Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 16, 2009 4:54 PM

Funny, we slaughter them, and they continue telling the same boring lies that they always did.

Does Bergman really like admitting that he's a stumbling incoherent zombie?

It's a reasonably close description, I know, except that they can mouth their lies adequately.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: jolly wahlstrom | October 16, 2009 4:57 PM

"Jerry Bergman was denied tenure and subjected to a hostile work environment at Bowling Green University for his beliefs, despite being the most productive member of his department and most popular teacher."
I am not of the world of academics but how is one judged to be the most 'productive' member?

Posted by: JackC | October 16, 2009 4:58 PM

Should "Intelligent Design" be taught in schools?

Perhaps yes - in Mythology, or maybe the Debate Team meetings. Or maybe in an English class on Fiction. Of course, you knew all that already.

JC

Posted by: Physicalist | October 16, 2009 5:04 PM

Bergman's book seems to be published with a press called "Leafcutter."

Google knows not of a "Leafcutter Press".

Self-published books impress me so!

Posted by: Elwood Herring | October 16, 2009 5:06 PM

I'm currently at 30 degrees. Must get this chair fixed.

Posted by: JohnW | October 16, 2009 5:07 PM

Dr. Myers website, www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, is a focal point for those who oppose intelligent design theory.

Last time I checked, the core concept of ID was "At some time in the past, for some reason, something unknown went *poof*". I'm glad the Discovery Institute's crack team of researchers has progressed beyond this stage, and come up with a robust, testable...

What? Oh.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 16, 2009 5:10 PM

He's now completing his 9th degree. Furthermore he has over 600 publications and 100 scientific papers! Just admit your defeat now, PZ, and spare us the embaressment.

Refresh us on the number of degrees and/or papers written that turns ridiculous lies into demonstrable truths.

Granted that oral debates allows for large piles of ordure to be excreted by the IDiots, actual thinkers won't be fooled.

Still leaves plenty of marks for the charlatans, I know, but I still fail to understand how degrees make up for evidence. Oh, that's right, that's the DI's entire strategy, pay credentialed but honesty-deficient people to shovel shit out as fast as possible.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 16, 2009 5:14 PM

Jerry Bergman was denied tenure and subjected to a hostile work environment at Bowling Green University for his beliefs, despite being the most productive member of his department and most popular teacher.

Why do I get the feeling that PZ is being set up?

Posted by: Eetto | October 16, 2009 5:17 PM

Off topic, Apologies, just mentioning this here poll on assisted dying: http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2009/10/14/joffe/

Posted by: daveau | October 16, 2009 5:18 PM

...did you know he has nine degrees?

10 if you count kindergarten.

Posted by: Brock | October 16, 2009 5:18 PM

Hey, nobody mentioned before that this Bergman turd was from Ohio. And "Bowling Green University" (I assume that's BGSU) rejected his bid for tenure? That's awesome. I used to have friends there and hang out on the campus a lot. The school's got plenty of weirdos but I'm glad they have some scruples when it comes to science.

And he was a popular teacher? Maybe that's because NOT requiring your students to actually understand science can make for a VERY easy class :p

Posted by: Nils Ruhr | October 16, 2009 5:20 PM

@Glen Davidson:

Author of over 600 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs / Contributor to dozens of textbooks / Consultant for over 20 science text books, mostly biology and biochemistry

Presented over 100 scientific papers at professional and community meetings in the United States, Canada, and Europe / Featured speaker on many college campuses throughout the United States and Europe, and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/bergman-j.html

I predict that Dr. Bergman will wipe the floor with PZ's beard.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | October 16, 2009 5:28 PM

All I can say is that there better be well defined talking points and strict rules. That is the only way to come out ahead in these kinds of debates. If you let the bozo run roughshod over complex topics (of his choosing) you'll spend the entire debate simply trying to correct him and look like your bungling the issues.

On second thought, be respectful, accommodating, and polite. Surely Mr. 9-Degrees (with a persecution complex) is there for an open and honest exchange of ideas.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 16, 2009 5:29 PM

Hold it, Ruhr's not fake?

Posted by: DJM | October 16, 2009 5:29 PM

check out Bergman's page at Ken Ham's asylum:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp

Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 16, 2009 5:33 PM

Further to #22: It was religious discrimination, except when he complains (in David Duke's newsletter!) that it was reverse racism.

Posted by: Zeno | October 16, 2009 5:37 PM

he always leaves one little word out of his affiliation at Northwest State Community College

He is obviously ashamed at being at a "junior" college, but dropping "Community" from his college's name just draws attention to it. He is obviously too stupid to teach at the college level (or any level). I wouldn't want him as a colleague at my junior college.

It's fascinating to see how creationists fetishize their degrees. They confuse academic credentials with qualifications. It's not the number of degrees, it's what you do with them. I'll bet the bulk of his published papers (are they published?) are trash.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | October 16, 2009 5:38 PM

I think the very first question to each person should be something like:

"What realistic (read: reality-based; no woo) material-evidence or demonstration would cause you to change your position regarding the legitimacy of ID/Evolution?"

Posted by: daveau | October 16, 2009 5:41 PM

#34

Oh for pete's sake. It doesn't matter what PZ is known for in popular culture. The fact remains that he is a actual respected scientist who can comprehend and follow the scientific method.

