Pharyngula

Posted by: Barklikeadog | August 25, 2009 3:09 PM

Gawd PZ, I wish I had that many people pissed off at me. It would mean I've made some significant impact on peoples lives or sumthin'. At least you have the right group upset.

Posted by: Elyse | August 25, 2009 3:13 PM

such cowards.

Posted by: James F | August 25, 2009 3:13 PM

However, he and his cronies at AiG do believe in something that is truly absurd: that the earth is only 6,000 years old. There's not much I could add that is more damning than that.

Yes there is: that the entire universe is 6,000 years old and was created, as we see it today, in six 24-hour days.

Posted by: Alun | August 25, 2009 3:16 PM

But is RICHARD DAWKINS THAN JESUS?

Posted by: maddogdelta | August 25, 2009 3:18 PM

Cue the crying baby picture...

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 25, 2009 3:20 PM

...wrote a blog post about me... After labeling me... ...he then proceeded to critique my... ...and to accuse me... He also accused me...

(not very academic, is it?)

What's not academic is whining like a baby about the alleged personal attacks and not taking it like a seasoned professional while avoiding discussion regarding any of the thoughtful substance of Dr. Myers' post.

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | August 25, 2009 3:23 PM

Someone get him a Fainting Couch and some Clutching Pearls, stat!

Posted by: Weaponsofmassdeception | August 25, 2009 3:28 PM

Wow, PZ AND Eugenie Scott referenced in the same blurb.

"We'll get those darned athiests! self-proclaimed athiests!"

Looks like AiG is in full smiting mode today!!

Posted by: gistgrant | August 25, 2009 3:29 PM

'self proclaimed'
I mean. how dare you 'proclaim' such a thing! The horror!

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 25, 2009 3:30 PM

The sentence: "He also accused me and other creationists of believing things that neither I nor any other informed creationist believes" might be an oblique reference to the whole "Hamitic descent => racial slavery" thing from this post.

Posted by: Iason Oubache | August 25, 2009 3:32 PM

Why is it that the dweebs always have to add things like "self-proclaimed" and "so-called" to their description of things? Are those phrases supposed to be insulting somehow?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 25, 2009 3:34 PM

You really needed to post the next paragraph of his rant, PZ... specifically this section:

I shudder to think of all the misrepresentations (and worse) and character assassinations that come out of his mouth in his university courses as he proclaims that evolution is fact and creationists are dangerous idiots. We are seeing the atheists get more vicious in their ad hominem attacks on creationists, and we expect it to continue.

Nothing like using a long-winded whine about ad-hominems to display a nearly perfect example of one, genius.

Irony meeter go KABOOOOM!

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 25, 2009 3:36 PM

dammit. Tag fail.

Posted by: Lilith | August 25, 2009 3:37 PM

At least he actually called you by name, PZ, so his readers will be able to google you and read some actual facts. One or two of them might even start to think a bit.

I see the article repeats the tired old saw of "...an increasingly anti-Christian culture". I love the way they consistantly avoid admitting what they are up against is, in fact, a vocal anti-idiot culture, where religious idiots are only one subset (albeit the largest group) of the idiots we are against.

Posted by: xebecs | August 25, 2009 3:39 PM

Would it help if WE proclaimed you to be an atheist? Then you could storm and rage against his calumny. After all, you want to speak a language they understand, right?

Posted by: andrew js | August 25, 2009 3:39 PM

I'm suprised he said your name instead of "the professor".

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 25, 2009 3:43 PM

...an increasingly anti-Christian culture

1. Yup... another desperate cry from the poor persecuted majority.

2. I love how that's seen by so many as such a horrifying portent... whereas I always read it as "... an increasingly anti-[insert dangerous, anti-intellectual, oppressive dogma here] culture."

Sorry... don't see that as a negative.

Posted by: Hank Fox | August 25, 2009 3:45 PM

Godder websites never allow comments, obviously because they're afraid of honest critique from non-believers.

Still, they did post their email address under the pic of the baby chameleon:

correspondence@answersingenesis.org

Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | August 25, 2009 3:45 PM

@33: that life arose ex nihilo

The only one's claiming that life arose "ex nihilo" are the creationists. No one is claiming the "small, warm pond" was composed of distilled/deionized water.

Posted by: toth | August 25, 2009 3:47 PM

I'm furious with PZ, too. The insolence of proclaiming yourself an atheist without going through the rigorous qualification processes clearly outlined by the International Atheist Society!

Posted by: ObSciGuy | August 25, 2009 3:47 PM

...without even hearing it (not very academic, is it?)

I thing we should challenge AiG to start putting ALL of their lectures on YouTube, if they're so concerned with "academic" discourse. ;)

To not do so (or even to selectively do so) is simply hiding from their critics making sure that only paying customers hear their evangelizing.

Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 25, 2009 3:50 PM

James Steeleforth

I call Poe.

No caps lock and the spelling and grammar look OK.
Nice use of the Bold command.

I think he is an atheist.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 25, 2009 3:52 PM

Absurd beliefs? Here's my two cents--
What I believe has evidence!
There's not much more that you might add
That won't reveal you're raving mad.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | August 25, 2009 3:52 PM

No, I did not critique his lecture; I criticized his plainly stated premise

dollars to donuts his lecture is just half an hour (or however long) of constantly reiterating his premise.

Posted by: joe agnost | August 25, 2009 3:52 PM

From the AIG article linked from this post, Mortenson wrote:

"Evolutionists can’t defend their position scientifically and philosophically, so many of them resort to emotional name-calling and other unscientific and illogical tactics."

What a fucking, piece of shit, lying sack of worm excrement... Wait - did I just make his point? ;)

Posted by: Lynne | August 25, 2009 3:54 PM

'Way back last week or so, the comments following the "I get e-mail" post became too numerous for my computer to load the page. This was the back-and-forth between Nikki and the Pharyngulites. Anyone care to recap? Did Nikki come to any new conclusions?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 25, 2009 3:55 PM

Cue the crying baby picture...

Posted by: Drosera | August 25, 2009 3:56 PM

James Steeleforth @33,

Sherlock Holmes already knew: "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Science has eliminated the impossible, which is the biblical creation myth, as well as all the thousands of other creation myths people have come up with (and the Genesis story is only a moderately curious example among many). What remains is the Theory of Evolution. There is no evidence against it, except in the feeble minds of people like you.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 25, 2009 3:58 PM

...and evolved by random, non-directed accidents into the highly organized structures, processes, systems and adaptations we see today.

Why is it that you idiots never mention the filtering mechanism of selection? You're quick to bring up the mutations, but always fail to mention the selection filter provided by Nature. Maybe if you took some time to study how Evolution occurs, you won't be so quick to spout off with your misinformed, incomplete, and just plain wrong ideas about how evolution happens and why it works.

Oh yeah, by the way numb-nuts, Evolution is fact. Deal with it.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 25, 2009 3:59 PM

I bet a cookie that James Steeleforth = Charlie Wagner the crackpot, stealing forth.

The catchphrases are unmistakable.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 4:00 PM

that life arose ex nihilo in a small, warm pond and evolved by random, non-directed accidents into the highly organized structures, processes, systems and adaptations we see today. - James Steeleforth

James, "ex nihilo" means "from nothing". Scientists do not believe life arose "from nothing", but from already complex chemicals. Are you a liar, or just ignorant?

James, how did you come to leave out the highly non-random processes such as natural selection and endosymbiosis? Are you a a liar, or just ignorant?

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 25, 2009 4:03 PM

Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | August 25, 2009 3:45 PM

@33: that life arose ex nihilo

The only one's claiming that life arose "ex nihilo" are the creationists. No one is claiming the "small, warm pond" was composed of distilled/deionized water

Nor does anyone claim it was necessarily a small, warm pond. We're pretty sure it happened in water with a nearby heat source, but it could have been the bottom of an ocean or a tidepool as easily as a pond.

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 4:03 PM

I don't even know where to begin taking apart Mortensen's article. It's not even wrong.

Although my favorite has to be the blatant spinning (via a link to evolutionnews.org) of the Eugenie Scott interview where she makes the (ill-advised, in my opinion¹) suggestion that scientists stop using language creationists can use to make evolution appear weak as instructions to scientists to avoid publicly admitting when they're wrong.

These people have no ethics. None. "Liars for Jesus" is too mild a term.

Oh, and Terry, if you don't like us calling you dangerous idiots, stop behaving like one.

1. Creationists have already shown, as this article demonstrates, there is no lie too big to further their agenda, and if scientists have to moderate their statements based on how creationists might misrepresent them, they won't be able to say anything.

