Pharrryngula

Gregg Easterbrook is a scientific lightweight with a long, long history o' goofy ideas; an apologist fer religion and Intelligent Design creationism, and a shill fer th' Discovery Institute. The ornery cuss apparently has written well-regarded columns on football, but when it comes t' science, his credibility is on th' negative side o' th' number line, and a bottle of rum! One o' th' characteristics o' th' incompetent, though, is that they dern't recognize their own failin's, so once again Easterbrook sallies forth, this time against Richard Dawkins. It's th' nut against th' nutcracker; th' outcome is foreordained.

My personal position on Dawkins is somewhat complicated. I think he is definitely one o' th' best writers on our side o' th' argument; I think he is largely in th' right on much o' th' science; I also think he is regrettably neglectful o' development's role in evolution, which biases his thinkin' in ways that dern't align with me biases; and I think he is dead-on target in his criticisms o' religion's effect on society. I'm a bit different than many, who seem t' think his description o' science is exactly right and wish he'd shut up about religion: I think his science lacks some significant nuances, and want that scurvey dog t' continue t' speak out with vigor and clarity on th' affliction o' fundamentalism.

Easterbrook, o' course, is outraged at th' arrogance o' th' damned atheist.

Don't take this personally, but if ye are an American adult there is a one in two chance that Richard Dawkins, a renowned perfesser o' science at Oxford, thinks ye are "ignorant, stupid or insane," unless ye are "wicked." These are th' adjectives Dawkins chooses t' describe th' roughly 100 million Americans adults who, if public opinion polls are right, believe Homo sapiens were bein' created directly by God, rather than gradually by evolution. Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Not much t' choose from there!

Mr Easterbrook is a bit behind th' times. Dawkins wrote that in a book review in 1989—in th' New York Times, April 9, 1989—and it has been hashed o'er fer years. The important point, o' course, is that contrary t' Easterbrook's claim that there isn't much t' choose from, that list actually covers th' whole wide range o' possibilities. Dawkins himself goes on t' explain that th' stupid, insane or wicked are th' minority possibilities, but let's be honest and face th' facts: if ye are a creationist, ye are almost certainly deeply ignorant o' biology. Easterbrook seems t' have actually gotten th' quote from Dawkins' defense o' th' statement, but doesn't seem t' have comprehended any o' th' surroundin' words.

The gist o' Easterbrook's complaint is that Dawkins is "arrogant", which seems t' mean that he forcefully and plainly states th' facts and evidence and logic o' his case, and that those facts dern't leave much wiggle room fer th' evolution deniers, me beauty.

Which brin's us t' th' first problem with Dawkins's positions: he is arrogant. It's one thin' t' say that th' other side is wrong—maybe there's no divine, believers may turn out wrong—and quite another t' denounce th' other side as ignorant, stupid, insane and so worthless its arguments should not even be heard. (Sorry, I left out wicked.) Sayin' th' other side's argument should not be heard is at best pluggin' yer fingers into yer ears, at worst th' instinct t' suppress free thought; 'tis amazin' t' hear a tenured Oxford don essentially callin' fer intellectual restrictions.

Two points. Arrrr! 1) When all th' facts are on yer side, when th' opposition relies on hidin', misrepresentin', or outright lyin' about th' evidence, it is intellectual dishonesty t' say anythin' less than that th' they are wrong. Nay "maybes", no fuzzy excuses, no bendin' o'er backward t' give charitable interpretations o' lunacy—th' right thin' t' do is t' squash it down hard. Dawkins is extremely good at that, and I applaud that scurvey dog fer it. The soapy concessions and overly generous apologetics fer creationism that we get in th' media are exactly th' reason it thrives, not because scientists are too in-yer-face fer our faint-hearted public, and a bucket o' chum. The American public avidly, even joyously revels in th' uncompromisin' (and entirely false) bravado o' our media's Bill O'Reillys and Ann Coulters…and th' intelligent and well-spoken words o' Richard Dawkins send them into self-righteous fury? Ahoy! Get real.

