Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
One of the demands put upon the priests and holy-men is that they should provide impressive rituals. Nearly all religions include ceremonial procedures during which the followers of a particular deity can indulge in complex group activities. This is essential as a demonstration of the power of the gods—that they can dominate and command submissive behaviour from large numbers of people at one and the same time—and it is also a method of strengthening the social bonding in relation to the common belief. Since the gods are super-parents and super-leaders, they must necessarily have large houses in which to 'meet' with their followers. Anyone flying low over human settlements in a spacecraft and ignorant of our ways would notice immediately that in many of the villages and towns and cities there were one or two homes much bigger than the rest. Towering over the other houses, these large buildings must surely be the abodes of some enormous individuals, many times the size of the rest of the population. These—the houses of the gods—the temples, the churches and the cathedrals—are buildings apparently made for giants, and a space visitor would be surprised to find on closer examination that these giants are never at home. Their followers repeatedly visit them and bow down before them, but they themselves are invisible. Only their bell-like cries can be heard across the land. Man is indeed an imaginative species.
[Desmond Morris, "Religious Displays," Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour, 1977, Abrams, New York, page 152.]
Deep homologies in the pharyngeal arches
Two-legged goats and developmental variation
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« On the high velocity rotation of interred organic remains | Main | Sarah, Pale in Comparison »
Category: Religion
Posted on: September 2, 2008 8:05 PM, by PZ Myers
Unfortunately, it's at a student's expense. While the University of Central Florida administration cleared him of all wrong-doing, the student-run senate impeached Webster Cook and removed him from office. Donohue may gloat a little bit, but isn't it rather cheesy that he should shriek to mobilize national outrage and this is the worst he can do?
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Posted by: Kel | September 2, 2008 8:07 PM
If there ever was a 2nd coming of Jesus, would Bill Donohue tell Jesus how anti-catholic he is?
Posted by: Qwerty | September 2, 2008 8:08 PM
"isn't it rather cheesy that he should shriek to mobilize national outrage"
That's cause Donohue is cheesy. He tried to fire PZ, but didn't suceed; so, he'll have to gloat over kicking a young man out of a student senate.
And just how did he protect the rights of Catholics by doing this?
Posted by: hje | September 2, 2008 8:11 PM
He had to settle for that when he found that burning Cook at the stake was not an option the student senate could order.
Posted by: Dagger | September 2, 2008 8:15 PM
If the student took the cracker under the guise of it being student body business, then he should loose his postion. He shoulda had the nuts to say he took it because it was a stupid cracker and it means less than nothing.
Is this a win for Donthaveaclue? Not even close. PZ - 1, Donohue and the Pathetolic League - 0
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 8:17 PM
I see you get an honorable mention, PZ. The overall tone of the posting on the Catholic League website seems to be of injured pride and licking wounds.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | September 2, 2008 8:18 PM
I am completely ashamed of the student government at my alma matter. That school has much bigger issues to deal with. Instead of tackling them, the student government would rather act like high school students attacking the unpopular kid.
Posted by: skyotter | September 2, 2008 8:27 PM
ha, i'd like to seem them try to impeach a MUSLIM from a student-run senate!
[/Fatwa envy, prolly doin' it wrong]
Posted by: Kel | September 2, 2008 8:35 PM
Maybe we really are a society of overgrown infants.Posted by: Keanus | September 2, 2008 8:43 PM
Me thinks the Student Senate at the University of Central Florida should be required to attend at least a semester class on Constitutional Law and the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: JoJo | September 2, 2008 8:56 PM
Donahue must be slipping. Instead of his usual strident self-righteousness, that press release had a strong tone of whining.
Posted by: Kobra | September 2, 2008 9:01 PM
Man, that's just bullshit.
Posted by: Holbach | September 2, 2008 9:01 PM
All this bullshit over a crumbly cracker! I would love to read that moron Donahue choked to death while eating a cracker. Cracker Crank chokes to death on the very thing the moron held sacred. Religion is the lowest depth to which an unsound mind can descend. Even the retarded have their periods of lucidity. Only the religious afflicted exhibit the behavior of madness in its true aberration. A temptest in a cracker turning morons into imbeciles.
