Pharyngula

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 8, 2009 10:01 AM

In terms of the evolution debate, Miller, Francis Collins, et al, straddle the line between "Friends" and "Embarrassing Allies" in Carroll's debate space.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they hop back & forth across that line.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2009 10:03 AM

A "worthy opponent" creationist? Sounds like an oxymoron, with the stress on the last half of the word.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 8, 2009 10:23 AM

I know that the old saying goes "Never argue with a fool. No one will be able to tell the difference between you."

In this issue the nonsense from the Red Zone must be dealt with loudly, roundly and often so that the public who is kind of paying half-attention on the issue at least hears the message that those in the Red Zone are talking out of their collective asses.

I don't know why, but there is this tendency for intellectuals to only think they need to engage other intellectuals (in a large part.) or to keep things on an intellectual level. Jason Rosenhouse made a great point in his review of Unscientific America regarding the Science Debate issue: it's easy for Republicans to make points because they track every issue into a "thinking from the gut" talking point.

I think that the reason that the Red Zone is on the rise is the same reason that the Birthers are finally gaining traction, that the "Soshalized Obamacare" is getting traction. The left and moderate wanted to discuss the details and appeal to the public's intellectual curiosity, but the right listened for two minutes, their eyes glazed over from boredom and said "Yada, yada, yada. Pathetic level of detail. Shut up and stop trying to shove this down our throats." And it is fucking working.

There is a time and place for large-scale engagement of the kooks in the red zone, and it shouldn't be so hard to turn their tactics back on them and show them to be the fools they are; and yet after all these years of engaging the intellectual side regarding the fallacies of intelligent design and creationism, Americans still think that it is proper to teach "both sides" in schools.

I am not saying drop the intellectual debates with Miller, et al, I am saying don't be so chickenshit about offending people by telling them that Craetionism and ID are simply and undeniably stupid and wrong.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 8, 2009 10:31 AM

Did you hear that whooshing sound?

That was the topic soaring right over Pastor R's head.

Here's a tip, pastor: The boxes have nothing to do with figuring out life. It's about discussion issues with people.

Now be a good boy and go play in the yard.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2009 10:32 AM

I'm sad to see that PZ's visit did him no good at all.

As his own eyes are blind, the only hope is God's power through prayer.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 10:33 AM

There are various flavors of crackpot. There are those like Ken Ham and Pastor T. Estes who are irredeemable. There are others who might find the light of sanity when it's offered.

Over in the Amsterdam is a Cesspool of Corruption thread I've just written a post about free market reforms in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. I'm trying to show Walton, one of our few remaining L-word aficionados, that introduction of free markets "entailed one of the largest increases in poverty in history."

Walton is an economic crackpot but I think (or hope) he's salvageable. That's why I'm willing to put out the time and effort to educate him on real world consequences of his economic fantasies.

The problem is finding the salvageable crackpots. Compared to that, actual education is easy.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 8, 2009 10:43 AM

I had a coworker exactly like this, who thought if she could just get me to attend a church service with her, I'd be accepting an altar call in no time. After giggling silently and taking notes through nearly the whole thing, she looked shocked when the service was over and nothing happened to me. These people really think their book and their preaching is somehow "magic" and nobody can really hold out long against it.

I had the same experience when I visited a baptist church a week ago. I described it on my blog:

... Someone must've seen my 'Atheist' bumper sticker, and reported it to the higher-ups. They spent about five minutes praying for "anyone out there who doesn't know the Lord", asking them (me) to recite a Sinner's Prayer (i.e. the whole "I admit I'm a sinner and I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" bit), to give up my religion for a relationship with Jesus, and to empty the anger out of my hateful heart. He asked that the whole congregation pray for this... lo and behold... still an atheist.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they believed that the evil heathen had been overwhelmed by the amazing power of prayer and saved on the spot. They really think that someone who doesn't believe in magic is going to get sucked in by it all.

Posted by: JB | August 8, 2009 10:44 AM

#6

If you accepted the Lord in to your heart life [...]

Posted by: mclaren | August 8, 2009 10:57 AM

Unfortunately Sean Carroll is a classic crackpot. He's the most dangerous kind of crackpot, though, one who's expert at sounding sensible -- until you ask him for some hard evidence of his claims. Then he dissolves into a Scientology-style explosion of excuses, lies, evasions and ad hominem sneers.

Sean Carroll has written on numerous occasions why string "theory" supposedly "must" be true. Yet when asked for a single testable prediction from string "theory" (how canit be a scientific theory when it never makes any testable physical predictions?) he does a remarkable imitation of a hard-core creationist, replete with all the doubletalk, all the vacuous tautologies, all the garbled reasoning, all the incoherent "just so" stories.

This raises serious questions about Carroll's diagram. When you know someone is a classic crackpot, it behooves you to examine anything they say with a great deal of attention. Chances are, a known kook like Carroll who comes out with something that superficially seems sensible (as this diagram does) is more than likely trying to run some kind of scam on you.

And so it appears with this diagram. Notice that he's left off several crucial realms, which would make the diagram 3 dimensional, not 2-D. One very important possibility he has left off is the opponent who seems calm and sensible and well-mannered, but is actually a raving batshit-insane looney. We've been through 8 years of those kind of people running our country. Urbane well-spoken people with PhDs like Condoleeza Rice and Newt Gingrich who turned out to be...well...as insane as meth-crazed rattlesnakes.

And it took *years* for the media to realize they were being conned by these superbly smooth lunatics. Condoleeza would show up at a press conference and say "We don't want the first indication of trouble to be a mushroom cloud," and everyone just nodded sagely. How could she possibly be conning us? She was so well-spoken, so articulate, so calm, so well-mannered.

But she was totally batshit insane, like the rest of the crackpots who ran our country into the ditch for the last 8 years.

Then there are the people who are passionate and vehement, and their passion and intensity gets the laid-back news reporters to view 'em with alarm and regard them as "scary" and "fringe types." Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore. The ideal in American culture is apparently never to raise your voice, never to be impolite. You follow that rule and the psychos cut you off at the knees by screaming lies and shouting you down.

So Sean Carroll's diagram is missing a bunch of important possibilities. No surprise. Since Carroll himself is a classic kook who claims to be producing "theories" of physics which can never be tested and thus have nothing to do with science, he qualifies as nothing better than an orgone therapist or a psychic surgeon. In fact, the shocking state of affairs in which Sean Carroll actually gets paid to spout his untestable numerological gibberish and call it "science" when it never even makes a single physical prediction...well, that's just astounding.

But no more astounding than people who build Creation museums, or astroturfing corporate whores who shout down ordinary citizens in health care reform town meetings, I guess. The extent to which the kooks and cranks and lunatic fringe have taken power in the last 8 years remains startling and sobering, and Sean Carroll offers us Exhibit A.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 8, 2009 11:07 AM

Pity we can't have the posts on here painted with similar colours. Of course it still wouldn't separate the poes from the genuine crazies, but it give me a clue as to where some contributors are coming from. It's not always immediately obvious.

Elwood (Light blue)

Posted by: Sean Carroll | August 8, 2009 11:11 AM

I basically agree. There are some issues of great practical interest for which common arguments have little intellectual merit. On those, we have no choice but to confront the crackpots, as they are affecting society. But it's easy to get carried away, since bashing crackpots is kind of easy and fun. I would argue that intellectuals (as opposed to satirists) should spend most of their effort engaging with worthy opponents.

Posted by: Kingasaurus | August 8, 2009 11:19 AM

Well, Sean, getting "carried away" is in the eye of the beholder. If certain crackpots are high profile and highly influential because of large numbers of like-minded people, it's hard to know when the attention you give them (in order to demolish and/or laugh at their silly views} becomes counter-productive or a waste of intellectual resources.

Posted by: co | August 8, 2009 11:32 AM

mclaren, from Sean's blog:

But string theory will either progress to the point where its connections to reality become increasingly manifest and specific, or people will lose interest and work on other things. That’s the way the system works.

If that's kooky to you, and you think that Sean is promulgating some sort of scam, then you might be able to be buried in the matchbox with Jerry Falwell.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 8, 2009 11:38 AM

Who exactly are the embarrassing allies?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 8, 2009 11:41 AM

Sean Carroll has written on numerous occasions why string "theory" supposedly "must" be true.

You mean this Sean Carroll?

Gravity and quantum mechanics both exist — very few people doubt that. And therefore, we want a theory that can encompass both of them. By a very explicit chain of reasoning — trying to understand perturbation theory, getting anomalies to cancel, etc. — we are led to superstrings in ten dimensions. And then we try to bring that theory back into contact with the observed world around us, compactifying those extra dimensions and trying to match onto particle physics and cosmology. The program may or may not work — it's certainly hard, and we may ultimately decide that it's just too hard, or find an idea that works just as well without all the extra-dimensional superstructure.

If you wanted Peter Woit's blog, you should have turned left at Albuquerque.

Posted by: freelunch | August 8, 2009 11:56 AM

You don't argue with Ken Ham or Birthers or other folks who are selling lies by the caseload. What you need to do is point out their lies to everyone else before they have repeated their lies often enough to persuade the credulous.

As long as Ham is making money selling lies and because his lies are called religion, the only thing that can be done (unless he's a tax cheat, too) is to call out his lies at every turn.

Posted by: Jillian | August 8, 2009 11:56 AM

The strategy I have always used for dealing with the various flavors of "enemies" is to engage in serious discussion with the "worthy opponents", and mock the ever living daylights out of the crackpots.

I agree with the people who say you can't engage the crackpots in a serious fashion. Doing so only makes them look legitimate, when they are not.

Posted by: 386sx | August 8, 2009 12:24 PM

Ken Ham the kook says:

"Even most PhD scientists I find don’t truly understand the difference between observational (operational) science and historical (origins) science (the word science basically means “knowledge”). They also are not aware of—or don’t admit—their starting assumptions (as our Starting Points Room at the museum points out)."

Yes, Ken Ham, they do understand all of that. And you know it. You just talk like that so you can impress your sheeples, you flippin' cuckoo bird, you.

If you really believe that scientists don't understand simple concepts like that, then you are one wacky zoned out dude, dude.

Love,
386sx

Posted by: AdamK | August 8, 2009 12:58 PM

Sean is on today's Science Saturday on Bloggingheads.

Not a creationist nor a Templetonian in sight this time!

Sean will blow your mind, as usual.

Posted by: Sandra Kay | August 8, 2009 1:05 PM

My newspaper has comments and people on there are so ignorant it is amazing. Sometimes I talk to them, mostly for practice cause I thought I'd start small on people with zero knowledge. I am always outnumber with the dumb though. If you'd like to see here is a small page of it. http://www.topix.net/forum/source/twincities-pioneer-press/TU40QQ2BIROLSKTTL/p3

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 8, 2009 1:30 PM

Jim Lippard @ 5:

A policy of non-engagement with the crackpot category is a recipe that allows continued propagation of crackpottery.

I agree . . . at least as applied to crackpottery that has already spread like the virus of creationism. I wouldn't offer the lone weirdo who barks on a street corner about how Obama is a shape-shifting organism from Neptune a platform next to the president.

When "debating" creationists, I think it's important to keep several things in mind:

1. Fallacy is often intuitive, while the irrefutable logic around fallacy is often difficult for an untrained mind to grasp.

2. Creationists gain an unfair advantage with an audience when, from the outset, they frame expertise as elitism or otherwise as a negative.

3. The audience for such "debates" is not the crackpots themselves. (Hell, a creationist could break down and cry during his performance, and admit he is wrong about everything, and other creationists would still say he won the debate.) Instead, the audience is anyone on the proverbial fence and anyone who generally believes in evolution, but does not actually know the details.

With these notions in mind, I wouldn't argue with a creationist on the merits (I use the term loosely) of their claims. That's the trap that earns them respect they do not deserve.

Instead, we should make it seem as though we're debating the merits of the creation/evolution non-controversy, but we should actually be calling them out on their tactics.

Call them liars. (It resonates better with lay audiences than simply pointing out how they're wrong.)

Say something like, "Now, before we actually get into the debate, could you explain to me succinctly how we scientists say that evolution actually works? How it happens?" They won't be able to. If they weasel out of it with non-responsive rhetoric, refuse to debate them, and just say that they clearly have no idea what disbelieve. If they try to explain it, they'll get it totally wrong, and open an opportunity for a scientist to say, "See, that's not it at all. Sheesh, who would believe something so silly? Here's how it really works . . . " whereupon a very simply explanation can be given to an audience newly ready to hear it.

Reclaim a position of authority by reframing expertise as a good thing. Note that when you need brain surgery, you want an expert brain surgeon, not this guy who just thinks all real knowledge goes directly from god to his head.

Those are but a few suggestions (that I concede won't work in every situation). The ultimate point is that while we can't ignore creationists, we can't mistake debates with them for scientific debates. After all, there is no scientific controversy. The debate isn't scientific; it's political. We need to learn the rhetorical tactics of politicians.

Posted by: Ktesibios | August 8, 2009 1:32 PM

I was going to ask "where on Earth do you find a creationist who isn't a crackpot?" but I see PZ is already aware of the problem.

Creationism doesn't just encourage crackpottery, it demands it, in much the same way that paranoid conspiracism doesn't just encourage scapegoating, it requires it.

@ Kingasaurus #9- your experience reminds me of Merlin trying to restore the "fountain" in the Valley of Holiness and his inability to comprehend why all his incantations and gymnastics had no effect on a leaky well.

Y'know, I think that A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court ought to be required reading in every middle school in the nation. Twain did a masterful job of showing how "every time the magic of fol-de-rol tried conclusions with the magic of science, the magic of fol-de-rol got left".

Posted by: notedscholar | August 8, 2009 1:37 PM

PZ,

You beg the question egregiously as to whether there are people in the green category.

It's clear that historically, individuals in the red category can enter into the green category due to want Hans Kung calls paradigm shifts. The classic case is Einstein or Darwin or Galileo, whose ideas weren't accepted until the paradigms shifted. At first, they were considered crackpots!

So I guess my complaint is that the chart doesn't do justice to the history of ideas, a la cartes Isaiah Berlin. Surely there are some in the red category who actually belong in the green category, but for lack of resources (friends, money, prestige, etc.) can't currently become green.

Just some food for thought.

NS

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2009 1:47 PM

The classic case is Einstein or Darwin or Galileo, whose ideas weren't accepted until the paradigms shifted. At first, they were considered crackpots!

Posted by: Dave | August 8, 2009 2:01 PM

I think you've got it wrong: it's not that the Green Zone is unpopulated. It's just that one doesn't really think about those with legitimate, differing scientific opinions as being 'opponents.'

Posted by: csrster | August 8, 2009 2:12 PM

Einstein, Darwin and Galileo were all highly respected by their contemporaries. Einstein's papers were published in Annalen der Fysik. Darwin's result were presented to the Royal Society.
None of them was considered a crackpot by mainstream opinion. Galileo was considered a heretic, but that's a different thing. In fact Galileo's prosecution occurred precisely because he was considered an important and influential thinker.

Posted by: gruebait | August 8, 2009 3:07 PM

In the display of crackpottery displayed recently by the "Birthers" in the US, one rationalization employed for the allegation that President Obama's birth announcement in Honolulu newspapers was falsely engineered was that the motivation for claiming US birth was simply that the parent/grandparents really wanted the kid to be a US citizen for perfectly plausible and obvious reasons. No claims of a 49 year old conspiracy to become President required.

Yet in all the mocking of the conspiracy nuts that has been aired and printed, this plausible-sounding, if not convincing, point was never refuted by anyone, only the silliness of a 49-year conspiracy.

I found that disappointing. Alone amid all the wackiness, it sounded like a claim right out of the Worthy Opponent quadrant, and I heard no one refute it. Pointing and laughing at batshit crazy is so much easier.

As long as there are Ray Comforts to mock, Casey Luskinses get less attention than they should.

Posted by: H.H. | August 8, 2009 3:36 PM

OT: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_re_us/us_health_club_shooting

Before three women were shot dead at a Pittsburgh-area health club, the gunman first paused and shut off the lights. A priest who conducted Betsy Gannon's funeral Saturday at St. Margaret of Scotland Parish Church said that was only fitting because "evil can't function any other way than in the dark."

Posted by: uncle frogy | August 8, 2009 3:47 PM

that diagram is interesting as a way to look at "debate-discussion".
I do need to pay attention to what people are saying and disagree openly when I decide to do so not just react every time I hear things that are just wrong. Take a little time before I "spout off" to think is now a good time? how much time and energy do I need to spend on this now?
Given who it is what would be the best way to proceed?
I have found when in conversation with someone who is off the deep end in irrationality that letting them, encouraging them to follow their own "reasoning" with interested intelligent questions instead of answers to the point of absurdity so even they and anybody witnessing it can see it kind of fun. There is just no one way that works all the time and there is no perfect way at all to "fix" crazy ignorant people that isn't made by Smith and Wesson ;-)
But sometimes I just have to yell and holler and ridicule them for myself but it don't change anything I just have to accept it.

Posted by: PeterKarim | August 8, 2009 3:53 PM

Is it:
Sean B. Carroll (born 1960), US evolutionary biologist
or
Sean M. Carroll (born 1966), US theoretical physicist
we are dealing with.

Me. Confused.
PS: ^ Copy paste from from wikipedia's Sean Carroll disambiguation page.

Posted by: EdW | August 8, 2009 4:34 PM

Just remember that just because someone is completely crazy, doesn't exclude them from being a friend -- sometimes the absolute nuttiest people with the strangest beliefs are the most fun to be around, and at the very least their perspective challenges you to think from a different angle.

Some of my best friends are nutters of the highest degree.

So, for the purpose of this graph, I would suggest changing friend to... peer, perhaps? And just because someone is like-minded and sensible, it doesn't mean you get along with them.

Something to keep in mind.

Posted by: stumpy | August 8, 2009 4:41 PM

I don't think that "meritable" is a word. If it is, then it shouldn't be. I think the word you want here is "meritorious".

Posted by: Sastra | August 8, 2009 4:54 PM

Sean Carroll wrote in the article:

Now it’s time to take a step beyond “We’re here, we’re godless, get used to it” and start making the positive case for atheists as sensible, friendly, happy people. And that case isn’t made most effectively by zooming in on the lower left corner of the Grid of Disputation; it’s made by engaging with the lower right corner, and having the better arguments.

I think the most effective tactic is to do both. After all, when atheists are engaging with the crackpots, the more reasonable moderates are on their side. It's Worthy Opponents + Atheists vs. Crackpots.

Of course, they will later try to distance themselves from the relationship. They may try "see, atheists, only attack the bad arguments" -- or perhaps "both sides are extreme, we're in the golden middle." But I think the fact that we can, at will, get the Worthy Opponents to reluctantly pair up with us is a rather powerful tactic. In order to persuade someone to adopt your point of view, you have to persuade them that your point of view is really, when they consider it carefully, their own point of view, shorn of contradictions, errors, and misunderstandings. We are already on the same side.

The more often we are explicitly on the same side in advance of the debate, the better established the initial common ground.

