Not all my mail is from cranks and ravers; I actually get some nice and friendly and interesting mail, too. Like this one, from Hank Alme, who asks a good question:
To what extent does intellectual honesty require me to also read guys like Behe and Dembski, and to understand their arguments?
That's an easy one: intellectual honesty doesn't require that you read any of their crap. One of their great successes is that they've managed to convince many people that it's only fair to read their books, often reading them instead of good science. It's not true! You are far better off reading a solid science text than wasting it on their drivel.
The only reason to read any of their work is not because it's the honest thing to do—if we carried that reasoning to its logical conclusion, I've got a library of stuff you need to read first—but because it will prepare you better to deal with their arguments. It takes the edge off that first moment of shock, when they say something so awesomely stupid that you find it incredible that anyone would even suggest such a thing. I've experienced that moment: your eyes focus on infinity, your lips move involuntarily as you try to parse the absurdity, your brain spins its wheels for a while as you mentally downshift, trying to get yourself in the proper frame of mind to handle the curious words of the deranged person in front of you. Otherwise, though, there isn't much point to wading through the dreck.
So no, don't read Behe and Dembski. Read Carroll and Dawkins and Gould. Understanding the science is all the preparation you need.
By the way, I've noticed that commenting is way down. It could be you're all bored with me, or that it's my fault since I've been distracted with grading and exam preparation, or most worrisome, the TypeKey requirement has stymied potential commenters, or at least discouraged them. Let me know if there's a problem— the comments contribute much to the site, and I'd hate to see them chased away.
- Log in to post comments
If anyone out there is hesitant to spend the time registering with TypeKey, just do it! It's relatively painless; it only took me a couple minutes to do. My one complaint with TypeKey is that the "keep me signed in for 2 weeks" option is largely decorative; the longest it's ever kept me signed in is a couple of hours. Oh, well.
Also, we're all bored with you. Where's the squid porn?
(Kidding! But not about the squids. Me likey.)
Understanding the science is all the preparation you need.
There's going to be an intelligent design forum here on my campus a week from tonight. I plan on attending, and I know there will be an audience question period at the end, so I thought about reading some creationist/ID stuff to prepare for the...umm..."factually challenged" statements I would hear, and hopefully formulate some questions in advance.
But then I decided against it. I'm better off skimming through the FAQ at talk.origins and saving myself the headache. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure the questions will come when I actually hear the ID arguments.
Signing in through typekey is a pain. Requiring my e-mail address even after signing in through typekey is just plain agressive.
Ditto on the typekey "keep me signed in" feature not working. Also, it's kind of annoying that it doesn't remember your URL. But that's not a biggie to me. I haven't been commenting recently because I'm deep in the grips of third trimester suckiness.
Also, yay New Mexico! It makes me happy whenever my home state gets a mention anywhere that doesn't include the plague, crazy people breaking into the white house, or the phrase "Wow, for a Mexican you speak excellent English!"
It's springtime, and more people are doing things outside more often. Posts to blogs and bulletin boards usually decline as the outdoor weather improves. Most of us don't have laptops and WIFI.
It would be really nice if all the ScienceBlogs used the same authentication, and TypeKey works for me.
My most recent example of this isn't the first time that happened to me, nor will it be the last, but it's a good one: talkorigins' claim that squid are not living things.
One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Inadvertantly, I bet the story of Noah is where even a lot of third graders at the Christian school down the street ask themselves, "Hmmm... Where'd the water go?".
I've had problems clicking on any link which appeared under the "tornado's" path. It might just be a Safari issue, but the javascript powering that ad seems to interfere with the clickability of those links while I have no problem clicking links farther down the page.
Also, even though I click the box to stay logged in for two weeks, I still need to login to typekey every damn time.
