Now appearing on the Non-Prophets : Pharyngula

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

Possession of books denounced as heretical was made a criminal offense. Copies of such books were burned and destroyed. But in Upper Egypt, someone, possibly a monk from a nearby monastery of St Pachomius, took the banned books and hid them from destruction — in the jar where they remained buried for almost 1,600 years.

Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, (New York: Vintage, 1989), pp. xviii-xix.

A Taste of Pharyngula

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« Gosh, I think I've got a new desktop picture | Main | Equality everywhere for everyone »

More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!

Now appearing on the Non-Prophets

Category: Personal
Posted on: October 10, 2009 3:02 PM, by PZ Myers

I'm about to do a live podcast with Matt Dillahuntey — tune in if you'd like, or catch it later.

Jump to end

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/121995

Comments

Posted by: teachingsapiens.wordpress.com | October 10, 2009 3:15 PM

Listening now. Have been working my way through the archives for the last month.

Robert B / @RobsterFCD

Posted by: bathtubnz | October 10, 2009 4:09 PM

Ray's NEW Origin of Species.

http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf

This is NOT the one everyone saw a month ago. He re-wrote the intro and it now includes the full text of the Origin of Species.

This is the one he has ordered 175,000 copies to give away at universities.

Posted by: Shamar | October 10, 2009 4:56 PM

ACA member here, looking forward to the podcast (didn't catch it live cuz I'm watching the Aggies BTHO OSU)

Posted by: Flea | October 10, 2009 5:06 PM

Bathtubnz @2: Are the changes significant, or just the usual raytard babble amplified?

Posted by: bathtubnz | October 10, 2009 7:12 PM

Quite significant, he definitely seems to have aquired a better editor.

It's full of the same crap, it's just written a whole lot more professionally.

Posted by: JackC | October 10, 2009 7:22 PM

PZ - They are absolutely right - when you are in Austin, get them to take you to Esther's Follies. Definitely worth the time.

Posted by: lpetrich | October 10, 2009 8:57 PM

In a recent *People* interview, which you can find online, Kirk Cameron called the *Origin of Species* "The Bible of the atheists".

Yes, he thinks that he can debunk atheism by debunking that supposed atheist sacred book. He seems to think that atheists worship that book, just like his worshipping the Bible.

Posted by: Mike Wagner | October 10, 2009 9:48 PM

I just heard the terms macro- and micro- evolution used in the show...

Isn't the separation of evolution into these two concepts a creationist method of weakening the overall process in the eyes of the public?

Posted by: Shamar | October 10, 2009 9:55 PM

@ JackC:
Yes, I went to see Esther's Follies with Matt Dillahunty and the rest of the ACA after the Bat Cruise last month, and it's a good show, funny as hell. It's definitely worth the money.
:-)

#10

Posted by: Tony | October 10, 2009 10:40 PM

Matt Dillahunty Matt Matt Dillahunty...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi56zI9uGaw

#11

Posted by: formosus | October 10, 2009 11:06 PM

@Robert B - It will take you quite some time to work all the way through the archives. I did it, but it took at least six months.

They put on a good show. And today's was pretty good to.

#12

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | October 10, 2009 11:37 PM

Mike Wagner:

That was my understanding, yes, and one that Richard Dawkins spends a great deal of time refuting in The Greatest Show on Earth. The constant repetition of the gradualness of evolution gets a tiny bit old, but that's somewhat justified. I mean, most people who don't already accept evolution will ignore anything more subtle than a sledgehammer to the skull.

#13

Posted by: sqlrob | October 10, 2009 11:41 PM

I second / third / whatever Ester's Follies.

If you can get a chance, go to the Bracken Bat Cave. It's private, but there's occasional tours. World's largest bat cave, very impressive.

Alamo Drafthouse if you want to catch a movie. The way movies should be done.

I didn't listen to the 'cast, when's PZ coming to Austin?

#14

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | October 11, 2009 1:53 AM

Re: The new "Origin of Species": No surprise here. To read the document that Ray Comfort blatantly plagiarized into his introduction, check out A Brief History of Charles Darwin. This document is, of course, never cited anywhere in Comfort's book. He cites several letters, but claims to have read them in a book about Darwin. Considering that most of his sources are web links... I think he just got this from the web.

The page says "Text by Dr. Stan Guffey, Lecturer in the Division of Biology, Univ. TN Knoxville." So how do we go about contacting Dr. Guffey?

Comfort's first original words don't appear until page 5. But that doesn't last long, because soon enough he's back to paraphrasing stuff from Wikipedia (here - look at the paragraph above where I link to) and almost verbatim from AboutDarwin.com (Who Was Darwin - the last few sentences under "What were Darwin's religious views?").

I'd say that maybe 15% of Ray's introduction is actually his work. How predictably pathetic and dishonest.

He also lied about removing the bits about Darwin being a racist, a misogynist, and the inspiration for Hitler. They're still absolutely there, starting on page 31.

If I've overlooked a reference, I apologize, though I doubt I have.

#15

Posted by: boygenius | October 11, 2009 2:18 AM

My favorite quote from the interview:

We want to have an open admission policy. We want to welcome everybody. At the same time, we have to make it clear that the price of admission is that we will flay you alive if you say something stupid.

Classic.

#16

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 11, 2009 9:08 AM

I just heard the terms macro- and micro- evolution used in the show...

Isn't the separation of evolution into these two concepts a creationist method of weakening the overall process in the eyes of the public? - Mike Wagner

I don't think so, although many here appear to. A number of evolutionary theorists, notably S.J. Gould, have proposed that different mechanisms become important at different timescales, and "changescales", to coin a word. Of course, creationists have latched onto this and misrepresented it.

#17

Posted by: PaulBurnett | October 11, 2009 9:22 AM

"JackC" (#6) wrote: "...when you are in Austin, get them to take you to Esther's Follies."

Esther's Follies ( http://www.esthersfollies.com/ ) is Austin's cheap imitation of San Francisco's "Beach Blanket Babylon" ( http://www.beachblanketbabylon.com/ ). Recommended.

#18

Posted by: bobpurinton | October 12, 2009 1:43 AM

He invited you to call in to his radio show so he could listen to himself talk. Ho hum.

#19

Posted by: Neorice | October 12, 2009 3:36 AM

@Mike Wagner:

As far as I know the terms actually do have a form of use in actual science it's not one of thoes terms that's roughly as misplaced as "Darwinist" tends to be.

The terms Microevolution and Macroevolution simply describe different stages of evolution [Mostly described as observable within a few generations [micro] and observable as key changes between species [macro].

Though these terms are at most meant to be convenient labels, definition-wise there's absolutely nothing that indicates that they're different processes.

Macroevolution is by definition microevolution after much much more time, and not a seperate entity.

I will add that considering creationists have latched onto these two terms in the way they did the terms may seem to be pure creationist lingo though, but it seems to be one of the more uncommon cases where there origins of the terms don't appear to be from creationists.

#20

Posted by: Drew | October 16, 2009 8:22 PM

I've uploaded part of this Non-Prophets episode to youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua4TB0S9buk