…and this is a 
He takes on our country's curious attitude towards patent inanity.
We are edging into an Election Season where strange beliefs will get an unusual airing. Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee are up front in their disdain for Darwinism and their embrace of one degree or another of Creationism. Obama and most Democrats, and many Republicans have no problem at all with Darwinism, but will be wise to keep that out of their basic stump speech. Palin can draw applause by affirming she doesn't believe mankind shared a common ancestor with oran utans, but Obama will prudently refrain from revealing his belief in the quite provable fact that we do.
It will be a fascinating aspect of the coverage of the approaching campaigns to watch how mainstream news organizations tread on this thin ice. There was an outcry in some circles when most news outlets were slow to simply state that George Bush was wrong about Brownie doin a great job, and Palin was wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere. They were wrong, but few in the MSM said they were, and even fewer, perhaps none, of those outlets will say that Palin or Huckabee are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong about Creationism. Not since Flat Earthers has there been a public dispute in which one side (Darwinism) has so throughly and merciless demolished the other (Creationism). Yet at most the MSM might venture to mention a "debate" or "controversy" between Darwinism and Creationism. News at 10: The debate about the theory of gravity.
He doesn't just target the right-wing follies, either: the lefties get a skewering for their promotion of New Agey Nonsense. It's a good read.
Comments
Posted by: Queue33 | December 3, 2009 10:49 AM
In the past three years or so, Roger Ebert's blog has quietly become one of the best sites anywhere on the tubes.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 3, 2009 10:50 AM
Bush wasn't wrong. I did (and do) a great job, at whatever it is I do.
Posted by: william e emba | December 3, 2009 10:50 AM
Patent inanity? I thought you were going to discuss software patents or business method patents. Sheesh, PZ, you are so confusing sometimes....
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 3, 2009 10:54 AM
Just one criticism of an otherwise spot on article.
George W Bush was put on the spot about evolution and said he didn't know. Not very presidential, but different in kind from Huck and Sarah.
Posted by: kopd | December 3, 2009 10:57 AM
I never paid much attention to Roger Ebert before. I see now that was an error. Thanks for posting this. :-)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 10:57 AM
In sane country that alone would have disqualified him from being considered a serious candidate for public office.
Posted by: Daniel | December 3, 2009 10:57 AM
That's awesome. I have liked that guy ever since I read his review Expelled.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 3, 2009 11:01 AM
In a sane country the question would not be asked.Posted by: reason
|
December 3, 2009 11:04 AM
It may be awesome by merciless should be mercilessly. P.S. You should see the typos I make!
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 3, 2009 11:04 AM
BTW, I'd like to see some prominent Democrats put on the spot about evolution. Not because I think it likely that they have irrational ideas on the subject, but just to see if they waffle.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
December 3, 2009 11:06 AM
Haha! He even embedded a Chick Track! LOL!
I would add that I can't completely agree with him conceding that ID isn't religion. I understand the rhetoric of "Even if we stipulate that ID is science, then it's bad science", but one of the main thrusts of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was demonstarting that ID is not science and in fact is religion. [/nitpick]
Great essay otherwise!
Posted by: reason
|
December 3, 2009 11:06 AM
#9 See I did it again - 'by' should be 'but' - but he is posting not commenting and should spell and grammar check what he writes.
Posted by: shiftysquid
|
December 3, 2009 11:10 AM
It's been no secret in the journalism community for many years that Ebert is as great and as underappreciated a writer as there is in the business. He's only getting better with age. He's had some serious health problems, so he may not have a hell of a lot longer. Read him while you still can. He's as good as they come.
Posted by: Sesoron | December 3, 2009 11:11 AM
Speaking of typos, it looks like Ebert has a sticky G on his keyboard. "oran utans" and "Brownie doin a great job" seem to be more easily explained by a physical problem with the keyboard than two unrelated typos....
Posted by: Andrew Wilkens | December 3, 2009 11:14 AM
I already read his reviews, looks like I better start reading his blog.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 3, 2009 11:14 AM
I once thought I lived in a sane country.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 3, 2009 11:14 AM
I thought that Chick Tract looked familiar:
http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=316998#316998
:)
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 3, 2009 11:16 AM
First in war, first in peace, first in ignorance.
The rallying cry for stupid America.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Gavin
|
December 3, 2009 11:19 AM
I assume "MSM" means MainStream Media. In the field of sexual health it means Men who have Sex with Men (but wouldn't necessarily self-identify as gay).