Posted by: amphiox | August 25, 2009 4:05 PM

"No one is claiming the "small, warm pond" was composed of distilled/deionized water"

Even if it were, that's still not ex nihilo. There water's still there.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 25, 2009 4:06 PM

Dear Brother Doctor Terry Mortenson,

From one self-proclaimed Christian to another, please know I am praying for you with the utmost fervor as you suffer this day the slings and arrows of logical and reasoning persecutors on account of your faith-filled young earth fantasies.

Verily, the Lord has laid a heavy burden on my heart for you and your brave and defiant witness in the face of derision, smirking, mass hilarity, and peer reviewed evidence. Stand firm in Jesus, Dear Brother Doctor! Do not retreat before all of those who say that you have given a PhD in the history of geology from the University of Coventry in England as much credibility as a pamphlet on the pleasures of syphilitic dementia. Don't quail at the wrath of the credible geologists unlucky enough to have studied with you, whose own degrees are now risible. Their anger will be as naught alongside the Lord's mighty fury which will be visited upon all the self-proclaimed unbelievers on judgment day.

Verily our reward will be in heaven, where we will be able to stand shoulder to shoulder in God's 17,986-year-old paradise, sing maudlin hymns, and throw billion-year-old rocks down on the howling heretics.

Praise Baby Jesus for our Baby Earth!

Yours in the broadcasting of Christian-lies-and-fabrications
Smoggy Batzrubble

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 25, 2009 4:06 PM

Update: I am absolutely certain that "James Steeleforth" is the banned crackpot Charlie Wagner.

The catchphrases are a perfect match.

Shoo, Charlie. Find some other way to amuse yourself. Or read up on what you insist on making stupid proclamations about, as you never do.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 25, 2009 4:07 PM

Lessee: Over the course of my life, I've been an agnostic, a Christian (albeit never insane enough to meet AiG's high standards), and now an atheist. And I've been "self-proclaimed" about everyone one of them. Ie, you ask me my opinion re gods, and I say outright: "I think X" (whatever X happens to be at the time). I'm not sure how there would be any other criteria but self-proclamation.

So, I'm a self-proclaimed atheist. Like here (that's me on the right). Apparently, that's terribly, um, gauche of me.

Posted by: Dr P | August 25, 2009 4:08 PM

'"Self proclaimed." These guys crack me up. Apparently, you're supposed to be baptized into atheism and your status recognized by a higher authority. You can’t just say you’re an atheist! I can’t stop laughing.'

No I think we need an AAT (Atheist Aptitude Test)to prove REAL atheistic competence and call out the half stepping 'almost' nonbelievers. Oh and James, if your implication is that a 6,000 year old universe is a viable alternative to a 4.5 billion universe and you think the facts speak to this young earth,words simply fail me;Really, what's worse, an improbable beginning or an improbable beginning brought about by a god who happens to look just like you and none of the other ethnic varieties living on the planet?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 25, 2009 4:12 PM

James Steeleforth is an agnostic creationist?

"I'm really not sure whether or not any deities exist, though I'm absolutely certain at least one of them had to have created the universe."

Please, do continue to lecture us about untenable beliefs.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 25, 2009 4:14 PM

Smoggy @ #72, that symphony of eloquence you composed brought a tear to my eye. Bravo. Simply, bravo.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 25, 2009 4:15 PM

PZ needs to send $25 to the International Atheism Council Inc, Box 1599283044234B, Van Nuys, CA and become a board certified atheist.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 25, 2009 4:17 PM

We're pretty sure it happened in water with a nearby heat source,

maybe, maybe not...

Cold Seeps

of course, this has as much to do with evolution as the direction a road points has to do with how cars came to be.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 25, 2009 4:18 PM

#82, definitely Charlie Wagner.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 25, 2009 4:20 PM

absurd: utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false.

wow, you're such an excellent fit to that, perhaps you should think about using the word as your internet handle?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 25, 2009 4:22 PM

My point was that YEC and Darwinian evolution are equally absurd.

Well, if I thought evolution workde the way you think it does, I might come to that conclusion as well... but thankfully I'm not that willfully ignorant.

So... now that you've cleared that up, perhaps you can restate your position about evolution, removing all of the erroneous claims you assigned to it, and we can start the discussion again... sound fair? Or would actually dealing with facts remove some of the sizzle from your highly ignorant mis-representation?

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 25, 2009 4:23 PM

James S, regarding the existence/necessity of deities/creators:

It's called Occam's Razor. You speculate about a deity that simply always was and forever is. Well, why not speculate that Nature has that property? You're answering a mystery by invoking something even more mysterious, which is completely unproductive. Why not look for evidence first?

"Unless someone can establish the limitations of the universe as a whole, it would be presumptuous to point to the cosmos and declare it incapable of existing without an external cause." Daniel Kolak and Raymond Martin, Wisdom Without Answers,(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998), p. 39

Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 25, 2009 4:26 PM

My point was that YEC and Darwinian evolution are equally absurd.

(absurd: utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false.)

So is the idea that someone as clearly stupid as you ("Evolution must be untrue because it seems weird to me") can operate a computer, and yet here you are.

Again, that pesky evidence.

Clearly Charlie Wagner, or someone of equal or lesser intelligence.

Posted by: Newfie | August 25, 2009 4:29 PM

My point was that YEC and Darwinian evolution are equally absurd.

(absurd: utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false.)

exactly... everyone knows that http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html

Posted by: Mark M | August 25, 2009 4:30 PM

Wasn't Charlie Wagner that old guy on The Hollywood Squares?

Posted by: Bob L | August 25, 2009 4:34 PM

"Self-proclaimed atheist"

OMG! AiG has really taken the gloves off now on PZ!

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 25, 2009 4:35 PM

@101 LOL, it was Charlie Weaver.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 25, 2009 4:35 PM

I notice that Mortenson in reply, while denying the ignorance of history that PZ accuses him of, fails to deal in specifics. He cites not one example of how Hooke, or Smith, or any of those other guys were motivated by "anti-Biblical worldviews" (though I suspect that in Mortenson's view, "anti-Biblical" is defined as: "failure to unquestioningly accept Genesis as literal, face-value, TRVTH". That certainly seemed to be the message of their silly excuse for a "museum").

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 25, 2009 4:43 PM

Dear Brother CharlieJames SteelforthWagner

I couldn't help but agree with your compelling equivalence when you asserted 'that YEC and Darwinian evolution are equally absurd'. It is rare I find myself so in sympathy with another poster. Speaking of equivalence: would you like to join with me in revealing to the world my related belief that alien abduction stories and reports of the space shuttle taking off and landing are equally absurd? We might be onto something here!

Yours, all things being equal,
Smoggy

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 25, 2009 4:44 PM

I only claim that there is no empirical evidence for either view at the present time.

Hmmm... sounds to me like you are an... (gasp) athiest!!!111!!11!

IBut I must redirect you to the main point... James, your understanding of evolution (similar to your understanding of agnosticism, apparently), as you asserted it in your first post, is woefully mis-guided. Do you deny this?

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 4:47 PM

I only claim that there is no empirical evidence for either view at the present time.

Does that make me a nihilist? Empiricist?

I know!....Scientist!

A scientist does not assume claims made with no evidence are automatically equally likely to be true as not.

Posted by: AdamK | August 25, 2009 4:51 PM

I'm not sure I know of any %100 atheists - there's always a tiny fraction of a chance that there's a god.

Depends on your definition of "god." Deist god? Vanishingly small chance of that--it's on the wrong end of entropy. Christian god? Full of logical contradictions: 100% atheist.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 25, 2009 4:51 PM

Dear James Scientistforth,

I admire your relentless logic (well, the relentless part, at least).

I am equally impressed with your fetish for 'bold' letters—although I wonder whether your mother might have forgotten to tell you that you don't always have to shout to get attention.

Speaking of shouting, you remind me of the kid playing soccer who keeps yelling for the ball even though every time someone actually passes it to him he misses it and kicks his own shin.

Perhaps you should hobble out of here and do something more challenging (like learning to read?) before you inflict serious damage on yourself.

yours in concern for your ongoing humiliation
Smoggy

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 25, 2009 4:52 PM

I'm sure I'll hear from the %100 atheists now... I know - get off the fence joe! ;)

No... you're fairly correct... atheists generally don't make the claim that existence of a god or gods is impossible as point of fact... it's simply a lack of belief that they do, given the evidence... evidence which points to a near certainty that there isn't a god or gods.

