Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, February 21, 2005

They aren't just petty and mean, they're stupid

Digby makes a call to arms:

I don't mean to harp on this stuff, but I think that blogs need to publicize the fact that some of these alleged "mainstream" bloggers on the right are quite far out on the fringe. They will respond furiously that Atrios and Kos and others are America haters or "barking moonbats" but their own words speak for themselves. It's important that people see them, especially the mainstream media who are just beginnning to pay attention. They need to understand that Powerline is not just some nice lawyers and bankers who write about politics. They represent what Richard Hofsteder calls the paranoid strain in American politics. It's important that people begin to make distinctions.

I'll add to that…not only are they paranoid crazy, they're stupid crazy. Rising Hegemon dug up this tiny jewel of idiocy from Hindrocket from a few years ago:

Professor Volokh seemed to assume that someone who doesn't believe in evolution is a harmless crank, who should not on that account be barred from pursuing a career in, say, medicine. My own view is different. I think that Darwin's theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds. So to bar a student from progressing in his career because he refuses to sign on to what is, in my view, a rather obvious fraud, which cannot withstand the mildest scrutiny, is really an outrage. It is no different from the practice in Soviet Russia of promoting only biologists who believed (or pretended to believe) in the theories of Lamarck, who argued that acquired traits could be inherited. But Darwinism is the official religion of the biological (and more generally, the scientific) establishment, and as such is rigorously enforced.

"On strictly scientific grounds"? Hindrocket doesn't know any science. The "macroevolution" canard is stock mindless creationism. The real outrage here is that a clueless nitwit like Hindrocket can claim that the entire field of biology is a fraud that cannot stand up to scrutiny; I'd be happy to mop the floor with him in a debate, if he wants to try.

Karl Popper argued long ago that Darwin's theory of evolution was never a matter of science; it was always about faith. As the empirical foundations of Darwinism have crumbled under attack by a new generation of biologists, especially microbiologists, its advocates have become increasingly shrill and sectarian.

I am one of the current generation of biologists, and I can assure you that his claim that evolution ("Darwinism?" Give me a break. Calling it "Darwinism" is clue #1 that you're dealing with an ignorant creationist) is under attack from us is a stinking pile of baloney. He's simply accepting the dishonest claims of the skulking creationists at the Discovery Institute at face value. The overwhelming majority of scientists support evolution…as they should, since it is the theory best supported by the evidence.

As for that remark about "especially microbiologists"…hilarious. It's obvious that Hindrocket doesn't even know what microbiologists are, or what they do, or what evidence his imaginary "microbiologists" are pulling out of their ass.

Time magazine really screwed the pooch when they named PowerLine "blog of the year"—they picked a site run by a few paranoid, extremist doofuses. People, please don't judge the good progressive state of Minnesota by these extremist clowns and Lileks.


Hey, all you charming and adorable powerline fans who are sending me e-mail and making phone calls: consider this fair warning. I will consider your messages fair game to post publicly. They will provide us all much merriment.


Oh, and here is my reply to Power Line.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1946/WcvexvX9/

Comments:
#16529: — 02/21  at  06:33 PM
You'd think one would get sensitized to this sort of thing over time, but the combined level of arrogance and ignorance in that post was just astounding.

And blog of the year? Am I the only semi-compulsive blog reader who's never even heard of Powerline?



's avatar #16530: PZ Myers — 02/21  at  06:38 PM
I'd heard of them, but only because they were sorta local -- and I regarded them as members of the regional wingnut brigade. That Time thought they were important is just a measure of how clueless magazines can be.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#16531: paperwight — 02/21  at  06:43 PM
I've heard of them, along with LGF, Instapundit, NRO, Town Hall, and so forth. I don't frequent wingnut blogs though; Irefuse to give them the traffic, and absolutely refuse to endorse any of them by linking.



#16532: Bartholomew — 02/21  at  07:19 PM
Oh well, if Karl Popper says (supposedly) that evolution is a matter of faith, that settles it - an offhand remark from a philosopher like Popper or Flew is worth far more than the research of thousands of scientists.

I love the way Creationists like to find crumbs of comfort in the words of some prominent intellectual rather than to think for themselves or to get themselves properly qualified to understand the work of modern scientists. Their use of the word "Darwinism" is not just a polemical device: they really can't get their heads around the idea that scientists don't treat the Origin of Species like the Bible.



