PZ Myers. 2005 Dec 19. Easterbrook on Dawkins. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/easterbrook_on_dawkins/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 04.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Monday, December 19, 2005
Easterbrook on Dawkins
Gregg Easterbrook is a scientific lightweight with a long, long history of goofy ideas; an apologist for religion and Intelligent Design creationism, and a shill for the Discovery Institute. He apparently has written well-regarded columns on football, but when it comes to science, his credibility is on the negative side of the number line. One of the characteristics of the incompetent, though, is that they do not recognize their own failings, so once again Easterbrook sallies forth, this time against Richard Dawkins. It's the nut against the nutcracker; the outcome is foreordained.
My personal position on Dawkins is somewhat complicated. I think he is definitely one of the best writers on our side of the argument; I think he is largely in the right on much of the science; I also think he is regrettably neglectful of development's role in evolution, which biases his thinking in ways that don't align with my biases; and I think he is dead-on target in his criticisms of religion's effect on society. I'm a bit different than many, who seem to think his description of science is exactly right and wish he'd shut up about religion: I think his science lacks some significant nuances, and want him to continue to speak out with vigor and clarity on the affliction of fundamentalism.
Easterbrook, of course, is outraged at the arrogance of the damned atheist.
Don't take this personally, but if you are an American adult there is a one in two chance that Richard Dawkins, a renowned professor of science at Oxford, thinks you are "ignorant, stupid or insane," unless you are "wicked." These are the adjectives Dawkins chooses to describe the roughly 100 million Americans adults who, if public opinion polls are right, believe Homo sapiens was created directly by God, rather than gradually by evolution. Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Not much to choose from there!
Mr Easterbrook is a bit behind the times. Dawkins wrote that in a book review in 1989—in the New York Times, April 9, 1989—and it has been hashed over for years. The important point, of course, is that contrary to Easterbrook's claim that there isn't much to choose from, that list actually covers the whole wide range of possibilities. Dawkins himself goes on to explain that the stupid, insane or wicked are the minority possibilities, but let's be honest and face the facts: if you are a creationist, you are almost certainly deeply ignorant of biology. Easterbrook seems to have actually gotten the quote from Dawkins' defense of the statement, but doesn't seem to have comprehended any of the surrounding words.
The gist of Easterbrook's complaint is that Dawkins is "arrogant", which seems to mean that he forcefully and plainly states the facts and evidence and logic of his case, and that those facts don't leave much wiggle room for the evolution deniers.
Which brings us to the first problem with Dawkins's positions: he is arrogant. It's one thing to say that the other side is wrong—maybe there's no divine, believers may turn out wrong—and quite another to denounce the other side as ignorant, stupid, insane and so worthless its arguments should not even be heard. (Sorry, I left out wicked.) Saying the other side's argument should not be heard is at best plugging your fingers into your ears, at worst the instinct to suppress free thought; it's amazing to hear a tenured Oxford don essentially calling for intellectual restrictions.
Two points. 1) When all the facts are on your side, when the opposition relies on hiding, misrepresenting, or outright lying about the evidence, it is intellectual dishonesty to say anything less than that the they are wrong. No "maybes", no fuzzy excuses, no bending over backward to give charitable interpretations of lunacy—the right thing to do is to squash it down hard. Dawkins is extremely good at that, and I applaud him for it. The soapy concessions and overly generous apologetics for creationism that we get in the media are exactly the reason it thrives, not because scientists are too in-your-face for our faint-hearted public. The American public avidly, even joyously revels in the uncompromising (and entirely false) bravado of our media's Bill O'Reillys and Ann Coulters…and the intelligent and well-spoken words of Richard Dawkins send them into self-righteous fury? Get real.
2) Easterbrook claims that Dawkins thinks the other side should not even be heard. This is false. All he provides to support that claim is that Dawkins did try to block the establishment of an endowed chair of theology at Cambridge. Good for him, I'd put up the same fight…and not because the public should not hear about it, but because the public already hears far too much about religion, and it's not the place for an institution dedicated to higher learning to also spread the gospel of religious dogma. Given that Easterbrook has actually read Dawkins' writing on the 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 of hand when he tries to suggest that anyone who doubts any aspect of evolutionary thought, including the chance creation of life, is the sort of extremist who thinks all the different Galapagos finches came fully formed directly from the Garden of Eden. You can accept the basic notion of evolution and still have real questions about why the gift of life exists—witness Fred Hoyle, a highly accomplished modern scientist who did just that.
Speaking of sleight of hand…Dawkins is speaking specifically of creationists who deny the well-established evidence, not well-informed peers who argue about legitimate issues within biology. There are open questions and there is doubt and debate within those areas; Easterbrooks claim that his target is "anyone who doubts any aspect of evolutionary thought" is an amazing fib.
(It's also weird that he trots out Hoyle as an example, who may have been a great astronomer, but on the subject of evolution, he was 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 of any aspect of evolutionary thought?
So to the book's provocation, the statement that nearly half the people in the United States don't believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
While Easterbrook is doing his rabble-rousing best to rile up his readers into hating that arrogant bastard Dawkins, he also doesn't bother to consider this revealing passage from the article he cites.
