The IDists love to quote me, because I am rather militant in my opposition to their lies. They are particularly fond of one particular quote* that they've even used in their fund-raising literature. They think it's damning; some of my fellow anti-creationists swoon and protest when they hear the words, but they tend to be faint-hearted anyway. But here's what's really amusing.
I get fan mail from people all the time who are overjoyed that someone out there on the evolution side isn't an apologetic ditherer.
Even better, one ID-friendly conservative tried to rouse his audience with the horror of my words, and got a response that surprised him.
Perhaps the most telling moment came when I read this quote from evolutionary biologist Paul Myers of the University of Minnesota, telling us what he thinks should be done with intelligent design advocates:
The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.
The pro-ACLU crowd actually clapped in approval in response.
Poor Casey Luskin can't comprehend it, either. It is telling; it should tell all of us that there are many people out there tired of making nice with liars and frauds.
I'm pleased to see it. You know, there are debates about tactics on the evolution side all the time — one of the messages of the movie Flock of Dodos is that scientists need to get more media-savvy, for instance — but one of the things that really annoys me about my side of the debate is that so many sit in such terror of making anyone unhappy that they avoid any vigor in the arguments; they seem to blanch in terror that whomping down hard on the stupidity of their so-called "allies" will cause them to run away. Their strategy is to toady up to creationists and fencesitters and pious twits and ignorant theologians and little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys, and hope that mewling softly will win them over. Well, they're welcome to try. My belief is that those creationist-sympathizers aren't on our side at all, but do enjoy the thought of the heathens kowtowing to them, so they'll play along until the issues that count come up…and then they'll break for whatever their preacher says.
I think there is a place for ferocity and partisanship, too. We do not compromise on the science, ever; that is the thin bright line that we do not cross. And we should always make that clear. Others can coddle the fools who dither and simper wishfully over gods and old myths and apologetics, but some of us have to charge forward and stake out a solid position, one that excludes altogether the ancient fairy tales.
There is a lot of support out there for that kind of fiery confidence. Let's see more of us stand up and speak out, and devil take the milksops.
*Actually, the quote is a pastiche of two completely different comments (the IDists seem to have to mangle a quote, even one that doesn't need twisting; it's like a reflex with them). You can read the originals in context here and here. I stand by my words without hesitation.
- Log in to post comments
I'm no good at righteous fury; the best I can summon would be incoherent babble. :p
I agree though: after seeing how incredibly dishonest these people are, there's no point in trying to play nice.
Would it be impolitic to ask for an 'amen' about now?
I cringed when following the link on 'the response surprised him' and found the Idaho Values Alliance. *sigh* We do keep most of the wacko conservatives down in the southern half. Up north we are split mostly between old school Republicans, college liberals and imported liberals.
I.D should be synonymous with creationism and stupidity. Period.
It has to be repeated over and over again. Despite the ignorance of what evolution is to the general public, the fact that I.D. is nothing but a ruse cannot be conveyed enough.
Keep up the fight. I'm tired of all the "concerned" people averse to confrontation.
I was amused by the Discovery Institutes use of the term "Darwinist Biologist" Are there any biologists worth their salt who aren't "Darwinists"?
Sean:
Bryan Fischer, UGH. Well, you're right about southern Idaho, at least as far as the Treasure Valley is concerned. You can thank all the suburban yahoos in Meridian and Nampa for the fact that you are now represented in Congress by Bill "Let's Abolish Gravity" Sali. I still like Boise, but the west valley is testament to how well the Christian exodus strategy works, it's where people from all over the West and Northwest move to be white and xenophobic.
I'm kinda miffed that I missed that debate though, never heard about it. Guess I'm out of the loop.
*clap clap clap*
I don't know why, but I am constantly surprised at the lies told by those supposedly standing up for values, e.g. our Idaho friend.
"We do not compromise on the science, ever; that is the thin bright line that we do not cross. And we should always make that clear."
I definitely agree PZ. On that note, I have to mention this press release that I saw today (http://www.apa.org/releases/design.html), in which the American Psychological Association officially adopted a policy against the teaching of intelligent design. I guess it's not big news really, but being a "future" psychologist myself, I was happy to see it. The only question I had was why the heck did it take so long?
This is actually kind of coincidental. I've just posted some writing to my blog, half in jest and half for real, about how I'm having a hard time summoning my rage. I've tried to over the past couple of weeks, but it's just not in me.
P.Z.,
they seem to blanch in terror that whomping down hard on the stupidity of their so-called "allies" will cause them to run away.
There's a good reason for this. I've seldom seen an argument won by calling the other side stupid, and I've never seen that tactic succeed outside of the ivory tower.
So it's outright offensive that you would accuse the majority of professional evolutionary biologists who recognize this of being closet creationists:
"Well, they're welcome to try. My belief is that those creationist-sympathizers aren't on our side at all, but do enjoy the thought of the heathens kowtowing to them, so they'll play along until the issues that count come up...and then they'll break for whatever their preacher says."
They sure as heck aren't closet creationists. Rather, most of them see their position as the effective and expedient route the same goal you want. Disagreeing with them over tactics is absolutely no excuse for accusing them of being on the other side.
Sorry, PZ, but this this is classic Bush administration rhetoric, the old "those who question our tactics in this war are traitors for aiding Al Qaeda" trick.
-Crow
Huh. Forgive me if I don't applaud. Is it really wise to use the rhetoric of violence? I assume you meant the bit about "steel-toed boots and brass knuckles" metaphorically, but there's no reason for your enemies to assume that, and it gives them more excuse to use violent rhetoric themselves, possibly leading to real violence. What would you say to some preacher who exhorts his flock to use brass knuckles on scientists?
This is an entirely different level from calling religious people morons. I'm not fond of that tactic either, but I can see justification for it. I can't really see any justification for this kind of language.
My mother grew up in Weimar Germany, where people really did settle their political differences with steel-toed boots. The results weren't pretty, and the good guys didn't win.
I regret to inform you I will now be removing Pharyngula from my blogroll. I do not advocate or intentionally link to advocation of violence.
I don't think PZ's calling the more conciliatory biologists and other pro-evos closet creationists, but rather the "fencesitters and pious twits and ignorant theologians and little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys." Hence, it's futile for said conciliatory pro-evos to try to win them over.
Crow, I think you are reading PZ's words in a different way than me. Its not fellow scientists that were accused of being closet creationists, it is the religious section of the general public (you know, the 53% that believe the earth is 6000 years old and was made in six days by a santa claus lookalike).
"I regret to inform you I will now be removing Pharyngula from my blogroll. I do not advocate or intentionally link to advocation of violence."
Did you miss this the first several times it was posted. I'm not a "long-time" reader by any means, but I've seen these quotes a fair few times.
But, you know, I kind of agree. The only discipline worth brass-knuckling is organic chemistry.
Seems Fisher doesn't know or rather care about the difference between an attorney (Walczak) and a biologist. He covers up that he had no answers to DI's legal problems from Dover or its lack of predictive (scientific) arguments from ID.
A Paleyist got his clock cleaned. I call that a good start.
PZ, who exactly are these cowardly appeasing "allies" that you speak of? I can't think of any prominent evolution defender that fits the description you give.
Not to mention people like you and Dawkins generate orders of magnitude more publicity, very little of which polarizes people against us. I totally agree with you, and wish other people on our side would start to adopt similar tactics.
I regret to inform you I will now be removing Pharyngula from my blogroll. I do not advocate or intentionally link to advocation of violence.
This quote has been floating around for a while, whig. I don't know how you missed it.
And does metaphorical violence fall under this policy, too?
Anton and Martin,
I certainly hope you're right, not that it makes the post all that much better. If you're going write off the ~90% of the American populace who believe in some sort of higher power as idiots and creationist sympathizers, I'm not quite sure how you hope to sway a majority of popular opinion to your viewpoint.
Again, I've never found that insulting my audience is an effective way to persuade them of my perspective.
-Crow
Go sign up to be an Intelligent Design advocate Crow. You've got the blatant misrepresentation part of the game down pat.
It is time to stop playing nice. No real violence obviously, but no bullshitting either. They are liars and frauds and should be called out as such.
Intelligent Design is not science, it is a con, and it's advocates are con artists. Give them no quarter.
Bravo! I've always thought that "ignoramus" or "idiot" are the kindest words one can use when describing them. If not ignorant and/or stupid, they can be accused of much more serious offences--such as lying, hate-mongering, fascistic tendencies to control others, etc.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with intellectual steel-toes!
Metaphorical violence rhetoric is commonplace on both right and left; it's hardly shocking.
Cenk Ughur, on the right wing media, 9/25/06:
"In fact, as Marsellus Wallace would say in Pulp Fiction, pick up a lead pipe and a blowtorch and let's go to work on these guys."
PZ: "Others can coddle the fools who dither and simper wishfully over gods and old myths and apologetics, but some of us have to charge forward and stake out a solid position, one that excludes altogether the ancient fairy tales."
Who are the coddlers?
Who are the fools? IDists obviously. Anyone else?
Any names?
Again, I've never found that insulting my audience is an effective way to persuade them of my perspective.
it entirely depends on the audience.
have you ever TRIED arguing with a creationist?
oh wait, I forgot, you're the one who thought the kids4truth site was just a sweet little spectacle.
nevermind.
maybe you should try arguing with a real YEC and see how far you get:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45e7d186…
i highly recommend you spend some time wading through that thread; it's an excellent object lesson on the "audience" you seem to think will be convinced by pleasant words and rational thoughts.
after you wade through the first 7000 comments (first thread), it continues on for another 5000 comments in a second thread, before the redudancy got too much for even the regulars there, and AFDave was told to go post on dawkins website (which, at last count, also now has thousands of posts relating to the same topic).
really the ONLY value to arguing with these idiots at ALL is simply for the spillover into the crowd gathered to watch the spectacle.
after you make your substantive arguments, his responses are worth nothing more than ridicule.
really, I again doubt you have spent much time actually debating these people, or you would realize that there is some psychological malady that simply prevents them from being rational.
for anybody else who doubts why PZ and so many of us rail on these idiots, please, do check out that thread, or heck, go to the Dawkins website forum, and attempt to argue with him yourself.
it's quite educational.
What would you say to some preacher who exhorts his flock to use brass knuckles on scientists?
Paul Mirecki would be happy to inform you that they already do, as he has the bruises and hospital bills to prove it.
You guys criticizing PZ REALLY need to get out and see what the hell these people ARE saying.
trust me, the violence was on their side LONG before the reaction from the science side ever existed.
Great post, Mr. Myers.
I am optimistic about the future when it comes to the science vs. ignorance question. I recently moved to Texas and I've found many reasonable people who can stomach my uncompromising, anti-religious attitude. Granted, I'm in a relatively godless field (videogame development). Still, Texas!? Reason must be spreading...
Ichthyic wrote:
it entirely depends on the audience.
have you ever TRIED arguing with a creationist?
I realize that one has next to zero chance of persuading a hard-core young earth creationist to accept evolution (or any sort of evidence based reasoning, as best as I can tell).
But PZ is not just dismissing young earth creationists. He's dismissing Catholics and Jews and Methodists and Buddhists and Lutherans and you name it. That's poor tactics. I know first hand from personal interactions and public speaking engagements alike that people of those faiths are receptive to learning about evolutionary biology. Moreover, these folks are much more likely to be our allies than creationists' allies -- they don't believe in literal interpretation of scripture, they don't want their kids taught that type of theology in school, and frankly, many of them are tired to hearing from American evangelicals that they are going to hell if they don't become born again and start attending a "bible-believing church."
Why alienate these people?
I can see wanting to do so if one is interested in promoting atheism over all else. Fair enough. But if one is genuinely interested in promoting the public understanding and acceptance of evolutionary biology....?
-Crow
I have no doubt that there's plenty of people on the other side that are prone to violence. Do you want to give them an excuse to practice it? What do you think widespread violence between religious extremists and secularists would look like? (Hint -- there are more of the former, and they have more guns).
Why alienate these people?
he's not.
he's asking them to frickin' stand up and dismiss the drivel and anti-science sentiment that is so common to evangelical xian sects.
he's asking them to stop putting up with the Pat Robertsons, and kick them where they deserve to be kicked.
In short, stop being apologetic for the idiots in the crowd, and kick them the freak out already.
Do you want to give them an excuse to practice it?
they don't need an excuse. again, look up Paul Mirecki. You keep seeming to think that the scientists are the ones driving this violence, when it's entirely the other way 'round. You should read the posts on AIG and UD sometimes; even Dembski has very violent fantasies.
(Hint -- there are more of the former, and they have more guns).
a silly argument that should be given a silly answer:
we have bigger bombs.
Crow, why don't you write to PZ directly and ask him to clarify his position?
it's not like he hasn't on this issue many times, so I'm sure he would be happy to do it for you.
to be sure, I looked at his argument just like you did when I first saw it years ago, but it really isn't a simplistic dismissal of ALL religious supporters of evoltionary theory.
It's a kick in the ass to get them to stop apologizing for the cretins hiding in their midst.
but, as i said, don't take my word for it, ask him yourself.
Anybody who reads PZ's words as a physical threat is surely being intentionally dense?
Why should scientists be polite about labelling stupidity and lies for what they are? Is it polite to threaten people with hell if they don't believe what you believe? Because basically that's what the fundies do, however 'nicely' they phrase it. Especially when the IDists are teaching their nonsense to children it is emotional abuse of the worst kind, because it prevents children from learning to think for themselves.
In the press, on television and radio, even in personal conversations I have often heard that we should "respect" people's religious beliefs.
Why? Are we supposed to place reasoned thinking and argument on the same level as fanciful superstition?
The religious never show any respect for reason and people like us who rely on it. A good example was on the CNN show where the Jesus freak and the Jewish godophile told us to "shut up".
Ichthyic wrote,
Why should religious people who support science be held responsible for the crimes of fundamentalists? That's like all men being held responsible for the crimes of mysogynists.
He (PZ) is askin people to notice, and act on something I've been saying for some time.
You are all free to use it as a slogan, and what is more, it happens to be true:
"All religions are a form of moral and/or physical blackmail"
And, for the USA - remember also that communism is a classic religion - false predictions and all...
Which of course wasn't what PZ did. Something that would be entirely clear to anyone who read the original comments that PZ linked to.
"Why should religious people who support science be held responsible for the crimes of fundamentalists? That's like all men being held responsible for the crimes of mysogynists."
Because, as the old saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
If you align yourself with mysogynists by defending their views (like defending oppression of women as 'cultural practices'), then you ARE a mysogynist.
If you align yourself with the enemies of science by defending their right to attack science, then you ARE an enemy of science.
David Ratnasabapathy wrote:
Why should religious people who support science be held responsible for the crimes of fundamentalists? That's like all men being held responsible for the crimes of mysogynists.
Good question, but are the men who are not mysogynists yet say or do nothing to the men who are not, in some way, responsible for its continued existence?
PZ,
I taught high school science in Indiana for three years. While I agree with you in every particular about the dishonesty and stupidity of creationist arguments, I hope you do realize that any public school teacher who behaved as you do would face certain dismissal and probable bodily harm in many parts of the country.
I'm glad you're out there fighting the good fight--and you're right, more scientist should! But not all of us are tenured university professors, man.
whig said:
That is your choice. In the meantime, here is a lovely article for
you to read about the advancing front of our friends the fundamentalists...
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=319152007
-------------------------------------
Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots
BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who aims to relaunch the EU constitution, made a plea on Wednesday for the bloc to include references to its Christian roots in the document.