#16534: Jim Flannery — 02/21  at  07:34 PM
I love the way Creationists like to find crumbs of comfort in the words of some prominent intellectual rather than to think for themselves


They're conservatives, of course it's all about Authority. It's how they make decisions.

Assmissle's a lawyer. What is it about lawyers? (cf Johnson, NavyDavy, etc.)



#16535: — 02/21  at  07:36 PM
“Darwinism?” Give me a break. Calling it “Darwinism” is clue #1 that you’re dealing with an ignorant creationist


I was just thinking about this yesterday. While you see a lot of people with a (positive) interest in evolution calling ID "Intelligent Design Creationism" in order to thumb their collective noses at the memeticists working for the Discovery Institute who insist ID isn't Creationism, I think we could learn a thing or two from their propaganda techniques, especially the above common attempt to portray the central theory of biology as nothing more than a cult of personality.

How about if everyone made a concerted effort to refer to ID as "Dembskism" and its proponents "Dembskists"? After all, the man's the Isaac Newton of Information Theory and one of the most important thinkers of our Age of Information, so he really should have an -ism named in his honor.

I'm sure the DI wouldn't find it the slightest bit annoying to hear "Dembskism, Dembskism, Dembskism" over and over whenever anyone talks about their work, nor feel any need to waste time in their blog constantly explaining why the other side would employ the term.



#16538: Michael Feldgarden — 02/21  at  08:02 PM
I find it funny that Hindrocket cites microbiology as a challenge to evolution. Some of the best examples of evolution and the process of natural selection come from laboratory microbiology experiments. Also, over at I posted a list of articles from the last three months that deal with evolution. You can also find the list at my blog, Mike the Mad Biologist.



#16540: — 02/21  at  08:25 PM
I assumed Hindrocket's "especially microbiologists" was a referrence to Behe, who single-handedly crumbled the foundations of Darwinism with his microbiological flagella outboard motors, leading to his common misidentification as a microbiologist (although he's a biochemist... and also a Dembskist).



#16542: — 02/21  at  09:25 PM
"Dembskism......"
Ah, jpf, someday the Oxford English Dictionary will have you in a footnote! That's my new favorite word, and I shall use it. Lots.



#16545: paperwight — 02/21  at  09:46 PM
Assmissle’s a lawyer. What is it about lawyers? (cf Johnson, NavyDavy, etc.)


So, I won't take personal offense at that either on my own behalf or on behalf of all the profoundly decent, smart, honest lawyers I know. I do, however, wish to note (off the top of my head) the EFF, Larry Lessig, the ACLU, the JAG who are leaking Gitmo torture info, and so on. Asininity is not a professional hazard.



#16546: — 02/21  at  09:49 PM
Assmissle’s a lawyer. What is it about lawyers? (cf Johnson, NavyDavy, etc.)

It's not the law's fault that a certain percentage of people who enter any number of professions are lying sacks of excrement. It has more to do with people deciding that they have to lie in order to best serve Their Cause, whatever that cause may be.



#16548: Jim Flannery — 02/21  at  11:16 PM
So, I won’t take personal offense at that either on my own behalf or on behalf of all the profoundly decent, smart, honest lawyers I know.

Gah. None intended, of course.

But the idea that you can figure out whether something is true or not by having two "sides" (darwinism/dembskiism) argue in front of a "neutral third party" (school board/church congregation/classroom full of teenagers) ... privileging argument over evidence ... where does one find these methods?



#16549: — 02/22  at  12:01 AM
Being from Wisconsin, I would never blame the Powerline tools on my Viking friends, but Lileks, the old fivehead, is all yours. Someone over there must be reading his columns.



#16550: Alex Merz — 02/22  at  12:26 AM
"Especially microbiologists" -- what in hell is he drooling about? I've watched the assault on Darwinism pretty closely and I can't think of any major creationist or ID proponent who is also a microbiologist. Ya know, I've got a doctorate in that very field, and I'd have noticed. Only conclusion that makes sense is that Hindrocket -- who thinks himself sufficiently well-informed to attack a cornerstone of modern biology -- doesn't know what microbiology is, what microbiologists study, or who is or isn't a microbologist.

Ignorant fool.



