David Berlinski, that Prince of Pomposity and Lackey of the Discovery Institute, is trying to get a letter published in Science, complaining about the study that showed America's poor showing in understanding evolution. It's more of an opaque, cranky whine, something Berlinski specializes in, so I rather doubt it will ever get in—the editors there are going to be as respectful of creationist nonsense as I am. Of course, one thing I can do that the editors wouldn't is rip into his letter and tear it to pieces in public…
"Human beings, as we know them," Miller, Scott and Okamoto write, "developed from earlier species of animals." Those who reject this statement are for this reason denied creedal access to the concept of evolution itself. But how could anyone regard this claim without the most serious reservations? We know hardly anything about human beings. The major aspects of the human mind and the culture to which it gives rise are an enigma, and so, too, the origins of the anatomical structures required to express them. If the phrase "developed from earlier species of animals" implies that human beings had ancestors, there is no reason to think it interesting; if it implies that human beings became human by means of random variation and natural selection, there is no reason to think it true.
Translation: Berlinski wants to claim a special creation status for human beings. However, note that he has no evidence for this, and his arguments are entirely negative: because we don't know everything about the human mind, he wants to believe that the support for our natural origins is therefore weak, and that just maybe some rebuttal to that notion lurks in some unknown corner of organic complexity.
It's God of the Gaps, in other words.
As for the last bit, all of the available evidence does imply that human origins are a consequence of natural mechanisms, and that random variation and natural selection were a significant part of it. If he has some other mechanism to propose, he should stop skirting around it, say what it is, and give us enough detail that we can test predictions of his hypothesis.
Don't hold your breath.
Statistical investigations into the origins of belief are in any case pointless. What would it avail us to know that there is a strong statistical correlation between membership in the NCSE and an eagerness to promote Charles Darwin to beatific status and for this reason carefully to cultivate his relics?
No one wants to beatify Darwin—we're all godless atheists, remember? We do want to encourage proper respect for an important historical and scientific figure. Berlinski would also find that these same acolytes of Darwin would also be be encouraging the preservation of artifacts and notes and ideas from Agassiz and Owen and yes, even Wilberforce. It's not religion. It's history.
In commenting on the study to which he contributed, Jon Miller of Michigan State University, observed that "American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalists." Considering the fact that American Protestants are not notably interested in waging jihad, this is a little like arguing that oranges are more flat than anything else, except perhaps for paper.
I thought this was the most amusing part of his letter. What denial! We don't call it "jihad," of course, but who is waging a war in the Middle East right now? Who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Who is rattling the sabers at Iran? Which religious group in America believes that war and destruction in Israel are necessary prerequisites to the rapturous end of the world?
American Protestants (not all, of course, but many of the radical right wing sects) are most definitely interested in battling Islam.
Miller's additional idea that the United States and Turkey are closely allied in virtue of their fundamentalist commitments is richly conceived.
It has apparently escaped Professor Miller's notice that Turkey is a secular state and has been since 1922, and that by following his reasoning, one could conclude that the diplomatic services of the United States would look favorably on a revival of the Taliban in Afghanistan or the triumph of radical Islam in Iraq.
You know, it's shouldn't be surprising to see a proponent of creationism demonstrate such an ability to understand what he's read or such a willingness to distort meaning, but it still makes me shake my head in wonder, every time. The article does not claim that the US and Turkey are allied because of shared fundamentalism, nor does it suggest that the Turkish government is not secular, any more than it suggests that the US government is not nominally secular. Both share a problem with similar causes. We both have growing popular movements based on a rigid, science-denying religious fundamentalism. This is undermining science education in both countries. It does not say or imply that American Christians are cheering on the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. (Although it is easy to find examples of, for instance, Kent Hovind and Harun Yahya citing each other favorably. They seem willing to set aside deep differences in doctrine to oppose the common enemy of "Darwinism.")
Such an excess of stupidity is rarely to be found in nature.
But frequently found in the press releases of the Discovery Institute.
- Log in to post comments
Quote of the Week:
Such an excess of stupidity is rarely found in nature. But frequently found in the press releases of the Discovery Institute...
