Now on ScienceBlogs: Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)
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)
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
[John Adams]
« As others see us | Main | Argument from ignorance, ignorance the size of Alaska »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Creationism • Local
Posted on: November 16, 2009 11:47 AM, by PZ Myers
For those who were wondering, it's still happening. 7:30pm tonight, at the North Star Ballroom in the St Paul Student Center, 2017 Buford Ave. S. The topic is "Should Intelligent Design be Taught in the Schools?". I'll be there. It's going to be recorded. I'll probably be available for conversation afterwards, briefly…I still have to drive all the way back to Morris tonight.
The infamous Skatje will also be in attendance.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/124878
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
PZ Myers 02.02.2012
Jason Rosenhouse 02.12.2012
Orac 12.12.2011
Comments
Posted by: Berner | November 16, 2009 12:02 PM
Knock 'em dead.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 16, 2009 12:04 PM
"Should Intelligent Design be Taught in the Schools?"
I admit I stole this from somebody, probably from this blog, but my favorite answer to this question is "Yes, but only in a class called The History of Human Stupidity".
Off-topic but here's a must see video I just discovered. Jerry Coyne spends an hour talking about what's in his book "Why Evolution is True".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig
If only every creationist could be forced to watch this video. They sure will never watch it because they want to learn something. Creationists are called uneducated morons for a good reason.
Posted by: middlekk | November 16, 2009 12:12 PM
@bob #2
If you look at the comments in the YouTube video of Coyne's talk, you'll find that NOTHING but NOTHING impedes their ability to misunderstand what is being said on the subject of evolutionary theory.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 16, 2009 12:18 PM
So I live in Boston, and a few weeks ago, I could have sworn I saw someone of her approximate description on the Red Line, near Kendall/MIT. What got my attention was the squid badge (the one PZ uses at the bottom right of each post) on her lapel.
Am I just bonkers?
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
November 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Oh, we can find you a place to stay in the twin cities if you need one.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 16, 2009 12:22 PM
We certainly can.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 16, 2009 12:33 PM
What are the final questions on the survey? I remember the post from them trying to sneak a few fast ones in.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 16, 2009 12:38 PM
To future engineers, yes.
For biologists, the simplistic assumption that function comes from design seriously fails in explaining features of life in detail.
So leave it out of biology classes.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | November 16, 2009 12:39 PM
To teach means what?
To educate.
Science is taught in the Science classroom.
Religion is taught in the Religious classroom.
There are no crossovers.
Science is science.
Religion is religion.
If anyone wants them to combine, then they should be presented as a combination of such.
Science is science.
Religion is religion.
We are forgetting what makes science be science and what makes religion be religion.
Science questions without end. (i.e., theory)
Religion ends without question. (i.e., dogma)
Posted by: Eric | November 16, 2009 12:51 PM
Only if "The intelligent designer works in mysterious ways!" is an acceptable exam answer.
Posted by: kittywhumpus | November 16, 2009 12:58 PM
I am looking forward to it in a cringy, seat-squirmy, eye-rolling sort of way.
I can't offer you a place to stay in Saint Paul, but I can recommend bars!
Posted by: Nerull | November 16, 2009 1:58 PM
#4:
Unless she took off to Boston without ever mentioning this to her friends or being offline for a few days, that was someone else. ;)
(She also doesn't like cephalopods.)
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 16, 2009 1:59 PM
Probably a good thing to have recorded evidence. Somebody's bound to spin like a jenny and cry victory/foul afterwards.
Posted by: norm | November 16, 2009 2:17 PM
Don't forget to stop and look up for the Leonid Meteor Shower on your way home. There should be perfect viewing conditions.
Posted by: Jessica | November 16, 2009 2:51 PM
I'll be there - looking forward to it!
Posted by: Dana | November 16, 2009 2:58 PM
Will a recording of the debate be posted on the blog?
Posted by: Qwerty | November 16, 2009 3:20 PM
I am looking forward to listening to this debate.
Posted by: vanharris
|
November 16, 2009 3:24 PM
Glen # 8,
In Canada, religiosity was quite common amongst my fellow engineers. In the UK, i've also come across some bible-thumping engineers. At my last office, one of the god-botherers had a Ph.D. - my informal observation is that intelligence doesn't seem to come into it.
It would therefore appear that there's a failing in the educational systems of at least two countries.
Posted by: nitramnaed | November 16, 2009 3:43 PM
There with bells on.....Heading over to Muffuletta with a buddy before the big shooooow!