#16551: — 02/22  at  12:42 AM
The quote below comes from Hindrocket's fairly recent post on PowerLine called The Insanity of the American Left. I know this man isn't one of our favorites but I think he has a point.

I can't count the number of emails we've gotten from Democrats on the Jeff Gannon "story." For the most part, they drip with venom and irrational hatred. I'd like to believe that there is some kind of a respectable left in this country, but where is it? It sure isn't showing up in our email inbox.

This missive, which came in this morning, is typical:

I guess you "holier-than-thou moral values conservatives" don't have a problem with gay male prostitutes who pose as conservative reporters as long as they are republican, huh? Hypocrites. If there is a god, you hypocrites are all going to hell. (I don't think God will forgive you, even if you ARE republican.)

The stupidity of these people, as well as their malice, is mind-boggling.
. . . .
Of course, what we've criticized the left-wing blogs for is posting nude photographs of Gannon. How does the twisted "logic" manifested by these emailers justify that contemptible practice? Once again: beats me. The only conclusion I can come to is that a great many liberals are so consumed by hate that they have gone stark raving mad.

UPDATE: The meltdown continues. Here is the latest from our email inbox: Jeff Gannon and Karl Rove are secretly lovers! I'm not making this up; not only have we heard about this theory via hate mail from lefties, a reader (a sane one, that is) also says this is popping up all over AOL's political discussion sites. It's just about time for the men in white coats to intervene, I think.



Now, I understand that there is much to dislike and speak out about concerning the religious right (even some minor things in this post), however I am taken aback at the venom and ignorance that is often displayed by those on the liberal left. There should really be some speaking out against this sort of insulting trash. It not only does nothing to further our arguments but it also makes us look bad as a whole and gives the conservatives more ammunition.

On another note, paperweight, isn't the general idea of most discussions to engender communication? Isn't tolerance also a great part of what we believe in, even tolerance of things we dislike even hate? Obviously, I don't know about your tolerance but I don't think that the solution lies in ignoring our opponents, rather I believe that these people should be exposed and read more widely.

I omitted a section in the middle that is mostly a rant but you can find the whole thing at <http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_02.php#009626>. Sorry, I don't know how to put links in yet.



#16554: mattH — 02/22  at  02:04 AM
Amante, I find it interesting that you suggest having a dialogue in the context of papwerwight's post, which references LGF, Instapundit,TownHall, et al. These blogs don't promote communication, and if invited to have one certainly don't respond in kind.

This isn't to say that Powerlines is the same, but the post at hand certainly isn't a good indication. If they are really interested in having such a conversation, perhaps they can begin with an admition that they know little or nothing about what they are pontificating about in this instance. Sounds fair to me.



#16555: — 02/22  at  02:25 AM
All of the big right-wing blogs have this kind of idiocy, although some have it more than others. LGF and Free Republic are Nazis. Instapundit is not, although he has a tendency to make outrageous statements that his left-wing equivalent, Josh Marshall, would never even dream of making. Tacitus is considered a moderate, but his blog is full of conservative vitriol in the LGF tradition. The only left-wing blog that has anything approaching that level of extremism is Daily Kos (plus the Democratic Underground, but that is not a blog).



's avatar #16557: Ben — 02/22  at  03:41 AM
Karl Popper argued long ago that Darwin’s theory of evolution was never a matter of science; it was always about faith.

Uhh, what? I've read all of Popper's books and I don't remember that one. Cretinism would be the first helplessly crushed into powder under the wheels of Popper's falsifiability qualifier, but let's not get involved in that sticky either/or muck.

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.



#16560: Mrs Tilton — 02/22  at  05:26 AM
Another lawyer here to defend the profession; I'll grant you Johnson, but why are so many of the leading lights of the IDist movement biochemists or mathematicians? (Note: this is where the 'smiley' would go, if I used such things.)

Seriously, though: I think PZ is wrong, or at least could be wrong, about Hinderaker's ignorance of science. He might well be that ignorant. Then again, he might not be. I don't think that, for Hinderaker and people like him, the truth of the claim that 'the new generation of biologists is sceptical of evolution' matters very much. What matters is creating a field of white noise. Whether or not Hinderaker really thinks that scientists are dubious about evolution, he'd like the general public to think they are.

