PZ Myers. 2005 Mar 26. In which I lose patience with these drooling gomers. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/in_which_i_lose_patience_with_these_drooling_gomers/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Saturday, March 26, 2005
In which I lose patience with these drooling gomers
World Wide Rant is having a good time mocking the anti-science fool at Wizbang. We need more of that.
You know, creationists who have almost no education in the relevant fields (such as, for instance, being proud of having taken a science class in 9th grade from which the only thing they learned is that science is always wrong) are perfectly comfortable with accusing virtually every biologist in the world of being incompetent, of knowing nothing, of fraud, of practicing a religion rather than science, etc., etc., etc. It's kind of appalling, actually; most of us would be embarrassed if we were caught lecturing crazily on some subject of which we know nothing by someone who had dedicated years of their life to studying that subject. But not creationists.
At the same time, you will find few people who are more touchy about the opinions of others than these same pontificating phonies. These arrogant pissants are egregious idiots who respond to the obvious question that leaps into everybody's mind when they first encounter them (i.e., "How can anyone be this stupid?") with indignation. They are the first to whine about "namecalling" and accuse anyone who opposes them vigorously of being "juvenile".
Here's how the conversation usually goes:
"Scientists don't know anything about speciation!"
"That's a stupid thing to say. Of course we do. Here's a long list of citations."
"You aren't allowed to call me stupid. I'm not stupid. You're stupid, you oozer." <commence prolonged temper tantrum>
This doesn't happen only at wingnut sites, of course—it goes on often enough here, too. Right now we've got a creationist troll named Phillip Rayment in the comments trying to defend biblical chronology and young earth creationism.
He's an arrogant moron. The bible is not an accurate historical source.
I know what some people are thinking: just don't call them "stupid" or a "moron", it distracts from the scientific argument. Of course it does; but one thing I've learned over the years is that this is not a scientific debate. The scientific part was settled a century ago, and evolution won, hands down. There is absolutely no legitimate, intelligent argument against evolutionary theory right now. This is not to say that we know everything or that the theory is complete or that we expect no major revisions; it means that evolution in a broad sense is an inarguable fact, and what we need to know now are details and mechanisms. The earth is billions of years old, species are all related to one another, and there has been a complex and ongoing pattern of change over the course of all of that time. All of that has been supported by multiple interlocking lines of evidence uncovered by the work of thousands of people, rechecked and verified by thousands more. That's just not going to be seriously challenged by anyone sensible, let alone some ranting guy who took a general science course in high school.
The big picture is done. The ships have sailed, they've discovered the coastline of the New World, they've established a few thriving colonies—and there's a huge, exciting continent to explore. Meanwhile, we have a few lunatics in the Old World who have clamped their eyelids shut and are screaming that they can't see it.
So what's the argument about? Not science, that's for sure. The opponents of evolution don't know any. They are effective political agents who are attacking the enterprise of science without addressing the scientific issues seriously. They have been relying on their opponent's hesitation or aloofness to escape criticism of their competence or ignorance. They shout with authority when they possess none.
You know what? It's time to stop that.
When someone lies, and tells you that increasing numbers of scientists are opposing the evolutionary 'paradigm', shoot them down, but also be blunt: call 'em a liar. Don't let them get away with pretending this is an honest debate between sincere opponents. It's an argument with a shameless liar.
When they parade their ignorance and try to claim that scientists have never discovered any transitional fossils, hand them a list, and make it clear to everyone that they are stupid. They are ignorant. Don't let them skip over it and move on to yet another issue that they will misrepresent: stop everything cold at that point and hammer on the fact that this person is not competent, is not informed, is unaware of the basic facts that he is railing against.
Seriously. If you went to a doctor, and he didn't know which end of the stethoscope to stick in his ears, would you let him go on to do open-heart surgery on you? Would you continue to call him "doctor", or should you leave the quack's office and look for someone who knows what they are doing? Why do we allow pseudoscientists and creationists to babble on, moving on from one lie to one distortion to one outright crazy assertion to another?
Slap 'em down. Anyone who tries to tell you that the world is 6000 years old or that evolutionary biology is a failure is an idiot. They don't deserve your patience.
- Back off. This one's mine.
