…and this is a 
The man with two “duh”s in his name
Category: Kooks
Posted on: April 3, 2008 1:40 PM, by PZ Myers
I try to stay away from Dinesh D'Souza's ravings, but when you've got SIWOTI syndrome, the man is like a magnet of wrong. His one saving grace now is that his columns are so bad, I usually can't get through the first paragraph without having to close the window. This one is no exception. One paragraph is all any normal person can take.
The real problem with Darwinism in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way.
No, it is not. I'm about as ferocious an atheist as you'll find in a classroom, and I'm at a university where I have more latitude than I would in a public school, and I don't teach it "in an atheist way". I teach it as a secular science. Secular ≠ atheist. Secular just means that you teach it in a way that a rational Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or atheist professor can all agree that it should be taught, and that a rational Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or atheist student should be able to learn it.
Textbooks by biologists like William Provine and Richard Dawkins routinely assert that evolution has done away with the need for God.
Provine and Dawkins have written public school biology textbooks? That's news to all of us.
Last I looked, the most popular biology textbook in the public high schools was Miller and Levine — the Ken Miller who is a Catholic and preaches for theistic evolution. Let's spell that out for D'Souza: The most popular biology textbook is not written by an atheist. He doesn't even like atheism. He hasn't even wandered accidentally in the direction of agnosticism. There isn't so much as a hint of a wobble of doubt in his public discussions of faith. The man is annoyingly Catholic.
The textbooks are secular. They teach the widely agreed-upon material evidence and natural interpretations of the world. A Catholic or an atheist can use that book equally well.
In my introductory biology course, I use Life, by Sadava, Heller, Orians, Purves, and Hillis. I don't know what the religious beliefs of any of the authors might be, and I don't care. Is that what D'Souza thinks "atheism" means, that we can teach the evidence without recourse to whatever theological dogmas or metaphysical irrelevancies we might have? That sounds like a good thing to me.
The claim is that chance and natural selection have demonstrated that we can have design--or the appearance of design--without a designer.
Well, yes, we have. We don't need a designer to explain biology; some people choose to stick one in there (which I personally find silly and pointless), but that's not what we discuss in the biology classroom. We talk about biology there. The other stuff we do on blogs and in books and in public speaking events.
In this sense Darwinism becomes propaganda for atheism.
Nah, reality is propaganda for atheism. If you've got a religious belief that withers in the face of observations of the natural world, you ought to rethink your beliefs — rethinking the world isn't an option.
What D'Souza is railing against isn't atheism, since atheism isn't being taught — it's secularism. And his agenda is empty: he's just complaining that he doesn't like the secular consensus on science, but he doesn't come right and admit what his only alternative to secularism is, which is to teach religion in the science lab.
Comments
SIWOTI Syndrome! That's great! I love that XKCD comic, and now you've given us a good shorthand for referencing it.
J. D.
Posted by: J. D. Mack | April 3, 2008 1:48 PM
People like D'Souza and Jonah Goldberg are propagandists, nothing more. They have two goals:
First, to push their claims to such ridiculous extremes that when ordinary people assume that the truth is somewhere in the middle, the middle will be so far from the truth that there will be no hope of re-educating people.
Second, to throw tinfoil into the radar. They hope to generate outrage. It encourages people who actually have a clue to go ballistic, thus making the experts sound like lunatics.
The rift between what is considered common sense in the USA versus the rest of the western world is now so large that it is impossible to have reasonable conversations about almost any subject, even the weather. I see it in my own family relations with my relatives who live in the USA.
Posted by: Jim Royal | April 3, 2008 1:52 PM
SIWOTI Syndrome.
Instantly jumps in the lead for Best Neologism of 2008.
Posted by: JRQ | April 3, 2008 1:53 PM
Recall, too, that the Dover matter involved a textbook co-written by Ken Miller (and some of the teachers were frankly Christian). I hardly think that atheism was to what the school board and Behe were objecting in that case--or in any other that I have heard about. Miller and Levine's book also happens to be a common textbook at the lower levels.
On the other hand, this is fairly minor pablum that D'Souza is spouting here. It does reinforce prejudices, but they weren't going anywhere soon anyway.