It's a lack of belief that's the key. Were observable, measurable, testable evidence to present itself for a god or gods, we'd approach it like every other piece of evidence, scientifically, and accept the conclusions the evidence leads to, without pre-supposition.

Posted by: Lyr | August 25, 2009 4:55 PM

For people like these evolution-deniers, no amount of evidence can persuade them that their worldview might not be correct. "The Bible says so" is what they fall back on. If only they could open their eyes and their minds, and accept that the Bible isn't 100% accurate or true. I mean, I went through 12 years of catholic school, and they never tried to force us to take the Bible literally!

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 4:55 PM

Sure, I guess... but looking at the evidence (or lack thereof) shows that the odds pretty strongly go against god. While I consider myself an atheist (my handle is another story) I would put my atheism in the high %99 range.

I'm not sure I know of any %100 atheists - there's always a tiny fraction of a chance that there's a god.

I'm sure I'll hear from the %100 atheists now... I know - get off the fence joe! ;)

I'll weigh in. At some point, the fraction of a possibility is so tiny it may as well be zero. I've reached that point. I got there by coming to the realization that "god" is a meaningless word. When they can tell me what they even mean by it, I'll consider the possibility of it existing.

Posted by: Quidam | August 25, 2009 4:56 PM

Oh that little green lizard - it's a chameleon. Either that or the Angel Gabriel.

I'd reply and claim my prize but I'd rather they didn't have my email

Posted by: Dania | August 25, 2009 4:57 PM

I only claim that there is no empirical evidence for either view at the present time.

Yeah. I don't know how some people can claim that fairies don't exist. I mean, that's an absurd position. There is no empirical evidence that they exist, just as there's no empirical evidence that they don't exist. Afairieists are so irrational.

Posted by: MikeM | August 25, 2009 4:58 PM

You know, many of you are harping on the "self-proclaimed" aspect of this critique, but I think I may have an idea to legitimize atheism: Certificates of Atheism.

Sample:

"Whereas MikeM has sworn off all aspects of supernatural explanations; and never goes to church; and doesn't believe in eternal damnation or salvation; and has written off as absurd the notion of a six-day creation; and is fascinated by and supports the laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics; in spite of having a mere BA in Computer Science, we hereby recognize his status as an Atheist. So be it recorded."

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 25, 2009 4:59 PM

Charlie Wagner... taken time yet to update your MENSA membership?

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 5:01 PM

Charlie Wagner... taken time yet to update your MENSA membership?

MENSA? Isn't that the organization people give money to to tell them they're smart?

Posted by: Paul | August 25, 2009 5:04 PM

Interesting point. Well worth pondering.

I certainly don't profess to make the claim that the existence or non-existence of god is unknowable.
I only claim that there is no empirical evidence for either view at the present time.

Good answer as far as it goes, but now you are treating the label "Agnostic" differently than you treated the label "Atheist". This is very dishonest, as there is a similar variance in the two groups. Both have certain graduations.

Some Atheists hold that there are no gods. This would be Strong Atheism. While they can invoke lack of evidence, parsimony, and Occam, it would not be entirely unfair to call it an ideological position instead of a purely scientific position. Weak Atheism, such as that of Dawkins, instead holds that in the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe in God(s). They do not necessarily rule out the possible existence of God(s). Generally when Atheism is being discussed, it is the weak form (unless you are reading a caricature from AiG). It is obvious enough that people generally do not draw the distinction in regular conversation/publication.

Agnosticism is very similar. There is a body of Agnostics that hold that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is fundamentally unknowable. These would be analogous to Strong Atheists. Then there are the Agnostics that simply believe we don't currently possess sufficient knowledge to say that God(s) do or do not exist. These are analogous to Weak Atheists --in fact there really isn't a practical difference between Weak Atheism and this weak form of Agnosticism, except the Agnostics tend to look down their noses at the Atheists (believing themselves to be more open-minded and non-judgemental, not to mention nicer for not telling other people their gods don't exist).

The fact that you do not treat your own beliefs/conclusions on the subject to the same scrutiny as that of the people you assault here on Pharyngula should tell you something about yourself. It isn't very complimentary.

Posted by: Pharyngulette | August 25, 2009 5:05 PM

Re: the self-proclaimed atheism thing (and my apologies in advance to other Pharyngulites who've heard me tell this before), but back in the dark and scary days when I was an evangelistic xtian, we equated the words "Atheist" and "Satan-worshipper". Even just saying the word gave me a sick and shuddery feeling.

In fact, it was years after giving away the xtian myth that I even thought to deconstruct the word 'a-theist' and think about its actual meaning, rather than the pretend definition that had been implied for all that time. But most fundies aren't going to let their brains get too close to thinking for themselves!

So, PZ, when they write about you as being "self-proclaimed", I suspect it's in horror and shock, as if you've announced yourself proudly as a corpse-mutilator or a cannibal.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 25, 2009 5:11 PM

So, PZ, when they write about you as being "self-proclaimed", I suspect it's in horror and shock, as if you've announced yourself proudly as a corpse-mutilator or a cannibal.

Once PZ becomes a properly certified atheist he'll be eligible for a discount on dehydrated shredded baby to put on his breakfast Cheerios.

Posted by: AdamK | August 25, 2009 5:13 PM

...but... but... I don't *like* babies! |-8

You obviously haven't had them properly salted, smoked and cured.

And wrapped in bacon...

*drool*

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 5:19 PM

Some Atheists hold that there are no gods. This would be Strong Atheism. While they can invoke lack of evidence, parsimony, and Occam, it would not be entirely unfair to call it an ideological position instead of a purely scientific position.

I take issue with this because we don't say that people who claim there is no Santa Claus, no leprechauns or no unicorns are taking an ideological position or that it's not a purely scientific one. So why do we make a special case for god?

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 25, 2009 5:21 PM

Am I... wrong, in some way? Is there some special teachings or readings I have missed that I need to overcome this?

Well, seeing as atheism is apparently supposed to be a religion 'n all, we probably should have some whimsically odd dietary prescriptions, shouldn't we? Goes with the territory, apparently...

I figure we should also make them impossibly/annoyingly complicated to follow, too... Possibly following both the sidereal and lunar cycles at once... y'know... somethin' like 'hot dogs shall not be consumed with spicy relish on the second Tuesday of the first month following the third rotation of the moon from its second quarter beginning the count on the evening after the Chinese New Year except when the first point of Aries falls on a weekday, when we instead start from Elvis' birthday... But there's an out if the relish contains more than 20 percent by volume pickled jalapeno peppers... The out does not apply, however, if the year is an even multiple of ten years after the airing of the first episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit--in these years, however, thou shalt not use any shampoo that has the world 'herbal' anywhere in its name...'

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 25, 2009 5:24 PM

Hey James, I don't know what you've been smoking. Atheism is not an ideology, it is refusal to accept one. You know, kind of, believing/refusing to believe in/ Brahma.
And you know look more impressive because of the bold font.

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 5:28 PM

tsg wrote:

"A scientist does not assume claims made with no evidence are automatically equally likely to be true as not."

That's EXACTLY what a good scientist does!
No pre-existing biases, prejudices or inclinations.

Absolutely wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Assuming every claim presented without evidence has a 50% chance of being true is a fundamental and rookie mistake and attests to your ignorance of what science is.

Someone needs to familiarize himself with the concept of the null hypothesis.

Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2009 5:31 PM

From the AIG article linked from this post, Mortenson writes:

Evolutionists can’t defend their position scientifically...

Hey look! A very simple and definitive lie.

Who is surprised? Anyone? Anyone? Show of hands?

Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 25, 2009 5:32 PM

Nobody ever dubs you an atheist! It's an independent position. Anyone who's ever changed religions...

Still, it's better than being a self-proclaimed expert.

I mean, suppose you could wake up one morning and declare, "I can't imagine that the Earth is older than, say, 200 generations, so I'm going to be an expert on zircon crystal dating and tell them they're all wrong. No, better make that carbon dating: I wouldn't know a zircon if I found one in my baptismal font."

That would be just silly...

Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 25, 2009 5:36 PM

Well, seeing as atheism is apparently supposed to be a religion 'n all, we probably should have some whimsically odd dietary prescriptions, shouldn't we? Goes with the territory, apparently...

All TRUE atheists have pie for breakfast once in a while. Otherwise they're heretics! Apostates!

Posted by: Shinobi | August 25, 2009 5:41 PM

How do you proclaim someone else an atheist?

Is this such a common insult in wack-a-loon circles that they have to emphasize that you said it about yourself.

