You know who's got a hard job? : Pharyngula

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Search

Profile

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)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give.

[Robert G. Ingersoll]

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« Silly scurrilousness against the sanctimonious | Main | Bustin' out all over »

More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!

You know who's got a hard job?

Category: Creationism • Humor
Posted on: December 31, 2007 4:38 PM, by PZ Myers

It's those poor creation scientists.

Jump to end

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/60001

Comments

Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | December 31, 2007 4:48 PM

Wow! No comments? You guys are slacking!

Of course they have a hard job. That's why they've produced nothing but air (of the extremely warm variety).

Don

Posted by: Daniel | December 31, 2007 4:51 PM

Oh man! Too awesome. I've been a mostly silent reader here for a while. Founder of a fledgling secular humanist movement in Columbus Ohio.

Imagine my surprise today to see Malfunction Junction link here on pharyngula!

The writer of that webcomic is a good friend of mine and actually lives two blocks away.

I guess it really is a small world. I'd still hate to vacuum it.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 31, 2007 4:52 PM

Sure, except when "it looks designed," using no empirical data to back it up, passes for "results" in ID or "creation science," it sort of balances out.

You don't even have to publish, as PCID has demonstrated, all you really have to do is bitch and moan about how you've been "suppressed" by the scientists who actually get results.

That said, a little bit of science appears to be done by creationists, virtually none by the IDists. That's because some of the detailed issues don't threaten creationists' views of geology, while everything about biology militates against any sort of "design" in biology (the creationists have it easy by comparison, since geology is not supposed to show design, only a mythical flood capable of magical separations of, say, the iridium-rich layer--still better than trying to show design in evolved organisms).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Zarquon | December 31, 2007 5:08 PM

Creation science == making shit up

It's ridiculously easy.

Posted by: Janine | December 31, 2007 5:49 PM

What is so hard, it is all revealed knowledge. No need to test. No need to know. But damn, it must be hard on the knees, constantly praying to the big sky daddy to reveal that knowledge.

Posted by: Dan | December 31, 2007 5:51 PM

My comments get chucked in the moderation bin, Don. So, commenting is something I try to avoid.

Posted by: Stanton | December 31, 2007 6:00 PM

Isn't "creation scientist" a nonsensical oxymoron of monstrous proportions similar to, say, a "carnivorous vegan"?

Posted by: Richard | December 31, 2007 6:34 PM

What are they talking about; all the test tubes are filled with faith; that's the easy part. The hard part is keeping the straight face whil telling us that we need to prove that they're NOT full of faith.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | December 31, 2007 6:39 PM

My best friend works in a pathology lab so I asked her if she'd ever seen a test tube full of faith. Apparently she has but they prefer to refer to them as "faecal specimen jars".

#10

Posted by: Janine | December 31, 2007 6:49 PM

Bride of Shrek, are you saying that faith equals shit. Well, I have to disagree. Shit is useful. Can you use faith as fertilizer?

#11

Posted by: thalarctos | December 31, 2007 7:00 PM

My best friend works in a pathology lab so I asked her if she'd ever seen a test tube full of faith. Apparently she has but they prefer to refer to them as "faecal specimen jars".

Heh, my friend from Melbourne also worked for a while in what he called "the poo lab".

Apparently, in an unrelated story, they're now able to do fecal transplants. I now have this mental image of all the scientists sitting around the poo lab, playing chicken with proposing research ideas: "You think *that's* something, Bill; well, get this: Fecal transplants!".

Game ends when the loser can't top the last research idea, or when the review board steps in...

#12

Posted by: Boosterz | December 31, 2007 7:00 PM

Creation science = failed legal strategy #2.

Strategy #1 was to tell the judge to give them equal time or they'd damn him to hell. Strike 1.

Strategy #2 was to tack the word science to the end of the word creation and tell the judge they were all sciency now so let them in. Strike 2.