When I (recently) discovered this blog I also discovered Dembski's Uncommon Descent (through a link to an entry). For a while I would check over there for new stuff just as often I checked over here. I thought it a good way to see how the "other side" thought. I even bookmarked the site. Well, after a few weeks, I'm done looking over there. I deleted it from my bookmarks even (I admit I felt uneasy having that site in my bookmarks). A few entries was all it took for me to learn pretty much all I needed to learn about them. Besides, my head just couldn't take it anymore.
So, I suggest checking them out briefly and then get the hell out of there. Anything you need to know about their "arguments" or "thought process" you'll learn here or at Panda's Thumb. As for learning how to rebuff such nonesense, I'm with PZ - read some real science.
Speaking of Dawkins, I recently picked up "Climbing Mount Improbable" at a used bookstore and quite like it. Any others that can be recommended?
I had that moment of utter shock last Saturday when I attended the Kent Hovind four-hour creationism seminar at a church not far from where I live. PZ already said it when he posted on Hovind's appearance the night before in St. Cloud, but just to reiterate, in this new context, that some things are so stupid on their face that there's no reacting to them. That St. George's dragon was actually a dinosaur, that the gargoyles atop churches are actually dinosaurs, that dinosaurs live in the Congo--just to name one set of breathtaking inanities--how can any sane person even respond to that? Well. One way. Laughter. I finally got around to starting "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" last night, and while it's fairly unsophisticated in its presentation, it made several deadly satirical strikes. That's the fairest response I can think of for these asses: a good snort and an orbit-dizzying eye-roll.
I don't have enough years left to waste them reading ID garbage. Preparing answers for the stock ID claims is one reason to read their tripe, but a better resource is talkorigins, in particular, the index to creationist claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Constantly having to sign in is a pain. PZ, in the past, I sometimes don't comment because I come into a post about 30 comments down, and I figure my comment, however witty and incisive, would be lost in the noise. Me first!
I don't think you have to read Behe or Dembski specifically, but I do think it's important to be aware of their arguments. It's better form, it helps you prepare in advance, and it helps avoid accusations of blind faith.
Regarding typekey, I dislike the system too. As mentioned, it may not be working properly since it fails to keep me signed in. Requiring the email address might be a problem...many are skittish about that, not knowing how the address will be used or presented on the site, and about sharing information with the Typekey people. And there's the simple fact that you've required people to take some new, active steps to be able to comment, which will weed out many who don't care enough to jump through the hoops (that sounds worse than I mean it to).
I don't know how many academicians are represented here, but my guess is that it's partly because it's finals week (or the lead-in). Otherwise, it is suddenly nice weather everywhere.
Of all Dawkins books I've read, I found "The Ancestors' Tale" to be the best. At least, the easiest to read. Lots of pictures. :) I generally have preferred Gould to Dawkins, but TAT is by far the best evolution book I have read.
Ancestors' Tale is a stunning achievement. About the only Dawkins book that I did NOT care for was "Unweaving the Rainbow." I got was he going for, and his prose always sparkles, but it felt padded to me.
Much as I love Dawkins, I have to add that one of the very best evolution books I've read is Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge." Just a wonderful book, and anyone can read it.
TypeKey = no problem, for me at least.
If intellectual honesty required giving equal time to every crackpot theory, not much progress will be made. Science is like open-source software; the community will spot obvious errors. That the "big scientific conspiracy" "peer review" thing they're always complaining about.
I also liked Blind Watchmaker.
For me, it's not you, and it's not TypeKey (though I grant it's annoying, but not fatally so)--and I'm totally neglecting my own poor little blog too, who would be sprouting wings right about now if it were one of those tamagotchi things.
No, my dissertation defense has changed from "one of these days, real soon now", to July 27, and lately I spend my days alternating between feverishly reading yet another primary source, and curling up in the corner in the fetal position, whimpering.
Expect a lot of retroactive screeds from Dr. Raven*, though, starting July 28! :)
* I hope, I hope, I hope!
I don't agree that NONE of their stuff should be read, if only to avoid the criticism "How can you comment on something that you haven't even read?"