- FDugby obver at Hulabaloo had a recent post that made sense (his posts pretty much always do). Given the anti-science attitudes of the modern GOP, and in, for instance, the Schiavo case, you should think real hard before letting a Republican near your health care. You ever look at those credentials on the wall in the doctor's office? Well, maybe you should be asking what party the doctor supports too. Unless you don't mind being treated with voodoo.
-
It is a damn shame you can't fucking read.
You call me a creationist but I argue against that theory too!
You are truly a clueless twit.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 11:16 AM -
Well said, PZ.
I'm in ...
Absolute.
Total.
Agreement.
Every time we let a creationist lie go free, we become partly to blame for the destruction of reason. Every creationist lie we stop, we make the world a little bit better place ... for things like science, medicine, social justice, education, and even good government. -
THANK YOU! I've been saying this for years. Polite has no place in this argument with the willfully ignorant.
#: Posted by on 03/26 at 12:14 PM
-
So what does one do with idiots who dismiss any and all articles from Talkorigins because "that site is biased, anti-religious"?
Of course it's biased in favor of science! Science is the stuff with the evidence behind it. Religion has, what, a book that must be right because it says it's right? *sigh*#: Posted by on 03/26 at 12:16 PM -
Paul: Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
You're an evolution-denier. An anti-science crank. A pseudo-scientific nutjob. A guy who thinks his misunderstood 'training' in 9th grade qualifies him to dismiss the work of real scientists.
You are an idiot, a moron, a fool, a fraud, a bullshit artist. You are a lying phony.
So when I lump you in with those other, similar kooks who call themselves creationists, I'm being kind. - Ben, go get him.
- You forgot brattish, embaressing, immature, and a laughing stock, PZ. Did you get liar? Oh yeah.
-
When I encounter someone who talks like that, I perform a rapid assessment: is the person simply ignorant and deserving of my patience or are they willfully misrepresenting the science involved.
Then, I assess who is listening to the argument. If it's between me and a person who is willfully misrepresenting the science, then I call a duck a duck.
But if I am on forums like these where lots of people listen, trying to gain information but who don't want to make a decision about who is right, then I call a duck a duck but I use softer language. Instead of saying, "You're full of shit," I might say, "Your understanding of geology is quite singular."
The bigger point being, when you debate creationists, you aren't trying to convince the creationists. You're trying to convince the people who might possibly be persuaded by the creationists. Appearing to be someone who is not reasonable doesn't help the cause, yet as PZ alludes, there is a role for establishing with clarity the fact that the unreasonable and willfully ignorant creationist should not be given credibility.
Debating creationists is a game. You can't say, "Call them all idiots," because that can sometimes not help the cause. Yet you have to take steps to convince people that the willfully ignorant should not be believed. Like I said, it's a game.
BCH#: Posted by Burt Humburg on 03/26 at 01:16 PM - Paul truly is an embarrassment. The only thing I can't figure out is why he keeps posting such tripe, only to have his ass handed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about...
-
Yes, Burt. There are many good-hearted, sincere, honest people who don't know much about biology; they aren't idiots. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something about a discipline that doesn't directly affect your life day-by-day.
Our problem is the people, like the clowns at the Discovery Institute or Ken Ham or Jonathan Sarfati and Phil Johnson and any of a horde of loud-mouthed liars, who get up in front of audiences and declare with false authority that biology is wrong. They are the idiots whose pretenses we must puncture. -
Amen, PZ!
Oh, rats, I shouldn't have said "amen", now somebody is going to accuse evolution of being a religion. In the meantime, and not to change the subject, I stumbled across this interesting article on Zebrafish Blood Diseases. If only someone who knew anything about zebrafish could explain the evolutionary implications!
Back to the subject at hand. Creationists all too often take advantage of the rules of reasoned debate to foist a lot of nonsense off on unsuspecting people. We have to start calling them on it. A stupid idea is a stupid idea.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 01:45 PM -
The namecalling shouldn't apply to everyone ignorant enough to argue creationism.
I am reminded of a "gentle"man with whom I used to work who had been attending seminary school. He described to me his hypothesis-in-the-works about dinosaurs.
"You see", he lecftured me, "I believe that, since in Biblical times people like Abraham lived to be really old, and since lizards never stop growing until they die, obviously lizards lived much longer back then and became really big."
He was really disappointed when I casually explained to him that dinosaurs were notreally lizards.