His point that ID is a complete failure matters more, so noxious as this tripe is, it doesn't concern me overmuch.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 3, 2008 1:54 PM
If you think that Duh'Souza is bad, then try reading the comments. I was getting annoyed at DD while reading the article, but I could do nothing other than laugh when I looked at the comments. Teh stoopid, it burns!
Posted by: Schmeer | April 3, 2008 1:56 PM
Dear Dinesh, we appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Posted by: Taz | April 3, 2008 2:00 PM
It's sorta funny, funny in the pathetic,sad funny way, how this DD fellow sounds like he's championing some grand original idea, when in fact all he's done is summarize precisely the efforts of an 80 year old christian fundamentalist anti-materialistic movement.
It's almost as if he finally gets it, but doesn't seem to quite realize he finally gets it.
Posted by: me | April 3, 2008 2:04 PM
D'Souza writes:
I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures.
And wait ... and wait .. for someone to find atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures in the public schools.
He must be talking about public schools, because he refers to "school districts." I'm surprised that he's this clueless, frankly, and that he's sticking his neck out like this. Sooner or later, his attentive audience is going to wonder where the quotes and horror stories are, these biology textbooks that say there is no God. Maybe D'Souza will even think "hey, that will make a great column -- I'll call someone up and see if they can tell me where to find those schoolbooks which tell children evolution means atheism." And then -- uh oh.
He's just going to feel so sheepish when he realizes he should have checked first.
Posted by: Sastra | April 3, 2008 2:05 PM
Thanks for ripping this a new a-hole PZ.
Posted by: danley | April 3, 2008 2:07 PM
What a maroon! If science said something to the effect "there is no god therefor...." then he has a point. But where in any science textbook does it say that? He has to be the biggest Christian bigot on the 'net today.
Posted by: Randy | April 3, 2008 2:09 PM
D'Souza suggests suing the schools:
I'd like to see this too. Free public forum for the rationality of science and the irrationality of its opponents. I really doubt D'Souza's side would be able to make the case he wants it to make, especially to a federal judge--most of whom are intelligent and rational. I'm not even sure that D'Souza knows what he wants to argue. He's an unmitigated idiot.
Posted by: Cleland | April 3, 2008 2:09 PM
"'d like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. "
I see I am not the first one to mention this, but I do believe it needs to be asked over and over again until we get answers. Where are these textbooks saying, "Darwinism shows there is no god?"
I think we should not stop driving the author nuts until he answers us on this..
Posted by: Lago | April 3, 2008 2:11 PM
Has Dinesh ever set foot in a public school?
Posted by: JRQ | April 3, 2008 2:12 PM
Duh'Souza said, "...Darwinism becomes propaganda for atheism."
What a fool! When I was about ten, I read Darwin. I was deeply impressed. By twelve years of age, I had realized that science trumps mythology, so I became an atheist.
It amazes me that anyone can cling to absurd superstitions like Xianity, which are obviously made up, & derived from more ancient superstitions, if they understand Darwin.
Posted by: Richard Harris | April 3, 2008 2:13 PM
I'm sure someone else must have said what I'm about to try to say far more eloquently, but has the charge ever been leveled at ID types that they, much as in a "Sun orbits Earth" belief-system, are simply not realizing that human notions about what makes for "good design" are based on what humans see around them in the natural world? the ideas of symmetry, efficacy, etc., have been given "divine" origin simply because they coincide with what humans think of as good design...in other words, God *must* think like us, because after all, He created us in His image, so our assessment of something as too-well-designed to be "natural" must be of divine, not natural, origin?
I dunno. I'm a neophyte, and that didn't come out anywhere near as well as I'd hoped, but as with many blog comments, it seemed important to say at the time. and I'm SO very tired of religion and religionists, especially when they're as dangerous as they are these days...
Posted by: annagranfors | April 3, 2008 2:14 PM
#14 As we keep seeing, most people don't understand evolution and also have no desire to learn about it.
Also DD has some very strange people commenting on his blog.
