Pharyngula

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | September 21, 2009 11:22 PM

I believe you forgot to close an <i> tag and it's messing up the whole front page.

Posted by: eNeMeE | September 21, 2009 11:31 PM

...I wonder if that will actually work to close the missing italic tag...

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | September 21, 2009 11:42 PM

Interested in reading On the Origin (unabridged and untainted!) with me (and some other online friends)? I'm organizing a "readalong" which will last 10 weeks beginning October 4th. If so feel free to check out my book blog for details: http://www.readerofthestack.com

Completely on topic: ZOMGitsCriss is great and the banana man & Kirk Crocoduck are sad, sad, sad.

Posted by: Stanton | September 21, 2009 11:51 PM

Ray Comfort is lying?

What will you tell us next, that water is wet due to hydrogen bonding?

Posted by: jratease | September 21, 2009 11:56 PM

...and a sexy accent.

I still thing PZ or Dawkins or Hitchens or all of them should annotate the Bible and distribute it to 100,000 churches.

Posted by: ThermionicScott | September 22, 2009 12:12 AM

I like her!

Posted by: Pyrrhonic | September 22, 2009 12:14 AM

Kiiiiiiiiiirkkkk!!

Love her.

Posted by: Kris | September 22, 2009 12:25 AM

Don't get too excited, guys. She's married and sells insurance for a living.

Posted by: DyeGal41 | September 22, 2009 12:30 AM

I ***SO*** hope my kids grow up to be like this young lady.

How fantastic is she?!?!? So many religious fundies rag on YouTube, no bloody wonder.

It must be so threatening not to be able to control such media. Must be awful for information to be everywhere, so that your kids might actually get a glimpse of rationality. So they might actually question authority.

Great kudos to this young lady. In addition, I adore her accent. What a nice bonus 8-)

PS I think her suggestion about an annotated Bible totally rocks, and should be acted upon!

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | September 22, 2009 12:33 AM

You are damning Cristina with faint praise, PZ. My cat has more firing synapses than Kirk does. The old cliche fits here all too well: She's fighting a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent. Kirk looks like he's leading the Charge of the Light Brigade against a squadron of A10-A Thunderbolt II's.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | September 22, 2009 12:54 AM

MikeM, you were expecting your typing to be animated? Interesting...

Posted by: Aquaria | September 22, 2009 12:56 AM

This is hardly a fair fight. Cristina has about ten times the brains of Kirk.

Kirk Cameron has a brain?

Posted by: skeptical scientist | September 22, 2009 12:59 AM

Is there a list of universities somewhere? I wouldn't mind a free copy of Origin, if it's really unabridged.

Posted by: Meat Robot | September 22, 2009 1:07 AM

Whoa! The NEW New Atheists are dead sexy.

We've found our answer to Jenny McCarthy at last.

Move over pudgy, bespectacled, middle-aged atheists (amongst whom I count myself).

Posted by: Xenithrys | September 22, 2009 1:25 AM

Kirk says 61% of biology & psychology professors in the US are atheists. Well, that would worry me too.
Nearly 4 in every 10 biology & psychology professors reject materialistic explanations of the world and the human mind?
Compare that with the results for average citizens in most other developed countries, and you can see why there's a problem.

Posted by: Marcie Dietrich | September 22, 2009 2:57 AM

Loved it!

Posted by: ranka | September 22, 2009 3:27 AM

@#29:
To be fair, many of those 39% are probably only nominally religious.

Posted by: DLC | September 22, 2009 3:58 AM

Kirk Cameron, Liar or deluded ?
It's pretty much a given that Comfort is lying, given that he has been shown the error of his ways numerous times.

Posted by: Xenithrys | September 22, 2009 4:39 AM

Ranka @ 33:

To be fair, many of those 39% are probably only nominally religious.

Posted by: davem | September 22, 2009 5:10 AM

You ssssssnake....

Love it.

Posted by: SaintStephen | September 22, 2009 5:11 AM

@36

I just found that out on RD.net. Talk about the "Origin of Stupidity"...

(*Slinking away to shoot himself in the head*)

Posted by: CunningLingus | September 22, 2009 6:05 AM

If kirk cameron hand another brain, it would surely die of lonliness. All the rubbish which spews forth from his mouth could give an aspirin a headache!

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 22, 2009 6:22 AM

She -- and many other smart, attractive and freethinking young people -- is the church's nightmare.

Their expensive disinformation campaign was just destroyed by a smart, pretty young woman making her own Youtube video.

I think millions more young people are going to listen to her than would ever pay attention to Kirk or Ray Comfort.

