…and this is a 
The hopeless inanity of Egnor
Category: Godlessness • Kooks
Posted on: March 30, 2008 8:54 PM, by PZ Myers
Michael Egnor, that neurosurgeon whose tenuous grip on rationality makes him so popular with the creationists, thinks he has a gotcha moment with some notorious atheist. That rude godless fellow, who is me, said this, which is accurate:
…greater science literacy, which is going to lead to the erosion of religion, and then we'll get this nice positive feedback mechanism going where as religion slowly fades away we'll get more and more science to replace it and that will displace more and more religion which will allow more and more science in and we'll eventually get to the point where religion has taken that appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course. And if you separate out the ethical message from religion — what have you got left — you got — you got a bunch of fairy tales, right?
Here's Egnor's foolish interpretation of that comment — and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of dogmatic Christians interpret it the same way.
In the midst of a furious national debate about intelligent design, Darwinism, and metaphysical bias and indoctrination in science education, one has to wonder why Dr. Myers would state plainly that the agenda of Darwinists is to advance atheism in the classroom. Why would Dr. Myers state unequivocally on film that a fundamental goal of science education is the suppression of religious belief?
The most parsimonious explanation is that he means it.
What nonsense. I did not "state unequivocally on film that a fundamental goal of science education is the suppression of religious belief." I do not peddle atheism in the classroom, and am actually very careful, since I am a vocal atheist in the blogosphere, to reassure my students that apostasy is not required to get an "A" in my classes, and that they are free to hold whatever religious beliefs they want — the biology classroom is about evidence, not belief, and explanations supported by logic, not revelation.
I do think science erodes faith, but not because I hammer students with doctrinaire atheism; I don't need to. Here's a little anecdote I've told a few people that illustrates my attitude.
I was once in an argument with a staunch creationist (a not uncommon experience) in which he berated me, among a multitude of godless liberal college professors, for atheist indoctrination in the classroom…just like Michael Egnor. He was upset because, not unreasonably, people with his beliefs fear to send their children to those reputable colleges because they'll come home changed and in doubt, and questioning the faith that they work so hard to instill. He thought the same thing, that our classes were places where we actively suppress religion.
I told him that I never criticize his religion in the classroom, nor do I push atheism. Instead, it's like this: what he does with his religion is the equivalent of telling his kids that the sky is green, and worse, assuring them that this is a fundamental tenet of their religion and that the whole structure comes crashing down if they question it. They get in my classroom, and I don't tell them their religion is wrong — I tell them to open their eyes and look up.*
That's where science hurts religion. We have ideals of skepticism and empiricism that do conflict with most religions — I know, a bunch of you will tell me that your religion allows for those values, too, and I'll argue with you a different time — and that's where the antagonism arises. I don't claim the fundamental goal of science education is the suppression of religious belief — the fundamental goal of science education is to question everything. It's merely a side effect and their own damn fault that religion fares poorly when subjected to criticism.
*I wish I could claim that my crushing reply silenced my opponent and he rethought everything he claimed about science, but of course it didn't — intransigent creationists never think. Instead, he tried to argue, "well, what if the sky is green, and your unspiritual eyes simply can't see it?" Etc., etc., etc. And so it goes.
Comments
You're too generous. I'm fairly sure he's just a liar.
Posted by: MartinM | March 30, 2008 9:04 PM
"A kind answer turns away wrath."
Diplomacy.....
....anyone?
...anyone???
Posted by: wnelson | March 30, 2008 9:04 PM
Religious people would find themselves and their religions less in conflict with science if they would simply stop making guesses about the world and pretending it is knowledge. Far more often than not, it is the religious that cross the NOMA line, not the scientists.
Posted by: Science Avenger | March 30, 2008 9:09 PM
PZ wrote:
Alas, no metaphor can really communicate a precise idea. The guy had no reference by which to interpret what "open their eyes and look up" really meant... or what a slow process that turns out to be.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 30, 2008 9:14 PM
And please explain to us why we should be diplomatic towards people who literally worship their own stupidity + ignorance, and who prove themselves utterly untrustworthy at every opportunity?
Posted by: Stanton | March 30, 2008 9:17 PM
You'll note that Egnor misquoted Myers. Science literacy transmogrified into Darwinists.