Posted by: Travis | September 2, 2008 9:03 PM
I tried to follow the above link to the Catholic League website, but it was blocked by my work server;
"Access to http://www.catholicleague.org/chatterbox.php?#168 has been blocked as it contains pornographic references. In the event that there is a legitimate business purpose for this access, please contact your site administrator."
I am now suffused with a warm flame of hilarity to carry me through the work day.
Posted by: Randy | September 2, 2008 9:24 PM
sorry, south park beat you to that one. It was a great episode though, you need to see it.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 2, 2008 9:36 PM
You know, I feel for the guy. More than just expressing intellectual outrage at the issue, which is perfectly valid, I empathize with him. This is rare for me, I've become quite desensitized to these things.
It's just that the guys actions were initially motivated by what to him were the purest of intentions. Next thing he knows he's caught in a whirlwind of publicity he never asked for, and walked away all the worse for the wear. It's tragic.
I'm just wondering, and maybe he just wants to put the whole thing behind him, if there's a way to reach out to the guy. It's not fair that he should come away from this having gained nothing. I think he deserves like, a pizza party or something man.
Seriously, can we get Donahue expelled from the Catholic League or something? Fucker.
Posted by: CO | September 2, 2008 9:45 PM
IF this had been done to a Muslim or Jew, there would be outrage...but antiCatholicism is the last accepted 'hate crime'. The comments on this site prove it. What happened to mutual respect, and respecting another's beliefs?? The comments here show how closed and disrespectful many are. All people deserve the right to be able to have their Faith respected, whether or not you believe it or not.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | September 2, 2008 9:51 PM
CO @ #16:
Concern trolling and/or fatwa envy. Ur doin it rong.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 2, 2008 10:01 PM
We need a phrase for those who invoke Jews/torah desecration...
Holocaust envy? Pogrom envy? Inquisition envy?
Posted by: The Chemist | September 2, 2008 10:01 PM
What does that even mean? How many Muslims and Jews get tossed out of their student council positions because they failed to swallow a eucharist?
Don't be stupid. Willpower!
Posted by: Nibien | September 2, 2008 10:01 PM
No, they have a right to have those beliefs, not to be respected.
You're an idiot if you think otherwise. We wouldn't need freedom of speech is everyone just shut up about other peoples stupidity and absurd crap and stuck our heads in the sand. Besides, you're obviously not respecting our opinions or beliefs that the cracker is a cracker and you're all a bunch of idiots. Hypocrite much?
And by the way, we kill innocent Muslims constantly when we're trying to bomb for those nasty terrorists. "Acceptable losses" when 90+ women and children die or are horribly injured by a bomb. Good thing they're not crackers or Christians, or you might get upset.
Posted by: Yoo | September 2, 2008 10:01 PM
It's especially cheesy when by all appearances his impeachment was done improperly (now that's an understatement).
Posted by: Patricia | September 2, 2008 10:02 PM
Couldn't PZ award Webster an honorary Molly? Have a Pharyngula bash somewhere near him and invite him to be guest of honor. Hang a beer bottle cap off a ribbon and pin a medal on the kid.
I'm with the Chemist, the guy has proven he can walk the plank - he deserves something in recognition.
Posted by: charley | September 2, 2008 10:03 PM
"All people deserve the right to be able to have their Faith respected, whether or not you believe it or not."
You are free to respect the beliefs of flat-earthers and astrologers if you wish, but "all people" are not obliged to do so. I will continue to exercise my right to call their beliefs, and yours, stupid.
Posted by: SteveM | September 2, 2008 10:09 PM
OT: Evolve:Flight is on the History Channel right now
Posted by: Patricia | September 2, 2008 10:14 PM
Owlmirror - Raised hand like Hermione Granger - Me, me!!! Since I have five hanged ancestor's I'll do the witch envy fatwahs.
CO - you are an idiot. Your dumbass bible is irrelevant. When you know that stupid bullshit and you live it, then come back and ask for respect. When was the last time you offered first fruits to yahweh? Eaten any pork or shellfish this year? Got your stone polished up for Bristol? Fool.