"The period of secularisation was important, but I see us living in a changed world where it is incumbent on politicians and political documents to spell out more clearly their spiritual roots," Merkel said in a speech on Europe to members of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
-------------------------------------
Later in the article-
-------------------------------------
Some countries, notably Poland, favour reintroducing a reference to Christianity in the new charter.
French conservative presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who has criticised France's official secularism as too rigid, may also support such a campaign if elected, some German officials are hoping.
"I can't deny that I would have preferred to see a clearer reference to God based on Christian ideals in the constitution," Merkel said.
-------------------------------------
whig said:
That is your choice. In the meantime, here is a lovely article for
you to read about the advancing front of our friends the fundamentalists...
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=319152007
-------------------------------------
Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots
BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who aims to relaunch the EU constitution, made a plea on Wednesday for the bloc to include references to its Christian roots in the document.
"The period of secularisation was important, but I see us living in a changed world where it is incumbent on politicians and political documents to spell out more clearly their spiritual roots," Merkel said in a speech on Europe to members of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
-------------------------------------
Later in the article-
-------------------------------------
Some countries, notably Poland, favour reintroducing a reference to Christianity in the new charter.
French conservative presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who has criticised France's official secularism as too rigid, may also support such a campaign if elected, some German officials are hoping.
"I can't deny that I would have preferred to see a clearer reference to God based on Christian ideals in the constitution," Merkel said.
-------------------------------------
Sorry about the double post...I got a error message about
the server there so I sent the post again....
Keep it up! Tell the creationist scum that they are going to be stopped! Tax their churches! Sue 'em! Shut em down, they have NO right to speak because they are STUPID!
They should not even be allowed to vote!
And I love your comment about the steel toed boots!
In an article for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Richard Dawkins quotes the following from Douglas Adams:
And it applies doubly when the religous expect to be treated seriously when it comes to matters of science. When scientists criticize Intelligent Design they are told not to be so strident, don't make people mad. When the religious say things like "Science may tell us how the world goes, but it doesn't tell us how to live our lives" then they should be told not to be so strident, they will make people mad. They should be told to sit down and shut up.
Religion may or not be a cause of most of the wars (I think religion at least facilitates war) in humanity's history, but they keep on telling us that it can bring us peace. It has failed miserably. It has failed miserably at almost everything except provide wealth to its leaders, and if the people who see that the Emperor has no clothes are told to shut up for fear of antagonizing, then who is actually going to point out the emperor has no clothes?
Instead we would rather stare at a naked emperor; hoping that if we wish loudly enough he would go put on a pair of skivvies.
Lock and Load, PZ. I'm ready.
I'm of two minds about this. I can see the argument that being rude really turns people off, and that it can be counter-productive. But on the other hand, the people doing the real advocating for creationism are no-holds-barred attack dogs, and anything less than an equal response is just blood in the water for them. (can I mix a few more metaphors in there?) Plus, the attitude and language has filtered down to almost all levels. I've heard small church pastors in upstate New York talk about the "war" on Christianity, and use all fighting terminology to go fight the evil.
There's a difference between passion and rude offensiveness, but people have in general gotten so trigger-happy that they see any strong display of opinion as somehow offensive. However, if a person then backs of of the strength, it's seen as being wishy-washy on position. I think that's what we really need for people to see - that it's not something we'll roll over about, but that we have the facts, we have the explanations, and we stand fully, strongly, passionately behind them.
The name-calling is a response that comes out sometimes, but people new to this have to realize it's been years in the making. There are only so many times one can respond to idiocy with calm statements of fact before one just gets frustrated and calls an idiot an idiot. I also don't think that calling a delusional position delusional is name-calling; it's calling it what it is. Perhaps it would be a good strategy to refine it to ensure that it's the ideas we're calling delusional and stupid rather than the people holding them, but it still needs to me made clear that the ideas are not just different, are not just an alternative explanation, but honestly and truly stupid.
Dark Matter | March 2, 2007 07:48 AM
Two points. One, it was been reported that the Harlot Vatican, the Whore of Babylon, was pushing gor the admission of Poland into the EU because it (the Harlot Vatican) believed that Poland would help re-sectarize (is that a word?) the largely secular EU. They never should have admitted Poland, or any other of the Eastern European hell-holes. But, then again, the US North should never have re-admitted the South after the War of Northern Aggression--certainly not on the same terms as before.
Two, Angele Merkel's party, the CDU/CSU (actually, it's a coalition, the CSU is the Bavarian "branch" of the CDU) is very close to the RCCi (the Roman Catholic Church, Inc.). Merkel's comment is probably only being given converage now because Germany has assumed the periodic presidency of the EU commission. I'd be surprised if the proposal went anywhere.
BTW, I've given up posting apologies for multiple posts or comments. All that accomplishes is adding yet another post or comments to a string of posts or comments. People know what's going on with the glitch in the software--software is always in beta.
I am thinking finally going to church (fundy and lefty). Just so that I can tell them to abandon irrationality and dogma. I don't think that is militant. Just will allow me to see how open minded they really are.
Rational grown-ups understand when other rational grown-ups are verbally expressing frustration and anger using verbal symbols of aggression. Ignorant, immature twits can't tell the difference between verbal and physical, or between symbol and reality. Cynical propagandists get in the midst of the ignorant cattle and loudly pretend to be scared just so they can start a stampede.
... screw the polite words and careful rhetoric.
Woo hoo! Fuck the civility meme!
Verbal tar and feathering for all creationist wackos. They are batshit crazy and polite argument will never dent their idiot skulls.
T and F the idiot Pope who brainwashes millions.
End religious slavery!
I find that Sean Carroll has summed up my thoughts pretty well:
When all we've got to offer is the truth, as best human brains can figure it out, it's hard to think of a reason to tell people anything less.
Here we go again...
FWIW, I do think PZ has been clearly nonviolent in his rhetoric, and careful to avoid further "sound bites" that could be exploited. But I doubt he'll completely renounce the right to say "these people need a swift kick upside the head." Neither do I.
I think the point is: we need to get mad. I'm sure the people who put together talkorigins felt/feel some kind of anger at what is happening to this country, and it spurred them to action. We need more of that. Anger and indignation leading to a positive, constructive opposition.
The sudden, responsive bursts of anger are okay with me, too, because the creationist nuts are incredibly manipulative with their media campaigns and their web sites and their museums and their conferences. They are not politely writing papers and publishing/advocating quietly, they are shoving their shit in our faces 24/7.
They are propaganda-savvy and sometimes the only way to fight that is with a satirical, mocking, full-blown trashing. We need to become ever more creative about how we do that, because the hyperbole tends to get stale awfully fast.
All the talk about rhetorical violence reminds me of the George Carlin routine:
"Let's face it. We're a warlike culture. If we don't like something, we declare 'war' on it. The war on drugs, the war on cancer, the war on poverty. [We can add the recent war on Christmas].
"We've got the only national anthem the mentions rockets and bombs in it."
Dudes, I totally want to TP the Pope's house. Who's with me?
Morph
The rules and standards of courtesy are important, and I value them highly. So highly, in fact, that I would rather see them utterly destroyed rather than let them become havens for fools and charlatans.
When we cease making criticisms because it would be 'impolite', the forces that criticism is lethal to begin to accumulate within those boundaries. It's simple ecology.
By backing down, you permit the creationists to frame the debate, establish an association between your claims and improper social behavior, and further cowtow to the idea that creationism and creationists are worthy of respect and deference.
Icthyc - Excellent comments.
Crow - Read Icthyc
Whig - As I posted to you on your blog, you should look into signing up for a remedial reading comprehension course.
BTW - Let me update your post, and adapt it to fit your special needs:
I will now be removing Your Blog from my future blog reading. I do not advocate or intentionally read advocation of idiocy.
hmmm... I'm kinda torn about this.
First off, I've just about had it with the rabid hard core creationist advocates who have double standards in how the debate between creationists and scientists is handled. Creationists state that scientists are evil, liars, and need to be muzzled, and no one has any problem with that... but when scientists say that Creationists are uneducated and misunderstand evolution they are "attacking"
Of course I think that Creationists are "allowed" to be angry and violent in their argument because God is on their side (or so they think) and that they have to do that whole "put on the whole armor of truth" thing. Scientists are still expected to be mild mannered and logical, even under attack, and God forbid (lol) that they should EVER strike back.
It's kinda funny to read this today, because I talked to my daughter last night, who referred me to her hubby to be for the story du jour. Seems my future son-in-law had another interesting encounter (He works at the Natural History Museum, so this happens on a fairly regular basis) with a creationist who apparently thought he was being clever when he said "Do you believe in science?"
Now, pretty routinely they get groups in there of church goers and little kids who go through and go on the tours to heckle the museum interpreters and tell the kids (loud enough so that the staff can HEAR them of course) how the person leading the tour is a liar, and how all the stuff in the museum is fake, and how far the minions of Satan go in deceiving them. Of course, the Museum employees have to be polite and smile and take it, although they can continue to present the evidence, they can't really counter what's being said... Personally, I'd LIKE to see the (metaphorical) brass knuckles come off in situations like that.
On the other hand, there are a lot of really ignorant people out there who are parroting what they've heard because they DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. They don't really have any ulterior motive than to express their faith. They aren't charlatans themselves, although they've been taken in by them. These people deserve to be taken aside and EDUCATED, not necessarily attacked, although with the well brainwashed ones that's hard to do.
Now when it comes to dismissing all people with religious beliefs as creationist sympathizers, I have to disagree.
Now, am I going to get all bent out of shape about that? no, because when I come to a blog subtitled Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal I'm pretty sure I'm going to see some anti-religious rhetoric. Considering all the rhetoric coming from the OTHER side, I find it a refreshing change.
As far as I'm concerned, people can have whatever social delusions work, that keep society running smoothly, that helps them deal with death, or gives them the motivation to NOT do those things destructive to other humans, like killing or stealing... let them HAVE their faith. BUT, I do object when faith crosses the line, where it impinges on the rights of others of different (or no) beliefs... and ABSOLUTELY object when faith is taught as truth by public institutions.
I guess that "compromise" is best summed up in one of my favorite bumper stickers "don't pray in my classroom and I won't think in your church" I believe there is a time and place for religion, but the time for rational thought is always.
if that makes me a milksop, so be it.
The tone of the rhetoric used in this debate shouldn't be calibrated for the hardcore young-earth creationists. Those people are lost to us. They aren't interested in anything that hasn't been handed down to them from the Bible. We should be calibrating our tone based on the undecided or uneducated folks in the middle. They're the ones who can change their minds.
I've personally argued with many members of my family about this (my extended family is highly religious). I've found that the most effective technique is not to tell them about experimental data, not to explain how evolution works (for most of them, their eyes glaze over), but to tell them what the real world consequences are for taking a religious viewpoint on this. (i.e. jobs, medical advancements, etc). *Most* people are relatively practical, and if you tell them this isn't merely an esoteric debate similar to a "are we all just brains in vats" debate, but a debate that has very real consequences.
I'm not sure that telling people that their pastor is an idiot is a good opening line for that type of argument (though you can go there later, I suppose). I'm not one for biting my tongue or holding back the truth, but you get peoples' backs up when you tell them that someone they trust is an idiot.
What shameless distorters. And where did the ACLU thing come from? People like Bryan Fischer seem to enjoy, while beating themselves senseless with their projections of others, throwing some habenero pepper sauce on their personal cudgel, just to add that extra kick to the pain.
A look at the sources for his other links is quite telling. WorldNutDaily and Townhall.com dominate. Need more be said?
Well, I agree, of course. And let me take this opportunity to thank you, PZ, for doing what needs to be done. Placating religious wackos does about as much good as placating the Germans during the lead up to WWII.
You're missing the point. The specific conclusions, either of biology or of atheism, are secondary. What is primary is the method used to reach those conclusions: methodological naturalism, critical thinking, insistence on evidence. In short, rationality.
Atheism isn't a dogma held a priori. Well, it could be, but that's not the way I do it and I don't think it's the way PZ or Dawkins do it. My atheism is a conclusion from observations, just like my belief that there is no elephant looking over my shoulder as I type this. Like all such conclusions it is subject to revision by new evidence. I might at any moment feel a trunk tapping me on the shoulder... Hasn't happened yet, though.
Once more people think rationally and critically, they will reject groundless religions (which appears to be all of them) and accept science supported by evidence. Belief in specific false propositions, whether it's the existence of gods, the wrong age of the earth or the idea that life couldn't possibly become more complex by undirected processes, is only a symptom. Irrationality is the disease.
That's why we don't think that accepting the conclusions of one or more sciences and rejecting the method is an acceptable compromise - because it's not a compromise at all, it's a diversion. The method is the whole point.
Crow - as a long-time Methodist, I assure you that I am not at all dismayed by P.Z.'s fiery rhetoric. I know it is rhetoric only. I also agree with P.Z. that the truth needs to be stoutly defended against those who would undermine it. After all, Jesus was on the side of truth.
Maybe so, but I don't think La Marseillaise is all about peace and love.
"Do you believe in science?"
Science!? Has it come to that?
The fundies are out of control. This is stupid people maliciously brainwashing their offspring, many of whom will fall behind in school and in life because their parents are nuts.
I am looking into my crystal ball...
I see...IDiots quote mining the comments to this thread...
and waxing fauxrious about the extremism of evolutionists...
[Snaps out of it]
Not, of course, that that should stop us calling them forthrightly on the mendacious Dark Ages bullshit they peddle (and you can quote mine me on that).
Seems like an appropriate spot for one of my favorite Bible verses (mainly for the way the cows are thrown in at the end):
"And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
I'll leave it to readers whether to think of either the general public or IDists as folks who don't know their right from their left, or cattle.
But I suppose the basic point of the quote is that to me calling people "stupid" is effectively saying that trying to use reason to persuade them of scientific fact (trying to save Nineveh) is worthless. My position would be that it's not, from two perspectives:
1- I've commented on Uncommon Descent on such topics as proper interpretation of Sean Carroll articles regarding the Cambrian explosion. While most responses have been as expected, I have been surprised by at least one commenter who had obviously read and thought about some of Carroll's writings. It seemed to me that this commenter had been persuaded to pro-ID views by a typical misapplication of probability (the "tornado in a junkyard" stuff that misconstrues evolution as progress toward a specific, identifiable goal, i.e., humans, in the same way as monkeys-typing-Shakespeare miscontrues random activity as goal-directed). Whether such people might be reached by a suitable explanation of probability, I don't know, but my inclination would be that it'd be worth a try (or another try, or a better try - what explanation can you come up with that is as good at evoking images as, but shows the error in, the "tornado in a junkyard" metaphor?).
2- Years ago I did some work with abused children and their parents. Abusive parents, particularly those who are sexually abusive, are widely thought of as monsters, near-incorrigible monsters at that. Of course, it is easy to see that if one hopes at all to do any good when working in this area, one cannot approach an abuser with the mindset, "OK, I'm speaking to an incorrigible monster." Difficult as it is, one must approach people from a point of common humanity in order to have any hope of communicating. (I did see families helped, or at least seeming to make some progress. And even short-term amelioration is a blessing in such situations.)
Now, I'm not going to get up on a soapbox and preach that indignation isn't soul-satisfying and often fully merited, particularly when directed at ID leaders whose stock in trade is knowingly papering over a political-religious position with plausibilities in order to make it appear scientific. Indignation at such egregious behavior quite likely is part of the fuel that keeps folks like PZ and Dawkins from burning out, and anything that helps them to continue educating people about science is OK with me. My own preference, though, is to communicate in a way that allows for the possibility of righteous individuals in Nineveh.