He set up a feeble strawman and pushed it over.
BTW, what does Egnor suggest we do about science, science literacy, and the basis of our US civilization. Scrap it, hunt down anyone with a library card, and head on back to the Dark Ages. Probably.
Posted by: raven | March 30, 2008 9:21 PM
Also, wnelson, why does Professor Myers need to listen to you about diplomacy, when you also insist that he should give up teaching Biology and go into Philosophy because he's a metaphorical "leper"?
Posted by: Stanton | March 30, 2008 9:24 PM
Diplomacy.....
....anyone?
...anyone???
been there, done that, even with this particular fool of fools.
it always starts with the olive branch of:
"I'm sure you might have been mistaken - have you looked at the research in this area?"
and the inevitable response from egnorites:
"I don't need too. You just make all this stuff up off the top of your head, then publish it! It makes no sense, and that is why we will topple your darwinisioreligionlikenaziism..."
you know what?
fuck you for not even bothering to find out the fact that it isn't the scientists that have failed to try out the diplomacy angle.
It's the creobots that have come with pitchforks and torches; turning the other cheek just don't quite cut it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 30, 2008 9:27 PM
When I first saw the video clip of your interview in EXpelled, I noticed a cut between the part where you talk about religion as knitting, and the next part -- where you appear to be answering a question which we have not heard. I made a guess as to what the question was: something along the lines of "how has the history of science changed religion?" or maybe "what kind of impact did scientists in the 19th century expect their discoveries to have on religious belief?" Thus, you began with "greater scientific literacy was going to lead to the erosion of religion, etc."
Which, by the way, it has. The liberals and moderates who argue that science has revealed the greatness of God and only strengthened their faith generally believe in a very different kind of God than they would have believed in before science changed our view of the world. God is evolving. For the majority of intelligent, educated theists, God is less and less anthropomorphic superstition, and more and more the Unknowable Mystery of Ultimate Concerns.
But I'm not surprised that your quote has been misinterpreted as you say -- that science is taught in order to promote atheism. Not that religion would lessen gradually as people became more informed, but that science was going to be wielded as a tool to the specific end of eliminating it. That's how they use science, after all. To proselytize.
I am also willing to bet that your sentence
And if you separate out the ethical message from religion - what do you got left? You've got a bunch of fairy tales, right?
was going to be completely misinterpreted as "We want to get rid of religion's ethical message. To do this, you tell people religion is a bunch of fairy tales, right?" That's what they expect to hear. Atheists hate morals.
On the contrary, you're praising the ethics found in many religions -- and pointing out that they work just fine on their own, without the religion. But without the fine ethics the religion really has nothing left, for it is not -- technically speaking -- "literally true."
Per Julia Sweeney, it's psychologically true.
Posted by: Sastra | March 30, 2008 9:28 PM
Hey, sastra-
you see how this fits in with the parody dawkins vid in the other thread?
they were making fun of exactly how the creobots project this issue into public awareness, they were making fun of exactly the kind of thing Egnor just did.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 30, 2008 9:30 PM
It's just another example of the oh-so-accurate dictum: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
All we're trying to do is teach the students to think. As a matter of fact, if they learn to think for themselves, they're going to reject the idiotic lies of the right-wing, and religious myths to boot.
Idiots like Horowitz and Egnor then want to claim that the students are being indoctrinated -- when in fact the students have merely grown wise enough to recognize foolishness when they see it. The right-wingers seem unable to fathom the power of reason and evidence.
Posted by: Physicalist | March 30, 2008 9:37 PM
The video you linked to "is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Premise Media."
Anybody have a mirror for it?
Posted by: Lucas Cantor | March 30, 2008 9:41 PM
So Darwin is getting credit for physics and chemistry as well?
Posted by: daenku32 | March 30, 2008 9:44 PM
I know how most people here feel about diplomacy, but I'm inclined to agree to some degree with wnelson in #2. This piece is not only interesting, but about halfway through it you get to something that illustrates the value of diplomacy:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien348.html
While it's important to take a hard stance against religious bullshitters, showing you are capable of diplomacy is an important part of convincing people who may be on the fence. I'm not defending Egnor, he misinterpreted a fairly diplomatic, innocuous statement. Fight back against the "creobots" (nice term), but there is something to be said for extending an olive branch to other, less insane people.