Posted by: Paul Robinson | August 8, 2009 5:00 PM

I was raised a young earth creationist, and a couple of years ago, when I had some time on my hands, I was going to email you (PZ) to ask who you consider to be the creationist with the strongest arguments. (I'd have asked a creationist about evolutionists as well). But I imagined that you'd suspect I was a crackpot trying to trick you.

I'd still be interested to know who you think the least crazy creationist is!

Knowing something of the fundamentalist mindset, I'd add that even if one thinks it best to deny creationists airtime or to ridicule them publically, it is important to build up personal friendships. Isolation breeds conspiracy theories. It'll not solve the problem, but it can only help.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 8, 2009 5:39 PM

When talking about the need to engage, or to avoid engagement with, crackpottery it is important to remember that crackpottery is not a unitary, monolithic phenomenon. There are degrees and shades of crackpottery. From the easily discounted loons like the ufologists, who can safely be ignored and should never be engaged at any level because it only encourages them in their weird abduction and disturbed 'probing' fantasies, to the genuinely dangerous forms of crackpottery.

This second group are the empowered crackpots. The ones found in responsible positions and even in government all over the world. The ones who help shape public policy on everything from education to healthcare. These peopel are too dangerous and too powerful to simply ignore.

Our civilisation is infested with kooks of all descriptions and it often seems that by debating them all you are doing is granting them a forum to gain credibility. While this is true of fringe loonies there are all too many crackpots who have something more useful then credibility among the online community; actual power granted by their ability to gull the bulk of the voting populous into electing them.

Rationalism and free thought are in danger of drowning under of tide of crackpots, kooks and assorted weirdoes. All too often there are few or none amongst these movements with whom a genuinely useful debate is even possible. Their response to any counter argument to their position is essentially to say "because god says so" in an ever increasingly loud, insistent and even hysterical voice until the other party finally gives up in frustration.

Although the exponents of these form of woo are likely beyond reasoned argument and will never be persuaded irrespective of the evidence presented, debating them still serves an important purpose. It demonstrates to the rest of society, including those lacking the education to see through their pseudo logic, just how nuts they really are and this will hopefully make it more difficult for them to suppliment their crazed theology with political power. If we cannot stem the rising tide of craziness in the corridors of power then we face a future that will make the George W. Bush Presidency look like an idyl of reason and restraint.

Posted by: Christopher | August 8, 2009 6:20 PM

An easy $500!

Nut on Amazon boards promises $500 for simply "doing an analysis of Chapter 7 of Behe's The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism so long as he announces he is doing it at pharyngula. Panda's thumb people read it too. That way when Behe crushes Sean's arguments (the way he did Ussery's) he will stick it to the max number of darwinist numbskulls."

But I think, like most creationists, this guy likely doesn't have the money he promises to pay people.

Posted by: SLC | August 8, 2009 7:51 PM

Re notedscholar

It's clear that historically, individuals in the red category can enter into the green category due to want Hans Kung calls paradigm shifts

The fellow who introduced the term paradigm shift was historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, not Hans Kung. Hans Kung was a noted Roman Catholic theologian whose writings were mostly concerned with theological subjects.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 8, 2009 8:52 PM

Sandra Kay @ # 40 - You're right, that's some weapons-grade stoopid you're confronting there in the twin cities.

Gotta admit it's hard to answer bottom-left-corner-of-the-red-square comebacks like here we go's,

And you have no right to not be offended by others personal religious choices and beliefs!

Posted by: Malachi Constant | August 8, 2009 9:10 PM

I've been thinking about the "how to debate" issue a lot lately. I live and work around almost exclusively religious people and I've decided not to hide my atheism anymore. I don't plan on bringing it up, but if it does come up I'll be upfront about it. I've tried to see how it would sound to them for someone they've known a long time to hear "I'm an atheist" come out of his mouth.

This is where I start to despair of ever getting them to see my view.

People who really believe in Jesus seem to just take it for granted that he has a hand in their daily lives. They say things like "Put god first in your life and everything will be okay", "You need Jesus in your life". All of their friends and family, and almost everyone they meet feel this way, too.

I try to imagine living in that world.

In their world I am the lunatic. I'm the one with the crackpot beliefs. How do you convince someone like that?

I ask myself what I would need to believe in god and I can give definite answers. The return of Jesus, for example, and allowing his powers to be rigorously tested by scientists. Or if miracles started happening all over the world and were consistently shown to be physically impossible (I'm talking the dead returning to life, or cities destroyed by brimstone that wasn't picked up by radar, not bleeding statues). There's plenty of caveats for that, rule out aliens, mass psychosis, etc., but the point is I can be convinced

What would they need to stop believing? I can't think of anything at all that would make them stop. The story of Job shows that no matter how crappy your life is, it doesn't disprove god. Atheists becoming a major force for good in the world would just convince them that the devil was working through them to make people lose their faith. Evidence doesn't impress them.

The most popular de-conversion stories I've heard involved a slow tapering of belief often leading to a sudden moment of understanding that it's all nonsense. That is very difficult to accomplish through deliberate action.

All of this applies to crackpots on any subject, I think.

The best solution I can see is the constant education of the scientific method and rationality as early and often as possible, coupled with a generally non-snarky tone.

I'm not an accommodationalist, the loud voiced kooks need to be made fun of, but the folks who aren't completely in la-la land, those who don't think we "hate god", those who have never met an atheist, should be argued with firmly, but without mockery.

Again, I'm 100% behind PZ's laughing at the wackos and, in some sense they're all wackos, I agree, but there are some out there (like those I work with) who, I don't think have ever even heard our position and will react strongly against it, but if they only ever hear those darned atheist smugly snickering at their idiocy they are unlikely to give us a fair hearing.

In a way I think that's why Sagan was effective in a way that Dawkins isn't. Sagan never gave an inch and he was blunt in calling out nonsense, but he was "that science guy", not "that atheist guy". I love both approaches for different reasons, and I'm all for trying them both out, I may be wrong. I'd be happy to be wrong.

Posted by: Dentroman | August 8, 2009 10:10 PM

Actually, I think that this grid still works, it just needs a third axis: influence. This would allow the exceptions PZ talked of: Ken Ham would be in the (Disagree, Crazy, Influential) 1/8th of the "grid", which definitely should be debated.
Dentroman

Posted by: Derek Thomas | August 9, 2009 2:45 AM

Creationists are, by definition, lunatics and/or simpletons. Debating with any of them only lends them unwarranted credibility. However, rather than twiddling our thumbs, we can satirise them. With adult creationists, we have lost them. It is the younger generation we need to save. Tactically, we can agree to debate with creationists. So long as it is before a young, impressionable audience. However, we need to be clear that our goal is immunising our youth from a permicious influence. We are NOT trying to resuscitate the brain dead.

Posted by: Cyberguy | August 9, 2009 6:12 AM

Looking at the diagram, there are few (if any) 'Worthy Opponents'. Just about *all* of our opponents are 'Crackpots', who spread their message of stupidity through ignorance and lies, often in populist, emotion based sound-bites.

They do appeal to the Homers of this world. And the Homers spread it to their kids.

There is little to be gained in debating the crackpots in painstaking detail, point by point, because the majority of our potential target audience just mentally switches off after a few seconds. Even if we "win" the argument the audience is asleep, hostile, or has changed channels/webpage.

In my opinion, rather than debate a religious apologist on the exact topics they are raising, instead "go meta".

In other words go up a level - don't argue the *topic* but the way they are presenting it.

For example, point out that "your argument has already been completely refuted thousands of times" and that they should not be here if they don't know the subject. Or point out that they are doing a "Gish Gallop" - saying stupid things faster than they can be answered. Or that they are just making stuff up.

The idea is to get the bullet point over to the audience while we still have their attention - which marketers will probably tell us is about 3-5 seconds.

Otherwise, by engaging in long-winded debates that lose our desired audience, we are just playing into the enemy's hands.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 9, 2009 7:00 AM

Turning the National Center for Science Education into a platform for the personal theological opinions of Peter Hess is "correct tactics" - how?

non sequitur FAIL. NSCE is a proven champion in this field. Just take Dover.

Why do you or would you care whose beliefs overlap with their effective tactics? Many faithful say that they can reconcile their faith with evolution. That's a useful fact, and should be used.

Whether or not that reconciliation is logically consistent is irrelevant in the context in which it is used by the NCSE and kin.

There are no "dilemmas" here: only strategic and tactical choices that must be judged on pragmatic grounds alone.

By "framing" these options as a "dilemma", PZ appears not to understand this basic point. Even RD appears to miss it when he says,

I have occasionally worried that – just maybe – Eugenie Scott and the appeasers might have a point

Of course they have a point! Just look at the results. But that doesn't mean that PZ or RD should change their very effective strategy one jot. Unless someone (say, MK—ha!) can make a convincing case that this strategy is ineffective or worse.

Posted by: VD | August 9, 2009 7:32 AM

Well, my dear Dr. Myers, since you were previously afraid of a radio debate with me on the evidence for God's existence, perhaps you'll be more willing to engage in a written debate on the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection. After all, if the issue is so comprehensively settled in evolution's favor, it should be no trouble whatsoever to make your case to everyone's satisfaction, however initially dubious they may have been.

And, of course, since you have now asserted that there are no Worthy Opponents on this subject, you no longer have any need to hide behind your stated belief in my supposed crackpottery.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 9, 2009 8:11 AM

Well, my dear Dr. Myers, since you were previously afraid of a radio debate with me on the evidence for God's existence, perhaps you'll be more willing to engage in a written debate on the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 8:20 AM

It looks like some wackaloon sent out the kook-signal. I'm guessing that, instead of a bat silhouette, it's a brain with one of those circles-with-a-slash-through-it over the top.

Posted by: HumanR | August 9, 2009 8:53 AM

@93

"How can any logic validate a faith based position of belief in a deity who is beyond nature and consequently unfettered by the limitations of physical reality and therefore outside the ambit of logic itself?"

Well, now that's quite an issue to be settled so cavalierly. Why should I believe that logic is bound by physical reality? I thought all the hardcore materialists disappeared a long time ago. But then there is the existence of this blog....

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 9:07 AM

Hey, Nerd. I guess Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett are fakes, frauds, and crackpots too, being as they debate outside of the peer review process too.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 9:22 AM

Salt,

Anyone can post anything on the internet. But if you're making a scientific argument that's supposed to be legitimate, you have to put it in a peer-reviewed journal.

It's like I can make accusations about your criminality, but if I want you to be punished then this criminality has to be proved in court. Otherwise I'm just telling stories about you.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 9, 2009 9:30 AM

Shermer summed it up so well in last month's Scientific American:

Evolutionary biologists uncover the history of life on Earth from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, and so on.

Once an inferential or historical science is well established through the accumulation of positive evidence, however, it is just as sound as a laboratory or experimental science. For creationists to disprove evolution, for example, they need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence as well as construct a rival theory that can explain them better than the theory of evolution. They have not, instead employing only negative evidence in the form of “if evolutionary biologists cannot present a natural explanation of X, then a supernatural explanation of X must be true.”

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 9, 2009 9:49 AM

HumanR @ 94;

"Well, now that's quite an issue to be settled so cavalierly. Why should I believe that logic is bound by physical reality? I thought all the hardcore materialists disappeared a long time ago. But then there is the existence of this blog...."

OK, then explain this to me. If there are no physical, scientific or other limits on your frame of reference then how is deductive, as opposed to inductive, reasoning even possible? Far from being able to say that in the event of action A, result B inevitably follows (as is required for deductive reasoning) all one can actally say is in the event of action A anything at all can happen because there are no rules. This has to be the most extreme of all possible schools of post-modernism. Consequentionalist logic is meaningless. Deductive reasoning is impossible. Any attempt to understand the universe through scientific means is a waste of time because science only deals with that small part of existence called 'reality'.

Why should I believe that logic can meaningfully be applied to an anti-scientific god fantasy? I thought all the hardcore post-modernists disappeared a long time ago. But then there is the existence of HumanR . . .

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 9, 2009 10:03 AM

Surfer Without A Handle @ 101;

'Quote: ”that the logic for the existence of gods is superior to the logic for the nonexistence of them”
So this Vox guy is a polytheist?'

You know Surfer, your right. I missed that part but it certainly does appear that Vox is making a statement of Polytheism. I don't think Yahweh will like that one bit . . .

Posted by: Glenn Bradford | August 9, 2009 10:12 AM

"Nelson is an irredeemable kook, ... yet none of his lunacy was engaged".

I think this is important. What is the problem in having a discussion with folks like Nelson if you steer clear of the topics that generate the controversy? During the conversation with Numbers, Nelson said he was a young earther when asked, but then the discussion veered toward topics in the philosophy of science. I found the discussion interesting and enjoyable in spite of the fact that I learned he was a young earther. Nelson was in fact quite engaging and articulate, and I think this is the real source of worry: if impressionable people are favorably impressed by how Nelson comports himself on a number of other matters, then maybe his stance on the age of the Earth deserves another look. And in fact THIS is the real reason so many people don't want him back on BH.tv.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 9, 2009 11:13 AM

Salt @ 107;

I was going by the whole "Thou shalt have no god but God" stuff. I confess, my biblical knowledge is not up to scratch. I have not been reading all that much fiction recently, and I was under the impression that this was a science blog. Not a bible study blog.

In any case, the history of Christianity has unambiguously been one of the persecution of other faiths, including polytheistic ones. Even to this day, one of the principle causes of apoplexy among hard core Christian fundamentalists is the idea of polytheistic religions. They seem to equate polytheism with moral inferiority and even 'evil'. If they are supposed to be a good reflection of their chosen sky fairy, then I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the fictional person of Yahweh, if it did exist, would be hostile toward any statement of polytheism.

You may also wish to consider the possibility that I was making a flippant comment in relation to Surfer Without a Handle's post @ 101. To those of us with a functioning sense of humour, this is called a 'joke'. The joke is an established social form and, I must confess, I am somewhat surprised to find that you have apparently had no prior contact with it

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 11:31 AM

Salt, all deities are man-made constructs. They don't exist outside of the minds of man. Why believe the babble anyway, as it is nothing but a work of fiction, since Yahweh doesn't exist.

Posted by: Difster | August 9, 2009 12:35 PM

Peer review? Really guys? The best reason you have for giving PZ an excuse for running away from Vox is that he's not peer reviewed?

Why would peer review have ANYTHING to do with the validity of one's arguments, scientific or otherwise. A logical and scientific point is a logical and scientific point whether it was peer reviewed or not.

Mr. Newton was not peer reviewed yet he changed the world. He and his contemporaries most certainly looked at each others works but they no more required each others stamps of approval on their methods or conclusions than I do for the things I write on my blog or elsewhere.

Peer review? That's got to be the biggest cop out for avoiding a debate that I have ever heard.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 12:57 PM

Mr. Newton was not peer reviewed yet he changed the world.

And your point is what? The methods of publishing scientific work has changed since the 17th Century.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 1:13 PM

Vox Day is trying to leech credibility and notoriety by taking on PZ. He has no argument to make or he would have made it--he is bluffing because VD knows full well that PZ has no reason to promote VD to the status of a worthy opponent. Everybody here is already thoroughly familiar with the non-arguments VD makes, and they are wrong, discredited, immoral and ugly. Why would anybody want to spend five minutes subjecting themselves to such stupidity? Vox Day is not a worthy opponent.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 1:53 PM

Failure (or worse, perceived or real avoidance from real science) doesn't count as victory, or even remotely a draw. It's a loss. They've made their moves. We will counter.

Which doesn't require PZ to formally debate every theist asshole who counts coup in order to claim he's right because nobody will debate him. If VD has got an explanation for reality that's a better fit than anything previously advanced by the reigning scientific consensus, that makes predictions borne out by experimentation and observation, and offers new avenues for research and development, that's great, let's see it. We're all on pins and needles waiting for little Theodore to whip it out. Science is ready. We're the ones with the microscopes.

Posted by: KW | August 9, 2009 2:08 PM

Ken,

It doesn't require a debate for everything. I specifically pointed at nonengagement, not that PZ is endorsing this tactic ,this very blog post was written to discuss the part on "not rolling over". I know very little about the Vox Day thing other than what was commented here, and hence my post does not refer specifically to any one particular incident, but rather at the broader policy of strict nonengagement that some people have taken up.

Posted by: E.G | August 9, 2009 2:22 PM

Hey guys,
Vox is just challenging PZ,
so all you have to do is to show
him how to start that debate through
the accepted medium. I'm sure he will not
decline the suggestion of a 'peer-review debate'!

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 3:53 PM

What exactly has VoxDay asserted in his book that goes against peer review research?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 4:00 PM

Ah, Bisch the unthinking and illogical sycophant is back. Still not citations to the peer reviewed literature, just inane accusations that mean nothing. Bisch, either cite the peer reviewed scientific literature, or shut the fuck up. That is put up scientifically, or acknowledge you have nothing. Those are honorable an honest positions. Only illogical and moronic cranks like VD attempt the third option, and by doing so, give away their lack of integrity.

Posted by: HumanR | August 9, 2009 4:04 PM

Gregory Greenwood @ 102

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Post-Modernist!? Knocking down straw men works better with a partner or a complicit opponent. Anyhow, a few issues exist.

1. Your language presupposed a materialist interpretation of the whole show.
2. I asked you to substantiate your presupposition.
3. I made no claims pertaining to the nature of the whole show. (See knocking down straw men above)

A wise man said not to fight in another dog's backyard but I'm doing it this time anyhow.
4. In no case is science capable of determining that B "inevitably follows" A. Science doesn't substantiate, it disconfirms.

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 9, 2009 4:16 PM

Hey Kenbo (Cope). The link you cite re: Mr Day is him discussing religion. I know that you don't mean to infer that Darwinism is a religion or anything so what was your point of posting it? Didnt Day state that he wished to discuss "scientific evidence"?

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 4:24 PM

Nerd:

Why does he, "need to go through the process or shut the fuck up."? Is this a scientific claim under peer review? You then say, welcome to real science. Okay, this is real science, does the scientific method teach us that peer review is the only avenue where worthy debating and or critical thinking can occur? How do you test this? How powerful does the microscope need to be in order to see this? Do peer review people give permits in establishing one's use in using the scientific method? If I use the scientific method outside of a peer review journal is it not real science? Are you making a scientific claim by stating peer review is "real science" Your being lazy. A book can be analyzed and refuted, I suspected the Bible didn't need to be in a "peer review" journal in order for you or anyone else in here to throw in a trashcan and argue its lack of validity.

Travis

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 9, 2009 4:30 PM

Why does he, "need to go through the process or shut the fuck up."?

because that's what the rest of us have to do.

why should his ideas get special dispensation?

He's not even a king.

You then say, welcome to real science. Okay, this is real science, does the scientific method teach us that peer review is the only avenue where worthy debating and or critical thinking can occur?

It's only in review by scientific peers that human error is weeded out during the research process. Without it, you'd get even MORE "cold fusion" debacles.

If one has an hypothesis "reviewed" by a bunch of wankers that know shit, but are happy to agree with you, then your chance for error increases exponentially.

politically, it's the difference between Bill Clinton and GW Bush.