Posted by: Loki | April 3, 2008 2:16 PM
D'Souza is such a little fraud and misguided hack that I can barely make it past the first sentence of his relentless, stream-of-unconsciousness blather. If there is one person whose thought processes could best be summed up by trying to cram a square peg into a round hole, it's freakin' Dinesh D'Souza.
On the other hand, it is kind of fun watching the idiot collapse beneath the weight of his own worthless ego while his writing turns to utter shit.
Posted by: Dan | April 3, 2008 2:26 PM
I'd be surprised to see any biology textbook that makes a claim for atheism. Also, did Dawkins ever write a high school text book? I can't find a reference for one, but Dinesh says there's one. He probably just wanted to use the boogeyman of Dawkins.
Posted by: Tosser | April 3, 2008 2:36 PM
Great quote! That's a keeper!
Posted by: Reed Braden | April 3, 2008 2:37 PM
O.M.G. Teh stoopid on his site, mindboggling. As for me, I was atheist before I learned anything about natural selection. Descent with modification, and the interconnectedness of all life on terra is amazing and a thing of beauty. Why spoil it with man-made god-propaganda?
OT - How the hel does a pinhead like DuhDuh get the respect he does?
Posted by: True Bob | April 3, 2008 2:38 PM
"I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures."
By all means, bring it on.
Is D'Souza even aware of the Dover case?
Posted by: notthedroids | April 3, 2008 2:40 PM
Snowclone fun!
"The real problem with chemistry in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way."
"The real problem with physics in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way."
"The real problem with English in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way."
"The real problem with phys. ed. in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way."
"The real problem with math in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way."
"The real problem with social studies in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way."
"The real problem with drama in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way."
"The real problem with detention in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way."
So how do we right these godless liberal wrongs? Simple. One course, one concept: God created us with THC receptors, a susceptibility for alcohol, mentrual rather than estrus cycles and concealed ovulation so we're continually horny, the ability to use language and the capacity for abstract thought, all so he'd have the flimsiest of excuses to send us to hell.
Class dismissed! Now go forth and spread the good news!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 3, 2008 2:41 PM
You know, we puzzle over the dishonesty of folks like Dinesh, but they really aren't too difficult to understand.
Their entire worldview is predicated on the idea that its a virtue to believe and assert things in the absence of evidence. Asserting the existence without evdidence is what they do...gods, textbooks, atheist conspiracies...all the fall under the same basic organizing principle: if it would be convenient for me to believe such a thing existed, I should be able to just "have faith" in it, and make whatever claims I want about it.
Posted by: JRQ | April 3, 2008 2:43 PM
Former Gerald R. Ford does not have two "duh"s in his name, he went to an elite school called; Yale, and got a degree there. Opps, we are not talking about Saturday night live...lol
My position has been when it comes to teaching various methods on the origins of life, it shouldn't be taught in the government schools at all. The private schools do a better job at teaching in general. I make the basis for my position on the matter, on the fact that there are too many special interest groups trying to interfere with education. It could be easily possible for the government to start teaching a bit on intelligent design by teaching that their are alien beings who are millions of years advanced and lives on other planets. These intelligent life forms are responsible for creation...I believe PZ buddy kinda endorsed that idea in the movie "Expelled." That's all the government schools need right now is another angle of intelligent design...lol
Having special interest groups sue the government to get what they want is not a solution, the only solution is, neither one should be taught in the government schools, let private schools handle the subject.
Posted by: Michael | April 3, 2008 2:43 PM
WOW. What a Pheno-minal ass. Postmodernists need to be stopped, and perhaps kicked a few times.
Posted by: Uranus Hurtz | April 3, 2008 2:44 PM
I envy you, PZ. I'm a theoretical linguist, which I'm proud to say is pretty much as heretical a profession as evolutionary biology. Why, the Bible itself tells us that languages differ because God decided so when those fellows at Babel got a bit too ambitious. Yet, even DD would find it ridiculous to say that we promote atheism because we ignore that explanation and instead talk about human brains, acquisition errors, and other similar stuff that can be empirically researched. It's not fair. We deserve our fun too.
