As I mentioned the other day, the Oklahoma legislature was contemplating a resolution to condemn Richard Dawkins. It turns out that that was a moderate compromise — the original version of the resolution attacked the University of Oklahoma department of zoology. Look closely at the language in this motion:
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry, not indoctrinate students in one-sided study and thinking; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma has, as evidenced on the departmental homepage, been framing the Darwinian theory of evolution as doctrinal dogmatism rather than a hypothetical construction within the disciplines of the sciences; and
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university;
Realize that John West and Casey Luskin toddled into Oklahoma a few weeks ago, and put 2 + 2 together. The DI has been coaching the infantile minds of creationist legislators again.
- Log in to post comments
The god-monkeys are out rubbing their butts on the ground again with their typical lies and nonsense because they are willfully ignorant on the settled fact of evolution via natural selection.
It is funny to watch how these people embarrass themselves and do not even realize how foolish they appear.
Unproven - only to those with an acute brain deficit.
Unpopular - not with people who actually know jack shit about science.
Nurture free thinking - yes - let's include the hollow Earth perspective in geology.
One sided - not true because any research from primary peer reviewed journals will become grist for the scientific mill. The problem has been a lack of published stuff that is actually science.
Non-binding resolutions: for when you want to shoot your mouth out without any real consequences.
OT: an An Arbor bank now offers Shariah-complient services. Ex: "the bank actually buys the house at a qualified customer’s direction, and then sells it to that customer through monthly installments modeled on the payments of a 30-year mortgage." Same end result as a mortgage, but calling it something else so that they won't upset anyone's imaginary friend.
Are you still a conspiracy theorist if there really are conspiracies? Casey Luskin has shown himself to be the blunt edge of the Discovery Institute's wedge and it's sadly unsurprising to learn that he's one of the behind-the-scenes prime movers of Oklahoma's legislative bludgeon. It's also hilarious that the DI would endorse "free thinking" in any political resolution.
I meant "shoot your mouth off," not out. Though in this case, "shoot excrement out your mouth" would also be appropriate.
"Unpopular theory". Hehe. That one always gets me.
"Which one of these ideas do you want to be true? Can I see a show of hands?"
Was the original version written in crayon on a sheet of butcher's paper? 'Cause only someone with the education level of a Kindergartner would claim that evolution is 'unproven' and 'unpopular'.
The buzzword that shows ID/creationists are at work is "Darwinian." Nobody except ID/creationists use that word.
No, we do use "Darwinian"...but it has a very narrow meaning. It is not appropriate to apply it to the whole of evolutionary biology.
One bright note on this sorry affair: About 3000 (my guess) were in attendance at Dawkin's lecture last night in Norman, OK. He entered to a standing ovation, and I would guess that creationist types were extremely outnumbered. (Lots of black shirts with the scarlet "A" and goodness knows how many people carrying the God Delusion, hoping for an autograph). There was a lengthy question and answer session following, and almost all questioners began by thanking Dawkins for coming. Well, there was one chap who began screaming something (couldn't tell what) and had to be escorted from the building to loud boos and jeers. Comic relief.
It must be admitted, though, that Norman is a bit different from much of the state in education level, attitudes, etc. I myself live in an small dot of blue surrounded by a sea of red.
Let's see. 2 + 2 = ? DI and OK religiobot style. Hmmm. Must be science is wrong, goddidit, which makes the answer 3.
And don’t forget about the recent paper by Padian and Matzke (Biochemical Journal, 2009), that pointed out that the op-ed pieces and essays of Cardinal Chistoph Schoenborn have been scripted by the Discovery Institute as well. Oh! What an extensive conspiracy this is!
Why did heliocentrism, germ theory, trigonometry, and historical linguistics all get a pass, even though they're all explicitly contradicted by the same literal reading of the Bible that makes evolution such an "unpopular theory"?
In other places where reality and the Bible don't jibe, why is the reaction to say "The bible doesn't say what it says", whereas with evolution, the reaction is to say "virtually every scientist is wrong/fooled by Satan/in on the conspiracy"?