Both educated somewhat, but rather short on knowledge pertaining to a great many things. Bill, aware of this, hired policy wonks who knew their shit to surround him and advise him.

Bush, blissfully and willfully "unaware" surrounded himself with yesmen.

Results are pretty obvious.

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 4:36 PM

Nerd:

Let me give you an example how easy it can be done. In Vox Day's book, he states that the conflict in Northern Ireland is not primarily caused by religion but rather an ethnic/political conflict. What I am currently doing to test Vox Day's claim is searching information through Ebsco and various books through inter-library loan. Fortunately my viewpoint allows me to not have to wait in researching a claim before I read it from a peer review.

Travis

Posted by: Random Mutant | August 9, 2009 4:39 PM

Another way to summarise the graph:

Never have an argument with an idiot. The best possible outcome, is that you've won an argument with an idiot.

But, I would agree there is room for the axis of influence.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 4:43 PM

Travis, you example is irrelevant. It is not a scientific claim. You and your opinion are irrelevant, since you obviously have no true idea how science is done and why. Science does not give outsiders a vote on what is or isn't scientific. Only scientists make that determination. We are waiting for your evidence. What more can I say. Put up or shut the fuck up. Those are honest methods. Not being able to put up, and not being able to shut up, means you are a liar and bullshitter. Travis, you are a liar and bullshitter, along with VD. In order to change our opinions, you must show honesty which you are incapable of. The honesty that you are wrong, and you are apologizing for it.

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 9, 2009 5:03 PM

Science does not give outsiders a vote on what is or isn't scientific.

So then you shamelessly admit that you are not big tent people and are instead a closed-minded group of reactionary fools whose only requirement is that you are a member in good standing insofar as towing the official company line about having naturalistic explanations ONLY and not asking any questions of a probing nature unless you presuppose that your theories are 100% correct and completely settled?

Such shameless examples of ignorance are to be pitied. Newton must be just SPINNING in his tomb right now.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 5:11 PM

Yawn, JDCurtis the fuckwad is an idiot. Not everything in life is a total democracy. Legal and medical ethics are decided by lawyers and doctors. Scientific ethics are decided by scientists. What is your problem? Only scientists have the proper training to make the determination. And the industry I work for, their are many jobs I, a PhD. scientist, can't do since I don't have the proper training. So, either put up your credentials or shut the fuck up. Only liars and bullshitters can't put up or shut up.

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 9, 2009 5:39 PM

So, some guy calling himself VD walks up and demands a pity fuck--what are YOU gonna do? Science and its methods have standards. If Mr. Flaming Vorpal Sword has something to publish, let him, otherwise he can perish. Now, don't you have some fools to try to con? Run along.

So your answer then is no. You don't have a single, solitary shred of evidence you could point to in which VD explains away evolution with a religious interpretation. No evidence at all other than your preconceived notions. Nice.

Only liars and bullshitters can't put up or shut up.

So which one is he (Myers)? A liar or a bullshitter? Apparently he's being called out on his blind faith in an unproven, unfalsifiable theory. Let's see if he is polished enough re: his apologetics to the point that he can defend his beliefs against someone the calibre of Day.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 5:48 PM

So which one is he (Myers)? A liar or a bullshitter? Apparently he's being called out on his blind faith in an unproven, unfalsifiable theory. Let's see if he is polished enough re: his apologetics to the point that he can defend his beliefs against someone the calibre of Day.

Congratulations! You are the one millionth troll to trash science by ineptly characterizing it as a religion! Send your bank account information to your favorite Nigerian Banker in order to collect your prize!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 5:55 PM

Let me see if I've got this straight. Pox Day comes over here crying "pay attention to me, PZ, pay attention to me." Various people say "nope, not gonna happen." Now JD Curtis whines "you guys are big meanies for not paying attention to Pox Day."

Has Pox Day or JD given any reasonable reason why PZ or anyone else should pay attention to the little twerp? Pox Day having his feelings hurt because the big boys don't want to play with him is not a good reason for the big boys to play with him.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 6:19 PM

'Tis Himself, there's nothing more to it than that. Little Theo Beale has not even given his minions their own Flaming Vorpal Swords--he hasn't even given them a pocket knife. VD unleashed Travis and JD, and Bisch, and the rest, having outfitted them in creotard leotards with domino masks, a big pot of Blazing Saddles brand pinto beans, and cheap lighters. There was supposed to be a lot of BIFF! and POW!, but we always keep buckets of cold water around for laughs. Sorry VD, no seltzer.

Posted by: Kentucky Packrat | August 9, 2009 6:28 PM

While the issue is real and red-hot in the culture, the Green Zone of Worthy Opponents is unfortunately rather underpopulated. There is no one in the green box. (emphasis mine)

This is wandering very close to the No True Scotsman fallacy. No sane person believes anything but Evolution through Natural Selection only. If a person believes in anything but Evolution through Natural Selection, then they aren't sane.

You have created a tautology. You don't have to debate anyone, because anyone who disagrees automatically enters your crackpot zone, and therefore don't have to be debated.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 9, 2009 6:38 PM

I'd say the same thing about the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: What evidence? I mean real evidence now.

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 6:42 PM

Nerd I have a three questions for you before I accept your options that I must choose from:

Would epistemological questions fall under irrelevant questions? Are scientific questions the only questions relevant in this discussion? Please explain your answer.

Are arguments that are based on peer review research acceptable for rational inquiry/debate? Please explain your answer.

If Voxday makes a claim that can be verified through rational inquiry and someone attempts to find out if his information is accurate is that person tarnishing science?

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 6:50 PM

If a person believes in anything but Evolution through Natural Selection, then they aren't sane.

That isn't a premise, it's a testable conjecture that is disconfirmable by observation. While the correlation of science-rejection and insanity is high, insanity does not begin to exhaust the possibilities. People also reject science out of ignorance, self-deception, narcissism, stupidity, deceit, and various combinations of all of the above.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 6:52 PM

Would epistemological questions fall under irrelevant questions?

Are arguments that are based on peer review research acceptable for rational inquiry/debate?

If Voxday makes a claim that can be verified through "rational inquiry" (my quotes) and someone attempts to find out if his information is accurate is that person tarnishing science?

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 6:55 PM

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, and Descartes, not to mention C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton would not be able to pass an introductory biology midterm examination, but they all have a reasonable excuse. What's yours?

Posted by: JimP | August 9, 2009 7:17 PM

If I'm not mistaken PZ underperformed (severely as I understand it) in a debate earlier this year IN PART because of mis truths spoken on the fly by his opponent.

A written debate would allow PZ to respond in a better prepared manner and would allow this whole thing to finally be put to rest.

Do the debate and get it over with. Anything less starts to get harder to explain to anyone that isn't a devoted follower.

And will someone not suffering from Aspergers please explain to Nerd that "shut the fuck up" will not bring this boredom to an end.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 7:20 PM

Do the debate and get it over with.

Why? Just because Pox Day, a creationist with an overinflated opinion of himself, wants a debate, why should PZ indulge him?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 7:32 PM

And will someone not suffering from Aspergers please explain to Nerd that "shut the fuck up" will not bring this boredom to an end.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 7:34 PM

The floor is yours, skippy. Bust one of them arguments out. Hope to gawd you're more entertaining than the usual trolls.

What am I bet that if he does answer, it'll be the cosmological/prime mover argument, the teleological argument or the ontological argument? Christian apologists who've heard of Aquinas generally use these three "proofs."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 7:42 PM

Travis, still trying to prove your unscientific idjit is sane. What part of VD needs to either put his ideas up to peer review or shut the fuck up don't you understand? Anything else means VD is a con man. Welcome to real science. And when you next think of posting, either cite the peer reviewed literature, or don't make your post. Otherwise, you too are a con man.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 7:46 PM

*Raises hand to give Wobagger a high five over the intertoobs.*

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 7:50 PM

Back at you, Nerd. Intertoob-five!

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 7:51 PM

Not going to answer the questions?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 7:56 PM

Not going to answer the questions?

Already answered. If you can't keep up, take notes.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 8:01 PM

Let's see, Pox Day's lickspittle asked two questions:

Are methodological questions verified through your empirical senses?

No.

Have you seen Voxday's website and the peer review links he has provided when addressing natural selection?

No.

Any other questions, dipshit?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 8:05 PM

What Pox Day's buttbuddy meant to ask is: "Are you going to look at Pox Day's website and the peer review links he has provided when addressing natural selection?" The answer is: "Don't be silly. I wouldn't go to Pox Day's website for the same reason that I wouldn't go to the Storm Front website, I don't want to waste my time looking at obnoxious lies."

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 8:21 PM

In 150 years, not a single experiment has invalidated evolution and it has had successful predictions time after time.

Sadly, the biggest problem involved with this is explaining to the intellectually diminished that coming up with 'arguments' such as the alleged irreducible complexity of some biological function, or the lack of a complete fossil record - basicially, anything they perceive as a 'gap' into which they can attempt to cram their gooey, putty-like god - does not actually constitute an experiment in any sense of the word.

'Well, Mr science-talking Darwinist, you don't know what colour pubic hair Australopithecus had - therefore my god must exist! Praise Jesus !1!'

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 8:26 PM

By which I mean he could use his flaming sword to light Bunsen burners for the real scientists...

Sounds like the only way that could end up is as a cautionary tale.

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 9, 2009 8:37 PM

JD what new and improved idea is Vox (or you) going to use to topple evolution and science?

Who said anything about "toppling science"? The theory of evolution is being discussed here.

All that Vox wants is recognition from the opposition that he is a player, not much different than D'Souza.

I thought that D'Souza accepted the possibility that evolutionary theory was at least partly correct.

People also reject science out of ignorance, self-deception, narcissism, stupidity, deceit, and various combinations of all of the above.

Youre substituting "science" for "evolution" in this instance. Nice try Einstein but it doesn't work.

Just because Pox Day, a creationist with an overinflated opinion of himself, wants a debate, why should PZ indulge him?

I don't know that the guy has ever said he is a creationist. A better question would be why Myers is so terrified to have a written dialogue with the guy.

What part of VD needs to either put his ideas up to peer review or shut the fuck up don't you understand?

Why should he? There are over 750 scientists who are willing to put their reputations on the line right now and state that Darwin's theories need to be examined further. Link Why can't Myers put this all to rest right now?

Any asshat can say, "Dunno. Sky-pixie musta said 'Poof! and snapped His fingers cuz' I'm buggered if I've got a clue,"

Again, your preconceived notions are showing Kenbo. Who's to say that an alternative model other than creationism better explains who we got here? The offer is to discuss evolution through written debate. That's all. Why is PZ being such a wuss about it?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 8:41 PM

You miss the point, of course; which is that for the last two thousand years innumerable men and women of undoubted genius and sobriety have found the arguments for God's existence convincing.

But the majority of those men and women lived before many of the scientific discoveries which helped undermine those arguments for the existence of gods - and, prior to the periods of other great scientific findings that made people wonder why so many other things had been found but no evidence whatsoever for any of the gods humans believed in.

Well, other than the deists, that is.

Of course, the standard contemporary Christian response to this is that their god lies outside of science - but that seems to be a reaction to not finding any evidence, rather than what they've believed all along. And it isn't helped by the fact that that isn't a perspective shared by all Christians, and neither group has a more compelling argument for their position than the other.

Oh, and not to mention that fact that over that same period of time - and in fact, even longer - there've been any number of 'men and women of undoubted genius and sobriety' who have believed in Allah, Vishnu, Horus, Odin, Zeus, the Angel Moroni, Operating Thetans and any number of deities that Christians patently don't believe in, all with no better (or worse) arguments than those an atheist might cite for their non-belief in the Christian god.

So, unless you can provide a cogent response to my last paragraph, what's stopping us from saying 'So much for your commitment to free and open inquiry.'?

Posted by: N.Schuster | August 9, 2009 8:44 PM

Why doesn't Prof. Myers merely define for us what he would consider a worthy opponent? Maybe then the Id people could produce someone. Problem solved.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 8:51 PM

Who's to say that an alternative model other than creationism better explains who we got here?

150+ years of science does, you demented fuckwit.

Posted by: Josh | August 9, 2009 8:51 PM

There are over 750 scientists who are willing to put their reputations on the line right now and state that Darwin's theories need to be examined further.

This is an interesting and odd statement. Of bloody course evolution needs to be examined further. There should be no scientist who actually does research involving evolution who doesn't think that the ToE needs to be examined further. It's examined further every single time it's tested. By the same token, there should be no scientist who actually does research involving cell theory who doesn't think that the cell theory needs to be examined further. Additionally, there should be no scientist who actually does research involving plate tectonics who doesn't think that the theory of plate tectonics needs to be examined further.

All scientific theories are tentative. Always. We are always revising and improving. With every single observation that it made or experiment that is run. It's what science does. For your statement to really make any sense, there would have to be some state that could be reached whereby evolution didn't need any further refining or examination. That state will never be reached, any more than it will be reached with our understanding of gravity.

Additionally, I don't know who those 700 scientists are, but unless they have actually published research that involves evolution, I don't really care much about their opinion. Similarly, no physicist should really give much of a shit about what I think about the validity of string theory.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 8:58 PM

VD Jr Curtis wrote:

Why should he? There are over 750 scientists who are willing to put their reputations on the line right now and state that Darwin's theories need to be examined further. Link Why can't Myers put this all to rest right now?

750? Bwahahahahahahaahaha! Is that supposed to impress us? Bwahahahahahahaahaha!

Are you familiar with Project Steve? It's a list of scientists whose name is Stephen (or a derivative within certain parameters) who accept evolution as fact.

You know how many are on the list at present?

1099

Bwahahahahahahaahaha!

Now, if there are more scientists named Steve who accept evolution as fact than all your 'scientists' who reject it, no matter what their name, what does that tell you about scientists and evolution?

EPIC FAIL!

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 9, 2009 9:03 PM

Dear Brother/Sister WBC,

Thank you for your powerful argument in support of our side. Jesus has told me that we (i.e. you and I) as undoubted men/women of genius and sobriety who have found the arguments for God's existence convincing, are a powerful duo for Jesus. With our swords of the spirit, our equally sharp syllogisms, our anti-atheist axioms and our a priori arguments, we will be able to slay the satanic dragon in its lair.

I was particularly excited by the way you hoisted the rationalists on their own petards by citing Newton and Pascal—there's nothing like uncontextualized name-dropping to cut an opponent off at the knees. Never mind that both men lived in an age of institutionalized religious orthodoxy when to go against the grain of culture was to be alienated from resources and respect. Who cares that Newton and Pascal would have had as little chance of recognition had they seriously questioned the collective mainstream delusions of their age, as one would have in the present USA of becoming President by admitting a belief that trusting in God is as relevant as trusting in Santa and the tooth fairy? I mean, if we Christians really believed in historical context, we'd have burned our Bibles years ago and consigned bronze-age beliefs to the past, wouldn't we?

Although you have, albeit unintentionally, provided a convincing argument that the Apostles, Church Fathers, and every Pope since Peter was a crackpot, you have done so with style and I'm sure God will forgive you. Like you, I have a particular fetish for men in dresses who like sodomizing little boys; I find it so much more wholesome than the filthy fetish of science.

Fight on WBC! The belt will be yours if you keep up your technique, and don't foget, I'm in the ring with you.

Smoggy

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 9, 2009 9:06 PM

Y'know, it looks like Br'er Dembski's students are going to claim a bunch of extra credit on Monday morning.

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 9:08 PM

Travis: Would epistemological questions fall under irrelevant questions?

Nerd: Yes, science only deals with reality. If you go outside of reality, science can't answer, and the questions are irrelevant to science.

Travis: Are methodological questions verified through your empirical senses?

"Tis himself": No.

Nerd: ?

Is the methodology of science proven through science? Does this fall under the realm of epistemology, if so is this question irrelevant, as you earlier stated?

You (Nerd) claimed in order for "pure science" to exists one has to put it under peer review. I ask what scientific evidence can you empirically show that verifies such a claim and your response is, science does. But that is simply begging the question; after all you’re suggesting science proves science. One can certainly use rational inquiry when addressing scientific data, the fact that it isn't peer reviewed doesn't weaken the validity of rational inquiry. Should things be put under peer review? Certainly, but I'm not, or the rest of you, going to ignore an argument slimply because it isn't. What I have seen from Vox Day's blog is information taken from peer review journals and critically analyzed. This methodology doesn't outright discredit him. The fact that Vox Day is using rational inquiry with scientific data and yet not a scientist does not either discredit his claims. Could Vox Day be wrong? Yes. But name calling will hardly convince anyone else who is open minded. I find it quite ironic that Voxday is doing the exact thing you are criticizing him of not doing. The information he is analyzing is scientific data taken from peer review sources. One would suspect anyone could analyze Vox Day's arguments and hold them up to critical inquiry, yet there hasn't been, so far, one attempt in doing so. Lot's of name calling, but that isn't science now is it.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 9:12 PM

Lot's of name calling, but that isn't science now is it.

That's exactly what we've come to expect from Vox Day. Nothing but a load of dick-wagging, only smaller.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 9, 2009 9:17 PM

WBC if we were to transport the great theologians from the past would they be able to refute science, build on science or would they be sidelined?

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 9:20 PM

In fact, name one thing that science has ever "proved" - given that it is generally accepted that no scientific proposition can in fact be proved at all (thank you, Karl Popper).

Religious claims are all non-disprovable. To science, claims for the existence of god[s] without observation or evidence are otiose, useless, meaningless, worthless.

If you have something that could change that well-established status quo, well then, show, don't tell.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 9, 2009 9:27 PM

JD, so how is your buddy tearing down the science of evolution?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 9, 2009 9:29 PM

Ken Cope - If the dick-wagging is to be juried, please count me in as a judge. Bride of Shrek, I'm sure, is qualified as well.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 9, 2009 9:32 PM

EPIC FAIL

Irony.

sweet, delicious irony.

*slurp*

damn if you creationist idiots aren't just full of it.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 9, 2009 9:35 PM

Dear Brother J.D. Curtis,

What a fun game! Mind if I play too? Here's my three:

1. Not all Christians that exist have been asked whether they truthfully believe in God.

2. How do we know that of all the Christians that say they do believe in God, that a great number of them doubt Christianity yet do not say so out of fear of what can happen to their lives if they do?

3. Only a fraction of Christians are probably even aware that the Bible is a contradictory pastiche of badly translated texts, so to make a comparative statement about the number of true Christians would be meaningless.

How did I do?

Yours in Christly generalizations,

Smoggy

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 9, 2009 9:41 PM

Name one scientific discovery that has helped undermine even one argument for the existence of God.

Evolution undermined the watchmaker argument. It also undermines the the argument from morality.

That's just two from evolution. The existence of vacuum fluctuations undermines the 'something cannot come from nothing, therefore magic man God' argument. It turns out somethings come out of nothing all the time in nature.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 9, 2009 9:47 PM

Brother Smoggy, You suck as a True Christian troll. Rule One - Holy Scripture is Gods witness to Himself. Therefore - every holy babble printed destroys a fossil.