Posted by: Luis | April 3, 2008 2:45 PM
According to D'Souza, they could also try to boot astronomy and geology out the classroom because it would do the same thing that they says Darwinian evolution does to religion.
Posted by: 43alley | April 3, 2008 2:45 PM
He also managed to draw the ire of Billy D over at UCD this week too. He's not pure enough for the UCD crowd.
Posted by: jeh | April 3, 2008 2:45 PM
I believe Scott Adams (Dilbert atuhor) coined the term
in-Duh-vidual
Seems appropriate here...
Posted by: rob | April 3, 2008 2:47 PM
The comment have surged beyond "funny" to "pathetic" and "scary". I know people who will suck this up and trumpet it as truth...not the smartest tools in the shed, but they sure seem to have a lot of company.
Posted by: Phouka | April 3, 2008 2:48 PM
Posted by: Michael | April 3, 2008 2:43 PM
That was, um, interesting. Wrong in several places as well, but interesting.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 3, 2008 2:49 PM
Creationists: not just wrong, but wrong over and over again about the same things. They just don't never learn.
Posted by: H.H. | April 3, 2008 2:49 PM
There are as many mentions of god(s) in biology books as there are in the user's manual for my car. I guess Dinesh thinks Toyota manufactures atheist cars then?
Posted by: Aaron | April 3, 2008 2:51 PM
D'Souza will be having a debate with Michael Shermer in a couple of weeks near where I live. Any suggestions as to what to throw out during Q&A?
"Don't Panic." -Douglas Adams
Posted by: Starbix | April 3, 2008 2:51 PM
I do like your designation... science education is secular, not atheist. In fact we hope ( and generally are able) to do science in way that allows it to transcend multiple cultures.
which is my point in other threads. I can be a wonderfully a secular scientist and religious (even supernatural superstitious), but I can not expect to communicate my superstitions with other scientists unless they hold my same superstition. I can communicate contrary lab results and conclusions (do hox genes drive or follow evolution of body plans) because within science we have agreed upon standards.
Posted by: randy | April 3, 2008 2:52 PM
Sorry Mike, but despite your fervent belief in the face of evidence, scientists would reject teaching such a concept since there is no support for it.
I know it's comforting for people like you to think we'll be satisfied with any explanation as long as it doesn't involve God, but that's because you're all stupid, paranoid twits. God didn't design us so we could live with our heads up our asses, so why don't you pull yours out?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 3, 2008 2:52 PM
Dinesh D'Souza does have one saving grace, however. There are 459 comments on just that one post of his. Just think if all those nutcases had commented come here to comment instead!
Posted by: Olorin | April 3, 2008 2:53 PM
#20: Because he can type and spell pretty good. Can't write worth beans, but sure can type.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | April 3, 2008 2:53 PM
Michael, Dawkins never "endorsed" the idea that aliens seeded life on Earth, he admitted that it is a possibility. Which it is, however a very unlikely one and something for which there is no evidence.
And no, taking all instruction which some people find controversial out of public schools is hardly the correct course. That's caving in to special interest groups. Teach proper science and let the religious hucksters get bent. That's the solution.
Posted by: H.H. | April 3, 2008 2:57 PM
I got through the first sentence... then I had to stop.
Posted by: Ollie | April 3, 2008 3:09 PM
Micheal is a concern troll with obvious creationist beliefs. So far, he's another data point in Brownian's Corollary to Poe's Law, that creationists are incapable of producing a convincing parody of evolutionist claims. (Of course, the law could only be disproved by the existence of a convincing parody, but I'm not waiting with bated breath that one will surface anytime soon.)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 3, 2008 3:10 PM
When speaking of DuhDuh, I think we have to go with BartCop's Principle here: When someone's livelihood depends on their not learning something, they'll never learn it. (Welfare reform I support: End welfare for wingnuts now!)