Does toilet training count as yet another degree?

Posted by: Nils Ruhr | October 16, 2009 5:44 PM

Regarding the "fake" accusation. I couldn't care less... I've contributed to PT citicising Carl Zimmer and Dr. Behe (subsequently one of my postings was censored by the PT SS). Also a posting of mine at Antievolution was nominated for POTW (I was making fun of Dr. Dembski's book).

Yeah, a fake. *rolleyes*

Posted by: mothra | October 16, 2009 5:44 PM

The real problem is simply that a creationist wacko is being given equal(?) time and stature with a scientist/teacher, presenting a false impression of equality. A secondary problem is that snake oil salesmen are by definition 'slick' such that the tripe he pedals will look good to many of his audiance. Finally, if Bergman is one of those walking encyclopedia types (factoids forever- no knowledge) he can 'win' a debate just because conscientious scientists (such as PZ) will be taken aback by the sheer volume of BS.

Posted by: E.V. | October 16, 2009 5:45 PM

I am not of the world of academics but how is one judged to be the most 'productive' member?

They do understand that popularity has little or nothing nothing to do with being competent or even knowledgeable, right? Some of the most charming popular people I know are flagrant bullshitters and flatterers. One can be well educated and popular of course - I'm not suggesting they're exclusive terms yet scientific truth and Creationism are.

Posted by: hanna | October 16, 2009 5:47 PM

If you want to amuse yourself, you can check out his CV, and see all those publications for yourself. It's at:

http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/08/14/bergmans-cv-and-publications/

The 700 publications list includes articles on the internet (guess which kinds of sites?) and, I am not kidding, letters to editors ("that have resulted in consulting, speaking or other responses." The first one is called "Classic Cars.")

Most of the sciency ones are published in journals with words like "Creation" or "Christian" in the title, or things like "The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation"--you have to go to their site to discover that they're actually about "Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith". Or "Technical Journal" which apparently is now called "Journal of Creation".

I'm not a biologist, so I don't know what journals to be looking for, and also I probably shouldn't actually be procrastinating _so_ much to be thorough about this, but looking over it, I sure couldn't find any examples of bio papers being published in real (ie non-creationist) bio journals.

He did have a paper back in the seventies called “The Term Ms.: Does it Impede or Facilitate Communication?” I really wanna know what his answer is.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 16, 2009 5:49 PM

it'd be sad if that actually reflected the intellectual majority down there.

Don't worry, it's an online poll. It's as meaningful as American Idol voting.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 16, 2009 5:50 PM

Eamon Knight #33, that hurt my eyes!

It has been found that educated blacks now actually begin with a higher starting salary than whites. The writer interviewed a colleague of his at a small college and asked why there were no blacks on the cafulty. He answered that, as a small college, they simply could not afford to pay the salaries blacks demanded. They have repeatedly tried to recruit blacks, but most can obtain a far higher salary elsewhere, so go elsewhere.

Another case was when the writer was employed at a small college. At the same time he was hired, a black was hired in the same department. This man had a master's degree, but hadn't published and had no teaching experience. The writer had a decade of teaching experience, over 230 published articles, and the equivalent of three Ph.D.'s, and was formally completing his second Ph.D. at the time. Because of a severe decline in enrollment, it was decided that one of the persons hired in the writer's department should be let go. Needless to say, the writer was let go instead of his black colleague who was far less qualified. -Bergman

Posted by: Dahan | October 16, 2009 5:55 PM

Woot! I'm so there. Now, gotta think up my question...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 16, 2009 5:57 PM

Even though he wrote that in 1985, it fits right in to the rise of racism we are seeing in the U.S.A. today.

Even among some of our own commenters.

Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 16, 2009 5:58 PM

When I went on that creationist site I saw the announcement about the "Worldview Weekend Rally" in St. Paul, at North Heights Lutheran Church (one I attended for a while back in the 80s and I cannot BELIEVE they've sunk this low).

Got a ticket to go...it's free. These are the most loathsome organisms on the planet, truly. Not just deranged and dangerous, but also fiercely proud of the fact. Irremediable.

Check out their stuff. If you thought the rabid theocracy-pimpers had slunk quietly away after the last election, think again. They gather in their fetid circle-jerks plotting revenge.

I don't know whether to go as an anthropologist on Mars, or an agent provocateur. If anything interesting happens (they have a "defeating Darwinism" program), I'll try to comment on it next week.

Hold your friends close and your enemies closer.

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | October 16, 2009 6:05 PM

Hanna> That wasn't something to read while eating...

I do know what journals to look for, and they aren't there. In fact, a couple hundred of his "publications" are book reviews.
I can't speak for others, but I don't put conference presentations on my CV because the idea is then to publish what you presented in something peer reviewed. That, and going ABD (all but dissertation) or less in 2 programmes doesn't speak for academic ability.

and Bergman, if you read these, you pretentious douche, I outscored your GREs by a fair amount, as have others, and we don't feel the need to put that or a MENSA membership on our CV.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 16, 2009 6:08 PM

My prediction is derived from the fact that PZ is more known for being a village atheist than doing actual sciene. Dr. Bergman on the other hand has nine degrees (some of them are biology related!) and a vast amout of scientific work behind him.

The odds are against PZ.