Do try harder, that slip up costs you one turn at the spanking couch. I giveth, and I taketh away.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 9, 2009 9:47 PM

Not all scientists that exist have been asked to sign the statement.

How about we look at the statistics?

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 9, 2009 9:48 PM

Not all Christians that exist have been asked whether they truthfully believe in God.

A Christian by definition is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ who constitutes 1/3 of the triune God. Your statement is self-contradictory.

How do we know that of all the Christians that say they do believe in God, that a great number of them doubt Christianity yet do not say so out of fear of what can happen to their lives if they do?

Where in the world can someone realistically expect persecution for not identifying themselves as Christian? England? France? The US? The Middle East? Africa? Siberia?

Only a fraction of Christians are probably even aware that the Bible is a contradictory pastiche of badly translated texts, so to make a comparative statement about the number of true Christians would be meaningless.

You statement that the Bible is contradictory is a subjective, not impartial, objective statement.

If it is your objective in life to become an intellectual wuss with his head up his butt when it comes to the topic of religion, then all I can say is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Posted by: oaksterdam | August 9, 2009 9:52 PM

Where in the world can someone realistically expect persecution for not identifying themselves as Christian?

Ever been to Fresno?

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 9, 2009 9:58 PM

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists

Again, statistically meaningless. It doesnt take into account any number of scientists that subscibe to the seperate theory of ID or those that feel that ND-TENS is a complete fairytale and are still awaiting another (competing) theoretical model.

Posted by: Rick R | August 9, 2009 10:03 PM

Poor creationists. All they want is a lab coat and some beakers. You darned scientists are so greedy!

Posted by: Josh | August 9, 2009 10:05 PM

You darned scientists are so greedy!

Hey--some of us were raised creationist. We learned to think. So can they.

Posted by: 386sx | August 9, 2009 10:05 PM

"Not all Christians that exist have been asked whether they truthfully believe in God."

A Christian by definition is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ who constitutes 1/3 of the triune God. Your statement is self-contradictory.

Dude, you're picking the most ridiculous nits. It's obvious what he meant by that. You're deliberately not seeing the forest for the trees... because you got nothin.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 10:06 PM

A Christian by definition is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ who constitutes 1/3 of the triune God. Your statement is self-contradictory.

Are you really that stupid? Are you saying that no-one, in the entire history of humanity, has ever said they were something that they weren't? Considering that, throughout history, Christians were killing those who wouldn't convert, I suspect that there were more than a few who misrepresented their beliefs.

With swords against my children's throats I'd lie, too.

Besides, I think you'll find any number of Christian denominations who disagree with you on that particular criteria. How do you feel about Mormons and Christian Scientists?

Where in the world can someone realistically expect persecution for not identifying themselves as Christian? England? France? The US? The Middle East? Africa? Siberia?

Considering there are regions in the US - possibly even whole states; I can't remember exactly - where the law says an atheist cannot be elected to a government position, obviously illustrates just how much persecution against atheists still exists - and how ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest you are.

You statement that the Bible is contradictory is a subjective, not impartial, objective statement.

Really? Well, that's odd; everyone else - well, everyone else who's intellectually honest, at least - seems to think there are plenty. I can show you 436 instances where the bible appears to contradict itself. Go here and see for yourself.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 10:12 PM

Nerd, is saying science proves science and therefore science is all we need a circular argument?

No, you stupid creationist git, Nerd wrote "science is proven through using the methodology of science." Did you notice that there are some words Nerd used that you neglected to use? Of course you did, because if you'd used those words then that would have answered your question. You assholes just love quote mining, don't you? Just another case of the typical creationist "lying for Jesus."

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 10:16 PM

You're deliberately not seeing the forest for the trees... because you got nothin.

Oh, I don't think the trees are the issue - it's the fact that his head's stuck firmly in his own ass, held there by one of Vox Days' hands. Vox's other hand, of course, is on his flaming sword.

Or perhaps it's gently stroking his flaming sword...

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 10:20 PM

Ken Cope - If the dick-wagging is to be juried, please count me in as a judge. Bride of Shrek, I'm sure, is qualified as well.

Thanks Patricia. Let it not be said that pharyngula's population consists primarily of lesbians masturbating with Bibles. I. D. I. C.!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 10:30 PM

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism,

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 10:33 PM

My apologies to all our MD correspondents if you are offended by my remarks in post #250. Those who post here understand the scientific method.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 10:35 PM

Youre substituting "science" for "evolution" in this instance. Nice try Einstein but it doesn't work.

To reject the evidence for evolution requires the rejection of every other discipline in science. As T. G. Dobzhansky put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." You want to reject evolution? You've got to reject genetics, geology, chemistry, physics--reason itself.

I don't know that the guy has ever said he is a creationist. A better question would be why Myers is so terrified to have a written dialogue with the guy.

Terrified? If PZ has any clown phobias, to my knowledge he hasn't posted on pharyngula about them.

For a preview of how a debate between PZ and VD would go, take a peek at this: PZ is the one on the left.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 9, 2009 10:39 PM

Is the methodology of science proven through science?

I'm talking to you from Australia now, when I hit send on this comment, the information will travel to the US, where it will be stored on a server and downloadable for all to see. And all this within a couple of seconds of me hitting post. And this computer does billions of calculations per second, more than the entire species of humankind could do. And why do we have computers? Because science works.

The invention of the transistor in 1947 was a deliberate act, it fell out of the understanding of electromagnetic theory and now there are billions of transitors etched into every processor in the world. The cables allow for transmission over great distances, the infrastructure powers the devices with a continuous source of electricity. In short, science works!

And from the practical applications of science we can see that we have a firm grip of understanding. Yet it is the same theory of electromagnetism that allows for our global communications network that tells us the universe is over 13 billion years old. The speed of light is a constant and those distant galaxies are over 13 billion light years away.

Same goes for the age of the earth. The same science behind nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants tells us that the earth is ~4.55 billion years old. Relative dating corresponds to absolute dating, older rocks date older than newer rocks, and rocks date the same with different dating methods.

While science can't tell us everything about the universe, it can tell us what matters. The universe is billions of years old and billions of years wide. There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all the beaches on earth. The earth is billions of years old and for 80% of its history has had life on it - life that has changed over time and by all indications shares common ancestry. Humans have been around for about 200,000 years, most of that time as hunter-gatherers. between 100,000 and 70,000 years ago, a migration of humans left Africa and all non-african populations of the world are descended from that event.

This is what the science tells us, it has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not, but that's what the evidence says. If you want to argue otherwise you have to either show that the evidence really doesn't show that or accept that your position is contrary to evidence.

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 9, 2009 10:49 PM

No, the question is valid. It's flat-out stupid

Then you realize that it's stupid to ask a Christian if they believe in God. If they didnt believe then they would be an agnostic or an atheist.

Oh, and you are aware that a medical doctor isn't a biologist, aren't you?

How many semester hours of biology does the typical MD have under his belt?

It's been fun folks but I'm going to sleep now. I have a long day tomorrow. I'll give you all the last word but just let me say MYERS IS A WUSS AND WILL OFFICIALLY BE 0-2 IF HE CHICKENS OUT AGAIN, RUNNING LIKE A SCARED LITTLE KID FROM SOMEONE WHO WILL PICK HIM APART LIKE A THANKSGIVING TURKEY AND NOT EVEN BREAK A SWEAT DOING IT. IF YOURE SO SURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THEN LETS SEE YOU PUT UP OR SHUT UP PZ. WE'RE ALL WATCHING TO SEE WHAT YOU WILL DO. GIRLY-MAN.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 10:50 PM

See, this is why creationism is synonymous with intellectual dishonesty.

Religious belief of any kind is synonymous with intellectual dishonesty - unless the believer freely admits they've got no good reason to believe what they believe other than 'it feels right'.

Sadly, Christians in particular don't seem to be able to admit this, and spend ridiculous amounts of time and effort trying to find logical, philosophical and scientific explanations to justify their otherwise-baseless need to have a super-best-friend who loves them despite their failings, and so they can feel special.

Though it really does seem that it's not about getting us to change our minds; it's more about them trying to convince themselves they aren't, in fact, deluded loons clinging to a security blanket only they can see and feel.

Insecurity is a powerful motivator.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 9, 2009 10:52 PM

there are no intellecutally respectable arguments for the existence of God. This would, of course, include St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, and Descartes, not to mention C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton.

I like golden oldies too, but don't neglect their value as contrast and context for modern times. As for C.S. Lewis, the trichotomy is daft. There is nothing wrong with "not lord, but clearly a liar and a loony," except for the likelihood of "utilitarian fiction." Lewis could never hold a candle to the rest of his Inkblots, and Narnia is perfectly fine vaccination against credulity in childhood, promoting disbelief in some Cosmic Hippie that watches me wherever I go as effectively as tales of the Ishtar Bunnie, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. Lewis is no Terry Pratchett, just as Chesterton is no Neil Gaiman. If it's true that "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly," if WBC could laugh at himself a tenth as much as the collective belly laughs we're all having at his expense on this thread, he'd be in orbit with the Celestial Teapot by now.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 9, 2009 10:55 PM

Interesting. I can cite that "A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism....

So what? My point was that your statement that "[t]here are over 750 scientists who are willing to put their reputations on the line right now and state that Darwin's theories need to be examined further" was dishonest because it neglected to mention that the overwhelming majority of scientists don't think that.

Also, with all due respect to medical doctors, their opinions on the issue of evolution is less important than that of scientists for whom evolution is relevant to their field. Of those less than 0.15% accept creationism.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 10:58 PM

Yawn. Ignorant blowhard troll is boring. When VD has had a paper published in a peer-reviewed, relevant-field scientific journal come back and let us know.

Until then, cram it in your ass. With walnuts.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 9, 2009 11:05 PM

IF YOURE SO SURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THEN LETS SEE YOU PUT UP OR SHUT UP PZ.

Stop being intellectually dishonest damn it!

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 9, 2009 11:13 PM

I remember last time Vox Day set a challenge. He wanted to debate PZ on radio, claiming he had the ultimate proof for the existence of God. When the offer was declined, I asked him if he could just post the argument on the comment section. His reply? He hadn't written it down yet.

So he'd gone to all the trouble of organising an AM debate, then spent time complaining that PZ was running scared when he could have spent a fraction of that time writing down his ultimate "proof" and putting it online for all to see.

I wonder if in the year or so since then he's bothered to spend 5 minutes writing it up...

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 9, 2009 11:42 PM

Dear Brother J.D. Curtis @ 230

Please forgive me for taking so long to respond to your reply to my honest questions. I have been taking a quiet hour for my daily devotions (you know, kissing God's bottom so He'll give me stuff), but at least it has given me chance to see whether He agrees with you.

SMOGGY: Dear God?

GOD: Yes, servant Smoggy?

SB: God, is it true as J.D. Curtis says that a "Christian by definition is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ who constitutes 1/3 of the triune God"?

GOD: Well... literally I suppose. But practically, there are a lot of people labelled as Christian who were either born into a 'Christian' family, or live in a 'Christian' neighbourhood. You couldn't really say they follow Jesus, when what they're really following is their cultural conditioning. In any community the number of true, born-again, spirit-filled, Bible-believing Christians is mercifully small.

SB: 'Mercifully small? I don't understand.

GOD: Well, most of those types tend to be obsessive and socially maladjusted. The people who are culturally Christian, and able to differentiate between reality and fantasy, are the ones that keep a community on an even keel. Imagine if everyone sold everything, gave it to the poor, and followed my Son, like He suggested. There'd be complete chaos.

SB: Ulp...well, what about J.D. Curtis's second answer: 'Where in the world can someone realistically expect persecution for not identifying themselves as Christian? England? France? The US? The Middle East? Africa? Siberia?"

GOD: People are persecuted for all sorts of things all over the world. But the USA is one of the few democracies that actively vilifies atheists and prevents them participating in public life. Consider your country, Smoggy. Your last two leaders have been non-theists (one from the left and one from the right) and they've both done a great job for all the people. Who in New Zealand, apart from a fringe minority, cares whether they believe in Me or not? In the USA, however, an atheist who dared to run for president would be actively discriminated against. "Land of the Free..." That always makes me laugh! If there's a really persecuted minority in the US it's the 5% of atheists who can't hold office if they tell the truth.

SB: Well, God. Tell me it's not true that the Bible is 'a contradictory pastiche of badly translated texts'!

GOD: Oh, yes. That's completely true. I was a drunk, angry God when I wrote the Bible. Remember, I'd been on my own for eternity, so I had a lot of issues to deal with and I needed to vent. Most of it's rubbish...even I know that. But I couldn't face revising it.

SB: But... but... Christians say it's your infallible word!

GOD: They do? Ha! The ones who say that tend to cherry pick the "infallible" bits that serve their own prejudices. Most of them have never read it cover to cover and tried to understand it. In truth, more atheists have read the Bible cover to cover more than once, than believers. How do you think they became atheists?

SB: Wow God. Lots to think about as usual. JCB seems to think I'm on my way to becoming "an intellectual wuss with his head up his butt when it comes to the topic of religion".

GOD: Don't listen to him, Servant Smoggy. I know that you are too smart to try applying intellect to religion—that would be a really stupid thing to do.You keep on having faith and asking no questions and you'll be just fine. As for J.D. Curtis, he's an angry and dysfunctional man with just enough brain to know he's shitting his life away for a fairytale. He'll keep!

SB: Thank you God.

Amen

Posted by: raven | August 10, 2009 12:55 AM

I skipped all the posts. Vox Day is a mentally ill troll who was voted "most likely to shoot up a mall some day." He is a very small fish in a very small pond, his own blog.

He has so far escaped his father's fate. Which is in federal prison doing time for a felony. It probably won't last.

Posted by: raven | August 10, 2009 1:01 AM

IF YOURE SO SURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THEN LETS SEE YOU PUT UP OR SHUT UP PZ

We've been putting up for a century and a half. Creationism has gone nowhere in 2,000 years. Says it all.

Ever hear of swine flu? A newly evolved and rapidly evolving human pathogen that is about to scare everyone, sicken many, and kill a few. In medicine we deal with evolution every day. Newly evolved pathogens, antibiotic resistant bacteria, antiviral resistant viruses, and radiation andchemotherapy resistant cancer cells. The latter will kill 100 million of the 300 million people living in the USA today.

Posted by: raven | August 10, 2009 1:16 AM

There are over 750 scientists who are willing to put their reputations on the line right now and state that Darwin's theories need to be examined further.

I've seen parts of that list. It's a joke. It is mostly old people, nonbiologists, and people from the south. Some of those are now dead.

I know one of them. He isn't a biologist. He is a religious fanatic from the south. He is fruitbat crazy.

750 is statistically insignificant. There are between 1/2 to 1 million bioscience workers in the USA. The evos have over a thousand names on their list, all scientists named Steve.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 10, 2009 1:46 AM

Because he is a loon babbling on the internet. He's got nothing.

Oh, an Internet Tough Guy, huh? That doesn't surprise me.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 2:07 AM

What I find curious is the insistance that it must be PZ to debate him. For me, this seems the same reason that Ray Comfort wanted to debate Richard Dawkins. It's not the scientific knowledge but the fame that goes with it. Vox Day could just as easily write out a dissertation and have at it on Talk.Origins, but no. It must be with PZ. Why is that Vox? Could it be that Pharyngula gets 2 million hits a month?

Challenges like this are just for show, it's hooking onto the fame of others in order to further stroke one's ego. Vox Day could put the challenge out to any scientist, hell he could even argue in the comment threads here with the likes of David or Owlmirror and see whether his arguments have any validity. But no, he's going after the most popular atheist blogger on the net. What does this say about what the challenge really is?

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 4:03 AM

Malcolm wrote:

Before anyone wastes their time debating this idiot, surely we need some proof that he actually has an argument.
How about The Pox explains ERV's.

Maybe I missed it in the comments above, but did the VD supporter indicate that he even understands the Theory of Evolution itself?

Could he one of the rarest of rare, an anti-evolutionist who accurately understands what it is he is railing against?

If JDC comes back, I'd like him to explain what the Theory of Evolution is.

Why bother arguing with him anymore about whether or not evolution is a valid theory until he can show that he actually understands what the ToE is? Otherwise, we're not discussing the same thing.

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 4:25 AM

Kel wrote:

What I find curious is the insistance that it must be PZ to debate him.

Oddly, the reason is probably the same one that Dawkins used to explain why he won't debate creationists: That would look great on his [VD's] CV, not so good on [PZ's].

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 5:59 AM

Oddly, the reason is probably the same one that Dawkins used to explain why he won't debate creationists: That would look great on his [VD's] CV, not so good on [PZ's].

It's these kinds of things that demonstrate that one is an idealist. He's not interested in the truth, he's just interested in being superior. There's plenty of evidence for evolution, there's hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles, books upon books dealing with all different aspects of the theory - from beginner to expert. By targeting PZ, I can only conclude that Vox is a narcissist trying to feed his own ego by attacking those who are popular.

What is it Vox? Do you genuinely believe that you have an evolution killer? If so, why aren't you bringing it to the attention of Science or Nature? Why do you want to engage in a one on one debate with a scientist, and one who is popular at that? What is there to be gained from taking such an unscientific approach beyond fuelling your own narcissistic personality?

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 6:58 AM

I put it to you that the reason PZ Meyers does not want to engage in a debate with Vox Day is because he has too much to lose if he,well, loses.

I would like to present an alternative that I believe should be acceptable to both parties: a debate at a university that is fairly neutral on the topic of Evolution vs Intelligent Design.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 10, 2009 7:03 AM

Vrye Denker, what hallucinogen have you taken? Back to basics. The only forum for proper scientific debate is the peer reviewed scientific literature. My question to you, is why is VD avoiding this forum like it is the plague? It is open to all those who use the scientific method. So VD is a child scared of play with adults without being able to use rhetorical tricks to make the other side look bad. If one looks at the real evidence, and not just the story associated with it, VD is an unscientific crank. He needs to publish in the peer reviewed literature to gain credibility. But he is unable and/or unwilling to do so, because he is at least smart enough to know he doesn't do real science.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 7:16 AM

Seriously, put it out there. The Geological Society of America is having an annual meeting this fall. The abstract deadline for presenting talks and posters is tomorrow. The damn things are only 250 words or so. Get off your ass and write an abstract. Use today and tonight. It's a paragraph--surely you can do it. I'll pay the abstract fee for you. If you have evidence that will falsify evolution or an observation about the natural world that evolution cannot explain (e.g., here is how ID explains blind cave fish eyes better than evolution or here is how evolution fails to explain blind cave fish eyes), then write it up for GSA. Go and present it.

The mere fact that Vox Day and his sycophants think that having a public debate with an internet 'celebrity' actually is the way to do science, then there's no hope for them at all. They have nothing, and they admit this by refusing to put their money where their mouth is and engage in the scientific process.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 7:19 AM

You should check out his site, he's a birther. Talk about being a retard...