Posted by: Sam L. | March 30, 2008 9:46 PM
Yeah, yeah. And "If you just ignore the bullies, they'll leave you alone." And "Babies are found under cabbage leaves."
Got any more?
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 30, 2008 9:48 PM
The right-wingers seem unable to fathom the power of reason and evidence.
as a tangent, they also seem unable to grasp satire and irony, for that matter.
I think when one has to spin such ludicrous mental defense systems to wall against reality, subtle(?) things like satire and irony are simply no longer able to penetrate.
Based on 10 years of examining the extremely religious, I'd say that exposing their frequent lies, deceptions, misinformation, projection, and denial does wonders to show onlookers that there is a problem.
it does nothing for the extremely religious themselves.
Nothing will ever be able to penetrate Egnor's mindset any longer. He has to first acknowledge something has gone wrong with his reasoning processes. It's like trying to convince a schizophrenic they need to seek treatment.
this is not an assumption on my part, It's based on years of watching hundreds of creationists exhibit the exact same behavior patterns. The only way to prevent utter collapse of their nonsense in the face of reality is to group with like minded individuals, and use denial to allow them to project their warped sense of reasoning onto the rest of the world.
It's exactly the same kinds of behavior and psychologies one can find associated with extreme cults of any kind, not just religious ones.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 30, 2008 9:49 PM
Just wanted to share this quote from Ursula Le Guin's review of a Salman Rushdie novel in The Guardian.
"Some boast that science has ousted the incomprehensible; others cry that science has driven magic out of the world and plead for "re-enchantment". But it's clear that Charles Darwin lived in as wondrous a world, as full of discoveries, amazements and profound mysteries, as that of any fantasist. The people who disenchant the world are not the scientists, but those who see it as meaningless in itself, a machine operated by a deity. Science and literary fantasy would seem to be intellectually incompatible, yet both describe the world; the imagination functions actively in both modes, seeking meaning, and wins intellectual consent through strict attention to detail and coherence of thought, whether one is describing a beetle or an enchantress. Religion, which prescribes and proscribes, is irreconcilable with both of them, and since it demands belief, must shun their common ground, imagination. So the true believer must condemn both Darwin and Rushdie as "disobedient, irreverent, iconoclastic" dissidents from revealed truth."
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/generalfiction/0,,2269016,00.html
Posted by: missingpoints | March 30, 2008 9:51 PM
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | March 30, 2008 9:56 PM
Ichythic #10 wrote:
I see that, yes. Or, alternatively, they were making the same mistake themselves, just like many other pro-science, pro-evolution, and even atheist folks have. In the episode of South Park which satirized atheism, you could also have said they were only pointing out and exaggerating the silly views ABOUT atheism, and not lampooning it at all. Naw.
If Richard Dawkins and the so-called New Atheists hadn't been so misunderstood and vilified by other atheists (the Atheist Buttery), I think your case would be stronger. As it is, I think it's a bit of a toss-up -- and I'd still guess the parodist was going for the popular Golden Mean stance.
Posted by: Sastra | March 30, 2008 9:59 PM
If you're sincere, you're jousting at windmills and needlessly providing aid and comfort to a set of apologists whose strategy begins and ends with attempting to Gerrymander the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 30, 2008 10:00 PM
Egnorance (noun) - "egotistical combination of ignorance and arrogance" http://dererumnatura.us/archives/2007/03/egnorance.html
Posted by: Tessa | March 30, 2008 10:06 PM
Bravo, bravo, bravo!
Posted by: Elles | March 30, 2008 10:07 PM
Jesus can't send emails, Jesus can't send emails, nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.
Posted by: genesgalore | March 30, 2008 10:11 PM
There is no "good," there is no "truth," there is no "evil" -- there is expediency, period. An atheist can in no way, shape, or form defend any other position. Like I said, Myers needs to stay out of "ewww the Nazis weren't nice" "they tricked me so they're bad" part of this and go back to noodling with numbers.
