Dr. Myers was profiled by a creationist journal. The rest of us have to be content with that sort of attention from trolls.
Thoughts from Kansas
You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain
Search
Profile
Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is also a graduate student at the University of Kansas, completing a doctorate in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not modeling species distributions or battling creationists, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.
The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.
Sb/DonorsChoose Drive
Thanks!
Recent Posts
- There can only be one
- Todd Wood talks (some) sense
- Claude Levi-Strauss, R.I.P.
- On counting
- Christopher Hitchens doesn't like Mother Theresa
- Global warming, science denial, and how to teach more evolution
- Steve Fuller desecrates Norman Levitt's memory
- On false equivalences
- Happy Birthday!
- Cothran's continuing cavalcade of racists
Recent Comments
- pough on Todd Wood talks (some) sense
- dave souza on Todd Wood talks (some) sense
- Glen Davidson on There can only be one
- SLC on Todd Wood talks (some) sense
- Steve on Todd Wood talks (some) sense
- Jeremy Mohn on There can only be one
- SLC on Todd Wood talks (some) sense
- Tulse on Todd Wood talks (some) sense
- Steve on Todd Wood talks (some) sense
- Nathan Perkins on A brief note on analogies
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- August 2004
Subscribe to TfK:
Accolades
Good posts from history
The Birth of Intelligent Falling
A failure of Intelligent Design
Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism
Support TfK
Affiliate programs: buy through the links, and TfK will get a percentage.Buying some music for your friends?
Or maybe some gift certificates?
Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.
Buy yourself things!
Good government
Internet neighbors
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Blogroll
« Is a science textbook adequate if science comes second? | Main | McCaskill for Senate »
Jealousy
Category: Chatter
Posted on: August 21, 2006 3:16 PM, by Josh Rosenau
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/19323
Comments
Myers remarks about religion classify him as a bigot, regardelss of the fallacies of "creationsism".
Worse, he is employed by the taxpayers.
His conflation of science with atheism, sets back the cause of science.
Who knows how much damage he has done? If jokers like him had the class of say, a Stephen J. Gould, the battle would have been over long ago.
Posted by: JB | August 21, 2006 6:59 PM
The cause of science is truth and religion just doesn't fit in. Atheism and science go hand in hand.
Class won't win the 'battle' or the war. It's perseverance and the guts to stick to the truth. PZ has plenty of both and proves that it doesn't pay to be nice to the crazy Christians who are trying to warp the entire world with their lies. If you think Gould could have won this, why didn't he in his lifetime?
Posted by: Rachel | August 21, 2006 9:24 PM
Thats an interesting admission as to your BELIEFS, Rachel, that atheism and science go hand in hand.
As Josh and the gang at KCFS love to maintain for public consumption, there is no necessary relation between atheism and science.
But, thats for public consumption, its not your real agenda, as you have just admitted.
As to why Gould didn't win in his lifetime, it was because he was a lone voice, with all the spew from idealouges like Dawkins and Dennet, he faced set backs at every turn.
And its not a question of just being nice...its about truth.
And the truth is that "science" does not establish atheism...scientific theories are provisional and subject to change and depend on a host of presuppositions.
You seem to have confused methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism, a distinction Barbara Forrest loved to maintain and in fact testified to under oath at the Dover trial.
After all, your hero Judge Jones ruled in the Kitzmiller decison that evolution in no way denigrated the idea of a creator.
Of course, that was just public concumption, right?
[edited to correct a misidentification of another commenter.]
Posted by: BA | August 22, 2006 3:18 AM
BA, I'm not going to let arguments from another forum spill over here. As far as I can tell, no one named Robson has commented here, so I corrected that obvious error in your post.
Beyond that, trolling comments about people's heroes or their "real agenda" are inappropriate.
Posted by: Josh | August 22, 2006 8:45 AM
But what about Rachel's comment that science and atheism go hand in hand, Josh?
BA has a point, that is something you have consistently denied. I.E., it was my understanding that science makes no statement re atheism or theism
It proceeds by methodological naturalism, but certainly not by philosophical naturalism, as Barbara Forrest quite ably explained we she spoke on campus back in February. In fact, I think you were there.
Posted by: Goldstein | August 22, 2006 8:54 AM
Why don't you address your questions to Rachel, rather than me?
It's true that I think religion and science are orthogonal. But I think religion can walk hand-in-hand with science, as can atheism. There's a worthwhile distinction to be made there.
Posted by: Josh
| August 22, 2006 11:13 AM
I think theism and science go hand in hand. I personally believe that science describes the universe as God intends it to be. But this is my personal belief, not some kind of agenda.
Clearly, it all depends on the viewpoint of the individual observer.
Posted by: Jeremy Mohn | August 22, 2006 11:40 AM
Actually, Mohn, of course science and theism go hand in hand. The scientific worldview grew out of a Christian concept of the universe as one that man could understand because he was created in the image of God.
Scientists like Oppenheimer, Philosophers like Whitehead, and historians like Butterfield all knew this.
It is only in our time that the fundamentalistic atheists like Dawkins, Dennet and that whole gang have foisted off the view that Rachel assets...that atheism goes hand in had with science.
Further, I frankly do not believe that you have no agenda.
Posted by: Goldstein | August 22, 2006 12:24 PM
I have never claimed to have no agenda. I think we all have a personal agenda, whether we want to admit it or not.
I just pointed out that my statement that "science describes the universe as God intends it to be" is not my agenda, it is my personal belief.
This is another worthwhile distinction to be made.
Posted by: Jeremy Mohn | August 22, 2006 12:52 PM
Science is a tool. Like any tool, it can be put to many purposes, some theistic, some atheistic, many non-theistic and entirely uninterested in those questions.
Jeremy is entirely right to note that it's very worth while to make the distinction between personal beliefs and personal agendas. Not the same thing.
Posted by: Josh
| August 22, 2006 1:43 PM
YOu got it pinned Josh. Science is a tool, which can be used for many purposes.
Thus, to say it goes hand in hand with atheism is, at best, very misleading.
Posted by: Goldstein | August 23, 2006 8:48 AM