Shinobi the (self proclaimed) bitch thinks these people should be sterilized and quarantined to prevent the stupidity from spreading.

Posted by: Paul | August 25, 2009 5:42 PM

I take issue with this because we don't say that people who claim there is no Santa Claus, no leprechauns or no unicorns are taking an ideological position or that it's not a purely scientific one. So why do we make a special case for god?

I thought someone would take issue with that, and for that reason. But it wasn't central to the point I was trying to make, and I thought it was a fair enough statement.

First, are you denying the difference between Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism? I was under the impression that this was an accepted definitional difference, aside from whether it is valid or not. I try to give a person I am arguing with the benefit of the doubt, and going out of my way to grant that if it furthered dialogue didn't seem too much to me. And Strong v. Weak variance was the important thrust of the argument I was making.

To more directly answer your query regarding Santa Claus, leprechauns, and unicorns...you can search for these creatures. You can study claims on where they exist, you can draw upon evidence for or against their existence. You can evaluate their supposed effects on the world and look to see if said effects exist. You can note that parents place the presents under the tree, eating your cookies and milk. You can note the absence of pots of gold at the end of rainbows. etc, etc. You cannot do the same for all God(s), only for those who have specific testable truth claims made for them. How would you fashion a test to disprove the Deist God?

Don't get me wrong, I am firmly in the atheist camp. But saying that no gods exist is not a scientific statement. It fits with all the available evidence, but in my opinion it overstates its' case.

But in the end I was not trying to troll or pick nits. I was just trying to point out to James (Charlie?) where it might be beneficial to look at his own biases. At least that way he can either take it into account or admit that he's arguing in bad faith.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 25, 2009 5:44 PM

"They give PhD's in Bullshit?..."

My guess is he threw that one out for his apologetic audience so he can flex his see-i-know-what-I'm-talking-about-cuz-I'll-have-PhD-next-to-my-name-before-long muscles. I also point out too that the guy doesn't have his PhD yet, and he's already throwing the term around like he has one. Why even qualify it as "PhD" research? Why not just call it a study you are conducting, or simply "research"?

As for degress in BS, it depends where he's going. If he's like Mr. Jeanson from last week, then the degree is likely not to be BS (on its face, considering the institution). But if it's LU for example, well, he'll have earned a doctorate in wallet proctology.

Posted by: Tony | August 25, 2009 5:46 PM

@ James, #144

A lack of evidence for or against an idea does not set its odds of existence at 50/50!

A good scientist DOES have a bias. In fact, he is so biased, he will only accept one kind of evidence: that which is derived from experimentation and conjecture rooted in REALITY.

Riding the fence based on a presupposition (that -you- made up!) about "knowability" is both arrogant and hypocritical to your stated preference for evidentiary standards.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 25, 2009 5:48 PM

No pre-existing biases, prejudices or inclinations.

Not quite. There are some basic assumptions. Such as, knowledge is attainable, corroboration is valid, empirical reality exists outside the mind, physical laws are consistent throughout space-time, cause/effect, along with several others I'm sure.

One additional one though, and important one, is that there is nothing that effectively exists that is immaterial. In other words, if something is detectable, it is because it is material (material meaning not just matter, but anything material - waves, energy, whatever). If something exists that is not detectable, that thing is effectively non-existent.

So, if you want a deity to have any meaning whatsoever, one needs to show how such a thing would "pop" in and out of reality, and then deal with the contradiction that once it "pops" out of reality, completely disconnecting itself from the Universe, how does it "pop" back in? It starts becoming a convoluted mess very fast - with absolutely no empirical support.

Simply put, the scientific method uses empirical interfaces to collect factual information about reality. Once enough information is available, hypothesis can be generated and tested, empirically. Each test, fail/pass/inconclusive, adds to the knowledge pool. Trying to enrich the knowledge pool by invoking untestable/unknowable/effectively non-existent causes is a corruption of rational thought.

Oh yeah, and all the evidence to date strongly supports Evolution, and strongly conflicts with the notion of deities.

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."[Delos McKown]

Posted by: Paul | August 25, 2009 5:50 PM

Bummer, when James conceded I had a point earlier I thought he might be reachable. But no, no point. Ignore any substance that might result in you evaluating how your biases affect your point of view.

Posted by: not a gator | August 25, 2009 5:56 PM

"self-proclaimed atheist" = "there's no such thing as an atheist. they're just angry at gAwd."

Posted by: MosesZD | August 25, 2009 5:58 PM

The next day the well-known (and self-proclaimed) atheist Dr. P.Z. Myers

Pardon me for noticing, but aren't Christian's also "self-proclaimed?" I mean, it's not like it is an intrinsic property, such as one's unmodified hair color, but something one must actively endorse to "be."

Kind of like I'm a 49er fan... I wasn't born this way. Sure, my grandfather was a 49er fan from the 1946 when the 49ers were founded. And my father and his brother have been 49er fans all their lives. So I came by it like Christians came into their belief -- by indoctrination and socialization.

But, like I became an atheist, one of my cousins became a VIKINGS fan while many of them DO NOT FOLLOW FOOTBALL but are sort of 49er fans, but not really. So, clearly, it's not like 49er fandom (like Christianity) is some inheritable characteristic or default beginning or that there is only one "real option" to it, no matter how much I, or any other hardcore 49er fan, would like to pretend.

Posted by: Peter G | August 25, 2009 5:59 PM

Can anyone enlighten me as to what the difference might be between a "self-proclaimed" atheist and an "unself-proclaimed" atheist. There is apparently a distinction but it escapes me. As a meta-atheist I'd like to know.

Posted by: R. Schauer | August 25, 2009 6:03 PM

PZ,

(wicked grin)

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 6:06 PM

To more directly answer your query regarding Santa Claus, leprechauns, and unicorns...you can search for these creatures. You can study claims on where they exist, you can draw upon evidence for or against their existence. You can evaluate their supposed effects on the world and look to see if said effects exist. You can note that parents place the presents under the tree, eating your cookies and milk. You can note the absence of pots of gold at the end of rainbows. etc, etc. You cannot do the same for all God(s), only for those who have specific testable truth claims made for them.

As they all do, with one exception:

How would you fashion a test to disprove the Deist God?

Shifting the burden. But the deist god begs the question, if it is undetectable, how did those who claim its existence get the idea for it? On what basis are they making the claim? When an item's existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence, it doesn't exist, and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But, more to the point, "there are no gods" is not an assertion of disproof of all possible gods. It is the null hypothesis.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 6:14 PM

How would you fashion a test to disprove the Deist God?

Or indeed the undetectable leprachaun? The infinitely shy invisible fairy? The werewolf living beyond the cosmic horizon? The gnome that hides inside the number 47 and will never come out?

Posted by: not a gator | August 25, 2009 6:21 PM

I am 100% atheist.

Suppose there is a being who can manipulate space & time, create bubble universes, blah blah blah.

How is this being a god? (In anything other than poetic sense.)

How is this being supernatural? What the bleep does supernatural mean? (Hint: nothing.)

No, really. "Above" nature? If you can interact with bosons and leptons, doesn't that make you "of" nature? No, such a being is no more "supernatural" than we are.

Case closed. No such thing as gods.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 25, 2009 6:23 PM

James Steeleforth (#162)

He clearly said "no evidence"

There is no evidence for horses that can grow horns or wish-granting, virgin-loving unicorns. So which part of my analogy are you confused about?

Read what a real scientist has to say about this:

Fuck that. I searched the page for "horse," "unicorn," and "evidence" and the article mentions none of them so you can damn well summarize what relevance it has and then I might go read it.

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 6:30 PM

Or indeed the undetectable leprachaun? The infinitely shy invisible fairy? The werewolf living beyond the cosmic horizon? The gnome that hides inside the number 47 and will never come out?

Precisely. The inability to test for it is a weakness of the claim, not the position that it isn't true.

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 6:33 PM

I will bet you if some such being did turn up ("evidence"), the majority of religionists would call it a demon anyway.

I'm willing to bet the religionists, regardless of how different it is from what they've been saying it was all along, will say "See? We were right! There is a god!"

God is a goalpost with wheels on.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 25, 2009 6:39 PM

Not a Gator - OK, but can you explain away sock fairies and underwear gnomes? Human stupidity can't be it, because lots of smart people's homes get infested with the merciless buggers too. :D

Posted by: Paul | August 25, 2009 6:39 PM

Shifting the burden.

Not at all. Since my claim was that stating there exist no gods is not a scientific statement, and your claim is that it is, a requisite condition should be falsification.