Is it arbitrary that evolution was chosen as the last stand of the culture wars? Is it revulsion to the idea that we're distant cousins to the great apes (and every other living thing?) Is it just that it disrupts a 'begat'-based timeline? Why evolution? Why couldn't they just insist on something harmless, like donkeys and snakes occasionally talk?
makes sense, the resolution seems too 'perfectly' worded to have been thought up by some average creationist. the DI shaking their brains to come up with all they can to get rid of evolution.
Greasy? It's brown and sticky, but that ain't grease.
"...the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas..."
Hypocrite lecteur!
The Discovery Institute is a privately-funded, single-issue, massively-biased organization that is closed to most ideas.
If the world of learning was made up of Discovery Institutes, we would be totally fucked.
Cardinal Schönborn is certainly one of the darlings of the Discovery Institute. When the cardinal's publisher released his book Chance or Purpose? (guess which he picks!), one of the most prominent blurbs in the magazine ads was from none other than Michael Behe ("the data of biology ... strongly point to a purposeful world"). Can you say "design"?
I thought the "free discussion of ideas" was the primary purpose of book groups and therapy sessions. Discussing crackpot ideas which have no basis in fact, evidence or logic is not the primary purpose of any university, other than perhaps Liberty.
Thanks, PZ. I sit corrected.
However, I have noticed that ID/creationists almost always refer to ToE as "Darwinian evolution." I suspect the idea is that the Prophet Darwin (may the peace of Dawkins be upon him) came down from the Galapagos bearing the tablets On the Origin of Species in 1859 and the Holy Writ has remained unchanged for the past 150 years.
Yep, they show their religious thinking in exactly that fashion. They just can't understand science is not a static enterprise. We constantly challenge old thinking (heresy!) and follow the evidence where it leads. Fun.
Wow. Those are some high-powered Osram lamps they're using in their projectors.
PZ,
Did you see that Dr. Michael Egnoramous is concern trolling Dawkins on this OK affair and comparing it to how Ben Stein was "dis-invited" from speaking in Burlington?
When will they understand that they're entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
When will they stop pretending they are postmodernists.
Fractal wrongness.
got to love Dawkin's response http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTmYfFye7Hg
OT, but doesn't the Squidmaster have a birthday this coming Monday???
I see this as a good thing.
Oklahoma is the most conservative state in the union, one of three that went more heavily for McCain than for Bush in 2004.
With all the problems and strife, somehow this legislature has very little real work to do. Necessities abound, of course, but even in dark-red Oklahoma the practical legislative applications of arch-conservatism are constrained by reality. They can't apply conservative ideas to state law much further than they already have. For example, they can't cut taxes any deeper. That leaves only gestures. In hard times, legislatures won't survive long when they get into the habit of making speeches instead of acting. We see this at the federal level too. Culture war posturing, such as this resolution, seem like real political action in the inbred charlie-foxtrot of political inner circles; meanwhile Rome is burning, and even the most jaundiced Oklahoman knows it. Making Dawkins a cause celebre still seems like a political score for the insiders, because they can't stop playing to the base of their base. But every moment and dime they waste on such foolishness further alienates the moderates who may be devout creationists but who also need a job, health care, leadership, confidence, and hope.
This backlash is growing in South Dakota, where the legislature just can't stop spending its energy crafting state laws intended solely to challenge Roe v. Wade and not to improve the lives of people in South Dakota. Such BS seemed like a good idea when inflammatory hot-buttoning won elections. Less now.
Let's face it--the average uneducated but honest and thoughtful Oklahoman isn't going to be swayed by the nuanced arguments, science, and logic that Dawkins brings to a university auditorium. They are going to be swayed by the manifest irresponsibility of blank-eyed legislators wanking over atheists and Darwinists while the economy tanks. This is especially true when we compare this type of fatuous posturing to the energy and eloquence of the Democrats in Washington. Even if you disagree, whether from ignorance or principle or both, you have to admire their energy and willingness to risk their seat with the aggressive embrace of action and ideas.
