…and this is a 
As we all know to our great shame, Ken Ham has this Creation "Museum" in Kentucky. As has been reported before, it's a thoroughly bogus bit of bunco, with dinosaurs wearing saddles and all the ills of the world laid at the feet of Charles Darwin.
There are a few things you might not know. Like that it's rolling in dough, with almost $18 million in revenue and $14 million in assets. It's entirely tax free, which helps, and Ham is a relentless self-promoter.
This one may shock you: public schools are sending kids on field trips to the museum. It's usually under the guise of an extra-curricular activity by a religion club, the loophole David Paszkiewicz (remember him?) used to take kids from Kearny High School in New Jersey there. But get this remark from an education official in Kentucky:
Kentucky Department of Education spokeswoman Lisa Gross said nothing in state law would bar public schools from visiting, if it were part of "a lesson" on "how some perceived the world's beginnings."
You know Ham has friends in high places, and they are warming up to open his brand of nonsense and lies to the schools in that area. More minds, more souls, more money for Ken.
And of course, what is Ken Ham's big, bold, explicit message? That the only tenable belief is in fundamentalist Christianity and a literal interpretation of Genesis. The crew at Answers in Genesis really detests theistic evolution — you know, that compromise position the accommodationists want us to bow down before. To these creationists, anything less than abject capitulation to Biblical literalism will lead to the collapse of Christian America.
Oh, but wait — I know what you are thinking. You're thinking that this is insane. This is "stupid and crazy and wrong". You might even be thinking, as I do, that this is dangerous and represents a corruption of education that is doing great harm to our country. You might also feel as I do, that we should not hold back in denouncing this blight of poisonous ignorance in our midst.
You'd be bad if you thought that.
Well, at least according to Michael Ruse, the Discovery Institute's favorite evilutionist philosopher. You see, Ruse has recently visited the museum, as he wrote to Andrew Brown, and he tried to understand how the creationists feel.
Just for one moment about half way through the exhibit …I got that Kuhnian flash that it could all be true — it was only a flash (rather like thinking that Freudianism is true or that the Republicans are right on anything whatsoever) but it was interesting nevertheless to get a sense of how much sense this whole display and paradigm can make to people
Oh, right. Forget all that stuff about the earth being 6,000 years old, all the diversity of life on earth being packed into a boat for a year, and the adamant belief that atheists, agnostics, and theistic evolutionists are trying to destroy the nation for Satan…we're supposed to feel for them, and try to understand their psychology. Ruse continues:
It is silly just to dismiss this stuff as false — that eating turds is good for you is [also] false but generally people don't want to [whereas] a lot of people believe Creationism so we on the other side need to get a feeling not just for the ideas but for the psychology too.
This is what is so awful about the "New Atheists": they are such horrible, insensitive louts. They can't overlook the teeny tiny little demand of biblical literalism to see that creationism isn't quite so wicked. That, at least, is what Andrew Brown dislikes about us.
This is, I think one of the key differences between the new, or militant, atheists and Darwinians like Ruse, just as atheist as they but a lot less anti-religious. The new atheists recoil instinctively from the idea that they should get a feeling for the ideas and psychology of creationists. To them the essential point about believers is that they are stupid and crazy and wrong. So why waste your one life trying to inhabit a mind smaller and more twisted than your own?
See? If only we'd try to see the world through their eyes, we would understand that their beliefs aren't stupid and crazy and wrong. Or something. I'm not quite sure what. I guess we're supposed to sympathize with them, and be less critical.
Well, guess what, Andrew and Michael? I do talk with creationists, and I do understand where they're coming from, and I do sympathize with them greatly. Your assumption that I and other "New Atheists" do not care about the psychology of creationists is false, and I think, counter-productive.
I understand that many creationists are intelligent and sane — they share a lot of values with me, like wanting to be able to think as they please, to raise happy, healthy families, and they are very concerned about their children: they are sure that if their kids aren't Christian, they'll be miserable, wretched, and damned to hell for all eternity. I do sympathize with them. I feel great sympathy and sorrow for the fact that they've been lied to by deluded con men like Ken Ham, and that they're living lives driven by an irrational fear…a fear that is reinforced every day by evangelists and fundamentalists and the whole petty shuck-and-jive of religious belief.
I sympathize with their kids, too. These are blameless innocents who are going to be brought up in ignorance, reassured constantly that their foolishness is a virtue, and that learning about this wonderful, beautiful, dangerous, and uncaring universe we live in will lead them to hell. No child should be brought up in fear and darkness.
I sympathize with their fate, because they're going to grow up just like their parents and spread the fear and ignorance even further. They will want the best for their kids, too, and instead, under the guidance of pious liars, they will wreck those kids' minds, too. And the cycle will go on and on.
I sympathize with all their secular neighbors most of all. What will happen? They will live in a country where their schools are third-rate, because the creationists will suppress education not just for their own kids, but for everyone else's, too. They will see their school boards populated with the products of such fare as the Creation "Museum", and they will get to vote in elections where their options are Insane-Fundie-Wackjob vs. Slightly-Less-Crazy-God-Botherer. And the lesser-of-two-evils won't always win, because their neighbors all think the fundier, the better.
I sympathize because they are all missing the awesomeness of reality for the awfulness of some narrow Bronze Age theocratic bullshit.
But there are also some for whom I have no sympathy at all.
I have zero sympathy for intelligent people who stand before a grandiose monument to lies, an institution that is anti-scientific, anti-rational, and ultimately anti-human, in a place where children are being actively miseducated, an edifice dedicated to an abiding intellectual evil, and choose to complain about how those ghastly atheists are ruining everything.
Those people can just fuck off.
Comments
Posted by: Brian | June 17, 2009 9:04 PM
It's the argument that only someone who hates soldiers would protest a war, all over again.
Posted by: Dancer | June 17, 2009 9:04 PM
*hugz*
Posted by: Robert Davidson | June 17, 2009 9:05 PM
Um, ah... PZ swore!
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 17, 2009 9:08 PM
Why should we "get a feeling for the ideas and psychology of creationists"? There a plenty of interesting types of people in the world, what makes creationists so special we should take the time to try and deeply understand them? We already understand evolution better, what is there to learn from creationists? How about the creationists study science, how about that?
Failure in logic, there.
Posted by: firemancarl | June 17, 2009 9:09 PM
Ah, PZ just PWND! all teh cdesign proponentsists...
another 100% epic win by PZ!
Woot!
Posted by: Libbie | June 17, 2009 9:09 PM
They can fuck right the hell off.
Posted by: Geoff | June 17, 2009 9:10 PM
No, telling such scum to fuck off isn't swearing, it's a very gentle way to tell them to go away.
Posted by: TheFridgenometer | June 17, 2009 9:10 PM
I'm glad I live nowhere near Ken Ham's 'museum'. Good post, PZ!
TheFridgenometer
Posted by: James F | June 17, 2009 9:12 PM
A flash that it could all be true? Like a glitch in the Matrix?
Meanwhile, in Louisiana, efforts are underway to amend the state's version of the First Amendment to read:
HT: The Sensuous Curmudgeon
Posted by: Barry | June 17, 2009 9:13 PM
This is precisely the reason why I enjoy this blog.
Posted by: TheFridgenometer | June 17, 2009 9:13 PM
I'm glad I live nowhere near Ken Ham's 'museum'. Good post, PZ!
TheFridgenometer
Posted by: Helene | June 17, 2009 9:14 PM
Can I quote you on your last paragraph? Ideally, I'd like to turn in into a huge poster for my front yard to counteract the poster my right-wing wack job neighbor put up when Obama was elected.
Posted by: Mandy | June 17, 2009 9:15 PM
Amen!
Posted by: BostonRob | June 17, 2009 9:16 PM
AFUCKINGMEN
Posted by: Otto | June 17, 2009 9:17 PM
If I were in the area and had some time to waste I would visit the museum and enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Expelled.
Of course, I got some dirty looks at Expelled for inappropriate laughing, so it is quite likely I would be expelled from the museum for rolling on the floor in merriment,
but so what!
Stupidity exists, lets enjoy it.
Posted by: Mark | June 17, 2009 9:20 PM
I do live near the museum, and I've been wrestling with my impulse to give it a visit for amusement.
But I hate the idea of giving them some of my money.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 17, 2009 9:20 PM
here's the thing/ I wouldn't mind thips to that place so much, but only if
1)they were part on an anthropology class, and another field trip would involve, for example, a visit to a Native American religious ceremony
2)it didn't make the loons any money
Posted by: Felix | June 17, 2009 9:20 PM
Ruse argues from the impression that things like the Creation Museum are somehow safe havens for irrational beliefs erected by poor deluded adults for their own complacency. PZ very rightfully points out that they are first and foremost institutions for the purpose of propagating, spreading and indoctrinating a designated increasing number of children and uneducated adults, in order to bring them into the fold of the deluded. I can't believe Ruse inadvertently missed that point. What went wrong?
Other things:
PZ writes:
Ah, but see, pointing out that something is false is silly and insensitive. ;)
PZ writes:
[emphasis mine]PZ, haven't you paid any attention to the fundy worldview, listened to Wretched Radio or read anything at Comfort's or one of his consenters? They do believe that their children are miserable wretches, and will remain so until death, just like their parents and their grandchildren - which is precisely why Jesus is so great being sinless and not wretched at all never etc. They are wretched because they deserve hell, in the full torture forever and ever sense of the word.
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 17, 2009 9:20 PM
Why should we try to understand the minds of creationists?
The same way cops try to understand the criminal mind? Or for the same reason that psychiatrists try to understand psychotics?
Posted by: Mandy | June 17, 2009 9:22 PM
I was at the Rally for Reason the day that the "museum" opened. Some of the friends that I was there with decided to tour the place. I thought about touring it to see the ridiculousness first hand, but I could NOT stomach giving $20 to Ken Swine. I stayed outside and took the brunt of the "Evolution is racist!" comments while my friends took in the interior.
Posted by: Victor | June 17, 2009 9:32 PM
Sheer poetry, brilliant PZ, simply brilliant.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 17, 2009 9:36 PM
This is my major concern.
The fundamentalists won't be happy until the US is a Third World theocracy. They're certainly working diligently towards this goal.
Posted by: Mr Eccles | June 17, 2009 9:41 PM
I find Ruse's particular brand of fence-sitting irritating in the extreme. I was present at one of his talks a couple of years ago where he suggested that museums are Darwinism's churches because many of them resemble actual churchs. Seriously.
Posted by: Holly | June 17, 2009 9:42 PM
I love PZ, I know you are married and have children but can I please be an honorary member of your family?
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
June 17, 2009 9:43 PM
This is what is so awful about the "New Atheists": they are such horrible, insensitive louts.
Well I know I am, for one.
Lemme explain with an example. My husband was born in New Zealand. One set of grandparents had had to leave Ireland because they dared to marry across the Catholic/Protestant divide. I have Northern Irish roots, too. In the 1930s, my mother used to sit in church every Sunday and listen to the minister pray for "damnation on the Catholics". So if Ruse or anyone else wants me to consider the feelings of the religiously backward, I have to assume that he has no idea--no idea at all--of the extent of misery and suffering that these people cheerfully inflict on each other. There is nothing we atheist louts can do that even comes close. Or, to put it another way: CRY ME A FUCKING RIVER.
[Sorry, carry on.]
Posted by: Hampus | June 17, 2009 9:44 PM
This is probably the best post I've read on this blog so far (including the time when P.Z. was kicked off the line to see Expelled. heh..)
I applaud you, sir. A chest full of shiny internets will arrive at your front door, arr.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 17, 2009 9:45 PM
The shame of having been born in the same state of Australia (Queensland) as Ken Ham is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that he buggered off to the USA where we don't have to deal with him.
I do feel bad for y'all, though. However, if you do decided to kick him out of the country, don't send him back here. I suggest Iraq.
Posted by: TheBear | June 17, 2009 9:45 PM
Suddely - I got this picture in my head of Ruse visiting a cave in the mountains of Afganistan. And then coming out talking about how we should get a feel for the ideas and psycology of fundamentalist, murderous islam.
Precious - anybody want to put any money on that actually happening?
Posted by: Randy | June 17, 2009 9:48 PM
You may be my hero... Taking kids to this monstrosity of a 'museum' is nothing less than child abuse. I think I may print this one and have it bronzed.
Posted by: Gold Dragon | June 17, 2009 9:49 PM
I've long figured that Ken Ham is fully aware that he's spreading lies and is in it for the sake of the money and power it gets him and the same goes for most of the main creationist.
As I see it there are 4 types of evangelical:
1: The arrogant sod who thinks because they think something everybody else has to.
2: The cowards, who know at heart they are wrong, so try and back up there believes by making converts.
3: The nutters.
4: The controllers. The ones who use the other types of evangelicals to spread there ideas and get them money and more power.
Long ago Seneca said “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Ken Ham and his despicable ilk fully understand this idea.
Posted by: CMFlyer
|
June 17, 2009 9:49 PM
Time to go watch Religulous for the first time. Great post, PZ!
Posted by: Holly | June 17, 2009 9:49 PM
I love PZ, I know you are married and have children but can I please be an honorary member of your family?
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | June 17, 2009 9:51 PM
I'm sorry, but fence-sitters get my back up something terrible.
For example, in America, it seems that the Rethuglican party just keeps going right. And what is the Democrats approach? Is it to maintain a rational, centrist, position? Or even go left? Noooooooo.... They go right. And that makes the Rethuglican's position seem less extreme, which gives them licence to go further right. So they do. Then the Democrats follow again, and again and again.