I went to this debate the other night. The room was packed and the crowd was split about 50-50 in support of ID. I was actually surprised by this because Idaho is the most religious state I've ever seen. I am the only atheist I know. Mr. Walczak was great, however he is not a scientist and he stated that he would not be debating science, but rather the legality of ID in schools taught as science. Mr. Fischer took advantage of this and spewed inaccurate scientific "facts" out of his ass. It was horrible. What pissed me off was that nobody challenged him on his "facts".
It was sad seeing people nodding their heads in agreement eating up everything he said. After hearing Mr. Fischer, I have no doubt that he is mentally handicapped. The ACLU video taped the debate. I hope they make it available on YouTube or something. By the way, I clapped for the butt-kicking statement, but I don't feel good about it.
Uhg. All this concern about "tone" and "attitude" is ridiculous.
ID/Creationism is STUPID. It's bullshit. It's fucking nonsense. So is a flat earth, a geocentric universe and a moon made out of fucking cheese.
You don't call the public stupid for listening to the stupid. But you call ID stupid every chance you get so that you get through to them.
Jeebus some of you just don't get it. Snap out of it.
The hesitance for some bloggers to approve PZ's comments is understandable. Personally I do not believe he is advocating any direct, actionable violence. If in fact he ever did or is, I would also remove myself. Plus, PZ uses the term "butt-kicking"; who could possibly take that as a serious implication? ;) A street thug is going to use far more choice words than saying you're in for a "butt-kicking". As for PZ's brass knuckles/steel-toed boots comment, it's linked to a statement about rhetoric, not fists, feet or illegal "physical activities".
PZ's point is that there are people who can be educated about the issues of the debate and why one side is wrong and the other right. Additionally, there are people who refuse to *LET* themselves be educated. They could, if they were not so ego-driven, allow facts into their brain to formulate the more cogent reality that is, rather than their incoherent reality that is not. It is the people that refuse what is freely given - while continuing to act aggressively towards what is being given as a negative force - that the rhetoric is geared toward. The most active creationists are active in ways that are pretty well analogous to brown shirts spreading complete fallacies about Jews and gays, and orchestrating public hate and villification of subgroups. Some people may take offense to my characterization - and I admit it sounds pretty strident - but it's not totally off, at least in its correlation to historically deleterious rhetorical campaigns.
Personally I am sick of the even-handed rhetoric by scientists too. This is where I disagree with Mooney as well. I don't think scientists need to change terms like evolution for any reason whatsoever. What are they supposed to call it? "Biological change variance over time"? As long as scientists don't let it devolve into an exchange of profanities (something they could very well be incapable of anyhow), stick hard and long to facts, and don't budge, and things will be fine in the end. Also, this is a competitive society, so it's time scientists take up the mantle of a fighter and start throwing, since they have the target well in hand.
If evolution's supporters don't start throwing back, this country will continue its brain drain, and before we know it China is ruling. And it'll be - in part - because religion grabbed too much power from people who refused to call it out for its rank hypocrisy.
Jesus and Mo is really too good to miss today.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/03/01/fools/
"The only discipline worth brass-knuckling is organic chemistry."
love it!
Crow:
but they are. Alternatively one has to conclude they are liars not very intelligently lying.
Just read their ad infinitum repeated arguments over at UD which have been debunked again and again. Either they just don't get it, they are lying or both.
But this is exactly the strategy of the guys sitting inside of the Discovery Institute. Unfortunately, they had some success in the political field. Thus, it is absolutely necessary that science defends itself.
I forgot to mention that this week Idaho Science teachers took an official position that ID should not be in science class.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/story/73233.html
I personally believe that Idaho will be the next battle ground for ID.
Atheism isn't a dogma held a priori.
It's a response to theistic dogma. It would disappear entirely if people stopped believing in that magical bearded fantasy figure inside their heads.
Atheism is naysaying. It's very reason for being is to refute, denounce, repel, and provoke the nuts in our midst.
As he should. There is no more value in that sect than the fundie sect when it comes to reality and rationality. That their lukewarm acceptance of evolution aside.
Puh-leez. They just have a different take on alot of it.
Because they allow the irrational thinking to have a safe haven. ALL religions seem to have issues with aspects of science.
This isn't even about religion. This is not the atheism versus theism.
This is about science versus bullshit.
ID is bullshit. ID is the twit that says man landing on the moon is a hoax.
ID is alien abduction stories. ID is scientology. ID is astrology.
ID is David Icke claiming there's a reptilian conspiracy.
ID isn't an answer. It's a stupid rhetorical question.
I don't know if I'd say what PZ did that Luskin quoted, but of course that's just one thing he's written. I was disagreeing with him the other day because he seemed not to want to call creationists stupid (yes, it might not have been a good tactic in front of an audience, the trouble is that he appeared to be arguing universally against it). Regardless of that, this is one of the few intelligent sites I like because there's so little censorship of "impolite language," "impolite language" usually meaning telling the truth to some lying cretin.
The real point I want to make is that Flock of Dodos is indeed correct that scientists need to become more media-savvy, which has nothing to do with being stupidly polite. Tactical politeness, yes, but that's limited. The truth is that, quite apart from "being polite", Dodos is right about scientists not being very good at making the case for evolution. Just the simple collection of relatively easy-to-understand evidence used in positive presentations in favor of evolution seems to be nearly a lost art, as we regularly follow the lead of the IDists, merely responding to their stupid and often very dishonest claims.
Evolution used to be simpler, mainly because not a lot was known about it. Therefore scientists would often collect a number of evidences, like vestigial organs (though in retrospect a number of these were not really "vestigial"), homologies, embryology, bits of bad and/or cruel design, perhaps some taxonomic data, and a few transitionals (they only had a few), and they'd show how the various strands of evidence all pointed to one conclusion, which was evolution. Who does that now? National Geographic, occasionally, and a few others--generally not the scientists who are too caught up in refuting IDist lies (if they bother responding to pseudo-scientist at all) to make the actual case for evolution. True, the fact that the IDiots deliberately obscure the fact that evolution sensibly only has meaning as the so-called RM + NS also makes the positive case more difficult to make, however it could be done more if scientists actually did become more media-savvy.
The fact of the matter is that IDists have had more success than most of us acknowledge, for they have turned people's attention away from the case for evolution, and have highlighted what remains to be fully explained. Berlinski and Behe demand that we document all of the "weather" of evolution in the past, while the fact that the "climate" (taxonomy, fossils, DNA evidence, etc.) of evolution is very well documented indeed.
You want (media-, or audience-) savvy rhetoric? Here it is:
Charles Darwin completed his masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, in 1859. At once, the theory that is introduced became popular. One hundred years later, it was widely celebrated as an outstanding success. Thereafter, the time of troubles began. For the past forty years, the great global vision that Darwin introduced into biology has been dying by degrees. Critics and skeptics have never been satisfied with Darwin's theory. Mathematicians have been especially dubious. But now even the biologists have begun to read those alarming medical reports with a heightened sense of concern. At least five fatal maladies are converging on Darwin's theory. In the first place, the theory makes no sense. Either it collapses into triviality or it invokes a force with no known cognate to the forces of physics. In the second place, the theory lacks for confirmation from the historical record. In the third place, it lacks for confirmation both from laboratory experiments and research into natural selection in the wild. In the fourth place, the theory cannot be simulated by means of computer algorithms. If the simulation honestly uses Darwinian principles, it does not work; and if it works, it does not use Darwinian principles. And in the fifth and final place, the theory has never been defended in terms that make mathematical sense.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/turkey%e2%80%99s-firs…
Berlinski is obtuse as a meerkat about science, spins a host of lies, and no doubt will be believed by most of his audience. I could react to all of his dishonesties, but there's little point, really, or at least it would in turn be far more savvy to make the positive case (while pointing out that biologists do indeed understand it), showing the cross-correlations of evidence including the evidence of so-called "Darwinism" (like "neutral mutations" providing the clock time in DNA dating (and yes, I know that it isn't "Darwinism" per se)) which converge to produce a coherent picture of evolution. And thus, not to be merely reacting against the false charges of the IDiots, but to make a case in favor of science that people could use to evaluate tendentious nonsense from Berlinski, et al.
I suppose the real question is when science will cease from being mainly reactionary, and will make the old case in favor of evolution that it once deigned to make. Of course it's not very exciting, really, and who wants to re-hash long-settled questions? If we're ever going to make any headway, though, science will go on the offensive, learn some media-savvy, and demonstrate to their audiences how neatly all of the evidence points toward only one sensible conclusion, prior to the IDiots getting to them with their lies.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Hate speech - a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height or weight). The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behavior in a public setting.
Interesting that public universities institute Speech Codes to censor the Hate Speech of students, but apparently think hate speech from associate professors is fine.
Then that ivory tower must contain most of human society.
Every victory the creationists, and more generally the religious right, have ever achieved has been by calling the other side stupid. And evil. And hell-bound. And plotting to destroy our society. And, literally, Nazis or the inspiration for Nazism.
Personal attacks, insults and abuse have been part of pretty much every political campaign in history, and there's a reason for that: they're incredibly effective tools of persuasion. In our hands they can be even more effective, because we have actual facts about reality to back them up.
Why renounce those tools? If we pretend that Hovind, Dembski and Co. are ethical, educated, intelligent people who are merely honestly mistaken, that won't force them to say the same things about us. And the American public certainly won't come over to our side because we're nicer.
jb,
That's stupid. Don't BE stupiid. ID is stupid.
jb (#77) - Coming out foursquare against lies told to the credulous by people who know better is not hate speech. And would you also, to be even-handed about your criticism, please point out the error of those who taunt children with shouts of "Monkey Girl"?
Ya know, I am sick and tired of the "ivory tower" charge. For everyone that claims scientists are working from ivory towers, why don't you get out there and start decrying the preachers prostelityzing from ivory pulpits? Why is it always scientists that are the stuck up nose-in-the-work ivory tower types?
If you ask me, Falwell and crew are as ivory as it gets. At least scientists contribute to the advancement of society.
That was beautiful.
I read the quoted post about brass knuckles when you published it, and it was obvious then that you were speaking metaphorically. It was also obvious you'd be quote mined.
I live on the west coast, at the Berkeley/Oakland border, and I've found that people here just don't understand how powerful and evil a force fundamentalism is. They think rhetoric like the above is over the top. I think they should be required to live for a year in a small, fundamentalist-run town and see how their opinions change.
I regret to inform you I will now be removing Pharyngula from my blogroll. I do not advocate or intentionally link to advocation of violence.
OMG! I'm a nobody and I'm removing a blog that's probably one of the most linked out there from my blogroll!! And it's because I don't understand metaphors! Click my link, please! Click, click, click!!
I think it's great how PZ challenges the fundamentalists who want to destroy science. But I agree with Crow that it's tiring to read comments by PZ and others (I particularly like #35 above) that make blanket statements about religion based on American Conservative Christianity. I'm fine with an athiest disagreeing with me about religion. But not all religious people are Jerry Falwell. (And saying that Unitarians or Buddhists or others aren't really religious is not a good answer.)
I won't let this stand unchallenged. Raj, you are a bigot. The East European countries joined the EU so they could become better places to live. This was a real important thing for them, and it has already lead to increased civil rights, focus on corruption and other things.
If they EU kept them out, the whole concept of the EU would be meaningless.
Steve_C:
? I've re-read my post, and see nothing in there about ID. I see a definition of "hate speech," which applies quite clearly to PZ's inciteful rhetoric:
"The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians ... I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots."
I have no problem with you believing "ID is stupid." I don't even care if you believe I am stupid. I am noting for the record that incitement to violence is actionable should that violence materialize, no matter how "metaphoric" the author may claim words like "butt-kicking," "steel-toed boots and brass knuckles," and encouragement to "hammer" on people to be.
Stupid is as stupid does. PZ's words are stupid. See how that works?
Unless I've missed a comment, no-one has addressed the issues of time and place (though a couple have faintly alluded to them).
If you have a smallish group of uninformed people who is at least prepared to listen for an hour or two, then of course the best tack is a polite and reasoned description of the evidence for evolution, preferably with plenty of question-and-answer on the way. If one or two of them want to make aggressive and silly attacks on you, it may well make you look good.
If on the other hand you only have a few minutes, or a few hundred words, to respond to a typical stupid creationist speech, then go for the jugular - let no-one be in any doubt that wilful ignorance deserves no respect.
It's a matter of horses for courses.
jb: Rhetoric
It's important to make a distinction between the small group of liars and frauds who actively promote ID and the great mass of folks who follow them and are absolutely clueless as to where the truth lies. The former should be exposed as and publicly called liars and frauds with all the rhetorical flourishes that PZ likens to "steel toed boots". The latter require an education. And it's the latter we're trying to bring along into the 20th century (yes, the early 20th century, to which they need to move before they try the 21st). Most will accept evolution, along with Newton's Laws, relativity, Ohm's Law and other "facts" of science, if they get an honest exposure to what it means rather than the grostesque caricature that the DI and its acolytes make of it. That's what we have to work on.
Marc Moskowitz,
Not all religious people are Falwell, but not all creationists are Christians either. Turkey's flirtations with them are encyclopedic, and such movements have been growing in India where Hinduism is concerned.
The fight for and against evolution cuts across all religious and scientific boundaries, at least in the sense that religion (or at least many of its adherents) has accepted the task of eliminating it because it saw the science as a threat. Evolution did not come about because Darwin sought to undo all religion; He made no such claim and assumed no such task.
Unfortunately its people like Falwell and just such political action committees that are wielding a pretty heavy hand at the moment, minority views or not. They have the money, they still have plenty of means, and they have made it personal and disagreeable. Sane people would do wrong to let this continue. There are perfectly sane religious people like Bishop Spong fighting the good fight against the religious wingnuts, but they are in need of much deeper support at the moment, and you almost never hear about them (and indeed you really only do if you listen to AAR or other progressive radio outlets).
BTW, Raj's statement about Poland being a hell-hole (along with other eastern bloc states) is damn stupid. Nice way to generalize man. You seem to believe that one European state can turn the entire EU into a sectarian religious body. What are you talking about?
Well, kudos to a man who stands by his words.
I fully agree that only a fool would misinterpret 'brass knuckles', etc., as anything other than a metaphor. The problem is, we're dealing with fools. For that reason, I think it's better not to use that particular category of metaphors, or say something like ''get out the rhetorical brass knuckles".
As you note, quote mining is just what they do.
It's past time to break out the Buzz Aldrin on the denialists. I don't know anybody who can watch that video without wanting to cheer, to help that hero clock the clown who called him a coward and a liar.
All the concern trolls decrying a rhetorical call to violence are whinging at the wrong people. The denialist asshats and their accomodators have been far more caustic in their vitriol and behavior than any response they've provoked.
I'm not qualified to land most of the necessary punches, but I'm happy to metaphorically get behind the knees of these IDiots to make sure they land hard in a most undignified way.
jb,
That you don't seem to understand metaphor or rhetoric shows that you are stupid.
Or pretending to be stupid. Either way... it IS stupid. Are you stupid like ID?
It is clear to everyone but you that PZ wishes no harm to be done to any person.
He wants to destroy the ID movement... not the people.
LOL! 'Derp' sends me to a wiki on Rhetoric giving three definitions:
1. The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.
2. Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress.
3. Language possessing an element of redundancy.
Hmmm... PZ may be trying to persuade [#1] his acolytes to be "meaner, louder, angrier, fiercer," but they look to be an already-persuaded amen choir to me. So that's pretty meaningless [#2] and singularly unimpressive. It is redundant [#3] to offer up the old quote, so maybe that's what he's wasting his time on.
