Pharyngula

Allow me to be the first of many who will nominate Mrs Tilton of course! Thanks!

Posted by: 386sx | February 15, 2008 4:31 PM

I hope that it's okay if I treat this as an open thread, considering that the subject matter is rather hodgepodge. I wrote this earlier in another thread, but many would not be likely to see it, and I think it's interesting, mostly because some of the bigger guns are being trained on that wretched propaganda piece coming out in April:

Here's an interesting piece on Stein's idiocy, not so much interesting because it adds to the responses given, but because it's from the Britannica Blog:

How Low Can Ben Stein Go? (To the Maligning of Charles Darwin) Robert McHenry - February 15th, 2008

You laughed at his affectless droning high school economics teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off ; you may have enjoyed his repartee with Jimmy Kimmel or his command of trivial knowledge on "Win Ben Stein's Money"; you may even have run out and bought some eyedrops on his recommendation. But don't ask him about evolution, Charles Darwin, science, or any related topic, for on those Ben Stein is an ignoramus. Since he is demonstrably intelligent, it must be concluded that he is a willful ignoramus.

He evidently stars in a soon-to-be-released movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which makes some sort of case for "Intelligent [sic] Design" and decries the teaching of evolutionary science in public schools. The producers of the movie have built a website to help promote their work, and the compliant Mr. Stein has written a little essay to help us place "Darwinism" in historical context. Let's have a look.

He begins, as any high school essay must, with a broad theme:

It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.

Seems harmless enough, though we're not sure what "partake" means, exactly, or how much is "largely."

By way of illustration he gives us - guess which theoretician plucked, just offhand, from the entire history of mankind? Sonofagun! Karl Marx. What were the odds?

"[M]ajor theories," the avuncular Ben tells us, "...come from the era in which they arose." Yes, yes, I see your hands; tautology. But give him a break. Here comes the minor premise.

Darwinism...is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

And therefore.... Well, he doesn't say. This is called an enthymeme, or a rhetorical syllogism. The idea is that the conclusion gains force from seeming to occur spontaneously to the reader. This is the sort of thing that gives rhetoric a bad name.

But why isn't "Darwinism" offered as a perfect example of, say, the Victorian Age? Or of the Steam Age? Or the Age of the Clipper Ship? Is it possible that Stein is loading the argument just a tad?

A little bit later he tells us that "Imperialism had a short but hideous history - of repression and murder." He seems to think that the British, and specifically the Victorians, invented imperialism. This idea would surprise the Incas and the Arabs and the Spanish and the Portuguese, among others around the world. He seems also to believe that the results of European imperialism were uniformly terrible. Some were, some were not. There is surely something to be said for the spread of democracy and the rule of law and of technology such as the railroad and the telegraph. With difficulties but with clear lines of descent, such generally decent modern states as India, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States all arose out of imperialist action.

Stein has pulled a second fast one on us here, though. He has equivocated. He has said, in effect, "Marx wrote a theory; things done in its name were very bad. Darwin wrote a theory; [fill in the blanks]." He conflates two distinct senses of the word "theory," one of them appropriate when a chap sits in the Reading Room of the British Museum, gazing up at the cobwebs, and concocts a story to explain all of human behavior and history, the other appropriate when another chap spends years in painstaking observation of specific phenomena and finds a way not only to explain by a single principle all that he has observed but to predict phenomena not yet seen. This latter method you may recognize as what we call "science."

But Stein has found his horse now, and off he rides. "Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism." No demonstration or even quotation is given in support of that astonishing charge, but suffice it to say that The Origin of Species contains no such argument. Much about birds and such, but not a word on who should rule Africa.

And now we are at full gallop:

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

By now the term "Darwinism" has lost all connection to the theory of biological speciation as propounded by the quiet man in his study in Kent, and Stein has simply lost his mind.

What does it mean, for example, to speak of "Darwinism...mixed with Imperialism"? Is this a chemical compound of some sort? Was "Darwinism" relatively innocent until some proportion of "Imperialism" got mixed in with it? Then what to make of "perhaps"? And who did the mixing? There is a clue to this last question in the mention of "Social Darwinism," an inapt phrase that is most often associated with the sociology of Herbert Spencer. Inconveniently, however, Spencer had first laid out his basic views in Social Statics, published eight years before Darwin's great work.

It sorts out this way: Charles Darwin, after long study and thought, proposed a mechanism by which biological species differentiate. The mechanism was "natural selection," which supposes that some of the observed variations among members of a species render the possessor more able to survive and propagate. By that means the variant becomes dominant. This is one side.