Creationists are just like the Rethuglican party - they tend to go right. To go right with them, to appease them, is to validate their position.
Don't get me wrong, it isn't always wrong to go towards the centre - but ONLY if the other party will also go towards the centre. Otherwise, it becomes a runaway situation, like a peacock's tail.
Posted by: Chemgirl
|
June 17, 2009 9:56 PM
Thank you, PZ. I have to say that reading you blog did not begin my deconversion, but rather taught me that atheism is okay--despite the opinion of those around me that morality is impossible without a deity to enforce it. For that you deserve my gratitude.
These quotes you've highlighted exemplify how, in this day and place, it's often less acceptable to be godless than gay. And homosexuality is only barely tolerated, really.
Posted by: Andy James. | June 17, 2009 9:56 PM
I hear ya, and I'm salty about this incredible scam too.
Religion thrives on borrowing credibility from people one knows, and then taking your money. Its a pyrimid cam to make Madoff blush.
To think of the millions of unbelivers and those just not believing the right thing put to death. The first thing, a child learns in Sunday school is about the summary murder of almost every living thing on earth by this "merciful" god. When has a scientific finding insisted on such monumental psychosis.
People who want to complain about my disrespect of their cult, may, as you say, FUCK OFF.
Posted by: Ken | June 17, 2009 9:58 PM
Best Blog Ever
Posted by: Rob Davidson | June 17, 2009 9:59 PM
I saw Ken Ham wandering around at South Bank parklands in his home town Brisbane back in the summer (southern hemisphere summer that is). I had to discipline myself not to go up to him and be rude.
I think he is genuinely convinced by his bizarre ideas - I don't agree that he's cynically getting rich.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 17, 2009 10:02 PM
Like cancer, we will always have religion and its attendant insanities as long as there are deranged humans for which to parasitize on. Atheism never has the concomitant ills in efforts to rationalize those so eager to think and act clearly without the pernicious effects of religion. It is truly a wonder the difference between the two, and just boggles the mind that the deranged majority should run rampant over the minority rational. It will be this state for a much longer time that we can imagine. Scary.
Posted by: AJ Milne | June 17, 2009 10:03 PM
A-fucking-men.
Also, re:
Well, yeah, that too. Very much so.
(Tho' yes, I get that said angle wasn't exactly what this post was about.)
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 17, 2009 10:05 PM
Because the ideas are lame and the psychology is juvenile.
Andrew Brown doesn't seem to understand that centuries of kindly regard like his got us into this religion mess.
Posted by: Alex | June 17, 2009 10:05 PM
This is a good rant. =)
Posted by: genesgalore | June 17, 2009 10:06 PM
we can only tell them to fuck off if we say it like chickens would.
Posted by: MaxH
|
June 17, 2009 10:06 PM
Being from Kentucky (in fact, relatively near this... 'museum'), I am deeply ashamed for my home state 'hosting' this kind of jackass stuff.
It's also saddening to me that he's not taxed. Like... heavy taxation would be nice. 90% or so... anything that would put him out of business.
Posted by: Matt | June 17, 2009 10:06 PM
They will simply not be content until we live under a theocracy. That works very well for Middle Eastern nations, doesn't it?
Fight back. Fight back with all of your scientific passion.
Posted by: Alverant | June 17, 2009 10:12 PM
If the creo-tards want us to try to understand their point of view, then they should pull their heads out of their asses and try seeing the world from ours.
Posted by: owlafaye | June 17, 2009 10:16 PM
The solution has always been with us. Tax religions. Ahhhhh, worry not. Their activities will be sharply curtailed and the number of adherents will decrease. Church will become a whole new business. Their incomes will be subject to close scrutiny, the cat will be out of the bag.
TAX RELIGIONS
Posted by: Ray Ingles | June 17, 2009 10:17 PM
I still think it's hilarious that you have to actually pick up a gun and shoot someone to be considered a 'militant' believer, but all you have to do to be a 'militant' atheist is write a book.
Posted by: owlafaye | June 17, 2009 10:19 PM
TAX RELIGIONS...this will solve so many problems. The cat will be out of the bag. Religion will never again have the power(s) they enjoy now, nor will they be able to avoid scrutiny.
TAX RELIGIONS
Posted by: Funkjunkie | June 17, 2009 10:21 PM
Wow, PZ. Well said!
One day I will have the guts to tell my theist relatives that I don't believe in their precious deity. Most of the time it's just so much easier to nod and smile and pretend to be grateful that they are praying for me. But with every post like this, PZ, I can feel my courage growing.....
Posted by: owlafaye | June 17, 2009 10:24 PM
TAX RELIGIONS...this will solve so many problems. The cat will be out of the bag. Religion will never again have the power(s) they enjoy now, nor will they be able to avoid scrutiny.
TAX RELIGIONS
Posted by: Obdurate | June 17, 2009 10:27 PM
- "a grandiose monument to lies, an institution that is anti-scientific, anti-rational, and ultimately anti-human, in a place where children are being actively miseducated, an edifice dedicated to an abiding intellectual evil"
That part gave me chills...i love the way you write pz!
Posted by: littlejohn | June 17, 2009 10:28 PM
Well, I'm a not quite sure I understand your feelings about these people, PZ. Could you be a little more clear? Do you have some sort of disagreement with them? Please clarify; you're too subtle for me!
Posted by: Eidolon of Middle Georgia | June 17, 2009 10:31 PM
QUOTE: "...nothing in state law would bar public schools from visiting, if it were part of ‘a lesson’ on ‘how some perceived the world's beginnings’."
It makes sense, then, that they should ensure a real scientist is provided for these field trips to explain to the group that they are observing fringe beliefs that have no basis in modern science – that the ideas being presented are based on a different, bizarre way of viewing the world.
This would really put the museum’s exhibit in perspective and drive home the ‘lesson in how some people perceive the world…’
Surely the local public schools should not object to requiring a subject expert to assist with the tours, since they are in the business of education.
If a public education system is willfully exposing students to fabricated bullshit, the students should be at least be educated on that fact. Or, am I hoping too much?
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | June 17, 2009 10:33 PM
Ruse seems to be having some kind of psychotic mind-dump these days. He sent me an email claiming that I may be more of a danger to the pro-evolution movement than is Phillip Johnson. This from the Discovery Institute's favorite philosopher, a man who edited a book with William Dembski!
I truly believe that inside Ruse's large bearlike frame is a creationist struggling to get out.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | June 17, 2009 10:36 PM
No surprise here. The New Creationists "think" the New Atheists are too far-flung because they won't empathize with their strange, small-universe, small-god beliefs. We must Reach a Middle Ground!
Bah.
Posted by: The Most Interesting Man in the World | June 17, 2009 10:40 PM
I don't always read the Internet, but when I do, I prefer Pharyngula.
Posted by: Orbiting Teapot | June 17, 2009 10:41 PM
Amen!
Posted by: Bryson Brown | June 17, 2009 10:42 PM
Excellent post. I don't know what it is with Ruse on this stuff-- looking at his recent work, it's as if he suddenly saw for the first time that scientific work, in the strictest sense, could have impact and uptake outside of science, both individually and culturally, and suddenly decided (in a strange fit of indiscrimination) that this justified the equation of that broader aspect and influence of science with religion. Pretty silly when you think of it.
Posted by: Doug | June 17, 2009 10:42 PM
*clap clap clap*
Posted by: Moridin | June 17, 2009 10:48 PM
Did PZ Myers just tell Michael Ruse should "fuck off"? :o
Even though I disagree with several parts of the accommodation position and the fact that I am no stranger to using harsh and decisive language to make my point, but this was slightly too much for my taste and maybe even slightly scary (since it was in bold).
I would want to say that it was inappropriate, but I feel like that would be blasphemous.
Posted by: DireLobo | June 17, 2009 10:53 PM
Yeah baby - that's how we do things downtown!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 17, 2009 10:53 PM
Yeah, and the horse he rode in on, too.
Posted by: Mariana | June 17, 2009 10:57 PM
Thank you, PZ.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c213/nastasie/Lovethispost.jpg
Posted by: DonRocko | June 17, 2009 10:58 PM
Hear hear PZ!
Posted by: Kel | June 17, 2009 10:59 PM
When I begin to feel that little bit of empathy and have those thoughts in my head "you know, religion isn't all that bad", I look at things like this to remind myself of why I'm an antitheist. If these fools want to reject science, they should go ahead and live a life that is science free: no electricity or electronic devices in the homes - after all, they are products of an understanding of the same force that demonstrates that the universe is over 13 billion years old; no use of nuclear technology - after all, the same science tells us that the earth is ~4.55 billion years old; no more medicine for them - especially not products that are developed on the assumption of evolution...
I could go on. Point is these people sit there reaping the benefits of the scientific method while denying the conclusions which come from the underlying theories behind those mechanisms. They are hypocrites, and ones who aren't afraid to flaunt their hypocrisy. It's really hard to have any empathy for someone who doesn't even try to understand the world around them, for those who will use their "magic song brick" and take their "god pills" without even coming to terms with how either of those two products came to be.
Like our hunter/gatherer ancestors who realised that domesticating livestock was a much surer solution for having a reliable food source than appealing to the divine for food (we can't all live off manna), surely the time has come where technology we consume is tightly coupled with the realisation that the same processes that bring us these technologies tell us that we evolved over time on an old earth inside an even older universe. The consumer process is so decoupled from the manufacturing process that such a strategy may be a necessity.
Posted by: H.H. | June 17, 2009 10:59 PM
Once again, the criticism of us "new atheists" has nothing to do with facts, evidence, the soundness of our arguments or the validity of our conclusions. No, it's always just our tone that's the problem. We aren't sensitive enough. Forget that everything creationists believe is based on ignorance and lies, those beliefs must be treated with respect. Ugh.
Apparently in the bizzaro world of the accommodationists, people are more likely to give up respectable beliefs than ridiculous ones.
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 17, 2009 11:00 PM
Actually, "Fuck off" is a very appropriate response to a request that we be nicer to a group of people who consider the idea of lying and misleading children in order to control them better to be a virtue, to say of nothing of the other fact that this same group that we be nice to demonizes and slanders anyone who disagrees with them at the drop of a hat.
Posted by: Jason | June 17, 2009 11:09 PM
Hey PZ, tell us how you really feel. Ramen!!!
Posted by: vaibhav | June 17, 2009 11:17 PM
Good on you PZ!
On a day to day basis I know everyone tries to live their lives. its called social respect not sympathy. But wen some of them try to make wrong statements about reality well theirs no sympathy. Would andrew and micheal show sympathy to someone who think tht their child is possessed by daemons and the only way to get rid of it is to beat the child up?
Well if we in science show sympathy to ppl whos theories are discarded on the 'mere' basis tht they are contrary to the evidence, however charming they are we would by now have ended up going back to the dark ages.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
June 17, 2009 11:22 PM
Great ending!
An earth only 6,000 years old is just not that awe inspiring and it flies in the face of all evidence. Michael Ruse didn't just have to suspend all beliefs, he had to jump headlong into theism.
Gawd, the wingnuts have invaded atheism it seems when we have atheists wanting silly beliefs tried on and shielded from reality. Creationism is such psychological drivel that we would be better off experiencing the world through the eyes of a slobbering drunk.
Michael Ruse also needs to take a step back--wingnuts need to have their beliefs challenged. Scott Roeder, James von Brunn, and Shawna Forde are what happens when those private beliefs are fostered by society and allowed to grow largely unchallenged.
Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 17, 2009 11:23 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcissism/sets/72157619892928838/
I just finally got around to checking the place out yesterday if anyone is interested in checking out the photos. Conveniently organized in a set in the order in which things appeared in the museum.
The museum was an absolutely beautiful temple to ignorance and anti-intellectualism. I'm still not over the fury I felt over the numerous misrepresentations, over-simplifications, and downright lies I saw there--not only about science, but in terms of scripture as well--things like selectively quoting and paraphrasing from several different translations of the bible throughout the place (although they claim that the Bible is inerrant in its original autographs only), kind of the same way they quote mine scientific articles and studies. It was just appalling, really.
Anyways. Just thought I'd throw a link to the set out here for anyone who's interested in looking at it.
Posted by: paul fcd | June 17, 2009 11:29 PM
Who are Ken Ham's "friends in high places"?
Posted by: IvanM | June 17, 2009 11:30 PM
Heehee. I marked this article for saving in my feed reader before I even got to the end. And then, BAM! Preach it, brother PZ!
(HT to Mariana for the image, which really had to be placed inline)
Posted by: atomjack | June 17, 2009 11:31 PM
Did Not read the comments. Just wanted to say, I agree, PZ, the christards are trying to take the population down with them into a cesspool of ignorance. It's the "easy" way to live, not having to think for one's self, just accepting the alpha male's proclamations. The alleged "problem" with atheists (IMO) is that, at least at a gut level, they recognize the FAIL in those alleged reasoning skills. I for one do not invite another Inquisition, which, as far as I'm concerned, is where the RCC would go if allowed. It only takes a few small-minded people to wreck a lot of stuff- take the post-win "parties" thrown by butthead Laker's fans in downtown LA. "Look, I got's my piccie on Page one of a local paper, jumping on the hood of a car, celebrating my team's win!". :rolleyes: There's a picture in the paper, it's documentation, PROSECUTE HIM. [/rant] Seriously, this nation is gonna get run over by Stupid in a jacked-up four wheeler, and end up looking like something from Mad Max. damn.