But at least it was a civil conversation...and humorous.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 01:46 PM -
My one concern is that when you get testy with the creationists, much as they deserve it, they'll try to turn it around and use it as evidence for their claims about evolution being poorly supported, impossible to prove, more religion than science -- you know the drill. They start saying things like, "See? When you challenge them on their beliefs, the Darwinists just resort to childish ranting and name-calling!"
Of course the reasonDarwinistsreal scientists get annoyed is that they get tired of having to shoot down the same old creationist nonsense over and over again, but the anti-evolution crowd is banking on the public's general ignorance of science to obscure this fact. I mean, I fully agree that "ignorant zealot," for instance, is a phrase that can be applied to the creationists as an accurate description, not a term of abuse, but you know they're going to try to use it against you.
There's not a lot you can do about the ignorant zealots, of course, but you don't want to limit your chances of reaching those who are merely ignorant.#: Posted by Stephen Stralka on 03/26 at 01:52 PM -
Diversity is a good thing. I don't have a bone to pick with creationists. It's their free speech right to hold and disseminate whatever misinformation they wish.
It's the fault of the single-thought, uncritical minded receivers of that information if they're unable to get to the truth and reason.
Am I right with that? I wonder. I mean, I severely dislike the state of ignorance modern society is in. The brain-dead herd is forcefully controlled by means of all sorts of advertising and propaganda. They're all glorious members of Orwell's 1984 regime.
Could I interest any of you in a Gold subscription to my Divine Faith Generator?
People using people. Slave control.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 02:02 PM -
You're sincere, sarcastic and plain mean. In other words, your're becomeing one of my favorite sites, very very quickly.
Great job, absolutely true. wise advice.
Next time I pick up my stethescope I'll make sure to orient myself first though.#: Posted by Mad House Madman on 03/26 at 02:22 PM -
Diversity is a good thing.
When it leads us further from untruths and into more substantive knowledge, yes. No point in keeping b.s. around for diversity's sake, though. It's not an end in itself.
And PZ, in the presumably unlikely event you get bored with teaching science, that there post indicates you'd do a damn fine job at teaching argument in an English class. Impressive . . .#: Posted by on 03/26 at 02:22 PM -
Stephen wrote:
"Of course the reason Darwinists real scientists get annoyed is that they get tired of having to shoot down the same old creationist nonsense over and over again"
Well, yes. If I have to deal with one more creationist telling me that Duane Gish proved that australopithicines were really just apes my head will explode. Ditto for, say criticisms of radiometric dating. These people come up with criticisms that were thought of, and researched, a long time ago. In the case of radiometric dating there are several journals devoted to researching issues (practical and methodological) connected with these procedures. But we are suppoesed to be awed, by the smartness of some one regurgitating the hundreth iteration of the original stupid idea. Sad thing is most of these people don't realize how old and how often these lame criticisms have been repeated and disproven. Sorry for the rant.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 02:25 PM -
what's with the use of the new/old world metaphor? I thought we off-loaded the lunatic christian fringe to the new world via the mayfair in the early 1600s. sorry guys. ;)
#: Posted by on 03/26 at 02:44 PM
-
What about the old "if you can't re-creats an experiment in laboratory setting, it isn't the scientific method" argument.
Can you suggest a reference, or if you like, just address in my comments thread.#: Posted by The Commissar on 03/26 at 02:44 PM -
FYI,
After a 100-comment thread, I dim-wittedly realized Paul's game. He will NOT openly embrace Creationism. He will declare "Evolutionary Theory is full of MAJOR HOLES." He explicitly stated that he didnt believe God created life on Earth. (I think he was lying on that belief, but can't prove it.)
But his tactic, his mission, is to keep trying to distort the filling in of evolutionary theory's details,as "MAJOR HOLES". He's a stalking-horse, an apologist for the Creationists, playing a slightly subtler role. He loudly throws up the dust and the irrelevancies from his platform, and then lets the admitted Creationists take it from there.
Thanks, Burt Humbug, for your insight & advice. It applies to Paul and his ilk in spades.#: Posted by The Commissar on 03/26 at 02:52 PM -
Hank said,
Every creationist lie we stop, we make the world a little bit better place ... for things like science, medicine, social justice, education, and even good government.
Ironically, it would even make it the world a better place for religion.
Why are the fundies holding on to something that is destined to crash and burn?