Since Mikey and Billy have really written only one thing and then endlessly repeated it, you should limit your intake to the minimal subset. Too much of their stuff can cause excessive drooling and probably brain damage.
"It takes the edge off that first moment of shock, when they say something so awesomely stupid that you find it incredible that anyone would even suggest such a thing."
I had one of those moments today. I was getting my annual eye exam (yea union benefits!) and the optometrist was being especially chatty, what do you do, etc. I mentioned that I sometimes taught geology, and she proceeded to tell me about some geologist who teaches at the air force academy and wrote a book she read about how creation can be explained by geology, and how he must know what he's talking about because he teaches at the air force! I ... really didn't know what to do. On the one hand one wants to beat back ignorance whenever it's encountered, on the other hand it was casual conversation not indicating in-depth interest (e.g. no one really wants to know how you're doing when they ask), and on top of that she was in charge of my prescription and of putting painful drops in my eyes, and I didn't want to piss her off. What to do?
TypeKey actually has kept me from commenting a couple of times, but it really shouldn't have. The hoops are not so narrow and high that it makes me hesitate to jump through them.
They typekey thingamajigger is annoying, but I can deal with it.
Alternate/complementary cause for the reduction in readership: Finals. Some people might just be too busy to log on, though that explanation might fail if you're still getting roughly the same amount of visitors.
Last night it took two hours to sign in to comment, just to sign in as I had registered days ago. So I called out Homeland security, no I e-mailed Seed about it. They just recommended that Zap cookies page which didn't help.
Typekey acted as though it was overloaded. I always delete cookies before trying to sign in. Between 7 and 10pm eastern time seems to be the worse time.
I can live with two hours signing in. I have cable/broadband so I don't think it is my trouble.
Fred
Hi, PZ. I don't think your commenters have vanished, but you may be losing out to the end of the school year madness. Here, I'm dealing with a graduating HS senior who heads off to Virginia Tech in August, and a 16 year old with a new learner's permit. I'm lurking, just no time for commenting. So far, Typekey hasn't been a hassle for me, but I just tried checking the "keep me signed in for 2 weeks" box so we'll see if it works or not.
There's one reason to read creationists--hilarity. Over at After the Bar Closes we've been watching Uncommon Descent and laughing at them for months. It's a rich vein of comedy. Read a few pages and tell me you aren't chuckling.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4458dc12…
I haven't read any Behe or Dembski. I have read some ID books, but I always pick them up at used book sales, so that none of my cash goes to support the author or publisher. I have read Of Pandas and People and [delete] is it bad!
Anyone feeling a need to restore some neurons after reading the recent Raw Story article by Melinda Barton should have a look at:
Can an atheist be a fundamentalist? by AC Grayling.
I'd like to know how extensible the peer review process is. I'm comfortable with it in most hard sciences, engineering, and mathematics; but I'm not so sure about it in social sciences, economics, and po-mo studies.
Yeah, the end-of-term chaos is the most likely reason -- I'm feeling it, too. There's so much grading to do, and people are scheduling committee meetings for this week and next; that's an insanity I do not understand. I want to tell them all I'm busy, this is the busiest time of the year, and scheduling extra work is freaky.
Typekey works fine and keeps me logged in for two weeks.
More squids is ggod too though.
Prof. Myers,
Aside from end-of-semester craziness, I believe that TypeKey (as well as other sites owned by the same people) was under a denial of service attack last night that was pretty severe.
Do the authors' books that you recommended specifically address the nonsense that the ID crowd comes up with? For example, would they specifically pick apart the "irreducible complexity" argument at a level that someone who hasn't had biology since high school could understand? (On a side note, I really enjoyed your explanation of how irreducible complexity is a bogus arguement from your "Teach the Controversy" .ppt presentation you posted a while ago.)
If not, could you recommend some sources that do so? Thanks!
-Carlie
"Nice?" What are you smoking? ;/ It's 80 degrees out and sunny. :(
I four have been having problems with TypeKey ignoring the "keep me signed in" button. I wish it'd work like some forums where it'll let you sign in indefinitely on that computer...
