There is a certain creationist book that contains this infamous quote:
No matter what ideology they may espouse, those who perpetrate terror over the world are, in reality, Darwinists. Darwinism is the only philosophy that places a value on-and thus encourages-conflict.
Kind of a common sentiment on the far right, I know. But you'd think a member of the far right would be reluctant to use it, because it's from an Islamic crackpot, Adnan Oktar AKA Haryun Yahya, in his massive plagiarized tome, The Atlas of Creation.
Yet this book is prominently displayed in the waiting room of Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. I'm wondering why GW Bush's CIA and FBI aren't all over this guy for endorsing the work of a radical Islamic nutcase. I'm wondering how a Bush appointee can parade a book with Arabic script on the cover without getting at least a strange look from his fellow travelers in peculiar politics. I don't know how they can handle the conflict.
They must have really thick skulls.
- Log in to post comments
I think there are plenty of room in their heads for conflicting ideas since they don't keep any brains there.
There is plenty of room. Preview is your friend... but not mine, obviously.
The wrongness of Adnan Oktar's statement is just too big to comprehend in one sitting.
I am baffled that anyone would claim that conflict is bad. We need conflict for growth. Anyone who has studied conflict knows that it is not a bad thing. Without conflict we would not even have "America". We would have just stayed in Britian. We had a conflict that birthed America.
Conflict is nuetral, it is what we do with conflict, how we handle conflict that Counts.
Me and Preview had a falling-out a long time ago.
Joe: Well, that just proves that you're a Darwinist, doesn't it?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Actually, I think its good that no one is bothering someone about a book. The only question is why. Could I get away with the same thing?
Although, there is always also the argument that these people may just have no idea what is going on, the real test would be to substitute "The God Delusion" and see if anyone noticed, or if they just don't look at books in Washington.
apparently, secularism is such a grave threat to them all, that they temporarily forget all religious hostility and join forces to defeat it. Then they can carry on with their religious wars without the annoying secularism preventing them from cutting each other's throat.
Actually, all the terrorists are Literature nuts: "Conflict builds character" is an obvious call to international terrorism! Thus we should ban these subversive 5th columnist English departments at our fine Universities.
Given the pathological lack of curiosity among wingnuts, I'm sure that no one has noticed what books he has on his bookshelves.
The issue these creationists have is that they simply do not perceive the world the same way we do; where we view conflict as being simply the difference between two competing aspects, they view it in the terms of war. Where we view the ideas as being important, they view the authorities as the last word on whatever topic they happen to be espousing or attacking.
This is why they latch onto words like conflict and brandish them about, claiming evil. It is why they parade Anthony Flew about now that he's had his "epiphany."
They don't understand the way we see the world; Flew's essay is still powerful, regardless of his views (I've linked to it on my blog); they don't understand that conflict (as Joe has stated) is neutral and that it does not necessarily mean war and death and destruction; they don't understand that conflict can be constructive.
Since when does describing observed conflict and its results mean you place value on it?
There's nothing wrong with the book, even if it's full of nutbaggery. It's when someone can't tell the difference between a book full of nutbaggery and guidance, that it becomes a problem.
"It's when someone can't tell the difference between a book full of nutbaggery and guidance, that it becomes a problem."
Well that about covers religion, i guess we can all go home now.
These guys don't even try to hide their blazing, flaming hypocrisy anymore, do they?
What about the free market? Doesn't that also place value on conflict? Does this guy even understand his own political philosophy?
In fairness, the book also used to be on the desk of the editor in chief of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. But he has now moved it onto his shelves, and retired as EiC.
Just another creationist confusing "This is good" with "This is what happened".
Here's why, PZ: they ascribe to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy.
And we know that to be true from history. The US has no problem with terrorism; we have a problem with terrorists who don't benefit us. In fact, we support terrorists who benefit us (cf. our support of the Iran-Contras, the Afghanis against the Russians, our refusal to hand over the guy who bombed the Cuban airliner, etc.). So to the neocons, there is no conflict with having this book. It benefits their position, and that's all that matters.
"Onward Xian Soldiers
Marching as to War"
The Xian church has traditionally been at the forefront of war, conflict, and aggression. It was established in the Old World by force of arms and massacres of competing cults. Missionairies, Crusades, Reformation, miscellaneous sectarian violence, Xian terrorism. Plus all the genocide and war in the OT.