Strategy #3 was where they figured out that leaving the word "creation" in the name was too much of a tip off, so they changed it to "intelligent design" and tried again. Would have worked better if they'd learned how to use MS Word and didn't leave the transitional fossil 'cdesign proponetist' in their book. Strike three.

Unfortunately the creationists have refused to leave the field and are still screaming and kicking dirt at the umpire.

#13

Posted by: Robert Madewell | December 31, 2007 7:16 PM

Hey, it's hard work smashing all those transitional fossils to powder, so there won't be any. Also, building strawmen is pretty hard too and picking cherries is back breaking work.

I must admit that I find the "cdesign proponentsist" very funny. I think most word processors have a search and replace function. Would have been better to use that than to hunt down all occurances of "creationist" by eye then highlight and type. There is no easy way for creationists.

#14

Posted by: txjak | December 31, 2007 8:53 PM

Just wait. Pretty soon you may be able to get a Masters degree online in creation science from the ICR in Texas -- see http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm

#15

Posted by: wildcardjack | December 31, 2007 10:18 PM

Thank Myers, I needed another rational commentary comic to add to my list of watchables.

#16

Posted by: Carlie | December 31, 2007 11:18 PM

Peter Sagal's new book, The Book of Vice, has a chapter on lying, and it's interesting - he goes through several rules that need to be followed to lie and get everyone to believe you, and it reads exactly like a primer for "Creation Scientists". (and it's a great read in general, too.

#17

Posted by: jfatz | December 31, 2007 11:35 PM

Thought you'd like that one. ;-)

#18

Posted by: Bob O'H | January 1, 2008 2:15 AM

I must admit that I find the "cdesign proponentsist" very funny. I think most word processors have a search and replace function.

Ah, the youth of today. Back in the iron age, when Pandas was being written (1987 for those who aren't senile enough that they might actually remember that year), word processors were only starting to appear. It could be that they weren't using one, or that they were, but hadn't worked out how to use all the features. Or there wasn't a search/replace, or it was just too slow.

Bob

#19

Posted by: QrazyQat | January 1, 2008 4:41 AM

or it was just too slow

They were obviously too dumb to use Xywrite, the 80s word processing antidote to slow.

#20

Posted by: Willo the Wisp | January 1, 2008 6:03 AM

Of course, cdesign proponentsists also have the difficult task of proving that ID is different from creation science. That's a tough cookie.

#21

Posted by: Richard Harris | January 1, 2008 6:04 AM

Janine, they're not constantly praying to the big sky daddy to reveal that knowledge. They get it out of a compilation of texts, written by primitive camel-herders, the originals of which are thousands of years old, that's gone through several translations, with text omitted at the whim of people who assembled it hundreds of years ago.

Jumpin' Jeezus, you'd think that anyone with half a brain could see that that knowledge is kind of dodgy.

PS Before I get accused of racism, I'd just like to say that I don't think that there's anything intrinsically wrong with being a camel-herder. It's just that you wouldn't think that they'd have any special knowledge about anything other than camel-herding.

#22

Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | January 1, 2008 9:57 AM

Richard Harris @#21,

You've got it all wrong. They weren't primitive camel herders. They were primitive goat herders.

PS Before anyone accuses ME of being racist, I do not think there is anything wrong with being a goat or camel herder either.

PPS What's up with #22? Land on the wrong thread or something?

#23

Posted by: Robert Madewell | January 3, 2008 11:21 AM

Richard Harris #21, Jews would never herd camels. Camels are unclean (Leviticus 11:4) because they chew cud, but divide not the hoof. Wait, don't camels have a split hoof? Huh? Maybe camels were different 3000 years ago. Rabbits chew cud 3000 years ago too (11:5-6). There were 4 legged birds back then too (11:20), and 4 legged bugs (11:23). Man, I'm getting a headache! Never read the 11th chapter of leviticus on an empty stomach.

#24

Posted by: Don | January 3, 2008 11:26 AM

Thou shalt not count the legs.

#25

Posted by: Kiev apartments | August 11, 2009 1:46 PM

The blog probably very good