Which definition do you think best fits?
By the way, in post #42 'Quark' "rhetoricizes" quite forcefully about abrogating the Constitutional rights of citizens based on their religious beliefs. This betrays a strongly authoritarian, anti-democratic mindset that is unfortunately common among the radical fringe elements of our society (such as theocrats, who are indistinguishable from atheocrats).
Do you support authoritarianism? Do you support it if it's disguised as 'science' and backed up with the boast that 'science' has "bigger bombs?"
We don't even have to ask whether the "jb" troll supports stupidity, now do we.
Personally I support a less violent approach. Instead of brass knuckles and kicking of heads, it should probably be enough for one of us to surprise Casey Luskin so he opens his mouth wide and then we can throw a couple pieces of dog doo-doo down his throat.
That's the peaceful way.
JB is no longer stupid. He's an idiot and he's boring.
Steve_C:
Good luck with that. Though it looks to me like you'll need more than mere hate speech to accomplish the goal, since many ID supporters believe that life is intelligently designed as a matter of faith. As someone who marched for racial equality in the forgotten '60s, I can honestly say that not a single black person I ever knew was "persuaded" to turn white by the hate speech spewed by KKK-types, or even by the violence that hate speech incited.
Quite a few, however, were "persuaded" to turn dead.
The former should be exposed as and publicly called liars and frauds with all the rhetorical flourishes that PZ likens to "steel toed boots". The latter require an education.
Yes. They need to be educated to the fact that they are suckers and morons for believing the dumb lies of the peddlers, i.e., they need to be harshly ridiculed and scorned so they learn to shut the fuck up and not recite the scripts that the peddlers are handing out.
People's incapacity to understand metaphor and hyperbole always shocks me. I might suggest that such people could do with a boot planted up to the ankle in their hindquarters, but they'd likely start explaining how that's anatomically implausible. Come to think of it, those people might have a particularly strong point there.
To the original point, PZ is completely right in the idea some people are studiously missing: we should never tolerate perversion of education. Math teachers who say 2+5 is 25 must be fired. English teachers who say the copula of the language is "fuck" must be fired. Earth sciences teachers who say the Earth is six thousand years old must be fired. They are failing at the most basic performance evaluation criterion for their jobs. It is not discrimination against religion to suggest that religion is no excuse for perverse nonfactual instruction in a classroom. There is no excuse for such, and we must fight tooth(*) and nail against it, undissuaded by oily attempts to describe concern for academic integrity as "hate speech." I frankly don't care why someone would be teaching my child that, say, fossils were planted by mischevous elves. I would only care that he was, and that he be made to stop it with all possible haste.
(*) On the off chance my dentist is reading, no, not literally. You people.
I can honestly say that not a single black person I ever knew was "persuaded" to turn white by the hate speech spewed by KKK-types
LOL!!!! That may be the stupidest fucking thing I have heard read here.
Congrats, jb. Now do us all a favor and blow your tiny brain out of your nose.
jb (#98) - Can we have some proportionality here? An obviously metaphorical call for "brass knuckles" and some rude comments on a blog (now *there's* something unusual, eh?) doth not the KKK make.
Unfortunately its people like Falwell and just such political action committees that are wielding a pretty heavy hand at the moment, minority views or not. They have the money, they still have plenty of means, and they have made it personal and disagreeable.
People running for President of the United States suck up to these televangelical bastards! That's power. A power that is not going away anytime soon, and won't go away until righteous indignation becomes the norm.
We let them get away with it every day that we don't shove their bullshit back in their faces and tell them off - loudly and angrily.
Enough is enough. I don't enjoy living in a country where an idiot televangelist calls for political assassination and can get away with it because most everyone just says - "oh, that's just Pat Robertson. Ignore him." I don't want to ignore him. I want him gone from the publc stage. I want him savaged in the press. I want him humiliated and exposed.
I want television shows and newspapers and blogs to pile scorn on these people and trash them. I want them all parodied, insulted, demeaned, and pissed on (metaphorically). Religious is not sacred. It's bullshit and should be treated like bullshit.
Enough is fucking enough.
That is such a marvelously delicious sentence, even if only from a purely literary standpoint (it's also a rhetorical dinger. Aw, snap!) It may have made my day.
Calling ID stupid is hate speech? Calling the people, who try to confuse the public with ID, stupid and are liars is hate speech? Saying the Discovery Institute is full of shit is hate speech? Saying that that ID is not science but quackery is hate speech?
Is saying the KKK is stupid hate speech?
Someone can't tell the difference between hate speech and honest fiery criticism.
ID is stupid.
...theocrats, who are indistinguishable from atheocrats
Wow. Time for that script that's the blog equivalent of the killfile.
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
I can honestly say that not a single black person I ever knew was "persuaded" to turn white by the hate speech spewed by KKK-types
Black people can turn white? What are they, Transformers? Chameleons? Cripes! Do they have Predator-ish cloaking powers?
BlueIndependent, I happily acknowledge that there are non-Christian creationists. Attacking them (and religious fundamentalists of all stripes) is fine by me. The thing that bothers me is the conflation of "religious" with "creationist", "fundamentalist", and "conservative". That may not be a big deal to atheists, but to pro-science liberals who consider themselves religious, it can feel like abandonment of valuable ground that's under attack from the enemy. That is to say, it's entirely in the interests of the fundamentalists to imply that religious and fundamentalist are synonymous, so could we please stop helping them?
Didn't Marsellus Wallace actually say in Pulp Fiction:
"What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a couple of hard, pipe-hittin' niggas to go to work on homes here with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch. You hear me talkin' hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass."
I apologize for the racial slur, but I'm quoting it in the interests of cinematic accuracy, not in agreement.
In any case, it's a level of escalation beyond brass knuckles.
In my humble opinion, if one is going to enact well-deserved metaphorical violence on creations, it is VERY appropriate to "get medieval" on them.
Also:
Jules: ...You read the Bible, Brett?
Brett: Yes!
Jules: Well, there's this passage I've got memorized that sort of fits this occasion. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of the evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and goodwill, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!"[1] [Shoots Brett]
Let the metaphoric violence against Creationists continue!
I regret to inform you I will now be removing Pharyngula from my blogroll. I do not advocate or intentionally link to advocation of violence.
Posted by: whig | March 2, 2007 01:29 AM
One moron down, 5.9 billion to go...
Posted by: whig | March 2, 2007 01:29 AM
BTW, would you like some pearls and a hankie to clutch?
I like my version better.
.
That may not be a big deal to atheists, but to pro-science liberals who consider themselves religious, it can feel like abandonment of valuable ground that's under attack from the enemy.
Tough shit.
I honestly couldn't care less about the distinctions you draw between your religious beliefs and that of the fundies. I loathe religion.
If you want to belief in deities, then be my guest. But I have no interest in protecting your "valuable ground." At best, it's worthless to me and, at worst, it's a scourge on our society's feeble attempts to engage in rational discourse.
Wow. Fischer actually compares the criticism and outing of Intelligent Design to McCarthyism. Nice. Why not got the extra mile and call the critics Nazis?
Uh...were black people turned white by other methods of persuasion? Did you think black people should be turned white?
I mean, if people have been using Dune-style assault linguistics to genetically alter each other I'd love to hear about it, but I'm really not seeing much of a parallel between black people and people who believe pseudoscience.
Steve_C:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. For instance, I think multiverses are stupid, though I usually don't use that word. I was raised to understand that insults don't persuade, though I can see that this concept is not popular here. I also understand that PZ works with the acolytes he has, not the acolytes he wishes he had.
I further understand that ad hominem is SOP around here as much as cussing is (sign of a weak vocabulary with implications to a weak mind), but your pretense is famously fallacious. It would get you disqualified in a junior high school debate.
That is weird. I thought these people loved McCarthy.
We all come at the "get meaner, angrier, louder, fiercer" argument from our own perspective and experience, so I suspect we all have slightly different ideas of what that means, and who we are addressing, and how persuasive it will be.
My own personal encounters with anti-science usually comes from a liberal, spiritual, New-Agey, respect-all-cultures group steeped in pseudoscience and indoctrinated with the idea that criticizing 'other ways of knowing' is intolerant. Talk about having to tip-toe delicately upon hair-trigger sensitivities! "Honest, fiery criticism" IS Hate Speech.
Early on, I was gently corrected in the art of a Real Discussion: "Never tell anyone they're wrong. We all just have different points of view. Instead, say 'here's where I think differently.'"
I figured out the other rule myself: Don't get mad or passionate. Don't show that you're upset. If you do, you LOSE. People who are "centered" and "spiritually advanced" stay calm and accepting. "Niceness" is seen as the major sign of being on the "right" (ie tolerant and non-judgemental) side, and thus being trustworthy on the facts. Criticism is "being critical," which means you are presonalizing everything and the problem is with you.
I have learned. Oh, I still use the same sort of fire-breathing take-no-prisoners rhetoric as Dawkins and PZ, but now I
1.) lace it with flattery and soothing interjections like "I really respect your views" and "it's all about love, when you think about it"
and
2.) say everything with a sweet, smiling, Mr. Rogers demeanor, and nod a lot.
It confuses the heck out of them. But at least now I'm allowed my turn in the conversation, and my views against their views have to get a respectful hearing, by their own rules. I find you can be actually be pretty mean, angry, loud, and fierce while seeming to be none of these -- if you learn to play it right.
I don't have a problem with PZ's over the top style, as quote (mined) at the top of the entry. My disquiet begins further down, where an argument with vigor in it seems to be equated with an argument with atheism in it. Having read PT, TalkOrigins, Pharyngula, Carl Zimmer, etc for a while now, its obvious to me that you don't have to conflate an objection to the non-science of ID with an objection its religious motivation in every rhetorically brass knuckled beat down of ID that you happen into. Getting frothy mouthed about the Ken Millers of the world is veering away from the point of what the entry is supposed to be about - people applauded the use of strong forthright language and positions against ID. If PZ had been quoted during a discussion of atheism in America, had been applauded, then I'd be fine with his follow-on. Atheism and evolution might be two great tastes that taste great together, but there is some value to keeping the discussion focused, occasionally.
For those who say calling creationists stupid "won't win them to our side," you're missing the boat. They won't ever come to our side. They are beyond reason. They only thing to do is contain their insanity. To shun them. To make it clear to all thinking people that creationism is stupid and unacceptable. Period.
I was raised to understand that insults don't persuade
Translation: my daddy beat me until the brain damage was permanent.
jb
as much as cussing is (sign of a weak vocabulary with implications to a weak mind)
One word for this: bullshit. I'm tried of this myth being trotted out. How is "fuck" or "shit" somehow lesser a word than any other, simply because one's panties are wadded at the mention of them? It's a false dichotomy, and it's an imposition of false morality. Intellectuals, scientists, the well-read, anyone with any experience in higher education: do they not curse? Or only when they stub their toes?
Sure, those who PRIMARILY speak using swear-words may seem less-than-intellectual, but to equate the very use of curse words as stupid?
Fuck that noise.
Great White Wonder,
I don't expect you to value religion. But we're not talking about words that all mean the same thing. And rational discourse is not well served by conflating terms with different meanings, however loathsome you may find all of them.
JB is dense too.
We all understand that ID is stupid is the theme. Sure we can debate an idea that has nothing behind it other than the idea of a creator. But what's the point? We can jump up and down and show paper after paper and trot scientists after scientist out to explain Evolution. The point is that ID is stupid. Does a scientist have to explain the physics of gravity in order to prove there's no magic magnet under the ground pulling us all down????
No. Why? Becaus a magic magnet theory is STUPID.
Multiverses are a hypothetical theory that may or may not fall by the wayside once tested or it could remain conjecture. But it is honest in its intent. ID is not honest.
And I don't think you're being very honest either.
You also don't understand what ad hominem means. I argued against your fallacious "PZ endorses hate sppech." Which you chose to ignore. You're stupid because of you're argument. Not inspite of it.
I was raised to understand that insults don't persuade
And just how old are you, jb?
Why do you think anger and the tendency to insult exist in humans? Do you somehow think that they are ineffective responses to others, that somehow evolution has neglected to weed out useless and even counterproductive behaviors?
Now I don't agree with every claim of those who support the obvious, that idiots deserve to be called idiots at some point and in some contexts. For instance, we do not want or need to match the low level of rhetoric evinced by the morons and ignoramuses on the other side just because these have worked (we do not, then, have any reason to lie, just because lying works for IDiots). This is why we often do answer even stupid objections rationally and with evidence. It's when the same people repeat their lies, usually without even acknowledging the thrust and meaning of our replies--and virtually always inadequately responding even when they do acknowledge our responses--that we have no recourse but to point out that the lying morons are in fact dishonest and stupid.
We'd be intellectually dishonest if we kept responding with reason to repeated lies. Unreasoning stupidity eventually must be called unreasoning stupidity, and the fact that we have responded reasonably and respectably when this was called for tends by now to be obscured by the fact that about all we meet any more on these forums from the other side is unreasoning stupidity and gross dishonesty (unfortunately, IDists do gain some value in forcing us into these responses, however they are better than the alternative of acting like we respect pig-ignorant lies. The best alternative would be to begin making more of a positive case, as I posted previously). Were we to continue to treat stupidity and lies with respect, these lies and this stupidity would gain respect in the eyes of the public and of lurkers on these forums.
The idea that underlies jb's statements is that if we were just nice and used reasonable arguments, our opponents would be persuaded. What he evidently does not know is that even most supporters of evolution in the public are not that because they have been persuaded by the evidence, rather because the smart people say that it is so. Thus we have to continue to portray our measured conclusions as being as smart as they in fact are, to point out that we did reasonably answer the claims of IDists, and to say that the IDiots are stupidly prattling the same old lies without responding reasonably in kind (that is, when we have to respond to them, not when we're making a positive case for evolution). In many cases this comes down to little more than calling them stupid, in fact, since we can't make much of a response to the old lies about our "biases" and their "martyrdom", instead we have to invoke our authoritative judgment for those who will only listen to the soundbites.
Many of us only resort to insults when reasonable responses invoke only more dishonesty and lies. This is as it should be, and there is no call for us to treat repetitive stupidity as if these were fresh new arguments, even as fresh new stupid arguments. They are, unfortunately, very old and very stupid, thus we use our measured judgment to note that they are very old and very stupid whenever our actual demonstrations that they are very old and stupid are ignored or opposed with more stupid and old "arguments".
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
[I apologize if this is a double post, but as I write this there is no indication that it did already post]
I'm stupid for not proofreading. Uhg.
I follow the Terry O'Reilly school of intellectual discusssion. He played for Boston and took many an oppostion forward into the boards. Terry only seemed to have one rule, when asked about his play: allways finsh a check. He would take a guy out of the play, then give a little spin and come back to shove him down again. Just to be sure. It's the only way, when dealing with the variety of imitation nut cases who are just people who do not want to accept the burden of citizenship, for the most part. Finish the check.
Chris Gruber:
How odd. It's fine to call me stupid (and other, more 'colorful' things), and lob crude cusswords at me as if they carry some magical power that reasoned language does not. But it's not okay for me to object to this sort of magical thinking because you decided it means I said you are 'stupid'?
Wow. No wonder this is the #1 science blog! It caters to wannabes who believe the PZ Fairy can magically turn them smart by appealing to their reptile brains!
Have fun, y'all. This is a complete waste of bandwidth. And yes, it is still hate speech, being 'amen'-ed by the choir. Bye.