But the deist god begs the question, if it is undetectable, how did those who claim its existence get the idea for it?

Through mental masturbation. I hope you don't think I'm arguing for Deism, or fluffy spiritualism, or anything of the sort. The fact that the idea was not hit upon through scientific endeavor does not serve as a falsification of the idea.

When an item's existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence, it doesn't exist, and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

From a practical point of view, of course this is true. But this depends on frames of reference, and would make for sloppy science if it was considered proper scientific enquiry. It implies something's state of existence is dependent on your capability to detect its existence. Being unable to detect or distinguish something is hardly the same as it not existing. Now anyone acting as if they know something about an object claimed to be ineffable should be disregarded, as obviously there is no mechanism for them knowing about it. I do not mean to say otherwise. But implying that what you can detect is all that there is is ideological. It is a fine way to decide how to allocate resources, and to drive research. But it is a bad methodology to use to declare in absolute terms what does or does not exist.

But, more to the point, "there are no gods" is not an assertion of disproof of all possible gods. It is the null hypothesis.

"Null hypothesis" isn't a burden-shifting magic word. It only has significance in the realm of experiment design. If you state there are no gods, you are making a positive claim. I am not convinced you can use science to demonstrate this, and nothing you have said has changed that.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

Posted by: Chris | August 25, 2009 6:42 PM

#129

Yes... there's something rather idiotic about someone who spends their life telling other people that they don't exist.

Posted by: not a gator | August 25, 2009 6:46 PM

@193

If you will move your washer and dryer some day, I think you will find the sock fairies have a strange affinity for tossing socks behind them ... almost makes me doubt their existence and suppose it is actually the W/D getting some revenge for their lives of drudgery by pranking us.

Nah...

Oh, and please send me some underwear gnomes if you can find them. I am constitutionally incapable of throwing anything out if it's "still good", which means that I have quite the collection of worn-out, holey undies.

Posted by: not a gator | August 25, 2009 6:50 PM

@ Paul

From a practical point of view, of course this is true. But this depends on frames of reference, and would make for sloppy science if it was considered proper scientific enquiry. It implies something's state of existence is dependent on your capability to detect its existence. Being unable to detect or distinguish something is hardly the same as it not existing. Now anyone acting as if they know something about an object claimed to be ineffable should be disregarded, as obviously there is no mechanism for them knowing about it. I do not mean to say otherwise. But implying that what you can detect is all that there is is ideological.

Thank you for making the case for my extremely expensive, multi-year (& of course, extremely important) tachyon research. Shall I append your remarks to my grant application?

Posted by: Paul | August 25, 2009 6:53 PM

Thank you for making the case for my extremely expensive, multi-year (& of course, extremely important) tachyon research. Shall I append your remarks to my grant application?

Thank you for snipping the subsequent sentences. Classy.

Posted by: Peter G | August 25, 2009 6:55 PM

RM@196 That is why I am a meta-atheist. Not believing in God may be taken as read but a lifetime of observation leads me to believe that despite their self-proclaimed status Christians don't exist either. I take a purely phenomenological approach,of course, but the discrepancy between the platonic ideal of Christ and the actual behavior of people who identify themselves as Christians leads inevitably to the conclusion that they are indistinguishable from yetis and equally elusive. I may yet be proven wrong (by securing an example)about the existence of Christians but I'm not stopping the metabolizing of glucose while I wait.

Posted by: waldteufel | August 25, 2009 7:04 PM

I, for one, continue to be delighted that the frauds and hucksters at Ken Ham's little roadside "museum" keep squealing
about their being treated as the scum that they are.

Adults who teach children that earth is only 6,000 years old deserve nothing but ridicule, mockery, and derision.

Keep up the great work, P.Z.!

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 25, 2009 7:10 PM

Not a Gator - I've tried the washer/dryer moving, humiliating searches of the bulldog beds and chicken coop, nothin. Similar forays into chests of drawers, under furniture, and the backs of t-shirts. Never does a sock or under pants return. I'd love to send a gnome your way, but I fear mine is dug in like a Georgia tick.

Posted by: tsg | August 25, 2009 7:16 PM

Not at all. Since my claim was that stating there exist no gods is not a scientific statement, and your claim is that it is, a requisite condition should be falsification.

How is requiring me to disprove their claim not shifting the burden?

Through mental masturbation. I hope you don't think I'm arguing for Deism, or fluffy spiritualism, or anything of the sort. The fact that the idea was not hit upon through scientific endeavor does not serve as a falsification of the idea.

It serves as a reason not to even consider it in the first place. It is made up. By definition, imaginary. And dismissing it as such is no more ideological than dismissing my claim that I have an invisible, undetectable dragon in my garage. It goes beyond my not being able to prove it to anyone else into having no reason to believe it myself. Me insisting that you prove I don't is ludicrous.

But implying that what you can detect is all that there is is ideological.

If that is the case, then science itself is ideological and your statement "it is an ideological position, not a purely scientific one" is meaningless.

"Null hypothesis" isn't a burden-shifting magic word. It only has significance in the realm of experiment design.

That's what makes it a scientific statement.

If you state there are no gods, you are making a positive claim.

No, I am not. "God does not exist" is precisely the same as "the claim 'God exists' is false." The null hypothesis. "God does not exist" has no meaning until someone else has made the claim "god exists". It is not a positive claim requiring proof. It is the default position in absence of evidence for the hypothesis.

I am not convinced you can use science to demonstrate this, and nothing you have said has changed that.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

In other words, "I have no intention of changing my mind." Dodge noted.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 25, 2009 7:28 PM

Paul - Why are you here bothering us? If you want to know the proof for god and why we are wrong, why not go to the websites that are run by people in the business of researching god. For a small donation I'm sure they would be happy to help you.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 25, 2009 7:30 PM

Sock-fairies and underwear-gnomes?

Everyone who does laundry regularly knows of the existence of these critters. Just like being an atheist doesn't preclude acknowledging the existence of Murphy and his laws.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 25, 2009 7:35 PM

If someone is going to use a different pseudonym why don't they put the extra effort and change their style a bit?

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 25, 2009 7:36 PM

I certainly don't profess to make the claim that the existence or non-existence of god is unknowable. I only claim that there is no empirical evidence for either view at the present time.

Posted by: Paul | August 25, 2009 7:42 PM

Nice. tsg picks at me while I was simply trying to make a point to Charlie, and I defend my statements because I felt it would be dishonest otherwise. And now the others start picking at me because they feel I'm trolling, when I was only responding to a question on an issue I wasn't even making an argument about.

tsg,

And dismissing it as such is no more ideological than dismissing my claim that I have an invisible, undetectable dragon in my garage.

Even Sagan admitted that the dragon could not be disproven. He simply held that it wasn't Science's responsibility to prove. This is not contrary to what I was saying.

If that is the case, then science itself is ideological and your statement "it is an ideological position, not a purely scientific one" is meaningless.

No. Science does not make any statement on what is not detected, affirmative or otherwise. This is what distinguishes it from the ideological in the statement you are referring to.

Anri,

So if by 'hardly the same' you mean 'there is some small difference', then I agree. But if by 'hardly the same' you mean 'very different' than I disagree.

I mean the former. The fact that the two sets are not equivalent makes it technically incorrect to conflate them, which is what I was trying to say.

To put it another way, what is the actual difference between something that doesn't interact with anything, ever, and something that doesn't exist at all?

No difference. But saying something doesn't interact with anything, ever, and saying that we cannot detect any interaction now are two different things.

Do you think scientific inquiry into such a thing would be valid?

Valid as in worthwhile, probably not. As I said before, searching for the undetectable in the absence of other evidence is not a good way to allocate funds or resources. But then at best science is agnostic about things that are undetectable. It doesn't say anything one way or the other. Obviously. That was the point I was making.

Patricia,

Paul - Why are you here bothering us? If you want to know the proof for god and why we are wrong, why not go to the websites that are run by people in the business of researching god. For a small donation I'm sure they would be happy to help you.

Bothering us? Why don't you scroll up and read the thread. I was using a simple example to very kindly show the person posting as James Steeleforth that he was being dishonest and not confronting his biases. This subthread was started by tsg, not me. I'm sorry that defending one's statements is seen as "bothering". I'll kindly stop posting now.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 25, 2009 7:44 PM

I find that the sock goblins will quite often return a sock if you trick them by providing a nesting place. You set up a bag of odd socks. You regularly restock it with the odd socks left behind after the goblins have stolen their mates. This fools the goblins into thinking it's a safe nest, and they will bring odd socks to augment it. Sort it out now and then, and you can get half a dozen pairs back!