What's not to like about her video? It's smart, funny, reasonable -- and she's beautiful.

Posted by: Le Moustier | September 22, 2009 6:44 AM

It's not as bad as I expected given previous reactions to videos of young female atheists PZ has posted, but can commenters really not ignore what someone looks like to concentrate on their words?
Her being hot or beautiful or sexy or whatever is irrelevant to the content of the video, and I imagine she'd rather people paid attention to her points than her looks.

I expect to get retorts of "Oh but we can notice both at the same time!" and "hot people are good for promoting atheism" but come on guys, can't we rise about defining someone (even partially) by their sexual attractiveness? It's the internet equivalent of having someone looking at your breasts while talking to you.
However flattering to be found attractive, it's demeaning to be objectified by one's physique, even when tempered with praise of one's intellect.

Posted by: Andyman | September 22, 2009 6:51 AM

Apologies to Le Moustier.

Her video is well done and well argued. Cameron claims that 61% of psychologists are non-religious like its a bad thing.

Posted by: katharos | September 22, 2009 7:44 AM

I'm a grad student at a biology department at a school that's slated to recieve a shipment of these books.

I think it's important that we respond, in a positive way, as a department. At the very least, we're organizing a public lecture about the evidence for evolution, for non-majors. And I know some people are talking about ripping the introductions out of the books, but I really can't agree with that. I respect freedom of speech--even if it's crap--and I respect books. And I think any destructive action we would take would just feed into their persecution complex.

But we're taking any other suggestions people might have for responses (and oh god, we're NOT staging a debate).

Posted by: MadDruid | September 22, 2009 8:14 AM

@Le Moustier - #47

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss

Somehow, I get the feeling that the fear of being objectified is not among her chief concerns. She's working it and she knows it.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | September 22, 2009 9:20 AM

It's like, 20 pounds of awesome stuffed into a 10-pound sack.

I hope to be half as good a YouTuber as Cristina some day. When she started to say "snake," I thought (hoped?) she was going to say "sack of shit." The fact that she can use "hella" in a sentence is a testament both to her language-learning abilities and the proliferation of American pop culture.

As a digression, can I just lament for a minute or two at the pitiful state of Kirk Cameron? I loved him on Growing Pains. What the heck happened to him?! How did he end up as Ray Comfort's boytoy?

Also, has anyone else noticed a theme in religiot discourse, which Cristina perhaps noticed but didn't really scratch here, that there's no middle ground between being forbidden and compelled? Kids cannot be compelled to pray or read Bibles in school--OMG our liberties are being taken away! Atheists are allowed to teach at universities--OMG they're brainwashing our children! You can't display the Ten Commandments on government property--oh noez! They're taking away religious expression! If they can't force their religion down our throats, they're being oppressed. Everything is either compelled or forbidden. It really explains their panic over a lot of social changes.

Posted by: LisaJ | September 22, 2009 9:22 AM

That was hella great!

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 22, 2009 9:53 AM

Le Moustier @58: I'm still trying to understand how a person's attractiveness, and people appreciating it, somehow detracts from that person's intelligence, work, or message.

Yes, just about all media uses sex to get our attention. If we were an asexual species, this would not be effective, but since we are human it is. Again, what's to be gained by making the message less effective?

No one is exploiting Cristina. Apparently she's doing this her way and presenting herself exactly as she chose.

If I made a comparable vid, and several women (or even a few gay men) commented that I was attractive (ha -- not very likely), I don't think it would imply that I'm somehow intellectually diminished.

Posted by: StarScream | September 22, 2009 10:45 AM

I haven’t taken the time to read the other entire thread “Foil the Depraved…” to see if I might be being redundant here but it seems that Ray and Kirk are modifying Darwin’s work. Specifically, they seem to be leaving out 4 chapters and combining chapters 10 and 14. Available here http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf is the tripe that Ray has written as the introduction. It also has the table of contents which are:

CONTENTS

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION

CHAPTER II
VARIATION UNDER NATURE

CHAPTER III
STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE

CHAPTER IV
NATURAL SELECTION

CHAPTER V
LAWS OF VARIATION

CHAPTER VI
DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY

CHAPTER VII
INSTINCT

CHAPTER VIII
HYBRIDISM

CHAPTER IX
ON THE GEOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF ORGANIC BEINGS;
RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION

I have not made it around yet to reading “The Origin of Species” yet, but I do own a copy and the contents do not match up. Specifically, Ray seems to have cut Chapters 9 “On the Imperfections of the Geological Record,” 11 “Geographical Distribution,” 12 “Geographical Distribution Continued,” and 13 “Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings; Morphology; Embryology; Rudimentary Organs.”