My position has been when it comes to teaching various methods on the origins of life
Yeah, good bloody damn thing for you nobody's talking about the origins of life. Seems to me we're talking about evolution over here, and not abiogenesis. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, which may or may not involve biology. If you somehow have a problem with the idea that populations of living creatures change over time because no individual is identical to its parents, I really can't help you, save to direct you to your local mental health provider. (Paid for on the taxpayer dime in my jurisdiction; you should be so lucky. Maybe that's why my country doesn't have as many raving cre(a)ti(o)nist loons as yours does -- we make sure ours get treated before they really become a nuisance.)
The private schools do a better job at teaching in general.
Not that I don't know better than to ask, but do you actually have any evidence of that? I went to a very excellent public secondary school and a world-class public university; I'm failing to see how I missed out, save that I don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of student debt.
Posted by: Interrobang | April 3, 2008 3:20 PM
With the usual righteous-right-noise-machines such as Fox News, it will suffice of just one audio recording of a biology classroom where some teacher gets a bit over board and draws conclusions which may be construed as being slightly in favour of atheism, that they will spin this completely out of proportion.
That's the kind of propaganda I think DdS is trying to generate.
Posted by: negentropyeater | April 3, 2008 3:22 PM
And that's exactly what we need thoughtful, moderate theists to do.
Posted by: Spaulding | April 3, 2008 3:24 PM
The Double Duh Man:
In what passes for the fundie mind, anything that doesn't preach about their imaginary friend every five seconds is a tool of Teh Debil. It's the same principle where they think they're persecuted, because they're not allowed to persecute anyone they want with impunity. The fact that they aren't given absolute power to rule the entire world with an iron fist makes them an oppressed minority.
They are masters of the art of projection. And their faith is pitifully weak.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | April 3, 2008 3:28 PM
I'm in a community college Gen Bio class, and the book our truly excellent instructor uses is Biology by Campbell, Reece, 8th Edition. It seems to be an excellent text.
It's been very instructive to see her try to teach science in spite of having a couple of very vocal cretinists in the class. She's stated plainly that she won't debate Creationism in the class, but one student, a Bosnian Muslim - not all cretinists are Xtian - constantly tries to derail the lectures by asking things like, "If we're descended from monkeys, why are we so much smarter?" (This question was asked while we were discussing Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, ffs.)Fortunately, there are several students (I'm one) who, not having to worry about being fired from a non-tenured community college position, are unafraid to slap him down. Our instructor is a model of - dare I say it - saintly patience. I really admire her.
Posted by: Candy | April 3, 2008 3:34 PM
Actually, what's interesting is that if you look at DD's previous column it says that ID is a load of crap, and that this supposed "atheistic teaching" is the only problem with evolution. I think it's the first time I've heard him say anything I've agreed with, or for that matter even semi-intelligent (I mean the part about ID being nonsense; the "atheistic teaching" fits with the typical pattern for D'Souza).
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | April 3, 2008 3:42 PM
Oh, God. Dinesh D'Souza. I saw him lose a debate with Daniel Dennett on YouTube once. Every time he talked, I just closed my eyes, and I thought I was listening to Stephen Colbert. Style, content, cadence, pitch, intensity. The only thing different about D'Souza was his ostensible sincerity which soured the whole experience for me substantially.
Posted by: M. Robert Bond | April 3, 2008 3:53 PM
Taz #6 got me laughing. I loved the video and now I'm gonna use that line too.
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 3, 2008 3:58 PM
Thanks for the heads up on yet another screed from the insane Dinesh D'Souza.
I went and read the whole thing. Once I stopped heaving and resisted the urge to throw my computer out of the window, I left the following as my comment:
================================================
As usual, Dinesh is wrong. Darwinism does not equate to atheism; evolution is not an atheistic ideology. All that evolution says is that living organisms change over time, respond to their changing environment by mutating gradually over many generations, and occasionally spawning a new species that is distinct from the one that preceded it. The only folks who are confused about the evolution=atheism nonsense are those who insist upon a literal interpretation of scriptures, specifically the creation story from Genesis. The existence or non-existence of gods and deities is not part of evolutionary theory.
And atheism is not religion. Sure... one's freedom to believe or not believe in any religion is guaranteed and protected by the 1st Amendment, but atheism can hardly be called a "religion" in the same way that Christianity, Islam, Hindusim, etc. are religions. There is no organized group or universally-shared doctrinal ideologies among atheists. Atheism is not a religion; it is a philosophical position.