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 25, 2009 7:51 PM

With all due respect to Patricia and tsg, I think Paul has been a tad unfairly pinched here. It is my understanding that unfalsifiable claims are unscientific. There are an infinite number of them. It seems to me that everything Paul has posted seems accurate and cogent.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 25, 2009 7:55 PM

So wait, now there are sock-goblins too?! And they compete for the same finite resource as sock-fairies? This is developing into quite a dynamic ecosystem.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 25, 2009 7:57 PM

James Steeleforth -

I've noticed you've selectively picked a few questions to answer, but have so far conveniently neglected to answer the question I posed waaaaaay back at #112:

James, your understanding of evolution (similar to your understanding of agnosticism, apparently), as you asserted it in your first post, is woefully mis-guided. Do you deny this?

So? How do you respond?

Posted by: Sastra | August 25, 2009 8:13 PM

Paul #221 wrote:

I'm sorry that defending one's statements is seen as "bothering". I'll kindly stop posting now.

No, please don't stop posting at all: it makes more sense to stop responding to the people who are bothered. I've enjoyed reading you.

On the whole, I agree with what you're saying, I think. The only thing I'll point out is that the discoveries of modern science go beyond making "God" an unnecessary hypothesis: to the extent that it's supposed to be an "Intelligence," then what we've learned about what Intelligence is, how it evolved, and how it works, makes it inconsistent with the discoveries of modern science.

When substance dualism was the working folk-theory of mind, the existence of God was much more plausible. It seemed to follow from what we could see about ourselves. God is not really mysterious or numinous: it's familiar. It's in our image -- the ghost in the machine. We just turned it into the ghost in the universe.

Posted by: not a gator | August 25, 2009 8:15 PM

@209

Fascinating! Perhaps they have slipped down a wormhole into the pen dimension proposed by Scott Adams. You know when you buy a 20 pack of ballpoints and then about 7 of them mysteriously go missing? And you're at home? (Going missing at work is not "mysterious".)

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 25, 2009 8:17 PM

The next day the well-known (and self-proclaimed) atheist Dr. P.Z. Myers,

I think the problem with the "New Atheists" is that the "religion deserves respect" culture expects us to act like Harry Potter at the Dursleys' dinner party. He says, "I'll be in my bedroom, making no noise and pretending I don't exist." That's pretty much how we're supposed to act: we're allowed to be godless and stay in the house when company comes over, but we have to go to our room, make no noise and pretend we don't exist.

Posted by: Peter G | August 25, 2009 8:26 PM

Cubist I'd sure hate to try to generate a pie chart that showed the relative numbers of informed and uninformed creationists. The subtended angle of the informed section is vanishingly small.

Posted by: not a gator | August 25, 2009 8:37 PM

@225

With all due respect to Patricia and tsg, I think Paul has been a tad unfairly pinched here. It is my understanding that unfalsifiable claims are unscientific. There are an infinite number of them. It seems to me that everything Paul has posted seems accurate and cogent.

Paul bickered with another poster for questioning why anyone would propose the Deistic god without any evidence.

Paul runs into trouble here because all non-falsifiable claims do not flow from the same source (ie, primate posteriors). Physics makes PLENTY of unfalsifiable claims. You have theoretical physicists on the one hand ("I can built a prettier model") and experimentalists on the other ("whatever, you're making my brain hurt: give me a claim I can investigate with the tools I have"). You need both.

Now, I'm not saying that just because it comes out of scientific inquiry it's scientific ... plenty have argued that string theory is an unscientific waste of time ... plenty have argued that SETI is an unscientific waste of time ...

Paul also accused other posters about being "ideological" in rejecting one unfalsifiable claim, but said his own disbelief in fairies was not. O RLY? I had no problem with him saying rejecting the deistic god was ideological ... I'll cop to that immediately. (I don't worship "gods"... whoever they are.) But for him to turn around and say the other rejection wasn't is a bit inconsistent. Sure, the Santa myth is falsifiable (but so is Jesus); the IPU isn't ... that's the point. Is it "ideological" to dismiss claims which have the musty patina of age?

I don't think Paul is a troll; I think he's confused.

Posted by: Paul | August 25, 2009 8:44 PM

Quite a compliment, Sastra. I usually don't get involved in conversations here, but I do make a point of seeking out your comments. In general I feel that if I am not willing to reply to comments from anyone it is not worth posting in the first place (one should be willing to address criticism), but I'll give it a shot.

I most definitely agree that "God", as you say, is an unnecessary hypothesis in light of modern science -- it was a large part of my conversion from self-hating fundie to atheist. There are many issues with conceptions of God, especially in the field of neuroscience as you note (Ebonmuse's Ghost in the Machine is a nice collection of information on that front, reading it still makes me want to wear a helmet).

I am not sure I agree fully with "God as Intelligence" being inconsistent with the discoveries of modern science. Observation and study of how intelligence has evolved and how it works on Earth cannot necessarily generalize to how things may have occurred in other parts of the universe. And with developing multiverse theories (although I must admit I am not very well-read on that front), how sure can we be that our knowledge on the nature of existence is generalizable across existence (instead of across known existence)? But then, now I'm really getting out there. It is not as if I believe God is somewhere in outer space, or in another universe somehow linked to ours. I believe there are no gods, sure, but I'm not going to put it forward as a fact claim. At best I would go with "there are probably no gods", and I consider myself in good company with that reasoning and sentiment.

After writing that, it occurs that I don't disagree so much that conceptions of God are inconsistent with our current understanding, so much as I think it is important to accept the limits of our understanding. It is the use of current understanding to derive absolutes (e.g. "there are no gods", as opposed to "there are probably no gods" or "the concept of gods as x/y/z is inconsistent with our current understanding") that bothers me.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 25, 2009 8:51 PM

squirrelly #240

Um...aren't all atheists self-proclaimed? He says it like Dr. Myers did something wrong.

As far as Mortenson and other fundamentalist evangelicals are concerned, just being an atheist is doing something wrong. Bragging about it is compounding the sin.

Posted by: Sastra | August 25, 2009 8:58 PM

not a gator #239 wrote:

I don't think Paul is a troll; I think he's confused.

I think the confusion was more the result of different definitions of God being used by different people, than any one person being confused. Paul seemed pretty level-headed to me. But setting out terms is a bit like prepping for painting. Scrape, scrape, scrape, and it will look worse than before you started. Painting's the easy part.

There are gods which are not detectable through science because they are not empirical entities, and there are gods which are not detectable through science because they hide from public, objective measurements, and there are gods which reveal themselves through our scientific discoveries. Most gods are all three, depending on what the believer needs at the time. The real confusion is with the theist.

Posted by: John Harshman | August 25, 2009 9:21 PM

But Charlie, before anyone can go to your web site and read your thousands of messages on talk.origins, you have to admit that you're Charlie, which you haven't done yet. Did you forget?

And my opinion, based on having read several years' worth of your postings, is that you are indeed ignorant of evolution. You post citations that you don't understand, to make arguments that the authors do not intend, and ignore every attempt to engage you in any real discussion of evolution. Do you realize your own dishonesty, or are you unwilling to face yourself?

Posted by: teachingsapiens.wordpress.com | August 25, 2009 9:27 PM

I've been giving this some thought, and I think that the self-proclaimed atheist detail is so important to the AiG Ham cult because denying the existence of the holy spirit is the ultimate sin, as we all know. Pointing out that someone is a self-proclaimed atheist makes certain that the reader knows that the target is thrice damned, if not more!

BTW, blatant and unrepentant blogwhoring, new post with some pics I took of a copperhead snake, http://tinyurl.com/ks24xl

Robster, FCD / Robert B

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 25, 2009 9:29 PM

Dear Brother James Stealforth,

I didn't realize soup was on offer. I could go a nice bowl of grandma's vegetable soup right now. Do you deliver?

In return I would be happy to offer you an opportunity to market from your famous and highly-thought-of web site my successful product BIBLE™.

And because you have been able to cling onto your discredited views in the face of criticism from hundreds of highly educated individuals who know first-hand what they are talking about, it is my great pleasure to award you your Godly Armor.

Bless you, Brother Steelballs
I pray you get what is coming to you.
Smoggy

Posted by: Sastra | August 25, 2009 9:34 PM

MikeTheInfidel #247 wrote:

In precisely the way it's ideological to claim there are no unicorns. The fact that a particular myth is more popular does not put it into a different ontological category.