Posted by: fftysmthg | June 17, 2009 11:31 PM
Damn! I almost stood and applauded!
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 17, 2009 11:39 PM
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: roddy | June 17, 2009 11:39 PM
P.Z why don.t you come over to Darwin(Australia)son, you need a break from the obsurd and go fishing !.
Posted by: Blue-eyed Videot | June 17, 2009 11:47 PM
Why is it that we don't tax churches, tell me again?
There ought to be a goddamned idiot tax!
Posted by: DLC | June 17, 2009 11:51 PM
Sympathy for the Devil ?
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
June 17, 2009 11:56 PM
Great post, PZ. I think the thing is, we've been accommodating these zealots and zombies for far too long under this notion of respect or one-sided tolerance, and it's now rattling our nation's educational system into a clunky and dysfunctional wreck. We can't afford to give these brainwashed, self-serving, mind-wreckers another inch if this nation is going to progress into the 21st Century with any potential.
Posted by: subflea | June 17, 2009 11:58 PM
Made me sick tonight as I watched the Cincinnati Reds game when I saw that August 2nd is Faith Day at the ballpark, sponsored by the Creation Museum. Anyone in the area want to get together to protest?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 18, 2009 12:09 AM
Having been a creationist, fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, I have known the enemy, and it is vile, blind ignorance.
There is no need to sympathize with this mindset. It is beyond respect.
Posted by: Asa | June 18, 2009 12:21 AM
Dr. Myers,
This was a very entertaining post, and I also feel the same way that you do. My Christian friends keep asking me why I don't respect creationism if I want creationists to respect my beliefs, but I think your second to last paragraph explains it pretty well.
I subscribed to Ken Ham's blog to stay informed on his nonsense, but it is so repetitive that I think I will have to stop before it drives me insane. Here is a summary of virtually everything I have read so far:
1. Secular Humanists are mean to me. That is bad.
2. Look, here is _______ here visiting the creation museum. People think it's so interesting.
3. Bible verse + reminder to pray.
I'll tell you what I can't relate to. I can't relate to the amount of whining this guy does. It's like listening to a spoiled 5 year old over and over again and not being able to do anything about it.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | June 18, 2009 12:23 AM
Just brilliantly said...
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 18, 2009 12:27 AM
It goes with the territory. Christians are supposed to rejoice in their suffering [Romans 5:3-4], and the Bible also basically says that if the world hates you, you're doing it right [John 15:18-19], so they put on the appearance of being on the sharp end of the persecution stick.
They forget that their magic zombie told them to pray in the closets, lest it be assumed that their religious effrontery be a sign of pride rather than piety and that they are thus deserving of punishment [Matthew 6:1-8].
Isn't hypocrisy great, folks?
Posted by: Steve | June 18, 2009 12:32 AM
Here's a good laugh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI&feature=player_embedded
Ha Ha Ha.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | June 18, 2009 12:35 AM
"..…we're supposed to feel for them, and try to understand their psychology."
I can only assume that this is a stealth campaign to legalize LSD.
Am I really the only one?
Posted by: No BS | June 18, 2009 12:37 AM
Fuck Off!
(I am Spartacus/PZ Myers)
Posted by: Miguel | June 18, 2009 12:39 AM
I feel so misunderstood. To be categorised as "anti-religious" is just so... limiting. Actually, I'm anti-stupid. It's not my fault that religion is stupid.
Posted by: waldo | June 18, 2009 12:43 AM
Great post. Thanks.
Posted by: SDS | June 18, 2009 12:53 AM
No on laughs at God in an ICU bed. No one laughs at God in a war. No one laughs as God when that diagnosis comes in. No one laughs at God when their poor or freezing or without food. View video below only if you want a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: LisaK | June 18, 2009 12:55 AM
I'm but a lowly Library Lady in a High School.
This guy is getting how much? Our budget for librarly materials has been cut to the point we can barely replace worn out books, let alone get NEW books. I spend hours with glue and tape just to get a book in shape so it can be checked out again.
How about throwing a little of that cash my way. At least I'd be able to get the kids the books they want and need. And aren't falling apart.
Posted by: SDS | June 18, 2009 12:56 AM
No on laughs at God in an ICU bed. No one laughs at God in a war. No one laughs at God when that diagnosis comes in. No one laughs at God when their poor or freezing or without food. View video below only if you want a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: shonny
|
June 18, 2009 1:02 AM
Somehow, the proper term for the IDiot's "museum", considering the definition of museum is
mu·se·um (my-zm) n.
A building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects having scientific, historical, or artistic value.
should be 'anti-museum'?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 1:06 AM
what is there to learn from creationists?
the danger of unresolved cognitive dissonance. Ironic that Ruse mentions the "demise" of Freud's theories.
View video below only if you want a laugh.
that's about the size of it.
lies that are easy to laugh at.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 18, 2009 1:15 AM
Another example of some people cannibalising on others. This time it's the greedy deceiver of fools Ken Ham, one of those "Christians" who worship Mammon more than Christ. Innocent children and poorly educated adults are being fooled and miseducated just so some people can promote a lie and make money doing so. Do they think our civilisation will continue with scientific and technological progress if we make the public even more uninformed? They are playing with fire. Sure, short term profit feels nice now, but to destroy science education and then let those uneducated vote, it will not be so funny anymore.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 1:16 AM
Ruse seems to be having some kind of psychotic mind-dump these days. He sent me an email claiming that I may be more of a danger to the pro-evolution movement than is Phillip Johnson. This from the Discovery Institute's favorite philosopher, a man who edited a book with William Dembski!
Jerry-
Ruse started a public lecture circuit with Dembski a few years back, that launched with a "debate" on Nightline (I think I still have that vid if anyone wants it).
It was quite obvious that it was a concerted effort at generating money for each player, and this was later confirmed by some rather telling emails published by Dembski himself (who, with his rather indeflatable ego, felt he needed to prove he had a relationship with Ruse).
This is really all about money, little enough that it ends up generating for the two of them.
Posted by: Steve | June 18, 2009 1:21 AM
Wow. There is a tremendous amount of evolutionary consciences being accused and under conviction that turn and churn out a whole barrage of defensiveness. Some use what appears to be self control in their conscience defending; but a lot really spill out the filth and playground trash. Oh sure, they try to be clever and comedic, but it's still some of their best efforts at defending their conscience from truths in this whole origin debate. Here comes some truth toward the conscience....now the shift into usually profane and foul and dirt and nonfactual lying mode. All in their anemic defense, of course. Where else can they go? Even now I am watching the "History Channel" with usual cartoons with make-believe dinosaur transitions making them sound like fact. They are lying. Many young minds could believe them.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 1:32 AM
uh, Steve?
Is English your first language?
If so...
you need to sue whoever instructed you in it.
Posted by: Theron | June 18, 2009 1:43 AM
Ah frick. Yet someone else who doesn't understand Kuhn. I didn't even know these DI idiots even know who he was.
Posted by: Theron | June 18, 2009 1:46 AM
Ah frick. Yet someone else who doesn't understand Kuhn. I didn't even know these DI idiots even know who he was.
Posted by: Monado | June 18, 2009 1:56 AM
James F (9), I have a feeling that a lot of people in Louisiana are going to develop religions that don't believe in paying taxes.
Posted by: TimothyJosephWood | June 18, 2009 1:59 AM
wow.
Posted by: freethinker | June 18, 2009 2:05 AM
Woo hoo, PZ!
@Steve: If English is your first language, I weep for the chaos and confusion that is your mind. Does anyone you know think you make any sense? Imaginary friends don't count!
Posted by: Fly44f | June 18, 2009 2:08 AM
Fuck you too, Steve.
Posted by: celestial2920 | June 18, 2009 2:08 AM
I can understand why PZ is so pissed... up here in Alberta (I met him at the University of Calgary a few months ago), and he mentioned our own abomination... the Creation Science "Museum" in Big Valley, Alberta. I was in it only once... and trust me... it IS an abomination. Plus to add insult to injury.... they have a DEINONYCHUS above their frigging door. (A deinonychus, BTW... is a Cretaceous Period dinosaur which my own company is named after). Plus they have some beautiful fossils from the Winnipegosis limestone, which is used for buildings and such, and is known for it's beautiful and intricate fossils from the Ordovician period... about 440 million years ago... when most lifeforms were in the ocean. These morons actually had the nerve to say these were evidence of a great flood in the bible.
Yeah right morons... Manitoba was under water at the time.... 400,000,000 years ago!
Plus it has all the usual BS... the "ark", some diagrams showing how the English kings are related to Adam and Eve, and other total nonsense.
The place is a travesty... and most people I have talked to in the town are not too thrilled with it either...
PZ... keep up the great work, and lets put all of these idiots on the "B" ark and launch them into the sun... but we gotta remember to keep all the telephone sanitizers!!!
Posted by: freethinker | June 18, 2009 2:08 AM
Woo hoo, PZ!
@Steve: If English is your first language, I weep for the chaos and confusion that is your mind. Does anyone you know think you make any sense? Imaginary friends don't count!
Posted by: jellay
|
June 18, 2009 2:09 AM
Great post!
Righteous anger is at its best when it's factually right!
Posted by: celestial2920 | June 18, 2009 2:14 AM
I can understand why PZ is so pissed... up here in Alberta (I met him at the University of Calgary a few months ago), and he mentioned our own abomination... the Creation Science "Museum" in Big Valley, Alberta. I was in it only once... and trust me... it IS an abomination. Plus to add insult to injury.... they have a DEINONYCHUS above their frigging door. (A deinonychus, BTW... is a Cretaceous Period dinosaur which my own company is named after). Plus they have some beautiful fossils from the Winnipegosis limestone, which is used for buildings and such, and is known for it's beautiful and intricate fossils from the Ordovician period... about 440 million years ago... when most lifeforms were in the ocean. These morons actually had the nerve to say these were evidence of a great flood in the bible.
Yeah right morons... Manitoba was under water at the time.... 400,000,000 years ago!
Plus it has all the usual BS... the "ark", some diagrams showing how the English kings are related to Adam and Eve, and other total nonsense.
The place is a travesty... and most people I have talked to in the town are not too thrilled with it either...
PZ... keep up the great work, and lets put all of these idiots on the "B" ark and launch them into the sun... but we gotta remember to keep all the telephone sanitizers!!!
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | June 18, 2009 2:32 AM
PZ,
May your clarion call to reason, and denouncement of idiots prevail. Amen.
Posted by: Ex Partiate | June 18, 2009 2:42 AM
"Beware of the man whose god lives in the skies" a quote by George Bernard shaw. It speaks the truth
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 2:44 AM
Jerry Coyne has a two-part response to Miller's latest today, and a nice summary link list of the entire accomodationist argument across all the different blogs.
the list:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-big-accommodatinism-debate-all-relevant-posts/
response to Coyne:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/science-vs-theism-a-debate-with-kenneth-miller-part-ii-out-of-context/
part 1 is earlier the same day:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/science-vs-theism-a-debate-with-kenneth-miller-part-i-throat-clearing/
It's a really engaging debate.
Posted by: Ex Partiate | June 18, 2009 2:50 AM
"Beware of the man whose god lives in the skies" a quote by George Bernard shaw. It speaks the truth
Posted by: SteveL
|
June 18, 2009 2:52 AM
Shocking that it's tax free. That needs changing.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 18, 2009 2:53 AM
Does Brown believe that no "militant" atheists used to be creationist? People learn, change their minds, and those who feel they've been particularly badly lied to may become quite "militant" on the issue. So, plenty of uppity atheists have a "feeling for the ideas and psychology of creationists", from first-hand experience.
Posted by: The Duck Man | June 18, 2009 2:58 AM
I got a little thrill reading this thing. A biologist telling someone to fuck off is as awesome as... as... well, it certainly inspires awe.
Just imagining kindly-looking PZ pointing at some mouth-breather, "Hey you, yea you - Fuck off, okay?"
For some reason I'm imagining it in a Billy Conolly accent though...
Posted by: The Duck Man | June 18, 2009 3:00 AM
I got a little thrill reading this thing. A biologist telling someone to fuck off is as awesome as... as... well, it certainly inspires awe.
Just imagining kindly-looking PZ pointing at some mouth-breather, "Hey you, yea you - Fuck off, okay?"
For some reason I'm imagining it in a Billy Conolly accent though...
Posted by: Timothy | June 18, 2009 3:07 AM
I've never understood why religious organizations get out of paying taxes. Isn't making special laws exempting religion passing a law with respect to religion? Seems like the current state of affairs is pretty clearly unconstitutional.
Posted by: Steve | June 18, 2009 3:24 AM
To 99 and 104 and 105 and 106: It wasn't my slang attempt at your thought processes which you referred to as bad English that irritated you. It was the main idea in my post, 98. You all were simply demonstrating the defensiveness of conscience I described. Your complaint about the "english" was just smoke, like in smoke screen. It's an english figure of speech, just in case you did not know, as with slang. Maybe you would prefer I write like Data on Star Trek and bypass any semblance of poet slant or slang or figure of speech. So, therefore, to refer back to the main idea of post 98, did you get the main idea of post 98?
Posted by: Snoof | June 18, 2009 3:43 AM
Well, Steve, as an occasional editor, I'd say that if the choice is between expressing one's self clearly and expressing one's self artistically, one should pick the former, especially if one is attempting to argue (that is, to persuade by reason and evidence).