It almost certainly is the forced login that reduces comments. It doesn't matter how easy it is, the fact is most of the things that most people say on these things (myself included, obviously) qualify as spontaneous utterances.
When confronted with the choice of registering before I comment vs. not commenting, my comment is going to have to be pretty important or funny or well thought out to stay out of the dust bin.
Note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if you like a lot of give and take between a bunch of loudmouths, forcing them to register is not the way to go.
I think it's a good idea to read creationist/ID arguments. However, there is one reason I hesitate to tell other people to do so - sometimes the flaws in their arguments aren't obvious to everyone. And sometimes creationists will make claims that a outright false. I've experienced this a number of times: creationist makes an arguement - one that seems both surprising and strong (e.g. Hovind claimed that Human cytochrome-c is more similar to sunflower cytochrome-c than any other species), I'll do some fact-checking and discover that it's totally wrong. The other one I see them do a lot of times is carefully cherry pick their evidence. They present their cherry-picked facts to (for example) argue that genetics actually contradicts evolutionary phylogenic relationships. In that case, their initial statements are actually correct, but they are carefully chosen and their significance exaggerated so that they can make some other totally false statement (i.e. that genetics contradicts evolution). I actually feel kind of sorry for people who read their stuff, because unless you are educated in biology or are willing and capable of fact-finding their claims, you are simply going to be confused into believing that there's some evidence behind their ideas.
Firefox asks you when you first sign in to Typekey if you want it to remember your password for that particular site (meaning the Typekey sign-in screen). I've done that elsewhere, and it knows me here (yay cookies), so it's a simple matter to sign in if I have something useful (no brickbats, please) to say. I don't find it troublesome, but maybe it's because so many of the places I read are Typepad blogs that I've become accustomed to it.
... and the fact that they play these games and then pass themselves off as honest people fighting against lying evolutionists just makes me angry. I've seen Hovind talk (via YouTube) and there's a little section where he says that people shouldn't be allowed to lie to make you believe their theories. Of course, he's accusing evolutionists of lying, but once you are familiar with him, you just want to scream that He's the one lying.
TypeKey and TypePad were in fact under DoS attacks last night for several hours, and all the sites they work with - LiveJournal was down for hours and their news page mentioned it this morning.
Anyways, I tried reading the ID stuff, and I just can't do it for more than a few minutes before the death cries of my neurons bother me and make me put it down.
The real reason that comments are down is that you've convinced almost everybody, PZ. Not only that evolution is real, but that atheism is correct, Iraq is wrong, and Coulter is a dolt. Clean sweep!
The engravers at the Mint have been called back from Spring Break to scrape "In God We Trust" off the coinage. They're grumbling, and several of them have refused to relinquish the funny-colored drinks with the mini-umbrellas. But they're still scritch-scraping away!
Ah, well...at least I can wish RavenT good luck in late July!
Another firefox user here - I haven't commented for a while, and I signed in quite easily - Typekey remembered me and Firefox remembered the password as well for good measure.
By the way, I've noticed that commenting is way down. Let me know if there's a problem
You can't be serious. This totally smacks of disingenuousness. Why comment in an echo chamber?
And this post even CONFIRMS that it's an echo chamber.
"Read only accepted Philistine gospel. Never mind your enemies. They're full of s***."
And you claim Christians are closed minded.
Please. Even I come to the Loony Left in hopes of understanding why you are all so confused, and perhaps to learn. And I do, in places like Respectful Insolence, Indian Cowboy and Dispatches from the Culture Wars?
Here? "It's the PZ Myers Self-Appreciation Show!!!"
Followed by the sound of crickets and the question: "Why isn't anyone listening?"
Well, at least this comment is sure to spark up the commentary, as the ECSs line up to smack me around. See? Even us non-atheists can help you out, PZ.
