Pharrryngula
Jolly Roger

Monday, December 19, 2005

Easterbrook on Dawkins

Echoed on th' Panda's Thumb

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. 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, I'll warrant ye. 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. Shiver me timbers! Not much t' choose from there!

Mr Easterbrook is a bit behind th' times. Dawkins wrote that in a book review in 1989in 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.

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. 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, by Blackbeard's sword. Dawkins is extremely good at that, and I applaud that scurvey dog fer it, by Blackbeard's sword. 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, to be sure. 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? Walk the plank! Get real.

2) Easterbrook claims that Dawkins thinks th' other side should not even be heard. This is false, by Davy Jones' locker. 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, by Davy Jones' locker. 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. 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, to be sure. 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. Yaaarrrrr! Ahoy! We are not talkin' about Darwin's particular theory o' natural selection, with a chest full of booty. It is still (just) possible fer a biologist t' doubt its importance, and a few claim t', pass the grog! Yaaarrrrr! Nay, we are here talkin' about th' fact o' evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. 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. 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. And hoist the mainsail! In th' same Times review, I went on t' recount me experiences o' goin' on radio phone-in talk shows aroun' th' United States. Opinion polls had led me t' expect hostile cross-examination from creationist zealots. I encountered little o' that kind. I got creationist opinions in plenty, but these were founded on honest ignorance, as were bein' freely confessed, I'll warrant ye. 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, by Davy Jones' locker! 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. Walk the plank, and a bottle of rum! 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, with a chest full of booty.

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, ye scurvey dog! 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, pass the grog! 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. So people respond—perhaps quite rationally—by screenin' out th' views o' scientists whose motives they distrust. 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. Walk the plank! 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? 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? Arrrr! 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, and dinna spare the whip! 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. And swab the deck! And hoist the mainsail! 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). 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, me beauty. We should not try t' sugarcoat that fact, and I think it is actually an obligation fer freethinkin' scientists t' make their ideas public, by Davy Jones' locker. 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, 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, we'll keel-haul ye, avast! 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. 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, ye scurvey dog? Get thee behind me, avast. If Easterbrook really wants t' correct th' arrogance and dishonesty endemic t' th' creation-evolution wars, he has picked th' wrong target. 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.

(Crossposted t' The American Street)

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3587/voX8AXFc/

Comments:
#54220: coturnix — 12/19  at  01:13 PM
Easterbrook - Yuk! Not again!

On Dawkins, I wish I could turn a phrase as nicely as ye do: "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."



#54224: — 12/19  at  01:33 PM
Nice written PZ!



#54226: — 12/19  at  01:33 PM
PZ

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, .

This is an excellent point and works very well t' shut up th' fundie ignoramuses who seize on Dawkins as if he be th' Ayatollah o' Atheist Scientists. Hardly anybody knows who Richard Dawkins is and why should any non-scientist know or care who he is? The ornery cuss wields no power and has no authority o'er scientists. Journalists dern't run t' Dawkins every time they need a scientists opinion on th' subject o' evolutionary biology. Contrast Dawkins with Focus on th' Family and th' Discovery Institute and other religious organizations.

Fyi, fer a good time, watch th' self-righteous conservative twits at this blog get their undies in a bundle when someone dares take th' approach that PZ advocates when it comes t' addressin' th' lyin' scumbags at th' Discovery Insitute.

http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/evolutioncreationism/002409.html

Warnin': DaveScot shows up at th' end o' th' comments so ye may want t' wear yer protective goggles.



#54227: — 12/19  at  01:34 PM
Err...that should have been: "Nicely written, PZ!"



#54229: — 12/19  at  01:36 PM
His football column isn't even very good. It's repetitive, pedestrian, and humorless. Also, his ideas about what it takes t' win a football game are maddeningly dogmatic.

In other words, exactly what ye'd expect from an ID-supportin' loon.



#54233: — 12/19  at  01:43 PM
"On Dawkins, I wish I could turn a phrase as nicely as ye do"

How do ye turn a phrase?



#54235: — 12/19  at  01:46 PM
"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."

So, callin' someone ignorant when they show ignorance is unacceptably arrogant. But inferrin' that everyone who doesn't follow yer particular religious dogma will burn in hell fer eternity is th' height o' humility. Interestin'.

My word is "dysgenic". Clearly referrin' t' Mr. Easterbrook.



#54245: — 12/19  at  02:12 PM
Takin' Easterbrook's article and emphasizin' one word:

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.


Nothin' strange about that at all. Is there anyone o' significant intelligence, scientifically inclined or not, who hasn't asked "why does life exist", by Davy Jones' locker? Different people have come up with different ideas, some o' which are more testable than others, but 'tis silly t' argue that th' question is inappropriate or seldom asked by scientists.