Just a thought.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
December 3, 2009 11:25 AM
George W Bush was put on the spot about evolution and said he didn't know.
I think at one time he said he thought the so-called controversy should be taught, but tried to stay out of it.
The kicker of course was near the end of his second term when he admitted he didn't believe the bible was all literally true. Again, I don't thing he elaborated much more than that, it didn't get a whole lot of press, but enough that a few fundies got twistted knickers.
Posted by: FlameDuck | December 3, 2009 11:37 AM
So who exactly does have the patent on insanity? Glenn Beck? Does he get royalties?
There is something wrong with America when film critics and late night cable television hosts are representatives of reason.
It's going to be Sarah Palin 2012, and she's going to win by a large margin, because all "true" democrats will have moved to Canada in disgust.
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 11:39 AM
Uh, yeah. Context counts.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 11:47 AM
So of us Europeans were going to charter a ship and come and rescue all the US based Pharangulites had McCain won the last election. We be on standby when the times for the next election.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
December 3, 2009 11:50 AM
Ebert wasn't talking about Bush's views on evolution, but about his assertion that "Brownie" was doing a good job.
Speaking of Bush appointees being bad at their jobs, I notice the American media doesn't seem to be covering this at all.
Posted by: Ell Vee
|
December 3, 2009 11:50 AM
I have a real problem with the term "Darwinism". Why is Darwinism the opposition to Creationism? No wonder Creationists feel they have a legitimate argument - Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. And while we're all thinking "That was 150 years ago, we've learned so much since then" the Creationists are thinking "Those silly Darwinists have got it all wrong".
As Eugenie Scott said of the term: it "fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin's day."
Posted by: Steve
|
December 3, 2009 11:56 AM
So, I guess we're officially calling evolutionary biology "Darwinism" now. Every time I hear that non-word, I cringe.
Posted by: JediBear | December 3, 2009 12:01 PM
Look, Ebert's post might not have been technically perfect, but it was still nice to see.
Really raises my level of respect for the guy, though I suspect I still won't be especially likely to agree with him on film reviews.
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 12:14 PM
Yeah, that's on purpose.
Posted by: SirBedevere | December 3, 2009 12:19 PM
There are only two blogs I read on a regular basis: Pharyngula and Roger Ebert.
I hope you haven't only just discovered Roger Ebert, PZ.
Posted by: Mike in Maine | December 3, 2009 12:34 PM
I happen to like the term "Darwinism." We need to take it back from the kooks.
Notably missing from Ebert's excellent essay is the issue of ORGANIC FARMING.
Having been an "organic" farmer myself (but now not applying that label to myself), I can attest to the fact that you actually get food.
But the CLAIMS of the "organics" movement turn out, sadly, to be a bunch of malarkey. This is the next woo-woo bugaboo of the Left to be exposed.
Robert Carroll does a masterful job here:
http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html
Posted by: PMon | December 3, 2009 12:44 PM
Ill as he is, I'm glad that Ebert still has it in him to keep writing. Thanks for the link, PZ.
Posted by: amphiox | December 3, 2009 12:44 PM
"when he admitted he didn't believe the bible was all literally true"
I suppose then that is must be those parts about loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, making peace not war, etc, that Bush decided must be allegorical.
"It's going to be Sarah Palin 2012, and she's going to win by a large margin, because all "true" democrats will have moved to Canada in disgust."
That might not be so disastrous since that would mean that President Palin gets to preside over a economically, intellectually, and demographically crippled rump state, a failed theocracy, and an international pariah, without the capacity to inflict much damage on the rest of the world. Granted it would be nuclear armed, but Canada and Europe in this scenario should have been made much stronger, strong enough to contain the new rogue state.
Posted by: Zernk
|
December 3, 2009 12:46 PM
Wow - I've ignored Ebert for decades. I always thought he wrote the worst plot-divulging reviews and never understood the attention he got. That's actually a really nice piece of writing.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 3, 2009 12:50 PM
Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church. Look them up. They are far from fundamentalist.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | December 3, 2009 12:57 PM
Notice how Obama doesn't go out of is way to denounce a flat earth nor UFOs. Hmmm....
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2009 1:01 PM
Don't hope, search. Near the top left corner of this page there's a search engine.
I completely disagree. It's somewhat handy as a shorthand for "not Lamarckism", but that discussion is over anyway, and even then I prefer the terms "theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift" and "theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics".