It's mostly the TypeKey thing (at least that slows me down). And re: the above from compass ... at some point the evolution debating just gets silly and pointless. I don't need to read every single bit of crap from the creationist crowd to realize that the position's bankrupt. From a theist perspective, no one reads Manichee much any more either, since it's apparently been decided that it's a non-workable religion. I feel the same way about ID. After a certain period of time exposing oneself to an idea, thinking about it, and making conclusions, one can move on to more challenging and better ideas than ID.
Just a lurker, testing out the Type Key service.
Worked for me, with no delays.
So far.
Eliot Sober's advice is probably best. If you want to understand the arguments that IDC'ers make, read Paley. Not only haven't they advanced since 1810, but at least Paley knew the biology of his day. Which is more than can be said for Behe, Demski, et al.
TypeKey is a pain. PZ, you have to decide if it's worth it to you.
Frank
"You are far better off reading a solid science text than wasting it on their drivel."
It is relatively easy to recognise pseudoscience, especially religious motivated, or even bad science in mature fields like biology.
As a general question it is harder in new fields. For example, in theoretical physics there are now a couple of alternatives researched for quantum gravity and/or particle physics beyond the standard model. It seems to take a while for an outsider to see behind distracting glossy and vague popular journals to find out which alternative is most compatible with earlier physics and most predictive. Not totally incidential this theory (string/M theory) is researched by more that 90 % of those concerned. But that fact is mostly buried in blogs, conference proceedings and/or arxiv paper output. It takes some effort to tease these things out if one is interested in the most solid science and least time waste here too.
"I've noticed that commenting is way down."
Yes, good weather, late spring, holidays, schools out, and tax form returns. TypeKey works (especially with saved forms and a spamdump web mejl adress) but is especially stoopid - every instance of browser need a new signin so tabbed browser is a must.
You can't be serious. This totally smacks of disingenuousness. Why comment in an echo chamber?
I don't know, but Daily Kos and Redstate don't seem to have a problem with getting people to comment.
By the way, I've noticed that commenting is way down. It could be you're all bored with me, or that it's my fault since I've been distracted with grading and exam preparation, or most worrisome, the TypeKey requirement has stymied potential commenters, or at least discouraged them. Let me know if there's a problem-- the comments contribute much to the site, and I'd hate to see them chased away.
For me, it's definitely TypeKey. When I really want to comment, I pull my intricate password out of my head and type it out (for some reason, the remember me feature only works on Mozilla for me). The problem is, usually I don't. Your blog's big enough that I very rarely see a discussion that something's crucially missing from.
But then again, I'm very picky about commenting systems. I abhor HaloScan, and for a while I didn't comment on Majikthise simply because the remember me button didn't work and I didn't feel like writing my name, email, and URL all the time. So maybe what drives me away is not what drives other people away.
"The Ancestors Tale" is indeed a magnum opus. Easy to read for a layman like me. Its large, but I'm zipping through it. I may go write a review at Amazon. Another favorite of mine, though more challenging, is "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" by Gould.
When are you going to write a book, PZ?
Hah! It's hilarious to see a troll accusing a blog of being an echo chamber. Well, it's echoing with laughter now! ROFTL!
It's my big project for the summer. Please don't mention it in the same breath you bring up Gould and Dawkins, though -- it's intimidating enough.
Are you serious, PZ? If so, will the book be a science book written for scientists, a popular science book, or a book about creationist lunacy?
Typekey was not letting me sign in last night. Cookie deletion didn't seem to help. The "drinking liberally" post was stuck at 5 comments for a while.
Ah, you've described the "brain freeze" technique, as I've dubbed it. It's one of those "hail Marys" since it really only works one time. I've run into this before, since I usually try to logically follow a conversation or debate, a stupid assertion out of left field can really throw you off. I think it's just a larger version of a very common right-wing debating technique of throwing a bunch of dirt in your eyes to blind you (the media is very vulnerable to this one).