You can't displace something like ID without having something to put in it's place -- an equivalent philosophy -- and "shut the fuck up" or wrecking careers doesn't cut it. Blacklisting is bad karma, guys, the quintessential tactical blunder -- something I haven't heard Myers, and the others deny advocating. (The main point of the movie's title, btw.)
Posted by: wnelson | March 30, 2008 10:17 PM
I don't disagree with this, but I am a bit puzzled by something. My grandfather was a staunch atheist. He was the kind of person who literally threw a priest out of his house when he tried to offer priestly help after a family tragedy. He was fairly well grounded in reality.
He was also a Republican. There was a time when the Republican party was known for other things than simply being the party of religious nut cases. (I think his primary reason for being a Republican was it's economic stance, and he was a small business owner.) If he were still alive, I'm not sure he would be able to stomach being associated with the religious right. At least during his time, it was possible to be conservative and not religious, but nowadays it seems impossible. (Christopher Hitchens not withstanding. He does seem to be in a minority, as I can't see many religiously non-neutral conservatives associating him with the conservative side.)
I'm for whichever side is for reality, which means I have to settle for the party that is better at keeping track of reality. (A full siding with reality is unfortunately impossible for any politician for the time being.)
Posted by: BadMA | March 30, 2008 10:17 PM
I'm on my way to becoming a scientist and I think it's ridiculous when people say it takes more faith to believe in God than science. Ever tried understanding plate tectonics or string theory?
Posted by: lroot | March 30, 2008 10:19 PM
It's called evolution.
Posted by: Michael X | March 30, 2008 10:20 PM
Tessa, you beat me to it
I was going to say he was showing his "egnorance"...
As for the diplomacy thing, Randall Munroe has already covered that here and here
Posted by: Wazza | March 30, 2008 10:20 PM
Ah, see, "understanding"...there's your problem. Simply believe!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 30, 2008 10:21 PM
As it is, I think it's a bit of a toss-up -- and I'd still guess the parodist was going for the popular Golden Mean stance.
if you are comparing that vid to the southpark episode, you are comparing apples to oranges.
you did see that episode, yes? If not, I'm sure you can find a torrent of it somewhere.
you ARE right in the case of the SP episode, that it was indeed a case of the "golden mean" missing the mark entirely (nobody ever accused Matt and Trey of being well versed in much of anything, really). There was an obvious implied statement of "both sides are wrong", that you simply do not find exhibited in the Dawkins vid.
However, the very reason I pointed out what egnor just did is because it is an absolute perfect fit what what they are lampooning in the video.
watch both again; you'll see very large differences in presentation.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 30, 2008 10:21 PM
I can pretty much trace the roots of my godlessness to my great grandfather. He was the one who invented the anti-jamming device for the high speed looms. He instilled the scientific principle in my at an early age, make a hypothesis and test the hypothesis through objective observation.
Then of course the other mistake my parents made was putting me through Catholic schools post Vatican II. So in one class they'd teach us about science, and in another about religion. Problem was when you applied the scientific method to religion, you get null data.
Oh well, they had good intentions I suppose. But what's the saying, something about the road to hell being paved with those.
Posted by: Tony P | March 30, 2008 10:21 PM
K, wnelson, time out...
Religion does not guarantee morality. Neither does atheism, but at least with atheism you get the chance to work it out from first principles, ie "how would I feel if someone did that to me?"
in religion, all you can do is follow the prophet's word.
And ID doesn't give you any philosophy. All ID does is say "don't trust your eyes. Don't trust your intellect. They don't let you see the truth." And we know that's not true, because we've used our eyes, we've used our brains - and you can say God gave them to us if you like - and we've figured out the truth for ourselves. If there really is a God, he ought to be proud of the scientists for using what he gave them.
Posted by: Wazza | March 30, 2008 10:25 PM
the fundamental goal of science education is to question everything.
AHA!! So you admit it unequivocally! You want to suppress faith!
I actually know people who see it that way. I wish I were kidding.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 30, 2008 10:26 PM
nobody ever accused Matt and Trey of being well versed in much of anything, really
Amen to that. There have been like four interesting/entertaining episodes and a really decent movie-musical.
The rest? meh.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 30, 2008 10:28 PM
#25
I think that the anti-evolution forces are ideologically skewed by the Religious Right, but otherwise it is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. For example, there is a group, Darwin Central, devoted to defending evolution from a conservative perspective.
