…and this is a 
In which I am compared to Einstein
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 6, 2007 11:00 PM, by PZ Myers
I think it was intended to be an unfavorable comparison, but the ambiguity of the phrasing does leave open the possibility that Ben Stein is accusing Einstein of having a closed mind.
What we see below are two views of Intelligent Design's place in science. One quote is from a brilliant, open minded and humble man...the other from a man typical of those who believe that they know better, but who don't have much to offer, other than a closed-mind.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
Albert Einstein (Nobel prize for Physics in 1921)
"Those crazy rascals behind Expelled have some new games they want to play: they've put out a casting call for victims of persecution. It's a pitiful plea, but it will probably net a nice collection of complaints – because it's true. We do reject Intelligent Design from the academy, from science, and from science education, and there's a very good reason for that: it's the same reason we reject astrology, alchemy, creationism, haruspication, necromancy, ornithomancy, and witchcraft from our science courses. Because they aren't science."
PZ Myers, Neo-Darwinist, blog author and Wisconsin professor
A post from "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" spokesperson Ben Stein follows; it continues in the wondrously open – science view of Einstein, and provides an important perspective regarding academic freedom, and the right of every scientist, educator and researcher to pursue the evidence wherever it may lead, free from the persecution of The State, "Big Science" or lesser men wishing to impose an anti-theistic, materialistic worldview on our students, under the guise of "science."
OK, not really. They're trying to say mean things about me. I did have a couple of quick impressions about Stein's remarks, though.
I hate to say it, but Einstein sure could talk like an airy-fairy ditz at times.
It was very nice of them to include enough of my quote to get the full meaning.
The quote is actually from a post where I commend a college student for speaking out against creationist B.S., which makes it a bit ironic.
I stand by my words. Good for me!
WISCONSIN!?!! Damn you, Ben Stein. Damn you to hell.
Politics
Comments
Hahahaha, them's is figh'n words!
Blimey! Can't those people get anything right?
Now, lets see if they blame you for tricking them into saying you're from 'Sonsin.
Exactly the quality of work I'd expect from the anti-science crowd.
Posted by: The Stone | November 6, 2007 11:06 PM
I always knew there was a reason your house wreaks of cheese.
Posted by: Collin Tierney | November 6, 2007 11:07 PM
I see how this game works; take an out-of context quote that skews in your favor from a great scientist about a broad philosophical topic, and compare that to some random quote from your opponent that is focused on a specific non-philosophical argument. One thus 'proves' that your opponent is shallow and petty.
Here, let me demonstrate: the topic is education:
Albert Einstein: "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
Ben Stein: "Bueller?... Bueller?"
Posted by: gg | November 6, 2007 11:22 PM
(And... I'm glad that for once, I got to a thread early enough to reply! :) I've been reading this blog for a couple of years now, since before the move to scienceblogs, but I always feel that the conversations are all played out by the time I have something to say.)
Posted by: liveparadox | November 6, 2007 11:23 PM
Oh, here's an even better Einstein quote on religion:
Albert Einstein: "It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims."
Shorter Einstein, in my view: "The Bible is pseudo-scientific, pseudo-historical SHIT! Get over it!"
Posted by: gg | November 6, 2007 11:26 PM
Science has always left its adherents free to pursue the evidence wherever it may lead. (This may not be literally true in practice, but I think it's accurate enough). As soon as the IDiots provide some, we'll start taking them seriously.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 6, 2007 11:29 PM
Wisconsin?
It could be worse. You could be me (a Michigan grad) and have them say you came from Ohio State.
Posted by: Orac | November 6, 2007 11:29 PM
I lol'd.
Posted by: Alex | November 6, 2007 11:33 PM
From his site:
Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism's life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it's difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.
Wrong.
The Bible has lasted for more than two thousand years. It's full of nutty theories. It presumes to explain everything. It's not going away.
It will last as long as idiots like Stein are around to becomes stupified by its moronic, infantilizing content.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 6, 2007 11:36 PM
I note that the Einstein quote talks about what his "religion" is, not what "science" is. Fair enough. But did he propose teaching his religion as science?
The Maierz quote talks (accurately) about what is not "science".
Unless I'm confused, I thought ID was not about "religion" but was about "science".
Posted by: howard hershey | November 6, 2007 11:38 PM
I don't see how these quotes are two views of ID.
One is a quote of Al Einsteins personal religious views, and the other is a quote of PZ's rejection of ID as science.