Toss in the Moslems from their start until 5 minutes ago in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia etc..
Does this mean the Xian and Islamic religions are Darwinist philosophies?
It is a bit of a mystery how pea brain Bush could have recruited such a group of dummies. They all look and act like they just stepped out of a special Ed. first grade somewhere.
Hey, maybe that's an improvement over calling the WTC hijackers "atheists."
I thought the entire purpose for creating the world was for the conflict between Good and Evil to play out -- so that God might know who His real friends are.
That quote is so stupid I keep thinking he could not possibly have meant was it actually says. He must have meant something else not quite so obviously fatuous and wrong.
I suspect he really meant to use the word "violence," which focuses it down a bit and eliminates stuff like capitalism. The trouble is, of course, that evolution doesn't put a value on violence. It doesn't condemn violence either. Scientific descriptions and explanations don't place "values" on things.
The Naturalist Fallacy is so old and worn I almost blush when I see someone using it. Oh ... dear. Could you maybe please put something on to...well, cover it?
Jesus was a Darwinist:
It's true, you know. There was no conflict in the world prior to 1859.
Regardless of the source, this idea is correct. From a purely Darwinian point of view:
- Right wing warmongers are a successful species.
- Left wing pacifists are a species in decline.
Why rich, educated, healthy leftists, presumably all evolutionists, refuse to reproduce is probably the most puzzling biological enigma of our time. Read about the demographic-economic paradox in Wikipedia.
PZ,
I think the word you're searching for is implode.
There's obviously nothing but vacuum inside, so their skulls must be rated to withstand at least 1 AU of pressure at all times - which isn't that hard, AFAIK - as well as serious logical blows to the head.
PZ Myers: "I'm wondering how a Bush appointee can parade a book with Arabic script on the cover without getting at least a strange look from his fellow travelers in peculiar politics."
Afghan-born Muslim Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed ambassador to the UN, publicly appeared in Iraq with Muslim prayer beads when he served as ambassador there.
Algerian-born Muslim Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, was appointed by Bush in 2002.
Wallid Shatter, an Arab-American Muslim member of Bush's secret service detail not traveling with Bush at the time, was barred from a flight in 2001; one reason was that he was carrying a book with the title "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes."
Bush's regular hairstylist is an Afghan-born Muslim woman named Zahira Zahir.
http://www.despardes.com/newsmakers/2003/sep4-afghan-hairstylist.htm
Manny wrote:
We're harder to impress. Just because you've got a pick-up with a working radio isn't enough.
Evolution is terribly, terribly wrong,
Putting conflict in favorable light!
We would never put value on something like that--
And that, friends, is why we must fight!
"Survival of fittest" is messy and bloody,
Not goodly or godly at all;
Which is why it's important we come out on top
And that all of the Darwinists fall!
Christian and Muslim must fight together,
Hand in hand, my brother--
Until every last one of the Darwinists dies....
Then we can start on each other.
PZ,
I'm beginning to see a pattern here and I'd like to suggest that religious delusion is caused by: BOOKS!...especially big ones! It makes total sense! Any big book (lots 'o pages) it's observed, is believable simply because of it's sheer size. It makes total sense!
Therefore, to persuade Jebus and Ali sheep, er...followers, we should get every science book on evolution, bind them together under one cover, display it with a few cross-dressing males standing around(maybe in lab coats), and the true-believers will dash right over, in doe-eyed wonder and warmly embrace our message of evolution, genetics and DNA(if my theory is right).
"They must have really thick skulls."
I think their heads don't explode because of the powerful inward force they can apply using their gluteus maximus.
Says who?
How presumptious of you. Plenty of right-wingers are not in denial of science either. And could we have a show of hands from everyone in the room who is "rich"?
I would wager it has to do with maximizing our resources towards quality care for those children we do have, which is also an evolutionary strategy. You could read up on that, too.
Joe Brummer (#4):
I am baffled that anyone would claim that conflict is bad. We need conflict for growth.
What do you want?
(Yep, got that new B5 movie from Netflix and am reattaching the formerly broken DVD player...)