Getting frothy mouthed about the Ken Millers of the world is veering away from the point of what the entry is supposed to be about - people applauded the use of strong forthright language and positions against ID. If PZ had been quoted during a discussion of atheism in America, had been applauded, then I'd be fine with his follow-on. Atheism and evolution might be two great tastes that taste great together, but there is some value to keeping the discussion focused, occasionally.
You fingered what is wrong with PZ's blog here: it's that Luskin's quote only concerns the response to the IDiots (as hyperbolic metaphor--by itself it could still evoke impressions of a totalitarian response, however, which is what some people who can read metaphor seem to be objecting to. I think taking it as such is too much out of context, though), but then he includes opposition to theistic evolution in his present response to the quote. My complaint right now is simply that PZ's present response confuses two fights that were kept separate in Luskin's use of the quote (and seriously, do we want to use anything like the same tactics against Miller that we do against IDists, even if we want to oppose Miller?).
Whether we ought to take a contrary stance to Ken Miller is something we could get into, but I don't think it's very profitable to rehash it, nor is it to the point of Luskin's speech and the audience's response to it. It seems that Luskin is too obtuse to understand the metaphor in the PZ bit even as an isolated statement, let alone in context, while the audience understood what PZ was saying quite well. Just another example of how reason totally escapes the dullards who make up the "ID elite".
A Proverb might be in order on this thread: "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool." (Proverbs 17:10). And, "Speak not in the ears of a fool for he will despise the wisdom of they words." (Proverbs 23:9). Of course I don't put stock into these sayings because they are in the Bible, but because they were included in the Bible primarily because of the experiences that the wise had with fools.
You can't get anything into the minds of the purveyors of ID, you have to point out the brazen idiocy of the IDists in order that some people will in fact listen to those who actually know science. We hope to persuade many with respect to science, but to do so means that we have to diminish the hold that repeated lies have over minds.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Don't let my steel toed rhetorical boot hit you in the ass on the way out.
Need a hanky?
How odd. It's fine to call me stupid (and other, more 'colorful' things), and lob crude cusswords at me as if they carry some magical power that reasoned language does not.
Actually, the only one imputing any magical power to "cusswords", as you quaintly call them, is you. You assume that they magically make the deliverer less intelligent, despite their presence in literature dating back decades. I'm sure Ulysses is somehow an inferior work of literature that it wouldn't otherwise be without the doggerel pun on "fuck" and "cunt" ("If you see Kay/Tell him he may/See you in tea./Tell him for me.").
I further understand that ad hominem is SOP around here as much as cussing is (sign of a weak vocabulary with implications to a weak mind)
I know this is a common idea, but it's still notable for its idiocy. If people have a weak vocabulary, it is because they do not employ all the words which could serve their turn, and so recommending eliminating "cusswords" (whose bad reputation was established by prissy Victorian linguists recoiling from the 'vulgar' Anglo-Saxon) has the actual effect of crippling one's vocabulary in the way you claim use of the same words does.
I do not swear often because I am aware of the richness of the vocabulary of the English language and choose to express myself using that breadth--which does not include a high percentage of curse words. There are times when it is entirely appropriate.
In this case, yes, for broken rhetoric and conflation and logical errors you are not merely a half-wit but a fuckwit.
Half-wit is bad enough. But, you see, fuckwit adds the emotional charge and changes the meaning more to "completely addle-pated" with an overtone of "likes to mind-fuck people."
See how powerful the word can be? Embrace it. Use it when appropriate and necessary. Don't forget the volumes of other English words out there, but always remember that words are powerful.
Please do not allow the radiant sensibility in the room to impact your arse on the way out.
Telling atheists to be nicer is the fundies' last line of defense. It's a sign that they are losing - badly.
Don't attack me = I have nothing but crappy answers to your criticisms. Leave me alone so that I can spread my idiocy without your obnoxious interference.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
No they're not. They're entitled to an INFORMED opinion. (Harlan Ellison)
Otherwise, we need to pander to every magic wand-er that comes skipping down the path, validate every mythologist, & allow the barbarians entrance at the gate.
An opinion is not the person entire.
"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." - T. Jefferson.
I agree with PZ. I have no problem with anyone, atheists or otherwise, opposing creationism with mean, angry, fierce, yea even vitriolic language. After all, many of the creationists have shown they have zero scruples when it comes to making their case. I say, if they cross the line, the kid gloves come off.
I also think that those who shrink from doing this themselves should do their part by offering their non-vitriolic critique of same, not stand on the sidelines, wringing their hands, their panties in a bunch, arguing strategy.
You can't win if you don't fight, and you only have the luxury of 'fighting fair' if your opponent strives to do the same. When they are habitual bad actors, it's a waste of time to invoke the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Short of actual violence or real hate speech that diminishes their humanity, I say, sic 'em.
Assertively...SH
jb said: "I also understand that PZ works with the acolytes he has, not the acolytes he wishes he had."
Acolytes? Whoa. Hey PZ, if you decide to go this route, can we have these in place of your bod instead of those funky, tasteless wafers?
Why should religious people who support science be held responsible for the crimes of fundamentalists?
to extend your silly question:
why should scientists?
when you answer that for yourself, you'll see exactly why religious people should be even more interested in railing on fundamentalists.
The sudden, responsive bursts of anger are okay with me, too, because the creationist nuts are incredibly manipulative with their media campaigns and their web sites and their museums and their conferences.
indeed. At the very worst, what this does for onlookers is to immediately make them ask:
"Why is this person so mad at this creationist presentation?"
...and at least a few of them will approach the angry scientist to find out what prompts the emotional response, and thus learn about the lies and deceit used by those who claim the "moral high ground".
Kinda the question I think Crow is finally starting to ask himself, I hope.
we're not talking about words that all mean the same thing.
So you say.
What does "hell" mean to you?
Ichthyc
religious people should be even more interested in railing on fundamentalists.
That is absolutely correct. But in fact, when considering the giant microphones that many so-called "moderate religious people" possess, they are the weakest and worst critics of fungelicals in the United States.
And the reason why they suck at this important task is obvious.
I'm not sure that telling people that their pastor is an idiot is a good opening line for that type of argument (though you can go there later, I suppose).
exactly, the order of presentation is important. present the actual evidence and facts first, THEN the fact that the pastor/cult-leader might be an idiot should be readily apparent.
If not, it's quite appropriate to reinforce that view with invectives.
And the reason why they suck at this important task is obvious.
they need bigger megaphones?
;)
Wow. Fischer actually compares the criticism and outing of Intelligent Design to McCarthyism. Nice. Why not got the extra mile and call the critics Nazis?
they do, oftentimes.
projection is a great defense mechanism, eh?
Great White Wonder,
I don't see what you're getting at. "Hell" to me means "an afterlife involving torment that some other people believe in, but I don't." What does it mean to you?
Marc Moskowitz,
I agree that there are important differences between "fundamentalist" (I loathe that word) religion and moderate/liberal religion, but they are the same in that they are both premised on the idea that religious belief and religious claims of truth have merit. It is that idea I unequivocally reject. Encouraging people to think they are justified in holding strong beliefs about what is true on the basis of faith and revelation is destructive to human welfare and to our understanding of the world.
No, no, that IS big news. I mean, psychology is the least scientific of the sciences, prone to pseudo-science and hoaxes more than any other branch -- and if THEY (the APA) are opposed to this stuff, while still allowing searches for parapsychology evidence, then the case against ID is really, really, really, really firm.
I've commented on Uncommon Descent on such topics as proper interpretation of Sean Carroll articles regarding the Cambrian explosion. While most responses have been as expected, I have been surprised by at least one commenter who had obviously read and thought about some of Carroll's writings.
careful; have one too many intelligent conversations there, and you'll be banned quicker than, well nothing is actually quicker than the banning hand of Davescott, MasterTard.
also, if you encourage others to question on UD, those who question will also likely be banned, so you should be careful who you encourage if you want them to be able to remain as a poster on UD.
ATBC is full of banned former UD posters, who dared actually post something that made sense, was accurate, but challenged the authority of MasterTard, WD-40, or Densye.
seriously, check out the "Uncommonly Dense" thread on ATBC and see the history of 'Tard that is UD.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45e8901a…
You don't have to call your pastor stupid. Just tell him that ID is stupid. And then give him the reasons. You can start every debate, explanation, discussion with...
"ID is stupid. It is stupid for the same reason a flat earth is..." Or what have you.
You can respectfully disagree with a pastor. They are not experts on everything and they shouldn't pretend to be. Do I expect many to question a Pastor's authority? Nope.
What pissed me off was that nobody challenged him on his "facts".
since you recognized that they were, in fact, lies, did you try to challenge them yourself?
if not, did you try to involve yourself in any kind of discussion after the event?
it's usually in places where people have time to think that you have your best shot at trying to show them how idiotic and deceitful creationist drivel is.
next time, think about inviting participants to the local bar for discussion, or something, and then maybe the lies of the creationists will have a chance at being vaporized.
again, belligerance can only help to attract attention. stand up at the end of the creobots presentation, loudly scream that he is lying and being an idiot, and announce that after the "show", you would be happy to explain why for anybody who cares to listen.
If you ask me, Falwell and crew are as ivory as it gets. At least scientists contribute to the advancement of society.
yeah, but isn't Falwell the one who can supposedly protect the gulf coast from hurricane strikes?
or was that Robertson?
meh, they all look alike.
"Hell" to me means "an afterlife involving torment that some other people believe in, but I don't
OK, so what does "God" mean to you?
Nah. They just like to blame the communities that get hit with natural disasters for being sinners. Or predicting towns will get punished because of doing something so sinful as throwing out of office people on school boards who tried to get ID into school.
Good luck with that. Though it looks to me like you'll need more than mere hate speech to accomplish the goal, since many ID supporters believe that life is intelligently designed as a matter of faith.
since ID didn't even exist before Phillip Johnson esentially invented the concept for PR usage, that must mean ID supporters have created a brand new religion.
matter of "faith", indeed.
idiot.
If YOUR faith depends on a PR machine to spin actually reality, just how strong is it, ya think?
exactly the reason why ID is not only vacuous wrt science, it's even moreso wrt to the core precepts of what is supposed religion.
blind faith is NOT faith.
You understand, of course, that there is a reason that the IDiots think the quote is so damning, and comletely fail to see why anybody else would think differently:
They don't understand metaphor
no, Steve.
Falwell actually DID claim that prayer (led by himself, of course) altered the course of a hurricane:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000240.htm
hurricane Gloria, 1985.
as a double-super-psycho-bonus, he can (and has, obviously many times) claimed that when he "failed" to change the course of a natural disaster, it was because God REALLY wanted to punish the sinners in the area affected.
kind of a heads I win, tails you lose kinda thing.
I agree that it is very satisfying to give an ID twit his verbal due. (And to label him as such). However, we are not trying to convince the twit. He is already convinced. We are trying to convince the people who have not made up their minds. And largely, I think they will listen and reject the angrier voice in the room.
People are rarely rational creatures. By and large they are emotional creatures, and as such, they will side with the person that makes them feel the best.
Anger and fiery rhetoric has its place (and it is terribly satisfying to deliver). But I think it is rarely useful, except when it is delivered as a sermon to the choir.
Whoa. Captain Literal strikes again.
It amazes me how many people can miss an obvious metaphor, one made even more obvious by the context in which it was used. You'll never live this one down, PZ. You're doomed to see that line be perpetually quote-mined and intentionally misinterpreted by the same breed of right-wing liars who jumped on the Al Gore internet thing.
Whether metaphorical violence is appropriate or not is another matter. Maybe you should have said:
"It's time for scientists to break out the steely grimaces and brassy attitudes, and get out there and really glare at the lunatics and idiots."
That would work. Wouldn't it?
A figurative call to arms is not always uncalled for. I'm not a big fan of violent rhetoric, either (with a nod to Raven) but I've been on boards where the wingnuts came right out and said that maybe it was time to get out there and gun down the libruls. Believe me, these folks wouldn't have known a metaphor if it jumped up and bit them in the nose.
Sorry for the violent nose-biting image there.
People are rarely rational creatures. By and large they are emotional creatures, and as such, they will side with the person that makes them feel the best.
ever been to a political rally or a major soccer event?
Jason:
That's perfectly reasonable. I disagree, but that's a reasonable difference of opinion.
Great White Wonder:
"God" isn't a term I use for my own experience of the transcendent. I still don't understand what you're getting at. Do you think that if you can prove I am or am not an atheist, that will prove that all religious people hold the same beliefs?
Absolutely wrong. Use a different word and just maybe you'll get it: instead of "anger", think "passion".We need more fire, both for science and against anti-science. The people who urge caution, who insist that we carefully parse the expression of our ideas lest we say something offensive to some random outsider, are not helping the cause. They doom us to the domain of the feeble, neurasthenic, the timid, the useless, the irrelevant. You do not inspire others to follow your lead by hanging back and doing your best to be innocuous.
"It amazes me how many people can miss an obvious metaphor, one made even more obvious by the context in which it was used."
It's not missing a metaphor, it's a deliberate tactical manipulation common to creationists and other dysfunctional types. They operate from a fundamental mindset of rudeness, insults and egregious lies, holding their critics to much higher standards than they would ever hold themselves, and when confronted, repeat the same old tired nonsensical assertions while harping incessantly on some irrelevant, unconnected detail that they elevate to the status of a capital crime (usually the equivalent of a lightbulb going out in China) as if that proved them right. This is why, as others in this thread have indicated, that arguing with them is fruitless. Dysfunctional personalities are drawn to creationism, which in turn feeds the dysfunction.
Factician.
There's no power in a weak defense. There's no power in being "nicer" than the other guy when the other guy is clearly lying and obfuscating the truth.
There should be a little bit of anger and contempt for those who spread the dishonesty.
I don't mean the average person that has been duped. I mean those who "educate the public to the holes in evolution".
Why would anyone care about our side if we have no passion or conviction for the truth?
Bentsen did well in his vice presidential debate when he took on Quayle... "I knew Jack Kennedy... and you're no Jack Kennedy."
That got a rousing response.
"I know what science is... ID is not science."
There's no debating stupid. You don't even have to answer their "doubts" about evolution. Just emphasize that they have NO SCIENCE on their side. ID is stupidity and bullshit.
Ever see a Kent Hovind vs. Anyone debate? They are not pretty. He lies and lies and lies and then the pleasant scientist picks apart what he can with science and reason. AFter watching it you just think... what was the point of that? The believers except what he says, the fence sitters think it was intersting but not swaying ,and the rational are just left with their mouths agape at the stupidity.
I have absolutely no problem with PZ's point about being passionate about being pro-science and also being passionate against anti-science. I realize that I'm one of the milksop's PZ's referring to and I am struggling with that. I am very outspoken and passionate about my politics but still wrestle with making remarks that can (and probably are) offensive to someones religion. It's getting easier for me to be outspoken when there comments are in the form of something that is patently anti-science. However I'm still inclined to not challenge someones belief in 'something out there' as long as they avoid crossing the science line.
Ed -
Psychology is one of the more difficult sciences to quantify and because of ethics one of the harder in which to design studies that yield solid answers, but I am unaware that the APA endorses parapsychology.
As for the rest of the thread; science good, creationism/ID bad, say it loud say it proud, kick some rhetorical butt.