Sure, lots of IDists, like lots of other creationists, are ignorant (in many cases, wilfully so). But I think lots of people in the expensively-educated rightwing opinionmongering caste know that ID, and creationism generally, are so much unscientific nonsense. And they don't care. They might even accept the idea of evolution themselves, and think it grand that a relatively small number of professional scientists know about it and use it fruitfully. But for reasons having nothing whatever to do with science, they view the idea of evolution as dangerous and unwelcome, at least for the Toiling Millions.

It's a very Straussian thing. And it's nothing new. As the possibly apocryphal Victorian bishop's wife (or whoever it was) said, 'Let us hope that Mr Darwin is wrong; but if he is right, let us hope that this does not become generally known.'



#16563: paperwight — 02/22  at  07:23 AM
Now, I understand that there is much to dislike and speak out about concerning the religious right (even some minor things in this post), however I am taken aback at the venom and ignorance that is often displayed by those on the liberal left. There should really be some speaking out against this sort of insulting trash. It not only does nothing to further our arguments but it also makes us look bad as a whole and gives the conservatives more ammunition.
I don't see all that much "venom and ignorance" on the liberal left. Venom and ignorance of what, exactly? I see a lot of frustration with proto-fascists on the nominal right (there are so many axes of political thought that I despair of left-right at this point). And the "venom and ignorance" line sounds exactly like the endless right-wing troll talking points that I see over and over again on liberal blog comments.

On another note, paperweight, isn’t the general idea of most discussions to engender communication? Isn’t tolerance also a great part of what we believe in, even tolerance of things we dislike even hate? Obviously, I don’t know about your tolerance but I don’t think that the solution lies in ignoring our opponents, rather I believe that these people should be exposed and read more widely.
I don't have to be tolerant of people who want to destroy me and everything I believe is good about my country. They don't tolerate me. In fact, one of the classic attacks from the current crop of revanchists is "But you're a liberal so you have to be tolerant of me. Now hold still while I accuse of hating America and being a traitor." Nunh-unh. Sorry. Expose these people, yes. Tolerate, no. "Discussions to engender communications" suggests that you're falling prey to what I've called the "Getting to Yes" fallacy: You can't negotiate with someone who wants to destroy you. If you want to, that's your business, but the outcome is guaranteed to be negative not only for you but for everyone you purport to represent. Sorry, but that's the Schmittian tribal reality of American politics for the last 20 years.
I omitted a section in the middle that is mostly a rant...
Ah. Why? The rant is the actual content -- phatic language to communicate Hinderaker's bonafides and get his sympathetic readers nodding their heads in agreement. You can't seriously be omitting large chunks of "rant" and then telling me that the left is where the venom is, and exhort me to engage in dialogue with the ranter. Come on.



#16564: paperwight — 02/22  at  07:36 AM
Instapundit is not, although he has a tendency to make outrageous statements that his left-wing equivalent, Josh Marshall, would never even dream of making.

The closest liberal equivalent to Instapundit in blogging style, from what I remember when I still read Instapundit, is Atrios. Josh Marshall is a DLC Democrat (EU center-right), which he says regularly, and which his mostly long and thoughtful posts (contrast with Instapundit's link-and-run) tend to show.

Atrios, by contrast, is a left-liberal Democrat (putting him in the EU center), and most of his posts are hit-and-run. That's more like Instapundit in style and further to the left than Marshall, but without the public welfare payments that Instapundit lives on as a libertarian state law school professor. Funny, that.

I also don't think the two are equivalent in their political extremism -- it's a facile and false thing to do, picking one person on one side and assuming there's a counterpart just as extreme and just as influential on another side. There was no anti-Pinochet. There is no anti-Dobson. THere is no anti-Instapundit. The most outrageous statements are what Instapundit believes. Don't think otherwise.



#16565: Kevin — 02/22  at  08:15 AM
It's interesting how people like Hindrocket use the laguage of religion to deride biology- saying 'darwinism' is based on faith, calling it the prevailing 'religion of biology'. Presumably when they use words like 'faith' and 'religion' to describe their own beliefs, it is in a positive way. You could chalk this up to simple double-think, and I'm sure there is plenty of that going on, but I suspect it goes deeper. They don't actually care about truth or objectivity- for them it is a matter of us versus them. So when describing their own beliefs, faith is good because it is faith in the beliefs of the Good Guys, and so the more you have of it the better you are, but when it is placed in something else it is Evil because the more of it you have the more you are immune to re-programming. Faith, belief, conviction- these are not things that need to have anything to do with truth, they are simply tools or markets for identifying the good guys and bad guys. Truth has no standing, it's simply a rhetorical device.
According to this way of seeing things, all the talk of evidence is just another rhetorical trick. Since it's somewhat effective, they've tried to co-opt it. Statements like 'all faith is bad' or 'all reasonable conclusions are good' don't appeal to them- things which lead to the conclusions they want to reach are good, things which lead to other conclusions are bad.