Naming it after a person makes it look like an ideology.
Posted by: DeanFromBC | December 3, 2009 1:04 PM
Didn't all the Democrats threaten to come to Canada when Shrub was re-elected?
Didn't notice any overcrowding here in Vancouver...
;)
Posted by: JediBear | December 3, 2009 1:09 PM
@37 -- Yeah, we talk big about leaving if things don't go well, but the truth is that we're actually too poor to move. Plus we actually kinda like it here. Here is where all our stuff is.
Not that I haven't been tempted to move in with my aunt from Alberta and try to find a job up there.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 1:10 PM
But Darwinism is not evolution by drift. Richard Dawkins uses the term to refer to evolution by natural selection and intends that it specially excludes other mechanisms.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 3, 2009 1:14 PM
DeanFromBC, #37: Didn't all the Democrats threaten to come to Canada when Shrub was re-elected?
No. Why? Is it important to the point you haven't yet made?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 3, 2009 1:16 PM
I would add RD also intends the term to indicate the view that natural selection is the most important of the evolutionary mechanisms in terms of effect.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 3, 2009 1:18 PM
One of the things that I love about Ebert is that he has written very courageously and movingly about how having to confront mortality has influenced his religious thought. Spoiler alert: his example totally lays waste to the vile and idiotic "no atheists in foxholes" happy horseshit.
Posted by: tsg | December 3, 2009 1:20 PM
I thought about it, but decided not to when I realized it would leave the idiots in charge of the guns.
That and I couldn't afford to sell my house.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 3, 2009 1:40 PM
Talk of leaving the USA if the wrong guy wins is always empty posturing.
Posted by: blf | December 3, 2009 2:23 PM
Actually, it's probably better to read it as “USAian Main Stream Media”, since the claims being made don't (rather often, in my opinion) hold for the media elsewhere. I use European sources as my example, with The Grauniad as the prime example (exception proving the rule?). Which is not to say there is some awful European MSM; there is!
Posted by: Mike in Maine | December 3, 2009 2:29 PM
David,
Maybe it's because I'm not in science (I teach literature and writing), but it doesn't appear to me that way at all.
To me "Darwinism" looks like a tribute to the man whose "dangerous idea" is "the best idea anyone ever came up with." (Dennett)
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 3, 2009 2:30 PM
Very nice article. I particularly liked this, because I recognize it:
For some reason, a lot of people think that anything that falls under the general label of "spirituality" is not only "not religion," but still sacred enough to be beyond analysis or criticism. Believing in woo, whatever the form, is a sign of sophistication, open-mindedness, depth, wisdom, sensitivity, and a cosmopolitan sense of style -- particularly if you can somehow reference it to other cultures, or a disenfranchised group. You're supposed to respect it the way you'd respect someone telling you they love their mother. No arguing, no negativity, no skepticism allowed. Only murmurs of support, approval, or interest. They are being interesting.
I suspect that at least part of this is coming out of a sense of entitlement: because they're so sensitive, they deserve to be protected from "bullies." Someone in another thread used a phrase from I think White Coat Underground -- "Life is not a goddamn Care Bears Birthday Party." To New Agers and the Spiritual Left, however, when it comes to their expressing their beliefs, they seem to think it really is.
Posted by: blf | December 3, 2009 2:32 PM
The talk might be, but people do do it, or at least (as in my case), it's one of the reasons I left. I didn't talk about it before the election, and didn't move until well after the election, but the arsehole who was president at the time and his cronies in congress was a factor in my deciding to take the opportunity when it presented itself. That was a long time ago (multiple decades)… and I'm still living in Europe (France, at the moment, which is not where I originally moved to).
Posted by: bcoppola | December 3, 2009 3:55 PM
"New Age beliefs are the Creationism of the Progressives." = new email sig line!
Posted by: tim gueguen | December 3, 2009 4:25 PM
The irony is that so much New Age pap embodies beliefs that are anything but progressive, like the blame the victim attitude prevalent in ideas such as "you create your own reality," "The Law of Attraction" and so on. If you come down with cancer or you get ripped off by a crooked financial adviser it's because you weren't thinking the right thoughts, not because you were exposed to toxic materials in your workplace or were duped by a very skilled conman.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2009 5:25 PM
If he means it to exclude all drift, then he himself is not a Darwinist, and the term is only of interest to the history of science, just like Lamarckism is. :-|
Then he is a Darwinist, and so is just about every other biologist, making the term again useless outside the history of science.