Posted by: Travis Bickle | June 18, 2009 3:44 AM
Does anyone know what the entrance fee to the museum is?
Also, if they charge an entrance *fee* (not donation), how can they be considered tax exempt for income tax purposes?
Posted by: Travis Bickle | June 18, 2009 3:50 AM
Does anyone know what the entrance fee to the museum is?
Also, if they charge an entrance *fee* (not donation), how can they be considered tax exempt for income tax purposes?
Posted by: SteveL
|
June 18, 2009 4:08 AM
Apparently there was a challenge to religion's tax free status that the Supreme Court rejected 7-1 in 1970. And that was a more liberal court than the current bunch.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909200,00.html
Posted by: Sam C | June 18, 2009 4:08 AM
CitizenZ @ #2:
Here's some reasons:
(1) know your enemy
(2) we have to live on this world together, as any married person knows, being right is often not the most important thing
(3) it can be interesting to see how impossible or ridiculous things fit together, hence geeks' interest in the technology of Star Trek
(4) very occasionally one is enlightened by oddities in nonsense, making one look at things from a different angle (I understood some fundamental physical concepts much better after reading some of Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics even though physicists tell me it's bonkers)
Point 4 is probably irrelevant in the case of creationists: there's nothing enlightening about the creationist world view.
I find it baffling that people can be reasonably intelligent and otherwise sane, and well informed about current ideas, yet still cling to creationist nonsense. It does actually intrigue me how it would feel to see the world through their eyes. Perhaps I need to find a "Christian Idiot For A Day!" program?!
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 4:19 AM
it wasn't my slang attempt at your thought processes which you referred to as bad English that irritated you.
no, it was your utter incoherence.
...which appears to be unabated.
are you sure you're taking your medication at the right dosages?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 18, 2009 4:34 AM
PZ did you read the comments to the Andrew Brown piece? He joined in and let slip that he considers us 'new atheists' to be 'obnoxious'. So after demanding we open our empathy and understanding for creationists he demonstrates what a complete and utter hypocrite he is by failing to show empathy and understanding to those he labels 'new atheists'. Instead he insults us. You can almost hear the spittle hitting the screen as he's typing.
He claims to be an agnostic too.
Posted by: Felix | June 18, 2009 4:36 AM
Travis @122,
someone posted that it was about $20.
Jerry Coyne @54,
intriguing. Have they ever actually constructed a supported argument (you know with evidence) that the assertion is true that 'stridency' or 'insensitivity' towards creationist willful ignorance does indeed harm evolutionary education?
For all I can tell it is true that they have fought evolutionary science and education tooth and nail from the very beginning, using everything in their arsenal from the attempt at reasoned argumentation right through to death threats, vandalism, harassment and systematic lies.
There is no indication at all that they are gaining any influence for any other reason than the (federal and national administrations's) generally lax attitude towards their encroachment and subversion of public school education, their propagation of strength in numbers via breeding+audience captivity, and their tax exempt mass production of propaganda aimed at the gullible, uneducated and intellectually challenged.
I have however read numerous essays, blog posts and comments by people who state that what brought them to the light of reason was indeed the exposure to ridicule of their beliefs, followed by the natural desire to find a sound defense of them, and the recognition of a complete lack of existence of such a defense over years, sometimes decades, of searching.
Every single one of those ever-popular 'I used to be an atheist evolutionist until' pieces is incredible. Not once has any of the people asserting such a former position demonstrated understanding of what such a position actually entails when it is well founded. An 'evolutionist' who becomes a creationist because of discovering that someone once produced a hoax called Piltdown man, or that it's 'true' that there were 500 witnesses to a miracle, or that some sediment proves Teh Flud has never understood evolution or atheism. Given the demonstrated affinity of creationists towards lying in private and public, it is not even an unsound position to disbelieve such claims by default.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
June 18, 2009 4:42 AM
Wow PZ, i like it when you get upset.
You write your best posts in that mindset.
I'm glad and proud to be a militant atheist.
I with fight for everybody's freedom to choose what they will.. or won't believe. But if believers are trying to spread their lies to schools and indoctrinate kids, that's where i draw a line.
In the netherlands it's not that bad, though there have been a few voices about it in the last year (since we have a christian party in the governement at the moment).
Luckily we're rather down to earth about this stuff and when they send out a folder to a lot of dutch people they got laughed at by the majority.
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 18, 2009 4:49 AM
-I think he is genuinely convinced by his bizarre ideas - I don't agree that he's cynically getting rich.-
You mean he's not interested in the massive amounts of cash he gets for being ignorant?
Steve, i'm english and i have no idea what you meant. I'm not even sure if you're for or against Ken Ham's little moneypit.
Posted by: Graeme | June 18, 2009 4:49 AM
...while here in South Africa, schoolkids get trips to the Maropeng Visitors Centre, where they learn about evolution and human origins. I love living close to the Cradle of Humankind.
Posted by: Solitas | June 18, 2009 4:49 AM
Very well written, PZ.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
June 18, 2009 4:51 AM
I think taxing religion is a very good idea.
So many "believers" and "preachers" are making tons.. sometimes millions of untaxed dollars.
The moment they have to start paying taxes, they will probably try to find another scam to get rich, which will rid us of a lot of those fundies.
Posted by: Graeme | June 18, 2009 4:53 AM
...while here in South Africa, schoolkids get trips to the Maropeng Visitors Centre, where they learn about evolution and human origins. I love living close to the Cradle of Humankind.
Posted by: Hamilton Jacobi | June 18, 2009 5:01 AM
Steve, don't listen to these naysayers. I understand you perfectly. It's like, so psychedelic, man.
Whoa, did you see that? A giant newt just swallowed the planet Mercury. Now it's lighted its farts in the flames of the sun and is rocketing towards Earth. See ya later -- I'm gonna go hide out in a cave until all the excitement dies down.
Posted by: Felix | June 18, 2009 5:03 AM
Sam C wrote:
They can't and they aren't. We know how they feel already, we know what they think because they don't hesitate to spread it far and wide. They psychology is far in the open, well lighted from all angles, not least provided the many former creationists who have written probably hundred or even thousands of pages explaining every little detail. The point is they may be intelligent and moderately sane, but their problem is that they are not well informed, because they heap mounds of rationalizations, hand-waving and internal dishonesty to preserve the belief that ignorance is virtuous if that belief also entails the assertion that some forms of knowledge is bad, even evil, and that reality is simply wrong when it contradicts doctrine. We know that many of them have never learned to analyze information critically, nor the actual evidence that contradicts their position, nor the logic supporting that evidence, nor the absence of the evidence they believe exists supporting creationism and so on. They are being kept sheltered from such 'sin-loving', 'worldly' influences by a deliberate system of building a parallel (un-)culture under the protection of tax exemption and the freedom to lie however grossly one desires in couple with the freedom to establish any number of 'educational' institutions from home-schooling material to private schools to faith universities and diploma-mills.
We know the goals of those who run this system, in their own words, from leaked documents and public statements en masse.
The work Ruse wants to see, the effort he wants people to make has been done. He's like a guy standing at an intersection where a horrible accident has just occurred for the fourth time, and stating that 'we really need to analyze carefully if there's any danger that further accidents might happen here'.
Sorry, not a brilliant analogy but I think the point is clear.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | June 18, 2009 5:05 AM
And if they want America to be a third rate country, then they are traitors to America. OK, not quiet, but if evilution leads to eugenics, then creationism is treachery ;)
_____________<;,><_____________
Rob Davison @37
I agree with you on the first part. I think your wrong on the second. He's enjoying the money, me thinks.
_____________<;,><_____________
Ray Ingles @47
No, all you have to do to be a militant atheist, is to say you are an atheist.
_____________<;,><_____________
littlejohn@52
See, it's because of comments like this that I drink my coffee in the office kitchen, and not near the computer.
_____________<;,><_____________
Orbiting Teapot @57
Hi! How's Uncle Teapot doing?
_____________<;,><_____________
Whoever programmed Steve @98, your program is not working right.
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
June 18, 2009 5:11 AM
Although I understand and share your feelings, I think your final words are a bit too strong.
But that is maybe what is needed for the acomodationists to understand what the non-acomodationists think and feel. Because they indeed seem to have a lot of empathy for fire and brimstone spewing creationists fundies. But, on the other hand, seem completely unable to understand us. Despite the fact that we should be closer. So maybe if we begin to behave like fundies do, they will walk the extra mile and finally understand why we are sick and tired to be labeled as baddies when we are just trying to defend ourselves and society from the attacks of ignorance and fanaticism of the creationists.
Also, I must say that I do agree with the proposition that we should try to understand how the creationists fundies think and feel. For all the reasons Sam wrote and then some more. That way I understood lots of things like why the fundies project so much (precisely because they lack empathy and have only themselves as reference).
And acomodationists should do the same with non-acomodationists, of course. I'm trying to do it with them although, as PZ noted, they seem even harder to understand than the creationists.
Posted by: Amph
|
June 18, 2009 5:30 AM
I remember having that feeling when I visited Disney World when I was seven7 years old.
Then, when I was eight, my paradigm shifted to reality.
Posted by: FJ | June 18, 2009 5:31 AM
Well, Steve, as an occasional editor, I'd say that if the choice is between expressing one's self clearly and expressing one's self artistically...
Artistically? More like autistically...
Posted by: Michael | June 18, 2009 5:31 AM
Comment 137Although I understand and share your feelings, I think your final words are a bit too strong.
Trying to understand "creationists" is a funny concept and of course your not really trying. Liberals, atheist or not have the same pattern which is; "how can we bring down this person!" Case in point, Letterman's joke about a girl because he didn't like mom's (Sarah Palin) political views including creationism.
The term, "fundies" means of course, an uneducated religious enthusiast who disagrees with evolution. An insult in other words. Often times this word is referred to protestants in particular but many who are not protestants disagree with evolution.
Child's play. The so-called "educated" bowing down to basic street talk, because they are frustrated with the vast majority around them being religious is the same when a religious mob gets angry when the true gospel is being preached. Both groups act the same way, it's the same spirit.
Posted by: Laborum | June 18, 2009 5:38 AM
OMG they have "proof" now! Run! Hide!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/15/is-there-an-ultimate-proof-of-creation
Posted by: Felix | June 18, 2009 5:47 AM
Michael @140,
is it your point that making poor sexual jokes about a person is just as bad as ridiculing a person who consitently lies to the public and gets rich off it?
Is it your point that stating that someone who is uneducated and therefore denies reality is an insult because it's true?
Is it your point that the educated and rational in a society should not bother to address dangerous idiocy rampant in a segment of society because it's too easy?
Or is it your point that you had nothing to say but did anyway because... just because it's your job as a herald of the true gospel, which distinguishes itself from the false gospel by being more clever about making no sense whatsoever without simultaneously opening its flanks to empirical verification?
Posted by: jim | June 18, 2009 5:48 AM
Steve's comments remind me of the stuff you get in the "Pseuds' Corner" section of Private Eye. I suspect that his trouble is that he's simply so far up his own arse he's in danger of vanishing in a puff of postmodernism.
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
June 18, 2009 5:58 AM
This is a perfect example of what I was saying about how the lack of empathy of fundies make them project themselves and attribute their own thinking to the other ones. This is something I learned by trying to understand them. And you surely have shown by this intervention that *you* do not understand anything about "liberals, atheists". You're just trying to do to them what you're projecting on them...
Posted by: Walton | June 18, 2009 6:03 AM
I agree that Letterman's behaviour was despicable. As was Rush Limbaugh's when he referred to Chelsea Clinton as a "dog". Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of vicious invective at times. But this has no bearing on the question of who is actually right about political matters.
(In case you're not aware, I'm neither a liberal nor conservative, but a libertarian - but, before you point it out, I don't deny that libertarians are capable of being vicious as well.)
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
June 18, 2009 6:12 AM
This is a perfect example of what I was saying about how the lack of empathy of fundies make them project themselves and attribute their own thinking to the other ones. This is something I learned by trying to understand them. And you surely have shown by this intervention that *you* do not understand anything about "liberals, atheists". You're just trying to do to them what you're projecting on them...
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
June 18, 2009 6:15 AM
I live in Spain where religion is reduced to a folkloric cultural thingy and the vast majority around me agree with me.
It's only more projection from you.
So *you* seem to be frustrated...
If you're USAmerican or from another religious country like Saudi Arabia, it could not be because there is a majority of non-believers. So it must be because the number of unbelievers is growing. Or maybe because incredulous are a majority in certain circles like the scientific. Or maybe because the countries where non-believers are a majority are also the countries with better well-being, less crime, etc.
So what's the reason for this frustration you're showing in your projections?
Posted by: troy | June 18, 2009 6:39 AM
LOL, it's funny to read this stuff and see how incredibly lazy and unintelligent rational people and atheists are in USA.
Posted by: troy | June 18, 2009 6:45 AM
You just keep whining on the internet about dumb people...
Posted by: Pascalle
|
June 18, 2009 6:45 AM
Troy,
why would rational people and atheists in the usa be incredibly lazy and unintelligent?
Posted by: troy | June 18, 2009 6:48 AM
You just keep whining on the internet about dumb people...
Posted by: ElitistB | June 18, 2009 6:52 AM
I do not see how this institution can possibly be tax free. It is not educational, it is not a church, it is not a non-profit charity.