Posted by: James F | March 30, 2008 10:28 PM
Ever tried understanding plate tectonics or string theory?
Posted by: lroot | March 30, 2008 10:19 PM
string theory yes, plate tectonics no. oh no!!! in another 80 million years sea level will drop by another several hundred feet, just like it did in the last 80 million. what a crunchy planet we live on.
Posted by: genesgalore | March 30, 2008 10:31 PM
wnelson #24 wrote:
I think that's true only if "good," "truth," and "evil" are seen as spiritual forces, immaterial transcendent powers which act down on matter to form and shape it for Higher Ends.
If, on the other hand, these concepts are understood as abstractions for the things we value and care about -- including other people and how we relate to them -- then I think there is no difference between how theists and atheists approach ethics and ideas.
It wouldn't matter even if Good, Truth, Evil -- and Expediency (you forgot that one)-- really were magical pure Platonic forms or not. One can still make sense of them -- and justify them -- as referring to common agreements of experience and reaction.
Posted by: Sastra | March 30, 2008 10:32 PM
Well what exactly is the THEORY of ID? No one actually seems to know.
What are it's fruits? Give an example of a research project using ID.
Thats your homework. I suspect you will find you don't need to replace nothing as it doesn't create a vacuum.
Posted by: JimC | March 30, 2008 10:33 PM
"There is no "good," there is no "truth," there is no "evil" -- there is expediency, period. An atheist can in no way, shape, or form defend any other position."
For someone who wants 'diplomacy' you sure lack tact. In fact, I think I'll respond just as diplomatically to you as you are to atheists like me:
Oh go fuck yourself you pathetic subhuman lying scumbag. Inane statements like that can only be made by sub-moron mouthbreathers who have missed both the entire history of moral philosophy and all of the empirical evidence or lying trolls. I mean if atheists are so immoral, tell me why so few of them are in prison compared to christians?
So which are you wnelson, moron or liar?
Posted by: jrandomatheist | March 30, 2008 10:43 PM
Posted by: JimC | March 30, 2008 10:33 PM
dude, we were visited by space aliens. they did a bunch of experiments on apes but got called back to the mothership before they could perfect a spine that was idiot proof.
Posted by: genesgalore | March 30, 2008 10:46 PM
You can't displace something like ID without having something to put in it's place
hasn't ID already been displaced by "teach the controversy"?
somebody forgot to check the Disinformation Institutes's talking point list again.
Blacklisting is bad karma, guys,
then you better watch that oncoming car, as it's the creationists that have been negatively influencing people's careers, moron.
In addition to the thousands of secondary school educators who have been knuckled under by angry, ignorant, parents, here's a short (and very incomplete) list of recent (last 2 years alone) events that rather dwarfs those presented in "expelled":
2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)
1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet)
1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist)
1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian)
1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)
1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)
1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland)
Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski
Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.
Raven's been on a collecting mission, just for idiots like yourself that think the "expulsions" are coming from the science side of things.
you can point to ANY instance of someone claiming to be "expelled" for their anti-science beliefs, and I will be happy to show you exactly how that particular person either bungled their jobs, failed to publish in their fields, or did some other stupid ass thing that got them fired or let go.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 30, 2008 10:46 PM
I've been a geophysicist since 1968, and one of my professors, and later thesis advisers, always told us everything that any professor said in a classroom should be regarded as a question and not an answer. All of my professors insisted that we probe and question.
I've never, ever heard anything like that from any preacher.
Faith is a thinking stopper. Egnor doesn't want you to think.
Like all of the other DI poseurs, he wants you to kneel down and accept the bullshit they shovel out from their Wholly Babble.
His shtick is the promulgation of ignorance.
I'd really hate to be the patient of such an ignorant, arrogant . . . .egnorant man.
Posted by: waldteufel | March 30, 2008 10:47 PM
@#12 (Lucas Cantor):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvHfdZINjX4
There you go.
Posted by: cdesignproponent | March 30, 2008 10:48 PM
Oh go fuck yourself you pathetic subhuman lying scumbag.
see?
it's not just me that immediately feels the need to tell you to put your head back up the orifice you pulled it out of.