Personally, I am able to have great respect for the God-fearing man who understands the limitations (relevancy?) of religion in these times of would-be enlightenment.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 02:56 PM -
This link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH120.html) does not prove your point. I'll take them one at a time:
"For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E. (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001)." The operative word here seems to be 'widely'. That may be true, but were camels used at all??? Certainly, the implication of the sentence is that they did exist. Conclusion: doesn't prove much of anything.
"The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records." This one has been used countless times. The question always arises, why would a powerful totalitarian dynasty like the Egyptians, accurately record that they lost to unorganized slaves??? Regimes like Egypt in modern times re-write history (by ommision or commision) all the time. Just because its not there doesn't make it accurate.
"There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002)." Well, this statement suggests they MAY have EXISTED. Powerful??? That's a matter of opinion. Certainly if they existed, they were powerful enough to survive their enemies.
Basically, another big yawn.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 02:58 PM -
and certainly, if they colonised mars, they were advanced enough to develop space travel far in advance of anything we have today.... probably lazer guns and everything!
what kind of proof you looking for ed? deductive?#: Posted by on 03/26 at 03:06 PM -
I'm going to be the pedantic contrarian here. Bear with me.
"Professional" creationists like Gish, Hovind, Behe and Dembski are liars. They are aware of the evidence that refutes their arguments but they make their arguments anyway. They are saying something that they know is not true.
Amateur creationists can also be liars for the same reasons. But there are an awful lot of very ignorant people out there who sincerely believe the garbage they spout. While they can be very ignorant, stubborn, and grustrating, they are not necessarily liars.
Call a liar a liar by all means, but be sure you're using the label appropriately.
Now go back to bashing the lying scum.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 03:20 PM -
Oh my gosh, don't tell me that people are taking the Bible as literal history again, are they? I thought we settled this over a hundred years ago?
/headdesk
Having read hundreds of historical and archaeological studies on the topic, I can say that while the historical record for Judah and Israel pre-800 B.C. is sketchy, that certainly doesn't allow us to speculate that a seventh/sixth century textual compilation (which is what most of the Pentateuch is) contains more accurate historical information about the historical events in the region, than, say, the Neo-Assyrian annals and the archaeological remains.
But, then, I expect these are the same people who are going to claim that Solomon and David were monotheists. . . .
/headdesk
Ow. -
My one concern is that when you get testy with the creationists, much as they deserve it, they'll try to turn it around and use it as evidence for their claims about evolution being poorly supported, impossible to prove, more religion than science -- you know the drill. They start saying things like, "See? When you challenge them on their beliefs, the Darwinists just resort to childish ranting and name-calling!"
Let 'em do it. What they're doing is trying to get you to stop by doing so; don't stop. This has worked for them for years -- in fact, when you don't do it, punditry says you don't have the courage of your convictions. Past history has shown us all that we're not going to get nicer, more informed, or intelligent press by being polite. -
Let 'em do it. What they're doing is trying to get you to stop by doing so; don't stop. This has worked for them for years -- in fact, when you don't do it, punditry says you don't have the courage of your convictions. Past history has shown us all that we're not going to get nicer, more informed, or intelligent press by being polite.
I'm certainly not talking about backing down. The creationists do indeed need to be exposed as the frauds they are in every possible forum.
If I was more ambitious I'd try to include a diagram. I imagine scientists and other reasonable people on one side, creationist frauds on the other side, and a lot of people in the middle who conceivably could be swayed in either direction. Just look at the polls. Creationist propaganda has fooled a lot of people. They absolutely need to be challenged, but too much inflammatory rhetoric could play into their hands.#: Posted by Stephen Stralka on 03/26 at 03:46 PM - But that's the point: the other side has been consistently using that inflammatory rhetoric against us, and they're winning. Every time we stand calmly and quietly give them the answers they demand, that mass in the middle see us going "wa wa wa waa", like the adults in the Charlie Brown cartoons, and treating the creationists with respect. We don't want to give up our strengths, the evidence, but we also need to punch a few bozos in the nose.
-
I am as likely as anyone here to get into a foolish fight against a Creationist. I managed to stay away from the fray for several years, but now that I realize that they are just part of a bigger plan for restoration of regressive theocracy, I am paying attention again.
Different kinds of Creationists (YEC, OEC, IDC) all play a part, addressing different types of people and trying to get them to fight "for the cause". Do not be fooled by their apparent internecine struggles. Paul of Wizbang's strategy is just one of those strategies, appealing to less-than-fundamentalist folks (by saying he leaves out God and Creationism out, yeah right!). The aim is the defeat of Enlightement by all means.