You know, I often think I have a slightly different perspective than many of the posters here: instead of traditional Christians -- or even fundamentalist Christians -- I'm surrounded by neo-pagan New Agers (okay, not surrounded, exactly, but engaged with.) Some of them believe in fairies. Some of them "believe" in fairies. And some of them believe that we shape quantum reality with our intentions, and that fairies are real, to the extent that we believe.

I suppose the same would apply to unicorns, though so far I've escaped that one. I'm sure as hell not bringing it up.

It both bothers them, and reassures them, that I give their beliefs the same respect I give to Christianity. There's that little moue of caution regarding 'possibility,' and then wham them with probability.

If anything, they are more whiny, more sensitive, more anti-science, more insulated, and more resistant to critique, than fundamentalist Christians are.

Posted by: John Morales | August 25, 2009 9:47 PM

Thunderbird5, probably derived from James Steerforth.

Posted by: John Harshman | August 25, 2009 10:06 PM

I see you still haven't been honest with yourself. I have no idea whether anything you say about yourself is true, given your habitual mendacity. If it is, my sympathies. If it isn't, my disgust.

But if you would like to discuss your evidence, whatever it may be, this thread has been well hijacked already, and so seems open for the purpose. I await your evasions.

Posted by: Sastra | August 25, 2009 10:11 PM

James Steelforth #258 wrote:

The paradigm is shifting, the evidence is mounting and darwinian evolution is withering on the vine.

Ok, you're not a young earth creationist. Presumably you endorse some form of theistic or spiritual evolution. The process must have been guided. By what? How? Why?

What "shift?" Where?

Posted by: Thunderbird5 | August 25, 2009 10:22 PM

Morales #256

Steerforth?

More like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steerpike !

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 25, 2009 10:42 PM

James (or is your name Charlie?),
You may not be trolling for sympathy, but you are trolling all right.
I am certainly sorry about your condition (if you are truthful about it) but seriously, you shouldn't be spending your time here, arguing the Darwinian evolution has "withered on the vine" while at the same time making it clear, you have no clue what you are talking about. Don't you really have anything better to do with your time, if you have advanced cancer?

Posted by: Gordy | August 25, 2009 10:53 PM

@ James Steelforth #33

So you and your cronies believe in something equally absurd: that life arose ex nihilo in a small, warm pond and evolved by random, non-directed accidents into the highly organized structures, processes, systems and adaptations we see today.

Abiogenesis is not the same as evolution and does not form part of evolutionary theory. Kindly stop confusing the two.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 25, 2009 11:14 PM

The paradigm is shifting, the evidence is mounting and darwinian evolution is withering on the vine.

Posted by: DLC | August 25, 2009 11:17 PM

Well,you see, PZ Can't be a real Atheist, because there are no atheists, just God-Deniers. And as there are only God-Deniers, then PZ is just acting out and hating God by denying his existence. The fact that there exist no deities outside of the imagination does not mean anything to the AiG crowd, who have long since stopped thinking.

Posted by: R Hampton | August 25, 2009 11:35 PM

Charlie Wagner, a.k.a James Steeleforth,
On your website you state; "Evolutionary biology has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that random mutations and natural selection are capable of producing the highly organized biochemical machines that are living organisms."

I think it's fair to say that you are a proponent of the micro-/macro- evolution distinction. Now I happen to know that Intelligent Design advocates (a.k.a. IDers) have a favored example to illustrate said distinction - the Wolf/Dog. The IDers contend that the two can - and do - interbreed because they share the same number of chromosomes (78), and thus are really just one "kind" of animal with great plasticity.

Shrewdly, IDers purposely neglect the Fox and how it fits into their model. Evidence from a variety of fields demonstrate that the Fox is in fact the living evolutionary ancestor of the Wolf and Dog. Yet for all the variety of chromosomes sets among the fox species, none have 78. Of equal concern is the fact that Foxes and Dogs can not interbreed.

Perhaps now you understand why I specifically asked for your best explanation for the appearance of Wolves and Dogs. Given your statement that "living systems are unevolvable," please help me understand your theory for the Fox - Wolf origin(s).

Posted by: Chayanov | August 26, 2009 12:55 AM

You know, I often think I have a slightly different perspective than many of the posters here: instead of traditional Christians -- or even fundamentalist Christians -- I'm surrounded by neo-pagan New Agers (okay, not surrounded, exactly, but engaged with.) Some of them believe in fairies. Some of them "believe" in fairies. And some of them believe that we shape quantum reality with our intentions, and that fairies are real, to the extent that we believe.

I know what you mean. I've spent enough time around neo-pagans as well. Once I saw a mouse in my apartment and mentioned it to one of them, who responded with, "Are you sure it wasn't a house spirit that took the form of a mouse?" This same person once informed me how lucky I was that I was an atheist, because it was "so hard to be religious in a secular society."

You're right about how insulated they are. They try to spend as much of their time as possible surrounded by other pagans (I was around them because I was dating a pagan at the time). This makes for a bit of a feedback loop at times. I watched them do things like give each other tarot readings. Because they all knew each other so well, the reader was able to tailor their interpretations to very specific life events and personality traits for the recipient, who was then amazed at how insightful the reader was.

And they can be very whiny. I think a lot of them brought the old persecution complex with them when they arrived from Christianity.

Posted by: Ragutis | August 26, 2009 1:53 AM

The paradigm is shifting, the evidence is mounting and darwinian evolution is withering on the vine.

The paradigm is shifting, the evidence is mounting and Copernican heliocentrism is withering on the vine.

The paradigm is shifting, the evidence is mounting and Pasteurific germinism is withering on the vine.

The paradigm is shifting, the evidence is mounting and Newtonian gravitation is withering on the vine.

The paradigm is shifting, the evidence is mounting and Armstrongingian moonwalking is withering on the vine.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 26, 2009 3:59 AM

You know, I often think I have a slightly different perspective than many of the posters here: instead of traditional Christians -- or even fundamentalist Christians -- I'm surrounded by neo-pagan New Agers (okay, not surrounded, exactly, but engaged with.)

I don't talk about this often, but I've gone through a deconversion. Mine is from the New Age woo side of the house. I was into astrology, tarot, crystals, numerology, white magic, and a bit of Wicca. I was totally solo on this stuff because--get this--I couldn't stand other New Agers. I looked at them about the way an Episcopalian looks at a Mormon.

Seriously, I didn't meet any other New Ager that was sane (you'd think that would have been the big clue...). However much I "believed," I was nowhere near as far gone as the rest of them. They were ready to ascribe anything you could imagine to their woo--from who to date/marry, to when to have a baby, to what herbal remedy would cure their cancer. Nothing seemed to be beyond them. They had the foggiest thinking imaginable, and, as pointed out, were even more tetchy about their feelings than fundies.

I think that was one of the big things that turned me off of them. If you argued over some arcane tenet with them, you simply couldn't do it with any kind of passion at all, or citing the "literature"--you'd hurt feelings, insult, offend...all the typical theist arguments. And they were the kind of PC that thinks any remotely critical remark is like biting the heads off kittens. Not that there was zero disagreement (ever so nicely done) about stupid shit, like the Solar House method versus the Placidean, or whatever the fuck it was called.

I despised the lot of them, and it wasn't an insignificant factor for why I got out of the whole charade. The biggest reason, though, was that the woo didn't work as claimed. None of it.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 26, 2009 5:30 AM

And they were the kind of PC that thinks any remotely critical remark is like biting the heads off kittens.

Isn't that the truth? Even the mildest suggestion that their belief system may not be totally accurate brings down upon one's head accusations of being "judgmental" - the worst sin imaginable in their world.

They really are fundamentalists. Apart from a few points of doctrine, there isn't any discernible difference between them. Each side creates fortresses of denial, and protects them against all comers. Anyone who threatens the comfort and security of their world view has to be dispensed with as quickly as possible.

When I've tried to explain this to New Age people, they've thought I was out of my mind; they just can't see it. It's a colossal joke that each side dislikes the other so vehemently; they really are two sides of the same devotional coin.

Posted by: kiki | August 26, 2009 5:54 AM

Oh, and 'Nikki and the Pharyngulites' I'm thinking would look like Josie and the Pussycats, but with squid costumes.

Posted by: kiki | August 26, 2009 6:12 AM

The best comment I ever read from a New Ager was that what they believe in is science, it's just that it's "the science of the ancients".

"Git me mah leeches and mah divinin' rod, Ma - I'm gonna practice me some science of the ancients, sure as the sun revolves around the earth!"