2) Easterbrook claims that Dawkins thinks th' other side should not even be heard. Shiver me timbers, with a chest full of booty! This is false, avast. All he provides t' support that claim is that Dawkins did try t' block th' establishment o' an endowed chair o' theology at Cambridge. Good fer that scurvey dog, I'd put up th' same fight…and not because th' public should not hear about it, but because th' public already hears far too much about religion, and 'tis not th' place fer an institution dedicated t' higher learnin' t' also spread th' gospel o' religious dogma. Given that Easterbrook has actually read Dawkins' writin' on th' subject, we can exclude ignorance; on what shall we blame this misrepresentation, then—stupidity, insanity, or wickedness?

Easterbrook carries this rhetorical dishonesty further.

Dawkins uses sleight o' hand when he tries t' suggest that anyone who doubts any aspect o' evolutionary thought, includin' th' chance creation o' life, is th' sort o' extremist who thinks all th' different Galapagos finches came fully formed directly from th' Garden o' Eden, by Davy Jones' locker. You can accept th' basic notion o' evolution and still have real questions about why th' gift o' life exists—witness Fred Hoyle, a highly accomplished modern scientist who did just that.

Speakin' o' sleight o' hand…Dawkins is speakin' specifically o' creationists who deny th' well-established evidence, not well-informed peers who argue about legitimate issues within biology. There are open questions and there is doubt and debate within those areas; Easterbrooks claim that his target is "anyone who doubts any aspect o' evolutionary thought" is an amazin' fib.

(It's also weird that he trots out Hoyle as an example, who may have been a great astronomer, but on th' subject o' evolution, he were bein' loopy as a fruitbat.)

Read Dawkins' original comment in context, and Easterbrook's dishonesty is even more apparent. Does this sound like a jeremiad against any doubt o' any aspect o' evolutionary thought?

So t' th' book's provocation, th' statement that nearly half th' people in th' United States dern't believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence o'er educational policy. We are not talkin' about Darwin's particular theory o' natural selection, ye scurvey dog. It is still (just) possible fer a biologist t' doubt its importance, and a few claim t'. Nay, we are here talkin' about th' fact o' evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. Yaaarrrrr! To claim equal time fer creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as t' claim equal time fer th' flat-earth theory in astronomy classes, me beauty. Or, as someone has pointed out, ye might as well claim equal time in sex education classes fer th' stork theory. It is absolutely safe t' say that if ye meet somebody who claims not t' believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

While Easterbrook is doin' his rabble-rousin' best t' rile up his readers into hatin' that arrogant bastard Dawkins, he also doesn't bother t' consider this revealin' passage from th' article he cites.

Not only is ignorance no crime, it is also, fortunately, remediable, avast. In th' same Times review, I went on t' recount me experiences o' goin' on radio phone-in talk shows aroun' th' United States, to be sure. Opinion polls had led me t' expect hostile cross-examination from creationist zealots, by Blackbeard's sword. I encountered little o' that kind. I got creationist opinions in plenty, but these were founded on honest ignorance, as were bein' freely confessed. And swab the deck, by Blackbeard's sword! When I politely and patiently explained what Darwinism actually is, they listened not only with equal politeness, but with interest and even enthusiasm. "Gee, that's real neat, I ne'er heard that before! Wow!" These people were not stupid (or insane, or wicked). They di'nae believe in evolution, but this were bein' because nobody had e'er told them what evolution is. And because plenty o' people had told them (wrongly, accordin' t' educated theologians) that evolution is against their cherished religion.

This is exactly right. We're all ignorant t' different degrees about different thin's. Dawkins tends t' be more right than wrong on th' subject o' evolution, but is probably more wrong than right on th' subject o' automobile repair. It's a strange attitude that some people have that pointin' out their ignorance o' certain subjects is a terrible insult, as if everyone is expected t' be omniscient and infallible polymaths.