As far as I know, Einstein never advocated his religious views be taught as science.
Posted by: Carl | November 6, 2007 11:40 PM
I like the name of his group; "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed." At first I thought it meant that science has banned intelligence in dismissing "Intelligent" Design, but further thought made me realise that it's a rule for membership of the group "EXPELLED," and probably for promoting "Intelligent" Design as well.
Regarding the criticisms towards Einstein, I think it's a shame that we live in a world where it's so dangerous to poetically or allegorically express the feeling of awe and wonderment that comes with science. I would suspect that most of us have felt the way Einstein is trying to express his feelings, but I would certainly never put it that way, for fear of being misinterpreted.
Posted by: Jeremy O'Wheel | November 6, 2007 11:40 PM
Milwaukee? Man, Exstein (Ben) thinks *he* got it goin' on. Typical lawyer low-ball shit.
Posted by: John Danley | November 6, 2007 11:42 PM
That was the part that jumped out at me from the whole piece. I briefly contemplated hiding under my desk to avoid the flames sure to be emanating from my monitor...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | November 6, 2007 11:47 PM
Wisconsin?
At least BS gave you a better University, and you can follow your own.
Posted by: Lettuce | November 6, 2007 11:52 PM
Oh, and as per John Danley...
UW is in Madison.
UWM is in Milwaukee.
Posted by: Lettuce | November 6, 2007 11:54 PM
You're in good company, PZ. Einstein was also quote-mined.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Einstein, 1954
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | November 6, 2007 11:54 PM
Wisconsin will take you!
Posted by: Callandor | November 6, 2007 11:59 PM
I am basically just a dumb-ass with a search engine but I found it oh so easy to find an Einstein quote that has nothing nice to say about the ideology behind ID.
Posted by: Janine | November 7, 2007 12:06 AM
"I always knew there was a reason your house wreaks of cheese."
Um, you mean reeks of cheese right?
Another one to add to "mute point", "unphased" etc,
Posted by: pedant | November 7, 2007 12:09 AM
Einstein's questioning of quantum theory consisted of scientific questions and thought experiments (with due shout-outs to both P and R), not just in philosophical musings. He was wrong about quantum theory, but he was at least wrong correctly.
Posted by: autumn | November 7, 2007 12:30 AM
Wisconsin?
Want some cheese curds with your lutefisk? :)
Posted by: Bardiac | November 7, 2007 12:34 AM
Isn't someone who's "unphased" really just "out of sink"?
Seriously, though: I think it stinks when people reek havoc with the English language like that.
(Thank you. I'll be here all weak.)
Posted by: G | November 7, 2007 12:36 AM
"I hate to say it, but Einstein sure could talk like an airy-fairy ditz at times."
Shit, what are you trying to say here? Don't tell me you believe that all our scientific heroes are/were flawed. I suppose you'd even have us believe that someone like Marie Curie wasn't a virgin and perfect in every way. Blasphemy PZ! Obviously you've been gotten to by unbelievers of the true faith of Atheism. Time to step down to "spend more time with your family". It's not that we don't appreciate your service you know, but...well...
Posted by: Dahan | November 7, 2007 12:55 AM
Ah, dueling Einstein quotes. What fun. Of course what the TV game show host missed was that Einstein would have agreed with PZ's statement that ID is not science. I believe Einstein would have rejected it on the same grounds as PZ.
Big Al had no time for supernatural explanations in science:
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
[Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann]
Posted by: JD | November 7, 2007 1:04 AM
Ben Stein thinks he does have evidence form Intelligent Design.
He looks at himself in the mirror and what he sees is proof to him that he is made in the image of God.
ID proponents regard themselves as all the proof people need that there is a god. They are made in the image of God. They cannot explain their belief in a god unless there is a god to believe in.
They can't see why anybody needs more evidence than that.
Posted by: Steven Carr | November 7, 2007 1:19 AM
--remember, he takes that seriously!
Posted by: Pete | November 7, 2007 1:21 AM
... Einstein was a poet. He spoke in metaphor. He believed in Spinoza's "God" (the Natural Universe)... and he was CONSTANTLY misused by religious nuts even while he was alive.
Nothing he says gives ANY credence to religious people.
What we atheists SHOULD be saying about Einstein is that he, like Spinoza (my "namesake", and whom Einstein LOVED), was USURPING the word "God" from the idiot theists.
To the extent that Einstein "believed" in "God", it was that he believed the universe was majestic.