To anyone who has read Darwin’s original: is there a reason why creationists would choose to cut these chapters out or is this simply an edition issue?

Posted by: Samantha | September 22, 2009 11:05 AM

Notimpressed & RayMoscow:

I think what LeMoustier was saying is that there seems to be a trend with men's comments on and views of women that put physical attractiveness on a tier above their intelligence, sense of humour, etc, regardless of who the woman or man is. In essence, with men, they are able to be any of smart, rich, funny, attractive, and there will be a woman who can find that appealing. With women, there is attractiveness first and foremost and then intelligence, funniness, etc. Or, as Ray said so adeptly "The fact that she is also articulate, funny, and smart are welcome bonuses". If it were a man (who was trying to make an intelligence based argument, obviously not in the case of a model), it would be the fact that he was attractive that is a bonus to his intelligence, not vice versa.

There is nothing wrong with valuing and appreciating physical attractiveness. What is at issue is the fact that both men and women are pushed toward the feeling that for women, physical attractiveness is first and foremost at all times and for all women. If a woman isn't pretty she is encouraged to wear make up, get plastic surgery and diet in order to catch a man. If a man is unattractive, he is told that he can also be rich, intelligent or witty to find a woman. Fine, for a model or actress physical beauty matters, but it shouldn't be the most important thing for women who want to be teachers, CEOs, scientists or doctors and there are still many men and women who think that it is (or that women shouldn't be CEOs, scientists or doctors at all, but that's a different issue).

I personally don't mind being called beautiful, pretty, etc. as long as I feel that my point is getting across, and as far as I can tell, most women feel similar. However, when all your responses to a very well thought out and presented argument are "Oh, you're so pretty/sexy/hot", it's beyond aggravating. Models are there to be pretty and to a certain extent, actresses and actors are there to be pretty. A woman who is standing up and saying something should be accorded the same respect as a man who does so and any physical attractiveness should be the bonus to her succinct points and great delivery, not the reverse. Women swoon over Brad Pitt and not Obama because Obama's words are more important than his appearance. Men are perfectly welcome to swoon over Megan Fox, but try to at least have some respect for her words before you start swooning over a woman who is saying some important stuff.

Granted, I do think LeMoustier is overreacting as I can count maybe three or four posts that are predominately or entirely about Cristina's appearance and not about what she said (or her intelligence or value to the atheist pack). Just trying to explain the thoughts behind the whole issue. As an intelligent and (relatively) attractive young woman, I can sympathize with the aggravation. Nothing's quite as irritating as giving the best argument you could just to realize that your opposition has been staring at your chest the entire time (though how they see it through the oversized hoodie is another issue) and therefore argues all the points you've just disproven.

On topic: I absolutely loved her delivery and the variation in emphasis she used. The leaning forward/zoomed in shots at critical points really just drew focus at those moments, which is always a good thing to do when you aren't sure of the attention spans of your viewers. The way she so clearly expressed her distaste for Comfort, Cameron and the introduction was fantastic, especially considering she didn't use any really harsh language (although I'm sure the fundies would disagree on what's harsh). She definitely had a look of pain on her face when she just completely dismissed the whole "no transitional fossils" trope and the fact that she didn't address it properly was unfortunate, although completely understandable (I'd probably just have a shot of me slamming my head into a wall or table). I did laugh at her suggestion of using the introduction as toilet paper, although that'll probably draw her the most fire from fundies and book-loving atheists. Very funny overall, though. Jealous of her hair; the long curls never worked for me and got cut when they started to plan evil acts while I slept but she makes them work for her.

Posted by: mister-fire | September 22, 2009 11:17 AM

For the record, #64 was not intended as a counter-argument. Just a piece of amusing-ness.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 22, 2009 11:59 AM

Samantha @ 63: "Jealous of her hair; the long curls never worked for me and got cut when they started to plan evil acts while I slept but she makes them work for her."

Why is always hair with you people? Can't you just respect a person's message without this constant obsession with the person's hair, or lack thereof?

Posted by: Samantha | September 22, 2009 12:06 PM

Ray:

Ha ha. Very funny. Note the five lines on her message and how she delivered it. I wouldn't expect the fact that it was an example of how physicality could be appreciated without making it the most important thing to be understood, but to completely ignore everything else to pick up on the one thing that is even the slightest bit to your advantage is truly amazing.