If you want diplomacy, a good start would be by not ignorantly attempting to insult the intelligence of the people you want to convince.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 30, 2008 10:52 PM
Why on earth can't there be secular "good"? Or atheistic "truths"? And what exactly is so wrong with expediency? The golden rule is expedient. It cultivates harmony. Turning the other cheek may be "expedient" in some situations, no faith in the spirit world required. It's expedient to not do things that make you feel bad and lessen your enthusiasm for living, things like killing and stealing and lying. Ethical behavior is expedient, it's worthwhile.
The concept of atheists doing things out of expediency is only troubling for those who think people are inherently evil and biased for unethical behavior, and that morality must be imposed upon us from supernatural sources.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 30, 2008 10:53 PM
buddhist have a thing for reincarnation. so guess what??? they don't have a problem with embryonic manipulation. who is getting stuck with bad krama???
Posted by: genesgalore | March 30, 2008 10:54 PM
And wnelson again misses two grossly important points, in that A) Intelligent Desigh proponents have demonstrated that they have no drive to prove that Intelligent Design "theory" is worth inclusion into Mainstream Science, and B) Intelligent Design proponents have demonstrated that they do not want diplomacy, at all, to begin with. I mean, really, please explain to us why we should be diplomatic with a group of people who lie every time they move their lips or move their fingers across a keyboard.
Posted by: Stanton | March 30, 2008 10:54 PM
You can't displace something like ID without having something to put in it's place
wnelson
You got it backwards. There was the theory of evolution. ID was cobbled out of the old creation myths as a "scientific" challenge to evolution. A rather toothless challenge at that. And no, it is not toothless because it is "suppressed".
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 30, 2008 10:57 PM
With ID, there is nothing to displace. It's premise masquerading as conclusion, null and void. There's no pixie dust, but assholes like wnelson demand we all clap for fairies every time they show up here to break wind.
ID isn't philosophy: "goddidit" doesn't even rise to the status of stoner 101. It's nearly as otiose as wnelson, who sucks philosophy's hind teat because he can ante up neither observation nor evidence. It isn't blacklisting when you don't make the cut on the basis of profound incompetence.
Posted by: Ken Cope | March 30, 2008 10:59 PM
#48
Indeed. ID is toothless (current peer-reviewed research paper count, zero) because it rests on supernatural explanations and thus isn't science, not because of the Global Darwinist Conspiracy™.
Posted by: James F | March 30, 2008 11:01 PM
I would wager that one of the reasons why science erodes faith is because of the tendency of creationists to teach their children that evolution did not occur, that the earth is 6000 years old, and that they would be Nazis if they believed otherwise. They then also teach their kids that believing in evolution is satanic because if you don't believe in creation you have no right to believe in anything of the other tenets of the religion. And so when it becomes blindingly obvious to the child that evolution is in fact true, he or she tends to discard the whole package.
Posted by: NP | March 30, 2008 11:02 PM
Eh, jes egnor him.
Posted by: danley | March 30, 2008 11:04 PM
You have my support, PZ. In fact, I blogged about this very subject just minutes ago. I hate to advertise shit, but it's worthy of checking out I think.
http://copache.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Copache | March 30, 2008 11:05 PM
daddy, daddy, daddy, i want to ride a dinosaur.
Posted by: genesgalore | March 30, 2008 11:05 PM
OK, I've gotta ask. As I understand the Q&A after the Mall of America viewing, it was stated that there are 10 peer reviewed papers. Yes, 10 isn't very many but it also isn't 0, so it a crock that there are 'some' peered reviewed papers?
Posted by: rmp | March 30, 2008 11:05 PM
daddy, daddy, daddy, i want to ride a dinosaur.
Posted by: genesgalore | March 30, 2008 11:06 PM
PZ,
As you become more prominent (not that you are not there already), you'll find that creationists will look for opportunities to twist your every word and utterance to their advantage.
Posted by: Dick Marti | March 30, 2008 11:09 PM
Iroot wrote: "I'm on my way to becoming a scientist and I think it's ridiculous when people say it takes more faith to believe in God than science. Ever tried understanding plate tectonics or string theory?"