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 10, 2009 7:42 AM

Knockgoats wrote:

Dawkins reports this in The God Delusion, but the put-down itself comes from by Robert ("Bob") May, an evolutionary biologist as renowned for his, er, self-esteem as for his brilliance (and he is brilliant)

I knew that the quote wasn't original with Dawkins (although Dawkins doesn't identify the originator in TGD except that for the clue that he apparently has an Australian accent, so I didn't know it was May.)

But I'd misremembered Dawkins' statement in TGD that he didn't have the chutzpah to use that statement himself as his saying that he had borrowed and used it. My bad.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 10, 2009 7:53 AM

Oh, an Internet Tough Guy, huh?

Heh. I'd never seen that before.

Posted by: stumpy | August 10, 2009 8:04 AM

BdN -- just saw your reply. Thanks for enlightening me. I don't recall ever having seen "meritable" before...

Posted by: SEF | August 10, 2009 8:44 AM

@ LeeLeeOne #28:

Who exactly are the embarrassing allies?

As well as accommodationists, there are some really stupid non-accommodationist atheists out there - people who only "believe" in evolution etc etc because it was part of the school curriculum and not because they actually have a clue. They say very stupid things on internet forums when attacking theists, evolution-deniers, holocaust-deniers, global-warming-deniers etc. They're on the right side but for the wrong reason (ie by accident rather than through personal ability).

This is probably more the case in the UK than the US though, because people here don't have to be quite so good to be able to reject theism and acquire a shallow but semi-decent education. Sanity is the official norm in the UK, even though many of the individuals in the population are still rubbish.

Posted by: Salt | August 10, 2009 10:24 AM

Why do you Pharyngulan sycophants do what you claim others should not, discuss evolution outside of peer-review?

Tis Himself, @ # 98, stated But if you're making a scientific argument that's supposed to be legitimate, you have to put it in a peer-reviewed journal.

You guys constantly make scientific arguments on evolution yet, where are your peer-reviewed papers on the arguments you are putting forth? Oh, that's right. You have none. Your foundation is the work of others, not your own.

So you feel free to use others works in support of your position. So why deny Vox the use of others works, possibly even the same works, in support of his position?

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 10:41 AM

Why do you Pharyngulan sycophants do what you claim others should not, discuss evolution outside of peer-review?

Science is fought out in the academic arena. And even if you have unpopular views, that is still the vessel for discussing the scientific merits of ideas. Ken Miller gives the example of a biologist who didn't think that HIV caused AIDS. He faced a lot of opposition, his position is almost unanimously rejected, yet he still persisted to argue his position at conferences and publish in peer-review literature.

Again, why PZ Myers? Why not some random over at Talk.Origins or The Panda's Thumb? There's plenty of people qualified in plenty of areas to discuss with Vox Day who aren't PZ Myers. Methinks it is like Ray Comfort challenging Dawkins, like all creationists fucktards, they gravitate towards the authority of a name instead of the evidence itself. Vox challenging PZ is just for show, he could do a lot of things to further advance his position but to challenge a small-time biologist just because he has some internet fame is nothing short of narcissistic behaviour...

Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 10:44 AM

You guys constantly make scientific arguments on evolution yet, where are your peer-reviewed papers on the arguments you are putting forth? Oh, that's right. You have none.

*yawn*

I've got a pile of peer-reviewed papers, my friend. They're not all related to evolution, but the ones that are discuss data that are absolutely congruent with, or add direct support to, the ToE.

And interestingly, I'm working on a new one right now. It's the open Word file that's on my screen that I'm periodically popping away from to check Pharyngula.

And I'm by no means the only reader of this blog in the same situation. Not everyone in here is an original researcher of course, but many are.

And since you went there, how many original arguments against evolution have you put forth and defended?

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 10:59 AM

Your foundation is the work of others, not your own.

this computer I'm sitting at, I didn't come up with the science behind it. I also didn't come up with the science that is making my heater work, or the light in my room. I also didn't come up with the science that makes the cars I ride in or the buses I travel in. I didn't do the research for all the preserved food in my house or the refrigeration unit...

Science is a cumulative enterprise you fool. No one person can do everything, but it's the accumulation over time of evidence through observation and experiment that lead towards a greater understanding of the world around us and thus an ability to put into practice what the theories state. I didn't do the work of Darwin, Mendel, Mayr, Maynard Smith, Gould, Haekel, Gaylord Simpson, Fisher, Hooker, etc. to name but a few of the millions of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying biology, but because of their hard work and dedication I'm able to understand what they have done.

I understand relativity, Newton never did. I know of celestial motion in a way that would thrill Copernicus or Galileo too the core. Such is the privilege of being born after these giants and living in a society with immediate access to knowledge.

One person thinks he can take down the entire scientific enterprise? Then good luck to him because there's a damn lot to explain away. Astrophysics and cosmology show the universe is over 13 billion years old, nuclear physics and geology show that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old, palaeontology, geology, genetics show that life has evolved and has common ancestry. And that all this evidence comes together to tell one huge monumental story about the universe we reside in.

Anyone looking to overthrow a scientific theory has to show that the scientific theory doesn't explain certain facts, and that whatever is being touted to replace it not only explains all relevant evidence but also makes falsifiable predictions about evidence that is to come. Displacing evolution by natural selection doesn't displace evolution, it just casts doubt on one mechanism involved. But any new hypothesis to replace natural selection needs to fit into the astrophysics model of the universe and the geological model of the earth. It needs to explain the palaeontology, the genetics, the biogeographical distribution of life, the genetic markers that show common descent, vestigial structures... etc. and fit that all in with direct observations of the mechanisms involved.

Can Vox Day (or yourself Salt) do this? Can they kickstart a new paradigm shift in science? If so, then why waste time fuelling narcissistic binges by coupling to celebrity instead of fighting for the ideas among the crowd who ultimately decide on scientific matters? There's infinite fame and several nobel prizes for anyone who could do such a thing. But I'm betting all you fucktards can do is complain how we won't feed your narcissism.

Posted by: Rick R | August 10, 2009 11:02 AM

Kel- "Challenges like this are just for show, it's hooking onto the fame of others in order to further stroke one's ego. Vox Day could put the challenge out to any scientist, hell he could even argue in the comment threads here with the likes of David or Owlmirror and see whether his arguments have any validity. But no, he's going after the most popular atheist blogger on the net. What does this say about what the challenge really is?"

The scientific term for it is "starfucker".

(Sorry about the technical verbiage.)

Posted by: Salt | August 10, 2009 11:06 AM

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 10:41 AM
Again, why PZ Myers?

Why not PZ? If PZ is not sufficiently schooled to handle a pup like VoxDay, you sycophants hitched your wagons to low.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2009 11:10 AM

Salt, our peer reviewed literature challenge to VD, Creobots, and IDiots, is to make them understand that they are trying to challenge evolution, which is a scientific theory, they can only challenge it using science. And since science is only found in the peer reviewed literature, it becomes a very easy test to see if they really have science (by a citation), or are they spouting religion (no citation). Religion cannot refute science, nor can science refute religion. But science can, and often does, make religion look silly since they are so far away from the actual facts and/or reality.

Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 11:16 AM

Salt, I think that what 'Tis meant in #98 was that this is a blog. We can debate stuff here until the cows come home, just as we can in, I dunno...newspaper editorials...or on CNN...or whatever. But the debate here and there doesn't matter when it comes to the validity of a scientific theory. With respect to science, if it's not published, then it doesn't exist, and this forum does not constitute being published. I think that the whole point of 'Tis's comment #98 hangs on that word, legitimate. Outside of the technical literature, nothing we say or do is legitimate with respect to science. It's not that we cannot make arguments for or against here. We can. We should. It's that, with respect to science itself, it's irrelevant until you put it into the grinder of peer-review and it ends up as a matter of public record.

What we're doing here is talking about science.
The talking that you do in the literature is science.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 11:21 AM

Why not PZ? If PZ is not sufficiently schooled to handle a pup like VoxDay, you sycophants hitched your wagons to low.

By calling for a debate with PZ it does two things: it shows that Vox Day is obsessed with PZ Myer's celebrity, and it shows that Vox Day doesn't have a case to put forward. If he did, he'd fight it out in academia. He'd be writing papers to all the reputable science journals, he'd be attending conferences and arguing his position, he'd be fighting tooth and nail for the validity of his concept.

But no, that's not what we see. Instead he publicly challenges a popular blogger and it's win-win for him because of that. If PZ Myers doesn't do anything, Vox Day can say he's afraid. If PZ Myers does do something, then Vox Day can use PZ Myer's name to gain reputation.

This isn't about the scientific validity of ideas so please stop insulting the intelligence of anyone and pretending that it's the case. There are actual scientists here who have contributed to the lexicon of human knowledge, and they did so by not hijacking the celebrity of others but by getting down and dirty in the scientific process.

Vox Day is welcome to participate in that process. You are, I am, anyone is welcome to participate. Why waste time debating 'celebrities' instead of actually trying to cause a full own scientific revolution? (which the overthrow of evolution would surely be)

Posted by: Salt | August 10, 2009 11:35 AM

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 10, 2009 11:13 AM
Salt are you a "young Earther"?

The present data does not support a young Earth.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 10, 2009 11:40 AM

VD appears to be at it again over on his blog. What a bunch of crap.

There is one redeeming point - he states he's a libertarian, that's the very place for Walton to go.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 10, 2009 11:43 AM

If I thought the theory of evolution was wrong (even partially, even in some minute way) and I had evidence to support my position, I'd attempt to get that evidence into the peer-reviewed literature.

Why isn't Vox Day doing this?

The answer is obvious.

He has no evidence.

Of course, he still hates the idea of evolution, so what does that leave?

Aha! Challenge one of those evilutionists to a debate!

Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 11:48 AM

The present data does not support a young Earth.

And you're even thinking about it scientifically. We don't have the answer on the age of the earth. We're following the evidence, which has led us to this current answer. This is exactly the way we view evolution.

Posted by: Salt | August 10, 2009 11:56 AM

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2009 11:10 AM
But science can, and often does, make religion look silly since they are so far away from the actual facts and/or reality.

Quite so. The problem atheistic evolutionists have is that the ability to ridicule using what science has to say at this present moment backfires in one instance, where it is declared absolute that belief in a Sky-God is lunacy.

You do not say "if God exists you do not understand what he created", a statement one may state is supported by science, you merely say "God does not exist", a position not supported by science.

Science has not answered that question, and I do not believe it ever can. So why state it as a fact, as if science has answered the question there is no data for?

The absence of data itself is not an answer.

Posted by: 386sx | August 10, 2009 12:13 PM

Fair enough, but in the meantime you've been smart enough not to say anything about what that model will be!

Lol where have we seen that before. Keep them guessing so they don't know how ridiculous it is. Yep, pretty dern "smart".

Posted by: Iain Walker | August 10, 2009 12:14 PM

JD Curtis (#249):

Karl Popper and a whole host of others have long debated whether the fairytale for adults evolution qualifies as an actual scientific theory.

That's incorrect, JD. Popper never had any problems with evolution (i.e., common descent) as a scientific theory. He was, for a while, uncertain as to whether natural selection, as a mechanism for evolution, constituted a falsifiable hypothesis or whether it was what he called a "metaphysical research programme", before deciding that it was, after all, falsifiable.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 12:15 PM

The problem atheistic evolutionists have is that the ability to ridicule using what science has to say at this present moment backfires in one instance, where it is declared absolute that belief in a Sky-God is lunacy... The absence of data itself is not an answer. - Salt

Similarly, the absence of data suggesting leprachauns exist does not prove they do not. Nor does absence of evidence for David Icke's claim that the world is ruled by shape-changing alien lizards prove that it is not.

Moreover, although it can never be proved that there are no gods, scientific evidence is most certainly relevant to the question of gods with particular alleged properties or who have allegedly performed particular actions. For example, early 19th century geologists expected to find evidence of a recent universal flood. No such evidence appeared, indeed quite the contrary: the evidence showed these Christian, creationist geologists that no such flood had occurred. Before Darwin, Paley's argument was quite convincing; he showed, and 150 years of scientific investigation have confirmed, how processes involving no intelligence can give the appearance of design - but also, crucially, that close examination of organisms reveals many features that make no sense in design terms, but do make sense as relics of evolutionary history.

Belief in doctrinally orthodox Christianity, of course, is infinitely more absurd than belief in leprachauns or rule by shape-shifting alien lizards, because unlike them, it is logically impossible. Jesus is claimed to have been "wholly God and wholly man" or "true God and true man" - but "god" and "man" have incompatible attributes, so nothing can be both.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 10, 2009 12:29 PM

The absence of data itself is not an answer.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 12:38 PM

Ah, so Salt's a misogynistic piece of shit too. What a surprise. How do you stand on murdering babies if God tells you to, Salt?

Posted by: BdN | August 10, 2009 12:40 PM

Like the Pharyngulans here demand Vox show his science data, likewise the same is available to you to properly offer a counter argument rather than just attacking him.

You've got it backwards. The one making the claims is the one who needs to show data. Not the other way around.

Posted by: Vrye Denker | August 10, 2009 12:42 PM

You guys really flatter me by suspecting I am Vox in disguise, but alas, the only thing we have in common is that we both belong to Mensa (I know this does not mean jack, don't lose focus now) and we are both computer programmers.

I take it that my unintentional misspelling of Myers' name (or does he remind me of Mike Meyers aka Doctor Evil? Freudian slip?) is more important than the challenge I put out. How does that "small minds->small matters" thing go again?

Anyways, why doesn't Dr M(e)yers tell us why he really does not want to debate a layman, granted that he is not you average breed? I want this matter over and done with. I don't really care who wins, the anticipation is just so agonizing. Plus the reasons are a bit flimsy, IMHO. If we apply your logic to this issue, then the existence of God could only be debated in a theosophical publication... What is the problem with meeting an opponent on neutral territory?

If we can't have the Myers/Day(Beale) debate, why don't one of you basement-dwellers take him on in the meantime? Surely you aren't ALL too scared to take him on? Or maybe you are the real fucktards (I don't believe for one second that a real Ph.D would use that word, nor spend his entire day reading blog comments on the intertubes, or is this what our tax-Dollars are paying you for?)?

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 12:48 PM

You guys really flatter me by suspecting I am Vox in disguise

Close. You were off by only 180 degrees, MENSA Lad.

Posted by: james byron masterson | August 10, 2009 12:51 PM

So pz doesn't want to be Vox's bitch.
Imagine that.

Come on pz, break out the big brain and smite Vox.

I think many on both sides would love to see the battle.
And many on one side would be placing bets. ;)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 12:54 PM

Anyways, why doesn't Dr M(e)yers tell us why he really does not want to debate a layman, granted that he is not you average breed?

I think this letter from someone else sums it up.

And PZ's thoughts here.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 10, 2009 12:58 PM

Salt - No I don't like VD's opinions, and suspect his information may be more limited than you think. However, thank you for an honest answer.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 1:00 PM

WTF does Madame Blavatsky have to do with anything?

No doubt there are any number of fools eager to claim they can channel her.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 1:05 PM

He is arguing that evolution "science" is lame, and closer to a religion than actual science. Kind of like AGW (oops, I mean climate change). james byron masterson

It's been noted before that there's a considerable overlap between anti-evolution morons and AGW denialists.

Posted by: Really | August 10, 2009 1:07 PM

"Can you tell me what jourmals he has been published in. Science is not done on blogs, so I am not sure why you tell me to look at his blog... I am interested in what he has done as a scientist. That is all that matters. "

By your logic you must be a politician to debate politics.
Are you serious? Or high?

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 1:10 PM

Salt, do you consider VD's sociopathic positions recounted by Feynmaniac @211 to be correct?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2009 1:12 PM

By your logic you must be a politician to debate politics.

Are you serious? Or high?

How many years of study has VD done in evolutionary theory ?

Science is not like politics. I gues that simple fact has escaped you. There is a lot of technical information that must be mastered in order to do science. To what level has VD studied biology ?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2009 1:15 PM

He is arguing that evolution "science" is lame, and closer to a religion than actual science. Kind of like AGW (oops, I mean climate change).

Posted by: Salt | August 10, 2009 1:24 PM

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 12:42 PM
Salt, if you consider VD's sociopathic positions recounted by Feynmaniac @211 to be correct, then you can piss right off.

I consider Feynmaniac's post to be knee-jerk and emotional, quote mining without comprehension, a response worthy of, what do you call yourselves? Ah, yes. Brights.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 10, 2009 1:25 PM

God either is or is not. Any arguments we may entertain are immaterial.

Then why argue?

Science is not examining God. Fine. What signature would you expect to find that God exists should God have created it all?

Something that science could examine.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 1:28 PM

I see NASA found a rock on Mars and immediately claim that it must be alien in origin. Yet they say the ID'ers are grasping at straws...

I've always had a healthy dose of respect for the eggheads at NASA, but it looks like no institution is idiot proof these days.

Um, link?

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 1:34 PM

I consider Feynmaniac's post to be knee-jerk and emotional, quote mining without comprehension,

Wow. I'm convinced. Now that such ruthless logic has convinced me to renounce atheism and become a Christian, I'll just move to Hollywood and start distributing Jack Chick tracts out in front of the Chinese Theater.

Thanks, Salt!

Posted by: Salt | August 10, 2009 1:38 PM

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 1:19 PM
Indeed, it was the claim of these religions that God had done just that in the marvellous design shown by living creatures - until Darwin.

Did Darwin show that God did not create? Or did Darwin only begin an inquiry? - into the complexity of what God created, if he exists, naturally.

Perhaps indeed it is that God ha[s] done just that in the marvellous design shown by living creatures.

Depends what god you're talking about. But any god that actually wanted to be believed in - as the Abrahamic religions all assure us their God does - would have made its existence absolutely evident.

Posted by: Damian | August 10, 2009 12:38 PM
In other words, they are telling us what they believe God should be, if he exists.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2009 1:39 PM

I see NASA found a rock on Mars and immediately claim that it must be alien in origin.

Posted by: BdN | August 10, 2009 1:41 PM

Does anyone have a clue what Denker is on about re this alien rock on Mars ?

I guess not...

Posted by: Salt | August 10, 2009 1:44 PM

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 10, 2009 1:25 PM
Something that science could examine.

You have a whole Universe at your disposal. Take your pick. Now, how would you know?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2009 1:47 PM

I wonder what's up with computer programmers and crackpottery. The inventor of Perl is a Nazarene and the inventor of Ruby is a Japanese Mormon of all things.

I knew there was a reason I prefer designing databases to programming. I clearly am not deranged enough to make a good progammer.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 1:48 PM

Did Darwin show that God did not create? - Salt

No. Do try reading what others write, Salt. Darwin (and subsequent science) have however removed the main empirical argument for a creator: that the appearance of design requires us to postulate an intelligent designer. Hence science is relevant to the existence of gods. Got it now?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2009 1:53 PM

Yawn, Salt has nothing and he knows it. So much for his superior intelligence. All he has is attitude. He presents nothing that might be refuted, but in doing so, essentially presents nothing. That has been his sordid history here.