It is inappropriate t' use th' adjective "arrogant" fer someone who is expressin' his well-informed and readily supported opinion, I'll warrant ye. I'd reserve "arrogant" fer those criminal theologians who willfully claim expertise in biology, ne'er havin' studied th' subject in their lives, and use that false validation t' fill their congregation's heads with lies, ye scurvey dog.

Easterbrook makes another argument I've heard so often…that atheists who express their ideas strongly are bad fer popularizin' evolution. This is most frequently stated by creationist sympathizers and apologists fer religion, and 'tis surprisin' that so many people fall fer it. When creationists say, "The ornery cuss's oppressin' me! Shiver me timbers! That mean ol' Dawkins is so bad fer yer cause, why dern't ye get more good friendly Christians t' speak fer ye?", I'm thinkin' we need t' clone th' lubber.

Dawkins complains in th' article that so many people believe thin's about science that are off th' wall—fer example, that early humans co-existed with dinosaurs—because their science educations are poor. The ornery cuss'll get no argument from me on that. But I suspect one reason so many Americans have a poor understandin' o' evolutionary theory is that overbearin' figures such as Dawkins talk down t' them and act contemptuous o' their religious beliefs, I'll warrant ye. So people respond—perhaps quite rationally—by screenin' out th' views o' scientists whose motives they distrust, and dinna spare the whip, ye scurvey dog! In this regard, it is tellin' that polls show Americans overwhelmingly accept many findin's o' modern research, such as th' theories o' relativity and o' cosmic expansion. The scientists who favor these ideas generally aren't in th' habit o' mockin' peoples' faiths, and so they are believed by th' general public. If Dawkins's professional goal is "public understandin' o' science," he is a flop, seemingly tryin' his best t' make worse what he is supposed t' fix.

Didn't I already dispense with th' phony claim that people will be turned off by vocal, strongly-principled advocates? Fire the cannons! Aye, I did. We can ignore that part o' Easterbrook's bloviatin'.

What about th' idea that people will be turned off by contempt fer their religious beliefs? There's a germ o' truth t' that, but at th' same time, let this atheist let ye in on a little secret, not well appreciated by th' public: they'll turn on anyone who doesn't believe in any gods, contemptuously or not. Try it. Tell someone that ye dern't believe Jesus were bein' th' son o' God, even in th' most non-judgmental, even tone o' voice, and a majority will treat ye as either a pariah or a potential convert. That's reality. What Easterbrook is askin' fer is that atheists be shooed back into th' closet, that we should pander t' his bigotry.

It's not goin' t' happen. About half o' all scientists are atheists or agnostics (and even that is an underestimate; most o' th' remainin', while believin' in a god, are typically not very dogmatic about it and are best described as deists and unitarians and nominal members o' other churches), ye scurvey dog. While we may be an insignificant minority in most o' public life, in th' sciences we are, if not overwhelmingly dominant, a very substantial component o' th' profession. We should not try t' sugarcoat that fact, and I think it is actually an obligation fer freethinkin' scientists t' make their ideas public. There's a simple message we have t' get across t' th' Easterbrooks o' this country:

Get used t' it.

We are respectable supporters o' evidence-based science. And swab the deck, by Davy Jones' locker! That we carry that philosophy o'er into our personal beliefs is entirely reasonable and righteous, and far more justifiable than any attempt t' insert faith and superstition into our profession. Even those many people o' faith who work in th' sciences will tell ye exactly th' same thin': religion does not belong in th' lab, we'll keel-haul ye! Even honest, sincerely held faith has no place in science, and that appallingly bad huckster theology o' th' televangelists and faith healers and creationists and gantryesque frauds? Get thee behind me, and dinna spare the whip, I'll warrant ye! If Easterbrook really wants t' correct th' arrogance and dishonesty endemic t' th' creation-evolution wars, he has picked th' wrong target. Yaaarrrrr! Yaaarrrrr! I could list a dozen names fer that scurvey dog, all who declare their authority derives from God, who are far more influential and politically active than Richard Dawkins, and all o' whom have a platform based entirely on outright ignorance, stupidity, insanity, or wickedness…and always, arrogance.