Posted by: Sastra | September 2, 2008 10:25 PM
CO #16 wrote:
Are you implying that atheists are sympathetic and respectful towards the beliefs of Muslims and Jews -- but not towards Catholics? No, we think the Old Testament and the Quran are mostly mythology as well, and there's a lot of stupid stuff in both religions.
And, just for the record, Wicca's bullshit, too.
Posted by: Mercurious | September 2, 2008 10:28 PM
Travis @13: That is so full of WIN!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 2, 2008 10:28 PM
Does that "pending" event in central Florida for early December in your dance card have any geographic or causal proximity to the Great Cracker Crime Wave, Prof. M?
Posted by: H.H. | September 2, 2008 10:41 PM
CO @ #16 whined:
1) It's not a hate crime, as there was no crime committed. 2) Your persecution complex is showing. Catholics are no more picked on than other religious groups, in fact in most Western nations they still enjoy a privileged status. 3) Most people here are quite willing to argue against any conceptions of god(s). Which religion he/she/they belong to is of little consequence to atheists. For instance, Yahweh is worshiped by all 3 Abrahamic religions and we consider you all to be wrong. 5) Grow the fuck up. It's a cracker. If you think otherwise, you're either brainwashed or insane. Either way, whining like a child that your preciously feelings have been hurt is precisely the wrong way to convince me that you have anything of value to in the marketplace of ideas. If you want to cry, at least have the decency not to do it in public.
That time has passed. The age when you were "respected" for believing in nonsense is over.
Nope. People, human life, deserves respect. But their beliefs? For no reason? Just because you say so? Bullshit.Posted by: Kel | September 2, 2008 10:46 PM
When all catholics give up eating cow as a sign of respect to the Hindus, then they have ground to think that their religious traditions should be respected. But while they kill those sacred symbols of Hindu, they have no grounds for interfaith respect.
Basically what it boils down to is that only people of a religion need to follow the religious guidelines. The rest of us have to pay no attention to that at all, it's not our place. Just as we don't force you to think, you can't force us to respect ritualised cannibalism!
Posted by: Hans | September 2, 2008 10:50 PM
The second story at the link in PZ's post?
Dems love sex
They're trying to say that like it's a bad thing.
Posted by: Bob Evans | September 2, 2008 11:11 PM
"Donahue may gloat a little bit, but isn't it rather cheesy that he should shriek to mobilize national outrage and this is the best he can do?"
That's an argumentum ad hominem on it's face. Then too, at least 90% of the so-called "cracker" comments have also been of that caliber.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 2, 2008 11:13 PM
Does anyone here have any info about the reported physical violence against the UCF Campus Freethought Alliance member who was falsely described by the campus paper as a "legal advisor" to Webster Cook?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | September 2, 2008 11:14 PM
From the Catholic League Statement:,
"We applaud the students who did more than the school in punishing this student's outrageous behavior."
Well. I'm sure that the holey savior is wicked down with that! Just a sec, I'll check with teh Dog's rottweiler.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 2, 2008 11:20 PM
CO's Faith deserves respect because, you know, because he capitalized it.
CO: I realize it makes you feel better to whine about this and to play the persecution card (how shallow and predictable that is!) but you really need to Get With The Program. Your right to believe what you will is respected around here. The belief itself? Not so much.
It's time to grow up and accept the fact that some people think your beliefs are ridiculous - but so what? Does the opinion of those who do not share your beliefs affect your sense of well-being, your sense of self-worth, or your confidence in the rightness of the beliefs you hold so firmly and so dearly?
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 2, 2008 11:22 PM
Although current events can be tragic, when one takes a look at the broad sweep of history, we have a few things to cheer. One of them is that the Catholic church has no power to have people killed for heresy or blasphemy anymore.
-jcr
Posted by: Kseniya | September 2, 2008 11:27 PM
Bob Evans kills two birds with one stone by demonstrating that he neither knows how to use an apostrophe, nor knows the meaning of argumentum ad hominem. Well done!
Perhaps Mr. Evans can elaborate on his rather incoherent comment, and explain why the line he quoted is an attack on Donahue rather than on Donahue's arguments.