Posted by: Vrye Denker | August 10, 2009 1:55 PM

"Spoken like someone who didn't read and/or understand the full article. The composition of rock is not consistent with rocks which they have previously found on Mars, but is consistent with a class of know meteorites. So, the conclusion that a meteorite hit Mars is such a stretch. All you do is look foolish with such statements. Your credibility dropped even further. "

Maybe the rock evolved?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 10, 2009 1:57 PM

Just can't un-ring a bell, can you?

Nope, but we know Balaam's Ass when we hear him bray.

Posted by: Salt | August 10, 2009 2:02 PM

Posted by: Anri | August 10, 2009 1:48 PM
Tell us what sort of actions/mechanisms god used to create everything and we might be able to let you know what sort of things you might need to look for for confirmation of these acts.... spicify your claim, and we'll help you specify how to falsify or (tentatively) confirm it.
Thanks in advance!

How about with one BIG Bang! Call it "The Mother of All Explosions", so big he needed only one.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2009 2:06 PM

Maybe the rock evolved?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 10, 2009 2:12 PM

No where, and at no time did god ever claim to have made the big bang. Vacation bible school would be very helpful to you Salt. You fail even at lunacy.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 2:13 PM

How about with one BIG Bang! - Salt

Right, now provide us with the evidence that the Big Bang required an intelligent creator.

Posted by: Lynna | August 10, 2009 2:27 PM

Knockgoats, I sent this pearl of yours to my children:

Clearly an omnipotent but infinitely shy god could and would avoid giving us the slightest hint it existed. However, once you start specifying some way in which a god is supposed to act on the universe, the matter comes within the purview of science.

Both of my excellent progeny seconded and approved the pearl of wisdom.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2009 2:32 PM

And Salt, like a godbotting fool, fails to present any evidence to back his arguments, whatever they were. I would rate his attitude a D, since he backed it up with nothing. I would rate his posts an F since they had no evidence to back them up. Poor showing.

Posted by: Vrye Denker | August 10, 2009 2:43 PM

Anyways, I'm off to bed now, seeing as I have a productive job in the real world I have to be at in 10 hours.

Ciao, it's been fun and I have to honestly admit that even though you "Ph.D's" use the term fuckwit a lot, you are at least of a slightly higher caliber than the prostitutes (literally) over at the Rational Response Squad.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 2:45 PM

But back to business: Have you ever seen concrete evidence that evolution took place? Or are you depending on the honesty and integrity of popular scientists? Finally, how is this faith different from mine?

Scientific results can be repeated. You can go pick up any scientific paper and given the correct tools, techniques and materials you can recreate any scientific experiment. If you can't, guess what. You've just done science. Repeat and test. If you continually come up with the same answer write a paper, invite others to test it. If it passes muster, cheers for you. You can become famous.

Now take into account that this is what happens in science every day for every experiment. Peer review is both a part of and separate from this process. It is the self correcting nature of science.

Guess what, it's not faith.

Care to show me where this is done in religion? How do you self check?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 2:56 PM

If you can't, guess what? You've just still done science

That better conveys the meaning I was going for.

Posted by: N.Schuster | August 10, 2009 6:42 PM

Prof. Myers writes a whole long shpeil about his trip to the Creation Museum solely for the purpose of mocking, but he won't engage in an exchange of ideas with someone who isn't "worthy"? I don't get it.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 10, 2009 6:48 PM

I don't get it.

Excuse me for a moment. Did you pay for the five minute mocking with a free introductory bonus gratuitous pointing laughing and insults, or were you here for the full half hour?

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 10, 2009 6:56 PM

@412

I'm not sure what you don't get. It appears PZ is being completely consistent.

When people intentionally misconstrue evidence to support their silly and mistaken ideas, they should be mocked. And why would PZ want to debate someone who does that?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 10, 2009 7:10 PM

Salt

I consider Feynmaniac's post to be knee-jerk and emotional, quote mining without comprehension, a response worthy of, what do you call yourselves? Ah, yes. Brights.

Your hero Vox Day is a misogynistic psychopath. There was no quotemining @ 211. The article I quoted was FUCKING TITLED "Why women's rights are wrong"!!! I have provided the link. Show me how I misrepresented his views.

After reading the World Nut Daily article perhaps you should go to his blog and read the threads titled Why women shouldn't vote: a prime example and "Why women shouldn't vote: Reason 345 & 346".

Am I being emotional? Fuck yeah! Absolute disgust is the appropriate response for scum like Vox Day. He's an complete nut and no one should be giving him a grain of legitimacy by debating him.

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 10, 2009 7:45 PM

He's an complete nut and no one should be giving him a grain of legitimacy by debating him.

If youre quite finished "quote mining" now, would you please tell what, if anything, the quotes that you mined have to do with science in general and the theory of evolution in particular.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 8:02 PM

If youre quite finished "quote mining" now

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 10, 2009 8:41 PM

JD Curtis,

If youre quite finished "quote mining" now, would you please tell what, if anything, the quotes that you mined have to do with science in general and the theory of evolution in particular.

This has to do with Vox Day's ability to reason. If you read the articles in addition to being a despicable human being he shows himself to be utterly unable to form a rational argument. It reads as a pathetic rationalization of his misogyny. These pieces show that he is totally unqualified to debate modern biology with a someone who actually has a Ph.D in the field. I'm sure PZ doesn't have the time to waste debating publicly every kook who challenges him.

Also, as I wrote earlier, these comment by Vox show that no one should be giving him any sort of legitimacy by publicly debating him. He only deserves ridicule and contempt.

BTW, you still haven't said whether you agree or disagree with Vox on this. You have the links to the articles. You can make up your own mind on what they say.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 9:46 PM

It's also naïve for the offense not to expect some criticism from accommodationists

Every time I see a creationist come on here these days, I think of sending them to argue over at the Intersection. Just to see if they behave how they preach.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 10, 2009 10:26 PM

None of Pox Day's buttboys have explained what's in it for PZ to debate with their hero. They've done a lot of whining that PZ won't, but they never explain why he should.

As I've said, if Vox is so keen to show how stupid and vacuous evolution is as a science, he must be contacting its other notorious defenders. If it turns out that he hasn't also challenged people like Kenneth Miller, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins - or others - I'd find it more than a little interesting.

Miller would be the obvious choice, since both believe in a god - presumably the same god - and therefore the focus of a debate between them (unlike one with PZ) would be on evolution, rather than theism vs. atheism.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 10, 2009 10:32 PM

I could imagine the generals sitting round at the negotiation table and saying that the foot soldiers weren't doing their jobs, that'll go down well...

1. Genie Scott is not a general.

2. Generals don't command guerrilla fighters anyway.

3. You've never observed military command, have you? The entire chain of command's job is to make sure that the people who report to them are doing their jobs. For accommodationists, this means accommodating. Suck it up, soldier.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 1:36 AM

Sad that a God-hater got it.

Do you hate Zeus, Bisch? Krishna? How about Anansi, do you get all worked up about Anansi, or Thor? Do you just hate them?

"OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH, that Thor, sometimes I just want to rearrange his face!"

Nah, no god haters here. Never actually encountered one, so they're all pretty abstract to me. God worshipers now, those who just can't wait to bend over on behalf of their favorite deity, I don't really hate them either. Some of them I can help, and some of them I can help best by pointing and laughing at their idiot friends, getting all worked up over imaginary intercourse with their imaginary gods.

Was it good for you, Bisch?

Posted by: Bisch | August 11, 2009 1:45 AM

Do you hate Zeus, Bisch? Krishna? How about Anansi, do you get all worked up about Anansi, or Thor? Do you just hate them?

I've always hated them. Always have, always will. Especially Anansi, that bitch.

Posted by: Jadehawk | August 11, 2009 1:53 AM

Oh, I definitely hate anansi with a burning passion. I kill his little eight-legged buddies wherever I see them, and I would do the same to him!!!! [/arachnophobe]

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 11, 2009 2:03 AM

Oh, I definitely hate anansi with a burning passion. I kill his little eight-legged buddies wherever I see them, and I would do the same to him!!!! [/arachnophobe]

Jadehawk, I'm disappointed. I guess this means you won't want to come visit me if I get my wish and set up a tarantula terrarium in my house...

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 11, 2009 2:16 AM

Ken, have you been huffing spiders? 'Cause I'm fairly sure that's not a good idea...

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 2:24 AM

have you been huffing spiders? 'Cause I'm fairly sure that's not a good idea...

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 11, 2009 3:12 AM

Hmm, I have a comment in moderation - and it didn't have any links in it. I'm guessing that it might be because I used a term that could be on PZ's watch list - it starts with 'H' and is used to describe what the ruling political party of Germany did to the Jews circa WWII.

I guess it'll show up at some point.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 6:46 AM

Yawn, the stupidity just won't go away. And the VD supporters are definitely bottom of the barrel trolls.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 6:58 AM

Encyclopedia Dramatica rules!

Idiots harping on about Barack Obama's birth certificate on the other hand...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 7:07 AM

So my response to your comment would be "he should because he said he wants to."

No, he talked about worthy opponents, not misogynist, looneytarian assholes like Pox Day.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 7:15 AM

Unsubstantiated fact: Australia has more species of poisonous snakes than non-poisonous.

Fact: any trip through the wilderness will end in either spider bite, snake bite, koala mauling, or being strangled by native rogue vines.

Fact: Kangaroos frequently stop international flights by taking up residence on the Sydney tarmac.

Fact: Every year, Sting Rays on average will kill 5 celebrities.

Fact: The only safe place to go for a swim is in the rivers in the Northern Territory or far-north Queensland.

Fiction: Aussies like to fuck with potential tourists by validating the concept that human settlements are overrun by native wildlife.

Posted by: Vrye Denker | August 11, 2009 7:17 AM

Please explain:

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
~ Charles Darwin on Evolution
From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 7:30 AM

VD, do you have any physical evidence for your imaginary deity? Something that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural, origin? If not, you are nothing but a delusional fool, and your continued posting on imaginary things shows your lack of intelligence and perspective.

Posted by: Malcolm | August 11, 2009 7:32 AM

How strange.
still no explanation of ERV's.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 7:42 AM

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." ~ Charles Darwin on Evolution

TalkOrigins has a writeup on this quote (quoting from Neal C. Gillespie's Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Page 63):

Darwin's application of these principles to particular scientific problems seems to have taken shape in the early period of his species work and to have changed little in later years. Surrounded by "inductionists," he was not always confident of the propriety of his practice. Thomas Kuhn has remarked that "all crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research." In the present case, those who drifted away from special creation also showed a tendency to abandon "induction" as normal scientific method. Darwin embodied the innovative use of "hypothesis" at its best, but he never fully accepted its philosophical implications, nor did he completely overcome the inhibitions of one who knew that he was innovating and necessarily violating the supposed Baconian methodological canons of his time: "I am quite conscious," he wrote to Asa Gray on the eve of the publication of the Origin, "that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."When [it was reported that John Stuart Mill had characterized the Origin of Species] as being "in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic (and that) the method of investigation (was) the only one proper to such a subject," Darwin was relieved. ... [H]e suffered much at the hands of mathematicians, who usually, like so many of his critics, approached the Origin as if it were a proof of evolution, which of course it was not. Its supporters, on the other hand, commonly viewed it correctly as a hypothesis, based on plausibly ordered evidence and heuristic in purpose.

For Darwin, then, explanatory theory was equally as important in scientific inquiry as fact-gathering, and the test of the truth of a theory was its ability to group facts under a single generalization. "I believe in the truth of the theory [of natural selection], because it collects under one point of view, and gives a rational explanation of, many apparently independent classes of facts," he wrote in 1868. It seemed incredible, he told Hugh Falconer, that "a false theory would explain, as it seems to me it does explain, so many classes of facts." ... Again, following the principles of positive science, the explanation had to be within the bounds of natural causation and had to employ causes and processes known or believed on good evidence to occur. Any hypothesis that met these two criteria could be held provisionally as work went on, and then modified if necessary. ... Natural selection, he thought, met both criteria; special creation met neither. It merely verbally accounted for species; it "explained" nothing.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 8:02 AM

But where are all the intermediate-species' fossils?

Wow. You're really working from the bottom of the barrel there VD.

Here

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 8:10 AM

For his next trick, Vrye Denker will tell us that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Posted by: Josh | August 11, 2009 8:24 AM

But where are all the intermediate-species' fossils?

Wow. You people really are something.

Before we go there, how are you defining "intermediate" here? Additionally, how are you defining "species?" I need to know exactly what you're asking before I can give a reasonable response.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic. Your question demonstrates such a lack of understanding of what paleontologists actually do that I need to know how you're using those words in order to make sure we're not just talking past each other.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 8:32 AM

Before we go there, how are you defining "intermediate" here? Additionally, how are you defining "species?" I need to know exactly what you're asking before I can give a reasonable response.

Crockoduck

Posted by: Josh | August 11, 2009 8:47 AM

Crockoduck

*sigh*

Yeah...

Posted by: Rocky the Pilot | August 11, 2009 8:59 AM

"Before we go there, how are you defining "intermediate" here? Additionally, how are you defining "species?" I need to know exactly what you're asking before I can give a reasonable response.

Crockoduck"

I'd settle for a fishsquirrel.
Preferably a flyiing one.

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 11, 2009 9:13 AM

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is Vox Day the chap:

1 - who can prove evolution wrong but will not put it in writing because he really does not want a Nobel prize.

2 - can prove the existence of god but will not put it in writing because he doesn't want a saint hood.

Such humility.

Posted by: Vrye Denker | August 11, 2009 9:18 AM

"Also, if I stood you in front of two skeletons, one of H. erectus and one of H. habilis, how would you go about telling them apart?"

Don't know, never seen them.

Although I can infer from your question that there isn't much difference? I am after whether or not the evidence shows that the changes were dynamic and gradual, or sudden.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 9:39 AM

I want to know whether fossils show a gradual process

These are but two examples, but they do show change over time and a gradual one at that.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 9:52 AM

Pox Day is not banned here. If he wants an online debate on evolution or atheism, he can comment on an appropriate thread, like anyone else. What's his problem - too scared, or too self-important?

Posted by: Vrye Denker | August 11, 2009 10:11 AM

"they were able to see the gradual evolution of a single-celled marine protozoan Globorotalia conoidea and see the gradual change in the average number of chambers in the final whorl of the shell"

fascinating. I'll check it out and get back to you. I'm off home now so don't take my absence as cowardice ;)

Posted by: Bisch | August 11, 2009 10:55 AM

I never said you take the claims blindly and uncritically. Sheesh, people's "experience" of God is evidence that something is happening, not that that something is God.

Got it...only approved opinions and stated experiences can be taken as "scientific" with respect to testimonial evidence. All unapproved opinions and stated experiences are rejected out of hand.

Got it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 11, 2009 11:07 AM

Got it...only approved opinions and stated experiences can be taken as "scientific" with respect to testimonial evidence. All unapproved opinions and stated experiences are rejected out of hand.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 11:15 AM

Got it...only approved opinions and stated experiences can be taken as "scientific" with respect to testimonial evidence. All unapproved opinions and stated experiences are rejected out of hand. Got it. bisch

No, you didn't. Only what could in principle be in some way checked or corroborated by others can be scientific data. That people say they "experienced God" can be scientific data, specifically data for the psychology of religion. But this is not scientific evidence of God, because it cannot, even in principle, be checked that the experience really was an experience of God. Got it now?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 11, 2009 11:19 AM

Ah, Bisch, avoiding having to show physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Imagine my surprise. No evidence for your deity. No science in the peer reviewed literature from Pox Dey. And you wonder why PZ doesn't consider you illiterates worthy of debate? Not a clue. Show some real evidence in the proper venues first.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 11, 2009 11:47 AM

Posted by: Bisch | August 11, 2009 10:47 AM

Anansi is a dude.

Never heard a man derogatorily called a bitch? It's common parlance nowadays.

That's what makes it funny! It's a MAN, but I called him a BITCH! HA!

The only way this can be remotely and an insult is if one thinks that a woman is a lower form of life than a man.

Asshole.

Posted by: Walton | August 11, 2009 11:53 AM

'Tis Himself, I don't know why you have to keep emphasising that Vox Day is a libertarian and describing him as a "looneytarian", a word you also use to describe me. I don't want to be associated with his promotion of anti-scientific ideas.

Yes, the libertarian movement is not free from embarrassing cranks, just as the left has plenty of cranks (Arianna Huffington and Deepak Chopra spring to mind).

But surely, on these scientific issues, all those of us in the reality-based community - liberals and libertarians alike - can be allies against the forces of woo?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 11:57 AM

all those of us in the reality-based community - liberals and libertarians alike - Walton

*sound of a thousand irony meters exploding*

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 11, 2009 11:58 AM

Walton, perhaps if you let reality reach into your insular world of libertarian economics, 'Tis Himself would not lump you in with misogynistic piles of toxic sludge like VD. Your world of economics is in the same realm of life as VD's world of women.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 12:05 PM

I don't believe all women are bitches. I'm sorry you do.

You do, though, think calling someone a bitch is acceptable. Clearly the fact that many people, especially women, find it offensive is either something of which you are either ignorant, or you simply do not care.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 12:37 PM

Given that Gish OWNED D'Orazio at the Racine debate and Martin refused to debate Bahnsen, this duck-and-hide technique utilized by Myers is nothing new. Better to make up a reason not to than be showed up by a neophyte PZ

How many times do we need to explain to you that debates do not settle issues of fact? They only possibly settle who can filibuster the debate and spew enough falsities and lies that it makes it impossible to answer each one of them sufficiently.

It's really not that complex of an idea to grasp... for most.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 12:41 PM

Given that Gish OWNED D'Orazio at the Racine debate and Martin refused to debate Bahnsen, this duck-and-hide technique utilized by Myers is nothing new. Better to make up a reason not to than be showed up by a neophyte PZ

You seem be labouring under a misapprehension that science is done via debate. You are mistaken. When scientists disagree with each other over science they do so in the letters pages of science journals.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 12:54 PM

Someone? I thought you naturalistic types didn't believe any gods existed. Praise the Lord! I'm so happy for your progress. May I interest you in a tract about the Four Spiritual Laws?

I can't help but weep. I'm so happy for you, Matt.

I would settle for you just apologising to Janine and the others you have upset with your misogynistic language. I doubt though you have the guts to admit you were in the wrong.

Posted by: robinsrule | August 11, 2009 1:08 PM

Given that Gish OWNED D'Orazio at the Racine debate and Martin refused to debate Bahnsen, this duck-and-hide technique utilized by Myers is nothing new. Better to make up a reason not to than be showed up by a neophyte PZ

Since you a) are certain that your beliefs are correct and b) are certain that PZ will "lose" the debate, what's the point of having it?

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | August 11, 2009 2:18 PM

I hope "dipshit" doesn't contain any racist, misogynistic, or homophobic overtones. Because I like calling people like Vox Dei dipshits. Because they are dipshits.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 2:35 PM

Further, I am ready for an apology for upsetting me in calling my fellow God-botherers fuckwits, among other terms. I await with bated breath.