Not only is ignorance no crime, it is also, fortunately, remediable. In the same Times review, I went on to recount my experiences of going on radio phone-in talk shows around the United States. Opinion polls had led me to expect hostile cross-examination from creationist zealots. I encountered little of that kind. I got creationist opinions in plenty, but these were founded on honest ignorance, as was freely confessed. 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 never heard that before! Wow!" These people were not stupid (or insane, or wicked). They didn't believe in evolution, but this was because nobody had ever told them what evolution is. And because plenty of people had told them (wrongly, according to educated theologians) that evolution is against their cherished religion.
This is exactly right. We're all ignorant to different degrees about different things. Dawkins tends to be more right than wrong on the subject of evolution, but is probably more wrong than right on the subject of automobile repair. It's a strange attitude that some people have that pointing out their ignorance of certain subjects is a terrible insult, as if everyone is expected to be omniscient and infallible polymaths.
It is inappropriate to use the adjective "arrogant" for someone who is expressing his well-informed and readily supported opinion. I'd reserve "arrogant" for those criminal theologians who willfully claim expertise in biology, never having studied the subject in their lives, and use that false validation to fill their congregation's heads with lies.
Easterbrook makes another argument I've heard so often…that atheists who express their ideas strongly are bad for popularizing evolution. This is most frequently stated by creationist sympathizers and apologists for religion, and it's surprising that so many people fall for it. When creationists say, "He's oppressing me! That mean ol' Dawkins is so bad for your cause, why don't you get more good friendly Christians to speak for you?", I'm thinking we need to clone the man.
Dawkins complains in the article that so many people believe things about science that are off the wall—for example, that early humans co-existed with dinosaurs—because their science educations are poor. He'll get no argument from me on that. But I suspect one reason so many Americans have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory is that overbearing figures such as Dawkins talk down to them and act contemptuous of their religious beliefs. So people respond—perhaps quite rationally—by screening out the views of scientists whose motives they distrust. In this regard, it is telling that polls show Americans overwhelmingly accept many findings of modern research, such as the theories of relativity and of cosmic expansion. The scientists who favor these ideas generally aren't in the habit of mocking peoples' faiths, and so they are believed by the general public. If Dawkins's professional goal is "public understanding of science," he is a flop, seemingly trying his best to make worse what he is supposed to fix.
Didn't I already dispense with the phony claim that people will be turned off by vocal, strongly-principled advocates? Yes, I did. We can ignore that part of Easterbrook's bloviating.
What about the idea that people will be turned off by contempt for their religious beliefs? There's a germ of truth to that, but at the same time, let this atheist let you in on a little secret, not well appreciated by the public: they'll turn on anyone who doesn't believe in any gods, contemptuously or not. Try it. Tell someone that you don't believe Jesus was the son of God, even in the most non-judgmental, even tone of voice, and a majority will treat you as either a pariah or a potential convert. That's reality. What Easterbrook is asking for is that atheists be shooed back into the closet, that we should pander to his bigotry.
It's not going to happen. About half of all scientists are atheists or agnostics (and even that is an underestimate; most of the remaining, while believing in a god, are typically not very dogmatic about it and are best described as deists and unitarians and nominal members of other churches). While we may be an insignificant minority in most of public life, in the sciences we are, if not overwhelmingly dominant, a very substantial component of the profession. We should not try to sugarcoat that fact, and I think it is actually an obligation for freethinking scientists to make their ideas public. There's a simple message we have to get across to the Easterbrooks of this country:
Get used to it.
We are respectable supporters of evidence-based science. That we carry that philosophy over into our personal beliefs is entirely reasonable and righteous, and far more justifiable than any attempt to insert faith and superstition into our profession. Even those many people of faith who work in the sciences will tell you exactly the same thing: religion does not belong in the lab. Even honest, sincerely held faith has no place in science, and that appallingly bad huckster theology of the televangelists and faith healers and creationists and gantryesque frauds? Get thee behind me. If Easterbrook really wants to correct the arrogance and dishonesty endemic to the creation-evolution wars, he has picked the wrong target. I could list a dozen names for him, all who declare their authority derives from God, who are far more influential and politically active than Richard Dawkins, and all of whom have a platform based entirely on outright ignorance, stupidity, insanity, or wickedness…and always, arrogance.
Creationism • Godlessness • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
Easterbrook - Yuk! Not again!
On Dawkins, I wish I could turn a phrase as nicely as you do: "I'm a bit different than many, who seem to think his description of science is exactly right and wish he'd shut up about religion: I think his science lacks some significant nuances, and want him to continue to speak out with vigor and clarity on the affliction of fundamentalism." -
Nice written PZ!
#: Posted by on 12/19 at 01:33 PM
-
PZ
I could list a dozen names for him, 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 to shut up the fundie ignoramuses who seize on Dawkins as if he's the Ayatollah of Atheist Scientists. Hardly anybody knows who Richard Dawkins is and why should any non-scientist know or care who he is? He wields no power and has no authority over scientists. Journalists do not run to Dawkins every time they need a scientists opinion on the subject of evolutionary biology. Contrast Dawkins with Focus on the Family and the Discovery Institute and other religious organizations.