We need more fire, both for science and against anti-science. The people who urge caution, who insist that we carefully parse the expression of our ideas lest we say something offensive to some random outsider, are not helping the cause. They doom us to the domain of the feeble, neurasthenic, the timid, the useless, the irrelevant.
the big question is:
which approach gets more chicks?
hang with me here for a sec, because I'm more than half-serious.
although done up as a comedy, the movie Idiocracy ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ ) had one very valid point:
the idiots are outbreeding us by quite a lot. eventually, demographics will simply outweigh any other consideration.
bottom line:
don't just get angry, get laid.
and stupid people, take this advice:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/stupid.wav
you should be wanting to have at least 5 kids.
]
oops, delete the last line in my previous post, I was going to encourage PZ to have more kids, but thought the point should be made more generally.
hmmmph. I guess I'm not surprised this thread would boil down to this.
Like I said: the Creationists can name call and pull falsehoods out of their butts, but let a scientist say they disagree and suddenly it's an "attack"
The thing is, they feel they can condemn anyone who disagrees with them, because we're all godless and damned anyway, and for SOME reason they think they have legal protections to do that. The thing is, science isn't attacking any one religion. It's refuting stupidity. If stupidity is part of your religion, then YOU have a problem, not science.
The religious don't understand that there are legal limits to their rights to make attacks on others. It's sad, that when you tell a religious person he's wrong he starts calling it a hate crime, and yet he can say all manner of things about the person refuting him. But it doesn't really work that way.
Think about Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (oh, or the Basic English Bible version: Any woman using unnatural powers or secret arts is to be put to death.) Freedom of religion doesn't allow people to burn witches... or women using secret arts... It doesn't allow for anything that impinges on the rights of others.
yes, even the right to FACTS over superstition.
It seems to me that the only hate speeches here are the creationist speeches that have no foundation in fact, distort truth, and accuse just and truthful people of being in league with Satan to deceive people and lead them away from the collection plate true god.
You are never going to convert a religious believer on the basis of evolution being true. Religion informs EVERY aspect of their lives and thoughts, not just a theory on how we got here (and they've got one of their own of those as well). And as for insulting them, how many people have won you over to their side of a debate by ridiculing your intelligence? If you want to claim reason is on your side, try arguing from a point of view where God exists and does have power over the universe, and then convince me that an intelligent person WOULDN'T take that into account.
If you really want to persuade the religious about the truth of evolution, you need to demonstrate that science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You are not going to remove religion overnight, so you have to gradually influence the religious to an acceptance of science as being true without attacking their most dearly-held beliefs.
I think the IDists are using this tack from the other side - ID is simply the Christian Right trying to beat science from the inside. Use their own dirty tricks against them and persuade a Christian that evolution is one of God's mysterious ways, and that when he said 'Let the be light', he was talking metaphorically about the Big Bang. And forget the literalists, they can't be persuaded anyway!
Have fun, y'all. This is a complete waste of bandwidth. And yes, it is still hate speech, being 'amen'-ed by the choir. Bye.
Posted by: jb | March 2, 2007 02:42 PM
Opinion as fact, great logic there...
The poo smell sure does linger.
Well, Whig, you show again why the Whig Party in America died after Millard Fillmore's presidency -- died so hard that even Fillmore ran on a different party the next time.
As quite often happens, the random quote at the side of the main page was quite apropos:
The "dropping of context" -- deliberately and deceitfully -- by Creationist "spokesmen" is part of their game of fraud in the "use" of quotations from scientists. And it "works" (rhetorically, for the kinds of audience in front of which they use it) when the readers do NOT have the basic background in critical reading...
Michael Siemon
Hell, I love a great big knuckle-dragging smash-em-up. But here all we're doing is kicking in the face of an idiot (jb) over and over again.
Maybe it's a sign of progress that we're not slashing at the throats of Braytonites any more. Hopefully they've learned we're not going to get any less vocal about the utter black hole of humanity that is superstition, and are willing to let us be.
Which is okay. I certainly don't want to waste energy fighting with them. I'd much rather rhetorically bombard the destructive tendencies of religion.
Hurray Crow!
I firmly believe the important thing is to be sincere and direct in presenting the case for evolution. All the machismo and swagger only detract from it.
Even worse, when people who support evolution (and other church-state separation issues) turn against each other, they are setting back the efforts made on its behalf. Eating one's own isn't efficient as far as building up a population, at least the science-literate one.
On the same lines, effective tactics vs. ineffective, do people here not understand how badly anger can undermine one's credibility? Gosh, in a courtroom lawyers know they can turn people against a witness by provoking an angry outburst. ID advocates know this also and use it to great effect. Don't let them play you! People are LESS likely to be won over by science if the person presenting it sppears hot-headed and out of control.
People are LESS likely to be won over by science if the person presenting it sppears hot-headed and out of control.
sometimes. but you forgot to emphasize the out of control part.
which tells me you don't actually spend much time trying to convince people of the dangers of the anti-science rabble.
trite as it sounds, PZ and Dawkins have done far more to sway this debate out of righteous (but controlled and well directed) anger than Francis Collins ever has with mewling idiocies about reconciling science and religious claptrap, for example.
anna - suggest you read post 162, in case you missed it.
"There is a lot of support out there for that kind of fiery confidence." =PZ
You better believe there is, and you can find it at any gathering of your neighborhood association of bible thumpers. I hear the Taliban are also regrouping. There's some fiery confidence for you. And you gotta love those suicide bombers. They really know how to grab your attention and hold it. If you're going to depart from rational discourse, and make you're point passionately, why simply interminably dwell on name-calling and sarcasm? These are juvenile tactics; the pathetic recourse of a coddled society whose inhabitants know a security blanket is in place to discourage proper acts of righteous fury. I say you start torching things. Start small, at first, to get the momentum going. Maybe a mom & pop book religious book store. Then take it up a notch. Pretty soon there'll be an all-out ass-kicking bonanza. I mean if you're going to go passionate, go all out.
I say you start torching things. Start small, at first, to get the momentum going. Maybe a mom & pop book religious book store. Then take it up a notch. Pretty soon there'll be an all-out ass-kicking bonanza. I mean if you're going to go passionate, go all out.
Apparently the concept of a metaphor is too lofty for some people.
Controlled anger is a very powerful tool. Ultimately, though, there's only so much we can do to win in the court of public opinion, where ID has the cards stacked in its favor.
Public religiousness is considered in poor taste throughout much of Europe. Unfortunately, consider what they had to go through in order for people to become secular. We may have to pass through a similar stage.
Controlled anger is a very powerful tool. Ultimately, though, there's only so much we can do to win in the court of public opinion, where ID has the cards stacked in its favor.
Public religiousness is considered in poor taste throughout much of Europe. Unfortunately, consider what they had to go through in order for people to become secular. We may have to pass through a similar stage.
"Apparently the concept of a metaphor is too lofty for some people." ==Tyler DiPietro
What nonsense. How can a mental concept, such as a metaphor, possess the physical quality of being "lofty"? That's just crazy talk.
The old bromide "the best defense is a good offense" applies. I advocate humor (with a touch of contempt and/or ridicule) rather than simple contempt or ridicule, as science already owns the playing field. Always (as alluded to by an earlier commenter on this thread) link creationism with other similarly vacuous beliefs-- flat earth, earth-centered universe, faked lunar landing, astrology, etc. The world, even that apprehended by the average IDer[iot] is a world resting upon (built by) science, it requires only minimal effort to remind an audience of this fact. Reasonable attendees will remember your words, the 'Gavines' will 'forever' be loons.
I've gotten the most 'traction' with individual theists by pointing out that ID cheapens religion-- god in a test tube, infinite regress of divine beings, etc. Give them a safe personal space for their supersti..beliefs but NEVER compromise the science. Rabid fundys that insist upon [their] literal interpretation do falter when confronted with the hypocrisy of their position argument, they resort to temper-tantrums and name calling.
Finally, the word 'atheist' should be abandoned. Like 'Darwinism' it frames the argument for the opposition. I always characterize myself as a non-theist. When asked to explains, I respond that I choose not to take on-board superstition (religious or otherwise).
Um... atheist means non-theist.
That's a very underhanded use of words, mothra. Possibly effective, but rather unethical.
That "somehow" includes the Peace of Westphalia (agreement which ended the 30 Years War) and coexistence within the cultural plurality of actual American history. It also includes the little hypocrisies & white lies whereby we reduce social frictions and contrive ways to get along with people we don't like or respect.
We need such customs & tactics to adjust, but collectively they comprise a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Here we see a line stretching from sub-lethal fistfights to, say, Japanese tea ceremony; there the range is from the informationally dense wording of scientific debates to semantically empty cheers at a football game - but in each case, competition & conflict are mediated.
No doubt sociologists have dozens or hundreds of measures for these social compromises. They're one of the major pillars of what's called "civilization" - no wonder PZ's partial violation of them provokes, ah, negative feedback.
Invariably, this social resource will attract parasites, those who exploit the underlying (attempts to build) cooperation necessary for productive functioning. Minor examples of this would be the people who don't clean up a coffee-break area or bores who monopolize conversations; more extreme cases might include muggers posing as roadside breakdown victims and date rapists.
Established religions occupy a sub-spectrum of this range: those which provide their flocks and/or the larger society real benefits (such as practical mutual support & charitable services) toward the more benign end and cultural warriors & jihadists at the other.
"Civilization" also requires that those parasites which exploit the social network the most voraciously be fought the most vigorously, just as we co-exist with minor skin infections but try to eliminate staph whenever it occurs. Necessary biological functions aren't always pretty; nor are social immune system activities.
By verbally calling in the leucocytes & killer cells, to stretch this metaphor till it screams, PZ is alerting us to alien invaders within the body of science/society. To start over with a new metaphor, he serves as a watchdog - one that growls & snarls in alarming ways. In some neighborhoods, that's the kind you want.
The question is, are PZ's howls in violation of the "let's-all-get-along" social contract justified by the harmfulness of those they're directed at? At the risk of inducing metaphorical whiplash, is the prowler a trivial cold virus or a spirochete? Or even an allergen, a reflexive overreaction to an otherwise tolerable minor irritant? (If your metaphor meter is in the red zone, please unplug it now.)
In the context of creationism's direct threat to working science, you could make a good case that PZ's reactions are as excessive as a Bronx junkyard dog in a Kyoto geisha house. (You were warned.) In context of the general harm to present & future generations of superstition & maleducation, his snapping & slavering more resemble, well, a Bronx junkyard dog in a Bronx junkyard.
In the context of early-21st century USA, with a growing bloc of hyperchristians constituting the crucial support for a malign regime which threatens to multiply the extreme damage whose consequences we're only beginning to suffer... I'd say he's not loud & scary enough. When the body politic suffers the severity of infection we're already carrying, fever is inevitable with even the brightest prognosis.
(Sorry about those meters - but they wouldn't have lasted through an hour's worth of television anyhow...)
I have read the responses here, and will not relink to Pharyngula. An advocation to violence may be made in jest, but be taken seriously not only by those who misunderstand on the other side. It is not acceptable behavior when a bigot talks about doing metaphorically violent things to someone of a different ethnicity or sexual preference, nor is it acceptable in this case. It's dog whistle politics at best.
I won't respond further on this forum.
Sheesh. All this hand-wringing about what "the other side" will say. They must really have us by the balls if we're so worried about how what we could say could possibly be misconstrued. How often people characterize any kind of non-deference to religion as an "attack" on their "rights", and other pants-wetting nonsense? Think of the CNN panel who blasted that atheist family for daring to complain about their mistreatment in Mississippi.
The point is that you can't couch some things in nice enough language to get everyone off your back. And you won't be afforded that courtesy by them either. So apply ridicule and contempt.
After my previous post (#185), I read through the lion's share of above comments, and am a bit bemused how many commenters seem to be dodging the point Luskin tries (dishonestly, alas) to make. Defending Prof Myers's right to call ID'ers "stupid" does not justify his more extreme use of violent verbal imagery - against which a much stronger, if not airtight, case can be made.
It is troubling when the Coulters, Hagees, & G. Gordon Liddys call for blood, and even though Pharyngula readers are not likely to take such talk literally, I've usually found it better to use calming language when knuckles start to clench. We're not yet at that dramatic moment of tension in the barroom before bottles start breaking, but...
That said, sometimes only uncouth imagery will do:
The man and boy have finally gotten to the stage of carrying the donkey on their backs.
Will they have to drop it into the river before they understand?
You may try to leave the same comment over at UD thread: When arogance and stupidity collide
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/when-arrogance-and-stupidity-c…
How can a mental concept, such as a metaphor, possess the physical quality of being "lofty"? That's just crazy talk.
LOL.
I do believe he was using "lofty" metaphorically.
as in:
over their heads.
oh sweet irony.
pierce-
no wonder PZ's partial violation of them provokes, ah, negative feedback.
funny, I do believe PZ was in fact pointing out the POSITIVE feedback from the ACLU, even when the quotes used to frame him were mined from two entirely different sources.
all the negative feedback I've seen in this little thread has been almost entirely from people who refused to see what PZ actually said, or can't understand what a metaphor is.
Is that the great unwashed masses rising up against the expression of righteous anger, there Pierce?
(If your metaphor meter is in the red zone, please unplug it now.)
*pop*
I have read the responses here, and will not relink to Pharyngula.
harumph!
harumph, I say!
top post on Whig's blog:
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
I kid you not.
A case study in the effectiveness of anger.
Public comments
This is an audio file of public comments at the January 2006 meeting of the Ohio Board of Education, after a motion to remove a creationist lesson plan from the curriculum had been narrowly defeated. I was one of the angry speakers.
The next month, a similar motion was approved. I know that votes were changed as a result of our presentations.
"I do believe he was using "lofty" metaphorically.
as in:
over their heads.
oh sweet irony." == Ichthyic
Sweet irony indeed. Yes, it's almost as if...
Wait... I'm picturing a shed. Inside there are tools. One tool in particular stands out in that it isn't as sharp as the others. Please, someone, help explain to me what these disturbing images mean.
I've just been arguing with some asshole on a different forum who claims to represent the "Christian Left". Biggest concern troll ever--his advice to atheists is "sit down and shut up or we'll marginalize you too".
Socialist Jesus can go sit and spin right next to Supply-Side Jesus.
What nonsense. How can a mental concept, such as a metaphor, possess the physical quality of being "lofty"? That's just crazy talk.
Probably in a similar way to how something nonexistent, like a "troll", can do "fish" for "responses". That's also crazy talk.
They mean its time to clean the mirror?
whig:
I have read the responses here, and will not relink to Pharyngula.
I'm sure the good professor won't lose much sleep over that.
So maybe the jackboots and brass knuckles are unwaranted, but I live in north Florida, and I talk to people (using that term loosely) who want me denied basic rights because I don't believe in a god. Am I to remain a submissive lesser citizen, or should I speak out? If I speak out I will be ostracized, if not beaten, but if I remain silent I am a liar and a coward.
Give me a reason I should give religious views a fair chance, and I will ask why mine IS NOT ACCPTED. I stand a real chance of being assaulted , not the abstract "someone might dissaprove of my lifestyle" sort of assault, but a very real "everyone wants to beat my ass into godliness" type of reality.
Why am I scared to assert my atheism?
Probably in a similar way to how something nonexistent, like a "troll", can do "fish" for "responses". ==TP
And yet your posts continue to bite.
Now to ensure no further irony, sarcasm or additional shades of meaning are lost upon you, I want to be clear that the preceding sentence employed what is commonly referred to as a "double-entendre." Interestingly, particularly in light of our previous discussion, both uses of the word "bite" were metaphorical in nature. On the one hand, "bite" could refer to biting on a fishing hook, as occurs during the process of fishing. The second reading--and my personal favorite, I might add--uses invokes the more informal, negative connotation of "bite," which translates roughly to "suck." In this way, I am indicating that your posts are of a generally poor quality.