On the one hand, to be fair, Iran does its own fair share of saber-rattling.
On the other hand, does this Berlinksi guy not get oxygen to his brain on a regular basis?
Harun Yahya and Kent Hovind cite each other not because of "common enemy" but to show that Creationism is not limited to a particular religious belief. Thereby they strengthen their claim to legitimacy.
Berlinski's letter should be rejected for _Science_ magazine; it would fit better in the St. Paul Pioneer Press's letters to the editor section.
I think Berlinski, to use popular l33t speech I do not understand whatsoever, just got 'pwned'.
s/"such an ability to understand"/"such an inability to understand"
He's right about not waging jihad, you know. Instead, we prefer the term crusade
I think Science should publish it - to deny the IDers the opportunity of saying that science journals don't publish ID stuff just because it's ID (as opposed to because it's bunk), to show everyone what vacuous nonsense ID is, and to allow someone to rebutt it till it's flatter than hammered shit.
got it - jihad is arabic for crusade.
Perhaps I should suggest that the local Catholic school change its mascot from the Crusaders to the Jihadists to be a little more sensitive to world views.
Although frankly I wouldn't want to be tied to either group.
I love the way hardcore "humans are special creation" people rely on people's fear and facist tendencies to make us think that the only way we are special is that we were created.
It creates a whole line of people (in fact whole lines of people dedicated to generating new lines of people) whose psyche is so fragile that any brief glance with logic might be enough to just shatter their entire belief system and make them drink the blood of babies.
If someone fronts up with scientifically proven hardcore evidence of a deity, whether YWH, Vishnu or The FSM, I don't think there are too many scientists who will prostrate themselves and slit their wrists, as much as many neighbour-loving Christians might think they will.
For the ratioinal, rational proof is a bit humdrum.
For the irrational, rational proof is a bit of an abstract concept.
(It's 2:00 am on a Friday night)
Let me see if I've got this straight - since we don't know everything possible about everything possible, there must be a god.
Interesting.
That American evangelicals are not- yet- Jihadists, speaks not for their calm, self-discipline, or some inherent nonviolence in their doctrine but for the accident of their birth- here- their creature comforts, and that secular government they seem so set on remaking in Tehran's image. Except, you know, with Jeebus instead of the 12th Imam. Nutjobs all.
I love arguments that appeal to ignorance! They're so easy for me to completely ignore.
Perhaps I should suggest that the local Catholic school change its mascot from the Crusaders to the Jihadists to be a little more sensitive to world views.
Jesus! what the fuck are you talkin about?
Brlnsk ds nt hld cndl t PZ Myrs n snrng.
nd m mprssd by th TSTNDNG scntfc rsrch tht PZ s prdcng.
H s ndbtdly Nbl Prz mtrl.
"all of the available evidence does imply that human origins are a consequence of natural mechanisms, and that random variation and natural selection were a significant part of it" ... AND that evidence is persuasive. Don't neglect that part.
American fundamentalists have bombed gay nightclubs and shot physicians that perform abortions. If they haven't yet performed any one act as stunning as the 9/11 attacks, it's not because there are no violent elements among their movement, but because those elements have not achieved the organization that bin Laden did.
And I am Impressed by the OUTSTANDING scientific research that PZ is producing.
He is undoubtedly Nobel Prize material.
Strike one for the embittered whiny troll.
If they haven't yet performed any one act as stunning as the 9/11 attacks, it's not because there are no violent elements among their movement, but because those elements have not achieved the organization that bin Laden did.
I think it's merely because they assume they can get what they want through the political process.
Casey Luskin of the contemptibly dishonest discovery institute was attacking Jerry Coyne for having a negative attitude towards Creationists in Nature yesterday.
He also tried to claim directed evolution, in a test tube, is just another name for intelligent design.
So what? Ape minds and the culture they give rise to are also difficult to explain, but we do it. Apparently Berlinski is completely unaware that there is a whole discipline out there trying to explain culture and human origins. It's called anthropology. Perhaps he should take an 101 course in it sometime.
I sincerely hope Science does not consider publishing this letter. It would demean the journal and give the IDiots the opportunity to say they had something published in a scientific journal.