#16566: — 02/22  at  08:38 AM
“Especially microbiologists” — what in hell is he drooling about? I’ve watched the assault on Darwinism pretty closely and I can’t think of any major creationist or ID proponent who is also a microbiologist. [...] Ignorant fool. (Alex Merz)


Or maybe he's just out of date, although I doubt it. Directed mutation was an attack on Darwinism and came from microbiologists (Cairns, Hall). As biologists we should not forget that some of our colleagues find natural selection vaguely distasteful, and would love to see it diminished.



#16567: Abiola Lapite — 02/22  at  08:58 AM
The only left-wing blog that has anything approaching that level of extremism is Daily Kos
Atrios richly qualifies - it wasn't that long ago that a thread on there was full of people calling Michelle Malkin a "wog" and a "Filipino whore", language one will never see on Tacitus or anywhere else on the right outside LGF. The worst thing about the thread in question is that not a single left-wing participant saw fit to call those who were throwing about such insults on their language.

I hate to say this, but this entire post only says to me how blind some people are to the failings of their own side. Hindrocket is undoubtedly utterly ignorant of science, but how PZ Myers feels about his foolishness is exactly how I feel whenever I hear some left-winger spouting nonsense about anything to do with economics; if confidently sounding off on matters of which one is ignorant is a crime, then the majority of opinionators on both sides of the political divide are guilty. If one is willing to grant that a person can have valid opinions in one domain while spouting nonsense in another, then why not entertain the possibility that the same is true of Powerline?

The fact of the matter is that as reliably partisan as Instapundit and Powerline are, there can be no legitimate comparison of them to LGF or Free Republic, while Atrios and DKos have a routine viciousness to them that makes Glenn Reynolds and the Powerline guys seem the height of civility; you never see them throwing around insults like "Dhimmicrat" the way many liberals do "Rethug" and much other childish stuff in that vein. There really is nothing "extreme" about Instapundit or Powerline, unless by "extreme" all one means to say is "espousing policies I don't like."



#16568: paperwight — 02/22  at  09:20 AM
some left-winger spouting nonsense about anything to do with economics

Because all economics are right-wing? That doesn't make any sense.

(1) Hinderocket takes the position, from the posts of his that I've seen reprinted, that liberals are by definition traitors, which is a common trope among the right-wing in this country, including a lot of people on the right that get a lot of air time, like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. That's a lot more hateful than anything I've seen anywhere on the left.

(2) You are conflating commenters with the people who own the blogs. Last time I checked, Reynolds doesn't have comments -- it would be interesting to see what they really look like. LGF and FreeRepublic actually moderate their comments, which I don't think Atrios does. So I have a bit of difficulty with you associating Atrios with his commentors. I'm not a fan of the name calling, but the bottom line is that no matter what anyone says about "civility", the American public doesn't respond to it. Period. For whatever reason, Americans say that they want civility, but when you respond civilly to a slur, Americans think you're a wimp. And being called traitor over and over again for 5 years or so will tend to get people's backs up.

(3) In the civility vein, Have you seen the recent emails that people have received from Hinderocket?

(4) Glenn can seem the height of civility because all he does is link to the nastier stuff.

(5) That false equivalence stuff is just tiresome. I'm sick of it. It's like pointing at John Kerry and saying "SEE, HE'S TOO FAR LEFT." Well, he's not. The right in the US is VERY FAR RIGHT. The left in this country would have to be pretty close to Maoists (a position of which we're often accused) in order to counterbalance it. So, when people say "a pox on both your houses", they're de facto endorsing the right, because there is no equivalent left, either in politics or in the size and persistence of their influence, smear tactics, and demagoguery.

PZ, I'm done. I'll be back later today.



Page 1 of 9 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Next entry: Evolution of the jaw

Previous entry: Those bogus textbook sticker arguments…

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college