So the legislature swallowed a DI notion whole, and barfed it back up as a meaningless 'family values' squawk. That's just more evidence that their government is sidetracked in a useless cycle of preaching to the choir then congratulating themselves over it. The logic is idiotic, but they don't care one bit whether they persuade anybody; the logic isn't relevant to their purpose. For us, and all people who want to improve lives, the most productive strategy here is political: ask the people--not the University, and not the legislators themselves--if this is the kind of productivity they need from their elected officials.
ice
the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas
This seems like a strange way to start a resolution that is condemning the university for allowing someone to speak. Maybe they are just quote mining themselves -- and the sentence really finished "that we agree with." Then again, I'm starting to think hypocrisy is not just par for the course, but mandatory for these people.
Can we please give Oklahoma back to the Indians?
I wonder how many creationists/ID people have spoken at Norman in the last year. Unless they have been banned, why the fuss? Unless they didn't like the fact that there wasn't any "counter-programming" for Dawkins' talk.
@ 24
I must admit that I am biased in the Intelligent Falling v. Newtonian Theory of Gravity debate.
Feshy: Then again, I'm starting to think hypocrisy is not just par for the course, but mandatory for these people.
Well, they wouldn't have anything left to say if they weren't hypocritical.
Liars4Jesus at it again?
*sigh* / *facepalm*
WHEREAS, this looks like the work of slimy DI lawyers.
One wonders, what do they hope to accomplish if this had passed?
They should have just run up a big flag that read "dumbasses"
what [did] they hope to accomplish if this had passed?
Is there a comedy competition for states? My state is stoopider than your state…
Or maybe just for legislatures? My pig-ignorant lawmakers make yours look intelligent. Nah nah nah. And my pick is bigger than all of yours combined…
Perhaps the good people of the U of Oklahoma Department of Zoology would do well by following the lead of their Art department on the subject of the Mona Lisa. The art history classes give all the possible theories on the inspirations of de Vinci along with who is the subject of the painting. It's a perfect parallel to the solid controversy over the so called "theory" of evolution and the theory of Intelligent Design.
It almost seems like they (creationism in general) resent the beating they've taken publicly recently (the Cincinnati zoo fiasco, Ben Stein in Vermont). So they decide to fire back in the same manner, threaten the venue with a controversy and watch them pull support. Problem is, they don't seem to get the difference between members of the public expressing their concern rationally, and some sneaky legislature trickery.
I imagine them sitting around today wondering what went wrong.
I do love how a theory sould be "popular". It reminds me of a lot of people I've met who, as deceitful as they need to be, always wind up being a little too honest for they own good. The flawed-mind giveaway is that they never realize it.
I just love it when they say it's "a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas". Just try teaching sex ed, talking about homosexuality, studying Islam, or, oh yeah, explaining evolution, in a publicly-funded high school, and see how quick these same folks will wet themselves.
I agree. The Disco 'Tute has been rubbing all over this.
The Discovery Institute is made up of a bunch of liars who do nothing but try and sneak their creationism into the public's eye. When they fail, they just whine.
On a happier note, the only person who showed up with the apparent intention of disrupting the lecture managed to choose a seat next to two assistant district attorneys and three rows up from a criminal law judge. I have never seen OUPD move so fast.
It was also nice to hear one of the states premiere prosecutorial litigators yell "Shut the fuck up!!!"
"Whereas, not only has . . ." who the fuck writes like that?
I theorize that they're mouth-breathers because the air is thin in the moronosphere.
Prometheus--
I felt so bad for them! You know their evening was ruined by that guy rambling the whole time... I really wanted to give them a hug, but they left before the Q&A was up :(
Also, I seriously thought that guy had a bomb/bio shit around his neck, when he was walking TOWARDS Dawkins instead of back to the exit. I was fucking freaked out for 60 seconds. OUPD didnt move fast enough for my taste... (but kudos to them for moving quickly)
ERV-
Nah they love conflict. They're lawyers. The bride was texting them through the whole thing. Is it my imagination or do all crackpots have a brightly colored windbreaker and electronic crap hanging around their necks?