My prediction is derived from the fact that Ruhr is more known for being a village troll than doing actual statistics. I, on the other hand, majored in Mathematics (some of my classes were even Statistics!) and have a vast amount of poker playing behind me.

I place the odds firmly against Ruhr's prediction.

Posted by: Gordy | October 16, 2009 6:14 PM

Diochs #22 > Thanks for the link. It's interesting to compare:

"Jerry Bergman was denied tenure and subjected to a hostile work environment at Bowling Green University for his beliefs, despite being the most productive member of his department and most popular teacher."

with

"He made the factual finding that the faculty members had based their decision on "concerns regarding [plaintiff's] ethics, teaching, quality of publications and relevance of publications to his teaching area," J.App. 27, and not on inappropriate considerations of plaintiff's religion."

For anyone who hasn't already, it's worth reading the whole thing:
http://openjurist.org/820/f2d/1224/gerald-r-bergman-phd-v-bowling-green-state-university-et-al

Posted by: Gordy | October 16, 2009 6:29 PM

And this classic:

820 F2d 1224 Gerald R. Bergman, Ph.d., v. Bowling Green State University et al. (para. 45)

"Dr. Wiersma indicated difficulty in documenting the actual existence of plaintiff's books."

lol

http://openjurist.org/820/f2d/1224/gerald-r-bergman-phd-v-bowling-green-state-university-et-al

Posted by: James F | October 16, 2009 6:31 PM

#34

The odds are against PZ.

Percentage of data supporting evolution in peer-reviewed scientific research papers: 100
Percentage of data supporting ID in peer-reviewed scientific research papers: 0

How are the odds against PZ? His opponent's argument is: "Complexity, therefore design!"

Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords | October 16, 2009 6:32 PM

That "biography" could've come from an old National Lampoon!

Somehow, my favorite line (and no disrespect to the City of Toledo, Ohio) was his degree from the "Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio".
That's BEAUTIFUL!!!!! Like a "found" poem echoing Gertrude Stein!!!!!

It's hard to imagine that anyone living in the USA would do anything but laugh, or if incredibly polite cough into their perfumed handkerchief. But real people actually talk about the accomplishments of Sarah Palin, without irony, and "honestly" claim she is ideal material for the Presidency.

Oh, and PZ? Don't be upset about them spelling your name wrong. In "Rocky I" the cynical promoter got the colors of Rocky's trunks wrong as well.

Posted by: Chayanov | October 16, 2009 6:38 PM

The district court found that one concern of the tenured faculty was plaintiff's ethics. For instance, Dr. Davidson testified that plaintiff's misrepresentation of himself was the reason for the denial of tenure. He stated that Dr. Bergman said he was a psychologist when he had no psychological credentials. Dr. Wiersma indicated difficulty in documenting the actual existence of plaintiff's books. Plaintiff argues that any such allegations of misconduct can be disproved by him. Nevertheless, the evidence reveals that the tenured faculty members were genuinely concerned about plaintiff's ethics and that their confusion over his actual qualifications was premised on the difficulty in verifying his vita.

Big surprise.

Posted by: SWH | October 16, 2009 6:42 PM

Northwestern State lists Bergman as having a PhD from Wayne State (a real institution with credibility) however the history says he studied for a PhD there and it was awarded from the now discredited degree mill. This made me a little curious, so I ran a pubmed search and found a few references - mostly (n=6) in Rivista di biologia (hadn't heard of it and am scared to look up it's impact factor in case it's actually positive!) However the titles hardly make one think of science: The history of hesperopithecus: the human-ape link that turned out to be a pig. Rivista di biologia 2006;99:287-306, or A history of the Piltdown hoax. Rivista di biologia 2003;96:457-84. There were two middle author publications from 2000/1 on lung cancer in a mouse model which may be the same guy.

For those outside of academic science, a very few people have publications numbering in the high hundreds - in most cases because they have directed large institutes and get their name on things essentially as a courtesy. In my own case it took 20 years to reach 100, and that was working at it full time, with none of that distracting teaching to worry about. At least they are in real journals! I think we are (mostly) agreed that there is the potential for PZ to have some fun with this - wish I could be there.

Posted by: Sastra | October 16, 2009 6:55 PM

James F #69 wrote:

How are the odds against PZ? His opponent's argument is: "Complexity, therefore design!"

Now, see here, this is how we can get complacent, and underestimate an opponent -- to our detriment.

Bergman's argument is not "Complexity, therefore design." This would indeed be simple, and easy to refute. There is no point, however, in refuting strawmen. The depth, breadth, and rich subtlety of his argument is really as follows:

Complexity
COMPLEXITY

COMPLEXITY

COMPLEXITY

COMPLEXITY

COMPLEXITY!!!!!11!!1!

Design.

That's going to take some work. PZ better start preparing.

Posted by: MGG | October 16, 2009 7:00 PM

"come on, there's absolutely no shame in that — smart people go to and work at community colleges all over the country"

I can second that. I have an AA from one and I found the work comparable to the university I transferred to (actually, I think I wrote more papers at the community college). The biggest difference other than the scope of classes available was the classes were smaller and cheaper.

Posted by: Corey S | October 16, 2009 7:17 PM

A question I would ask Mr. Bergman is whether an intelligent designer would include aliens who cloned us or any other god besides the Judeo-Christian god.