Cuttlefish, knock it off! Stop hogging all the Molly's. ;)
If you can't read, arabic letters don't stand out from english, cyrillic, greek, etc. That's why nobody in the misadministration notices.
Yeah, well I am ready to go on record concerning conflict at this very moment. I'm against it! Peace and harmony is what I favor, maybe with a little light teasing for amusement. But no conflict!
"Darwinism is the only philosophy that places a value on-and thus encourages-conflict."
This conflation of Darwinism with social Darwinism aside, it is interesting that a number of creeds and social theories that arose from the mid 19th to early 20th centuries were centered on the premise that violent struggle is the core of human experience and advocated zeal and ruthlessness in that struggle: Marxism, Monism, social Darwinism, scientific racism, eugenics, revolutionary syndicalism, Bolshevism, fascism, national socialism.
Not surprisingly, this coincided with the Age of Imperialism.
Colugo, you forgot capitalism.
"Colugo, you forgot capitalism."
I mentioned social Darwinism, the rationale for extreme laissez-faire. In addition, generic capitalism predates that period. (And I assume that your moniker is not also "Colugo.")
Certainly there were others I could have listed; for example, Manifest Destiny.
A newspaper comic I remember from years ago...possibly Frank & Ernest(?):
Two guys are waiting for a bus, one with suit, tie, and briefcase, the other with overalls and lunchbox.
Lunchbox: So, got any kids?
Briefcase: Just the one. You?
LB: Just the eight.
[pause]
BF: i think it's a matter of education.
LB: I think it's natural selection!
*waving*
I'm "rich" by the standards of your typical First Grader. I've got a hundred dollars in my pocket, and when you're six years old, you can buy the world with a Franklin.
So Bush appointed Guitierrez as secretary of commerce?
He really is getting his worldview from Saturday morning cartoons.
#28
Reminding me again why I Ctrl-F "cuttlefish" on every discussion thread here.
My guess is that a free copy of the book was sent to Gutierrez by Haryun Yahya, as that's his MO. So not surprisingly they put out a book by a Turk for others to see. It was free, it's worldly, and it's got perty pictures.
I love the NYT quote in the referenced article:
Perfect. I don't think there's anything to add to that...
Repeat after me: It's Okay If You're A Republican.
Hand caught in the cookie jar? Soliciting prostitutes? It's Okay If You're A Republican.
Perjury? Hypocrisy? Ranting about the mote in someone else's eye while ignoring the beam in your own? It's Okay If You're A Republican.
Embracing the writings of a fundamentalist Muslim while attempting to paint all Muslims as evil incarnate?
You get the picture.
Republicans are interested in 3 things:
1. Winning. At any cost.
2. Punishing the losers. And their kids. And anyone else they don't like.
3. Making lots of money in the process.
Consistency, integrity, honor? That's for pussies.
Best line ever.
I was thinking of getting rid of my copy of the book. If there is anyone that feels deserving (maybe a deeply held self-hatred or something?) and hey can prove they are such, I will consider sending them mine. Be warned before time, that reading this book can cause brain damage. I have trouble doing long division now after reading only 2 pages...
In the USA maybe. And even there I doubt it.
Having gone to church (Catholic) almost every Sunday for the first, like, 15 years of my life, I was shocked to discover that there's a church song in the USA called "Onward, Christian Soldiers" (and again shocked a few minutes ago when I found the continuation in comment 20, even though I really shouldn't have been surprised). I had no idea any kind of mainstream Christian denomination has ever celebrated violence -- even metaphorically -- within the last 200 years or so.
(Maybe this cultural difference across the Big Pond comes from the 30-Years War, 1618 -- 1648, which was like Rwanda 1994, only bigger. But that's a very wild guess.)
Dude, did you make a Homestar Runner joke in the title? Nice.
No matter what ideology they may espouse, those who perpetrate terrorwar over the world are, in reality, DarwinistsChristo-Muslims. DarwinismChristo-Islaam is the only philosophy that places a value onreward in-and thus encourages-conflictdeath.
Equally logical and valid, no?
There's nothing wrong with the book, even if it's full of nutbaggery.