The major aspects of the human mind and the culture to which it gives rise are an enigma
I don't know - I did a quick synopsis about what we know about the early development of human culture yesterday in my World Civ class. There's a lot of course we still don't know, but "enigma"? No, not at all. Of course, a lot of what we are learning now comes from genetics - using DNA to study early human migration. I suspect Berlinski might have a weeee problem with that kind of evidence.
For those as yet unacquainted with the marvel that is David Berlinski, I'd suggest that the definitive introduction to the master's work is Mark Chu-Carroll's evisceration of Berlinski's mathematical gibberish at Good Math, Bad Math. MarkCC is blissfully immune to the inky clouds of math mumbo-jumbo that Berlinski emits, although most mere mortals can't help but be overwhelmed by the tendentious prose and the hyper-intellectual pose.
Some of my own quibbles are here.
And in domestic terrorism. They're the ones bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors, after all.
I'm glad to hear Science is not printing this, since in my personal experience they have turned down perfectly legitimate scientific results.
That reminds me, a beta version of Left Behind: Eternal Forces, that Christian video game is being released today.
Evil peacekeepers, uh-huh. That fits right in with the Sermon on the Mount.
It contains "physical warfare", but they insist there is no blood, no gore, and no "jihad", and of course any violence it does contain is not "gratuitous."
Sorry, just thinking out loud.
Several Catholic schools where I live are known as "The Crusaders". Everytime I see or hear the name, I cringe, thinking you don't actually believe the Crusades were a good thing do you?
Then I saw boojieboy's post equating the words jihad and crusade and thought - maybe if the people at these schools realized they were the same thing, just with different religions backing, they would get rid of the stupid name "Crusaders".
Imagine if an arabic perochial school opened in the midwest and refered to their teams as "The Jihadist". I can imagine the backlash.
Authoritarians only accept arguments from authority, which is why they project upon us the idea that we somehow "worship" Darwin. They are fundamentally unable to comprehend that we accept the Theory of Evolution because we can understand it and see that it is effective in explaining the physical world, not because a Great Man declared that it was Truth.
Human beings, as we know them," Miller, Scott and Okamoto write, "developed from earlier species of animals." Those who reject this statement are for this reason denied creedal access to the concept of evolution itself. But how could anyone regard this claim without the most serious reservations? We know hardly anything about human beings.
Well that's too bad. I guess we're a species slated for extinction, since (per Berlinski) we know hardly anything about even ourselves, and we have to understand everything else through ourselves.
How'd he ever get a degree, anyhow?
The major aspects of the human mind and the culture to which it gives rise are an enigma,
So logic, mathematical ability, perception, reflex, and the basic mechanisms of the nervous system are all not understood. Meaning that Berlinski should shut the hell up, since it is clear that in his view there is essentially nothing known, hence he has nothing to tell us.
and so, too, the origins of the anatomical structures required to express them.
No, dumbass, we have evidence for evolution, for our split from chimpanzees, and even some tantalizing hints of some rather unique evolutionary changes in some regulatory structures that guide the development of the human brain. We have an abundance of genetic evidence that shows that our anatomical structures and those of chimps evolved from a common ancestor.
We'd like to know much more, but the fact that we share an evolutionary heritage with other primates, and with all life, is an essential factor allowing us to learn far more about how anatomical structures arose. Fools like Berlinski want to cut off investigation from its necessary foundations, that is, from what we do know about how the brain's origins.
As with biology, little (not really nothing) about the brain makes sense except in the light of evolutionary theory. From the similar developmental pathways in blood vessels and in nerve cells, to the logical shortcuts taken in our thought processes, we need evolution to explain the brain, while rational design is only to be looked-for in computers.
If the phrase "developed from earlier species of animals" implies that human beings had ancestors, there is no reason to think it interesting;
Who said it was, moron? It's your strawman that well-established facts denied by DI fellows are actually "interesting", aside from the fact that Berlinski and his ilk continue to deny such established knowledge (yes, I know that he sort of accepts evolution, without, however, accepting any of the explanatory nature of evolutionary theory--which means that his assent is vacuous).
if it implies that human beings became human by means of random variation and natural selection, there is no reason to think it true.