As for what they hope to accomplish by this, keep in mind that the resolution has no effect. This is just tossing red meat to the stupid gits who will vote for them (again) because the politicos are for GOD and are fighting those e-ville atheists.
As for a conspiracy, I think not. The DI and the godbots are quite open about their goals and are actively promoting their dream world of a theocratic America. A christer version of Iran would suit them just fine.
Iiiinteresting.
Let's say that a crazy had blown up Dawkypoo along with a coupla dozen bystanders.
Would he be hailed as a hero and martyr for Christianity, or would he be decried as an amoral atheist? (Or does that only apply to gunmen?)
The crapservative talkingheads would break their necks trying to switch back and forth between positions.
Eidolon, eh? I'm listening to Eidolon, right now--Ashokan Farewell.
I've been mulling the idea that the godbots who show up here are paid, sponsored or at least encouraged by god groups. Few of the godly have the moral courage to work on their own.
I used to wander around my college campus tearing down the stupid Jeezus posters that had been put up in the classrooms by Campus Crusade for Christ. I did it on my own, by myself, because I thought I should. Turned out that the kids who put them up were working in teams, with others back at their base praying for them, and were "encouraged" by their leaders, with, of course, posters supplied.
if the IDiots are actually behind this, it certainly shows a clear behavior pattern of petulant childishness on their part.
But how can you put 2 + 2 together if you can't account for the universal immaterial laws of logic and morality? ;)/facilis
HERETIC! You have it backwards! Darwin is God and Dawkins is His Prophet. The Archangel PZ is in charge of the Cephalopod Hosts. And The Origin of Species, as everybody knows, was inscribed in Latin on a golden giant tortoise shell. Anyone not deluded by Behelzebub could perceive that tablets small enough to carry wouldn't have been anywhere near big enough for the entire sacred text!
May the Peace of Darwin be upon all True Believers. And may He smite all Creationist infidels.
You just confirmed the worst fears of all the hand wringing creos incapable of identifying satire and irony. Just so you know, PZ is forwarding the next wave of hysterical "I knew it!" email responses to you.
Manipulation or is it 'advice' can be rather traced to the DI...
Obviously the Ben Stein fiasco hurt their collective tush and they are going out for a little revenge...having a tame puppet in the legislature is always a good wheeze.
I wonder how long it will take to flush these turds outta office...not shortly I would think...irritating fools!
I would like to suggest someone with some clout do the following, so there is a chance the target will respond....
Ask the Discovery Institute to provide a WRITTEN list of the strengths & weaknesses, AS THEY SEE THEM, for both Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. They talk a lot about these S&W being presented to students, yet I have never (not even once) seen them laid out for all to see. I mean, if this is their goal, to have an equal say in the classroom, then surely by now they have this well-thought out, ready-made and structured for teachers should this ever be made legal in a school somewhere. Who can do this ? They would not listen to me as a private citizen. We need a public figure, and it would be nice if it could be as part of a debate, or an interview on some national TV news.
I would expect that sort of language ("evolution is a dogma/religion" and "teach all sides as if they are equal") from Kent Hovind and in discussion threads online... not in an actual law that someone wants to be passed. If they keep this up, then modern civilisation will be history. Why do they want that to happen?
Because in modern civilization, you can't get a religiously inspired belief being taught as fact, and get facts outlawed if they conflicted with that, but you could in the past. So, basically, they want to dial the clock back to the 'good old days'.
chancelikely writes at #13:
I'd love to know the answer to this question, too. (By 'trigonometry' I suppose you to mean the Pi = 3 business.) A friend has suggested to me that creationism is more about ego than rejection of the evidence on biblical grounds, which would explain why the other biblical contradictions of science are overlooked or explained away - but I don't know. I recall reading that there is a certain amount of heliocentrism in the fundamentalist community, however.