The context o' this quote seems strange and more than a little sad: presupposin' a supernatural answer t' "why does life exist".



#54251: Jonathan Badger — 12/19  at  02:40 PM
Easterbrook is loopy as a fruitbat? What did fruitbats e'er do t' ye t' merit th' comparison, I'll warrant ye? What if someone said that Easterbrook were bein' loopy as a squid?



Trackback: A Self-Esteem Problem Tracked on: Brad DeLong's Website (128.32.105.161) at 2005 12 19 14:44:32
Pharyngula watches Gregg Easterbrook attack Richard Dawkins: Pharyngula : Easterbrook... 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…



#54254: — 12/19  at  02:47 PM
Ummm, Easterbrook also said "These thin's said, let�s focus fer a moment on areas where Dawkins has strong points, me beauty. The basic idea o' evolution is, today, about as well established as th' basic idea that th' moon circles th' Earth. Even Pope John Paul II has acknowledged that natural selection is �more than just a theory.� There is a rich, close t' overwhelmin' body o' evidence that livin' thin's evolve in response t' changes in their environments and t' other forces: th' extreme creationists who deny any kind o' evolution at all really are flat-Earth types, and it is hard t' find anythin' nice t' say about their positions. Dawkins is right endlessly t' call evolution an established fact."

Based on this and on his occasional digressions into particle physics durin' his football columns, I'd say that he understands that science is different from religion.

I think that he were bein' attemptin' t' say somethin' along th' lines o' "if ye write thin's like this about religious people, those o' us who readily accept scientific discoveries and scientific theories but who are also privately religious feel unwelcome." Unfortunately, as has happened before, Easterbrook has some serious difficulties with tactfully makin' subtle points on hot-button issues, which is why he usually sticks t' football. His column were bein' actually dropped from ESPN because o' a hastily made and badly thought out blog entry in which he similarly attempted t' enter th' culture wars and unwittingly made a comment that sounded vaguely anti-semitic.

Besides, his football column is actually quite good, he applies political analytical devices t' football, and fer th' poster who mentioned his "dogmatic" rules o' football, apparently ye missed th' joke completely.



#54258: — 12/19  at  02:55 PM
"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. So people respond—PERHAPS QUITE RATIONALLY [emphasis mine]—by screenin' out th' views o' scientists whose motives they distrust."

Anyone else have a problem with that? Because t' me it sounds like, "I dern't like th' way ye're sayin' it, so I'm goin' t' ignore it." Quite understandable, perhaps...but certainly not rational.

yorktank: Also, his ideas about what it takes t' win a football game are MADDENingly dogmatic.

Was that coffin-corner pun intended? And swab the deck! smile



#54259: — 12/19  at  02:55 PM
One must also keep in mind that Dawkins is British, and in Britain, they dern't mince words as much as they do here in th' USA. An auld lubber, is "auld", not elderly. Someone who has lost th' use o' their legs is "crippled" not "differently abled". So we must keep in mind that th' British are not into th' American habit o' constantly changin' terminology t' avoid hurtin' peoples' feelin's (while simultaneously avoidin' th' reall problem, I might add).

Secondly, th' USA is unique in th' industrialized world in th' fact that evolution is even in dispute, by Blackbeard's sword. It must be maddenin' t' hear all o' th' nonsense that US creationists spew. Nay wonder Dawkins has little patience fer them.



#54260: — 12/19  at  03:05 PM
I too greatly enjoy Easterbrook's football column, pace yorktank, and have even had a couple o' haikus posted in it. But he does have th' habit o' makin' it difficult t' read that scurvey dog sympathetically on other issues.



#54264: — 12/19  at  03:12 PM
"Secondly, th' USA is unique in th' industrialized world in th' fact that evolution is even in dispute."

And yet, if ye look at th' Yahoo Science page, LiveScience.com lists th' creationism/evolution "debate" as th' first o' its top ten "scientific" events o' th' year. Not just in th' US, but first in science, period.

I realise that th' MSM have t' make a livin', but are they really such whores t' sensationalism as this?



#54267: — 12/19  at  03:19 PM
Hyperion translates Easterbrook

"if ye write thin's like this about religious people, those o' us who readily accept scientific discoveries and scientific theories but who are also privately religious feel unwelcome."

I think that's probably accurate. Walk the plank, ye scurvey dog! You know what me response is t' Easterbrook?

Boo hoo hoo hoo!!!! Since when do religions care about "welcomin'" people, I'll warrant ye? The bottom line with Christianity is that if ye dern't believe what's in th' Book, ye're goin' t' hell -- see ya! Is that "welcomin'"? It sounds an awful like an ultimatum t' me.