I honestly do mean it when I say that there is NOTHING wrong with appreciating physical aspects as long as they are appreciated with appropriate proportion to how important they are to what's going on. There's nothing wrong with noting that someone has nice hair (or is hot) at the end (or in the middle or at the start) of discussing their intellectual points as long as you are discussing the intellectual aspects and giving them the weight they deserve in an intellectual discussion.

I guess it is just easier to ogle a girl's boobs (or ass or face) than to listen to her, though. Talk about eye rolling.

Posted by: Seldon | September 22, 2009 12:18 PM

I am a little bit confused why some are taking offense at the idea that men (or women) would point out the Cristina is attractive. The majority of posts like her argument first and foremost, and those relatively few that do point out she is pretty do so in the context of also giving a good argument and being intelligent. They are not implying in any way that she is intelligent DESPITE being attractive, or that being attractive in anyway damages her argument, either of which should legitimately cause offense.

The first thread I saw on Mr. Deity (I am too lazy to find it and link it) had plenty of comments pointing out the attractiveness of the actor playing the son of god. There was no offense taken, at least I had absolutely no problem with it. Maybe something is wrong with me, but I just can't understand how being complimented on being attractive is demeaning. Either decide to have a blanket ban on all comments related to people's physical appearance or accept the fact that some will comment on looks, and just as you say it is irrelevant to the argument.

Posted by: arrakis | September 22, 2009 12:34 PM

He's got to be lying. They have already printed out massive numbers of the copies. There are pictures of the boxes. I highly doubt that the Great Banana Fondler is going to spend the money to reprint everything.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 22, 2009 12:48 PM

Shouldn't be hard to get guys to watch it, but will they really hear what she has to say?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 22, 2009 12:59 PM

If you think the comments about Christina's looks (I love her hair. Sorry, I had to say that.) are bad here, do not read the comments on YouTube. Plenty of fine christians keep pointing out what a horrible slut she is because of her appearance.

I love how absolutely outspoken and ferocious she is. I think I should subscribe to her account. I also should borrow how she says 'sssnake'.

Posted by: Notimpressed | September 22, 2009 1:02 PM

First, I happen to be female myself, but second, how do we know for sure which gender Le Moustier identifies as? Le Moustier, are you a woman? Man? Tomboy? Pre-op male-to-female transexual? As a matter of fact, who cares?

Samantha: nobody said women should "appreciate" any attention or compliments they get for their attractiveness. What was said was that it is not necessarily SEXIST to admit that you find someone attractive, or even to say in colorful language that another person's physical attractiveness distracts you.

Anyone who tries to claim they haven't been nearly overwhelmed by the physical attraction they've felt towards others at times is lying--male or female, straight, bi, Martian, I don't care who you are.

No one said "evolution" made anyone do anything, but we ARE primates with secondary sex characteristics. We're bound to notice them in other primates. Period. Get over yourself. You're an animal like any other. You're not so special.

Asking that people be respectful is one thing, but coming in here and trying to lay down a bunch of tired old double standards regarding "objectification" of female versus male bodies is entirely LAME and sophomoric from a feminist standpoint.

Posted by: Notimpressed | September 22, 2009 1:15 PM

Generally speaking, if a bunch of women are complimenting a guy on his appearance and he (or another guy) speaks up and says "You're objectifying him" the response is "Oh, I'm so sorry. Are we upsetting you? We'll stop."

This is simply ridiculous. Nobody in this society talks about men being "objectified" when they are complimented. That is language we reserve only for women, who are told that the simple act of being looked upon favorably or lustily by men is enough to strip her of her sexual agency entirely, turning her into a mere "object" and instrumentalizing her. Women, it seems, lack this power over men entirely.

And it's Ray Moscow who's a "sexist"?

Posted by: shaunotd | September 22, 2009 1:34 PM

@Starscream #61
"To anyone who has read Darwin’s original: is there a reason why creationists would choose to cut these chapters out or is this simply an edition issue?"

If I were feeling cynical, I'd say it's because these are the chapters that deal more with historical and contemporary evidence than with theory, and and are hardest to arm-wave away.

I'd also say that if I were feeling realistic. ;-)

Posted by: Kraid | September 22, 2009 1:39 PM

Shorter: Someone called foul over objectification. I disagree with the call, but I appreciate that someone is policing it and agree with the rule in general. I also agree that arguing and insulting the referee is rude.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Some feel it's the thought policing itself that is out of line... hence the arguments and insults toward those who would establish themselves as "referees."

The woman in the vid is beautiful and she is smart. I might comment on one, both, or neither of those attributes. Regardless of which I choose, I should never have to apologetically prostrate myself before someone on a PC power trip.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | September 22, 2009 1:47 PM

Ray Moscow says, "Let's be honest, though: part of Cristina's communicative power is her sexuality."