On the other hand is a wildly diverse assortment of economists, sociologists, political writers, and plain cranks who share in some degree the belief that certain physical characteristics, mental capacities, behavioral habits and so on render certain human individuals or certain groups more able to succeed in the search for survival and security. They have various and equally diverse notions of what inferences follow from this. But someone notices that there is at least a linguistic similarity between these thoughts and Charles Darwin's theory and thus invents the label "Social Darwinism" to pin on the lot.

On the third hand, yet other people, possibly or possibly not influenced by reading works by some of the second crowd but quite clearly capable of evil without any such assistance, perpetrate great horrors.

And for these horrors Ben Stein wishes to blame the theory of evolution by natural selection. He produces a shambles of an essay in the course of which he manages to malign the name of Darwin by association with both Communism and Naziism, a remarkable day's work after which any civilized man would knock off early and call for cocktails. But not Ben. No, Ben toils on. By the time he's through, every kook and monster who ever used the word "evolution" has become the satanic spawn of Charles Darwin. This sort of thing is doubtless effective in a sermonette at the Discovery Institute, but as a contribution to the public discourse it is simply shameful.

And what is all this perverseness in aid of? In support of a set of beliefs that parades as a scientific alternative to "Darwinism" even though it is supported by no evidence, while evolution by natural selection is controverted by none. More subversively, it is a set of beliefs held by people whose aim is to prevail not in the scientific journals or the universities but at the ballot box and in the public schools. Like Ben Stein's arguments, they are not to be trusted.

blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2008/02/how-low-can-ben-stein-go/

I like it when Britannica (blog) calls Stein an "ignoramus," albeit restricted to science and related topics (he could have added at least several more), since that's the only reasonable conclusion to be made re that blithering anti-freedom operative.

Kristine added this information about McHenry on AtBC

Robert McHenry, author of the Britannica blog piece, editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica for five years, wrote the book How to Know and maintains a website of his articles, including an open letter to Pat Robertson regarding the Dover decision.

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

Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 15, 2008 4:42 PM

I may be suffering from the frequency (and recency) illusion, but it's my impression that Glen D(avidson) has been everywhere lately. And always thorough and tenacious - even if I have not read everything in all the comments.

Posted by: Sili | February 15, 2008 4:52 PM

There are so many names, of course, but there can be no finer sight in the blogosphere than checking a few day old thread, and scrolling down, only to find about 30 posts by this guy - taking names (of literally everyone) with his barbed rhetoric and kick-you-in-the-nuts grandiloquence.

I am of course talking about Truth Machine.

I apologize to all of those who have suffered permanent mental destruction at the blood stained hands of this barbarian, but I have never laughed so hard as when I read a wonderfully written, intellectually stimulating retort on one thread, only to be met at the end with, "moron"!

He really is a sight to behold, and I shudder at the thought that he would ever respond to anything that I have to say.

(I will probably be called a fucking shit-headed moron for even voting for him. That's hardcore!)

Posted by: Damian | February 15, 2008 5:00 PM

Yeah, I'll add my vote for Mrs. Tilton. But only because I'm hoping to muscle out Mr. Tilton.

Oh, and though I link to it in every comment, I might as well cast my blog under the blogroller. (I think there's an RSS feed--or is that RRSP? Dammit, I hate tax time.)

Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 15, 2008 5:13 PM

Thanks for your willingness to update your blogroll so generously PZ. Wow, what a lot of new blogs to visit!

Posted by: Sam | February 15, 2008 5:15 PM

Just a quick comment to say thanks very much for adding me to the blogroll!

Posted by: Jonathan | February 15, 2008 5:16 PM

I'd like to nominate Glen D. So often I find myself reading a comment and before I even get to the name, I'm nodding or--even better--I'm learning something or looking at something in a new way. Cheers, Glen, and thanks for your well-expressed thoughts!

Posted by: Form&Function | February 15, 2008 6:06 PM

Never mind, I found myself under "Minnesotans."

I am still sticking with A.J. Milne.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | February 15, 2008 6:26 PM

Thanks for adding my blog PZ. Good luck on the Molly selection.

Posted by: Matt LaCrosse | February 15, 2008 6:27 PM

"Also, you may recall that story of a large snake that tried to swallow a large alligator ... this is how I feel right now."