Scientists have all kinds o' opinions about all kinds o' subjects. I think th' Back Street Boys were a crappy band, to be sure. OMIGOD -- now all those folks who love th' Back Street Boys aren't goin' t' accept me view on th' age o' th' earth!!!!

Why do Christians demand that scientists kiss their rin's and tell them how great and wonderful and insightful their collection o' myths is? Arrrr! It's pathetic and childish.

Maybe 'tis a Southern US thin'.

Is that Steve Verdon dimwit a proud Texan, we'll keel-haul ye! The ornery cuss likes t' play Easterbrook's card.

http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/evolutioncreationism/002409.html



#54270: — 12/19  at  03:23 PM
And yet, if ye look at th' Yahoo Science page, LiveScience.com lists th' creationism/evolution "debate" as th' first o' its top ten "scientific" events o' th' year. Not just in th' US, but first in science, period.

Ha! Typical Amerocentricism.



#54271: — 12/19  at  03:24 PM
Jon

"I realise that th' MSM have t' make a livin', but are they really such whores t' sensationalism as this?"

I know 'tis a rhetorical question, Jon, but th' answer is (sadly): they are even worse than that.

That is why I'm very curious as t' how th' media are goin' t' spin th' Dover case. Ahoy! Is it goin' t' be th' end o' "intelligent design" and th' credibility o' th' Discovery Institute?

Or is it goin' t' be th' beginnin' o' "fundamental disagreements about th' role o' th' judiciary in settlin' philosophical disputes about th' nature o' science"?

I hope not th' latter but 'tis in th' MSM's interest t' keep th' controvery brewin', isn't it?

Pathetic fxcktards.



#54274: — 12/19  at  03:29 PM
"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."

I'd disagree with ye on this point because, unlike th' United States, Great Britain has a state religion (th' Church o' England), me beauty. In fact, their head o' state, Queen Elizabeth II, is also th' head o' th' Church o' England. If Dawkins doesn't like havin' a state religion, maybe he should work on gettin' a First Amendment-type clause added t' their constitution.

Until then, though, their government has a right t' teach their state's religion, silly as that seems t' us.

Oh, and Easterbrook is a wanker. Always has been.



#54276: — 12/19  at  03:36 PM
As a real, live British (me feedin' time is 5.30, dern't stare or prod me with sharp sticks), I thought I should respond.

One must also keep in mind that Dawkins is British, and in Britain, they dern't mince words as much as they do here in th' USA, me beauty. An auld lubber, is "auld", not elderly. Someone who has lost th' use o' their legs is "crippled" not "differently abled". So we must keep in mind that th' British are not into th' American habit o' constantly changin' terminology t' avoid hurtin' peoples' feelin's (while simultaneously avoidin' th' reall problem, I might add).


...

Um, I think I get what ye are tryin' t' say, although both yer examples are off: "elderly" would be used o'er "auld" in Britain, and th' generally used term would be "disabled" - "crippled" would be considered offensive.


Secondly, th' USA is unique in th' industrialized world in th' fact that evolution is even in dispute. It must be maddenin' t' hear all o' th' nonsense that US creationists spew. And hoist the mainsail! Nay wonder Dawkins has little patience fer them.


Oh no, its hilarious. Its when creationism turns up in Britain (which it wouldn't without th' wellsprin' in th' US) which is maddenin'.

There's actually a lot that could be discussed about arrogance and Dawkins' writin' style, but I doubt this is th' best arena in which t' go into it.



#54280: — 12/19  at  03:39 PM
Hyperion,
I'm not sure I've missed any joke (feel free t' clue me in if ye're certain I have), but stop me before I...nevermind. Arrrr! It's off topic anyway.

Incorygible,
I'm afraid th' pun were bein' quite unintentional. Alas, as Hyperion noted, I dern't get th' joke well enough t' make such clever puns.



#54283: — 12/19  at  03:45 PM
Awesome article here about Georgia Law Proessor L. Lynn Hogue, a conservative who doesn't believe in kissin' th' asses o' ignorant Christians when it comes t' creationist garbage.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1134554710835

"I'm sympathetic with their cause," said Hogue, who also has pushed fer gay marriage bans, fought Atlanta's domestic partnership ordinance and battled th' University o' Georgia's affirmative action program.

"From me perspective as a conservative, I think science education is important," he added. "And I'm not religiously sympathetic t' anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics."

Hogue is equally candid on his view o' intelligent design, which suggests that organisms developed o'er time in accordance with th' design o' an intelligent agent. The ornery cuss called th' theory "bullshit."


Right on!

I can hear Steve Verdon and his whimperin' ilk sniffin' back crocodile tears as those huge crowds o' Christians about t' convert t' evolutionism are driven away by Hogue's "unpleasant tone." As if.