I don't know if anybody is still reading this thread, but the question is nicely put at xkcd webcomics.
Not the answer, unfortunately, just the question.
PZ, thanks for not being a pansy.
Re PZ advocating violence with his statement:
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.
Strong words and powerful rhetoric are being advocated, nothing else.
Think of the Pete Seeger song:
If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
[...]
Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
This is an audio file of public comments at the January 2006 meeting of the Ohio Board of Education, after a motion to remove a creationist lesson plan from the curriculum had been narrowly defeated. I was one of the angry speakers.
The next month, a similar motion was approved. I know that votes were changed as a result of our presentations.
Brian, you are great! Your comments were superb. We all owe you a huge, huge Thank You!
"Strong words and powerful rhetoric are being advocated, nothing else."
(Only the most recent comment, but it captures the general tone of these comments.)
Anyway, the demagogues behind the creationists--and fundamentalism in general--wield power. They aren't going to give it up without a fight. You worry, rightly, that when you employ violence, they will respond in kind. But guess what? They will respond with violence to *any* threat. If your metaphorical brass knuckles actually start to have an impact, to make a dent in their profits and their influence, the demagogues will send their minions to hurt you, to hurt your families, to destroy your homes, to kill you. If you would battle the creationists, these are your options: Be prepared to fight with more than just metaphor, or else surrender. The feel-good, pacifist nonsense in this thread is equivalent to the latter.
Gee PZ why don't you cure our ignoarnce by actually substantiating the claims of your "science"?
As it stands you cannot even tell us whether or not any mechanism can account for the phisiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. The best we can do is to assume those two populations shared a common ancestor and then set out to find what we think is confirming evidence.
And if you aren't up to that I will gladly meet with you to see if you can actually back-up your strong words.
But the bottom-line is your position is nothing more than sheer dumb luck through and through (that includes the laws that govern nature thereby making your approach of deternminism yet another failure).
But the bottom-line is your position is nothing more than sheer dumb luck through and through
Sheer dumb luck that you managed to string five sentences together into that idiotic diatribe. Congratulations.
Think for a change. What can it hurt? Come on, give it a go. I know you can do it!
Brian McEnnis, your on the front line. You make us proud.
Ichthyic -
The feedback - here - is mixed, for good reason. The extreme nature of (these bits of) our esteemed host's verbiage may be justifiable in some circumstances, but - as with the "pro-social" violence of cops using their guns - it's just as well that it should be met with serious concern and not (only) cheering.
As for the utility of calling an opponent "stupid": like most else in an effective debate strategy, it's aimed at the undecideds in the audience, and if adequately backed up can indeed serve to persuade them they don't want to be in the opponent's camp. It truly worries me that so many here who do comprehend the nature of metaphor still seem not to grasp elementary principles of rhetoric.
Rhetoric? Advocates of truth and reason should be wary of rhetoric, as it is a weapon whose effectiveness is incompatible with those principles.
Just speak the truth as plainly and honestly as you can. There is such a thing as being too concerned about winning, and that is the illness that has seized the opposition.
As has been mentioned at least a hundred times by now, sometimes a strong, passionate response is absolutely required. Consider again the debacle about the atheist family story on CNN.
Bizarro panelist: "Atheists need to SHUT UP."
Which response is more effective in this context?
Response 1:"I don't particularly agree with your position. I feel that we have something to contribute, and urge you to allow us a forum in which to express our point of view, if that doesn't inconvenience you too much."
Response 2:"No, we DON'T, and we will NOT SHUT UP."
When one is being railroaded, one has to push back.
Crow: I've seldom seen an argument won by calling the other side stupid, and I've never seen that tactic succeed outside of the ivory tower.
sparc: You may try to leave the same comment over at UD thread: When arogance and stupidity collide http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/when-arrogance-and-stupidity-c…
Why would I want to do that? I'd love to see them bury themselves with poor tactics. I don't want to us do the same thing.
-Crow
Well said.
Yes, but the question always is: How hard? It's a difficult question to answer.
A Minnesotan named David Morris wrote a piece about this a couple of years ago:
This is equally relevant to some of the discussion about Anne Coulter, and I see it as one of the defining issues of contemporary political discourse and of the so-called culture war.
Hm... why didn't you try this kind of answer:
"So, was I wrong to tell [person] they were wrong?"
Postmodernism: proclaiming the truth that there is no truth...
I think it was the NY senator Patrick Moynihan who said "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts".
Now for the cre_ti_nist:
The other way around: we find the shared derived similarities of humans and chimps -- physiological, anatomical, behavioral, and so on --, deduce from this that they had a common ancestor not long ago, and then look if mutation, selection, and drift are capable of explaining the differences. Lo and behold, they can.
So what?
ID is a deterministic: it starts by the assumption that we humans were planned. The theory of evolution is not: nothing was planned; there's just mutation, selection, sex and other means of exchanging DNA, and drift.
Now, two words for you:
Stupid Design.
That's right: assuming there is anyone to blaspheme, ID is blasphemy. Have a peaceful day.
Very good point, Kseniya. I think the line is between attacking the science as bad instead of the people. The idea is stupid, not the person who believes it. It's very tempting to call the person stupid when they continue to believe it in the face of all evidence, but that's where the restraint of which you speak comes in. Out of that list "Appl(ied) to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party", only applied to their proposals and their records are justified, and instead of "bizarre" and "pathetic" we should use criticisms such as wrong and incorrect. That said, we need a lot more passion and a lot less guilt about taking the right stand.
A somewhat analagous battle is raging at Pandagon and Feministe regarding proper attack words. Quite interesting.
Oh man, I had not even noticed what it says within that single sentence:
So determinism is good?
So determinism is bad?
Newsflash: science and doublethink are incompatible.
There isn't any data that supports the premise that any amount of genetic change can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. All the data we do have points to wobbling stability- that is variation oscillates. The beak of the finch is a perfect example- as is anti-biotic resistance.
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
BTW sheer dumb luck is a science stopper.
To CalGeorge- YOU need to think for a change. Or at least tell me how I am incorrect in that the materialistic anti-ID position is nothing more than sheer dumb luck.
Did I mention that ID is stupid? And that the DI is comprised of dishonest people?
ID is stupid. The DI is a creationist swamp.
The Rise of Man is on the Science Channel now by the way.
Did I mention that ID is stupid? And that the DI is comprised of dishonest people?
ID is stupid. The DI is a creationist swamp.
The Rise of Man is on the Science Channel now by the way.
A great deal must be granted to those who seek knowledge in good faith. Those without good faith, however, are entitled to nothing - not explanations, not courtesy, not tolerance.
uhg. sorry for the double post.
Hey look it's the "can't generate more information" argument we've seen answered time after time.
Evolution is like so much more less likely than a designer... duh. God did it PZ! Get over yourself.
JoeG,
Is this what you are referring to when you mention "sheer dumb luck"?
It is sheer dumb luck that alters the genetic message so that, from infernal nonsense, meaning for a moment emerges; and sheer dumb luck again that endows life with its opportunities, the space of possibilities over which natural selection plays, sheer dumb luck again endowing the elephant's sensitive nose with nerves and the orchid's translucent petal with blush. From: David Berlinski, "The Deniable Darwin".
Evolution is about far more than chance, as countless people who read this blog can tell you.
Here's a good explanation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml
Misconception: "Evolution means that life changed 'by chance.' "
Response: Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce. Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying the same traits) in the next generation. That's non-random selection. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture.
ricky: Interesting, about the APA.
Ichthyic: 12000 comments over 2 threads???
Marc Moskowitz: PZ can speak for himself, of course, but I dare say he (and others, including myself) have said repeatedly we do find degrees of ridiculousness in religious claims.
Millimeter Wave: And of course they don't. Other evidence - the Bible, which does contain a few.
Joe:
It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species.
This shows an abysmal understanding of speciation. Animal husbandry is only 1 variation on it. Others are allopatric, peripatric, & parapatric.
A wolf & a dog are different species of the same family, just as tigers & lions are. Ever heard of Ligons & Tions (Tiglons?)? Interfertile hybrids? Ursids?
These are species that have been around, but the trick here, is that, if they become extinct, can be re-created w/a fair amount of ease.
I'm guessing here, but the ID'ers seem to want some sort of chimera (quantitatively different critter).
Do do some more homework.
Guys, we've got to get a handle on this debate to make progress. First thing, although the ID hypothesis is poor (non-existent) science, the political and religious aims of the DI are *not* stupid but cunning PR. Their views are crafted to touch fellow travellers emotionally with simple and appealing ideas.
Every time we 'dern scientists' or us 'damned atheists' disparage these simple appealing ideas with mere facts, or call their leaders stupid, we are playing on a battlefield chosen by the DI. We cannot change minds or win hearts in a game chosen by the opposition - they chose to play the game this way because they are *not* stupid.
We need to use the passion, committment, and determination we are talking about to make them play our game on our playing field. This needs discipline, because the moment we make it 'personal' we move to their playing field again.
A suggestion - every time in public debate when one of the DI supporters makes an assertion, ask "where is your evidence for that?". And when they reply (almost certainly with non-substantive prattle), ask "where is your evidence for that?" again. Keep doing this until they give up. If their reply mentions the Bible or god(s) point out that they are talking about religion, not science. Ask for their evidence again. Most adults can be reduced to incoherence by a set of 5 or 6 "why" questions asked by a child - how much more effective when asked by a knowledgeable adult?
Cherish reason; demand evidence.
Ichthyic: 12000 comments over 2 threads???
pretty close:
4989 on the second thread
6047 on the first.
so, technically more like 11000.
same thing happened when he went to Dawkins' website.
He just says the dumbest, most outrageous stuff, uses ALL the standard creationist debate tactics.
It's really quite remarkable, and I've often refered to his threads to point to people what we are really fighting against, and how much psychologically is wrong with these people.
I don't understand how you have reached that conclusion. We know the genetic difference between us and the chimps with quite some precision -- well, there it is. What are you trying to say?
That is wishful thinking. The beaks of those finches went wherever the environmental conditions went. The conditions oscillated over years, and so, therefore, did the beak shapes. If the conditions will stop oscillating, so will the beak shapes*. With global warming, the Galápagos will, as far as I've understood the matter, become wetter; this should lead the three species of ground finches to merge. Let's wait and see.
* By making testable predictions, the theory of evolution fulfills the criterion for being science.
What oscillations are there in antibiotics resistance?
What nonsense. It has sped it up. Without sex, beneficial mutations need to happen in the right order. With it, they can happen in any order and will nevertheless sooner or later meet in the same individual. If you like, I can send you a PDF presentation on this (part of a university course called "Cellular and Developmentary Genetics").
Oh, please. If you still believe evolution is progress, read a couple of books by S. J. Gould (especially Full House). Natural selection is not driven by anything except the environment. The sea goes, and the sea comes (to lapse into poetry and geology).
To some degree that depends on your species concept -- there are at least 25 out there. Besides, give it time. What are 8000 years for a vertebrate?
Of course, not everything is a vertebrate. When apples were introduced to the USA, one population of a certain fruit fly species started laying its eggs on the apples instead of whatever native berries there were. They don't interbreed anymore. Under most species concepts, a new species has evolved -- in just a bit over 100 years. And that's not the only example, just the one I can mention off the top of my head.
Like the Darwin finches: first the environment got black, so the light-colored ones were eaten and more and more of the survivors were black; then the environment started getting lighter again, and so have the moths.
When the environment stays stable, stabilizing selection occurs -- mutants will find it difficult to have more offspring than the normal ones. Trivially obvious, and indeed common. Now, if when the environment changes...
Not for metaphysical reasons of conformity, as the text seems to imply. No, for the simple, trivial reason that the norm is best adapted to the current environment.
Correct. Except that he clouds don't necessarily ever blow away. Think ice ages. Think whales -- probably they are an example like the fruit flies mentioned above: they started eating fish, multiplied tremendously because they had no competition (the mosasaurs and plesiosaurs having died out 10 million years earlier), and now they have no reason to return to land.
This simply doesn't follow. To me it looks like the mere wish to make nature look poetic. It is a metaphysical, unjustified conclusion.
Fine. Think whales: they've lost their hindlegs.
Think land vertebrates in general (Tetrapoda -- that includes the whales): we've lost our gills.
Oh, how unhappy we are to be so mutilated, extreme, and specialized! There are only about as many species of tetrapods than there are of ray-finned fishes*! What a tragedy of geological measures. *weep* *weep*
* Actinopterygii -- "normal fish", everything except sharks, rays, lampreys, hagfish, and the "like".
Why indeed? It starts with their breathing system: insects couldn't support a body of that size. Evolution can only take what is there and work with that. Outrageously new things don't happen.
You tell me! "God did it" is a science stopper; it can explain everything and its opposite -- which means that it actually explains nothing. Anything happens -- you'll say "God wanted it that way". The opposite happens -- you'll say "God wanted that, too; He works in mysterious ways."
To explain why there are chimps and humans, science would need to know not only the genotype of their entire line of ancestry, but also the precise environmental conditions throughout that vast time. So you see why it doesn't claim to have found the reasons. It is, however, obvious that the currently known and understood mechanisms suffice completely. "God did it", on the other hand, is not a mechanism; there's nothing to explain or understand in that.
BTW... you still haven't answered to my question. Is determinism good or bad? It can't be both, can it?
...but don't take my word for it; see for yourself.
here is first thread:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=1…
from there, you can find the continuation of it easily enough by using the search function.
BTW, not only is Dave Hawkin's extreme psychological disorder on display, but there are several excellent presentations on geology, hydrology, genetics, and evolutionary biology presented within those threads by those refuting Dave's nonsense, which many would find interesting reading in and of themselves.
It really is like a representative slice through the entire science/creationism culture wars.
I think this is one of the reasons the threads kept going so long and attracted so much attention.
that, and people often liked to use Dave as their morning whipping boy while drinking their coffee.
;)
seriously, I think someone could write an excellent publishable paper on the content in just those threads.
normally, I would have thought that David's intervening post (where he slaps down a creationist) between my first and second regarding the subject of Dave Hawkins would cause a non-sequitor, however, strangely enough, it ends up being almost like a sample from one of AFDave's threads!
"Most adults can be reduced to incoherence by a set of 5 or 6 "why" questions asked by a child - how much more effective when asked by a knowledgeable adult?" ==Bunjo
Sigh. If only it were so simple. They understand the "why" game as well. A seasoned bible-thumper is almost as skilled as a CIA interrogator in digging into and making you question your fundamental assumptions about reality. Evidential facts are only meaningful in the context of a theory or set of beliefs about the world and the hypotheses that can be deduced from that conceptual framework. You must ultimately illustrate how the various data for evolution is, in fact, supportive of the theory structure as a whole, and why it is superior to some alternative theory structure (e.g. supernatural design) that purports to explain the very same empirical observations. Otherwise you too will ultimately be "why'd" to incoherence as well. This process is exceedingly tedious, and most folks have an attention span that is roughly equivalent to the gap between commercials. Hence the appeal of more irrational tactics of persuasion. But, as I attempted to indicate above, resorting to ridiculing, shouting and so forth is only different in degree, not kind, from suicide bombing and other less savory ways of expressing oneself. So in my mind, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Personally, I'd rather adhere to the rational approach to the truth that we, as scientists, supposedly hold in such esteem.