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 16, 2009 4:05 PM
If you can PZ, if the opportunity arises say "He's hearing hoofbeats and concluding unicorns" - I'm trying to start a meme here.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 16, 2009 5:38 PM
It would be nice if someone would live blog this.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
November 16, 2009 6:40 PM
It would be nicer if someone would record this.
Posted by: Yubal
|
November 16, 2009 7:06 PM
So, Campus Atheists, who is going to take Dr. Jerry Bergman out for a dinner afterward???
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 16, 2009 8:42 PM
"Should Intelligent Design be Taught in the Schools?"
No, because the Establishment Clause must be respected.
No, because intelligent design = magic = bullshit.
No, because lying to students is child abuse.
No, because biology teachers would quit their jobs before ever agreeing to lie to their students. Dover is a good example, one teacher quit, and every teacher refused to talk about intelligent design bullshit. The trial cost the taxpayers one million dollars. Angry voters threw out the stupid asshole dishonest creationist morons from their school board.
What else is there to say about it? The question is equal to asking should the Resurrection be taught in the schools. It's a ridiculous question.
This quote from Stephen Jay Gould should be enough, just substitute 'intelligent design' for 'creation science', which is what the Christian theocrats did after the 1987 Supreme Court decision.
Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?
Posted by: Nebula99 | November 16, 2009 8:49 PM
Yubal said:
"So, Campus Atheists, who is going to take Dr. Jerry Bergman out for a dinner afterward???"
We get to have Jerry Bergman for dinner? Yum! NOM NOM NOM
Posted by: Colin | November 16, 2009 8:51 PM
Good luck, PZ. Try not to get trampled by any Gish Gallups.
Posted by: Martin | November 16, 2009 10:52 PM
I must confess some sympathy for the view that it is simply a bad idea to debate proponents of loony positions. All it does is bolster the view that there are two (perfectly legitimate) sides to every question, and that it is important to get a "balanced view" where both sides are equally deserving of a fair hearing.
Posted by: Kristin | November 16, 2009 11:01 PM
Argh. Just got home. What the F was Bergman talking about? I cringe at the flaunting of his "M.D." Hmpf.
Posted by: BenW
|
November 16, 2009 11:04 PM
Did anyone get a recording? I am sure P Zed will give his view tomorrow but it would be nice to hear it.
Posted by: jonnerk | November 16, 2009 11:06 PM
I just returned from the debate, it was across the street from my apartment. As expected, there was none. PZ presented and addressed the topic beautifully. I was expecting more form Dr. Bergman and his nine degrees. Bergman's presentation was extremely hard to follow and left me scratching my head. Well done PZ! I look forward to your analysis.
Posted by: Tim | November 16, 2009 11:13 PM
@#30 Agreed. Bergman made no actual thesis and argued non-points.
I hope PZ found some time to work on his book while Bergman was speaking. The rest of us just wanted our time back.
Posted by: Tim | November 16, 2009 11:19 PM
@Kristin 28 Bergman doesn't have an MD. He's got a PhD from an unaccredited (and defunct) diploma mill. So when he said he practices medicine and isn't concerned with theory, he doesn't seem to understand that PhD's are about research and research is about theories.
Posted by: Sanction, Inherent Antonym
|
November 16, 2009 11:49 PM
Bergman was incoherent. He had some strange argument that a carbon molecule is irreducibly complex. His remark that he wasn't concerned with theories, as Tim points out, was particularly odd given PZ's point that ID has no theory other than "an intelligent designer did it."
He also spent the first 15 minutes of his 20-minute opener (format was 20 minutes, 20, 10, 10, audience questions, 5, 5 -- alternating, Berman first) describing how he arrived at his belief, which was this: he became a Christian after (objectively, mind you!) studying Darwinism and concluding that it was wrong. He never explained why he became a Christian rather than, say, a Jew or a Muslim. And he wasted 15 minutes that he could have used to defend his claim that ID should be taught in schools.
Bizarre. But it was worth attending for the experience.
Posted by: SteadyEddy | November 17, 2009 12:02 AM
It was standing room only and it appeared to be a pretty polarized crowd. Based on the crowd responses as well as the questions that were asked, I think the rationalists outnumbered the creationists. They were filming it- for a future DVD release- not sure if it will be available on youtube anytime soon or not. Bergman was very cyclic in his neutered reasoning... never heard so much about irreducibly complex things. Lots of discussion about the appendix... and did you know that a runner couldn't be a runner without legs? A survey was handed out to gauge the crowd's before and after feelings on the topic and to see if anyone was converted by the arguments. I don't think we'll see the swing that the Hitchens/Fry debate had (not because PZ failed to convince, but because it appeared to be a polarized crowd to me). I think that PZ stated his arguments very clearly and was much easier to follow than Bergman. PZ FTW!!!