Posted by: Victor | October 16, 2009 7:27 PM

PZ Myers vs "The guy that goes to class a LOT but apparently never learned anything"

Posted by: Raiko | October 16, 2009 7:41 PM

Why was he really denied tenure, though? I'd love to hear.

Posted by: Slaughter | October 16, 2009 7:50 PM

I'll have to skip my neighborhood watch meeting Wednesday night for this: Learn more about the relationship between science and religion when Arizona State University's West campus presents “Science and Faith: An Evening with Paul Davies” at 6:30 Wednesday night. Davies, a physicist and ASU professor, will discuss the influence of Darwin on religion and science with Owen Anderson, a New College professor. The talk will include questions about the use of data and the methods used by physicists to study the origin of the universe. Audience questions will be welcomed. The free event is in the Sands Kiva Lecture Hall on the campus, 4701 W. Thunderbird Road, Phoenix. (Me, I'd like to see a biologist instead of a physicist, but ...).

Posted by: Aquaria | October 16, 2009 8:05 PM

A question I would ask Mr. Bergman is whether an intelligent designer would include aliens who cloned us or any other god besides the Judeo-Christian god.

This would work if there weren't so many Liars for Jebus. They'd say yes, and think, like an infamous dungeon occupant here did, that they're telling the truth because all gods = Jebus. To them, anyway. You have to make them say that they will accept a specific deity, one that clearly varies from theirs in some big ways. I usually just ask them if by Creator they mean Vishnu. He's different enough from the Hebrew Psychopath and his Sociopathic Spawn that they usually have a hard time agreeing that he'll do as the ultimate creator. Thor works. And so does Zeus. But Vishnu really drives in the knife, maybe because so many people continue to worship him. Tack on some Bhagavad Gita (I'm partial to "I am the creation and the annihilation, the basis of everything, the resting place and the eternal seed."), and the average fundie will run away screaming.

And another benefit to buttonholing them on a specific deity is that old "no other gods before me" problem they have. It's a catch-22 for them. Answer that Vishnu would be acceptable, and they're in trouble for no other gods. Answer that Vishnu can't be the one, and they're starting to show that they have specific designer in mind, and it won't take much longer to show that it's Hebrew Psycopath.

Posted by: Lynn David | October 16, 2009 8:17 PM

Gee... I only count 4 degrees. And certainily not counting the Associate in Arts degree in Biology and Behavioral Science, from Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in 1967, he has:

1] BSc from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan in 1970 where he had majors in sociology, biology, and psychology.

2] M.Ed. from Wayne State University in counseling and psychology in 1971 and studied for a PhD in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology from Wayne State.

3] M.A. in social psychology from Bowling Green State University in 1986.

4] Ph.D. in human biology, from Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California in 1992. -- giving him the benefit of the doubt here.

The idea of counting a degree for every major is likely a falsehood. I had majors in Mathematics and Geology when I received my B.S. from Indiana State, but I didn't get more than one degree. Psychology seems to be his main pursuit in his undergrad program (based upon later work) and his biology major seem to be 'tack-ons' in which he only completed the minimum for the major.

Anyone who would inflate his degrees like that is simply trying to hide his lack of real work. Could it be if one actually looked at his academic record that what Bergman calls a major - biology - was nothing more than a minor?

Posted by: Lynn David | October 16, 2009 8:22 PM

Whoops.... missed the other degrees... nevermind.

Posted by: Sastra | October 16, 2009 8:28 PM

complicated nick #95 wrote:

"a new understanding of evolution as a process is
already beginning to form..."

Care to expand?

Posted by: andrew | October 16, 2009 8:37 PM

I object to the term "Darwin Doubter". Why aren't their any "Newton Doubters" or "Galileo Doubters"? Because... that would be silly...

I also object to the term evolutionist. Let's call them fallicites or maybe just jesusists!

Posted by: Sastra | October 16, 2009 8:42 PM

...Trashtalk #97 wrote:

There you have it."

Well, not really. I wanted to hear something more about the "new understanding of evolution as a process." The quote you gave is just more complaining about people getting it wrong.

Could you paraphrase the basic point or points of the new process, in your own words?

Posted by: Peggesis | October 16, 2009 8:49 PM

I see that Jerry Bergman is listed as an instructor in the Arts & Sciences department at his community college. He's also the faculty advisor for the school's debate team. I guess he'll depend on using debate team strategies much more than any scientific knowledge he might possess.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 16, 2009 9:03 PM

Is dumbfuck chuck (wagner) back in the guise of "trash talk"?

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | October 16, 2009 9:07 PM

Trash talk does have that unmistakable air about him, doesn't he? Open a window, someone.

Posted by: Sastra | October 16, 2009 9:17 PM

Trashtalk #109 wrote:

We don't understand the process yet.
As I said, "it's beginning to form."

Beginning to form how? While they might not know the entire process, surely they're starting off with some basic idea, some supportive evidence. It's supposed to be a scientific abstract, isn't it?

Paraphrase it, please, as best you understand it.

Posted by: Susan | October 16, 2009 9:26 PM

spare us the embaressment.

Posted by: sidhe1 | October 16, 2009 10:04 PM

Slaughter @ 87--Is that this coming Wednesday, 10/21? I couldn't find it on the ASU West event calendar. I would love to go to that! Thanks!

