PZ Myers. 2005 Oct 20. Don't cry for Behe…. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/dont_cry_for_behe/>. Accessed 2008 Aug 21.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Thursday, October 20, 2005
Don't cry for Behe…
…he's probably raking it in.
I wanna know where the left-wing, rationalist gravy train is hiding. I'd like to take it for a ride someday.
Posted by PZ Myers on 10/20 at 11:48 AM
Creationism • Politics • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Creationism • Politics • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
[wingnutsimulator] Sorry, you treasonous liberal freak, you're a little late to get on Saddam's payroll. [/wingnutsimulator]
As to the ID gravy train, I would not dismiss out of hand the possibility that Behe knows he's talking complete crap and is just lying to bring in the $$ to feed those 9 kids.#: Posted by on 10/20 at 11:59 AM -
Well you could try to pull a 'Sokal'; write a load of carp, wait for them to embrace it, then reveal that it is a load of carp. But then, how do you parody a parody?
#: Posted by on 10/20 at 12:11 PM
-
Baseyian, Sokal did exactly that. Or do you think the writings of the theorists had already transgressed the boundaries of the parodical?
I've read parts of Sokal's article, and it makes no sense whatsoever, or worse, it makes about as much sense as the writings of Judith Butler. Even the worst ramblings of the IDiots are wonders of clarity, coherence and wit compared to that. That's the real problem if you want to go after the creationists.#: Posted by on 10/20 at 01:00 PM -
I would say that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (to a lesser extent) have ridden the materialist rationalist gravy train.
#: Posted by on 10/20 at 01:03 PM
-
<TIC>Sell your soul - you're an atheist, you don't need one anyway...switch sides, rake in the dough off books, retire,...then recant everything you said.</TIC>
#: Posted by on 10/20 at 01:08 PM
-
It's a Miracle! I found a Genuine Image of JC in my Dorito's! Praise Jezus! I also had a vision that JC wants me to put my Miracle Chip on E-Bay and raise money to Fight For Him and All His Glory!
I think that THIS scam is MUCH more honest than a Ken Hovind "lie for Jezus" or a Dembski smary comment, and so I hereby grant the rights to the Jezus Chip to you in down payment of all the great blogging you have done about the IDiots.
Thanks Jason! Halleluyah!#: Posted by on 10/20 at 01:10 PM -
SL:
Behe knows he's talking complete crap
On the basis of some things Behe had said in passing, somebody ventured some months ago (right here in comments on Pharyngula!) that Behe might in his heart of hearts in fact be a theistic evolutionist (maybe not terribly different to Ken Miller) who had unfortunately painted himself into a corner and didn't know how to get back out. Of course, Behe might well deem it more prudent to stay in that corner. Even allowing for his doubtlessly fat academic salary, with nine kids to feed he might be glad of a little extra cash. (Does he really have 9 kids? Holy cow! I only have three, and I'm not above selling off their spare organs on the black market for pin money.)
To be very clear, by the way: when I write about Behe being not terribly different to Miller if the former does in fact privately accept a Darwinian explanation, I mean 'not terribly different' in terms of what each believes, about both biology and God. In terms of intellectual honesty, they couldn't be more different.
BB:
then reveal that it is a load of carp
The only problem with your plan is that it is awfully difficult to disguise a load of carp as anything else. Though I suppose you could always mash the fish up, mix the resulting paste with artificial colours, form it into sticks and call it faux crab.
PZ:
I'm afraid the only gravy train for good honest science may be to write a textbook, get all your mates to make their students buy it, and do the same for them. But even so, you'll never ring up Da Vinci Code numbers with that sort of scam.
Tell you what, though. I'd be happy to write a manifestly dishonest, poorly argued, ill-informed screed asserting that only the Intelligent Designer offers a complete scientific explanation. Then you can shoot it down with a book of your own. Your book won't sell nearly as well as mine on the prairie, I fear. But here's the thing (and also, the answer to those who are asking how the book I propose to write differs from anything that Behe, Dembski, Wells & Co. have written already): you and I will split the combined royalties 50/50. That's only fair. After all, I am going to have to rely on your knowledge of sound scientific ideas to make sure I haven't inadvertently put any into my book.#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 10/20 at 01:26 PM - That is simply cunning, devious, and profitable. It's probably hazardous to mention this, but Behe and Miller are both over there on the east coast, not more than a few hours drive apart...