Whoa! You've got your magisteria in a bunch! Since when does understanding have anything to do with faith? If you're taking plate tectonics on faith, then you're doing science wrong. And if you're basing a faith in god on your understanding of of it, then you're sort of doing religion wrong.
It takes WORK to understand plate tectonics, and it takes faith to believe in a god. Don't mix the two up.
Posted by: Denis Loubet | March 30, 2008 11:09 PM
wnelson wrote
Euthyphro dilemma? Glad to get confirmation ID is a philosophy not science.Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | March 30, 2008 11:10 PM
#55
rmp, there are zero peer-reviewed ID research papers. I like phrasing it this way so there is no ambiguity. The cdesign proponentsists try to claim things like books published by trade or university presses as peer-reviewed publications, and include literature reviews and commentary papers that present no new data and typically do not mention intelligent design. See Talk Origins for details.
Posted by: James F | March 30, 2008 11:10 PM
it was stated that there are 10 peer reviewed papers
the crock lies in what that actually means if you examine the papers themselves (no data), or the journals they came from (like Rivista di Biologia).
you're actually far more accurate sticking with 0 as the number of papers published in peer reviewed journals containing any data whatsoever to support the concept of ID.
which isn't surprising, given that it's not even formulable as a testable hypothesis to begin with.
I think this was actually being discussed on another thread, if you would like to review the list of purported articles yourself.
It's also been talked about on occasion at talkorigins, and at Panda's Thumb.
search those for the threads that actually take a gander and breakdown this "literature".
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 30, 2008 11:11 PM
Off-topic: the Church of Scientology is "fair-gaming" a Boston man for the crime of being a member of Anonymous they can identify.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 30, 2008 11:12 PM
Science erodes faith in God because, ironically, it erodes faith in man.
"The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos."(Stephen Jay Gould)
Even the process itself erodes our confidence in the ability to understand the universe just by sitting in an armchair and contemplating. No scientific theory has ever had to be discarded because philosophers came running up crying "But this contradicts one of our very best precepts!"
Posted by: Sastra | March 30, 2008 11:14 PM
While increasing scientific literacy is an admirable goal, I think eventually we will hit a cutoff in understanding. There is a percentage of the population that will never understand science nor give up religion. Hopefully we'll eventually reach the point where religious people are the minority in the population, not the atheists/strict scientists. However, we'll never get to a point where religion disappears.
And while science may lead in many cases (like me) to atheism, it is absurd to say that science shouldn't be taught because our children might think for themselves (Alas, my parents feel this way about me in hindsight).
Posted by: Eric | March 30, 2008 11:15 PM
Egnor's misinterpretation of PZ's point seems to be parallel to the misunderstanding of evolution by many creationists. When it's claimed science education has the effect of eroding faith, it is misinterpreted as having the intent of eroding faith. Just as when it's claimed evolution had the effect of, say, producing fish with feet, it is misunderstood as having the intent of producing fish with feet. Egnor et al could just be stone clueless as to how non-teleological systems work.
missingpoints: Thanks for the Le Guin quote. She rocks, and so does Rushdie.
Posted by: imback | March 30, 2008 11:22 PM
Yes I asked our old buddy Kevin Wirth(less) to let us in on what the testable falsifiable theory of ID was.
It was soundly ignored. Multiple times.
not that I thought it wouldn't.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 30, 2008 11:27 PM
I think post #24 finally establishes WNelson's status as a Concern Troll. Frankly, my inner Pollyanna is a bit surprised.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 30, 2008 11:28 PM
Isn't Egnor committing yet another example of quote-mining? And this seems an admission that daring to think and see for yourself is the thing that fundamentalist leaders fear most!
Posted by: Dale Husband | March 30, 2008 11:36 PM
Pollyanna, may I present Professor Pangloss, a bag designed perfectly for the holding of scum?
Posted by: Ken Cope | March 30, 2008 11:37 PM
As far as scum is concerned, Professor wnelson Pangloss is a bag of infinite holding.