You mean, there is no reason to think it's true except that the expected effects of RM + NS + appear in the various primates, such as selective adaptation, "neutral evolution", and the divergences of the primates that are a prediction of RM + NS +. Versus an "evolutionary concept" that lacks the capacity even to make predictions, and thus has absolutely no confirmatory evidence behind it.
Statistical investigations into the origins of belief are in any case pointless.
I see, the mathematician believes that there is no efficacity in math. So the fact that he aligns himself with stupidity and prejudice is supposed to mean nothing at all. I'm sure that he can't help but claim this to be the case.
What would it avail us to know that there is a strong statistical correlation between membership in the NCSE and an eagerness to promote Charles Darwin to beatific status and for this reason carefully to cultivate his relics?
It would tell us a lot, if it were true, cretin . And the fact that your lies about the NCSE are not true also tells us something about you and your ilk.
In commenting on the study to which he contributed, Jon Miller of Michigan State University, observed that "American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalists." Considering the fact that American Protestants are not notably interested in waging jihad, this is a little like arguing that oranges are more flat than anything else, except perhaps for paper.
Berlinski writes in non sequiturs. Jihad has nothing obvious to do with belief in creationism, and much to do with specifics of Muslim belief and culture. Fundamentalism does refer to the prejudicial denial of the implications of the evidence, so it appears that once again Berlinski is trying to shift the issue away from his own fundamentalist tendencies.
The guy's brain appears to be deteriorating, as one might expect from the denial of intellect and thought. Either that, or he simply knows what sort of nonsense keeps the checks coming, and his name on the blogs. Still, I think that the two may easily be complementary effects, so it's not really an either/or.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Translation: Berlinski wants to claim a special creation status for human beings.
He would deny this. I'm not saying that it isn't true in some important sense, but one could not easily make the case if one were pressed on it, IMO.
He seems to believe in more of a wholly magical Platonic world, ruled by mathematics (though apparently not by statistics, which he derides in the Science study) and untouched by filthy matter. Or it will be untouched by filthy matter in the DI-ruled nation, or some such thing. I'm not really sure, since his positive claims are so nebulous.
Again, it's not so much that I think that PZ's statement above could not be true, it's that I am warning that it is the sort of thing that DI or UD people might pounce on if they responded to PZ's comments.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
That's one possibility.
Another interpretation of that stance is that if they allowed that evolutionary biology is a science; that the evidence in favor of it is pervasive, coherent and consistent, and so on - then they would have to argue against it on scientific grounds, which they utterly lack.
Arguing that "Darwinism" is a religion wins them several rhetorical points: If it's a religion, then it's against the Constitution to be required to teach it (never mind that they also want prayers & instruction from their religion to be part of the school curriculim; consistency is not their strong point). It's also a warning to the faithful: Given the commandments against having other gods and abominating idols and so on, they can paint "Darwinism" as being a "false" religion, and therefore to be rejected by the righteous, and so on.
I've never understood why Christians like to brand themselves Crusaders. The medieval Christians sucked at Crusading---what was the record, one for nine by the end?
See, now this is why Science won't let me pick their Ls-to-the-Es: I would have published it.
I've never understood why Christians like to brand themselves Crusaders. The medieval Christians sucked at Crusading---what was the record, one for nine by the end?
If you assume the Crusades' real goal was just to kill lots of Muslims (a pretty easy argument to make), they must be counted as pretty successful.
Two for eleven, if you count the Albigensian and Children's Crusades. It's possible that the latter never actually happened, though. So the record is 2-10, confirmed. In other words, Medieval Christianity is the military equivalent of Vanderbilt's football team.
I still find it infuriating that the NCAA decided to wage war on Native American team nicknames, but apparently has absolutely no problem with "Crusaders" or "Warriors" or "Fighting Irish". Frankly, as someone who prefers to arrive early to appointments and parties, I'm a little offended by Oklahoma's nickname, the "Sooners". And I think that everyone who does charity work should petition the University of Tennessee to withdraw their scurrilous attack on volunteer workers.
Oh, yeah, and UMass's nickname is insulting to men who suffer from premature ejaculation. And if you really think about it, "Sooners" is pretty offensive in that regard, too.