-
'I would say that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (to a lesser extent) have ridden the materialist rationalist gravy train. '
No they have ridden the correct, science based gravy train. I'm often amazed when people use the term materialist. Wouldn't realist be more fitting? Maybe it's just nitpicking though.
Dawkins does a great job bring advanced science to the masses, much like Sagan.#: Posted by on 10/20 at 01:37 PM -
Riches lie in masses.
First, go back to alt.out-of-body. Listen to the 'logic' and evidence they claim.
Second, write a fine pet psychic book. A small one for the supermarket check-out lines. (Maybe even add a 900 number call-in for $2.95 a minute - very cheap because pets are not verbal, they must be more telepathic!)
Finally, add to your next book your 'fishy' science experience. Publish a book for psychic sensing of fish habitat and location. Sell it in the supermarket and bait shop-gas-beer-gun-fireworks stores in the midwest.
Buy me a new vehicle for the idea.#: Posted by John M. Price on 10/20 at 01:50 PM -
If you don't want to stoop all the way to Discovery Institute level, there's still the Templeton prize, awarded to good Christian scientists like your close friend Charles Townes.
#: Posted by on 10/20 at 02:22 PM
-
<blockquote>
Dawkins does a great job bring advanced science to the masses, much like Sagan.
</blockqutoe>
Dawkins' stuff is aging much better. I may never forgive Cosmic Carl for The Amniotic Universe, which appeared in Broca's Brain.#: Posted by on 10/20 at 02:26 PM -
I grew up in the Texas of the 40's and 50's and my neighbors were nearly all fundies in various flavors. Their preachers were mostly scam artists out to make a profit either in money, sex, or booze—and sometimes all three. So what Johnson, Dembski, and Behe have done is to trod the well chosen path to some serious pin money. And don't think for one minute that they were not aware of that before getting into the game.
I've attended a few creationist/ID meetings—and "debates"—locally in recent years. Invariably there is someone in the lobby flogging the entire opus of whoever is speaking. The faithful always dutifully buy.#: Posted by on 10/20 at 02:46 PM -
It's probably hazardous to mention this, but Behe and Miller are both over there on the east coast, not more than a few hours drive apart...
Yes well, but then that is exactly my point -- Geography is a cruel mistress. It all depends on what you mean by 'east coast'. As a citizen of the civilised world, I could scarcely be expected to notice the obliteration of anything west of the Hudson River. But even assuming arguendo an aesthetically-sensitive plate tectonics, I would have to give you up to achieve Behelessness. You might be inclined to self-sacrifice but as for me, sorry, tolerating the existence of that gibbering japanapes is a small price to pay to enjoy Pharyngula.#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 10/20 at 03:13 PM -
"No they [Dawkins & Dennet] have ridden the correct, science based gravy train. I'm often amazed when people use the term materialist. Wouldn't realist be more fitting?"
Well, it is clear that both Dawkins and Dennet want natural selection to be some sort of universal philosophical principle rather than simply one of the mechanisms of biological evolution; in the words of Dennet, natural selection is a "universal acid" eating away at religion and in Dawkins' words it "reveals a universe without design" (which is different from the scientific viewpoint which merely says that a designer is not mandatory). That's materialism.
Now, I'm a Huxley-style agnostic myself, but there *are* plenty of pious folk out there who have no problem with science -- I really, really, don't see the point of alieniating them. It's counter productive because the IDiots can point to the works of Dawkins and Dennett and say "See! Evolution is an eeeevil atheistic philosophy!"#: Posted by Jonathan Badger on 10/20 at 03:31 PM -
Not exactly on-topic, but a decent blow has been recently struck against our own New Zealand fundamentalist propagandistas, the "maxim institute", by one Paul Litterick of the rationalists and humanists association. Here's what he did
http://www.nzarh.org.nz/fundy/thepost018.htm
I'm just wondering if anyone has tried the same line on some of the DI shills? I imagine "copyscape" is in common use in universities; some quick "cut-and-paste" research might reveal a lot. And it's worth doing! If/when supposedly independent fundy "commentators" are passing the words of others off as their own, it's something the generally torpid media HAVE to pay attention to. Not only is it intellectually dishonest- and they need to be called on this- but I imagine there are legal implications.#: Posted by rob stowell on 10/20 at 03:42 PM -
Does Dawkins really bring scientific ideas to the masses? The sales of even best sellers are tiny compared to the market penetration of movies, let alone T.V. shows. I suspect that a great many of the people who read Dawkins are in the technically savvy fraction of the population already. Has anybody seen a study exploring just who it is that reads scientific popularizations?