Posted by: SquidBrandon | October 16, 2009 10:16 PM

Re:TrashTalk @ No.95

You do realize the final 3 sentences of the paper from MMBR you quote read as follows (emphasis is mine):

Biological organization will never be understood except as the expression of an underlying evolutionary process. As biology becomes a science in the true meaning of the word, it must become self-conscious of the structure of the only theoretical foundation that can unify our understanding of it: the evolutionary process. Only in this way will biology ever become more than a disconnected collection of facts.

The article itself seems to be commentary on the history of how the disciplines of microbiology and molecular biology, who were fairly stagnant in isolation of each other, converged and flourished using evolution as a unifying principle.

What point are you trying to make exactly?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 16, 2009 10:22 PM

But at least the "hoops of steel" described by SJG are beginning to become unbound and we are being freed from the "prison of thought" imposed by neo-darwinism

Posted by: Roger Scott | October 16, 2009 10:35 PM

Nine degrees? This reminds me of the late Dr Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, a British biochemist. He was touted by a creationist pamphlet that circulated about 25 years ago at the high school where I taught as having "three doctorate degrees in advanced science". (I kept a copy.) "A fascinating and convincing authority on why Creation makes more sense than Evolution (sic)".
We actually had Ken Ham (only one actual degree AFAIK) give a talk to the entire year 12 student cohort. He got himself invited somehow. I was one of the supervisors.
It was my introduction to creationism. I was astounded to hear him claim that evolution was ruled out by the second law. I told him that if his interpretation was correct, rain would be impossible and that his interpretation was wrong. To my slightly embarrassed delight, I was given a round of applause by the vast majority of students present. I taught for another 20 odd years and never got another one. Such is life.

Posted by: Shamac | October 16, 2009 10:44 PM

Am I the only one who got a giggle out of the corny graphic they used?

Posted by: James F | October 16, 2009 10:56 PM

#126

That is really begging to be photoshopped, isn't it?

Posted by: Monado, FCD | October 16, 2009 11:17 PM

Leafcutter Press seems to be one ID proponent:

Seattle area writer and Darwin Skeptic Kevin Wirth, a founding member of ARN, formerly Students for Origins Research. He is also senior editor, contributor, and publisher of "The Shocking Truth (etc.)"... He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor.

-- By Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

He works for ARN, "Access Research Network," pumping out ID propaganda. The Bay of Fundie has their number: [Jerry Bergman:] "From Pulitzer Prize to Creationist Mouthpiece in Five Short Years."

Posted by: Doug Little | October 16, 2009 11:59 PM

Monado, That link was great....

Holy shit, this guys like the perfect storm. Better be careful PZ he could very well impale you with his persecution complex. We need video of this it is going to be epic... Did you research this guy before you accepted, he is one grade A whiny loser.

The scientists are against me waahhhhhhh
The universities are against me Waahhhhh
The courts are against me wwaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh
The textbooks are against me Waaaahhhhhhhh
I am a member of MENSA waaaahhhhhhh
I demand that you respect my beliefs wwwaaahhhhhhhhhhhh

What were those odds again...

Posted by: llewelly | October 17, 2009 12:17 AM

Funny, we slaughter them, and they continue telling the same boring lies that they always did.

Posted by: F | October 17, 2009 12:36 AM

Re: Monado FCD
"[Jerry Bergman:] "From Pulitzer Prize to Creationist Mouthpiece in Five Short Years"

"Coping error" is far too bi-hilarious.

Posted by: Mike B. | October 17, 2009 12:49 AM

Wow - this Jerry Bergman guy is fascinating. He seems to have been constantly earning degree after degree since the mid 80's, and also seems to have a penchant for being listed in various "Who's Who" books (which basically just means he sends them money when the boiler plate "congratulations" letter arrives from them).

I wonder what he's trying to prove, and to whom?

Posted by: Aquaria | October 17, 2009 1:11 AM

My 131 was in case they fundie nitwits were still lurking, but shivering in their ugly little shoes.

Fucking cowards.

Say it here, you cretins.

Posted by: Slaughter | October 17, 2009 1:32 AM

Sidher: Sorry (of all things to leave off). Yes, this Wednesday, the 21st.

Posted by: Steven Sullivan | October 17, 2009 2:29 AM

re: Rivista di biologia - it's a go-to journal for cranks and 'skeptics' of mainstream science. Rupert Sheldrake and Richard Sternberg have published there. Most definitely *not* a high-impact journal among biologists.

more here:

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/02/revisiting_rivista.php

Posted by: Muzz | October 17, 2009 3:31 AM

I can't believe you got this far down the thread and no one posted this yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvufFwdqMzg

You were all posting useful discussion or something I suppose.

Posted by: Shirakawasuna | October 17, 2009 4:08 AM

Hahahahaha, "Who's Who" is part of the wiki's credentials on him.

Posted by: ihedenius | October 17, 2009 5:29 AM

I think it's a bad idea to 'debate' creationists if coming from a platform of real science (like PZ).