Dinesh's suggested approach of accusing science teachers of promoting "atheism" by teaching evolution is pure nonsense and will be treated as such by any responsible jurist. The alternatives to evolution, creationism and "intelligent design", are simply ways for religious fundamentalists to inject their own religion into public schools. Creationism and ID cannot be separated from religion; they are based on a religious assumption and have zero scientific merit.
What creationists and ID supporters must do, and what they have consistently failed to do, is to provide SCIENTIFIC and EMPIRICAL evidence to support their claims. Bring forth the "designer" and have him reveal himself. Find evidence that establishes that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Present fossil evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. In truth, creationists' claims come down to their own faith in their religion, and since faith in itself is not evidence it is unlikely that there will ever be acceptance by science of creationism's theory.
=================================================
D'Souza is a neoconservative, reactionary moron. How I wish he would just go away.....
Posted by: Jonathon | April 3, 2008 3:59 PM
PZ, before today I have never heard of this moron - what's his name "D'Souza", now I have and it is painful. Can you please balance your blog with introducing more people worth knowing? Thanks!
One of your readers.
Posted by: hans | April 3, 2008 4:05 PM
Nice hair, Dinesh!
The best thing about his post is leaving Dembski out of a list ID luminaries.
Posted by: David vun Kannon, FCD | April 3, 2008 4:10 PM
Words fail. What a moron. The convolutions of logic he goes through to prove that atheism is a religion are the verbal equivalent of an M.C.Escher print. He must truly believe that not collecting stamps is a real hobby.
Posted by: SteveM | April 3, 2008 4:26 PM
As long as D'Souza is against ID/YEC he will be a strategic ally.
Mainstream Christians need a bone to bite, fine, let them have "Darwinism shouldn't be tought in an Atheistic way".
Posted by: negentropyeater | April 3, 2008 4:26 PM
I've got a couple of baptist friends (of the YEC variety); to them a Catholic - even a devout one - might aswell be an atheist.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | April 3, 2008 4:28 PM
"Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term 'religion' means not only 'religion' but also 'atheism'.
Right - just like policies that prohibit discrimination based on marital status make make the term "married" mean not only "married" but "unmarried." For the correct definition of atheism, see the last four words of your first sentence, pinhead.
Posted by: SC | April 3, 2008 4:31 PM
Sarbix (#34), post a transcript after the debate. He's coming to Biola at the end of the month to debate Peter Singer, and I want to know if his line changes.
Posted by: Adam | April 3, 2008 4:36 PM
B) With friends like D'Souza, who the hell needs enemies?
Posted by: Stanton | April 3, 2008 4:36 PM
Sorry - my post at #56 should have read:
"Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term 'religion' means not only 'religion' but also 'atheism'."
Right - just like policies that prohibit discrimination based on marital status make the term "married" mean not only "married" but also "unmarried."
[Acute SIWOTI attack.]
Posted by: SC | April 3, 2008 4:42 PM
A) D'Souza thinks it is tought in an atheistic way. PZ explained well his point of view. Fine. Let's have a discussion. At least, that will change the spotlight from the nonsensical "Darwinism caused Nazism", "the earth is 6000 yold", and "ID is science".
B) I said strategic ally, not friend.
Posted by: negentropyeater | April 3, 2008 4:51 PM
He's coming to Biola at the end of the month to debate Peter Singer, and I want to know if his line changes.
Hoo boy...a debate between two people I have no use for. Good times - NOT!
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | April 3, 2008 4:53 PM
Yeah, Dinesh is a raving nutfudge. I lost the ability to take him seriously ages ago.
Posted by: Chuck S. | April 3, 2008 5:00 PM
The real problem here is the creation of a group of people so confused and full of false beliefs that they can't even respond to the evidence when and if they ever encounter it-- they are immunized against learning anything about biology, and lots more besides. Once you can do it to biology, you can do it to the constitution too, as John Yoo shows us. (Odd that he's a member of the same legal faculty as Philip Johnson-- does anyone know if that's anything more than a sad coincidence?)