#: Posted by Jim Harrison on 10/20 at 04:01 PM
-
"Well, it is clear that both Dawkins and Dennet want natural selection to be some sort of universal philosophical principle rather than simply one of the mechanisms of biological evolution;"
Having not read D&D (yet) I have to ask if this is correct?
Mutation and natural selection could be part of other fields too, for example development of languages, memes and all sorts of design, where trial-and-error of prototypes are an inherent part however much we want to minimise it. (The problem here may of course be that mutations are not guaranteed to be random, so it is probably not perfect analogs.)#: Posted by on 10/20 at 04:17 PM -
I'm attending a lecture tonight on "Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Creator" by Walter L. Bradley. From all the Google searches I've done, it appears that he likes to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument against abiogenesis while switching the terms 'abiogenesis' and 'evolution.'
I and 4 friends are going dressed as pirates, in the FSM tradition.
There's going to be a Q&A session afterwards; does anyone have any good questions to throw at this guy? I'm trying to compile a little list of questions that I can pass around so everyone will be able to ask one or two.
P.S. the lecture's in 2 hours.#: Posted by on 10/20 at 05:09 PM -
Yeah, that Sagan guy did a great job educating hoi polloi with his nuclear winter hoax.
Modeling an Earth without surface water, that was real scientific.
But he did it for our own good, us bumpkins bein' too dense to figger out politics by ourselves and stuff.
I don't believe the evolutionist crowd can make any headway arguing against the antievolutionist crowd. The terms of reference just don't overlap enough.
But there might be a reason, based on experience, that the antis don't genuflect before you.#: Posted by on 10/20 at 05:59 PM -
Don't worry Doc,
"You'll have pie in the sky when you die" (that's a lie)
[/joe hill]#: Posted by on 10/20 at 06:14 PM -
No they have ridden the correct, science based gravy train. I'm often amazed when people use the term materialist. Wouldn't realist be more fitting? Maybe it's just nitpicking though.
If I'm not mistaken, 'materialist' here means 'believing that the only necessary/plausible/useful causes are material (as opposed to supernatural).'
Dawkins likely is a realist, Dennet maybe not so much. 'Realist' here means 'believing that the deep theoretical structures posited by scientific theories and only indirectly supported by evidence are, nonetheless, real.'
It is nitpicking, but that's what's so fun about philosophy.#: Posted by on 10/20 at 08:00 PM -
Mrs Tiltpon: "But even assuming arguendo an aesthetically-sensitive plate tectonics, I would have to give you up to achieve Behelessness. You might be inclined to self-sacrifice but as for me, sorry, tolerating the existence of that gibbering japanapes is a small price to pay to enjoy Pharyngula."
Well done! -
We were talking
About the love that's grown so cold
And the people
Who gain the world and lose their souls
They don't know, they can't see
Are you one of them?#: Posted by on 10/20 at 11:43 PM - I was horrified to see Behe on Catalyst last night. At least the whole ID thing basically got the living shit kicked out of it in the end. I'm just ticked off that I forgot to grab a newspaper today to check out one of those funky whole-page open letters.
-
"Mutation and natural selection could be part of other fields too, for example development of languages, memes and all sorts of design, where trial-and-error of prototypes are an inherent part however much we want to minimise it. (The problem here may of course be that mutations are not guaranteed to be random, so it is probably not perfect analogs.)"
Well, descent with modification is a feature of many systems, but it isn't clear if selection has much if any role to play in most non-biological systems -- for example the English language didn't get to have so many speakers because it was naturally selected on its own merits as a language; rather it was a simple side effect (dare I say "spandrel"?) of the military and economic success of England and America.