Posted by: Not that Louis | November 17, 2009 12:04 AM
I was reminded of Voltaire's prayer: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
Posted by: may | November 17, 2009 12:10 AM
lets face it
faith can't do science
and
science doesn't do faith.
Posted by: Sanction, Inherent Antonym
|
November 17, 2009 12:19 AM
A survey with bad questions.
Posted by: Kristin | November 17, 2009 12:21 AM
@Tim #32
Thank you. His comments were misleading, and I couldn't find any credible information concerning his background on the interwebs. Now that you mention it, I do remember the PhD reference during the intro.
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
November 17, 2009 12:21 AM
Classic WOOT!
Bergman, simply, was out-gunned the entire time. My favorite part was PZ throwing his note pad over his shoulder which contained all the evidence Bergman had for ID (yeah...none).
Very well attended event...and yes, I would say PZ has a "cult-like" following. Not a Branch Davidian like cult...it's more, Id say, a petri dish cult(ure).
Posted by: Anonymous | November 17, 2009 12:35 AM
Very nice job on that debate, PZ.
It was very interesting watching Bergman stumble on the fact that he himself admitted that ID has no theory, and starting to say that no theory is necessary.
Nice job on directly answering his statements, and for the most part ripping apart his arguments.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 17, 2009 12:45 AM
Yeah, his argument that a carbon atom is irreducibly complex was...interesting. Hes right, but as you pointed out, that doesnt matter, because it provides no evidence for ID. The only thing that it provides evidence for is the fact that if we define something to be something, changing it makes it not that thing anymore.
You sound a lot more soft spoken that Id have thought. I was thinking youd sound more...strident :)
Posted by: llewelly | November 17, 2009 12:54 AM
I wasn't there, but it sounds to me like Dr. Jerry Bergman was attempting to establish his bona fides. Among Christians, it is common for one Christians to establish their authority as a good Christian by telling a conversion story, or explaining why they are are a Christian. It's a kind of argument from authority. Done well, it can be very effective on devout Christians. Non-Christians and those familiar with logical fallacies are typically either baffled, or turned off. But in most parts of America, it is often safe to assume non-Christians and those familiar with logical fallacies are a minority of the audience.Posted by: B Kevin Edgar | November 17, 2009 1:01 AM
In person, PZ looks and acts deceptively harmless. It is almost enough to make one think his blog is ghost written.
Posted by: Sanction, Inherent Antonym
|
November 17, 2009 1:13 AM
One of Bergman's complaints was that proponents of ID are fired, denied publication, or otherwise suffer consequences from researching or attempting to find evidence that would supposedly support ID. Academic freedom to so, he asserted, was lacking.
That complaint was entirely irrelevant to the topic of the debate, which was whether ID should be taught in schools. Bergman essentially admitted to the lack of a theory of ID or any supporting data in favor of ID. As it stands, then, ID should not be taught in schools. There is no "there" there.
The issue of whether academic freedom should be granted to explore ID is an entirely separate debate. Bergman conflated the two issues to his detriment.
Posted by: Doug from Morris | November 17, 2009 2:00 AM
Good job, PZ. But you didn't really have to work very hard, did you? And I liked your tie, too.
I was silently outraged that the venerable U could sanction such an outmatched 'debate'. The Good Doctor Bergman, (whose PhD was obtained from a defunct diploma mill since closed by California courts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Pacific_University ) could not address the topic of whether ID should be taught in schools. It would appear that he teaches 'Medicine' at a community college in Ohio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_State_Community_College This was a waste of everyone's time, although I must admit that I did enjoy one half of the 'debate', and actually learned something from it.
PZ, if you're going to debate these people, you have got to get them to send in their A-team. This guy wasn't it.
Posted by: Tim! | November 17, 2009 5:08 AM
#33:
I noticed that too, and if some of the Q&A time hadn't been wasted by crazies (from both sides, unfortunately), I would have asked something like:
"Okay, Dr. Bergman, I understand now. Evolutionary Theory is all complete BS and I don't believe any of it at all anymore. My question is, how does the obviouse falsity of evolutionary theory prove anything about an intelligent designer, and why, when you decided this did you immediately jump to the conclusion that the designer in question must be the Judeau/Chrisian God of the bible?"
And yes, I know the real reason is likely because of his JW upbringing; if he'd been born in Egypt, for example, he'd have converted to Islam most likely.