Posted by: Bryson Brown | April 3, 2008 5:01 PM
Oh, come now, DD, why not leave it at
That's better, no?
Posted by: artificialhabitat | April 3, 2008 5:02 PM
"The Bible is a compilation of books written by pharoahs. Genesis- Pharoah Moses I. It was their ideas on how everything started, because writing hadn't been invented yet when the events occurred.
How the Universe started is a different debate from how did the human universe started.
It is now used to educate people to abstract language. People who have a brain learn a new language from reading it. They coalesce from the different interpretations & create alliances to disadvantage others, those they consider Neandrathal.
Anyone who believes their is a God, is used by those malicious enough to use them as slaves. Aka- Egypt, the first church on the planet. It started out as a prison. Greece, home of the original ape, was constantly at war. The prisoners were used as an army, and the first civilization fell.
End of story. You bible thumpers should know this, if you 'able' to read the book you speak of. But of course Cain killed Able.
Decaying atoms in the darkness of space formed into rock, then planetoid bodies, as they grew over billions of years, they developed molten cores under the pressure, after billions more years they developed into stars just like our Sun. It happened all over the Universe. No Big Bang.
Earth was a swamp world, most dinosaur fossils are fish! Cartilage from aquatic animals fossilize into what we see today, bones decay from the elements. As the polar regions of our planet froze, the earths crust twisted and cracked, creating the land and the oceans. No island of Pangia.
Joseph"
WOW! i can't breath for the stoopid, I know, at least I think he's on our side but i really can't tell.
I really think its time to start a new pollicy euthanasia for stupidity. These kind of people just drag us down and really we all know that once god is back in the science classroom then its back to being owned for gals like me.
And leashes outside the bedroom kinda suck :)
Nicki
Posted by: Nicki | April 3, 2008 5:19 PM
There. Fixed.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 3, 2008 5:44 PM
Not 'teached'?
Posted by: artificialhabitat | April 3, 2008 6:09 PM
I meant to include the rest of the formatting tags.
Posted by: artificialhabitat | April 3, 2008 6:10 PM
Ah. I see what you mean. Well, hey - why hold back?
Posted by: Kseniya | April 3, 2008 6:15 PM
#15, annagranfors
Excellent post! Your insight (regardless if you think it to be unclear) is exactly what I have been trying to say for so long.
The vast majority of Pharyngula readers, contributors, and Prof. PZ Myers himself appreciate those who, at the very least, make an attempt to interpret and discuss views from another angle. It demonstrates that the individual is actually THINKING and not spewing out rhetoric or quote-mining.
Your words were most eloquent and concise, and got the idea across without the hifalutin verbiage.
Thank you annagranfors! (#15)
Now I will continue to peruse the rest of the topic at hand.
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | April 3, 2008 6:22 PM
Duh-luded, duh-mented, Duh-Souza.
It's true though: all classes in public schools teach atheism. The trouble is that they're so darned sneaky about it. I absorbed all my school learning (sometimes more enthusiastically than other times, I admit), and by the time I was 13, I was an atheist. And yet I don't recall the word "atheist" even being on any of my vocabulary lists. Funny, that.
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 3, 2008 6:34 PM
It is oddly encouraging to me that dark-skinned people can now acquire the appearance of an advanced education in order to shill for the Establishment, and to be allowed to uncletom us all somewhere other than from the church pulpit or the (traditional) entertainment industry.
How can ANY material wealth or braying acclaim be worth the secret knowledge than you are someone like DD, or Condi Rice, or John Yoo? I mean, Dubya was raised into such a path - kind of like Kasper Hauser - and people like Tony Snow/Rummy, etc., also simply have never understood they had the ability and means to choose to live the life of a human being, having been sheltered from the knowledge that humanity exists outside of their fairy tales/prejudice, but these people HAD the knowledge and CHOOSE to shill!!!!
It's people like this that encourage me to believe there is, in some scientifically discoverable way, something like the devil in all of us.