The fact you can't tell the difference is part of the reason you are coming off like a fuckwit.

Posted by: Bisch | August 11, 2009 3:11 PM

Welcome to Pharyngula, home of the double standard.

But since you have no external source of morality, I reckon you don't have much objection to that.

Consistent, at least.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 11, 2009 3:57 PM

Dr. Duane Gish...

ever heard of the Gish Gallop?

Of course you have.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 11, 2009 4:07 PM

Bisch, still have shown any evidence for your deity. Ergo, he is imaginary. That makes the babble a work of fiction, and not a book of morals.

By the way Bisch, if you believe in the babble, and you are wearing a cotten polyester blend, when can we arrange for your stoning?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 4:45 PM

JD Curtis@515,
Duane Gish is a liar. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It can and does make and test predictions (about homologies between features of organisms, about what will and will not be found in which strata, about patterns of nested similarities among organisms, about biogeography...). It is completely falsifiable: a single well-authenticated example of (say) rabbit fossils in Precambrian strata would destroy it completely. It explains and unifies a vast range of facts, and has inspired 150 years of biological research.
On the other hand, there is no scientific theory of creation: just a bunch of liars making shit up because the evidence contradicts their religious beliefs.

Posted by: Walton | August 11, 2009 4:54 PM

Walton, perhaps if you let reality reach into your insular world of libertarian economics, 'Tis Himself would not lump you in with misogynistic piles of toxic sludge like VD. Your world of economics is in the same realm of life as VD's world of women.

I don't really see how the two are comparable. Yes, I could be wrong about economics. (So could you. It's a very confusing field.) But I don't advocate irrational policies like treating half the population as inferior because of the shape of their genitals. Nor do I deny scientific reality, as creationists do.

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 11, 2009 6:35 PM

Duane Gish is a liar

No, Duane Gish is a scientist who adheres to the theory of creationism. You must have him confused with Haeckel, Osborn, Dawson, Dubois and Johansen.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory

It's a fairytale for adults who cling to it as the only naturalistic explanation to our origins when they would be better served examining where the evidence leads them.

It is completely falsifiable: a single well-authenticated example of (say) rabbit fossils in Precambrian strata would destroy it completely. It explains and unifies a vast range of facts, and has inspired 150 years of biological research.

If it's so settled then why arent there any clear, transitional species to species mutations in the fossil record? Insofar as what it's "inspired", when is the last time you heard "YAY LYSENKOISM!!" ?

there is no scientific theory of creation: just a bunch of liars making shit up because the evidence contradicts their religious beliefs

There is no scientific theory of creation evolution: just a bunch of liars making shit up because the evidence contradicts their religious beliefs

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 6:54 PM

If it's so settled then why arent there any clear, transitional species to species mutations in the fossil record?

There are so many transitional forms, and the fact is that there's more than 0 so creationism is thus falsified.

Some videos on "transitional fossils":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0puoduvfBxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

Posted by: JD Curtis | August 11, 2009 7:05 PM

The key words here are SPECIES TO SPECIES Kel.

EPIC FAIL

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 7:12 PM

EPIC FAIL

Oh, come on. Where are the multiple exclamation marks? You guys aren't even trying.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 7:41 PM

No, Duane Gish is a scientist who adheres to the theory of creationism. - JD Curtis

No, he's a shameless liar, and inventor of the dishonest rhetorical trick known as the "Gish Gallop". Besides you quoted him eariler as saying "neither creation nor evolution" is scientific. What is a so-called "scientist" doing adhering to a non-scientific theory?

If it's so settled then why arent there any clear, transitional species to species mutations in the fossil record?

I didn't say it was "settled", fuckwit; clearly you have problems reading. I said it was falsifiable, i.e. it could be overturned tomorrow - but I'm not expecting it.
See #478 for two clear examples of species to species transitions in the fossil record; others are known, mostly among small marine animals where fossilisation is common so the process can be followed in detail; but it also occurs elsewhere, including in the hominid record, where assignment of Homo fossils to particular species is often problematic, precisely because the range of variation is pretty much continuous - but early Homo specimens have a cranial capacity about half the modern average, among other major changes. Speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature: see Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events.

Insofar as what it's "inspired", when is the last time you heard "YAY LYSENKOISM!!" ?

Lysenkoism, of course, closely resembled creationism in ignoring evidence in favour of an authoritarian ideology; it was inspired by Stalinism, not the theory of evolution by natural selection, which it repudiated as "bourgeois ideology", you ignorant dolt. However, I believe Lysenko did at least try to do some empirical research. How much has the (*snort*) "Institute for Creation Research" ever done? There are literally millions of peer-reviewed papers inspired by the theory of evolution by natural selection; creationism is no more than a disgusting parasite on this body of work, distorting and quote-mining genuine research in order to trick the gullible. The liars of creationism have been claiming evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and "collapsing" for over a century; it has gone from strength to strength, deepening and broadening its explanatory power, and continues to do so.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 8:51 PM

Just what do you mean by SPECIES TO SPECIES Mr. Curtis? Explain your criteria. What kinds of forms are you looking to see in the fossil record? What is your definition of SPECIES in this case? Are you talking about species in the same sense that we do today? Or are you using another version of species?

So before you go EPIC FAIL, declaring victory, can you actually frame criteria for what one should expect in the fossil record that coincides with how scientists view transitional forms? Because to me, if you reject the notion that the likes of Tiktaalik or Archaeopteryx are transitional forms, then I'm betting that you don't actually understand what a transitional form actually is - and that you are setting up one massive straw man.

Demonstrate otherwise JD, show that you understand transitional forms in the way that scientists understand them. Show that you understand evolution in the way that scientists understand the process. Show that you understand what kinds of evidences to expect. Can you do this? Or are you more interested in declaring others as failing without demonstrating that you have knowledge on the matter?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 9:00 PM

Walton,

You're a looneytarian, Pox Day is a looneytarian. If you don't like being lumped together with him, then one of you has to change to another politico-socio-economic framework. And don't whine to me about you sharing an ideology with Pox Day. It's your problem, not anyone else's.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 9:11 PM

I notice that while Bisch was willing to spend a couple of hundred words sneering at me, he still didn't answer the question about what was PZ Myers' incentive to debate with Pox Day.

Pox Day's sycophants have yet to give any good reason for PZ to debase himself by debating with a misogynist, looneytarian asshole.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 11, 2009 10:46 PM

Got it...only approved opinions and stated experiences can be taken as "scientific" with respect to testimonial evidence. All unapproved opinions and stated experiences are rejected out of hand.

For fuck sakes, you are a dishonest piece of shit. If you stop examining your projection and look at what I actually wrote you'd see that I said how every testimony/document is to be looked at critically, contrasted with other testimonies and examined against empirical evidence. There is a reason why court systems use this method to arrive at truth instead of consulting an old book of Jewish fairy tales.

This is why creationists shouldn't be publicly debated. You are all dishonest.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 11, 2009 11:27 PM

Yeah, no doubt that's what Feynmaniac meant in #199, what with all that talk about history.

I mentioned history because the claim was that you can't scientifically show Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812. The multiple witness accounts of the events on both sides would be evidence for the event. It would be foolish to merely dismiss all the testimony of the event as "not evidence". While testimony accounts aren't as reliable as hard material data they aren't useless either. As my statistics prof. said in general:

No data < Anecdotal < Observational study < Controlled experiment

Going more to the right is desirable, but not always possible. As Matt pointed out in #497 in pain research they use testimonies.

Even if you take "science" to just mean the natural sciences there would still be an abundance of physical evidence that a nearly million man army went through Russia two centuries ago and both left and suffered heavy casualties, especially around Moscow.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 11:35 PM

No Bisch say goodbye to your cause as you relate to nothing but your own sense of importance. But that is true of anybody who thinks we are swayed without physical evidence. Like for your deity, which you have failed to show any trace of, or your ideas being scientific, which would be shown by a citation to the peer reviewed literature. ;) The truth is the truth, and you fail at telling the truth. When it came time to put up or shut up, both honest and honorable positions, you could not. Which meant you are a con man. You will find easier pickings elsewhere.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 11:50 PM

Bisch, have VD and you put your evidence on the line by writing a paper and submitting it to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I provided information to Nature and Science above. Your choice is simple. Put the debate into the proper forum, or shut up. Con men can't shut up. And they shouldn't be debated. Honest people will put up or shut up. Your choice cricket. Chose wisely.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 11:55 PM

And this is the appropriate response to creationists.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 12:22 AM

My first thought would be that, since most of you have trouble relating to other humans, and as a result, you're quickly losing your pull with the public, he should attempt to obliterate anyone and everyone he can get his hands on (in a figurative, debate sense).

Like has been said, if people like Vox Day or Duane Gish or any of these other creationists had any air of legitimacy, they would fight for the battle where it matters: in the scientific arena. Since they are unwilling to do this it shows that a) they don't have anything worth debating, and b) that the entire goal is evangelisation as opposed to finding truth.

Do you know what the greatest thing about not being American is for all this? You see just how insular the American population can be. Acceptance of evolution is much higher in other countries around the world, if America is won or lost in terms of public support science will continue to operate and progress further even if the united states is lost. There's no Library at Alexanderia to burn this time, we live in a post-scarcity information age. If the mighty america falls to pseudoscience, there's plenty of other nations that will more than take up the slack...

...but somehow the steel of the American people will shine through. Despite religion's massive influence, still over half of all Americans support evolution. America continues to thrive in its tertiary education system and is a world leader in innovation. The doomsday warning is an empty threat, again designed to mask the fact that creationists have nothing.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 12, 2009 12:37 AM

It's where that expression 'denying them the oxygen of legitimacy' would be appropriate.

Bisch, he's denying him a debate because a debate implies two positions of equal merit, and that simply isn't the case. If Vox believes he has a scientifically valid point to make then he can make it through the existing channels - i.e. the peer-reviewed literature.

If that happens then you should pester PZ for a debate. Because right now it's like the head of the KKK demanding to debate Barack Obama on whether or not African-Americans are human.

Oh, and I don't believe you've answered either of the questions I asked upthread - firstly: what was the response of Ken Miller, an even more well-known expert on evolution than PZ, when Vox challenged him to a debate?

Secondly: if he hasn't approached Ken Miller, or other well-known evolution experts about debating this 'ultimate take-down' of evolution, why not? If it's about the validity of evolution rather than theism vs. atheism, which you and the rest of his handjob harem are insisting, then the religious beliefs of the evolution supporter is irrelevant.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 12, 2009 1:19 AM

Bisch,

Fair enough; that all makes sense. I won't attempt to second-guess PZ any more as to why didn't then - or won't now - debate Vox Day.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 12, 2009 3:20 AM

Vox responded that, now that Professor Myers had explicitly stated that there aren't any worthy opponents, that he's ready to be considered an unworthy opponent and do a written debate in Professor Myers's field of expertise.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 12, 2009 3:55 AM

I do know Vox holds a soft spot in his heart for Professor Myers

By having a soft spot in this (allegedly existent) heart do you mean viciously attacking his teenage daughter?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 8:07 AM

Choosing to do nothing; now that's another story. - bisch

As I've said already, Pox Day is not banned here. Let him come and argue his case. What's his problem - too scared or too self-important?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 9:12 AM

The "crow-sized bird fossils" Curtis refers to (although I assume he does not know this and is following the usual creationist practice of citing third-hand rubbish from fellow-creationists), is Protoavis. A pdf of a relevant review article from 2004 is available here. At that time (I can't find anything more recent) its status as a bird was still disputed, but it is certainly not a modern bird - it had teeth and many other non-avian characteristics. What it would show, if accepted as closer to the ancestry of modern birds than Archaeopteryx, is that the transitional features of the latter evolved earlier than previously thought. As for Tiktaalik, you're stuffed there, Curtis: no-one but a creationist moron could deny the evidence of the wonderful sequence of fossil intermediates between fish and tetrapods, showing step by step (hah!) how the latter evolved. You can start here.

Right, you've been shown the intermediates between major taxonomic groups; you've been shown the species-to-species transitions in the fossil record, and the cases of directly observed speciation. You, on the other hand, have shown that you don't have a clue.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 12, 2009 9:28 AM

What was Tiktaalik a transitional form for? If you sprinkle enough pixie dust time on the equation, some overglorified mudskipper became....what?

Lobe finned fish and the first amphibian tetrapods.

The ToE was use to not only predict an animal like this existed but where exactly it could be found.

Shubin et al. went to Canada and found the fossil exactly where they expected it to be found.

You can keep denying the massive evidence for Evolution and keep believing the charlatans that you obviously subscribe to and the ToE will continue to make predictions, tell us more about our past and future and continue to be one of the most well supported scientific theories in the history of man. Your denial and ignorance won't change that.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 9:43 AM

The ToE was use to not only predict an animal like this existed but where exactly it could be found.

Shubin et al. went to Canada and found the fossil exactly where they expected it to be found. - Rev. BDC

Come now; I'm sure JD Curtis, or Bisch, or Vrye Denker, or maybe the great Pox Day himself, will tell us where and when creationist "scientists" predicted that such a fossil could be found, just where Shubin found it.

Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 9:57 AM

At that time (I can't find anything more recent) its status as a bird was still disputed, but it is certainly not a modern bird - it had teeth and many other non-avian characteristics.

Protoavis isn't just not a bird; it's not a taxon. It's a chimera of crap fossils. It's evidence of nothing.

Posted by: Bisch | August 12, 2009 10:18 AM

The reason I don't bother with Vox Day is that he is insane and not very bright. It really is that simple.

I can see where you may believe Vox is insane, sure. But not very bright? Seriously, have you ever read anything he's written?

And, Professor Myers, what did you think, before the debate with them, of the intelligence of the theists you've debated in the past.

You, sir, are a charlatan.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 12, 2009 10:28 AM

I'd like to know what predictive powers the "theory" (and I use that term in the most unscientific way possible) of creationism has?

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 10:39 AM

Funny you should mention that word, Bisch. I looked up "Charlatan" in the dictionary/thesaurus. It said ,"See: Vox Day" (As well as G. Beck, S. Hannity, W. O'Reilly, A. Coulter - all FOX news anchors, etc). I'll bet you catch wood just from the mention of their names.

Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 11:00 AM

James Jensen of Brigham Young University discovered a bird fossil, supposedly from the same period as Archaeopteryx, that has certain traits that are more modern than this alleged “link.”

And that's supposed to be relevant exactly why? Perhaps you read the memo, but I don't think you understood it.

First, what fossil bird genus are you talking about? Name?
Second, the fact that there might be fossil birds from the same period as Archaeopteryx (which is the Jurassic, by the way(1)) that possess traits which are more derived ("modern" doesn't mean anything) than those possessed by Archaeopteryx isn't a problem for the ToE. Phylogeny isn't as tightly correlated with stratigraphic position as you apparently think it is; the history of life (as expressed through the fossil record) is a bush, not a stick.

The Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of northeastern China, for example, contains fossils of both the avian Confuciusornis sanctus(2) and Sinosauropteryx prima(3), which is a non-avian theropod dinosaur that's important in avian origins, and which is "more primative" than Confuciusornis. They are both found in the same formation. Why isn't this a problem? Because what is important in the study of evolution are transitional features, not forms (although we have those as well--critters that fit what you guys always seem to be trying to ask for when you're demanding to see transitional forms). The existence of Confuciusornis alongside Sinosauropteryx does not make the features possessed by Sinosauropteryx irrelevant. It just means that Sinosauropteryx is almost certainly not directly ancenstral to Confuciusornis. So what? There are other taxa which are stratigraphically congruent(4). Not everything that lives at the same time is at the same "stage" or "point" or whatever in evolution. It doesn't work that way. It's the same situation with Archaeopteryx and whatever this more advanced bird is that you're talking about.

You need to better understand this stuff that you're arguing against. It's like you're trying to debate football tactics with an NFL player, but you've never so much as watched a single game on tv.

References and Notes
¹And since you used the word "period," I have no idea, within the Jurassic, exactly what you're trying to argue. You might want to find out where, within the 50+ million years that constitutes the Jurassic Period(5), this other bird comes from (or within the perhaps several million years between Archaeopteryx and the end of the Jurassic) before you try to argue your case. Are you even sure that these two animals are not stratigraphically congruent? Do you even know what that means?
²www.springerlink.com/content/j4k8elu7w4j28w67/
³www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/abs/391147a0.html
⁴And I'm sorry that the fossil record isn't as perfect as you need it to be. Tough. I'd personally really like to have 365 pictures (one taken every day) of the Earth/Sun system from a vantage point that's about a dozen AU "above" the two. That we don't have that doesn't cause me to seriously doubt that Earth does in fact take about a year to orbit the Sun.
⁵www.stratigraphy.org/upload/ISChart2008.pdf

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 11:19 AM

He's a Moron! oops... Mormon, that explains it all. No one lies and twists evidence like the Mormon Church (except for every other creationist organization in the world). "I got these gold plates I buried somewhere, that say I am to be your leader & ya gotta wear these magic garments, yeah... and Indians Native Americans are really long lost Israelites - pay no attention to the DNA tests(!!!), they LIE... and we've got planets for you to populate when you die (I wonder where the Scientologists got some of their ridiculous ideas, hmmmmm)."

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 6:32 PM

JD Curtis,
I see you couldn't answer my questions in #533 and #534. Why not?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 12, 2009 10:25 PM

Bisch still hasn't answered the question about how PZ gets any benefit from debating Bisch's god, Pox Day.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 11:10 PM

Ah, another non-answer by the ignoramus, as expected. Lights on, nobody home. Not helping your cause. Here's something to think about Bisch. PZ has responded. Time for you to go away. What's stopping you?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 11:23 PM

Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 11:00 AM

Yeah. What he said. ("References and Notes" - still cute.)

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 11:40 PM

His name is MUDDY, you lousy bum!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkUbR4PGh9g

You scare me sometimes. :)

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 1:03 AM

Posted by: Bisch | August 13, 2009 12:50 AM

Translation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMB4xtnFlvo

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 2:08 AM

Vox Day's lickspittles, nothing to say but they can't shut up.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 13, 2009 2:23 AM

Not liking the answer and the answer not existing are different.

That cuts both ways, Bisch.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 13, 2009 2:40 AM

Yet when you read Sean Carroll's linked article and this post it is clear that there are not two axes at all, anyone who disagrees with ToE is automatically put in the red, 'crazy' box and is therefore unworthy of debate. The vaunted category of 'worthy opponent' doesn't actually exist.

The grid is a generalization; when peers disagree, they may be worthy opponents because they are discussing data which is agreed-upon but in some way ambiguous or difficult to clarify.

But the theory of evolution is no longer ambiguous or difficult to clarify in its broadest sense. Anyone who disagrees with it in its broadest sense either does not understand it, or is indeed a crackpot.

Carroll perhaps thinks that those who do not understand it can be won over -- or at least convinced that they need to study and learn, and after learning, will no longer disagree. Perhaps he is right at that -- but given VD's behavior, and yours, and any of the other trolls cluttering up this particular comment thread, none of you count as merely ignorant, but rather as willfully ignorant. Or in other words, crackpots in the making.