I also liked how he spent so much time going over his "credentials" that he needed to spend most of the ten minute rebuttal finishing his opening argument.
#45
The general consensus among most of the people who debate intelligent design proponents is that there is no A-team, unless you count the people who are smart enough to realize that in a fair debate with an unbiased audience there's no way to win with the "science" they provide, so there isn't a point in debating in the first place.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 17, 2009 6:56 AM
Just out of interest, what do people here thing of the Hitch's argument, that "teaching the argument", in the sense of teaching the Huxley-Wilberforce debates, the Scopes trial transcript and so on? I kinda like it. I've a summa cum laude in biology, and I still learned new material by reviewing the Scopes trial transcript. Then there's the fact that The Origin of Species is basically one long argument.
I dunno. I do think that teaching the development of the idea, from Aristotle and Heraclitus down via von Humbolt, Linnaeus, Erasmus Darwin, Paley, culminating in Charles Darwin, with an afterward on the Scopes & Huxley arguments, would give students a better understand of evolution, and also make them more able to think as scientists - rather than the current model which dispenses with the chain of logical proofs and expects students to take things on faith, to a great degree. That's very damaging.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 17, 2009 7:07 AM
Sanction @33:
This is interesting. Bergman was unable to understand a simple scientific concept like natural selection. Obviously Bergman is extremely stupid, but of course every creationist has that problem.
This also shows that Bergman is admitting his intelligent design creationism is a religious idea. Apparently he didn't get the Discovery Institute memo about how to be dishonest.
Also, Bergman is admitting Christianity is an anti-science religion, which is a good thing. This is an important point that Christians need to understand. All Christian beliefs are extremely anti-science.
I could never debate a person like Bergman. I would get so angry at his breathtaking idiocy I wouldn't be able to avoid calling him a stupid piece of shit.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 17, 2009 7:49 AM
bobxxxx,
Funny, that reminds me of when PZ went up against a different ID proponent and ended up calling the Bible a piece of shit and offending all the Christians.So when do we get to see the video for this debate?
Posted by: nitramnaed | November 17, 2009 9:40 AM
Bergman dug such a big hole for himself that he couldn't get out......So he brings up Hitler! Borrello put a quick end to that.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
November 17, 2009 9:52 AM
@47
Doesn't that belong in a history of science class, or maybe philosophy class? Is there time anymore to teach that sort of history in Biology classes?
Of course, it would be important to teach the evolution of scientific thought--at the very least to keep others from rehashing the same old arguments.
Posted by: SplendidMonkey
|
November 17, 2009 10:04 AM
I don't recall Bergman saying he was a Christian, although I assumed he was. He said he became a "theist" after studying science. Interesting to hear him attack Jehovah's Witness.
Come on ID people, PZ and others have clearly explained what science and education need of you. Come up with a coherant theory and some simple evidence to back it up. If your idea has merit it should be easy to accomplish those two things.
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 17, 2009 10:07 AM
Lynn, I disagree for this reason: science education shouldn't just teach scientific facts but also the scientific method. It's not good enough to roll off a few lessons explaining the principles in abstract and then teach science as Revealed Truth.
I'm convinced that this is a major reason why flim-flam persists. Epistemologically, there's no difference between taking creationism on faith and taking evolution on faith - which is what a great deal of science lessons amount to. There's no understanding of the long and complex chains of observations and proofs that lead to the fact.
If we could change this basic problem in our education systems, then faith would shrivel at a much faster rate.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 17, 2009 10:12 AM
In fact I think teaching the method is more important than the facts. If you know the method, the facts will come to you and will make more sense.
Posted by: Eric | November 17, 2009 10:33 AM
Somewhere on some other blog, tens (maybe hundreds?) of Creationists are e-slapping each other high fives and cheering about how Prof. Dr. Chief Magistrate Bergman DDS wiped the floor with that evil atheist "Meyers" (because they couldn't be bothered to spell his name right) and Darwinism in last nights "debate".
Posted by: Lottie | November 17, 2009 10:36 AM
Yeah, I found that amusing as well. Unfortunately for him, his résumé and PowerPoint presentation didn't plug the many holes in his so-called arguments. (Not even when he started flipping through the presentation while PZ was talking... Rude. Very rude.)
And then there were the Nazis... The audience groans.
o_O
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 11:21 AM
Funny how everyone expects nazis, but no-one ever expects the inquisition.
Posted by: My Lord! | November 17, 2009 11:29 AM
Okay, top ten things that made me laugh at the debate, in increasing laughiness:
10: "Dr." Bergmann's voice (did not see that one coming)
9: His waste of his time discussing his background
8: The fact that because he did 9, above, he had to run through slides to fast to be read (and at one point said, "here is another example" only to skip through it too fast)
7: "In medicine, we are not concerned with theories, we want to see what works." Huh... Germ Theory anyone?