I don't understand how churches themselves can be non-profit. Separation of church and state means that the state must maintain "we have no opinion" when it comes to religious matters. It doesn't mean "Religions have privileged status in tax matters."
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 18, 2009 6:53 AM
troy @ 148
Unintelligent rational people and atheists are? Your description is a little off kilter, or do you equate relgious people with intelligence?
Posted by: ElitistB | June 18, 2009 6:54 AM
Bleh. I meant "tax free" for churches, not "non-profit", though most churches I have seen don't really fall under "non-profit" either.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | June 18, 2009 7:01 AM
Troy
What about us rational people and atheists not in the USA.
Dumkopf.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
June 18, 2009 7:07 AM
Not all believers are dumb people. You should read PZ's post again, he clarifies it very well.
Besides that.. how about us millitant atheists and rational people outside of the USA?
Posted by: cmotdibbler | June 18, 2009 7:08 AM
Loved the rant, PZ. I just wanted to comment that Ken Ham's Folly enjoys support from a variety of sources. Some family friends just got back from visiting this "museum" a couple of days ago. These are otherwise intelligent people who unfortunately swallow this nonsense, they know I'm an atheist. They stayed at a bed and breakfast that sounded very nice. The owners of the BnB told our friends that they quit their jobs in another state, bought/renovated a house just so they could offer low cost accommodations to families visiting the Creation "Museum". I admire their dedication, how many scientist would quit their job to do something similar (not me!). This self-sacrifice just blows me away.
Posted by: Canuck | June 18, 2009 7:15 AM
I sure don't feel any sympathy for their psychological state. I think they are dangerous, precisely because they can hold such irrational positions.
Posted by: ElitistB | June 18, 2009 7:16 AM
What were their previous jobs?
Posted by: Canuck | June 18, 2009 7:19 AM
I sure don't feel any sympathy for their psychological state. I think they are dangerous, precisely because they can hold such irrational positions.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 18, 2009 7:20 AM
It has to be said.
This "museum" is a disgrace and a total and utter embarrassment for the United States,and a slap in the face for every half sane human being on this planet.
The fact they have tax-exempt status,have schoolkids do excursions there,and everyhting else about it,defies common sense and is a sad sad joke.
I do not get how this place can be allowed to exist,make money,and lie to children.
This place needs to be shut down and Ham put in front of a jury.
Posted by: rimpal | June 18, 2009 7:24 AM
Michael Ruse has been twisting around so frantically to please his fellow interlocutors in this spurious debate that he no longer knows what he stands for.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | June 18, 2009 7:24 AM
Heh, Ruse got one thing right: comparing creationism to eating turds.
Then he spoils it by saying 'yum yum, you really must try this.'
And now I've got this scene in my head where Thomas Henry Huxley rises from his seat just after Soapy Sam Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, has rounded off his polemic by insinuating that belief in evolution is tantamount to calling your grandmother an ape, and says
Posted by: Agi Hammerthief
|
June 18, 2009 7:30 AM
nice rant
Posted by: j.t.delaney | June 18, 2009 7:47 AM
I think an understanding of these social movements is important to the welfare of our democracy. Agnotology, the study of culturally-induced ignorance, holds a lot of promise in explaining our society's shortcomings with general understanding of scientific topics, and hopefully how to overcome them. It is in our best interest to understand the dynamics of these phenomena.
Posted by: bsk | June 18, 2009 8:00 AM
Bravo.
Posted by: Felix | June 18, 2009 8:15 AM
#165,
yes, especially as their movement is determined to oust democracy. Let's observe and not be mean. It'll surely be interesting to have seen how a theocratic movement managed to demolish the most powerful nation on earth. If we're lucky we'll even get to observe and understand how these interesting dynamics can turn a subcontinental region of earth into a nuclear wasteland.
Who cares about people when we can have dynamics.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
June 18, 2009 8:31 AM
On another note.. they found a new fossil that comes between the dinos and the birds:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6523496.ece
It was found in china.
Posted by: goddogit
|
June 18, 2009 8:33 AM
But... HOW shall they fuck off? Answer me THAT!
Oh,... and TAX ALL RELIGION-RELATED PROFITS.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 18, 2009 8:35 AM
Haven't read through all the comments, and this point may have already been made, but there's a sad but common tendency to confuse insults against a belief with insults against the people who hold them -- especially when it comes to religion.
The idea seems to be that a viewpoint which is held with great emotional commitment merits an automatic respect and deference. Faith blurs the viewpoint and the viewer: it's a self-commitment to spin all observations to fit a chosen conclusion. Because the believer has merged their identity with their belief, then, anyone who criticizes the belief needs to step very lightly and delicately, because criticism will be taken -- and should be taken -- personally.
I think we need to disagree with that. At the very least, we shouldn't encourage it. Saying "that's stupid" is not the same thing as saying "you're stupid." Saying "you're being stupid" is not the same thing as saying "you're stupid." Those who criticize the so-called new atheists for their insensitivity seem to want to accept the believers' frame that atheists are just attacking people. And that it's a good thing to self-identify with a belief, and therefore reasonable to feel diminished and violated when it's attacked.
No it's not. Reasonable people can change their mind. Religious people 'lose their faith.' Encouraging religious people to think of changing their minds on a religious issue as nothing more than changing their minds is treating them as if they were reasonable. In a sense, the harsher criticisms mask a deeper respect for the other person.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 8:43 AM
Please don't call it a missing link, please don't call it a missing link, please don't call it a missing link, please don't call it a missing link, please don't call it a missing link
damn it
Posted by: Pascalle
|
June 18, 2009 8:48 AM
I didn't! i specifically said "comes between" for that same reason ;)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 8:49 AM
Says the guy whining about atheists on the Internet and double posting.
Posted by: RBH | June 18, 2009 8:53 AM
Sam C wrote
And sometimes being right is the most important thing, particularly when the one who's wrong is using that error to attempt to govern other peoples' behavior.Felix wrote
I'm sorry, Felix, but you've badly mis-stated the problem. This is where close and prolonged contact with creationists over the years comes in handy. One learns that the core difference between the reality-based community and creationists is the role of evidence. For us, evidence -- systematic observations of phenomena -- is a means of testing assumptions, hypotheses, and theories and altering them if the evidence demands it.However, for creationists of the AIG sort, even those with Ph.D.s in sciences from secular universities, the role of evidence is to be interpreted in the light of presuppositions that are based on non-evidential "knowledge" -- Biblical revelation. For them, empirical evidence literally cannot contradict their position, since their position is 'known' to be correct on non-evidential religious grounds. Empirical evidence that appears to contradict their beliefs is mistaken, misinterpreted, or fraudulent. The beliefs are impervious to evidence. It's the triumph of assimilation over accommodation, in Piagetian terms.
Understand that mindset and you'll understand creationists.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 8:53 AM
hehe yeah I know. But I just new they would... and they did.
Posted by: J.C. Samuelson | June 18, 2009 8:55 AM
Outstanding post, PZ! People like Ken can indeed 'fuck off!' :)
True. It seems, however, that this is strikingly similar to the Christian "hate the sin, love the sinner" mantra. The question being, is it possible to avoid insulting a person who holds such beliefs? For a lot of people, criticism of these beliefs penetrates the core of their being, leading to feelings of being under personal attack when
This is not to say that criticism is unwarranted or should be curtailed. Keep pressing, I say. I just find the psychological aspects of the ongoing back & forth very interesting.
Posted by: PGPWNIT
|
June 18, 2009 8:59 AM
My son is in first grade in Southern Ohio. He got a pamphlet from his public school that announced that there'd be a week of discovery over the summer for only $50. The week included a day at the NHM, and the Zoo, but ended with a day at the Creation Museum.
Posted by: Cappy | June 18, 2009 9:01 AM
Irony intended:
AMEN!
Posted by: Rorschach | June 18, 2009 9:04 AM
A very important and relevant thing to be pointed out.Ruse is wrong here giving an argument from emotion validity.
Probably because of the deep emotional investment these people have in their beliefs,I dont necessarily think it's a mistake made by atheists,but more by the believers themselves.And it's always easier
to treat arguments against a belief as personal insults,that way you can feel offended and dismiss the argument as offensive.
Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 9:04 AM
Pascalle, quite so.
However, "comes between" and "new fossil" is not unfairly characterised as 'heretofore unknown link" (a.k.a. a missing link).
It's purely a matter of phrasing, I know.
Chimp is pointing out the reasonable inference.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 9:08 AM
no no no no I wasn't criticizing pascalle just the article
Posted by: Theron | June 18, 2009 9:12 AM
Ah frick. Yet someone else who doesn't understand Kuhn. I didn't even know these DI idiots even know who he was.
Posted by: Stwriley | June 18, 2009 9:16 AM
While the Brown article in the Guardian is extremely annoying, I must rise here to slightly (okay, very slightly) defend Michael Ruse on what seems to be his original point: that we need to properly understand the psychology of young-earth creationists. This isn't a matter of somehow compromising what we do or what we seek but rather reliance on an old dictum, first and still best expressed by Sun Tzu:
Posted by: Lycosid | June 18, 2009 9:16 AM
"Why waste your one life trying to inhabit a mind smaller and more twisted than your own?"
I think I'll put that quote on the bulletin board of my classroom this fall.
Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 9:18 AM
#Rev. BigDumbChimp,
D'Oh.
Late, been a long day. Going to bed...
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 18, 2009 9:21 AM
Who is Brown writing about here?
That picture of "new atheists" certainly doesn't sound like any of the big four names most commonly associated with the term, but since he neglects to give an example, we're presumably supposed to believe that "new atheists" (how I hate that term) are uniformly unwilling to understand creationists, and uniformly insulting to them. It's a straw man. It appears that "new atheists" should be judged by the behaviour of the worst among our number; yet, strangely, Christians should be judged by the best among theirs.
Posted by: cmotdibbler | June 18, 2009 9:22 AM
to ElitistB @ 159:
I didn't catch the previous occupation of the BnB people who gave up everything to facilitate attendance at the KH's Carnival of Stupidity. I'll bet my left nut that they were *not* molecular biologists.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 18, 2009 9:26 AM
#183:
But who on our side is seriously arguing otherwise? Surely Ruse couldn't seriously claim that Dennett, of all people, hasn't attempted to understand creationist psychology!
Posted by: 386sx | June 18, 2009 9:28 AM
Firefox web browser stinks. (Except for iMacros. Opera has dragonfly which will soon be superior to Firebug, if not already superior.)
As soon as iMacros is available for Opera, then all worries are over, and ummmmmmmm... all nations will outlaw wars, and the Bealtles will re-unite, and ummmmmm, people will live for like hundreds and hundreds of years and stuff like that.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 18, 2009 9:31 AM
@ 183,
Yes,we get his point.
It's wrong.
We do not in any way,shape or form need to understand the "psychology of YECs",whatever that means anyway.
Its not that they are neurotic somehow,and you cant really blame them for their mistakes,they just need a friend and some psychotherapy,and they will see the light.
These are liars for jebus,I dont give a flying fuck about why they are lying to children,themselves and everyone else,they are human beings with a brain,they have a choice,and they choose to lie.
Posted by: Britomart | June 18, 2009 9:37 AM
Why is it all tax free if they are claiming its science?
Churches often own property that is not used for religion and they pay taxes on it. The Unitarian church I was treasurer of way back in Maine owned a drug store, and the rent we earned from the property was taxable.
The income from the museum should also be taxable.
Posted by: 386sx | June 18, 2009 9:41 AM
These are liars for jebus,I dont give a flying fuck about why they are lying to children,themselves and everyone else,they are human beings with a brain,they have a choice,and they choose to lie.
No, most of them really believe that stuff. Granted, it is rife with con artists and scammers and megalomaniacs and whatnot.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 18, 2009 9:43 AM
PZ, is there any way you can change that blasted "Submission Timeout" error so the "DO NOT RESUBMIT" is in a much larger point size, so that maybe people will actually notice it? Every other comment here is a repeat.
Posted by: Theron | June 18, 2009 9:45 AM
And multiple postings of the same thing is what happens when you get a timeout error but don't bother to check if the post actually went through. Mea culpa.
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
June 18, 2009 9:49 AM
Sastra has nailed it. It is not the same to criticize beliefs and to criticize people.
But the fundies, the same ones that fill their mouth with the hypocritical "hate the sin, not the sinner", always want to elevate their beliefs to the status of people. Even to reduce humans beings to a lower status than their faith.
For instance the radical Muslims who want to modify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to put their religion and beliefs over the rights of persons. So that any violations of human rights could be righteous if motivated by religion and faith. Barf. Such a vile perversion...
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 18, 2009 9:51 AM
Regarding the tax-free status of churches/religious institutions:
We might want to be a little more circumspect when demanding an end to tax-free status for churches/religious institutions.
There is real utility in these laws is that they can act as velvet handcuffs which serve keep excessively influential religious leaders out of the political sphere. You see this from time to time when certain church leaders get too outspoken about their political preferences - the IRS will step in and be all "Nice little cash cow ya got there. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
No, it's not optimally effective (witness the LDS church and its involvement in the Prop 8 fiasco in California). Yes, it's really just a baldfaced offer to the church leaders to sell off a portion of their constitutionally granted political free speech at a really favorable rate, and there is nothing fair or just about that. It sucks, and I don't like it. But if there is a better way to keep some of these yahoos out of politics, I honestly don't see it.