There's also this at th' end from one o' th' lunatics:

"The issue is not whether th' Sticker has educational merit, whether it is well-written, or whether one can imagine persons offended by its meanin'. The issue is whether th' Sticker endorses religion. Both on its face, and in its specific content, this Sticker does not," wrote Gunn, who did not return a call fer comment.


If th' sticker has no educational merit (cuz 'tis factually incorrect), is not well-written (it isn't well-written), and is offensive t' some people (it is), then what is th' point o' th' sticker Ms. And swab the deck! Gunn?

That's what we're all curious about. If th' sticker is wrong t' th' extent 'tis incomprehensible and it offends people, then why is it there? And if it doesn't endorse religion, then why are religious people so desperate t' have it put in evolutionary biology textbooks?



#54285: jfaberuiuc — 12/19  at  03:54 PM
Dawkins may be a bit tactless in his phrasin', but his statement about ignorance is almost certainly correct, we'll keel-haul ye, with a chest full of booty! To be honest, I am relatively ignorant about many aspects o' biology, and I have a Ph.D. Aarrr! in physics. I'm not completely ignorant, mind ye, just relatively so. The simple fact o' th' matter is that fer fields with a great deal o' technical history, which includes evolutionary biology, th' majority o' people are ignorant about them t' one extent or another, and dinna spare the whip! This is not inherently a problem, as we cannot all be experts about everythin' (nor even all above average a la Lake Wobegon). It should tell us that if we are not trained in somethin', we might consider deferrin' t' those who are, at least until we are in a position t' make an informed criticism o' that person's views (as opposed t' a ad hominem one), I'll warrant ye. Questions are always fine, o' course, as they can educate, but personal jabs really serve no purpose in a debate. In practice, many people can't seem t' handle th' idea that other people are better informed than they, and make silly statements about "ivory towers" and respond t' scientific arguments with personal counterattacks.

Or t' paraphrase Tom Lehrer, "If ye can't communicate [intelligently], th' least ye can do is t' shut up!"



#54290: — 12/19  at  04:18 PM
I get th' feelin' that Easterbrook is really sayin' somethin' like, "If ye have th' facts on yer side, th' least ye can do is act like ye dern't."

But when were bein' this article published? The references t' th' Kansas SBoE makes me think it were bein' before th' latest go-round in that state.



#54292: Ophelia Benson — 12/19  at  04:27 PM
"I'd disagree with ye on this point because, unlike th' United States, Great Britain has a state religion (th' Church o' England)...If Dawkins doesn't like havin' a state religion, maybe he should work on gettin' a First Amendment-type clause added t' their constitution. Until then, though, their government has a right t' teach their state's religion, silly as that seems t' us."

But what's that got t' do with an endowed chair o' theology (or anythin' else) at Cambridge? Walk the plank! Endowed chairs aren't a government thin', are they? And teachin' theology is by no means th' same thin' as teachin' th' state's religion, surely.



Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Next entry: Teachin' Carnival IV

Previous entry: Steyn, oblivious

<< Back to main

Info

portrait
email PZ Myers
About Pharrryngula...
Search
 Normal Mode 

Members

Login | Register | Members

Syndicate

RSS 2.0
Atom

Recent articles

The LAST post on old Pharyngula

Tangled Bank #105

Tangled Bank #104

Tangled Bank #103

Tangled Bank #102

Tangled Bank #101

A taste of pharyngula

Cephalopod camouflage, or: turning invisible is easier than it looks

Dinosaur Lungs

Chelifores, chelicerae, and invertebrate evolution

Hox genesis

Clausen, Keck, Hiesey

A simple story gets complicated

Evolution of alcohol synthesis

Cats, candy, and evolution

The Panda's Thumb

The Sixth International Conference on Creationism

The evolution of Jeffrey P Schloss

Shocking new Darwin letter discovered...I'm not sure what to think

Quality Education Wins Again in the California Creationist Case

Discovery Institute Senior Fellow speaks out

Human & Dino footprints, and Dating strata & fossils?

Channel 4: The Genius of Darwin

Tangled Bank #111

Diamonds Aren't Forever?

Freshwater: "I have never branded or burned a person"

Random Dozen

xml Monkeyfister: (null)

xml Seeing the Forest: A web magazine investigating how the Right is beating the Dems.

xml Invasive Species Weblog: (null)

xml The Austringer: Wesley R. Elsberry's personal weblog, talking about falconry, science, antievolution, computation, and the broken body he lives in.

xml Musings of the Mad Biologist: (null)

xml BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME: (null)

xml The Next Hurrah:

xml Dharma Bums: (null)

xml De Astra, Ad Astra: If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

xml Omics! Omics!: (null)

xml THE ART OF ALEX CF: (null)

xml Lance Mannion: "You can't make policemen take the romantic view."

Complete Blogroll
Pharyngula.opml