OK, so let's say some sweet, hot Mormon girl asks you to go to church with her? Would you go? (I actually know some goys who did get into the LSD church that way.) Come on, doesn't the message or the eloquence count. This woman is kicking some serious rhetorical butt. That is a whole lot more praiseworthy than the accidental pairing of nucleotide bases that account for her appearance.

Posted by: Karen P. | September 22, 2009 1:57 PM

In trying to find the list of schools (I keep getting re-directed to their main site), I went and read their press release regarding the book hand-out. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet or not (if so, I apologize for being redundant), but he included the following:

"The back cover lists the above information as well as saying the book contains "Information on Intelligent Design vs Evolution." The publication, which has already pre-sold over 20,000 copies, is already getting raving reviews from evolutionists:
"It's like a book with multiple personality disorder -- two parts that absolutely hate each other; an intro that is the inane product of one of the most stupid minds of our century, and a science text that is the product of one of the greatest minds of the author's century." PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris"

I wonder if old Roy has ANY idea what inane means... Or stupid, for that matter.

Pulled from here: http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=182

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 22, 2009 2:08 PM

a_ray_in_dilbert_space @87: "OK, so let's say some sweet, hot Mormon girl asks you to go to church with her? Would you go? (I actually know some goys who did get into the LSD church that way.)"

The greeters at the Mormon centre in SLC are all pretty young women, or at least they were when I visited there some years ago. But no, I didn't join up. Pity, that.

"Come on, doesn't the message or the eloquence count. This woman is kicking some serious rhetorical butt. That is a whole lot more praiseworthy than the accidental pairing of nucleotide bases that account for her appearance."

Agreed.

Posted by: zomgitscriss | September 22, 2009 2:16 PM

Thank you so much PZ Myers for featuring my video! And thank you guys for all the messages an support you've been giving me in the last couple of days, I never expected it and I appreciate it more than I can say.
Hope you are all having a lovely week ;)

Criss

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 22, 2009 2:25 PM

Apologies on behalf of PZ for saying that you're 10X the intelligence of Kirk, Criss.

I'm sure he momentarily forgot that's true of a parakeet.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 22, 2009 2:49 PM

(I actually know some goys who did get into the LSD church that way.)

LSD church, you say? Now there's a sermon I might show up for.

Been there, done that at stadium and coliseums across North America for the 80's and 90's.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | September 22, 2009 2:50 PM

Made my comment here...

(Partly 'cos this morning the sign-in system at SB was being a serious pain... IDs in three different systems, and all of 'em blowing up because I had to do some password ressets and some file permission idiocy on the server side was breaking these, looked like...)

(/No, this isn't blogwhoring... Or I guess it sorta is... But sorta necessarily, in my defense.)

Posted by: Kraid | September 22, 2009 3:03 PM

Part of me wonders whether Ray Comfort is actually a Discordian pulling a colossal Poe.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | September 22, 2009 3:21 PM

Meat Robot says "I had to see it with my own eyes (St. Doubting Thomas would approve)."

You know, you can actually make a pilgrimage to his tomb. It's in Chennai (formerly Madras). St. Thomas the Doubter is said to have gone to India and established a Christian community (mostly among untouchable converts). When the Portuguese arrived to convert the benighted natives to the "one true church," they were quite put out to find the natives had been Xtian ~300 years longer than the Portuguese.
The Tomb is in a church near the beach.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | September 22, 2009 4:06 PM

Re that alleged revisions, I just got a comment at my blog to the effect that Comfort's newsletter of 21 September mentioned none of the changes, making Comfort's claim re revisions look suspiciously like BS... But looking at it the link forwarded now, it doesn't seem to mention any of this stuff in detail. Not sure if they may have changed it... Commenter seemed to think they might just. Anyway, link passed along was this one.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 22, 2009 4:19 PM

a_ray_in_dilbert_space @103: "You know, you can actually make a pilgrimage to his tomb. It's in Chennai (formerly Madras). St. Thomas the Doubter is said to have gone to India and established a Christian community (mostly among untouchable converts). When the Portuguese arrived to convert the benighted natives to the "one true church," they were quite put out to find the natives had been Xtian ~300 years longer than the Portuguese.
The Tomb is in a church near the beach."