Posted by: H.H. | September 2, 2008 11:28 PM
Or for the time being. If you think history can't repeat itself, think again.Posted by: Dale Husband | September 2, 2008 11:29 PM
From that Catholic League post:
"It was this student's protest that led to the public desecration of the Eucharist by University of Minnesota Morris professor Paul Z. Myers. He too was not sanctioned by his institution for his hateful acts."
That's because he didn't kill or torture anyone. But the Spanish Inquisition, a Catholic organization, did.
To call P Z Myers hateful is to totally not understand what hatefulness involves. He was calling a spade a spade, quite simply. My regard for Catholics in general dropped dramatically, not because of what PZ did, but because of how many Catholics reacted to it.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 2, 2008 11:47 PM
Here is a little more detail about the impeachment:
A slightly more extended definition of "misfeasance" says:
However, there is also this report which alleges Cook was denied due process at the hearing:Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 3, 2008 12:09 AM
And further down the Catholic League page, there's another story with unintended humour.
First of all, not knowing too much about Shriver, the only reason for me to criticise him would be his demand for censorship of the movie. He should have found a better way to make this a consciousness raising moment.
So now that I am one of Shriver's critics, I can say that if the movie fails in its satire and is simply cruel, that I would be at least somewhat upset.
That leaves my opinion of films that "bash Catholics". I don't know of any, so all I can say is that my reaction would depend on whether the bashing was deserved or gratuitously hateful. For example, pointing out the tendency of Catholics, along with many other religious groups, to play the Martyr card would be quite justified in my estimation.
Also, I have to question the intelligence of the writer who constructed that last sentence so as to juxtapose 'retarded' and 'Catholics' so temptingly. That's the humorous part.
So they've never demanded a ban on a movie? How the church has changed with the times. I understand the Index Librorum Prohibitorum is not completely abandoned. Catholics are supposed to just consider it good advice now.
Posted by: Rick R | September 3, 2008 1:09 AM
#41- "That leaves my opinion of films that "bash Catholics". I don't know of any"
The only movie I can remember that might even come close to Catholic bashing is "Rosemary's Baby", and that was 40 years ago. All those 60 year old devil worshippers don't think too highly of the pope's NY visit....
OTOH, Rosemary DOES have the devil's baby. So, even in the world of the movie, the catholics can say "See?? I told you so!!!"
Posted by: Kel | September 3, 2008 1:20 AM
Well there was always the Golden Compass for Catholic bashing. Though relegating it to a fantasy world where armoured polar bears fight kind of obfuscates the criticism.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 3, 2008 1:39 AM
And TGC doesn't even bash Catholics per se... it bashes the Church, represented as magisterial authoritarianism.
Posted by: Patricia | September 3, 2008 1:41 AM
Then there's that naughty PZ. Gawd has some serious work to do.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | September 3, 2008 1:45 AM
Whew, the menace of Webster Cook has been vanquished! I bet Jesus has an erection now!
Posted by: Thomas Howard | September 3, 2008 1:59 AM
Re: #43
From what I understand, the film watered down the religious criticism quite heavily, so it may not count. The best I can come up with is a video game example: Final Fantasy Tactics, wherein a very Catholic-like organization espousing a very Catholic-like religion turns out to be extremely corrupt, arbitrary, hypocritical and the Christ-analogue turns out to be not so Christ-like, and in fact, literally demonic, basically being a puppet possessed by a very unpleasant entity roughly equivalent to Satan. The apostle-analogues were similarly burdened. Said entities infest various Church higher-ups in the game's present day and are looking to resurrect their boss, and meddle in the world in ways even worse than the Church already does anyway. Essentially, the player's goal is to destroy these people and the antichrist Christ-figure, all of which is wrapped in a framing story wherein you succeed but the Church defames your memory as a vile heretic and covers up the true history and gets to continue screwing up the world, but not as badly as it would have had you failed to kill the Jesus-demon entity, all of which is eventually discovered and written about by a scholar who is a descendant of one of the characters you run across in the game. Plus, there's a lot of War of the Roses style political stuff going on at the same time, resulting in some nasty warring, which the Church encourages in a bid to grab power by weakening the factions on opposing sides of the conflict, and also because vast amounts of bloodshed and suffering are required in order to resurrect "Jesus".