If evolutionists are frightened/unable/unwilling to enter debate then they should have the decency to say so, or at least crawl away quietly. But please don't bother me with a faux 'grid'.

Would you like some cheese with that whine? That way you could be a fondue crackpot.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 3:44 AM

...anyone who disagrees with ToE is automatically put in the red, 'crazy' box and is therefore unworthy of debate.

Yes, that would be because anyone who "disagrees" with the ToE is bugfuck nuts and unworthy of debate.

Oh! Exquisite irony! Any 'worthy opponents' out there?

Posted by: echidna | August 13, 2009 4:46 AM

A creationist could be a worthy opponent, if he or she were also honest and willing to respond to arguments.

I've used the subjunctive "were", because this situation is purely hypothetical.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 13, 2009 6:22 AM

I fancy myself -Bisch

Tell us something we don't know. Like whether its fear or self-importance that's keeping Pox Day from commenting here.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 7:03 AM

Apologies to Kentucky Packrat | August 9, 2009 6:28 PM who has made the same point only sooner and better.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 8:11 AM

You're right Knockgoats, Help ma boab is a fraud. If there was a second scientific theory competing with evolution, then scientists backing that theory would be worthy opponents. But, there is no scientific theory explaining biology other than evolution. Creationism and ID are not scientific, although the latter tries to pretend it is (to paraphrase and old commercial: "where's the scientific papers?"). Another case of evidence envy.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 8:51 AM

Creationists are the geocentrists of the 20th / 21st century. Consider it this way: the science behind the earth revolving around the sun is so well established that it is as close to scientific truth as we can get. If a geocentrist were to challenge a scientist to a debate, why should a heliocentrist take the geocentrist seriously? After all, the data clearly points towards the notion that the earth orbits the sun. Debating the geocentrist would give the geocentrist a mode of legitimacy, something thoroughly undeserved.

Same goes for creationists, evolution is so well supported that it is as close to scientific truth as the earth orbiting the sun. Yet creationists still think that they should get a fair hearing, giving them a mode of legitimacy...

...but there is a way for both geocentrists and creationists to attack the respective oppositions: through the scientific process. Both geocentrists and creationists fail to do this, instead humouring themselves by using public exercise as a means to legitimate disagreement. Quite simply, the science says both creationism and geocentrism are wrong. Fight the ideas in academia, that's how one defeats science.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 9:00 AM

The situation is exactly the same as for round Earth / flat Earth disputes: you have to be crazy or ignorant to believe the Earth is flat or that evolution has not happened,

Let's just have a look at that:

Since some people believe the Earth is flat, and

since some people do not believe in evolution,

therefore evolution is true.

Please, please, please tell me that you can do better than that.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 9:06 AM

Oh! Exquisite irony!

Huh?

In this 'debate' between 'anti-creationists and creationists' you insist that both sides be evolutionists. Anyone else is excluded.

There is no debate between those two groups. Creationists are bugfuck nuts. The debate concerns how to deal with their idiocy. It's similar to the situation with neo-Nazis. There's no real debate with them. The issue is how to contain them and keep them from hurting people.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 13, 2009 9:40 AM

help ma boab@610,

Are you a barefaced liar, or do you just have shit where your brains should be? The fact of evolution is deduced from the overwhelming evidence for it, and I said nothing in any way similar to the nonsense you attribute to me.

Posted by: Dania | August 13, 2009 10:04 AM

Anyone who follows the link can count all the other 'controversial issues' that Carroll treats with his 'grid'. It is a round number.

Here's what Carrol says some paragraphs after the one you quoted (emphasis mine):

This thought has led me to introduce what I hope is a helpful graphical device, which I call the Grid of Disputation. It’s just a reminder that, when it comes to other people’s views on controversial issues, they should be classified within a two-dimensional parameter space, not just on a single line of “agree/disagree.” The other dimension is the all-important “sensible/crazy” axis.

You see, there are more controversial issues than just evolution/creation, and Carrol doesn't specify here.

But let's take a look at the comments on that thread:

8. nick herbert Says: August 6th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Regarding your “Grid of Disputation”.

Are so-called “holocaust deniers” worthy opponents or crackpots? Think about it.

9. Sean Says: August 6th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Okay, I’ve thought about it. They’re crackpots. Basically the paradigmatic case, in fact.

So it seems he does treat other issues with his "Grid of Disputation".

Now, don't you think it is unwise to lie and quote-mine when it's so easy for the others to check the original source for themselves?

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 13, 2009 10:12 AM

help ma boab what are you actually promoting?

Are you promoting creationism?

If so what evidence do you have?

Are you anti-sciences that do not promote your world views and beliefs?

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 10:17 AM

SC:

The debate concerns how to deal with their idiocy..

They are dealt with by producing a 'grid' to claim that you are so full of sweet reasonableness that you you are willing to debate with people with whom you 'Disagree'. Then you show your true face by calling anyone with whom you disagree 'Crackpots' and shoving into the red box.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 10:23 AM

Evolution has been promoted from a theory to a 'fact'. Nobody told me!

Evolution is a scientific fact. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of life. Creationism, and son of creationism, ID, are religious ideas. From the standpoint of science, they aren't even hypotheses. They lack evidence to back them up. If you have a competing scientific theory, cite the peer reviewed literature to back up your assertions. Or just go away, as whatever you have is of no interest to anybody.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 13, 2009 10:24 AM

See what you can miss when you are not paying attention? Evolution has been promoted from a theory to a 'fact'. - help ma boab

And help ma boab demonstrates his complete ignorance of science once more! That evolution has occurred is a fact, a truth about the world. The modern theory of evolution is an explanation of how it has occurred, by what processes - primarily but not exclusively by natural selection - and of the results those processes have produced. In the same way, gravity is a fact (if you don't believe me, try stepping out of a 10th floor window - in fact, why not try that anyway?); but both Newton and Einstein devised theories of gravity. A scientific theory is a coherent explanation for a range of facts: in the case of evolution, facts about the patterns of similarity and difference between living organisms, the fossil record, biogeography (that's "where animals and plants are found" to you), the existence of vestigial organs, etc. "Fact" is not superior to "theory", shit-for-brains: facts and theories play different roles in the scientific process. Got it now?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 10:41 AM

They are dealt with by producing a 'grid' to claim that you are so full of sweet reasonableness that you you are willing to debate with people with whom you 'Disagree'. Then you show your true face by calling anyone with whom you disagree 'Crackpots' and shoving into the red box.

Is there anyone whom you would describe as a crackpot on any issue? (Please limit your answer to matters unrelated to religion.)

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 10:49 AM

Nerd,

"My first question is who the fuck are you?"

I am someone who usually ignores potty mouths.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 10:54 AM

After repeated posts by the twit help ma boab, I still don't understand his point, if he has one. It would help if he would just put out his idea in plain prose, and quit playing games.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 11:02 AM

Yes, sometimes, I amuse myself by toying with the stupider ones on Blogsites.

Evasive and pathetic. I'll be more specific: Name one or two individuals whom you consider crackpots on some matter not related to religion or evolution.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 11:02 AM

Knockgoats, the Flat Earth thing? Help me out. Maybe I got you all wrong. You are trying to tell me something? I'm sure it is relevant, somehow.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 11:15 AM

I see help ma boab still hasn't put forward his ideas. Must not be very intelligent. After all, it is very easy to say some thing like "I believe the world is 6000 years old and created by god". He would be wrong, but it is easy to say.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 13, 2009 11:31 AM

Josh@637,
Yes, I did use "fact" for phenomena at different scales or levels, and perhaps should have made that explicit. However, I don't believe it would have made any difference to help ma boab, given his wilful ignorance. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on the fact/theory relationship entitled Evolution As Fact And Theory. Read it, help ma boab, and even you might not be able to help learning something.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 13, 2009 12:15 PM

Ahh, I'm glad you linked to that. I think that is one of the better essays Gould wrote.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 12:24 PM

Gould asserts that evolution is a 'fact' but is unable to justify that assertion. He does offer a half hearted argument that evolution is true. But claiming evolution to be true just because you claim it to be a fact won't wash. There is no reason for me to accept evolution as 'fact' just on his say so. Lazy.

Anyway Knockgoats, take your time on that 'Flat Earth' thing. No rush.

Posted by: Josh | August 13, 2009 12:32 PM

Yes, it preceded his sad decline into prolixity!

No kidding! The later Natural History essays were simply dreadful from that perspective. I knew Steve (not well), and I'm terribly sad that he's gone, but the audience for many of those essays was himself.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 12:40 PM

Help ma boab, we don't give a shit if you accept evolution. However, if you have a valid opinion you must show your credentials, that is your degees and career area, in order for us to not think you are not a crank. Also we don't have to convince you of anything. The reverse is true. You have to convince us of any competing scientific theory. Which you have shown nothing for, meaning you are just full of hot air.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 13, 2009 12:46 PM

help ma boab@642,

OK, I was wrong - you have been able to avoid learning anything from the eassy. Stupidity like yours is really quite an achievement. The point of referring you to that essay was to show that the same word can refer both to a fact and a theory - for example, the words "gravity", "photosynthesis", "turbulence", or in this case, "evolution". That you are too stupid, ignorant and/or dishonest to recognise that evolution is a fact is in this case irrelevant. That evolution is a fact is shown by the overwhelming evidence for it in literally millions of scientific papers, not by an essay of a couple of thousand words.

Anyway Knockgoats, take your time on that 'Flat Earth' thing.

See #635.

Posted by: Josh | August 13, 2009 12:51 PM

Gould asserts that evolution is a 'fact' but is unable to justify that assertion.

He wasn't really attempting to. He was doing what I was trying to do: demonstrate the difference between facts and theories (he was also complaining a bit about the evolution/creation nontroversy). It was an essay.

If you want to better understand the fact of evolution, then there are three choices (courses; books (recent efforts by Prothro, Coyne, and Miller come to mind); the technical literature*).

*stuff like this:
http://www.bi.ku.dk/dna/course/papers/I1a.xu.pdf

or this:

http://evolution.powernet.ru/library/Scienc4.pdf

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 12:55 PM

and/or

And here I was all ready to support you in your "andor" campaign!

Harumph. :)

Still waiting for those names, hmb.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 13, 2009 12:59 PM

I must watch out for that. I have a modest collection of fossils. I'll keep an eye on them. Shouldn't take long.

You would get quicker results with bacteria. Ever wondered where how bacteria became resistant to antibiotics ?

Posted by: Dania | August 13, 2009 1:00 PM

Gould asserts that evolution is a 'fact' but is unable to justify that assertion.

He doesn't need to justify it in that essay. In fact, he has tons of evidence in millions of scientific papers backing up his assertion.

There is no reason for me to accept evolution as 'fact' just on his say so.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would convince you? Are you familiar with the multiple lines of evidence that unequivocally point to evolution? I assume you are, because it would be incredibly stupid to criticize something you have not carefully studied first. So, on what basis do you reject that evidence? Can you even write a coherent post stating your point?

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 1:04 PM

"Help ma boab, we don't give a shit if you accept evolution."

You could have fooled me. This whole website is occupied by folk who are grinding their gears that someone doesn't accept their theory.

"The reverse is true. You have to convince us of any competing scientific theory."

Errr, no. I have asserted nothing about evolution but rather the disingenuousness of the 'grid'. Others here feel that my point can be rebutted by claiming evolution to be a fact. That is silly since the truth or otherwise of evolution has no bearing on the grid fraud. But anyway, claiming evolution to be a 'fact' is begging the question. He who asserts must prove.

BTW, I notice that a a few people on this site confuse abuse with argument:

" bugfuck nuts a barefaced liar, or do you just have shit where your brains Help ma boab is a shit-for-brains. who the fuck are you? shit-for-brains: the twit help ma boab, Got it yet, dumbfuck? the ignorant and shit-for-brains stupid combination. delusional godbots. Stupidity like yours"

I shall draw my own conclusions.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 1:09 PM

Still waiting...

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 13, 2009 1:13 PM

Evolution has been promoted from a theory to a 'fact'. Nobody told me! But your 'overwhelming evidence' may not be so overwhelming as your fancy might paint. - help ma boab

I have asserted nothing about evolution - help ma boab

Liar.

Posted by: Josh | August 13, 2009 1:18 PM

*wide-eyed innocent look at Ken*

What? Me?

No.

Of course not...

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 1:20 PM

Probably by a similar mechanism to my becoming resistant to bacteria (immune) after exposure. Some micro-bio-chemistry thing? I'm only guessing. But that hardly convinces me that I have 'evolved'. And on this evidence the bacteria aren't evolving either.

Nice. Not only is this idjit incompetent to describe the difference between a human body and its immune response and the mechanism by which a population of bacteria develops resistance, his apparent mental (I'm being generous here!) model of evolution is straight out of X-Men comic books. Er, movies. Comics probably too sophisticated for him to read.

READ A BOOK! YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 1:29 PM

"You're expecting the fossils to do something?"

Well if the fossils don't 'do something' how can I observe the 'fact' of evolution? Unless my observation of immobile, unevolving, dead-as-a-doornail fossils (REAL facts) require an explanation of how they fit into some historical schema.

Posted by: Dania | August 13, 2009 1:35 PM

READ A BOOK! YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!

That's good advice, but I think the "you might learn something" part will scare him. We all know that learning is bad because it makes baby Jesus cry...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 13, 2009 1:38 PM

Well if the fossils don't 'do something' how can I observe the 'fact' of evolution?

You don't understand evolution and probably the scientific method even a tiny little bit do you?

Unless my observation of immobile, unevolving, dead-as-a-doornail fossils (REAL facts) require an explanation of how they fit into some historical schema.

I'd love to hear your definition of Evolution.

Posted by: Josh | August 13, 2009 1:41 PM

Well, unless the letters home from the soldiers "do something," how can I observe the "fact" that the 20th Maine held off Confederate soldiers from Alabama on the SE corner of Little Round Top on 2 July, 1863?

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 1:44 PM

"the answer is a change in the surface proteins of resistant bacteria."

Yeah, I knew it was some micro-bio-chemistry thing. Bacteria have surface proteins to ward off other bacteria (and therefore anti-biotics). They have mechanisms to adapt to changes. They can pass these changes on. Big fizz. They are still bacteria doing exactly the same job.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 1:49 PM

HMB is still behaving like a stupid fuckwit. He needs to stop the sophomoric questions, and start showing his brilliant (at least in his own mind) ideas. That is where the fame and glory is.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 1:53 PM

Knockgoats, it didn't take HMB five minutes to fulfill your prediction.

I found a good illustration of HMB's straw evolution: the Bolero sequence from Allegro non Troppo. (Don't worry, it works fine without the top-40 classical soundtrack.)

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 2:09 PM

This year bacteria have surface molecule X to give them resistance to anti-biotic.

Next year bacteria have surface molecule Y to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule Z to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule A to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule B to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule C to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule D to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

You can see guys that this is not exactly setting the world alight. It's a long way to the Mona Lisa and the Beatles and Paris Hilton and stuff.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 13, 2009 2:15 PM

I can see help ma boab is not interested in learning.

I despise wilful ignorance.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 13, 2009 2:24 PM

This guy is the poster child for the DUNNING-KRUGER effect.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 2:30 PM

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule XZ to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule YA to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule YB to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule YC to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

The year after bacteria have new surface molecule YD to give them resistance to new anti-biotic.

Just give it some pixie dust errr time lads.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 13, 2009 2:37 PM

Funny you should say that Chimp, because I couldn't care less what your definition of evolution is. 'Facts' don't require definitions.

Right. Evolution is a fact regardless of your definition.

See? Doesn't really work.

I agree that your disingenuous and captious nonsense doesn't really work.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 2:38 PM

HMB is still and ignorant fuckwit with nothing cogent to offer. No ideas of his own to expound. Just perverted stupidity. Boring, boring troll.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 13, 2009 2:48 PM

Good question Josh:

"Well, unless the letters home from the soldiers "do something," how can I observe the "fact" that the 20th Maine held off Confederate soldiers from Alabama on the SE corner of Little Round Top on 2 July, 1863?"

The answer is no, you cannot observe that fact.

You may infer it if the letter is written in a language that you can read and you have theory that letters convey true propositions. If you do not have a theory that letters convey true propositions then you are stuck. You are just looking at a piece of paper with ink squiggles.

Similarly, if I look at my fossils without a theory then I am just looking at minerals. I cannot 'observe' evolution and you cannot 'observe' Union soldiers.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 2:59 PM

Still nothing from HMB. He cites no peer reviewed literature, so the scientific theory of evolution stands. After all, only more science can refute science. He has presented no other scientific theory, which means he has nothing. Yawn, what an ignorant boring troll. This is when I would like for PZ to tell them either to show their evidence, shut up, or be plonked.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 13, 2009 3:12 PM

the hits just keep coming

Posted by: Josh | August 13, 2009 3:18 PM

The answer is no, you cannot observe that fact.

Okay, so then, if I read you correctly, you think that "historical fact" is an oxymoron?

I cannot 'observe' evolution and you cannot 'observe' Union soldiers

Not the same thing at all. The Union soldiers weren't the theory. They are more analogous to the non-preserved soft parts of the specimens in your fossil collection.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 13, 2009 3:25 PM

When you can demonstrate evolution in the present or predict its behaviour in the future come back and give me a shout.

Evolution demonstrated in the present and making predictions.

Evolution making other predictions.

Posted by: E.V. | August 13, 2009 3:30 PM

REAL fact: there is a letter on the doormat.

Your "fact" is comprised of elements that have to be defined to be understood. Just because you know what a letter and a doormat are doesn't mean the concept is clear to everyone and once upon a time you had to learn what comprised a "letter" and a "doormat" yourself and what possible significance that held, you ignorant git. You live in a veil of ignorance with no understanding of how things actually work and how we determine "facts".

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 3:33 PM

Yawn, still nothing from the troll. Troll, PZ wants us to be rude, lewd and crude with fuckwits like yourself. So, if you don't like our tone, go away. That is always an option.

Now, you want to discuss the grid, then you need to posit some using more than a cryptic terse phrase or two, and then present evidence to back up your claims. And ToE is the only sensible (scientific) option.. So far you have presented nothing but "I don't like it", which is totally irrelevant.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 13, 2009 3:36 PM

I'm new here guys, what is the form? This is a post about 'grids' but you all shoot off on general evolution mêlée tangents. Where I come from 'off topic' stuff is considered bad manners. But gauging by your potty mouths, manners isn't a big thing round here.

Liar.

Here is your introductory comment

I was attracted to this site by a comment elsewhere in the blogosphere. It suggested that a minor academic had a blog that attracted some folk who were grinding their gears that not everybody agreed with their world-view.

You came here looking for a fight. Instead you are being taken to school.

The subject of the grid is the problem of dealing with creationists and those who deny evolution. You obviously fall into the latter I'd I'd wager the former as well. You haven't seemed to care too much about exclaiming your ignorance on the subject over the last half of the comments. If you don't want to discuss it, no one is forcing you.