist | September 30, 2007 12:59 AM
Thought I would just drop in here at Pharyngula for a moment before retiring. I had not expected to run into this thread and not be able to stop laughing. Fontor (#63) put me into an almost painful lauging jag.
This was the funniest thing I have read in a long time.
But on a bummer note, I will have to give up my private preference for Comic Sans.
Thank you all for this fun.
Posted by: dogheaven | September 30, 2007 1:37 AM
I think it's time for PZ to get on the best-selling Atheist bandwagon.
Just take a good sampling of your mail, which you know the majority of Americans would agree with, and shoot the arguments down.
Be sure to use lots of pictures, labeled in Comic Sans.
Letters from an Un-Evolved Nation
(or Why Dr. Dino is in Prison and I'm Not)
Posted by: Ick of the East | September 30, 2007 2:13 AM
Infophile--
unfortunately Comic Sans is alive and well, this letter is clearly genuine (and is painful enough to read, it would take incredible patience to actually fake one of these)
Posted by: markp | September 30, 2007 2:13 AM
No charity needed, just hand them this link.
Posted by: Hank | September 30, 2007 4:01 AM
I gave it a