Posted by: Sue Laris | April 3, 2008 6:46 PM
Well, how else to you expect them to work off the Curse of Ham?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 3, 2008 6:53 PM
I think a monthly anti-Molly would be amusing--some means by which we could formally acknowledge a few of the less-enlightened commenters that stumble in here and hack out their stupid for all the world to scoff at. There certainly have been some terrific candidates this month--a "D'Order of D'Souza" would be a great way to recognize them.
Posted by: J Myers (no relation) | April 3, 2008 6:58 PM
DuhDuh seems to think evolution and biology are taught in public schools. It was pretty much rushed over in my high school biology class. I think that in the small Indiana town I grew up in a teacher would be suicidal to teach much on the subject. The teacher seemed really nervous about the whole subject.
I had to do the learning myself, much later in life. One of the reasons America is failing to keep it's lead in science, research and practical applications is due to this public inability to deal with reality. My history classes were pretty light on facts as well. It is no surprise to me that public schools are controlled by the local population, most of whom are not concerned by truth or facts.
Posted by: revmonkeyboy | April 3, 2008 7:08 PM
"...in an atheist way."
Would that be something like the Democrat [sic] Party? Just curious.
Posted by: Glen | April 3, 2008 7:15 PM
Even though he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, I'll give a refutation of Dinesh's argument. There's an important distinction that he's failed to make. Asserting that a view is incorrect is not the same thing as forcing someone not to hold that view. So, even if evolution suggests that religion is wrong, teaching evolution in schools does NOT impinge upon the rights of students to freely exercise their religion.
Posted by: Ralph | April 3, 2008 7:25 PM
I think a monthly anti-Molly would be amusing--some means by which we could formally acknowledge a few of the less-enlightened commenters that stumble in here and hack out their stupid for all the world to scoff at. There certainly have been some terrific candidates this month--a "D'Order of D'Souza" would be a great way to recognize them.
I nominate Jeffy from Taxachussets.
Posted by: Joe Blow | April 3, 2008 7:30 PM
Fortunately, there are several students (I'm one) who, not having to worry about being fired from a non-tenured community college position, are unafraid to slap him down.
Speaking as a former TA--Candy, thanks so much for your slappage.
Posted by: josefina welch | April 3, 2008 7:32 PM
Slightly OT
It appears that the movie which should not be named will be part of the discussion tomorrow on American Public Media's radio program Marketplace (marketplace.publicradio.org)
Posted by: Onkel Bob | April 3, 2008 7:43 PM
The beauty of being a conservative is that you don't have to do any homework, you can just arrive at a conclusion without a single fact. We do our best to peer through the murk, they see everything in Kristol clarity. It reminds me of the old Waterboys song "Whole of the Moon".
I spoke about wings
you just flew
I wondered I guessed and I tried
you just knew
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | April 3, 2008 7:51 PM
What's so bizarre about this is that conservatives hold up folks like Dinesh D'Souza as great thinkers and paragons of conservative scholarship, and wail loudly about the dearth of such people among tenured academics.
Well, if Dinesh is a model for the kind of "conservative scholarship" that is missing from the professoriate, it's rather easy to see why: They are neither thinkers nor scholars, in any meaningful sense...they are merely influential and public.
But mere influence is not good enough, conservatives. Give us some people who actually have enough personal integrity and interest in not being wrong, that they have some shred of respect for evidence and reason, and are willing to inform themselves about the issues they wish to discuss.
Posted by: JRQ | April 3, 2008 8:11 PM
I somehow imagine DD as the Marlon Brando character Terry Malloy from "On the Waterfront" - a shrimpy, wimpy, pinched-faced Terry Malloy with a proven-by-documentation-only Ivy League education, mind you - someday soon talking to the equivalent of his older brother and offering up the same regret and admission:
"I coulda been a contenduh, instead bein' of a bum... which is what I am."
Should he ever make such an admission on his own and, like Terry, risk himself to expose and fight the crimes that he has been a (small) part of, I will entirely forgive DD.
I ain't holding me breath.
Posted by: Sue Laris | April 3, 2008 8:13 PM
You hit it on the head PZ. D'Souza hates secularism and liberals.
Posted by: Steven | April 3, 2008 8:15 PM