But really, this sort of analogy isn't what I was referring to -- I was more referring to how in D & D's case natural selection is almost a type of private religion with Darwin being the messiah. For example, Dawkins' quote that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (I guess Hume and the millions of atheistic Chinese before 1859 weren't fulfilled, poor chaps), and Dennett's assertion that natural selection is a "dangerous" idea that will completely change society once people really understand it (sounds like the rhetoric that people once said about Marx's ideas). I find this sort of reasoning nearly as ludicrous as that of Behe's.#: Posted by Jonathan Badger on 10/21 at 07:35 AM -
To nitpick a little further on noah's point, one must be a realist about something, generally a certain domain of discourse.
As for the "left-wing, rationalist gravy train", wouldn't the left-wing, empiricist gravy train be a more suitable ride?#: Posted by Benedict Eastaugh on 10/21 at 08:39 AM -
Uber: Realism is independent of materialism. Both Aquinas and Aristotle were not materialists, but their epistemologies were certainly realist. As for Dennett and Dawkins, both are realists and materialists, though Dennett is less of a realist than Dawkins it seems. (See his paper, "Real Patterns", for example.)
#: Posted by Keith Douglas on 10/21 at 08:40 AM
-
Fair enough.
'Well, it is clear that both Dawkins and Dennet want natural selection to be some sort of universal philosophical principle rather than simply one of the mechanisms of biological evolution;'
In their defense it makes alot more sense than most of what came before the thought.
'Now, I'm a Huxley-style agnostic myself, but there *are* plenty of pious folk out there who have no problem with science'
Ok, but if you follow scientific thought all the way down it's hard to be consistent with some of the worlds religions.
'-- I really, really, don't see the point of alieniating them. It's counter productive because the IDiots can point to the works of Dawkins and Dennett and say "See! Evolution is an eeeevil atheistic philosophy!" '
Thats their problem if they think atheists are evil, one should not bow to stupidity.
'For example, Dawkins' quote that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (I guess Hume and the millions of atheistic Chinese before 1859 weren't fulfilled, poor chaps)'
He was refering to origins. And it's his opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
, 'and Dennett's assertion that natural selection is a "dangerous" idea that will completely change society once people really understand it'
Doesn't mean he's wrong. Doesn't mean you are either.
What I never can understand is 'supernatural'? If you can even begin to understand it by definition it has to be natural. We have no faculty for perceiving anything else.#: Posted by on 10/21 at 09:04 AM -
"Well, descent with modification is a feature of many systems, but it isn't clear if selection has much if any role to play in most non-biological systems..."
Perhaps not. I was thinking of scrapping bad prototypes, for example.
"... for example the English language didn't get to have so many speakers ..." I was unclear; I was thinking of words and expressions themselves.
"But really, this sort of analogy isn't what I was referring to -- I was more referring to how in D & D's case natural selection is almost a type of private religion with Darwin being the messiah."
It looks like you mean a glorified principle, not a universal one as I thought first. Thanks for clarifying!#: Posted by on 10/21 at 10:12 AM -
"Thats their problem if they think atheists are evil, one should not bow to stupidity."
I wish it were only their problem. But it isn't. It's the scientific community's problem as well. The majority of people in the Western world believe in some sort of deity. You and I don't, but we hardly hold a mainstream opinion. The IDiots want to win followers by forcing people to choose between religion and evolution, knowing perfectly well that most people when forced will side with religion if they have to make a choice. So, why help them with their game? People like Kenn Miller screw up their plans because it destroys their false "evolution == atheism" equation. Dawkins and Dennett certainly have a right to hold any opinions they want, but they should ask themselves if it is really productive to insert them in the midst of popular works on science.#: Posted by Jonathan Badger on 10/21 at 10:19 AM -
'The majority of people in the Western world believe in some sort of deity. You and I don't, but we hardly hold a mainstream opinion. '
Umm, Actually i do. But I don't think atheists are evil, quite the contrary. And outside of the 'belief' itself I'm not sure what qualifies as a mainstream religious opinion except perhaps a general spirituality.