Oops - I meant "I recall reading that there is a certain amount of geocentrism in the fundamentalist community, however." of course!
Hell, we can start with just asking them to provide us with a testable theory for Intelligent Design.
chancelikely writes at #13:
Why did heliocentrism, germ theory, trigonometry, and historical linguistics all get a pass, even though they're all explicitly contradicted by the same literal reading of the Bible that makes evolution such an "unpopular theory"?
Good question! I suspect it's because debates over human origins are closer to home than, say, arguments over trig or germs. Heck, talk about trig and germs all day and everyone's hunky-dory... but you start talking about human origins and people go ape-s**t and start messing their pants every time they get an urge for a banana... ;)
This has been posted a couple of times elsewhere, but it needs mentioning again. The hypocrisy of the resolution is startling. In fact, three shining lights of the DI have spoken on campus in the last two weeks, sponsored by the student IDEA Club (receives some university funding, I think). Billy Dembski, Casey Luskin and John West, all Fellows of the DI and well-known spokepersons for the IDiot movement were allowed use of university facilities and were well advertised by the IDEA group. Clearly, Rep. Thomsen, author of the resolutions knows little of what goes on under his own long nose, like Pinnochio's (sp?) extending with each lie.
Hell, we can start with just asking them to provide us with a testable theory for Intelligent Design.
Been there, done that.
Even Phillip Johnson himself finally admitted that there is no theory of ID, and couldn't even guess at a timetable when there would ever be one.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/johnson-on-inte.html
well, at least he's smart enough to realize that there never really can be one (regardless of the mutterings about having "top men" working on it as we speak). At least until some putative designer is objectively identified, and it's mechanisms of operating in the natural world are known well enough to actually formulate a hypothesis to begin with.
ID was dead on creation.
...pun intended.
'
Well yeah, but that doesn't mean it isn't a point we shouldn't hold them to. Basing their entire movement on trying to pick apart a legitimate theory may play well to the unwashed masses, but eventually it should wear thin.
I hope.
Maybe not.
Fuck it.
Pointing and laughing works well too.
Pointing and laughing works well too.
woot!
toss me a cold one, eh?
ahh.
where's Simon at?
Nerd of Redhead, OM at #11:
No, no, that's theologically incorrect. The correct formula for non-linear addition for Christians is:
1 + 1 + 1 = 1
which is the Holy Trinity, which is A Mystery, which is Catholic-speak for "oh shit, this is clearly such a load of bollocks we really can't even talk about it".
Or maybe I'm getting confused with the Three Musketeers, "one for all and all for one!". Or is that the horsemen of the Apocolopopalito?
St Sam, I thought it was one in all, and all in one. Or is that just for catlick priests.
Don't you just love that misnomer 'Discovery Institute' for an institution that set out to make sure they will never find or discover anything?
One thing reading the bible and ramming your head up your ass have in common is that both places are dark and smelly, and you find mostly shit.
Viewing all the hoo-ha from the outside, you wonder at times how the US did progress at all. But you read up on Robert G. Ingersoll, Mark Twain, Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and others from old, - and now PZ, and you see that the intellectual embers are still glowing, although hampered by lots of putrid dogma.
@67 The U.S. has 'always' been a hairs-breath away from being a theocracy. We were beginning to leave our Puritan roots behind when the evangelical movement started in the 19th century. Humorists like Samuel Clemens did much to ensure our 'pilgrims progress' as that movement took hold. In the early and mid-part of the 20th century we received enough of the intelligentsia of Europe (and the commie scare) to thwart the theocrats for another generation.
Now, as that intellectual infusion is diluted with good ole American 'not know how' and as world crises: economic collapse, population rise, food shortages, pollution problems, come to the fore- the soil is again ripe for the theocracy.
The internet and in a sense, PZ have arrived 'just in time.' But I cannot help but believe that had the internet existed in the 1960's, theocracy would have largely collapsed in this country and our social landscape today would look allot more like an amalgam of Brittan and Scandinavian Europe.