Yeah, I've been there. Also, there's a RC church at the cave (in Madras itself) where Thomas was supposedly killed.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | September 22, 2009 4:25 PM

Heya PZ. I tried reposting a comment I had made earlier but it was again "held for approval". In it I listed\linked a small number of YouTube users, who like Cristina, have been debunking creationist propaganda and promoting good science. I'm guessing that it was held because of the number of URLs in the comment. Perhaps it was a little too thick with them for taste and was denied or is lost among the real spam caught in the filter. If it is the latter I'd appreciate your approval. Thanks ;-)

P.S. Thanks for sharing Criss with the blogs fans. Another YT user I mentioned was ...

AronRa Be sure to see his "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" series. It's 17 videos long so grab some chippy-chips and something to drink, it's well worth it. I've watched it a couple of times trying to soak it all up.

Posted by: Notimpressed | September 22, 2009 4:58 PM

Personally, as a bisexual member of the BDSM community with pretty out-there tastes, I don't find Christina very attractive. But to each his own.

Her videos are good. I enjoy them. But come on, folks--they're not *that* brilliant*...I've certainly seen more informative, and more scientifically dense. I've read blogs here on Seed by women that beat Christina's videos any day.

If we're going to be honest with ourselves, I don't think Christina is a cult star among athiest blogs because she's brilliant compared to the average professional scientist athiest. Her popularty *does* have something to do with her looks, and yes, there is an element of sexism there.

But I'd argue that, by this definition of sexism, where it's unfair to favor men or women based on physical characteristics over others, it's also entirely sexist that Derek Jeter is set up as an unrealistic male ideal in our society. Really, we've got plenty of unrealistic ideals to go around. No gender need feel left out there.

Posted by: OneHandClapping | September 22, 2009 5:17 PM

Not really clear on the "cis-gendered" thing. Would you mind clarifying? I'm not being obtuse, I just want to make certain I understand (I looked it up and I am still not 100% clear on it).

Posted by: OneHandClapping | September 22, 2009 5:36 PM

Got it. It wasn't what I was thinking at all, so thank you very much for clarifying!

Posted by: the_ignored | September 22, 2009 7:08 PM

Looks like Ray is using his revised Origin book to lie after all.

Big surprise.

Posted by: furr-a-bruin | September 22, 2009 8:38 PM

Le Moustier wrote:

We don't discuss how hot PZ or Richard Dawkins are in whatever latest public appearance they do, not because they're not attractive, but because it is seen as totally irrelevant not to mention a bit juvenile.

Cristina's videos may not be "scientificially dense" - but her presentation is effective, especially if you consider the likelihood that she's speaking to the same audience that Kirk & Ray are going after with their campus book barrage.

And from the perspective of a gay man - the attention paid to Cristina's looks has been rather over the top. Take that for what you will.

Barbaphilia - it's not just a fetish, it's a way of life!

Posted by: Phledge | September 22, 2009 10:48 PM

My personal objections to people making comments about Cristina's looks have nothing to do with her and everything to do with me, a conventionally unattractive woman in a competitive professional field who wonders, "Am I being assessed based on my looks instead of my contributions? Am I attractive enough to be taken seriously? As a result of my appearance, will I be overlooked when hiring or promotion decisions are being made? Will my ideas go by the wayside because I'm not as 'easy on the eyes' as other women in my field? WHY THE FUCK DO I HAVE TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS, IT'S FUCKING 2009 AND, ALONG WITH THE EFFORTS OF SO MANY WOMEN BEFORE ME, I'VE FUCKING EARNED THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BASED ON MY WORK AND NOT MY FUCKABILITY?"

So, yeah, blather on about how it's right and normal and natural for men to be attracted to women (way to forget about those pesky gays), how it's intended as a compliment (as I'm sure catcalling and frotteurism is intended as a compliment), how people who question your FSM-given inclination to jump up and down like monkeys and say "Now THERE'S a face to sell atheism" are just being too sensitive (whilst never stopping to think that you might be too INsensitive). It ends up sounding like the evopsych horseshit that hails promiscuity as the natural province of men, that all women are golddiggers because they want to have lots of money to take care of babies, and that we have a biochemical imperative to fear and loathe people of a different color than ours. Nice going, assholes.

Having said that, I think Cristina's poise and sense of humor are strong suits for her videos, and her arguments are outstanding. I also think that Ray Comfort's physician might find a Kirk Cameron on Mr Comfort's next colonoscopy.

Posted by: GMM | September 22, 2009 11:32 PM

Cristina's video is awesome, she is the coolest. I had to subscribe to her youtube channel immediately. Someone needs to get Kirk an acting job, but soon...seems like he has a little too much free time on his hands.