But that is all. Ben Stein is not qualified to judge the words of a man who deeply understood Spinoza, a man whose work nearly nobody on earth properly understands (and who was vilified far beyond the scope of the New Atheist vilification projects of the religious these days.)
Read up on the correspondence between Spinoza and a former student of his back in the 1600s.
Read it, and enjoy: http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/let7476.htm
Posted by: Spinoza | November 7, 2007 1:23 AM
Make up your mind. :P
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 7, 2007 1:37 AM
When it comes to religious quote-mining, Einstein had more positions than Madonna when she was dating Prince.
This unfortunate circumstance has impact iff one accepts 'Argument from Authority' as a valid logical form.
Even if PZ and Dawkins came to my door claiming that they had brought Darwin back to life using witchcraft (and an octopus), and that Darwin suddenly believed in ID because of Antony Flew's new book, I would still wake tomorrow as an atheist and an Evilutionist.
Pity the muppets who resort to this kind of appeal to celebrity, as well as those whose thought processes lack the clarity not to fall for it.
Posted by: ennui | November 7, 2007 1:50 AM
...
...
Targeted by Ben Stein. BEN STEIN. BEN FUCKING STEIN!!
If it was me, I'd make out my will.
...
Jeez, I read that piece by Stein, and it just seems so ... forced. It's almost like he's selling something. (smirk)
Read the comments. Glen Davidson rips Stein a new ass, in a very long multi-part post.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 7, 2007 1:51 AM
It's an interesting tactic that these IDers are using. Anyone who believes in any kind of god is automatically an IDer! It's bait and switch: they talk about the rejection of ID pseudoscience and then contextualize it as a persecution of religion.
Set aside highly questionable nature of Einstein's personal "religious" beliefs. Even if he was a dyed in the wool theist, this wouldn't mean dick for Stein and Co. and the silly notions they're peddling. Saying that the quasi-mystical musings of a scientist are equivalent to endorsements of Intelligent Design is somewhere near "I invested my retirement in Enron" on the wrongness scale.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 7, 2007 2:03 AM
As a Wisconsinite, I'm flattered that Ben Stein thinks you're one of us, PZ. If only, if only.
Posted by: Chris Hallquist | November 7, 2007 2:34 AM
Let's have a vote; does that make 1.5 asses for Stein, total, or 3?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 7, 2007 2:43 AM
PZ, let's be realistic. The fact they actually kept that much of the context of your quote means they were way over the level of rigor IDists usually employ in their "research." You should be happy they at least managed to spell your name right after exerting themselves that much.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | November 7, 2007 2:56 AM
PZ, if you really suffer from Einstein envy, perhaps you should become less involved with your own family and ditch your trophy wife for an older cousin, preferably one less photogenic but good in the kitchen.
As for Albert being airy in his pronouncements, well, shoot, he is being quote-mined in the classic manner. Here's the remark, in context, from positive atheism:
No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | November 7, 2007 3:15 AM
Here you go, I've added in the necessary ellipses to give the PZ quote the proper creationist touch.
"Persecution.....of ....... Intelligent Design ..... , .... there's a very good reason for that: it's ......science"
Posted by: MartinC | November 7, 2007 3:25 AM
OK, I can't wait to see Expelled now. I'd just love to see how Stein manages to argue that "the State" is persecuting Intelligent Design woos.
Or should I have put quotes around 'argue'?
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | November 7, 2007 3:33 AM
The Expelled blog is a hoot. I loved this one:
"No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx..."
Anyone else having visions of Karl Marx in some kind of supervillain outfit, doing the Magneto laugh as he points his Communism Laser at the world?
Posted by: Darwin's Minion | November 7, 2007 4:23 AM
Well, I am now.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 5:01 AM
Einstein was a poet. He spoke in metaphor.
What is lost by honestly admitting that Einstein had mystic tendencies? He wrote "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." Sorry, but that is woo, plain and simple, and it isn't made any less woo just because it isn't "naive", any more than Ken Miller is free of woo just because he isn't an IDiot.
Posted by: truth machine | November 7, 2007 5:28 AM
What happened to Ben Stein? I think I've said that before here, but he seemed like a smart, decent guy on "Win Ben Stein's Money." I guess my first exposure to him was in Ferris Bueller, so I guess I missed that whole Nixon-speech-writer thing. Does the guy need money that badly?