Before you moan of indigestion--
Hold your very thoughts in question--
Listen to this small suggestion,
Else I speak in vain:
Though it seems a painful flaw,
The contents of your swollen craw
Would make another stand in awe
At what it might contain!
Just as any ripe tomato,
Apple core, or chopped potato
Kiwi fruit or sugared date--oh,
Anything at all--
Could hold a glimpse of the Messiah;
Mary's face, in ripe papaya,
Buddha in a chicken thigh, a
God-stain on the wall,
So, too, your bloated blogroll list
May hold--indeed, I must insist
Holds diamonds that cannot be missed
By those who thirst for knowledge;
Your blogroll holds such varied sites
And wondrous wise, it thus invites
The reader with much more, by rights,
Than might be found in college!
This piddling little stomach-ache--
The crocodile that filled the snake--
May seem much more than you can take,
But do not be too nervous:
Although your gut may swell and split
With more than you suspect will fit,
Please heed my word, when I submit:
'Twould be a public service.

(Many good Mollites this month, but my vote goes to October Mermaid. Always had a soft spot for mermaids....)

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | February 15, 2008 7:57 PM

I'll nominate Truth Machine as well, having personally insulted him (what, he can't use his real name?) and been insulted by him (so I'm epistemologically naive ... fugetabatit!).

Posted by: Norm | February 15, 2008 8:19 PM

Mrs. Tilton and Truth Machine both deserve Mollies. Let's not be stingy with them.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 15, 2008 9:43 PM

Glen Davidson. Engaging, informative writing.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | February 15, 2008 10:59 PM

Another thanks from a newly blogrolled.

Tom Levenson

Posted by: Tom Levenson | February 15, 2008 11:05 PM

As a first time voter in this Molly contest, I'll nominate the aptly named Truth Machine...
Not sure if he is really human, but who cares, his written ejaculations are always to the point.

Posted by: negentropyeater | February 16, 2008 3:19 AM

Just realised that I was inconsistent, I should have written;

"As a first time voter in this Molly contest, I'll nominate the aptly named Truth Machine...
Not sure if it is really human, but who cares, its written ejaculations are always to the point."

Truth Machine, are you really human ?

And congratulations to Mothra :

"Woe betide one from whom logic strays,
a wayfarer lost on the web's highways, for. . .
The Truth Machine comes pounding, pounding, pounding.
The Truth Machine comes pounding, relentless in debate."

Perfect !

Posted by: negentropyeater | February 16, 2008 4:36 AM

Er, "makes me". (This machine self-corrects.)

Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 5:23 AM

Another self-correction: I mistook mothra's effort as Cuttlefish's. I feel obliged to nominate mothra for that effort.

And no, Norm, I can't use my real name ... to do so would have some highly undersirable results (not just for me) that I'm not about to detail. And "what, he can't use his real name?" (which isn't quite what you originally wrote) isn't an insult, it's just stupid and utterly irrelevant. And if you're insulted by my saying that you're epistemologically naive, you have mighty thin skin ... especially when I didn't even direct it specifically at you. So really, you're being an idiot. (But at least now you have a couple of real insults to point at.)

Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 5:54 AM

"other than yourself"

Actually, you can't even know that for certain -- but certainty is an absurd standard for empirical knowledge.

Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 6:05 AM

Well, I'd say that you strongly display many of the key features of carbon-based consciousness: sarcasm, irony, misdirected hostility, ... I'd say, definitely a real person.
Actually, so far I've seen, differentiating a person from a machine is trivial, even in an Internet chat room, and in total anonymity.

What do you think TM, how long will it take before it becomes less trivial ?

Posted by: negentropyeater | February 16, 2008 6:26 AM

misdirected hostility

Do you know that it's misdirected? And, more to the point, do you know that it's hostility?

What do you think TM, how long will it take before it becomes less trivial ?

Longer than I predict.

Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 7:26 AM

Thanks for rolling me, PZ!

Posted by: Humble Woodcutter | February 16, 2008 8:50 AM

Add my vote for Mrs. Tilton. I can't point to a specific post but at least twice this month I noticed her well-reasoned and and level-headed comments.

Posted by: Lana | February 16, 2008 10:44 AM

Though each month there are a Molly deserving throng of excellent posters one invariably stands out. However marginally more it might be and whether I always agree with them or not, for me, this month again, it has to be TM.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | February 16, 2008 1:01 PM

That link to 'Evolved and Rational' made me think that it sure is a reincarnation of some other blog that was recently closed. Hmm...

Posted by: jalyun | February 16, 2008 1:31 PM