AFAIK, there is no law in the U.S. that prohibits Billy Graham from issuing an edict stating that God wants His followers to vote Republican, and if they don't, they'll go to Hell. There are laws, though, that state that if he were to issue that edict, then he can kiss his tax-exempt status goodbye.
Can y'all imagine the horror if the church was willing and able to overtly pour their money (not to mention the psychological dominance that they hold over their minions) into the U.S. political process?
Posted by: gingivitis | June 18, 2009 9:58 AM
Speaking of good money going to wacko causes, turns out the Gates foundation has given unto the Discovery Institute (though not for their crapation science programs).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 10:03 AM
Has been for a while and my understanding is that it was for the transportation studies they do for the Seattle area.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 18, 2009 10:11 AM
"My son is in first grade in Southern Ohio. He got a pamphlet from his public school that announced that there'd be a week of discovery over the summer for only $50. The week included a day at the NHM, and the Zoo, but ended with a day at the Creation Museum."
I would be marching that flier into, first, the principle's office, then to the next School Board meeting, PLUS a hotly worded letter to the Ohio Minister of Education. What next, an evening at an astrologer's as an astronomy field trip?
Posted by: Michael Dowd | June 18, 2009 10:24 AM
Humans do not live by truth alone. We require the sustenance of meaning—of beauty, goodness, relationship, and purpose. We require comfort in times of sorrow and suffering. A science-based, naturalist (evolutionary) worldview provides all this, of course, as you and your readers well know. But most religious people don’t know this yet. And until they do, I suspect we’ll never see an end to the science and religion war in America. Keep up the great writing!
Posted by: damitall | June 18, 2009 10:37 AM
Um. You might want to look again at those figures. Whilst recognising that they were from 2007, and things may have changed since, if it was a company of mine, I'd have been concerned - particularly about the ratio of CURRENT assets to CURRENT liabilities, and the rate at which the debt was climbing. If all debts had been called in, they wouldn't have been able to find the cash easily
Much of the NET asset is as fixed asset(presumably the museum building itself) This is not readily convertible to cash, except by way of mortgage or sale-and-leaseback, not easily obtained at the moment
It will be interesting to see the figures for subsequent years
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 18, 2009 10:51 AM
OT (except for the theme of snookery):
Posted by: J.C. Samuelson | June 18, 2009 10:53 AM
Hmmm...
More the psychology of belief in general, I'd say. It may seem distasteful to some, but if you know what you're up against you can choose to be better equipped to deal with it.
Or, in a more militaristic mode...
"Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu
Saying this might make it easier to hate them, but the weird part is that, as 386sx said, many (if not most) of the "Ken Ham" types PZ is talking about here really actually believe in this stuff, 100%.
This is why I personally don't think it's worthwhile to argue with die-hard creationists.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 18, 2009 11:07 AM
SDS says "No one laughs at God in a war."
Well, actually, they do. From Catch-22:
"'What the hell are you so upset about?' he asked her
bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. 'I thought you didn't
believe in God.'
'I don't,' she sobbed, bursting violently into tears. 'But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be.'"
Who has better reason to laugh at an all-merciful, all-loving deity?
Posted by: Epikt
|
June 18, 2009 11:07 AM
As in, "Walking on Water as a Means of Reducing Traffic Congestion?"
Posted by: Grock | June 18, 2009 11:09 AM
Sorry if someone has pointed this out, but Ken Ham's strict biblical literalism isn't actually biblical literalism at all. In order for him to truly believe in a literal translation of the bible, he would HAVE to believe that the world is flat.
From Genesis:
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
This clearly illustrates a flat Earth covered by a solid dome which is covered by water. As Michael Shermer pointed out, this is a Babylonian model of the Earth that the Jews adopted during their captivity there.
Ken Ham neglects this because HE HAS TO. We have been past the "firmament" and have witnessed the void of space, and a round Earth first-hand. But, in order to truly be the literal interpretation of Genesis, his creation museum must support this text.
Even Ken Ham's bullshit is bullshit.
Posted by: Race Dowling | June 18, 2009 11:14 AM
I wonder if mathematicians should poll the general public on what the feel about Euler's Theorem.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
June 18, 2009 11:20 AM
This continues to be voiced as a criticism of atheists. To which the only reasonable response is, "Fuck you and the cross you rode in on..."
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 18, 2009 11:21 AM
Hey, creos: if "darwinism" is a religion, why do we pay taxes?
Posted by: Sonic Screwdriver
|
June 18, 2009 11:27 AM
As much as it would delight me to see a dinosaur wearing a saddle (Ooohhh heeheehee haahaahaahaa!) I'm afraid I'd drop everything I was doing and start telling people how wrong things were and probably get whomped in the head with something godly.
Also giving money to that thug? No thanks.
Showing tolerance to these nut jobs comes from the same kind of kindness that allows children to behave hideously. We need to stop feeling sorry for them and start beating their collective ass until they learn that lying is bad, and corrupting kids is worse.
Posted by: AdamP | June 18, 2009 11:31 AM
Does anyone else think the the pic of Ham in this banner looks a lot like Fred Phelps?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 18, 2009 11:46 AM
Gee, slick lies can be appealing. What an amazing insight from Ruse! How could I have been so wrong?
Now for sobriety:
That is exactly why we're unsympathetic to liars like Ham.
I believe that many of us do understand and have some sympathy for the people. Not when they're spreading lies to others, no, because that's more predatory behavior (at least by proxy), of the kind in which Ham engages.
Of course it "makes sense" to people, and why would Ruse think that is a shock to the many of us who were raised creationist?
But I doubt that Ruse is fine with using only faith-healing on a child with cancer. Are we likewise supposed to be fine with "education" being designed to actively destroy knowledge and the proper methods of getting to that knowledge? He doesn't directly say so, of course, but he makes the kinds of remarks (like that teaching anything that militates against a religious doctrine is a problem under the 1st Amendment) that suggest that our worries about wasting minds with the mental equivalent of "eating turds" are overblown, at least not if people do enjoy it.
He seems to be in his dotage, or something, both because he seems doting toward exploitative lies and the way many lap them up, and because he seems increasingly unable to recognize that his "insights" are trivial and beside the point.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 18, 2009 11:51 AM
You want insight? You want understanding? Here. Here's a letter to Cary Tennis in Salon by an adult so traumatised as a child by evangelical brimstone porn that s/he can't hear the phrase 'end times' without experiencing panic attacks.
Most decry the term New Atheists, but it has a secondary meaning apropos to this discussion. We're 'new' because we weren't always atheists. We were theists*. We grew up drenched in shame for failing to live up to impossible (and frankly idiotic) ideals, for not believing the idiotic myth fervently enough, drenched in shame for daring to think that the hippy Buddhists and their son (my best friend) might not deserve to go to hell after all, for being human. We know the mindset well enough thank-you-very-much, and if it sometimes comes across as if we don't, well, religion is a little like those insights you get when you're baked--they seem totally rad at the time, but at work the next day it's a little hard to remember why they were so great or even what they were. So, if we don't always come across as entirely sympathetic, it's because we were there, we lived through and were damaged by that idiotic fucking indoctrination, we're fucking pissed about it, and we don't ever want to go back.
Now, let the apologists commence insisting that their beliefs are oh-so-much more nuanced, subtle, and full of intellectualism and love.
(For the record, I was raised in a relatively moderate Catholic home. I can't even imagine how enraged I'd be if I were raised as some kind of fundamentalist.)
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 18, 2009 12:07 PM
I agree with Eidolin@53.
I would support a public school field trip to the creation museum...provided it was for course work for Introduction to Critical Thinking.
Posted by: bobxxxx | June 18, 2009 12:49 PM
Kentucky Department of Education spokeswoman Lisa Gross said nothing in state law would bar public schools from visiting, if it were part of "a lesson" on "how some perceived the world's beginnings."
Lisa Gross, and probably the entire Kentucky Department of Education, needs to be fired, but that will never happen in a hick infested state like Kentucky.
Here in hick infested Florida where I live, last night while taking a break from reading "Why Evolution is True", I turned on the TV and found one of our many religious channels talking about why evolution is false. For example: "there's no transitional fossils". What a piece-of-shit country I live in.
Posted by: Akiko | June 18, 2009 1:07 PM
I have a seven year old daughter who has an IQ over 160. When she was three she told her nursery school teacher that, "God did not make people. People made God." At this point in my childs' life I have never, not once, mentioned my religious beliefs to her or talked about it in her presence. I want my kids to make up their own minds using logic, just as I did. Being very smart, she came up with it on her own after the teacher had made a ridiculous remark about god creating people out of dirt. Naturally, the teacher was so alarmed by this she called me into the school to "talk" about this "problem". I really felt sorry for the teacher, as I withdrew my child from the school, because I knew this truely alarmed her. Being raised in the South we have adults terrified of being struck down by a great wizard for Thought Crimes. That teacher seemed afraid of my brilliant, logical, atheist daughter. Pure silliness.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 1:11 PM
Taken at face value, Gross' statement isn't all that unreasonable. I don't for one second, though, take it at face value.
Posted by: Mike | June 18, 2009 1:36 PM
Ruse's concerns are about education, that is, how do you go about teaching biology to children who are being told that evolution is the product of an atheist conspiracy. How do you disabuse them of that lie, and how do you put an understanding of science into their heads. I don't see any concern for that specific problem here. Instead, what we have here is the polarizing culture war. But the public schools have to taken in everyone's children, regardless of how polarizing, or not, their home environment.
Expecting to get results by calling students fucking morons is, of course, fucking moronic.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 18, 2009 1:45 PM
Who's calling the students morons?
Posted by: elty | June 18, 2009 1:46 PM
"narrow Bronze Age theocratic bullshit"
YAY-men.
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 18, 2009 2:51 PM
Stolen from Just for Laughs:
"Creationists take seriously every single word from Genesis. I don't even think that Phil Collins was a very good drummer."
Posted by: j.t.delaney | June 18, 2009 3:23 PM
Felix @ #167:
Huh? You seem to think I'm suggesting only passive observation. This is not the case! The appeal to agnotology is that there is some real-world utility in how it can be applied: if we have a firm, disciplined understanding of the mechanisms in place that enforce ignorance-based social movements like creationism, he have a much better chance at improving our effectiveness in address them going forward. Of course, we need to do our best to publicly confront ignorance-based social movements with the tools we have available to us here-and-now, but I think understanding the logic failure mechanisms is crucial.
Beyond creationism, there's a whole wide world of politically motivated anti-democratic muddled thinking out there: climate change denialism, holocaust denialism, anti-science/anti-medicine, and old-fashioned zenophobia, to name a few popular flavors of failed thinking. More often than not, many of these notions tend to be cocomitant in same population. A very large portion of the population are operating on very dubious premises, and it's in our collective best interest to understand exactly why reason and logic is failing to reach them.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 18, 2009 3:30 PM
Felix @135:
I disagree/agree. I was/am intelligent, sane, and well-informed. I simply chose to believe that what mankind discovered was the result of a flawed mind, and that God ultimately knew everything much better than we did. I didn't want to be ignorant; I just didn't see the discoveries of science as true. I instead focused on gaining "knowledge" of God through the Bible, prayer, meditation, etc.
It's a wacky way to view the world, but it doesn't require you to be ignorant, just dismissive.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 18, 2009 3:39 PM
Really? Then I'm afraid you've utterly missed the point. Rather Badly.
Here's how you do it: by calling bullshit whenever you encounter it. Emphatically. Clearly. Confidently, and without apology. Stepping in the bullshit before calling it bullshit accomplishes exactly nothing, except providing the purveyors of bullshit with an excuse to make fun of you.
These are Sacred Cows that we are fighting here. You won't get very far going up against a Sacred Cow by trying to kill it with kindness, nor will you defeat it by trying to bore it to death.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 3:43 PM
The appeal to agnotology is that there is some real-world utility in how it can be applied: if we have a firm, disciplined understanding of the mechanisms in place that enforce ignorance-based social movements like creationism, he have a much better chance at improving our effectiveness in address them going forward.
we do:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
that, combined with the Dunning Kruger effect pretty much explains all of creationism.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 18, 2009 3:44 PM
Rorschach @190:
Its not that they are neurotic somehow,and you cant really blame them for their mistakes,they just need a friend and some psychotherapy,and they will see the light.
These are liars for jebus,I dont give a flying fuck about why they are lying to children,themselves and everyone else,they are human beings with a brain,they have a choice,and they choose to lie.
Except that when you're a YEC like I was, you don't think you're lying. You truly, honestly believe that "the world" (in some sort of collective conscious action) is against you, and that what you are saying is absolutely true. You aren't lying, because there's no intent to deceive. You're just wrong.
And yes, it absolutely is neurotic. You get the ecstatic, euphoric feeling that you have the key to saving all of mankind, and that gives you a massive sense of self-importance that makes you capable of ignoring reason for your own delusions of grandeur. Everything else is dispensable but the 'truth' that you believe. People don't matter unless they're on your side or willing to believe what you're saying. It's classic megalomania.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 18, 2009 3:48 PM
UGH. Broken quoting system is broken...
My comment began with "Except that when you're a YEC like I was...". The rest is a quote from Felix.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 18, 2009 3:51 PM
Joe Bleau@224:
"You won't get very far going up against a Sacred Cow by trying to kill it with kindness, nor will you defeat it by trying to bore it to death."