Posted by: Jeremy | November 7, 2007 5:33 AM
As for Albert being airy in his pronouncements, well, shoot, he is being quote-mined in the classic manner. Here's the remark, in context, from positive atheism:
Sheesh, haven't people learned yet that people sometimes use the same phrase more than once? That is not the correct context of the quote; the text given by Stein appears in Walter Isaacson's book, as a response to "a Colorado banker" who had already received responses from 24 other Nobel prize winners about whether they believed in God. At that time Einstein wrote of "a superior reasoning power", even if he didn't when he spoke to Peter Bucky. But really, what does it matter? By taking Einstein's opinion so seriously, you're just playing into Stein's argument from authority.
Posted by: truth machine | November 7, 2007 5:41 AM
And then John A. Davison shows up to whine about Glen dominating the thread 'as he has attempted to do everywhere else he has been allowed.'
Fortunately, I've taken to unplugging my irony meter before visiting any pro-ID site. Unfortunately, that comment somehow managed to blow it anyway.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 5:44 AM
More from JAD:
Sod the irony meter, I think that one blew something in my brain. Projection like that could put every cinema in the world out of business.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 5:51 AM
What happened to Ben Stein? I think I've said that before here, but he seemed like a smart, decent guy on "Win Ben Stein's Money."
Um, surely you can understand that he was acting on TV, playing a character that just happened to have the name "Ben Stein"? How the hell can you tell from that whether someone is "decent"? In real life, Stein is a right wing pro-life activist and a speech writer for Nixon and Ford who blamed the rise of the Khmer Rouge on "deep throat", Bob Woodward, and Ben Bradlee, because they brought down Nixon by revealing his crimes, somehow ignoring the fact that the rise of the Khmer Rouge was pretty much a direct result of Nixon's policies.
Posted by: truth machine | November 7, 2007 5:53 AM
Does anyone have a proper original source for the Einstein quote in PZ's post? I've heard people doubt its accuracy and would like to check.
Posted by: Coel | November 7, 2007 6:16 AM
Woo attracts woo (isn't that somebody's "law"?), and yep, buried in the comments on Ben's article is this gem:
I haven't applied John Baez's crackpot index, but it's definitely a higher scorer.
Some examples:
Yawns. And on and on and on. Perhaps not a classic, perhaps not completely illucid, but definitely cranky. At the end there's some wonderful crank about using a merry-go-round to accelerate a train to speeds faster than light (spelling as in the original):
(Snickers uncontrollably.) Continuing:
There's some wacky misunderstanding of The Big Bang that seems to go from an explosion in an empty universe to a fully-formed Sun and Earth without all those boring galaxies, other planets, stars, and so on. Or something. That section is even more illucid than the rest.
And this is a supporter of Ben's nonsense? Well, Ok, to be fair, the crank--who is clearly not a physicist--only claims there is hint of a creator. Yet it's easy to imagine her/him/it also feeling persecuted since everyone is laughing at her/his/its maths-free misunderstandings.
Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 6:23 AM
"Thank you. I'll be here all weak."
Bravo
Posted by: pedant | November 7, 2007 6:48 AM
Sorry, Lettuce, but as an alumna, I can tell you that the real UW is in Seattle!
Posted by: thalarctos, UW 2006 | November 7, 2007 6:59 AM
Weird - that quote doesn't totally misrepresent your views! Is Stein feeling unwell?
Posted by: Paul Crowley | November 7, 2007 7:02 AM
ROFL
blf, is this the same guy that claims to be a physicist? Cg is also only an idea, mathematically convenient.
Posted by: True Bob | November 7, 2007 7:07 AM
Orac (#7) - So after being crushed by mighty Appalachian State, you resent being lumped with the folks who were just crushed by mighty Findlay?
Posted by: Jud | November 7, 2007 7:10 AM
Hey, you know what is really fun about quote-mining dead physicists? They are dead and can't come back to blog sites and correct the misinterpretations of their words. As pointed out in other comments, Einstein was not intending for all of those ID'ers to let god into every little gap and call it science.
I don't really care what Einstein thought about a deist God, he started a physics revolution that changed the 20th century for the better.
And while Wisconsin is not a bad place, PZ Myers is ours, until and if he gets a better offer from another state. Stein can't force the issue without consulting PZ's agent.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | November 7, 2007 7:28 AM
Ugh, reading some of the comments on that blog make me nauseous. I am thinking of seeing the movie, but I think I might scream in the theater.