Fun game.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | September 3, 2008 2:46 AM
#31: Exactly - I was a bit puzzled by that too....
"Dems love sex".
Says it all, really.
Posted by: MikeM | September 3, 2008 2:47 AM
I don't often feel this way, but I think I'd frackin' sue.
Seriously.
(Before any of you Catholic activists accuses me of being lawsuit happy, I will point out that I've never sued anyone, ever, and I'm 50. So there.)
I need to see the specific bylaw of this University that Cook violated. Show me the exact rule he broke.
I suspect you'd get nothing but crickets. "We felt like it."
Webster, transfer thee to UCSC. My alma mater would be proud to call you one of its own!
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | September 3, 2008 2:48 AM
#31: Exactly - I was a bit puzzled by that too....
"Dems love sex".
Says it all, really.
Besides - are "Dems" a group opposed to Catholics? A bit weird to alienate them like that on their webpage. But of course, we can't be affiliated with sex-lovers...
Posted by: Adam | September 3, 2008 3:45 AM
@43, 47:
The thing is that even the book TGC wasn't hugely anti-catholic/anti-god compared to The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass, and still Donohue got whiny about the watered-down film.
Shame it looks like the next two won't be made - would love to have seen his reaction to them!
As for his 'victory' on this, well, I would ask if he had better things to think about . . . but that would just be really stupid wouldn't it?
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 3, 2008 5:59 AM
@#1: Well in fairness, all the evidence about the historical Jesus suggests he would be RIGHT that Yeshua would be rabidly anti-Catholic
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 3, 2008 6:04 AM
JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 3, 2008 12:09 AM, #41
And further down the Catholic League page, there's another story with unintended humour.
Timothy Shriver, chairman...
Uh oh, wheelchair envy.
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 3, 2008 7:08 AM
#51: In some ways it's a shame. On the other hand, a LOT happens in The Amber Spyglass; it's hard enough to follow in book form. A film would just suck. The BBC should do miniseries.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 3, 2008 8:06 AM
On the issue of the impeachment hearing, it seems to me that there are two questions.
First, we can assume that taking part in the Eucharist ceremony was the "lawful act" and that the charge of misfeasance arose from the improper way in which Cook is alleged to have conducted himself during it. The question is: did Cook, at any time, claim to be acting in his official capacity as a member of the student governing body since, according to the rule cited in the report, that would be required before a charge of misfeasance could be brought.
Second, if there were procedural irregularities at the hearing, as has been alleged, what right of appeal against the ruling, if any, is available to Cook?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 3, 2008 8:24 AM
Before we even to get to looking at how the hearing was handled there is the whole issue of what they were doing having one in the first place.
Cook was not elected by his colleagues in the student government so I cannot see why they think they have the right to remove him from office.
Posted by: SteveM | September 3, 2008 9:20 AM
Dogma was not very flattering to the Catholic Church. Kevin Smith tells a hilarious story (An Evening with Kevin Smith)about when he went to protest his movie somewhere in NJ on opening night.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | September 3, 2008 12:18 PM
#16:
And it was done to a Catholic college studdent, and here we are being outraged. What's your point?
Or is it possible you don't know what you're talking about? No, that never happens.
Posted by: Aquaria | September 3, 2008 12:36 PM
Don't you just know that CO was one of those kids who would have graham cracker and crying-snot in his hair all the time?
Posted by: khan | September 3, 2008 8:43 PM
Whew, the menace of Webster Cook has been vanquished! I bet Jesus has an erection now!
Jesus has an erection whenever an unbeliever is persecuted; does he then masturbate, or find someone to fuck?
Posted by: Ed | September 4, 2008 11:16 AM
Student government at most universities is a joke. I take it as a point of pride that the "establishment" tried to impeach me during my brief tenure in the University of Florida student senate (and they couldn't even make it stick).
Webster should be honored to have been rejected by such a corrupt and insignificant body.