Posted by: Ken Cope | March 30, 2008 11:38 PM
Eric @#64 said:
Yeah, there is a percentage of the population who feels that way NOW, and they contribute significantly to the state of relative science illiteracy in America today. They make the laws and budget decisions that devalue scientific contributions to humanity. They advocate 'abstinence only' education and 'academic freedom', to the further detriment of science education. Their children, however, don't necessarily have to follow in their footsteps in this regard. If enough of us passionate science educators keep making science available and accessible and not just give it up as a lost cause, I truly believe that a paradigm shift can and will occur. Yes, it will be a slow, painful and frustrating change, but the goal is more than merely 'admirable'--it is absolutely, critically necessary. And while, indeed, there may be a certain, hopefully dwindling, sector that continues to hold on to religion, the goal of public understanding of science should encompass even them.
Posted by: DanioPhD | March 30, 2008 11:40 PM
"Greater science literacy was going to lead to the erosion of religion, and then you get this nice positive feedback mechanism going whereas religion slowly fades away with more and more science to replace it, and that will displace more and more religion with a lot more science - and we eventually get to that point where religion has taken that appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course."
PZ, do you remember what specific question you were answering here? Unlike Egnor, I'm not going to assume it must have been some variation of "why did you become a teacher?"
Posted by: Sastra | March 30, 2008 11:45 PM
Thank you, Ian H Spedding FCD, that was exactly what I was going to say.
I am yet to see a satisfactory answer as to how a morality that is reliant on God's word/nature/however else you would like to frame it, isn't entirely arbitrary. I am not so keen on baby killing becoming a right moral action, to be honest.
Essentially, we are all in the same boat - theist and atheist - and all of this stuff about not being able to account for good and bad is palpable nonsense. Strictly speaking, no action is right or wrong as far as the universe is concerned (which it isn't, of course), but so what? Nobody has shown that there are any absolute moral values imbued within the universe. It's just tough luck for those who wish that there were.
A theist would have to show how all secular accounts of a basic objective morality are wrong, first and foremost. There is also no way to objectively decide which account of morality is the correct one (different religions), or between variations of the same religion. There are thousands of modern ethical dilemma's that religion has nothing to say about, either.
Posted by: Damian | March 30, 2008 11:55 PM
There is no "good," there is no "truth," there is no "evil"...
There is no theory of ID.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 31, 2008 12:03 AM
Egnor's statements are not a "misinterpretation" or "misunderstanding" of PZ's statements. They are outright deliberate distortions i.e. lies, plain and simple.
Posted by: SteveM | March 31, 2008 12:03 AM
I stand by my use of the word faith. Faith generally comes before understanding. I think using the word understanding when referring to plate tectonics is a bit of a stretch, and also an ego trip. But not as much of an ego trip as thinking you understand and personally communicate with supernatural beings that create universes.
Posted by: lroot | March 31, 2008 12:04 AM
Posted by: Stanton | March 31, 2008 12:05 AM
If he's supposed to hold scum indefinitely, then why does he spew it forth continuously?
no, no, you missed the word there, old boy:
Infinite, not indefinite.
he has plenty to spare.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 12:08 AM
#68
Remember the first sin... it wasn't eating just any apple. It was eating the Fruit of the *Tree of Knowledge*. The worst thing a person can do, if you follow the logic (what little there is) in this fable, is to Know. Sky daddy, omniscient though they try to make him out to be, only realized they had done the naughty tasting when they demonstrated their knowledge (by hiding their nekkid bits behind leaves - which brings in the horror of the human body expressed so often by religiopaths).
This is why judeo-islamo-christian religion and science have conflict. One views the activities inherent in the other as profound evil, and clings to the (false) notion that what they believe is the only morality. Science must be immoral, and the scientists too, and the knowledge thus acquired.
Posted by: biogeek | March 31, 2008 12:13 AM
BadMA wrote: "At least during his time, it was possible to be conservative and not religious, but nowadays it seems impossible. (Christopher Hitchens not withstanding. He does seem to be in a minority, as I can't see many religiously non-neutral conservatives associating him with the conservative side.)"
I disagree that Hitchens is a "conservative." It's just that he was a one-issue voter/pundit. He was in favor of the Global War on Terrorism (whatever that meant) no matter what, and he is incapable of admitting that he was wrong about that.
I've lost almost all respect for him, but I don't see how you can paint him as a "conservative." He just happens to share a couple of characteristics with them.
Posted by: Lowell | March 31, 2008 12:14 AM