Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.
Benjamin Harrison
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« If you've ever been tempted to visit the Big Valley Creation Science Museum… | Main | Marine invertebrate temptations »
Category: Creationism • Humor
Posted on: September 15, 2007 12:00 PM, by PZ Myers
Man, everyone is sending me this comic and saying it reminds them of me. I don't know why.
Just for the record, I would never shoot a dog. I know how to use an IV and some barbituates to painlessly euthanize them. But I wouldn't. That's only your theory.
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Someone also painted over that man's entire house (including his windows). I like this neighborhood.
Posted by: Ryan | September 15, 2007 12:50 PM
Inserting an IV is painless?
Posted by: Pyesetz the Dog | September 15, 2007 12:56 PM
Actually, I think the house is made out of cardboard, and the window frames are just scribbled on with a Sharpie.
Posted by: Dan | September 15, 2007 1:27 PM
Well, can that man produce a transitional stage between a living dog and a dead dog? There are gaps in his theory!
Posted by: Andrés | September 15, 2007 1:30 PM
Not for anyone involved. In high school, I helped my dad euthenize a couple of dogs (he's a veterinarian). The worst was a little old woman's companion of about 15 years. It was devestating. I could feel it's heart speed up and then stop. I had to leave the room I was crying so hard.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 15, 2007 1:32 PM
I'm always surprised to learn how small the world is.
For the record I didn't identify the guy with PZed, since I recalled that he's a member of the Humane Society. I can't imagine him shooting dogs just because their owners are creationists.
I, on the other hand ... stick to kicking puppies, since I'm a cat person.
Posted by: Sili | September 15, 2007 1:59 PM
We need a new word. Theory is so overladen and abused, it's only useful within the confines of science --- and even there it often gets misused by folks outside of physics, etc.
No one seems to understand that theory is the empirical version of theorem. Since by induction/abduction we can never have absolute certainty, we don't have theorems - instead we have theories.
But since most people are pretty bad with metaphors (they either reify them or dismiss them, since they simply miss them) we need to avoid that.
Is "Darwinian evolution is a strong induction" sufficiently obscure to take a few centuries to destroy? When someone asks, "What does that mean?" one can simply say - "Just like the Laws of Physics".
Posted by: frog | September 15, 2007 2:20 PM
Hmmmmmm ... the phrase "copyright infringement" leaps to mind.
Posted by: CC | September 15, 2007 2:32 PM
The word I prefer to replace "theory" is "explanation."
Posted by: Monado | September 15, 2007 2:59 PM
Well, since Darwin beat a puppy once, it's morally right for evolutionists to do that, isn't it?
Posted by: Andrés | September 15, 2007 3:10 PM
Monado,
"Explanation" is terrible. It doesn't distinguish just-so stories from scientific explanations.
"Biological Organisms seem to change over time because aliens are tweaking our memories" is an explanation of evolutionary evidence -- a bad one -- and even a terrible "theory" (scare quotes, not Theory).
Are Newton's Laws merely a "description" of physics? Or Special Relativity?
Posted by: frog | September 15, 2007 3:25 PM
As full of win as this one is, I like the newest one even better:
Posted by: Chris | September 15, 2007 3:54 PM
Frog
If you will excuse my primative vulgarity what you have written is crap. Theory comes from the Greek and simply means viewpoint. There are many completely valid uses of the word theory outside of the sciences, which is why one should always say "scientific theory" if that is what one is refering to.
Posted by: Thony C. | September 15, 2007 4:10 PM
You may know how to use barbiturates, but you sure as hell do not know how to spell them.
Posted by: Spamsink | September 15, 2007 4:16 PM
Induction, induction... no. How it was arrived at doesn't matter -- it is testable and has been tested thousands of times. Hypothetico-deductivism is the word monster you're looking for.
And it didn't occur to you that the missing t could be a typo?
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 15, 2007 4:42 PM
Just for the record, I would never shoot a dog.