What should work better, if one is able to think clearly and pull it off, is to always keep in mind who your audience is. It is not the Creationist fool who is chellenging you - it is the broader audience of lurkers and onlookers, who may be swayed one way or another. So, talk to the audience! Bypass, even ignore the challenger. Talk about him as "he", not "you". Explain to the audience why "he" is wrong instead of telling the guy "this is why you are wrong". Put him down (and infuriate him) by refusing to address him and instead addressing his lies and showing to the real audience why they are lies.
[Speaking of "he", why are there no more Women Creationist Bloggers? Does femiphobia have anything to do with it? Or is it that A-list Creationist Bloggers only link to each other
Or is it that women are less capable of thinking in Creationistic ways, as Summers may have suggested?]
-
Certainly if they existed, they were powerful enough to survive their enemies.
Until they weren't.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 04:06 PM - Coturnix: do you remember Susan? She was much smarmier than Phillip.
-
Phew! For moment there, I thought you said "smarter", not "smarmier"......
#: Posted by on 03/26 at 04:42 PM
-
Susan must have been before my time...an example that confirms the rule, the Ann Coulter in the world of White Male Racist Sexist Protestant Puritan Calvinist Homophobic Xenophobic Superpatriots?
Anyway, never one to shy away from blogwhoring, for those who have not seen this, a way to think about their possible motives:
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-creationists-need-to-be.html
may be the way to think how to approach them. - Whew! I just went back to that thread (it was on my birthday last year, before I discovered Pharyngula) and, my oh my, that Susan is surely one big piece of work!
-
I agree. Creationists of all flavors, YEC, MEC, OEC and IDC deserve no quarter, nor respect. This is the friggin 21st Century and any one ignorant of the fact of evolution, is willfully so. There's no excuses for them. If they haven't a clue as to what they're talking about, they should shut up before they spout of some gem as fact that they heard third-hand from Gish.
To not have researched it, before repeating it, IS willfull ignorance.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 05:10 PM -
Here's one from ARN in a thread called "The Natural Origin of Natural Explanations?!?(too bad I'm banned):
Science is what it is , I am not trying to make it fit anywhere. I interpret the evidence from my Creationist worldview-it fits just fine.
IOW, he outright rejects any fact that fails to fit into his creationist worldview.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 05:27 PM -
We are in a situation were we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, so I say do. We can't win if we don't fight back and pulling our punches so as not to alienate undecideds clearly hasn't worked to well. If we reasonably debate stupid ideas it gives those ideas some credability and makes it look like we take them seriously and gives the impression that there is something to them.
#: Posted by on 03/26 at 06:12 PM
-
The point that Paul seems so hell-bent upon missing is this: a good scientist does not reject, out of hand, new evidence that contradicts current thinking. Indeed, he embraces it. That is the nature of the scientific process.
However, the key word here is "evidence". No scientist is going to take absurd speculation, unfounded in any demonstrable way, seriously. When scientists ignore the babblings of creationists and their ilk, it isn't because they are not open to new interpretations of their data: it's because these are NOT interpretations, at all, but weird emanations from left field.
It's like this:
Hungry Guy: Look, a delicious ham sandwich!
Scientist (sniffing the sandwich): Actually, judging from the smell, I believe this is a delicious PASTRAMI sandwich.
Paul (who hasn't even looked at the sandwich, since he is occupied with his own lunch): I must disagree. This is a dog's bottom sandwich, no two ways about it. Yes. Definitely dog's bottom.
Hungry Guy and Scientist: No, it's not.
Paul: Hammers! Hammers!
Ye gads.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 06:36 PM -
Many years ago I came to the conclusion that all creationists fall into one of three groups-
1- Ignorant
2- Stupid
3- Dishonest
Each group needs to be handled in a different way.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 06:49 PM -
I've mentioned this article over at Panda's Thumb but it's just as relevent here in understanding the mindset of the Fundies. The article is called "Why So Many Find the Anti-Evolution Argument Appealing" by Charles A. Israel at http://hnn.us/articles/10527.html
#: Posted by on 03/26 at 06:56 PM
- Regardless if you feel creationists should be given the benefit of the doubt, Paul has been given that benefit and then some. In addition to his ranting, lying, and cussing us out, he's now taken to rewriting our comments and signing our names to them. He brought this on himself. There's no other way to deal with an immoral juvenile shithead like this than to drag him over the coals he lit.