As far as intellectual honesty, if you're reviewing a book, I think you need to read it. Most of us just really need to know what the common arguments are, so we are prepared. I'm actually against giving traffic to some of these jokers, since they seem to thrive on the idea that they're in a "debate."
Thanks for the suggestions!
Yes.
Typekey might be a problem - it simply didn't work at all for me the first time I tried to register and sign in. I was stubborn enough to try again; not everybody might be. And of course, anyone who hates Typekey isn't going to sign in to tell you in a comment here. ;-)
I'm asking which of the three it will be...
By the way, I've just lost a comment because of TypeKey's very strict automatic logout regime. I suggested to Vanessa that she read not only Dawkins but also Gould, and asked commenters who're more familiar than him than I am to recommend good books by him.
Here is the URL for Live Journal that talks about the trouble using TypeKey last evening.
http://community.livejournal.com/lj_maintenance/
Do you really want comments from smelly chemists? In reality, I come up with comments all the time, but they usually are unexpressed in writing.
Typekey authentication? Not a big deal, but then I only average about 4 comments a year.
Weather? Absolutely. Here in Davis, after I don't know how many months of steady rain, most of the campus is flopped onto lawns in shorts. Very distracting....
End of quarter? Nahhh, not for five more weeks (I can't wait - chemistry students can hurt themselves in ways biology students can't even imagine - especially when distracted by Spring.) PZ - do your students lose control, concentration, and other vital bodily functions when the weather warms up?
Rumsfeld? Yeah, comments are messy....
PZ,
I am holding a spot open for your book in my reading list for later this year. Do you anticipate it will be available for this year's winter holiday gift giving?
Nice to see you at DL Tuesday.
LM Wanderer
Compass, would it be intellectually dishonest to reject The Davinci Code on the basis of reviewers you respect, without reading it yourself? Why or why not?
I reject The Da Vinci Code after having read it myself, without even letting reviewers taint my opinion (although reading some reviews alerted me to things I wouldn't have noticed on my own).
Hey great! Actually I was just kidding. I figured you were busy
enough. I know its going to be great. I don't want to put any pressure on you so I wont say anything else. Which reminds me. Is there a way to edit the post? I was having a little trouble with Typekey too, but its OK now. Its worth it to cut down on the trolls. Can't keep em all out, though. Thats no fun.
I'm still catching up on the old site. I hope it'll be up a little longer yet.
log me as one of the "having problems with typekey" crowd.
TypeKey put me off for a couple of days before I bit the bullet, then it took a while to get working. As it turned out, I needed to enable scripting for ScienceBlogs, and I keep that turned off by default. Now, though, everything works OK.
Ratty writes Gardy-ewwww!:
"When Behe appears, best cover your ears,
and that goes for Dembski, too..."
----
TypeKey gave me problems until I deleted its cookies and forced some page refreshes. Since then it has been fine.
Compass, would it be intellectually dishonest to reject The Davinci Code on the basis of reviewers you respect, without reading it yourself? Why or why not?
In my opinion -and from experience- it would be dishonest. Better to suspend judgement until you've had a chance to review the material yourself.
As for this:And re: the above from compass ... at some point the evolution debating just gets silly and pointless. I don't need to read every single bit of crap from the creationist crowd to realize that the position's bankrupt.
This works fine from your level of learning. But this was the original quote: To what extent does intellectual honesty require me to also read guys like Behe and Dembski, and to understand their arguments?
As rrt and others have mentioned, it is doing a potential disservice to those who do not have sufficient learning on the topic to dismiss the ID arguments out-of-hand without first exploring them, and may well be the case for PZ's inquirer.
And again, for the record, I have read Behe, and I do not agree with him. Not for the reasons most of you in here disagree with him, of course.
And no, I am not a Young Earth Creationist. Sounds like twaddle as well.
PZ: About the book...cephalopods too, right? RIGHT?!?!
Actually, I have read Behe, and a number of other creationists at one time or another.