That must be the reason. In science it's very rare to name theories after their founders. There is no Newtonism, Einsteinism, Heisenbergism, Bohrism, Mendeleyevism, not even a Gouldism.
In contrast, the first thing the Soviet Union did under Stalin when it made Lysenkoism (a pseudoscientific ideology masquerading as a theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics) official state doctrine was to introduce the term "Mendelism-Morganism-Weissmanism" for "the science of genetics, which happens to have disproved the idea that acquired characteristics are inherited".
Similarly, cdesign proponentsists regularly accuse biologists of worshipping Darwin as a god and/or prophet, and use the term "Darwinism" twice per minute to rhetorically drive this point home.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 3, 2009 8:27 PM
Agree with David here, "darwinism" sounds like an ideology, and that is exactly how it is used by the fundies.
So we shouldn't be using it IMO.
Posted by: pjnoir | December 3, 2009 10:49 PM
Roger Ebert is one of the finest writers and critic ever to be published. The man is a national treasure. I just deeply sorry he has been so ill the last few years. Get one of his books- a delight to see how he views the world- not just film.
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 3:07 AM
Interesting discussion of the meaning of 'Darwinism': We definitely need more honesty and precision in the use of certain terms. 'Creationism' has been totally abused as short-hand for 'Young Earth Creationism'; pity if you believe that the universe was created, but is limited to objects within a
Posted by: Rorschach | December 4, 2009 3:10 AM
wiley,
define "we".
Hint: It's not what you think it means.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 3:14 AM
Supergenius, you are hardly the person to give a definition of "Darwinism". You have demonstrated that you have no idea what evolution is.
Posted by: bastion of sass | December 4, 2009 3:37 AM
Many "thumbs up" to Ebert!
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 3:51 AM
Holy hogs, my post got decimated in two!
#54(cont.)... And 'Climate Change' is short-hand for Anthropogenic Climate Change. Why is Man so arrogant that he sees himself as being outside of Nature?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 4:07 AM
wiley wrote:
Good grief. Showing that your grasp of etymology is as good as your grasp of science, reality and pretty much everything else, huh Wiley? Colour me unsurprised.
And before you ask why I'm talking about insects, etymology is the study of the origins of words.
Posted by: John Morales | December 4, 2009 4:11 AM
wiley:
It's not "Man", it's humankind or humanity. Remember, around 50% of "Man" is female...
Also, many cultures don't consider humans as apart from nature, it's mainly an Abrahamic viewpoint — and, even then, it's not a view held by anyone who grasps the basics of evolutionary biology (humans are just another animal).
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 4:18 AM
Why is Man so arrogant that he sees himself as being outside of Nature?
Supergenius, would you like to know why this statement is so ironically funny?
No?
Too bad.
People like you deny that Humans are animals and were created to rule over nature. Evolution shows that humans are related to every living thing on this world, that they are part of nature. Climate change shows that humans have an impact on nature, not that humans are outside of nature.
Just how are you able to suspend in mid air before you realize you are off the cliff and fall to the ground?
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 5:10 AM
Yes Yes! Why? I did what, now? I was kinda suggesting that last bit, about us being part of Nature. In the same way that squid or elephants have an impact on nature, and are not outside of nature? Yes, I agree. Its a secret!Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 5:27 AM
It's no secret you're a moron.
Posted by: FlameDuck | December 4, 2009 5:52 AM
Tell that to Jared Hasselhoff. Eventually enough people will be fed up with the US, and you'll all be left with Ms. intriguingly inexperienced (to quote Jon Stewart) for president.Posted by: ckitching
|
December 4, 2009 1:50 PM
I've heard mention of Newtonian physics before. It has usually been used to reference the simplified physical laws that were discovered in that era (and which still makes up most of the primary school physics education).Posted by: Shinken
|
December 4, 2009 1:55 PM
Should I just despair? Should I just sit back in a comfy chair and watch it all burn to the ground? Why are people (Americans in particular it seems) so damn stupid?
Posted by: floraaketch | December 23, 2009 7:36 AM
H, I thnk yr wbst s ntrstng vry clrfl. Gd jb! I fl hlpng jb skrs fndng thr drm hm jbs r flfllng qst. Gd lck n yr qst t.
www.nlnnvrslwrk.cm