Nobody's more obsessed with Darwin than creationists. Seriously, non-creationists only ever mention him in a historical context. He invented the theory of evolution by natural selection, sure, but that was 150 years ago. The science isn't there anymore. But, of course, it's not about the science, it's just about scoring rhetorical points.
It really gets me goat. I mean, Nobody claims that electrical engineers "worship" Michael Faraday, do they? Heck, you've got a better basis for it. Darwin only has a "theory". Faraday has laws! Multiple ones, even! Clearly, electrical engineering is just a Cult of Faraday.
Nobody's more obsessed with Darwin than creationists. Seriously, non-creationists only ever mention him in a historical context. He invented the theory of evolution by natural selection, sure, but that was 150 years ago. The science isn't there anymore.
This is a result of how people argue religion versus how people argue science. When you get different religious factions arguing over who's right and who's wrong, it's completely normal procedure to essentially use ad hominem arguments -- that is, that a certain religious figure is wrong merely because they're a Bad Person. Whole theological debates are routinely won this way. Considering the distinct lack of, uh, emperical evidence to decide whether, say, Catholics are 'more right' than Protestants, or whether Shiites are actually 'heretics', it's not surprising that personality issues loom large in theological arguments. So when fundies get obsessed with Darwin, it's just part of their whole tendency to create villains to argue their case. They just don't realize that in science this is viewed as a rather low-rent tactic.
Two for eleven, if you count the Albigensian and Children's Crusades. It's possible that the latter never actually happened, though. So the record is 2-10, confirmed.
I'd go with 2-9-1, counting Crusader Bowl IV as a tie.
So, the measure of how "fundamental" a religion is is how violent its practitioners are? Remarkably dim view of religion from Mr. Berlinski.
"We know hardly anything about human beings."
That is the crux - they know nothing worst of all they don`t even know that they do not know anything, something which any smart man does.
This idiot has educated himself from the bible and believes the whole world is built on that scheme.
I'd count Crusader Bowl IV as a serious own goal (to mix my sporting metaphors). The only ones who gain from that were the Venetians (in the short term) and the Ottomans (long term).
The first rule of the Cult of Faraday is that you do not talk about the Cult of Faraday.
Don't make me send a holy voltage spike down the Intarweb pipes to your computer.
Berlinski has in the past claimed a PhD in Mathematics. However, I have seen some evidence that his PhD is actually in philosophy. Sombody should query him about this issue.
Berlinski's Ph.D. is in philosophy and was earned at Princeton. His bio at the Discovery Institute website says so. He does, however, tend to present himself as a mathematician rather than as a philosopher. While philosophers may feel free to dazzle people with high-flown rhetoric and impenetrable logic, Berlinski apparently prefers bamboozlement by mathematical notation and the application of the inapplicable (provided that most people can't catch him in the act).
Per the wikepedia, Berlinski has a Princeton Ph.D. in Philosophy, and it links to biographical pages. (It also notes a critic's claim that he has never published professionally, only popularizations.)
I confess I actually own a copy of Berlinski's BLACK MISCHIEF, but its blurb has no biographical detail other than 'taught at universities in the United States and France'. And decades ago I took an afternoon to travel to a talk of his at Berkeley - such style! Such vapidity!
Science will surely not publish the letter, but like Paul I think they should along with an invited rebuttal from Miller, Scott and Okamoto. Granted, only the bozos at the DI among DI promoters probably read Science, but I can imagine that Miller, et al, would rip Berlinski to shreds.
And as for jihad and crusades, I see little difference. If Bush's favorite advisers get their way, they'll have American soldiers invading Iran in the hopes of advancing Armageddon and the rapture. The entire world would then pay the price for their insanity.
Wait a minute: Why not promote Darwin to saint status? I've often mused that had he simply claimed that evolution came to him in a dream, and that God was in the dream, he'd have been knighted and probably pronounced a post-Jesus prophet. Why not sainthood?
Seriously. Did Darwin do less for humanity than many other saints? Hasn't Darwin's theory, applied, saved many millions of lives?