SaintStephen = You've more than proved the point of the other posters...your response is the definition of contempt for women (you know the misogyny that is hip to put down if it's in the context of wacky religious beliefs, but kewl and bad-ass to support in any other way).

right,
sweetie?

check this out, it may help: http://kateharding.net/2007/04/14/on-being-a-no-name-blogger-using-her-real-name/

Posted by: Phledge | September 23, 2009 12:32 AM

Thanks, GMM. Excellent resources, both.

And thank YOU, SaintStephen. I love being called "sweetie" almost as much as I like having my ass smacked and being asked to go get coffee! Way to go, Team Misogyny! Second and five on the Prove the Point Offensive!

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | September 23, 2009 3:28 AM

Phledge@122

"Am I being assessed based on my confidence and physical build instead of my contributions? Am I attractive enough to be taken seriously? As a result of my appearance, will I be overlooked when hiring or promotion decisions are being made? Will my ideas go by the wayside because I'm not as 'easy on the eyes' as other women in my field?"

I'm wondering why you think it's any different for a male, like myself, who is "a conventionally unattractive woman man in a any competitive professional field." Men do this crap even amongst themselves constantly, the pecking order is a universal game.

The rest of your post seems to carry blanket assertions and summary judgments which I believe was what you were inferring and apparently bothers you most ? Perhaps you should take a step back and see human nature for what it is, like it or not, and be a little more hesitant in making one's gender the focal point. Note that I'm not saying you don't have a point.

On a more personal note, I have a great ass. It gets me the occasional attention from both hetero and homosexuals alike. When I get the occasional catcall, which generally occurs before they get the "whole picture", I'll admit I enjoy it. I also know that it means nothing unless you attach something emotionally to it. Most of the time it's just the noise of human animals sweetheart.

Now, seeing as we are both "conventionally unattractive" maybe we could get together for some drinks and bump uglies sometime ? (I always hated that phrase, the vagina is incredibly beautiful IMHO and I'm a freak for oral sex) I cannot however help you in your professional field as much as I might like to. ;-)

Posted by: John Morales | September 23, 2009 6:29 AM

SaintStephen:

Figure it out and quit whining.

I figure you're just shallow. Bah.

I suppose you think make-up makes people look better, too...

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 23, 2009 7:49 AM

Is this clear enough, or should I elaborate some more? - SaintStephen

Nah. you've made it abundantly clear that you're a condescending sexist arsehole; I think that's all we need to know.

Posted by: Notimpressed | September 23, 2009 9:36 AM

So, just so we're clear--it's appropriate to talk openly about our sexual feelings...when you say so?

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I see that there are some people being a little over the top and defensive here (SaintStephen), but ultimately I don't have a problem with the sexuality of others, so long as they're not violating, hurting or actively discriminating against anyone.

I don't think it's any more wrong, or strange, or out of line for a man to say, "you know, Christina is HOT and she's smart- that's quite a combination" than it would be for you to say of a man that "he's HOT and he's smart-that's quite a combination."

There is a gender ratio that skews in favor of males somewhat in the sciences- so yes, of course, we should all be grown ups and try to be respectful.

But just as some people are more good looking than others (as Phledge insists), there are people who aren't as naturally intelligent, or capable in math or science or academics. Should we stop giving scholarships, or fellowships, or praise, or raises to people like Phledge so these other less intelligent, less capable folks don't have to hang their heads shame?

I'm an American myself, but sometimes y'all frighten me with your whining and your "I'm the biggest victim--no I'M the biggest victim" shit. It's a waste of precious time and energy.

Posted by: SaintStephen | September 23, 2009 10:35 AM

@130 -- No, it's like lipstick on a pig, for you personally.
************************************************************
@131 -- "I am more concerned that it is somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction for *some* men, that it's cool, or amusing, or even welcome, to blurt out that they find a woman sexy, without stopping to think if it's appropriate."

Oh, you're "concerned" about it, are you? Well welcome to Biology 101. Are you also concerned about the nutsack hanging down between a straight man's legs? Yeah, giving a woman compliments on her looks isn't "appropriate." Along with the Y-chromosome. Who cares what you don't find "appropriate." I'll compliment any woman I damn well please, and I won't lose a WINK of sleep over it.
************************************************************
@132 -- Fruck you, dweeb.
************************************************************
@134 -- Nice comeback. Was I talking to you? I was the one being yelled at first, thank-you very much. And if PZ Myers' website ISN'T standup comedy, then I don't know what would qualify. Of course I have a high opinion of myself. It's called SELF-ESTEEM, lady. In fact I think you've (inadvertently) rumbled the whole problem. People with self-esteem issues need to figure it out -- on their own.