You will not convince a creationist that they are wrong by telling them that they are wrong, no matter how blatantly and obviously wrong they are. They're well-trained in mental gymnastics. There is nearly nothing we can do to get them to reconsider their positions. I had to do it all myself.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 18, 2009 4:05 PM
MikeTheInfidel@228:
I don't dispute this in the least. The Sacred Cow to which I was referring is not the ignorant meme stuck in the YEC's brain - it's the cultural attitude that straightforward criticism of stupid ideas is somehow inherently rude or offensive or immodest, if those stupid ideas happen to be religious in nature.
Posted by: Lynna | June 18, 2009 4:26 PM
Steve @119: The posts failed as poetry, failed as a presentation of slang, failed as satire, and failed to make to their point.
Posted by: wice | June 18, 2009 4:33 PM
"Those people can just fuck off."
thank you, PZ. you cannot possibly imagine, how much i would like to say this over there at CIF Belief, and the pain, that i can't, because the moderation apparently thinks, that only by over-the-line writers deserve the right to use personal insults.
Posted by: wice | June 18, 2009 4:35 PM
"Those people can just fuck off."
thank you, PZ. you cannot possibly imagine, how much i would like to say this over there at CIF Belief, and the pain, that i can't, because the moderation apparently thinks, that only by over-the-line writers deserve the right to use personal insults.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
June 18, 2009 4:35 PM
And as the old saying goes, Sacred cows make the best burgers...
Posted by: Aquaria | June 18, 2009 4:36 PM
The same way cops try to understand the criminal mind? Or for the same reason that psychiatrists try to understand psychotics?
The difference between atheists and cops or psychologists is that the latter are paid to understand and deal with the creeps. I'm not.
So I'm quite happy to tell fundamentalist cretins that they can fuck right off.
Posted by: frog | June 18, 2009 4:46 PM
HH: No, it's always just our tone that's the problem.
Isn't that always the first sign that someone's argument lacks substance? To turn it into a lame ad-hominem -- not a reasonable attack on credibility, linguistic usage or flamage -- but a mere attack on style.
I think Godwin's Law would better be replaced with the Lameness Law -- that threads die when someone attacks tone. Well, that would also make Godwin's law be Lameness lawed out! Good riddance.
I'd like to see anyone who starts whining about meanness lose their internet access for a year.
Posted by: Lynna | June 18, 2009 4:53 PM
I agree with Sastra @170. It was, in fact, a great show of respect (though unearned) for the humanity buried (hopefully) inside Alan C. that Josh, Sastra and others repeatedly tried to shine a little light into that dark cranium.
I have religious friends who claim that I show them no respect when I question their religion. My answer is that it is the ultimate respect to listen carefully to all they say, to give them my highest quality of attention, and to reply with as many facts as I can muster. My religious friends have redefined "respect" to mean "never question my conclusions."
Posted by: MrFire | June 18, 2009 4:55 PM
Brownian @213:
Wow, ditto. That was beautifully worded. Not surprised you have an OM.
[/bootlicking]
Posted by: frog | June 18, 2009 4:58 PM
MikeTheInfidel: You will not convince a creationist that they are wrong by telling them that they are wrong, no matter how blatantly and obviously wrong they are.
Right on the money. This isn't about rational argument, it's about belonging to the club. You can't convince them to spit on their flag.
The best you can do is give them someplace to hang out, have cookouts, make friends and concoct business deals. Then they may change loyalties -- you have to attack it socially, not rationally.
Those who argue rationally are giving creationists way too much respect. It may have been an honest and respectable position in 1860 -- if a tad conservative. But today? It's just a loyalty oath, deserving of no more respect than any other club membership requirement.
Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | June 18, 2009 5:03 PM
Wow. I haven't read all these comments (!)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: this sort of thing makes me want to vomit in terror.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: how do all these people get rich by spouting off obnoxious bullshit, and how can I get a job like that?
Sarah
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 5:12 PM
All you need is a consciencectomy.
Posted by: Sameer | June 18, 2009 5:15 PM
World to USA: Our world is rapidly becoming a "knowledge oriented" world. Increasingly a majority of the people of the world earn their bread and butter through activities that require a greater use of their brains than brawn. This means that survival in this world requires application of rational thought, empirical approach. In such a world you are doing great harm by teaching your kids that myths in your religious books are historical and scientific truths. In the absence of any counter influence to such teachings, these kids will grow up unable to compete in the global knowledge economy. A generation raised in such ignorance may well sound the death knell of US dominance in the world by failing to maintain the edge US has in research and innovation. Be aware that there are others in the world who are ready to grab the lead from the US and profit driven corporations won't give a moments thought if quality work can be done in other places.
You are raising the joe six-packs of tomorrow. But it was not joe six-packs who were responsible for the greatest achievements of the USA. The greatest innovations and products in the world have come people who based their work on scientific, rational approach. Imagine what would have happened to your space program if NASA had used PI = 3.0 (as the Bible says) for all of their calculations.
Posted by: Sameer | June 18, 2009 5:19 PM
World to USA: Our world is rapidly becoming a "knowledge oriented" world. Increasingly a majority of the people of the world earn their bread and butter through activities that require a greater use of their brains than brawn. This means that survival in this world requires application of rational thought, empirical approach. In such a world you are doing great harm by teaching your kids that myths in your religious books are historical and scientific truths. In the absence of any counter influence to such teachings, these kids will grow up unable to compete in the global knowledge economy. A generation raised in such ignorance may well sound the death knell of US dominance in the world by failing to maintain the edge US has in research and innovation. Be aware that there are others in the world who are ready to grab the lead from the US and profit driven corporations won't give a moments thought if quality work can be done in other places.
You are raising the joe six-packs of tomorrow. But it was not joe six-packs who were responsible for the greatest achievements of the USA. The greatest innovations and products in the world have come people who based their work on scientific, rational approach. Imagine what would have happened to your space program if NASA had used PI = 3.0 (as the Bible says) for all of their calculations.
Posted by: Lynna | June 18, 2009 5:25 PM
Brownian @213: I know whereof you speak. One of my formerly religious friends, now a middle-aged atheist, told me that she grew up in a fundie cult that her parents joined when she was four years old. The cult was so extreme that one of her older relatives (grandmother? or aunt? -- can't remember for sure) actually cut off one of her own hands because it offended her. She was, my friend noted, surprising good at putting up her own hair in a bun, using the stump and her remaining hand.
Leaving the cult as a adult does not mean my friend has left it all behind. She's afraid of her own relatives, afraid they will find out she's writing a memoir, afraid she will sink into depression thanks to being alienated from her family, etc.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 5:33 PM
Pet peeve: Using measurements in the Bible, ie cubits, that were only ever meant to mean "about this big" (the distance from the elbow to the wrist) to claim the bible says PI is exactly equal to 3.0 is disingenuous.
The relevant passage, if I remember correctly, speaks of a body of water ten cubits across and thirty cubits around and was either paced off or just a rough estimate. I have seen municipal code documents that instruct you to calculate the diameter of a tree by measuring the circumference and dividing by three. They aren't claiming that pi is exactly equal to 3 either, only that 3 is a close enough value for the accuracy required in this particular case.
There are plenty of other things in the Bible to complain about without having to invent them.
Posted by: Monado | June 18, 2009 5:36 PM
Rather than calling people stupid, I'd like to say, "It's a shame that such a smart person as yourself has been fooled by constant exposure to statements about belief, threats of supernatural punishment, special pleading of the 'heads I win, tails you lose' variety, and so on. I sympathize that it's hard to break away from a view where you've never heard of the alternatives, other points of view are demonized, and so on. But really, would you accept that logic from anywhere else? Would you believe that Honest John the car dealer was honest because he said so? Are you afraid of going to the Hindu hell? You've been brought up in Disneyland--is it any wonder you believe that Mickey Mouse is real?"
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 18, 2009 5:37 PM
Brownian, OM #213 wrote:
A well-written post, but this isn't quite right. From what I recall, none of the prominent so-called "new atheists" grew up in fundamentalist families and were force-fed a religion teeming with fire and brimstone. When they talk about their own religious upbringings, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, and PZ Myers all remember being taught a nice, polite, and charity-oriented version of religion which emphasized the Golden Rule; the strange supernatural stories were like an odd sort of adjunct, and easily shrugged off.
Taner Edis was raised without religion. Michael Shermer was brought up in a milkwater church, and only became a fundamentalist as a teen, dropping it a few years later. Even you mention being raised in a "relatively moderate Catholic home." At the moment, the only 'outspoken' atheist I can think of who was actually raised in a conservative sect was Dan Barker, former preacher.
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of so-called new atheists who were raised within demanding faiths. But I don't think it's an identifying mark of new atheism.
“The uniting feature of the New Atheists is that we have all decided that the traditional atheist policy of diplomatic reticence should be discarded.” (Dan Dennett)
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 5:41 PM
Re my #244, just for clarity's sake:
"thirty cubits around and was either paced off" should read
"thirty cubits around and would have been either paced off"
Being overly pedantic, but I didn't want to give the impression that how the measurements were arrived at was given in the Bible because, as far as I know, they aren't.
Posted by: kev_s
|
June 18, 2009 5:58 PM
Re: Darren S. A. George #221
Yeah .. some good lines from Genesis (Phil Collins) like in "Jesus he loves me" the line "Get down on your knees and start paying". Ken's the latest to adopt it as his theme tune.
Posted by: BobbyEarle
|
June 18, 2009 6:33 PM
Nice post, as always. The only thing I would change is this:
to this:
"I will pray for those people."
Has a nice ring to it, doncha think?
Posted by: Zetetic
|
June 18, 2009 6:34 PM
@ tsg:
Since the object in discussion was a bath made of bronze and the height was also described, it seems far more likely that it was measured rather that paced off.
Of course then there is the discrepancy that "Kings 7:26" describes it as holding 2,000 baths worth. While "2 Chronicles 4:5" describes it as holding 3,000 baths worth.
I agree that it's silly to make a big deal about it, but some christians cling to beliefs just as absurd on the basis of the bible's assumed inerrant infallibility. They then use this assumed infallibility to use the bible as evidence in and of itself.
Ultimately, it's just fun to point out how every word of the bible can't possibly be literally true, as some would assert.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 6:43 PM
@Zeletic, #250:
I stand corrected. However I don't think it unreasonable to round 31.4 cubits to 30 cubits, especially when a cubit can be anywhere from 12 to 20 inches.
Posted by: f.ozy | June 18, 2009 7:17 PM
I love the end closing statement, PZ
Posted by: Michael DePaula | June 18, 2009 8:16 PM
Come on PZ, tell us how you really feel!
:)
Posted by: Sameer | June 18, 2009 8:22 PM
@tsg, Zeletic,
I concede the point. I guess the people who wrote the Bible were not so good with fractions. Lack of a place value number system was another handicap too I guess.
Posted by: genesgalore | June 18, 2009 8:24 PM
fu-ckoff, fu-ckoff, fu-ckoff.
Posted by: Drew | June 18, 2009 9:48 PM
Here are a few people who disagree with you guys and your arrogance....
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Posted by: obdurate | June 18, 2009 9:49 PM
@#71 - Bridget McKinney
Heh, wow thanks for the tour! I really enjoyed your pictures and descriptions! Fun way to pass the time @ work.
Posted by: Perfectly Happy Creationist | June 18, 2009 10:15 PM
PZ:
Don't you mean "fornicate off"!
Rasing ckids in darkness? How is teaching them about a pile of monkey bones being related to us NOT raising them in darkness. Liberalism is the worst thing for a kid to have to witness. It is the new evil and new age militant Godophobic atheists do not help matters.
Happy fornicating Mr. Myers.
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 18, 2009 10:33 PM
Commentor #258
Typical smarmy asshole who thinks God loves watching children be mislead and lied to.
Posted by: fubar | June 18, 2009 10:38 PM
The last line reminds me of the scene in Orgazmo where the elderly lady answers the Mormons' knock on her door, saying, "you two boys can just fuck right off."
Posted by: Monado | June 18, 2009 10:49 PM
As we used to say in polite company, "Go forth and multiply!"
Posted by: Kelly | June 19, 2009 12:55 AM
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things- and the things that are not- to nullify the things that are, so that no one can boast before Him."
1 Corinthians 1:25-29
"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught us by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
1 Corinthians 2:13-14
May God bless you all with true wisdom and discernment.
Kelly
Posted by: Steve_C | June 19, 2009 1:00 AM
Kelly. What's your friggin point?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 19, 2009 1:01 AM
Hey! Look! Kelly is making the argument that Kelly's foolishness is sanctioned by God. Just one question Kelly, why would you be pleased by the fact that the Smitty Almighty wants you to be a clown?
Posted by: CunningLingus | June 19, 2009 2:02 AM
What perplexes me is the need for these godbothering halfwits to beg and demand money from the " flock " .. WHY does a god need money ? .. surely entry to the cretinous musuem should be free for said retard believers ! .. I never hear about we atheists asking for a monetary stipend to further our beliefs ( advertising purposes excluded ) ! .. It's appalling ANY religion has a tax free status, especially when you see the " righteous leaders " jetting across the globe in private jets, living in palaces, all paid for by the misled and weak minded FLOCK !
Posted by: CunningLingus | June 19, 2009 2:04 AM
What perplexes me is the need for these godbothering halfwits to beg and demand money from the " flock " .. WHY does a god need money ? .. surely entry to the cretinous musuem should be free for said retard believers ! .. I never hear about we atheists asking for a monetary stipend to further our beliefs ( advertising purposes excluded ) ! .. It's appalling ANY religion has a tax free status, especially when you see the " righteous leaders " jetting across the globe in private jets, living in palaces, all paid for by the misled and weak minded FLOCK !