Posted by: GS | October 17, 2009 6:11 AM

Off: Methodists want to ban a familiy halloween party organised by the city of Derry. There is a counter petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/satanic_rights/index.html
Also in Leicestershire UK, some nuts are warning families not to let their kids trick or treat, because this means siding with the devil, so they'll go to hell: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6339173/Children-will-go-to-hell-if-they-celebrate-Halloween-says-church-leaflet.html

Posted by: KevinC | October 17, 2009 6:45 AM

It doesn't matter how much this guy pads his CV. PZ is God's Science Adviser. There's just no way to top that. And he's also a well-known Dinosaur Cowboy and Desecrator of the Host.

However, despite this guy's Cracker Jack academic pedigree and the patent silliness of his ideas, he* does go into this debate with some serious inherent advantages.

(*Male pronouns used here because both debaters are male)

1. "Somebody did it by magic" is always going to seem simpler and more parsimonious than any naturalistic hypothesis of abiogenesis or evolutionary mechanisms for the formation of bacterial flagella, eyes, and whatnot.

2. "Somebody did it by magic" fits easily in a sound-bite and a 4 year-old can intuitively "understand" it.* In a timed "debate" situation this is a powerful advantage. The IDiot can just say "the Designer did it," and then go on the offensive with Gish Gallops. His own "model" seems to be neatly and succinctly explained, while the evolutionary scientist is kept busy playing whack-a-mole and trying to explain something like how HOX genes operate in speciation in five minutes.

*Consider the fact that the movie Cinderella actually makes sense to kids watching it the first time, instead of generating incredulous rejection as soon as the Fairy Godmother shows up. The apparent human tendency to "magical thinking" etc..

3. Since there's no actual data or theoretical underpinnings behind "Somebody did it by magic," the IDiot starts out with no turf to defend. He can count on every church pastor and Sunday School teacher to have done the ground work for him in conditioning the minds of his audience to consciously or subliminally assume that "Designer" = "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." If PZ attacks "God," then the IDiot can simply withdraw into the bushes and say "Oh, we're not talking about any specific Deity, wink wink nudge nudge grin grin, knowwhatImean." Relieved of any burden to actually defend the Christian deity, the IDiot is free to fight on the turf of evolutionary science with Gish Gallops, and he cannot be Galloped in return (but see below).

4. Science is not an ideology, and scientists do not approach their work with a "win at any cost" modus operandi. Such an approach is antithetical to the scientific method, which is designed to test models against nature rather than evangelize for a pet model. ID is an ideology, and its goal is not to learn facts about external reality, but to win converts. This means the IDiot has a whole arsenal of con-man tricks, logical fallacies, and manipulative ploys the scientist can't (and doesn't want to) use. It's a "debate" in which one side gets to use a club.

5. ID gives the impression of being able to "answer" all questions by invoking the Designer of the Gaps. Since ID has no nagging unanswered questions, it "feels" more complete and solid.

I think a scientist going into a debate with an IDiot like this has to have a strategy designed *snicker* to counter these advantages, rather than just hoping to educate people about science. Trying to do the latter just gets the scientist Gish Galloped. I've never done one of these public debates and you (PZ) have, so you're welcome to take or reject the following tactical advice as you see fit:

1. Always use the plural "Designers" and "They"
The entire ID enterprise depends on the IDiot's ability to cash in on "Deep Christianity." By "Deep Christianity," I mean cultural Christian memes that pretty much everybody accepts, consciously or unconsciously, such as the idea that "God" automatically refers to a single, monotheistic Christian-like deity, and likewise for "Designer."

The IDiot knows that if he can persuade people to accept the possibility of "a Designer," that most people's minds will automatically translate that to "the God people talk about in church." Referring to "Designers" plural jars the minds of the audience out of the well-plowed rut of monotheism. This places the IDiot in the position of either having to argue for monotheism (which automatically triggers the Establishment Clause and loses him the debate) or let the possibility of multiple Designers go unanswered, which subverts his subversive agenda.

Since there is no way to tell how many Designers might have been involved in the creation of a bacterial flagellum even if it did show unmistakable signs of having been engineered, the IDiot's seemingly parsimonious explanation becomes less so. Instead of "Somebody (and we all know Who) did it by magic," it becomes "Unknown agencies of unknown number did it by magic or other unknown means." Plural "Designers" can mean anything from "gods" to "aliens" to "djinn" or "incredibly advanced artificial intelligences from a parallel universe." The "Designer = God" equation is broken, and suddenly the IDiot has a lot more work to do.

Plus it will probably drive him nuts, which can't be anything but good. :)

2. As much as possible, fight on his turf.
Start out making the point that if a model cannot specify its proposed central explanatory mechanism to the point that equations can be written and experiments or observations performed to test its predictions, then it's as if nothing has been said.

The IDiot should be pressed to specify exactly how his proposed explanatory mechanism is supposed to do things like craft protein molecules or bacterial flagella. Pepper him with questions.

"Are the Designers from this Cosmos or one that operates under similar generalized principles? If 'yes,' then your hypothesis explains nothing. The Designers would need Designer-Designers. If 'no' then: A) You're telling us it's possible for intelligent life to exist in more than one type of Cosmos/Dimension/Whatever, so all arguments from 'fine-tuning' go out the window; B)How would Designers from a significantly different sort of Cosmos design something that could work in a Cosmos like ours which is wholly alien to them? Try designing a clock that works in a Cosmos where pi = 5.2698014...."