The impression I got was that the IDiots are the ones represented by the dog shooter, and you the one whose dog was shot.
I don't think the sender was trying to imply YOU were the one saying "it's only a theory".
*psst* - that's the OTHER guys who do that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 4:47 PM
David:
"Hypothetico-deduction" is sufficiently monstrous for these purposes - if I get what you're getting at. So then it's settled - we (the World) will henceforth throw out the word theory for scientific theory, and attempt to properly say Hypothetico-deduction.
But still, how evolution was arrived at is the crux of the matter. All empirical rules are arrived at by induction, which makes them distinct from mathematical rules that are arrived at deductively. And once again, a completely different animal from "faith-based" rules, which are extracted from tradition, and "tested" against tradition. The method is the field.
Thony:
Which misses the fucking point (with no excuses). The point is
1: That too few people outside of science understand the distinction between scientific theory, and theory loosely termed so. Even if you always say "Scientific Theory" many people will here "just-a-theory". I've tried too many times to explain to the hoi-polloi that a scientific "Law" is just a very strongly supported "Scientific Theory". It does no good. And we can't start calling every scientific theory a law, without killing the distinction.
2: I was not making an etymological deduction, but a poetic one. The reason that the word "theory" is used in science is not because the greeks used that word for "viewpoint," except in the loosest sense. It is because in English the word Theory sounds like the word Theorem, but not exactly the same (and I assume they both are derived from the same root). You know, Your Obtuseness, since word to idea matching is arbitrary, word choice selection is primarily a poetic function. And there comes the problem - "Scientific Theory" sounds exactly like "just-a-theory", but done in a scientific lab while wearing white coats.
Posted by: frog | September 15, 2007 5:19 PM
SMBC really deserves more recognition. It's currently my favorite webcomic.
Here's another of more blasphemous comics, which is kind of meh by itself, but if you scroll down there's another great jab at creationists:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=798#comic
Posted by: Jeff White | September 15, 2007 8:33 PM
remember, even if they have a high-speed video of you shooting the dog, they can't prove that for each frame the bullet wasn't specially created with the appearance of trajectory. i mean, it appears to move miraculously from one point to another -- where's the transitional frame?
Posted by: arachnophilia | September 15, 2007 10:31 PM
Frog
Both theory and theorem come from a Greek verb meaning "to speculate, to reason, a way of looking etc". Theorem is a speculation and hence "that which is to be proved" in Euclid. Theory was first used in English in the scientific sense in the 17th century with the meaning of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning".
Your explanation of the difference between scientific law and scientific theory is wrong. A scientific law is not superior to but inferior to a scientific theory. Scientific laws are mathematical relationships derived from empirical measurements that only explain how things behave. Scientific theories are attempts to explain why things behave according to the observed scientific laws.
Posted by: Thony C. | September 16, 2007 5:04 AM
But "explanation" is sufficient when we're speaking of ID. It doesn't even have a "just so story". It doesn't have the basic characteristics of an expository essay: Who, What, Where, When, Why, How.
We don't have to restrict that to scientific explanations, either. Take any kind of explanation: historical, esthetic, legal, ... They all have fundamental aspects to them that are lacking in ID. Such as: Some things are more or less likely, given the explanation. Is there anything at all which couldn't be "intelligently designed"?
And it isn't just that they don't happen to have an explanation right now. The program of ID explicitly declines to have any interest in getting around to having an explanation.
Posted by: TomS | September 16, 2007 9:45 AM
"A scientific law is not superior to but inferior to a scientific theory. Scientific laws are mathematical relationships derived from empirical measurements that only explain how things behave. Scientific theories are attempts to explain why things behave according to the observed scientific laws."
Thank-you! I have been searching for a succinct statement covering these terms. Now, if someone could add one for "hypothesis" I'd be all set.
Posted by: Deb | September 17, 2007 1:19 AM
A hypothesis is a suggestion for a scientific theory that has not yet been subjected to testing.
Posted by: Thony C. | September 17, 2007 3:04 AM