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 2:13 AM
Kelly. What's your friggin point?
I think she said, "Blessed are the cheesemakers."
Posted by: CunningLingus | June 19, 2009 2:15 AM
I think stupidity should be painfull .. but after listening to the majority of godbotherers from ALL religions .. i think it must be !
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 2:59 AM
thanks to bridget at #71 for the photo tour.
You definitely get a good idea of the "theme".
science=twisted
god=straight
*sigh*
Posted by: Giant Blue Anteater | June 19, 2009 6:53 AM
"This one may shock you: public schools are sending kids on field trips to the museum."
No surprise here. I live in Cincinnati, pretty close to this wretched 60,000 square-foot abomination. My school actually plans on going to this "museum", and they are not religious. If they officially announce that they are going, I'll write my principal a letter telling him that this is not a museum, and that the purpose of this "museum" is to misrepresent scientific data in the name of a Medieval Age beleif. It is not worth wasting your money on this useless waste of concrete that could've been used to build a real museum.
I mean seriously, what sort of maniac would suggest going to the creation museum for a field trip!?
Posted by: shaz | June 19, 2009 7:18 AM
the biggest problem today is that no one realizes that there is a big difference between 'understanding' and 'agreeing'.
Posted by: shaz | June 19, 2009 7:20 AM
the biggest problem today is that no one realizes that there is a big difference between 'understanding' and 'agreeing'.
Posted by: Andrew Brown | June 19, 2009 10:27 AM
Someone up thread asked: Have they ever actually constructed a supported argument (you know with evidence) that the assertion is true that 'stridency' or 'insensitivity' towards creationist willful ignorance does indeed harm evolutionary education? Ruse has frequently made the argument that if evolution necessarily entails atheism then the Second Amendment rules it out of public schools. The evidence, is, I think, clear that the second amendment does prohibit the teaching of atheism in schools quite as much as it prohibits the promotion of religion. See the recent case at an Orange County high school.
Believing that science entails atheism may not be the same, logically, as saying that being aggressive assholes makes few friends -- who cares about that when it is so much fun to be an asshole, especially on line? But there are psychological links.
Oh, and wice; I feel your pain.
Posted by: Samantha Jane | June 19, 2009 10:40 AM
Brilliant! *hugs*
Posted by: frog | June 19, 2009 10:56 AM
Kelly @262: But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things- and the things that are not- to nullify the things that are, so that no one can boast before Him.
Well, Kelly appears to get the point. Her religion is one of willful ignorance -- foolishness and stupidity aren't merely tolerated, but actually promoted.
What does it even mean to respect such a viewpoint? It's like claiming that the sane don't respect the point-of-view of the insane -- it's an inherently nonsense position, because respect implies that there's even a possibility of meaningful communication.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 19, 2009 11:12 AM
Kelly @ 262:
Translation: Fuck you all you heathens.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 11:23 AM
Stop being so damn right all the time, Sastra!
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 11:39 AM
the danger of unresolved cognitive dissonance. Ironic that Ruse mentions the "demise" of Freud's theories. - Ichthyic
Not Freud: Leon Festinger (who unlike Freud, was a scientist).
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 11:54 AM
Agnotology, the study of culturally-induced ignorance - j.t.delaney
I hadn't come across this term before. Much-needed! Thanks.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 12:38 PM
As we used to say in polite company, "Go forth and multiply!" - Monado
Love it! So that's what that old bastard Jahweh was telling Adam and Eve to do!
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 12:49 PM
Ruse has frequently made the argument that if evolution necessarily entails atheism... - Andrew Brown
Quite obviously, it doesn't: an omnipotent being can clearly make things look however it wants, and in particular, conceal its own existence if it wants to. So what's his point? Really, it seems accommodationists are as stupid as creationists.
Posted by: wice | June 19, 2009 12:55 PM
@Andrew Brown
"Ruse has frequently made the argument that if evolution necessarily entails atheism then the Second Amendment rules it out of public schools."
it probably would, but it's a strawman:
1. evolution does not necessarily entail atheism. the existence of large numbers of religious people, who also accept evolution, _proves_ it. so it doesn't matter, whether somebody tries to imply direct connection between the two, he/she would simply wrong.
2. actually nobody claims, that the acceptance of evolution leads to atheism, except creationists. what atheist sometimes point out is, that evolution _supports_ the atheist position, because it contradicts most religions' teachings, removing some arguments for the existence of god. but so do geology, astronomy, and other sciences.
you basically want atheists to throw away their best arguments, on the surface because you worry about the future of science education, but judging from the general tone of your articles, it's more because you simply don't like the validity of religion being questioned, and the feelings of religious people hurt.
"it is so much fun to be an asshole, especially on line"
i guess you could talk about its pleasures for hours. are you seriously worried, that a couple comments on cif (that you try to depict as calling religious people stupid, crazy, and ignorant, while the actual comments do nothing like that) endanger the scientific education in the USA? no, you just wanted to kick some commenters, who regularly point out, where you are wrong in your articles, both factually and logically.
and no, you don't feel my pain. if you did, you would think a bit more, before you spam cif with insulting, shrill(TM), strident(TM) and completely unjustified articles against everyone, who dare to question the validity of religion. you know, people who you simply label 'new' or 'militant' atheists. or, at least, sometimes you would invite some 'new atheists', who you regularly speak evil of, you know, just to give them an opportunity to tell _their_ side of the story.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2009 1:03 PM
It is rather pathetic basing an argument against atheism on the peculiarities of a specific nations constitution. If it were indeed the case that evolution led to atheism then, and the US constitution thus prohibited the teaching of evolution, then it would be the US constitution that would be in trouble, not reality.
Posted by: wice | June 19, 2009 1:31 PM
btw:
if the Second Amendment rules out of public school everything, that may falsify a religion, then does it mean, that if i start a religion with only one teaching, namely: "2+2=5, because god made it so. and it's not a metaphore, we mean it! god told us, seriously!", then the public schools would be forbidden to teach mathematics?
maybe, just maybe, facts should be banned from school, just because they contradict religions.
Posted by: frog | June 19, 2009 1:47 PM
@wice: it probably would, but it's a strawman:
Wrong. If that were so, then the teaching of the heliocentric theory of astronomy would be illegal by schools, since that clearly entails the rejection of some fundamentalist screeds. The case only differs in the number of religions offended, not in any essential detail.
Just like in libel law, the truth is a complete defense.
And Ruse appears to be a completely dishonest hack. What a surprise.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 19, 2009 1:57 PM
Somebody made a mistake here. The second amendment has to do with owning and bearing of arms. The first amendment is one not allowing the state to favor one religion over another.Posted by: Sean | June 19, 2009 2:56 PM
Frog, truth is not a defence in British libel law, but I think we all know how screwed-up that is.
PZ, great article. I believe in respect for people, but even that has it's limits when people are batshit crazy and intent on spreading their lies to others. Fundies deserve no more time than that we would give to a lunatic wearing a 'the end is nigh, repent' sandwich board.
Posted by: Peter Henderson | June 19, 2009 3:34 PM
The crew at Answers in Genesis really detests theistic evolution
I always thought you detested the TEs as well PZ.
Posted by: TheVirginian | June 20, 2009 1:25 AM
Kelly is perfectly correct. If you believe the Bible is the word of the Christian deity, then you must reject any human knowledge that is inconsistent with it.
Thus, early Christians proclaimed that the Earth was a flat plate covered by a dome, immersed in a sea of water, with the sun and moon orbiting within the dome, and nothing was made of atoms. This was a rejection of the pagan view, based upon study of the natural world, that the Earth was spherical. Some pagans argued the Earth moved. An entire movement declared it was made of atoms.
Based upon their certainty of the Bible's truths, in the 4th century, Bishops Lactantius (tutor to Constantine's children) and Ambrose of Milan mocked the whole ideas of atoms (it was considered atheistic). We have surviving copies of their sermons and books, which have been translated. Lactantius' anti-atomism can be found in “A Treatise on the Anger of God,” Lactantius, ch. 10, pp. 14-15, 20. Ambrose's mockery of atomists is in “Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel,” Ambrose, Homily 1, book 1.2, pp. 5, 7. Based upon Genesis, Ambrose also declared, “The sun is younger than the green shoot, younger than the green plant.”
Similarly, Bishops Basil (the Great) and John Chrysostam joined Ambrose and other early Christians in proclaiming a Flat Earth cosmology, contra the pagans' Spherical Earth. They all made scientifically nonsensical statements, based upon their beliefs. Ambrose might take an award for the most mind-boggling: “Who, therefore, doubts that the burning aether, glowing with mighty heat, would cause everything to be consumed by fire if it were not held in check by a law laid down by its Author, so that neither rivers, nor lakes nor the seas themselves could subdue its strength? … Hence, we often see the sun, too, veiled in vaporous exhalations. This is clear proof that the sun, in order to temper its heat, has appropriated to itself the element of water.” So the sun draws water off the Earth to cool itself! (“Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel,” Ambrose, Homily 3, book 2.3, p. 58.) Basil declared that the sun destroyed water (what we call evaporation), which it was why his god created such a vast ocean surrounding the outer shell (firmament) of the Earth: “Exegetical Homilies,” Basil, Homily 3.7, p. 48.
Finally, St. Augustine of Hippo joined in the mockery of philosophers by declaring they all served Satan merely by arguing so much from so many different viewpoints, whereas Christians always were in agreement. This from a man who might have heard Arian Christian battering rams pounding on the gates of his city as he lay on his deathbed. Arians and their Christian foes freely slaughtered each other across North Africa and Europe for decades in, ahem, a polite theological disagreement.
Posted by: John Morales | June 20, 2009 2:05 AM
Peter Henderson,
Not as such and in general; I think PZ merely considers them de-facto creationists and only detests them inasmuch as they impede the progress of science and lead young minds astray by supporting theism.
e.g. PZ: "Take a theistic evolutionist and let them babble about what they believe, and they sound exactly like the creationists."
Posted by: timmay | June 20, 2009 2:43 AM
Millions of dollars for this-
I wonder how many kids learn about Charles Darwin or
Carl Sagan.
What a sad thing to do to a child. How frightened of everything you must be to need to take the creation 'story' as literal fact.
Even Jesus thinks these people are stupid.
Posted by: 1234 | June 20, 2009 8:57 AM
"They will live in a country where their schools are third-rate, because the creationists will suppress education not just for their own kids, but for everyone else's, too."
Precisely why I swooped my kid out of "public" school in Utah. A child can learn more from sitting in front of Cartoon Network all day than he is ALLOWED to learn in the Utard school system. At least the cartoons will portray some fictional Noah guy with a boatload of dinosaurs as a JOKE, not a "science lesson".
C'mon, kid, let's go watch Farscape re-runs. Still less science FICTION than a Utard science class.
Posted by: bdh | June 20, 2009 9:18 AM
@Frog (#238)
"The best you can do is give them someplace to hang out, have cookouts, make friends and concoct business deals. Then they may change loyalties -- you have to attack it socially, not rationally"
Right on. Scientists get that humans are social creatures, and we understand better than many religious types the actual benefits of 'being in the club' as a survival strategy. No amount of rational arguement is going to change this. If change isn't happening fast enough, it's because churches/temples/mosques have a near monopoly on the so-called 'Third Place'. Looking for suggestions to remedy this - thanks!
Posted by: KI | June 20, 2009 10:07 AM
tsg@244
I would agree with you, except that the Church did, indeed, give an exact value of pi as three in the late 600's, which led to over two centuries of collapsing domes and arches. It got so bad that by 900 AD the lead mason of a project would be forced to stand under the arch when the keystone was put in place, so that if it collapsed, he would be crushed underneath it. Hence the underground nature of the Masons and their "secret" number (3 3/22).
Posted by: Robert Owens | June 21, 2009 1:03 AM
The last line of this blog alone reveals the author to have rejected God and the "golden rule." Enough said.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 21, 2009 1:25 AM
Thank you, Mr. Owens, for your shallow, superficial critique. Your concern has been noted.
Posted by: John Morales | June 21, 2009 2:12 AM
bdh @293, for me, Pharyngula is just such a 'Third Place' (nice idiom, BTW! I appreciate you introducing me to it) for me, but it's virtual.
Thanks, PZ.
Posted by: MadScientist | June 21, 2009 4:37 AM
"atheists, agnostics, and theistic evolutionists are trying to destroy the nation for Satan"
Hey, don't forget the homosexual conspiracy - or have they been so successful that no one remembers their conspiracy? I for one welcome our gay overlords, and godless gay overlords are even better.
Posted by: Wolfgang | June 22, 2009 7:45 AM
I am not sure if we can realistically expect insight to prevail over belief, but your post is another milestone in the right direction.
Imo, there is a widespread psychological need to believe what our parents taught us - fortunately my parents were of differing views and i had a chance to witness the arbitrariness of belief.
In the long run, truth is forever - man-made deities just come and go.
Keep up the good work
Wolfgang
Posted by: J Moore | July 12, 2009 10:24 PM
Isn't the tax money used to fund the transportation and admittance to this place (a whopping $20--probably $10, special price for groups) something that are given by atheist, agnostics, pagans, Hindus, Muslims and other religious groups as well? Since when do our tax dollars go directly towards funding fundamentalist OPINIONS of dogmas.