'Dawkins and Dennett certainly have a right to hold any opinions they want, but they should ask themselves if it is really productive to insert them in the midst of popular works on science.'
This is, I think, where we differ. I prefer the honest man. Period. I like both D & D because they appear very honest. Sometimes honesty hurts. But it also moves the conversation. Miller I like also but I find him muddled on alot of issues, as he has to be to maintain his irrational beliefs. On this issue I think D & D simply make more sense.
But it's only my humble opinion.#: Posted by on 10/21 at 10:32 AM -
NoahPoah, when you can provide evidence that can't be attributed to indoctrination, psychosis or simply the common optical other illusions 'everyone' experiences, then you can talk about spiritual explainations having value. The basic problem with such explainations though is that there are thousands of them in the most general sense of written down 'hypothesis' about how the supernatural effects the world and in what way, not to mention the fact that even if you took 500 people who had no experience with such concepts at all (unlikely as that may be), had them all read the same book on the subject, then threw them all into the same place where you 'expect' some supernatural events to happen (one where people claim to have experienced such already), you would get 200 of them actually experiencing anything, and unless you do something flat out stupid, like letting them talk to each other about what they thought they experienced, before you ask them questions, you will get 200 completely different descriptions. You can't even form a usable hypothesis from such data, never mind prove they didn't all stub their toe on the same rock and saw lights as a result of the pain.
That is why we have a 'major' problem with people trying to claim you can find explainations for *anything* in the a non-material sense. No two unconnected people, who haven't had the oppertunity to talk to each other, read about the supposed phenomena they are going to supposedly experience or without the same religious background (or some other foundational set of assumptions about 'what' the supernatural is, looks like or acts), can be expected to describe the same experience, or even experience it at all, unless you tell them they are going to in the first place. Such truely random, inspecific and completely unreproducible thing has **no** explainatory power outside the assumptions you walk through the door with in the first place. No Christian is going to walk into a house and see Pan, no Budhist is going to see the virgin mary in a sandwitch (or at least recognize it as such, no guy who spent his life living in the middle of the rain forest is going to see the Shroud of Turin in a door. They may however interpret all of these according to their own personal set of presuppositions. The difference between a materialist, as you define it, and a believer, is that a materialist recognizes that the mind can, does and will always play trick on you, so short of *repeatable* results that *everyone* can agree on, instead of 500 different interpretations of the same thing, is 99.9% likely to be the mind playing tricks, not some lame assed proof of the Great Green Arkleseizure or what ever you where taught over your entirely lifetime to percieve anything you can't adiquately describe or explain as being.
Simple fact is, any explainatory power the supernatural has to you is useful ***only*** to you. Forgive me if I don't jump for joy at the idea that you had some personal experience you can't, or more likely, never tried to explain, when it tells me jack about anything I have ever experienced. -
What I never can understand is 'supernatural'? If you can even begin to understand it by definition it has to be natural. We have no faculty for perceiving anything else.
That you. That is the point I tried to make. However, I tend to get so frustrated by people that can't see the basic contradition, or who actually think, but can't prove by any more valid grounds than believing in the term itself, that we do have such a faculty, that I tend to get rather confrontational about it. - Sigh. Meant 'Thank you', there. :( I really need to re-read before hitting Submit. :p
-
From the bottom of page 82 of wednesday's trial transcript, there's a really good punchline delivered by Mr. Muise.
Muise: Okay. But Scientists, as they do with many subject on which there's disagreement, may continue to be making arguments and writing papers and submitting them to peer review journals and doing experiments to see if they can come up with a consensus answer on the subject?
Behe: Sure. And they may write books to try to come up with the answer as well.
Muise: That's how you get the royalties, right?
Behe: (No response)
Ouch. Maybe you could say that Behe merely wanted to have his ideas get out, there might be other venues for that. But they would not have been so profitable... We should figure out how to get religious fundamentalists to financially back the books that real scientists write!#: Posted by on 10/22 at 01:55 AM -
Whoops,
The lawyer was Mr. Rothschild, NOT Muise.
Bad, Bad Karl.#: Posted by on 10/22 at 01:57 AM