-
"This doesn't happen only at wingnut sites, of course—it goes on often enough here, too. Right now we've got a creationist troll named Phillip Rayment in the comments trying to defend biblical chronology and young earth creationism."
Glad I don't read comments much anymore, then. Never heard a single thing from that dolt.
At least this place isn't Panda's Thumb, which has made several big mistakes in how to promote and handle discussion, and whose comments section is now completely worthless.#: Posted by on 03/26 at 07:32 PM -
I must commend Andy for being so patient with Susan (I can't believe I read the whole thing). Of course, it is hard to show possible lurkers how bankrupt creationist ideology is, if one sends them all tail-tucked and packing after only a few posts.
By the way, where's Duane with the conversion thing? :D#: Posted by on 03/26 at 07:58 PM -
Actually, I feel pretty sure that stupdity is not indigenous to creationism. I've met atheists who wouldn't know natural selection from a hole in the head. When I ask these people why they believe the way they do, since it's not like they could have been convinced from the evidence, they say, "Oh, I don't really understand the stuff. It's enough for me to simply know that Christianity is being attacked."
Both evolution due to stupidity and creationism due to stupidity are entities in the world. Same goes for evolution due to ignorance and creationism due to ignorance (which may or may not be a useful distinction). I think all of the four are things to work against. Be Christian or be atheist, I honestly don't think what I believe in to be God cares. But know what natural selection is because, until you do, that's just an opportunity for self-improvement and learning that you're passing up.
BCH#: Posted by Burt Humburg on 03/26 at 08:03 PM -
Way to go, PZ.
Talks stupid, writes stupid... I'll call him or her stupid. Unless it seems more likely that the explanation is mendacity. Then I'll call him or her a liar. Why? Because I believe that I should tell the truth, that's why. This is true in my personal life, and it's true in my job as a college professor.
What is it with these people (David Horowitz, I am talking to YOU, among others) who have decided that they have an inalienable right to not be embarrassed when they say stupid things? -
This is like a bad dream. Evolution, like Illinois winning tonight. Let's get a real Darwin league going.
OT, but anyone who wants to get into fantasy baseball, I've set up the Darwin League. Yahoo fantasy baseball. fantasysports.yahoo.com
ID# is 273292
Password is darwin#: Posted by on 03/26 at 09:29 PM -
Call me a fool if you must, but I'd rather be the "bla bla bla" guy than the guy calling people idiots and morons. In my experience, that just isn't a very productive approach either. It sure feels good, but its just more red meat for them in the end. I'm not sure how to turn the tide against creationist ignorance, but I son't see how namecalling isn't going to do it. Not that I won't call a lie a lie. But, for instance, when some creationist recites something like the moon hoax, I tend to calmly debunk it and THEN hit them with a very pointed question about their source. I don't imply that they are lying: my first assumption is that they've been misled, and I put them on the spot about what that means for whomever misled them. I've gotten quite a few concessions that maybe they should be more skeptical of the evolution skeptics. Whereas simply calling people liars, while I've done it, has often proven sloppy.
#: Posted by on 03/26 at 09:31 PM
-
Paul the Wizbanger achieved his scientific credentials through his work in the Rathergate affair and the way he brought down the academic from Utah who dared analyze the fonts in the Bush memos. Don't mess with him! He knows the science behind typewriters and word-processing! Dan Rather first, next up, Darwin!
#: Posted by Webster Hubble Telescope on 03/26 at 10:15 PM
-
plunge: I also assume by default that, when a creationist repeats an obvious falsehood, he or she does so out of ignorance. Most often this assumption is correct, and the creationist in question either admits to the error (rare) or scuttles off without reply (common). Repeated discussions are required to determine whether the person in question is merely ignorant, overtly stupid, or an outright liar/troll. A surprising number make it through these -- well, let's call them "filters." For those that do, it is both fair and balanced to call them what they are.
Let me add that such treatment is not reserved for the anti-evolution dweebs. I have provided similar feedback to holocaust deniers, AIDS "skeptics," many (not all) in the anti-vaccine camp, devotees of homeopathy, and other : crackpots, as well. -
Call me a fool if you must, but I'd rather be the "bla bla bla" guy than the guy calling people idiots and morons. In my experience, that just isn't a very productive approach either. It sure feels good, but its just more red meat for them in the end.