I dismantled Behe not so much on his "hard science" (I'm not a biologist, so about all I can say reasonably is that I've read far more reasoned sounding opinions - e.g. Dawkins).
Instead, I went after Behe's work on a couple of fronts I'm more comfortable with:
1) History. I went back, and reread Darwin because I was pretty sure Behe was misquoting Darwin all over the place - he was. I have a long standing interest in history, so this was a natural place to start.
2) Statistics and probabilities. I'm a software developer that writes real-time systems. The maxim "millions to one odds happen nine times out of ten" (thank you, Terry Pratchett!) holds in my profession rather nicely. A little bit of basic statistical analysis mixed with a bit of the mathematics of game theory made it quite easy to dismember Behe's credulity based argument about "irreducible complexity".
(And I've been very pleased to see the flagellum discussion pop up in more recent years, further dismembering Behe's claims)
You don't need to read Behe (or others) to understand the debate, but it is valid to read Behe (et. al.) if you intend to eviscerate their arguments.
Long time lurker. I finally linked to your blog today from mine (other links include Bad Science, Bad Astronomy and Deep Sea News). Not a scientist but a science enthusiast and many other things, such as illustrator: check out my giant squid light switch cover at http://www.cafepress.com/thickets
Enjoy and keep up the good work.
"Please don't mention [the book] in the same breath you bring up Gould and Dawkins, though." Okay. I won't say it, but no one can stop people thinking it! It's great news. I don't comment on the science posts, but I print them out and read them (sometimes 2 or 3 times), and I've wondered when a book was coming out. If I may say something about PZ's writing, and Dawkins', and Gould's, the essence is clarity and simplicity.
The question re Behe and Dembski is a good one. It's an attempt to be honest. However, unless one is going to review their books, it's not necessary to read them--I haven't. Dembski's math-babble is over my head and I admit it (he wants it to be over one's head!). No one learns how the rabbit from the hat trick is done by watching the trick over and over, but by reading an analysis of the trick. Wesley Elsberry has a good website which analyzes Dembski's claims at http://www.antievolution.org/ and the home page has good general articles. (I understand that Dembski threatened to sue Elsberry at one time--on a suing kick, our Wild Bill seems to be lately.)
As I've mentioned before, I'm a high school biology teacher. In my experience most of my ilk are not all that well-informed about any of this stuff. Neither the views of ID "scholars" (cough) or the thought of Dawkins, et. al is likely to have made it to their reading lists.
Since that's the case, if I was approached by a fellow teacher about the so-called 'controversy', I wouldn't recommend that they read Dawkins, Gould, etc. Instead, I'd recommend Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God". I would push Miller on my high school colleagues, not just because his vague theism is likely to resonate with them, most of whom are not skeptics, but also because he's the author of one of the most widely-used high school textbooks in this country, a highly-visible defender of evolution in public debate and a 'go-to' guy for the media on this topic.
Miller's book is also chock-full of basic information that specifically targets what might be called the 'icons of creationism'. I could go on and on about all that's right with this book, but the bottom line is that in my experience when I am confronted with one of the bad creationist arguments, I almost invariably find a very concise, simple and easy-to-understand counter in Miller's book, and this is precisely the sort of thing that most of my colleagues need.
Scott Hatfield
epigene13
I have had trouble but seems to work now
I've type-keyed myself now, so you have one more post to wade through :-)
So a strident theist isn't willing to accept the judgements of high-status authority figures on a matter, but instead insists upon using his personal judgement upon directly-observed evidence.
How... refreshingly unusual.
Do you think he's likely to apply those same standards to his religious beliefs?
Whey whey whey, book? If I request it from my bookstore now, the order should be processed about the same time as you're ready to publish. Faboux.
It's springtime, and more people are doing things outside more often.
Not here in the southern hemisphere it ain't. It was 17 degrees c today, 17! Soon it will be snowing.