Yeah, like there's nothing wrong with "Of Pandas and People" or the wedge document or Behe's or Dembski's books or any other piece of disinformational propaganda. It's nice to see that Marcus is maintaining his usual standards of intelligent thought.
I am baffled that anyone would claim that conflict is bad.
No! You're wrong! Conflict is bad! I should beat your brains in for saying that!
In any case, "Darwinism", if that refers to Darwin's theory of natural selection, doesn't depend on conflict per se. Fitness is simply about the differential statistics of reproduction of alleles, and there are many factors that affect reproductivity that have nothing to do with conflict.
Without conflict we would not even have "America". We would have just stayed in Britian.
You apparently don't know much about the colonial period, or about the logic of sufficient vs. necessary. Just because something happened for a particular reason doesn't mean that it wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Remember, it was a European who wrote "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God". The title of that hymn always makes me wish I could draw decent cartoons, as it brings up an image of robed pilgrims groveling before a hulking stone citadel.
"Onward, Christian Soldiers" is a nineteenth-century English song, though.
How about democracy? Or free market economics?
The columnist Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative Christian who seems to embrace Islamic radicalism because its view of society so closely matches his own.
"Hey, you guys hate fags too? Great. Come join the party! We can work out our differences later, but I think we can all agree that religion's important in government, right?"
With music by Sir Arthur Sullivan (of Gilbert & Sullivan fame), no less.
Firstly, it was Luther who wrote it, in 1528.
Secondly, it is not aggressive, it is defensive, along the lines of "as long as the Lord is with me, I have nothing to fear" or "in God we trust". It doesn't even say "mighty" in the German original (Eine feste Burg ist unser Gott), it says that the fortress (Burg "medieval castle") doesn't crumble and withstands all attacks (fest = "fast" as in "fasten your seat belt").
I found the entire text here*. It is all about God (and only God) successfully defending us against the devil (the "prince of this world" who has "cruel armor" or is perhaps "armed in a cruel way"). "Defense" is the third word in the second line, and identified with God.
* It's a Protestant song, so I was never supposed to sing it, and didn't know anything but the first line.
--------------
Still, I clearly have the timeframe wrong, though (thanks, Josh).
"They must have really thick skulls."
Are you just now figuring this out?
"A Mighty Fortress" in 4-part chorale harmony played by a decent brass choir is, for me, a sublime enough experience to make me not even care about the lyrics. Especially the chord that ends the penultimate line--so perfect, I get chills.
Wait... no one has mentioned the song "Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise_the_Lord_and_Pass_the_Ammunition
Wait... no one has mentioned the song "Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition"?
The Firesign Theater used to sing "Pass the Lord, and praise the ammunition".
raven: Common cause, one assumes - Bush and his group were recruited by the same people, though in the case of the group it might have "gone by him". Think: "yes, yes, Dick, sure, he'd be great. When can we go and watch the game?"
Best line ever.
In the USA maybe. And even there I doubt it.
Having gone to church (Catholic) almost every Sunday for the first, like, 15 years of my life, I was shocked to discover that there's a church song in the USA called "Onward, Christian Soldiers" (and again shocked a few minutes ago when I found the continuation in comment 20, even though I really shouldn't have been surprised). I had no idea any kind of mainstream Christian denomination has ever celebrated violence -- even metaphorically -- within the last 200 years or so.
(Maybe this cultural difference across the Big Pond comes from the 30-Years War, 1618 -- 1648, which was like Rwanda 1994, only bigger. But that's a very wild guess.)
Firstly, it was Luther who wrote it, in 1528.
Secondly, it is not aggressive, it is defensive, along the lines of "as long as the Lord is with me, I have nothing to fear" or "in God we trust". It doesn't even say "mighty" in the German original (Eine feste Burg ist unser Gott), it says that the fortress (Burg "medieval castle") doesn't crumble and withstands all attacks (fest = "fast" as in "fasten your seat belt").
I found the entire text here*. It is all about God (and only God) successfully defending us against the devil (the "prince of this world" who has "cruel armor" or is perhaps "armed in a cruel way"). "Defense" is the third word in the second line, and identified with God.
* It's a Protestant song, so I was never supposed to sing it, and didn't know anything but the first line.
--------------
Still, I clearly have the timeframe wrong, though (thanks, Josh).