Posted by: Kcanadensis | November 7, 2007 7:29 AM
Indeed it came close to that. The theory of evolution doesn't. It explains the diversity of life, not "life, the universe, and everything". That's why it's a bit more complicated than "42", though not much.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 7, 2007 7:35 AM
Benstein's Monster wrote:
Pot, kettle. ID arose in, what, the Stone Age? The Pointed Stick Age?
Posted by: True Bob | November 7, 2007 7:38 AM
I particularly like that they italicized the important words in the Einstein quote. 'Cause that's exactly how he meant it I bet...
Posted by: Saber | November 7, 2007 8:12 AM
True Bob (#51) asks me:
AFAIK, yes, it's the same crank. In my previous comment (#47), the first quote was a comment the "physicist" left on Ben Stein's blog giving the URL from which the subsequent quotes where all taken.
Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 8:14 AM
Relative to discussions about evolution, the readers of this blog may be interested in a discussion going on on a thread on Jason Rosenhouses' blog between several people and a nincompoop calling himself Jon S. One has to read the droolings of Mr. Jon S (who is a YEC) which are unbelievable in their puerile stupidity. He makes Ben Stein look like an intellectual giant by comparison, a task I would have thought impossible.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/10/in_which_i_agree_with_michael.php#comments
Posted by: SLC | November 7, 2007 8:21 AM
Ben Stein demonstrates why a too open mind makes your brain fall out - does he really want something taught in science education that is as bad as astrology et cetera?
[Swirls coffee cup, as the current supply of goat intestines has run out, looks down on the espresso remains: Yes, he may do so. Guess his brains and goat intestines are able to come to the same conclusion.]
Thank you, truth machine, I was beginning to wonder why I googled two almost identical quote-mines.
The one from Peter Bucky's book seems to be spread by being quote-mined in an encyclopedia over apologetics. Pharyngula commenter Susan claims:
To Stein's defense it seems he provides more of the original context as related here.
IMO this is much a folk tale. Einstein was instrumental in founding both atomic and quantum theory, placing the first on sound mathematical grounds (explaining Brownian motion) and proving that Planck's quanta was individually observable (in the photo-electric effect).
His disputes with likewise philosophically minded Bohr led to the early robust enough (just don't ask what an observer is, but what it does) formulation of the classic Copenhagen interpretation, and his EPR proposal led to that Bell tests experiments rather conclusively revealed that QM has no hidden variables.
What was more sad was that his later exploits were distant from where the then current physics were active. It is first with the advent of quantum gravity theories that his (and others) ideas of higher-dimensional theories have returned in force. One might perhaps frame it as that he was way too far ahead.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | November 7, 2007 8:57 AM
The most annoying part is that he almost always mentions the reason that ID isn't science in his own diatribes (but then completely ignores it and has another glass of whine):
"the right of every scientist, educator and researcher to pursue the evidence wherever it may lead"
Yes, exactly, follow the research where it leads, B.S., not where you want it to go. Can you mention one study, ever, that points to a nonmaterial or supernatural cause rather than to a natural one? Can you point to one discontinuity in DNA, one genuine chimera, or even one "irreducably complex" mechanism that puts a question to modern biological science? No, of course not. Blood clotting, HIV, even Micheal Behe's pet flagellum got whipped by a table full of evidence in Dover.
There are things we do not know, yes, but that is not evidence for "intelligent design", it is a call for more research. Maybe you should do some, rather than giving up on the starting line and bitching about how unfair it is that the fellows who actually run the race reap the rewards.
The history of science is the history of naturalistic findings and their resultant theories replacing incoherent superstitions and religious dogma. We have no reason to expect any different in the future. There have been no studies that indicate the supernatural, and natural science is far from stuck on any issue. So, if there is no evidence to follow, B.S., why are you pushing it there?
A "neat idea" with no evidence does not a science make.
Posted by: Jason Failes | November 7, 2007 9:04 AM
PZ? I can't believe you didn't get the memo. Morris, MN is now a part of Wisconsin. You see, we lease it from Minnesota for things like bachelor parties, weddings, and experiments with explosive cheese.
Posted by: Dan the Other | November 7, 2007 9:08 AM
Oh, come on people. You've all seen Einstein's famous E=MC^God. And everyone knows that the "G" in the Einstein Field Equations stands for "God". And who hasn't marveled over Einstein's picture of God sitting there (bored out of his tree) pinging electrons off a bit of photoelectric material as light strikes it.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | November 7, 2007 9:15 AM
So Morris is where I can get some of the famous Lancre Blue?