So a strident theist isn't willing to accept the judgements of high-status authority figures on a matter, but instead insists upon using his personal judgement upon directly-observed evidence. How... refreshingly unusual. Do you think he's likely to apply those same standards to his religious beliefs?
Cute. As is so very common, you leap to the snap judgment that my faith (if I even have any) is based on "blind following." Nice try, but I'm afraid you're going to have to go back to the end of the line.
While it is true that there is an element of faith required for "faith" (how tautological yet self-explanatory), a leap going beyond the Third Act of the Mind, it is possible, even common for the faithful to have carefully reasoned much of their religious life.
But by all means, comfort yourself that the religious are "thoughtless sheep" following the "party line" without recourse to reason.
Speaking of intellectual aridity. . .
If you're going to read Behe or Dembski, yes first read the science literature. (Or talk.origins) Prepare for the common refuted claims they make. ALSO, get it from the library or find it on line. Let us not reward these two charlatans with inflated book sales.
I have no problems with typekey, as I delete cookies every time I quit the browser.
By the bye, the kill file script works on all Scienceblog.com sites if you apply it to them. (Applied it on Aetiology and zapped a commenter there.) Have zapped commenters here. The static has been reduced! Thanks!
So a strident theist isn't willing to accept the judgements of high-status authority figures on a matter, but instead insists upon using his personal judgement upon directly-observed evidence. How... refreshingly unusual. Do you think he's likely to apply those same standards to his religious beliefs?
Cute. In addition to the use of the gratuitous "strident. . .as is so very common, you leap to the snap judgment that my faith (if I even have any) is based on "blind following." Nice try, but I'm afraid you're going to have to go back to the end of the line.
While it is true that there is an element of faith required for "faith" (how tautological yet self-explanatory), a leap going beyond the Third Act of the Mind, it is possible, even common for the faithful to have carefully reasoned much of their religious life.
But by all means, comfort yourself that the religious are "thoughtless sheep" following the "party line" without recourse to reason.
Speaking of intellectual aridity. . .
PZ:
Thanks for taking the time to read my little missive, by smail mail no less. I had more or less reached the same conclusion, but was interested in the wider world's thoughts.
I work in a place where many technical discussions go on, sometimes heated, and have found that it is impossible to be effective without at least knowing what the other guy thinks is true. I have had similar urges studying the evolution "controversy", but think that the difference for me has been that Behe, et. al. seem to begin with an argument from ignorance/incredulity. What arguments could possiblly be made, built upon such a foundation?
Cheers,
Hank
In regards to the commenting lapse, the fact that in signing in to comment here the person is forced to hand out his email address suggests not everyone is willing to do that.
Or at least he or she can forge a fake email address or sign up for any of the unlimited number of free email services and use it as a bogus email address to give to others for such requests. I do this all the time.
I also have an email account I use to prove people who say they won't hand out or sell your email address do just that. I use it on sites that claim they won't reveal your email address. Some time back after submitting it to a site whose name I no longer recall about a week afterwards I started getting email bombed with sales pitches. No I don't need finanacial advice, a russian male order bride, penis extentions or to buy a car by mail.
MYOB'
.
Personally I'm bored with debunking creationists. I just don't see the point of getting all hot and bothered.
Interesting concept. I wonder if they allow gay marriage in Russia.
Hmm .. I think the general corporate presence has taken some of the camaraderie out of the site. I would have rather kicked in $200 towards a new server than be annoyed by interferring advertising and aggressive sign in processes.
Maybe the fall elections will help crank up the energy level.
"While it is true that there is an element of faith required for "faith" (how tautological yet self-explanatory), a leap going beyond the Third Act of the Mind, it is possible, even common for the faithful to have carefully reasoned much of their religious life."
"the Third Act of the Mind", how scholastic and theological. ( http://www.quodlibet.net/williams-mind.shtml ) What is denied is of course that one can carefully reason the religious life as part of a life that also considers facts. It breaks all "three acts" of the mind to needlessly use a different set of rules than the usual for a particular religious part of life.