"If the Designers live in some other Cosmos/Dimension/Plane/Whatever, how do they cross the barrier between that place and this Cosmos? Show your work, with the necessary equations and explaining how they are compatible with what we know about physics. If the generalized principles of their Cosmos/Dimension/Plane/Whatever are different from ours, explain how they are able to act within our Cosmos. Show your work with equations..."

"Do you claim that the Designers you think are responsible for complex proteins, flagella, etc. also designed our Cosmos? What is your evidence for this conclusion? If we find a crayon drawing on a living room wall, the creator of that drawing is not necessarily the architect who designed the house."

"Since we have no way of demonstrating that the Designers of a protein molecule (assuming you could demonstrate that it was designed to begin with) are the same ones responsible for the Cosmos as a whole (assuming you could demonstrate that the Cosmos was designed), there is no way to demonstrate that the Cosmos was designed "so that bacterial flagella could exist."

"If you believe the Cosmos was designed, exactly how much leeway did the Designers have? Could they have made the Cosmos any way they liked, or were they constrained to some limited set of choices? For example, could they have designed the Cosmos to be like a sponge, with a space-filling habitat whose entire surface area could support human life?"

"Form follows function: since virtually all of the Cosmos would be instantly fatal to a human being transported there without any special protection, then if this Cosmos was designed, either: A) It was not designed "for humans" any more than the LHC was designed "for bacteria" who live on its walls; B) The Designers are enormously inefficient and inelegant in their design work; C) The Designers were unable to make a more human-compatible Universe or more Universe-compatible humans, so their capabilities are finite."

Each time the IDiot is shown to be unable to answer questions about his hypothesis, he loses Advantage #5 above, and his own efforts to wield "Can't explain X, eh? HA-HA! I win!" falter. Then it becomes a contest between science, which can answer a lot of questions, vs. an approach that can't explain any, including the nature of its own central explanatory mechanism (the Designers).

Posted by: Marsbar | October 17, 2009 7:55 AM

"P.Z. Meyers has stated that teachers who accept intelligent design are pseudo-scientists who should be fired and publicly humiliated."

Dr. Myers, is this allegation true?

Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com | October 17, 2009 8:40 AM

Is there going to be a video? huh? huh? drool...

Posted by: mikecbraun | October 17, 2009 9:00 AM

Under "Papers Presented at Professional Conferences":
14. “Pornographic Movies: An Analysis.” Presented Friday, April 18, 1980 in Detroit, Michigan at National Meeting of the Popular Culture Association.

That was probably a fun one to research, and his productive member surely helped him out.

Posted by: Kevin Crady | October 17, 2009 9:24 AM

I must say, I find it deliciously ironic and quite amusing how this chap's efforts to pad his CV have backfired on him in such grand scale here, what with all the extra scrutiny and highlighting of his silly extra "qualifications" and "papers" on pornography and whatnot.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | October 17, 2009 10:00 AM

#122 Monado, FCD

"It’s unlikely today that an out-of-the-closet Darwin doubter will survive in academia,” he said.

146 KevinC
Great write-up. Those who first debated Creo/IDers learned that being on the defensive - spending all you time refuting and correcting the bad science thrown out - is a mugs game that loses the audience and the debate. These debates aren't about science but about legitimizing a belief system. (All the people who want to believe in God and use antibiotics and cell phones, are being told they can have the "nice" science but throw out the science that makes them uncomfortable, because it is "wrong".)
Better to go on the offensive and attack them on the periphery beliefs they hold (without resorting to ad hominum attacks.
i.e. Point out that ID actually relies on evolution - hence making Ider's really Darwinists.
Point out that scientific theories aren't decided by debate; or in lecture halls, church basements or high school classrooms.
Hammer away that Bergman's wants to use legislatures to decide what real science is - because ID is incapable of being a real scienctific theory on its own merits.
Hell, point out that a letter to the editor is not considered a "professional publication" - by anyone but a crackpot.

Posted by: o-p-e | October 17, 2009 10:04 AM

The guy actually listed going to an OSHA lab safety training on his CV. If that counts as a workshop worthy of putting in your CV mine should be huge. I work for the government and we have to do tons of training. Then again, I'm not desperately trying to compensate for something.

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | October 17, 2009 10:25 AM

On the heading of "off topic", we have a couple of religilous types. One is proving the dangers of following your interpretation of sheep herders' myths a little TOO closely, and is not for the squeamish:

ouch

And the dangers of trying to enforce celibacy:

ewww

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | October 17, 2009 11:09 AM

Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing The Careers Of Darwin Doubters,

Gee, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Dr. Myers has fired the opening shots in his blog already. And has he summarized the science that will blow his opposition out of the water? No, he has focussed on typos in the notice and personal attacks on his opponent.

Summarize the science?! OK, you first.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 17, 2009 12:27 PM

Like Sean Pitman MD or Behe or any other DI obfuscator this guy will just blow technical sounding latinisms out of his ass that sound important to Joe Blow but have no meaning whatsoever to anyone who has only the faintest idea about the matter. Which is why DI obfuscators often dont look so bad in debates with "evolutionists".
Which is why PZ shouldnt be giving this science imposter the time of the day.

Posted by: shonny | October 17, 2009 12:48 PM

Posted by: Nils Ruhr | October 16, 2009 5:20 PM

@Glen Davidson:

Author of over 600 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs / Contributor to dozens of textbooks / Consultant for over 20 science text books, mostly biology and biochemistry

Presented over 100 scientific papers at professional and community meetings in the United States, Canada, and Europe / Featured speaker on many college campuses throughout the United States and Europe, and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/bergman-j.html

I predict that Dr. Bergman will wipe the floor with PZ's beard.