"There isn't any data that supports the premise that any amount of genetic change can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans." ==JoeG
Hi Joseph from UD. I see you have your man-chimp transition keyboard button ready at hand. You really need a new talking point. We have data that indicates genetic change results in both physiological and anatomical differences in a variety of species, including humans and chimps. (e.g. Genetic mutations that cause disease alter both physiology and anatomy.) From this we can deduce the premise that "some amount of genetic change is capable of producing some amount of genetic and anatomical differences between species." From this it is straightforward to see that still more such genetic change would result in still more such differences. And, having assented to that, there is no scientific basis upon which to doubt that "*any* amount of genetic change" would result in the physiological/anatomical differences between humans and chimps. So maybe you could come up with a new talking point now? I suggest it incorporate something about dice and pickled pigs' feet.
Ichthyic, I think Dave is a frustrated novelist. That's what I got from his creator god "hypothesis".
He needs to find a literary agent.
I suppose it's to be expected that the former electrical engineer thinks the universe is being run by... a "fantastically brilliant engineer"!
great_ape:
Understood your points, but to reuse an old cliche "We will ask the questions" - not answer them. When some DI person says "design is everywhere we look" - we ask "where is your evidence". If they respond "why do you doubt", restate your original question. I know it's simple, and it does take discipline, but it keeps the debate in our terms.
How many times has Dr Dembski been let off the hook about a definition or evidence for CSI? How many times have we asked for evidence that 2LoT shows evolution cannot happen? How many times have we let the DI make unchallenged assertions about mutation and natural selection being unable to generate 'new information'? When a YEC says the Earth is only 6,000 years old, when have we asked for proof? In each case in the past where we have provided a counter factual response, it has merely extended the debate, given it false status, and given the fence sitters no incentive to make their own judgements.
Over on the TalkOrigins newsgroup it is a suprisingly effective counter when someone says "I asked you for proof of your assertion that... ...over 9 months ago, and you still have not provided it".
Obviously this tactic needs to be used under the right circumstances: most scientists tend to want to teach or explain, but this falls into the hands of the slick PR machine. Lets put them on the back foot, make them do the work.
Ichthyic, I think Dave is a frustrated novelist.
oh, I think the frustration goes much further than that.
It really gets disgusting when he starts talking about how he is using the "kids4truth" site in order to corrupt young minds and bring them into his cult.
We've actually had several discussion about the value that AFDave's thread represents in analyzing the creationist mindset, and several of us are working on ways of synthesizing it for easier accessibility.
"I know it's simple, and it does take discipline, but it keeps the debate in our terms." ==Bunjo
Understood. The problem I see is that the only spheres where we truly dictate the terms are 1) academic literature 2) forums under the control of evolution proponents. These are the only places where you *truly* can exert your power to frame the debate as you wish. There are many forums outside of this that are subject to public scrutiny. You may get away in these latter arenas with rhetorically forcing the debate to be on your terms sometimes, but not always. What will ultimately win hearts and minds (and has, I think) is for people to witness debates occurring in arenas that are as close to neutrally refereed as is possible. I think the court room is among the best venues of this type, and I think pretty much any case that goes to trial over evolution/ID will result in public gains for the position of mainstream scientists. Yet in these venues, it's not passion/fury that is our greatest strength. Jebus knows the other side has just as much of that...and then some. Our strengths are evidence and rational argument. So I think instead of railing at the enemy, we should work on continuing to put all our ducks in a row and crafting the most cogent and illuminating arguments based on the evidence at our disposal. Even if its frustrating that ones words repeatedly fall on deaf ears. The point is that, when the definitive occasions arrive, we have the strongest case possible that is, at the same time, digestible for the lay public.
I'm glad you have patience for his stuff, Ichthyic, because I don't. I gave up.
On and on in the abstract like this (gag!):
ABDUCTIVE REASONING WITH LOGICAL INFERENCE TO BEST EXPLANATION
DATA: Phenomenon A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, relativity, particle physics, etc.)
EXPERIENCE: We propose 'B' (Point 1 above) from our own observation and experience. We cannot do otherwise and still call it 'science'
LOGIC: If B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (In this exercise, B is the God of the Christian Bible)
CONCLUSION: Since we do observe lots of 'A's there is reason to suspect that B is true. We will propose that it is true, then modify, refine, etc. as we gather more data.
Now, what do I observe in the natural world? This is my 'A' above.
Oh, I think I get it now... Dave's abusing the ideas of that 19th century philosopher, Charles Sanders Pierce:
From Wikipeida:
Peirce extracted the pragmatic model or theory of inquiry from its raw materials in classical logic and refined it in parallel with the early development of symbolic logic to address problems about the nature of scientific reasoning. Borrowing a brace of concepts from Aristotle, Peirce examined three fundamental modes of reasoning that play a role in inquiry, processes that are currently known as abductive, deductive, and inductive inference.
In the roughest terms, abduction is what we use to generate a likely hypothesis or an initial diagnosis in response to a phenomenon of interest or a problem of concern, while deduction is used to clarify, to derive, and to explicate the relevant consequences of the selected hypothesis, and induction is used to test the sum of the predictions against the sum of the data.
He's never going to get to that testing phase to determine whether his God-Engineer exists. He can't. All he can do is spin his wheels talking about the possibility, which leaves him right where he started.
By rhetoric I mean verbal strategies of persuasion, an inescapable component of successful communication. Not having seen Flock of Dodos, I can't tell you it provides the complete rebuttal to your argument, but I strongly suspect that's the case.
Speak "plainly" at all times, and you'll probably end up talking only to yourself.
I'm always laughing at them too much to get angry.
You can't spell IDiot without ID.
I'm glad you have patience for his stuff, Ichthyic, because I don't. I gave up.
congratulations! that's a quite sane response. I actually gave up arguing with Dave after the first few hundred posts, for the most part, but still find the intractability and insane reasoning fascinating to watch.
still, there is a lot of value in that thread as exhibit, at the very least.
I'm going to resuscitate the thread where we started talking about methods of organizing to minimize the tedium (and loss of brain cells for those who currently have to wade through the thing).
Jebus knows the other side has just as much of that...and then some. Our strengths are evidence and rational argument. So I think instead of railing at the enemy, we should work on continuing to put all our ducks in a row and crafting the most cogent and illuminating arguments based on the evidence at our disposal. Even if its frustrating that ones words repeatedly fall on deaf ears.
And where has anyone suggested that we stop "making cogent and illuminating arguments based on the evidence at our disposal"? People have been doing this since the IDC movement started and volumes have been devoted to debunking the pseudoscience. About 5 minutes using google will bring any willing reader a wealth of material. PZ's argument here, as far as I understand it, is that we simply shouldn't be apologizing for the fact that we have those arguments. We shouldn't be bending over backwards to be concilatory because clearly established facts from 150 years of scientific investigation conflict with religious dogma X or political ideology Y.
ID is stupid because evolution has all the evidence and ID has none.
Answers to any IDist question, when it comes to evolution, should begin with the statement that ID is stupid because it has no research/data/evidence. The entire point of ID is to stop inquirey at the "designer" did it.
It makes your point before they start to glaze over when you get into the "hard science.
A friend of mine and I seem to have worked out a good team system: he provides (most of) the snark and sarcasm, and I provide the rational responses (see, for instance, here; look for comments by "Fez").
If you've been reading Pharyngula for a while, odds are you have more facts than the average person on the street; but do you have a sarcasm buddy?
I am sure they will but I am sure they will never be able to substantiate that claim.
Ya see BEFORE biological evolution can even start there needs to be living organisms. And in the materialistic anti-ID scenario that had to have occurred by sheer dumb luck.
As for the chimp-human thingy - again we don't have ANY data that would demonstrate such a transformation is even possible. For if we did that would be front page news. But we don't even know if any amount of genetic variation can account for the opposable big toe to line up with the others. No data whatsoever. And no data that would demonstrate that any amount of genetic variation can account for upright, bipedal walking. Nothing but wishful speculation. And that is oly two differences out of many that cannot be accounted for.
The genetic differences have grown. They used to be 1% and now it is over 5%. Soon evolutionists will have to say that some number of mutations had to have become fixed at EVERY GENERATION just to make up for the genomic differences observed.
And we also know that although DNA may influence every aspect of development it does not determine it. We see the same DNA give rise to differing forms.
And I know that saying "God did it" or "the designer did it" isn't scientific but neither is saying "it evolved" without knowing if it could.
Watch the NCSE sponsored PBS series "Evolution". It is explained there as well as many biology textbooks.
to David Marjanović - I will go with a published geneticist over your rantings- as everyone should.
How many anti-IDists realize that ID is NOT anti-evolution but if anything ID could be considered anti-the blind watchmaker as having sole doninion over the evolutionary process?
IOW organisms (populations) could have been designed to evolve as opposed to evolving via culled genetic accidents.
And the bottom-line is and always has been all one has to do to stifle ID and Creation is substantiate the claims of any opposing materialistic PoV.
Good luck with that...
Wow. You're really confused.
There's not one shred of evidence of a designer or creator... none.
Zero.
Zilch.
Nada.
You point to the evidence of evolution and say it's not enough. It's ironic.
And stupid.
We exist. The is only one reality behind that existence. There are also few options.
The materialistic anti-ID option is sheer dumb luck or the universe "just is" (metaphysical). Both are stupid. ;)
Sheer dumb luck that a giant impactor collided with the proto-earth to not only give us a large stabilizing moon (required for complex living organisms) but it also started our life required rotation.
Oh and that large moon? Just happens to be 400x smaller than the Sun but also 400x closer to us than the Sun. IOW the only place in the solar system that has total solar ecplises and just when there are observers to appreciate them (and gain much needed scientific knowledge of the universe). IOW not only is it required for complex living organisms it also provides a nice natural lab.
Some of the greatest scientists that ever graced this planet understood they were uncovering the handywork of a designer. That is what science was to them.
If by following their lead means I can be as scientifically inclined and literate as Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Plank et al., well I can live with that. And I would wish such a thing on everyone.
How many anti-IDists realize that ID is NOT anti-evolution but it is anti-the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over the evolutionary process?
IOW were organisms (populations) designed to evolve or was it all just culled genetic accidents?
As for natural selection and chance- NS is a RESULT of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits* - IOW it is on the right side of the equation. Everything to the left is chance. Chance mutation. Chance that mutation will be beneficial (beneficial being relative). Chance the organism with that beneficial mutation will successfully mate, which also means there is a chance the gametes involved will NOT have the beneficial trait or will have some other mutation that cancels out the first beneficial one. And then there are other random effects- impacts, tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, drought, humans , etc., that no amount of beneficial mutations can save a population from.
*any biology textbook eg page 11 Biology- Concepts and Applications Starr fifth edition 2003
Enough of the "sheer dumb luck" crock. Stop repeating yourself.
Show us ANY evidence of a designer.
Any.
Or please shut up.
"The materialistic anti-ID option is sheer dumb luck or the universe "just is" (metaphysical). Both are stupid. ;) "
Why?
Seems Fisher doesn't know or rather care about the difference between an attorney (Walczak) and a biologist. He covers up that he had no answers to DI's legal problems from Dover or its lack of predictive (scientific) arguments from ID.
A Paleyist got his clock cleaned. I call that a good start.
Hm... why didn't you try this kind of answer:
"So, was I wrong to tell [person] they were wrong?"
Postmodernism: proclaiming the truth that there is no truth...
I think it was the NY senator Patrick Moynihan who said "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts".
Now for the cre_ti_nist:
The other way around: we find the shared derived similarities of humans and chimps -- physiological, anatomical, behavioral, and so on --, deduce from this that they had a common ancestor not long ago, and then look if mutation, selection, and drift are capable of explaining the differences. Lo and behold, they can.
So what?
ID is a deterministic: it starts by the assumption that we humans were planned. The theory of evolution is not: nothing was planned; there's just mutation, selection, sex and other means of exchanging DNA, and drift.
Now, two words for you:
Stupid Design.
That's right: assuming there is anyone to blaspheme, ID is blasphemy. Have a peaceful day.
Oh man, I had not even noticed what it says within that single sentence:
So determinism is good?
So determinism is bad?
Newsflash: science and doublethink are incompatible.
I don't understand how you have reached that conclusion. We know the genetic difference between us and the chimps with quite some precision -- well, there it is. What are you trying to say?
That is wishful thinking. The beaks of those finches went wherever the environmental conditions went. The conditions oscillated over years, and so, therefore, did the beak shapes. If the conditions will stop oscillating, so will the beak shapes*. With global warming, the Galápagos will, as far as I've understood the matter, become wetter; this should lead the three species of ground finches to merge. Let's wait and see.
* By making testable predictions, the theory of evolution fulfills the criterion for being science.
What oscillations are there in antibiotics resistance?
What nonsense. It has sped it up. Without sex, beneficial mutations need to happen in the right order. With it, they can happen in any order and will nevertheless sooner or later meet in the same individual. If you like, I can send you a PDF presentation on this (part of a university course called "Cellular and Developmentary Genetics").
Oh, please. If you still believe evolution is progress, read a couple of books by S. J. Gould (especially Full House). Natural selection is not driven by anything except the environment. The sea goes, and the sea comes (to lapse into poetry and geology).
To some degree that depends on your species concept -- there are at least 25 out there. Besides, give it time. What are 8000 years for a vertebrate?
Of course, not everything is a vertebrate. When apples were introduced to the USA, one population of a certain fruit fly species started laying its eggs on the apples instead of whatever native berries there were. They don't interbreed anymore. Under most species concepts, a new species has evolved -- in just a bit over 100 years. And that's not the only example, just the one I can mention off the top of my head.
Like the Darwin finches: first the environment got black, so the light-colored ones were eaten and more and more of the survivors were black; then the environment started getting lighter again, and so have the moths.
When the environment stays stable, stabilizing selection occurs -- mutants will find it difficult to have more offspring than the normal ones. Trivially obvious, and indeed common. Now, if when the environment changes...
Not for metaphysical reasons of conformity, as the text seems to imply. No, for the simple, trivial reason that the norm is best adapted to the current environment.
Correct. Except that he clouds don't necessarily ever blow away. Think ice ages. Think whales -- probably they are an example like the fruit flies mentioned above: they started eating fish, multiplied tremendously because they had no competition (the mosasaurs and plesiosaurs having died out 10 million years earlier), and now they have no reason to return to land.
This simply doesn't follow. To me it looks like the mere wish to make nature look poetic. It is a metaphysical, unjustified conclusion.
Fine. Think whales: they've lost their hindlegs.
Think land vertebrates in general (Tetrapoda -- that includes the whales): we've lost our gills.
Oh, how unhappy we are to be so mutilated, extreme, and specialized! There are only about as many species of tetrapods than there are of ray-finned fishes*! What a tragedy of geological measures. *weep* *weep*
* Actinopterygii -- "normal fish", everything except sharks, rays, lampreys, hagfish, and the "like".
Why indeed? It starts with their breathing system: insects couldn't support a body of that size. Evolution can only take what is there and work with that. Outrageously new things don't happen.
You tell me! "God did it" is a science stopper; it can explain everything and its opposite -- which means that it actually explains nothing. Anything happens -- you'll say "God wanted it that way". The opposite happens -- you'll say "God wanted that, too; He works in mysterious ways."
To explain why there are chimps and humans, science would need to know not only the genotype of their entire line of ancestry, but also the precise environmental conditions throughout that vast time. So you see why it doesn't claim to have found the reasons. It is, however, obvious that the currently known and understood mechanisms suffice completely. "God did it", on the other hand, is not a mechanism; there's nothing to explain or understand in that.
BTW... you still haven't answered to my question. Is determinism good or bad? It can't be both, can it?