Neither approach is constructive, actually. The ratio of open-minded, geniunely misguided creationists who are willing to evaluate the evidence and make their own informed, independent conclusions to the narrow-minded, theocratic, anti-science prevaricators who are just out to stir up a hornet's nest and slink away again is, optimistically, about 20:1. The fact that the level of ignorance is usually proportional to the amount of personal conviction would probably push the aforementioned ratio of those who actually pluck up the courage to post dissenting posts on a biology blog to about 100:1. Labelling them liars, morons, con-artists, anti-intellectuals and bullshit artists is both efficient and a matter of playing the percentages. -
Ben,
20:1 or 1:20? I suspect you meant the latter? -
I think it's obvious what I meant.
-
Calling ignorant people stupid is contra-productive - that makes them defensive. Of course, willfully ignorant people are stupid, but that's an entirely different issue.
What I'm trying to say here, is that it's ok to call willfully ignorant people stupid, but if people are ignorant because they haven't been exposed to the truth (or rather then scientific theories), then they should be handled much more gently. Liars and charlatans should of course always be called what they are.#: Posted by on 03/27 at 06:21 AM -
It may be unproductive, but it's better rhetoric. When you can't convince your opponent, you will want to convince the audience, in which case real refutations are much stronger than name-calling.
#: Posted by on 03/27 at 06:29 AM
-
BTW PZ, if you ever need fuel for starting a rant:
Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe? (pdf file) by United Church of God.
Now, these people are ignorant, stupid and liars.#: Posted by on 03/27 at 06:37 AM -
Coturnix: do you remember Susan? She was much smarmier than Phillip.
I had forgotten Susan, she was quite a piece of work. But at least she didn't try to dazzle us with her education, and use it as a proof that she certainly knew more about biology than anyone who actually studied the subject. Of course, she believed that people like C.S. Lewis and his convertion to Christianity was proof of a divine being, and thus showed that the Bible was the literal truth, except when it should be understod metaphorically (i.e. when it conflicted too much with the real world).#: Posted by on 03/27 at 08:20 AM -
If we win, we lose. As Thomas Frank points out in "What's the Matter With Kansas?," it all has to do with narrative framing - wingers have managed to largely replace a class-based narrative, dealing with real economic and sociological facts, with a culture-based narrative where virtuous God and marriage-believing Red Staters are attacked by pointy headed coast-dwelling arrogant libertine Blue Staters (with the added virtue that, by obscuring economic reality, hides the fact that Naughty Housewives and wardrobe malfunctions have less to do with culture wars than good old capitalist competition). Argue from the authority of science, point out that these guys are embracing their ignorance and should be laughed at, and it just plays into the narrative!
And then ID reels in the folks who naively support "teaching the controversy," who wonder why we are being so goshdarn rude! and authoritarian . . .
Geez. -
Again: I think our first obligation is to tell the truth. If someone is spewing preposterous, ignorant gobbledygook, we should not shrink from saying that "you, sir, are spewing preposterous, ignorant gobbledygook."
After all, we're not talking about minor, hair-splitting errors of fact here. We're talking about the wholesale rejection of vast bodies of evidence and well-tested theory in physics, chemistry, earth sciences, astronomy, genetics, biochemistry, embryology, paleontology...
And at least as often as not, these rejections are coupled to claims of wide-scale scientific fraud across all of the above disciplines.
These bilious emissions do not merit, and should not be met, with a falsely modest or inappropriately temperate response. -
Just a Wizbang update for anyone who cares to see. Paul's latest entry on the subject of evolution/abiogenesis is entitled "Do I Have to Draw a Picture", in which he ascends to a new height of stupidity, if such a thing is possible.
#: Posted by on 03/28 at 10:50 AM
-
For those who are tired of arguing with morons--and it gets tiring pretty damn fast, I can tell you--the short argument against "intelligent design" goes like this:
ID-Nutbag: But things are so COMPLEX and FUNCTIONAL, so they must have been INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!
Bored Rationalist: Ooh, you're right. And that designer would be God, I suppose? But God must be VERY complex and highly functional to have designed such clever things, so some higher power must have designed God; and whatever higher power did that must have been VERY VERY complex and pretty damn functional to have designed GOD, so...#: Posted by on 04/18 at 09:07 PM