6: The Christian high school student who thought she had PZ with the “okay, so like you stated that evolution was a fact, but then you said it was a theory, it can’t be both, so which is it.”
5: PZ throwing his prepared notes over his shoulder in frustration at Bergmann's incoherence
4: Bergmann's use of Nazi's as an answer to what happens if a generation of children are brought up believing in evolutionary theory and the moderator shutting him down for it
3: The weird guy with the accent
2: PZ's answer to whether he knew of any "out of the closet IDer" being offered tenure and why he is glad the answer is "I don't know any that have"
1: The dude with the car example’s response of "no it isn't" to Bergmann's comment that his car example was irreducibly complex.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
November 17, 2009 11:30 AM
Cimourdain and the Rev,
I agree, but won't bio science education really have to change for that--at least in primary and secondary education?
Teaching why we accept what we accept to be science could flow through science curriculum. How much does it now? Primary, secondary, university?
I think I need to learn more about current curricula before I can discuss this point much further.
I haven't had a university bio class in about 15 years, that was probably plant pathology, botany before that, biology first (maybe in 84/5?). And high school almost 30 years ago and bio was early on. I do recall vehemently not accepting evolution in an early college bio class. So somehow I missed a lot of basic education before that. I really didn't know anything about evolution then--but wasn't raised an extremely conservative Christian. It was just understood that "we couldn't have evolved from apes". Ughhh. I loved bio classes, too. Even wanted to take an advanced bio class in high school, but not enough students signed up so no class.
My daughter, now 6, is early on in the public school system, I can't wait to see what she learns in science and will definitely supplement her education if I find it is lacking in up-to-date information. We talk about evolution and she loved learning a bit about horse evolution--her favorite animal. We've gone to the Tree of Life web project for info too.
I do think there are some things students have to learn as fact (on faith) at first until they get more information. Just as I took it on faith that evolution was nothing important as a young student, we now have to be sure our children take it on "faith" that evolution is the basis for life as we know it.
They can't learn all of the theory at first.
Posted by: Yoritomo
|
November 17, 2009 11:34 AM
Anonymous @41:
No, he's not. Carbon atoms are produced by nuclear fusion of helium atoms inside rather old stars. I'm no astrophysicist, but I believe that's the origin of virtually all the universe's carbon. All made from simpler building blocks. Isn't that precisely what irreducible complexity claims shouldn't have happened?
Posted by: Sanction, Inherent Antonym
|
November 17, 2009 11:39 AM
PZ's flying index cards almost took out the sign-language interpreter, who was to his left. I picked up the cards at the end of the debate. I was tempted to keep one for a memento, but then I realized that I was not at a rock concert and the card did not have a set list.
Posted by: llewelly | November 17, 2009 11:45 AM
He was in disguise.Posted by: Cimourdain
|
November 17, 2009 11:51 AM
Lynn, there is a pilot project in this field, the Van Damme academy, and it seems to work incredibly well. I find their physics courses the most sensible approach to physics I have ever encountered.
If you've listened to the recent debate with Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens on the one side, and the raging Rabbi Boteach and the ghastly Dinesh D'Souza on the other - I don't think the other side would get away with one tenth of what they get away with now if we had proper epistemological training in primary and secondary school.
This is making a crucial mistake - I'm not talking about theory. Matter of fact, there's too much theory. I'm talking about understanding the sequential, step-by-step observations from which the first conclusions were drawn, and then the further ones that allowed better theories, and so on. That's the correct way to learn science - and also the easiest way.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 17, 2009 1:03 PM
From MyLord's post:
"6: The Christian high school student who thought she had PZ with the “okay, so like you stated that evolution was a fact, but then you said it was a theory, it can’t be both, so which is it.”
I sat next to this young woman who spent most of the time during Bergman's presentation texting somoneone on her cell phone. I guess this is the current version of passing notes in class which explains the simplicity of her question.
Posted by: My Lord! | November 17, 2009 1:03 PM
#61, I saw you picking those up (green jacket?) and thought to myself, I should have thought of that.
I asked a question about whether IDers believe in change over time and Bergmann responded that that was not an issue and that ID believes in change over time, the question, to Bergmann was "how do we get from molecules to man" I thought Behe's argument was that no evolution has taken place on a speciation level "as proved" by irreducible complexity. To me that means they don't believe in change over time. Am I missing something????