Posted by: blf | November 7, 2007 9:18 AM
A few Einstein comments above, but Janine's I think hammers it home:
"To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress."
This is as clear-cut of a non-ID view as there ever could be. If this quote is legit (and you always have to be concerned about Einstein being quoted), then it flies in the face of any IDer thinking that Einstein would support their farce in any way.
Posted by: Pablo | November 7, 2007 9:21 AM
All too true. But it did so in the philosophical way of not doing physics but trying to "explain it". I read part of Engel's discourse (fragments of Dialectics of Nature IIRC) on the subject. The nicest I can say is that as a physicist Friedrich Engels was a good social scientist..., come to think of it, he was.
When I was trying to locate the name of Engel's text, I happened to stumble over the fact that a young JBS Haldane was a devoted communist:
I could criticize Engel's text if I had it in my hand. But this time I believe it is enough to consider that, unfair or not, in comparison we all know how well biology and especially evolution was treated by the later communists, which at least in some measure leaned on marxism.
Yup, dogma of all kinds is the source of brain rot. But for most epidemic types we are left with some immunity, as is the case here. Unfortunately religion is far more insidious.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | November 7, 2007 9:26 AM
Thanks for that, blf. Thanks a lot.
That was painful.
I think this part:
broke something in my brain.Posted by: John Marley | November 7, 2007 9:30 AM
By the way, PZ, I just want to let you (and everyone) know that Ben Stein's feces slinging isn't exactly limited to politics and science. Take a look at what Yves Smith (one of my favorate econ bloggers) has to say about BS's BS:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/10/ben-stein-and-space-aliens.html
Posted by: Sunny | November 7, 2007 9:44 AM
Evidently Haldane can spell, but I can't: Engels, Engels'.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | November 7, 2007 9:51 AM
Shorter Einstein, in my view: "The Bible is pseudo-scientific, pseudo-historical SHIT! Get over it!"
You don't have to guess. "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."
There's also: "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic." Not too ID-friendly.
Posted by: Citizen Z | November 7, 2007 9:54 AM
Those guys over at the Discovery Institute must be face-palming every other day. Every time Ben Stein opens his mouth he basically claims ID to be religious in nature. They really picked a terrible spokesman.
Posted by: zer0 | November 7, 2007 9:56 AM
Einstein's zombie: Well, it's spelled G-O-D, but it's pronounced "the orderly harmony of what exists".
PZ: You sure can talk like an airy-fairy ditz at times.
Ben Stein: Ah, anti-semitism!
PZ: No it's not. And that's not even proper theism! It's made of polystyrene!
Posted by: windy | November 7, 2007 9:56 AM
It's probably a moo point, but, I would hope that none of these cranks are actually violating Albert Einstein, lest they wreak of the grave. Though I should say that what remains of Uncle Al would be unphased.
I read all the way through the "potter's wheel to the stars" crank. I give it 5 out of 8 points corners on the TimeCube Scale.
Posted by: brandon | November 7, 2007 9:57 AM
Luckily, religion made up for it by ruining the last 6000 years or so for the rest of us.
Posted by: zer0 | November 7, 2007 10:06 AM
#71 wrote: "You don't have to guess."
The part I was guessing about was the use of profanity! Einstein was typically more polite to people than they deserved. :) Excellent quote, by the way. It really shows how idiotic BS is, that somewhere around 10 different people in this blog post alone, with a simple Google search, managed to find about 10 different quotations that directly refute BS's view of Einstein.
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic."
However, by focusing on anthropomorphic gods, Einstein leaves open the possibility of a great cephalopod creator!
Posted by: gg | November 7, 2007 10:27 AM
Probably suits them just fine, actually. They know that if people actually believed that ID has nothing to do with religion, almost all of their support would disappear instantly. All they really need is plausible deniability for legal reasons.
Of course, enough of their followers are morons that they can never actually achieve even that. See Dover, for instance.
Posted by: MartinM | November 7, 2007 10:37 AM
For perspective, from the same source:
www.einsteinandreligion.com/bucky.html
Posted by: John Pieret | November 7, 2007 11:05 AM
Thank you Torbjörn you saved me some typing. Just to ram home your very, very correct observations; Einstein received the Nobel Prize for founding Quantum Theory and not for Relativity and Bohr's is on record as saying that Einstein through his penetrating and accurate scientific criticisms of the Copenhagen Interpretation probably contributed more to the growth and establishment of Quantum Mechanics than any other scientist.