And, were a church to canonize Darwin, wouldn't that indicate at least a minor turn to reason?
Oh, and can't you just imagine the apoplexy at the Discovery Institute among Berlinski, Dembski and their fellow travellers, were Darwin made a saint? They'd have to renounce religion to remain consistent . . .
Having read The Jews and their Lies it still amazes me there are Christian churches that call themselves Lutheran. But then, the Southern Baptists were formed specifically so that slaveowners could continue to be Church dignitaries.
It's selective attention, which while it is a common human trait, is an absolute necessity for the religious mindset.
So if someone wants to say that person X (such as Luther) was good, they ignore everything bad that X said or did (such as the text you mention). If they want Y (such as, for example, inherited chattel slavery), they focus only on what will allow them Y, and ignore or reject everything else (such as, for example, basic ideas about human rights, and so on).
What the hell is "creedal access"?
Indeed. American midwesterners are notorious linguistic perfectionists, and would protest ceaselessly until the players were re-deemed "The Mujahideen".
Why is it that in a reasonably well-informed demographic such as the posters here, no one has mentioned the pre-9/11 US record-holders in domestic terrorism, namely the two Honko-American christian patriots purportedly responsible for the Oklahoma City disturbance in 1995?
Odds on that are pretty good, but not for the reasons Berlinski gives (except perhaps as an example).
There were many more crusades than those against the Moslems (who more or less won all after the first). German invasions of the Baltic lands were Crusades; the Spanish Armada was part of a Crusade against England; the extermination of the French Cathars (for the heresy of claiming that the church should give away its wealth) was a Crusade; the French conquest of Naples circa 1500 was a Crusade; etc, etc; - all blessed by His Holiness.
Not to mention Vikings, Pirates, etc. It seems that to sports fans any sufficiently distant image of bloody maniacs becomes a harmless icon of masculine power. Back before the passage of Godwin's Law, Larry Niven wrote a story set in the 30th century which mentioned in passing a football team called the Berlin Nazis.
If Science won't publish Berlinski's complaint, maybe they can find room for the celebration of his fellow-traveler Ken Ham, as quoted by AgapePress:
Humans aren't made of the same subatomic particles that everything is made of, don't you know...
By the way, what's the first thing that those saintly Christians did when the took Jerusalem? Hypocrites from day one.
I think the Schutzstaffel would work better as a football nickname.
>...one could conclude that the diplomatic services of the United States would look favorably on a revival of the Taliban in Afghanistan...
Well, if one paid any attention to the policies of the Reagan Administration (started, to be fair, in the Carter Administration) in arming the Mujahideen of Afghanistan against the Soviets, one could be forgiven for concluding that the diplomatic services of the US (in the form of the CIA) were instrumental in the original rise of the Taliban, and presumably would have few enough qualms about their revival.
But that was Reagan, and we all know that different rules apply to him.
Several "fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics and gay bars" references here, cause me to reply, "ah -- but when Christian fundamentalist fringe elements do such things, they are hunted down, turned out and turned over to the authorities." In that sense, the fundamentalists are "self-correcting." It does not serve the cause of so-called "reasonable" people to publish common, unthinking and unreasonable diatribes against believers SOLELY because they are believers in any supernatural objects/beings.
People cannot be stupid just because they don't believe in one's own worldview.
If, as an atheist, all one has is Reason, then one should do all one can to properly cultivate it in one's self and others. In that sense, I visit this site (and others) to study the arguments against writers like Berlinski and others -- arguments, not straw-man told-you-so's and ad homeinim (check sp. on that) approaches.
Is wrath appropriate, especially where someone -- whose arguments were destroyed to your satisfaction possibly years ago -- keeps getting attention, and you have to keep bringing up the same arguments over and over and over? I would have to say so (based on my own temperament). It is, at least, irritating when that happens to me.
But sandwich the vexation with reason -- your greatest ally.
Cheers
P.S. Now that I'm awake, I should also mention the several gol's I got while reading this thread (grin-out-loud -- I'm not one for laughing out loud very much). Lovely, lovely strands of dark humor... I'd say "black humor," but I actually got written up once for using that in lecture, so I've had to change my ways.
Sigh.