Posted by: Anri | August 26, 2009 8:04 AM

Hi, Paul.

Sorry if the tone of my post was harsh - I was posting in haste.

There were just a few minor points I wanted to clear up in this discussion.

You said (in RE to something undecetable being worth study):
"Valid as in worthwhile, probably not. As I said before, searching for the undetectable in the absence of other evidence is not a good way to allocate funds or resources. But then at best science is agnostic about things that are undetectable. It doesn't say anything one way or the other. Obviously. That was the point I was making."

I understand your point, I think.
And I almost completely agree with it, but not quite.

What I am saying is that by definition, we can never know anything about anything that is undetectable. Hence my point about 12th century people being able to detect quantum events. They were able to do so, in a very indirect manner, merely by walking around in the universe. Of course, they had no idea that they were 'detecting' these types of events, but reality didn't change when we finally got good enough to pick them out of the general observational noise.

I think that science does indeed say something about things that are truly undetectable - it says that they might as well not exist, because they are utterly irrelevant. Things that cannot be detected, even in theory, cannot interact with anything else (or, at least other things that can be detected..) rendering the entire concept essentially meaningless.

It's maybe one of the reasons that philosophy tends to get beaten up on a bit here. If someone comes to me and tells me that their ideas can't be tested currently, they might be doing science. But if someone comes to me and tells me that their ideas can't be tested *ever*, because they are, by definition untestable - they might be doing something, but they're not doing science.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 26, 2009 8:52 AM

I see James Steeleforth / Charlie Wagner has admitted to being a liar. Big surprise. Just can't seem to stay away, can you? It's always so interesting to me... the people who get banned here all seem to have at least one thing in common: They all proclaim to abhor PZ and this site, and yet how many times have we seen them sneak back in to the comments under new names? It's a strange thing, and makes me wonder if the mental process that keeps them needing to come back here despite the abuse they take and the self-proclaimed dislike of the blogger himself is the same one that keeps them steeped in idiotic religious belief.

At any rate, since you are a banned troll and now admit to it, I'm not going to engage you in further discussion on the topic, as I've already read your stupidity before, both here and over at talk origins...the answer is unequivocally 'yes'... you are terribly mis-guided about evolution, and stubbornly refuse to learn anything despite the literally hundreds of times you've been corrected regarding your (mis)understanding of evolution.

And while I'm sorry to hear about your condition, it seems strange to me that it would have even occurred to you to bring it up here... especially in such a deluded way as to proclaim that you've lived long enough to see a "shift in paradigm" that has taken place nowhere but in your own mind... creationists are losing ground every year, every month, every day... they are openly ridiculed in public and in mass media (see "Family Guy", for example), and despite every attempt at forcing their religious dogma into science education, it has failed to stand up each and every time it is challenged. Meanwhile, nearly every day the evidence backing evolution grows, and serves more and more to confirm the theory's veracity.

You claim to be an agnostic, but I don't buy it... I'm guessing you're more of a "Pascal's Wager" type... If you wish to live out your days clinging to deluded fairy tales in the desperate hope that a better fate awaits you, so be it. I wish you well. Now stay the hell away from here, banned troll.

Posted by: Keelyn | August 26, 2009 10:22 AM

I wasn’t able to read every post here, so perhaps someone else already noticed and noted it – but, I just happened to read Mortenson’s biography page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=20). It says that the “revised version of his Ph.D. thesis was published as ‘The Great Turning Point: the Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology-Before Darwin.’” Hmmm – “revised” version, huh? That seems strangely reminiscent of “Dr. Dino” – Hovind has been “revising” his “Ph.D. thesis” for years. Of course, Hovind has a lot of time now to “revise.” But, I guess Mortenson does have a real Ph.D. for what it’s worth. Is it common to revise a Ph.D. thesis? Maybe I missed something.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 26, 2009 10:46 AM

Hey, it's been almost 250 comments since # 47, and nobody's offered any props to Cuttlefish?!?

Poets don't do what they do for money, but they've been known to go away when their due kudos are withheld - and we don't want that, do we?

Damn Pharyngulites are so spoiled, nobody even notices how good we got it around here. Show some appreciation, you barbarians! Put your tentacles together for the Cuttlefish!

Posted by: Tulse | August 26, 2009 11:42 AM

I also continue to post here because I'm banned. [...] PZ knows very well that he can get rid of me just by asking.

Dude, you're banned -- he did ask.

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 26, 2009 11:52 AM

"James Steeleforth" is a character in Dickens "David Copperfield"

Hrm... how very... amusing. And seeing as I was on the subject of odd tells and the cost of chronic abuse of language:

Steer/steal...

Well, hey, close enough, I guess...

(/See also 'empirically derived, pragmatically parsimonious explanation/creation myth for biologists'...)

Posted by: Tulse | August 26, 2009 11:57 AM

See the difference?

It only would make a difference if you were a asshole to begin with.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 26, 2009 12:20 PM

Keelyn @291: “revised version of his Ph.D. thesis was published as ‘The Great Turning Point: the Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology-Before Darwin.’” Hmmm – “revised” version, huh? That seems strangely reminiscent of “Dr. Dino”....

AFAIK, Mortenson's alma mater is a legitimate university, unlike the fake diploma mill Hovind "studied" at, so the proper protocol for submitting and filing the document was presumably followed. So this probably only means that it was re-written to make it into a book digestible by a wider public than just a Ph.D. review committee -- a practice with an honorable past (John Wilkins has done more or less the same with his thesis -- so everyone rush to order a copy, eh? He will thank you for the royalties. There are other examples.)

Of course, in Mortenson's case, I suspect the revised version contains somewhat more piety and holy hand-wringing than would be acceptable in the original dissertation.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 26, 2009 12:33 PM

PZ knows very well that he can get rid of me just by asking. So far, he has refused. I can only conclude that either he is too proud to simply ask, or he really doesn't want to get rid of me.

Weird anti-evolutionist with delusions of intelligence. Commonly popped up in response to any science post to claim that it showed evolution was wrong. I put up with him for many years; when he rejected my request to make only constructive comments in a particular thread, he defied me and posted the same insult repeatedly, and then insisted it was his privilege, went on a morphing spree, and threatened to spam the site every time my back was turned. Complete ass.

GTFO, troll.

Posted by: Stanton | August 26, 2009 1:14 PM

Bye-bye CW the amoral troll. One day you will actually show some integrity and maturity, and stop trying to post here.

Yeah, sure, Nerd, sure Charlie will, except that, the day that Charlie Wagner finally grows some integrity and maturity is the exact same day Ken Ham starts practicing actual love and tolerance of his fellow humans like Jesus suggested in many of His song and dance numbers about love and tolerance.

In other words, the same day they open up "Panda's Pork and Catfish Palace" restaurant in Damascus.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 26, 2009 1:56 PM

I'm not trolling for sympathy but you might be interested in knowing that I'm a paraplegic, 26 months into end stage prostate cancer.

Posted by: noodles | August 26, 2009 4:08 PM

Suppose there is a being who can manipulate space & time, create bubble universes... How is this being a god?

Let's say there is actually is a non-terrestrial intelligence that did cause floods and earthquakes and "talked" to humans in an effort to manipulate their actions.

Step One: determine what mechanism or type of energy this alien creature is using to interfere with natural occurrences on earth.
Step Two: locate the source of that energy.
Step Three: design a weapon that harnessed or re-focused that creature's energy beam.
Step Four: aim that weapon at the interfering space alien creature and kill it.

Seriously, I don't understand why anybody would want to worship the demented thing especially if this creature was screwing with our planet; causing floods and earthquakes and using some sort of mind-control device on humans.

Posted by: Fred | August 26, 2009 5:13 PM

I'm interested in why someone would be awarded a Ph.D. in the "history of geology" versus plain ol' "geology"? I wonder if I can transfer my ABD in history to a program that grants a Ph.D. in the "History of History"? Maybe Coventry has such a program? Think they have funding??

Posted by: Lurker111 | August 26, 2009 9:07 PM

ICE CORES QUESTION

I've been trying to find out how many annualar layers one can visibly count in an ice core (say, from Greenland or Antarctica). I know that, after a certain depth, the layers are so squashed together that age-determination is done by depth-calculation and approximation. Does anyone know if you can visibly count past 6000 layers to, say, 10,000 or so?

TIA

Posted by: John Morales | August 26, 2009 10:01 PM

moonkitty, you've done a great job of expanding my #241.

Mind you, after the first few dozen times you have to point that out, you too might become as terse as I! :)