In case you don't know, Nils, scripture doesn't count as scientific paper. Not even 100's of them.

Posted by: PaulG | October 17, 2009 2:46 PM

"he always leaves one little word out of his affiliation at Northwest State Community College"

That's nothing, I know a guy who works at Los Angeles Harbor College. He doesn't call it that, he refers to it as "Harvor", sometimes with a mumbled 'd' sound at the end. Shocked the hell out of me the first time I heard it.

Posted by: Not that Louis | October 17, 2009 6:05 PM

The probable validity of a scientific theory is directly proportionate to the tendency of its opponents to invoke conspiracy theory.

Posted by: slpage | October 17, 2009 7:12 PM

Ask Jerry if he still thinks that the coccyx is bifid and moves to the side during defecation....

Posted by: coach 3 | October 17, 2009 9:27 PM

To 119: Aquaria --who accused the program lying about PZ Myers beliefs.

You are wrong-- PZ Myers has said that! He won't deny it. so before you accuse them of being @#$% liars why don't you research something on your own instead of just drinking the PZ koolaid. More of the quote:

"The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians…I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots."

Isn't he sweet and adorable? I guess he really isn't a liberal desiring free speech and academic freedom. I guess he wants to start a witch hunt in public schools.

Of course for being so "scientific", please produce one controlled study that proves that science teachers that believe in ID produce inferior students.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 17, 2009 9:45 PM

nice quote-mining, coeachie. now prove that PZ was talking about people who believe in creationism/ID, as opposed to people who teach or demand tenure for writing about creationism/ID.

you do know the difference between those, don't you?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 17, 2009 10:28 PM

you do know the difference between those, don't you?

So cute of you to give the little fuckwit the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Gordy | October 17, 2009 11:54 PM

@ coach 3 #174 > The only appropriate response... to what? You seem to have missed that bit out of your quote. I am quite certain that he wasn't suggesting this as a response to teachers who accept intelligent design. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. If not, you owe PZ an apology.

Posted by: sqlrob | October 18, 2009 10:46 AM

The probable validity of a scientific theory is directly proportionate to the tendency of its opponents to invoke conspiracy theory.

IANAMathematician, but shouldn't that be inversely proportionate?

No, the OP has it right. It can be rephrased as "The closer the theory is to right, the wackier the opponents are"

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 18, 2009 4:42 PM

telling us what he thinks should be done with intelligent design advocates:

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 18, 2009 6:20 PM

I'm pretty sure that Coach 3 isn't Coach Olsen. But, still no evidence presented that ID is anything other than a religious idea. Just complaints. But then, what can one expect from one who quote mines and creates deliberate falsehoods. Since ID advocates are deliberate liars and bullshitters, they should be treated according. Shunned by religious people due to bearing false witness. Shunned by education people for the same reason. Shunned period. To live their lives out in their parent's basement wearing tin foil hats...

Posted by: Kevin Wirth | December 3, 2009 4:30 PM

PZ wrote:

"I'd feel outclassed numerically, except that his reliance on how many degree programs he shuffled through, the strangely unrelated fields they are in, the rather shady status of the institution that granted him a Ph.D., as well as the peculiar fact that he always leaves one little word out of his affiliation at Northwest State Community College (come on, there's absolutely no shame in that — smart people go to and work at community colleges all over the country. Be proud. The Trophy Wife has an AA degree from a fine community college herself, and it's eminently respectable) makes me think he's really trying to compensate for something."

Don't worry about your class status PZ. Bergman DID have a great job teaching at Wayne State until, uh oh, he got brandesd as an incompetent dissident creationist who was determined by some folks who share your perspective to be unfit to teach at a prestigious university (Bowling Green).

Don't let the number of his degrees fool you, and oh, don't bother trying to downplay "the shady status of the institution that granted him a Ph.D.", (correction; ONE institution who granted him a PH.D. did have issues, but hey - that's not Dr. Bergman's doing...) because he IS after all, pretty well educated. Eight degrees from reputable institutions is nothing to scoff at OR dismiss. How crude of you to think you could somehow reduce his credibility by taking such a sucker punch. Pretty pathetic.

Oh gee -- weren't YOU denied a degree somewhere along the way (or something like that)? That sort of thing doesn't seem to have created much of a stink among YOUR supporters, and it certainly hasn't prevented you from becoming successful at what you do.

And yeah, many of his degrees are in different disciplines. And you even manage to find fault with that. You said "his reliance on how many degree programs he shuffled through, the strangely unrelated fields they are in..."

So, let's make sure you're consistent and express the same kind of disdain for folks you otherwise hold in high esteem who also "shuffled through" several different degree programs, OK? Oh, but maybe you don't really know many other folks who have 8 earned degrees in various disciplines. In that case, OK, you're excused for being a crud-monger.

And gee, you seem to find fault in everything.

Bergman has earned 8 solid degrees. So, let's give the man some credit. It's pretty stupid of you to take issue with after-the-fact stuff he has no control over for that 9th degree. Only a true dipwad would do that.

Congratulations.