Glad I could help make your day a little bit better. Now get on with it.
************************************************************

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 23, 2009 10:53 AM

Boring sexist troll. Double yawn.

Posted by: Notimpressed | September 23, 2009 11:35 AM

But this is his schtick, now, and he's milking it.

His cashcow, even.

It's well-known in the music biz that if you want to make the real cash real quick, you go for the Xtian demo--no production values are too crappy, no song too schmaltzy, no branding too patchy for Xtian consumption. If you stamp Jesus' sign of approval on it, it'll sell, and the profit margins will be wide.

Methinks Kirk has become more shrewd a businessman than your average former child star.

Posted by: Notimpressed | September 23, 2009 11:52 AM

Am I attractive enough to be taken seriously? As a result of my appearance, will I be overlooked when hiring or promotion decisions are being made?

It's actually far more likely that what you say will be taken less seriously if you're considered beautiful or sexy. I've seen it happen plenty of times; as soon as some men see "sexy", they assume that a woman is intellectually vapid.

Oh, and no one "forgot" about the gays--in fact, that was one of the first things I brought up was that there are more than two genders and that cis-gendered females are, in the pecking order, far above some others. But you could ignore that, too.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 23, 2009 11:58 AM

Funny thing is Mr Ego, I don't necessarily disagree with all of your points. I just find you and your chest thumping antagonistic for the sake of being the loudest one in the room style incredibly, incredibly boring.

And I didn't even have to use all caps words or bold or font size changes to say it.

Posted by: furr-a-bruin | September 23, 2009 3:57 PM

Just thought I'd pass along a comment this video got when I posted it to my own blog:

Note to self: Withering scorn is much more effective when applied with a Romanian accent.

Posted by: Notimpressed | September 24, 2009 1:47 PM

minimal effect (if any)

But sexuality does not have a "minimal effect" on us. It has a maximal one. It's a huge part of who we are, and not just something that we relegate to some private, personal, dusty little dark corner of our innermost thoughts.

It's especially effective in a visual medium, of all things. McLuhan said it best, right? The medium is the message. In a visual medium like video, good looking people are going to become conventional.

Posted by: Kaleb | November 6, 2009 2:44 PM

having read Origin of species, as well as many other Darwin papers, and having done research on the man, one thing is very clear about him. He believed in a created universe, and in minor evolutionary cycles. Such as his favorite, the frog. I am a Christian, who is also deeply involved in science, and believes firmly in science Law, just as I believe in god's laws. I detest Ray comfort, having attended a seminar in which he spoke, I found his views to be scripturaly inaccurate and very easily contestable. I also know from having listened to this Cristina gal, that she clearly doesn't know anything about Science, Science Law, the design and application of the American Constitution, the beliefs of the founding fathers, and the model this country was set after. I would go so far as to say that this neanderthal probably believes that there is really such a line containing the separation of church and state within our constitution. All this to say, if you don't believe something, don't put your foot in your mouth by trying to disprove them. Let them disprove themselves. All that happens otherwise is you look like an idiot.

Peace Out

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 6, 2009 2:57 PM

He believed in a created universe, and in minor evolutionary cycles.

I also know from having listened to this Cristina gal, that she clearly doesn't know anything about Science, Science Law, the design and application of the American Constitution, the beliefs of the founding fathers, and the model this country was set after. I would go so far as to say that this neanderthal probably believes that there is really such a line containing the separation of church and state within our constitution.

Posted by: a nony mouse | November 7, 2009 5:18 AM

@Starscream #61

I have not made it around yet to reading “The Origin of Species” yet, but I do own a copy and the contents do not match up. Specifically, Ray seems to have cut Chapters 9 “On the Imperfections of the Geological Record,” 11 “Geographical Distribution,” 12 “Geographical Distribution Continued,” and 13 “Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings; Morphology; Embryology; Rudimentary Organs.”

Check the pdf again, its all there...once again, before putting your opinions out here for the world to see...explore all perspectives. Seriously, how many of you are scientists and are completely refuting these 50 pages and have not even read them. Now how many have you taken time to read through these posts looking for people to argue. I'll say I have, but I've explored both sides, and read it first. This display of ignorance is just baffling to me, coming from so many "educated" people. Not Cristina, i saw no education in the video, just a flamer. I will also bet my new PDF copy of On the Origin of Species that she didn't read it either.

Posted by: timothy.green.name | November 5, 2010 8:45 PM

Wandering through the archives this time on a computer which does have sound, I came across this again and watched it. It is truly rather wonderful. Brilliant stuff.

I've subscribed to her YouTube channel.

TRiG.