Fyi, for a good time, watch the self-righteous conservative twits at this blog get their undies in a bundle when someone dares take the approach that PZ advocates when it comes to addressing the lying scumbags at the Discovery Insitute.
http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/evolutioncreationism/002409.html
Warning: DaveScot shows up at the end of the comments so you may want to wear your protective goggles.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 01:33 PM -
Err...that should have been: "Nicely written, PZ!"
#: Posted by on 12/19 at 01:34 PM
-
His football column isn't even very good. It's repetitive, pedestrian, and humorless. Also, his ideas about what it takes to win a football game are maddeningly dogmatic.
In other words, exactly what you'd expect from an ID-supporting loon.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 01:36 PM -
"On Dawkins, I wish I could turn a phrase as nicely as you do"
How do you turn a phrase?#: Posted by on 12/19 at 01:43 PM -
"Which brings us to the first problem with Dawkins's positions: he is arrogant. It's one thing to say that the other side is wrong—maybe there's no divine, believers may turn out wrong—and quite another to denounce the other side as ignorant, stupid, insane and so worthless its arguments should not even be heard."
So, calling someone ignorant when they show ignorance is unacceptably arrogant. But inferring that everyone who doesn't follow your particular religious dogma will burn in hell for eternity is the height of humility. Interesting.
My word is "dysgenic". Clearly referring to Mr. Easterbrook.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 01:46 PM -
Taking Easterbrook's article and emphasizing one word:
You can accept the basic notion of evolution and still have real questions about why the gift of life exists—witness Fred Hoyle, a highly accomplished modern scientist who did just that.
Nothing strange about that at all. Is there anyone of significant intelligence, scientifically inclined or not, who hasn't asked "why does life exist"? Different people have come up with different ideas, some of which are more testable than others, but it's silly to argue that the question is inappropriate or seldom asked by scientists.
The context of this quote seems strange and more than a little sad: presupposing a supernatural answer to "why does life exist".#: Posted by on 12/19 at 02:12 PM -
Easterbrook is loopy as a fruitbat? What did fruitbats ever do to you to merit the comparison? What if someone said that Easterbrook was loopy as a squid?
#: Posted by Jonathan Badger on 12/19 at 02:40 PM
-
Ummm, Easterbrook also said "These things said, let�s focus for a moment on areas where Dawkins has strong points. The basic idea of evolution is, today, about as well established as the basic idea that the moon circles the Earth. Even Pope John Paul II has acknowledged that natural selection is �more than just a theory.� There is a rich, close to overwhelming body of evidence that living things evolve in response to changes in their environments and to other forces: the extreme creationists who deny any kind of evolution at all really are flat-Earth types, and it is hard to find anything nice to say about their positions. Dawkins is right endlessly to call evolution an established fact."
Based on this and on his occasional digressions into particle physics during his football columns, I'd say that he understands that science is different from religion.
I think that he was attempting to say something along the lines of "if you write things like this about religious people, those of 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 making subtle points on hot-button issues, which is why he usually sticks to football. His column was actually dropped from ESPN because of a hastily made and badly thought out blog entry in which he similarly attempted to enter the 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 to football, and for the poster who mentioned his "dogmatic" rules of football, apparently you missed the joke completely.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 02:47 PM -
"But I suspect one reason so many Americans have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory is that overbearing figures such as Dawkins talk down to them and act contemptuous of their religious beliefs. So people respond—PERHAPS QUITE RATIONALLY [emphasis mine]—by screening out the views of scientists whose motives they distrust."
Anyone else have a problem with that? Because to me it sounds like, "I don't like the way you're saying it, so I'm going to ignore it." Quite understandable, perhaps...but certainly not rational.
yorktank: Also, his ideas about what it takes to win a football game are MADDENingly dogmatic.
Was that coffin-corner pun intended?
#: Posted by on 12/19 at 02:55 PM -
One must also keep in mind that Dawkins is British, and in Britain, they don't mince words as much as they do here in the USA. An old man, is "old", not elderly. Someone who has lost the use of their legs is "crippled" not "differently abled". So we must keep in mind that the British are not into the American habit of constantly changing terminology to avoid hurting peoples' feelings (while simultaneously avoiding the reall problem, I might add).
Secondly, the USA is unique in the industrialized world in the fact that evolution is even in dispute. It must be maddening to hear all of the nonsense that US creationists spew. No wonder Dawkins has little patience for them.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 02:55 PM -
I too greatly enjoy Easterbrook's football column, pace yorktank, and have even had a couple of haikus posted in it. But he does have the habit of making it difficult to read him sympathetically on other issues.
#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:05 PM
-
"Secondly, the USA is unique in the industrialized world in the fact that evolution is even in dispute."
And yet, if you look at the Yahoo Science page, LiveScience.com lists the creationism/evolution "debate" as the first of its top ten "scientific" events of the year. Not just in the US, but first in science, period.
I realise that the MSM have to make a living, but are they really such whores to sensationalism as this?#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:12 PM -
Hyperion translates Easterbrook
"if you write things like this about religious people, those of us who readily accept scientific discoveries and scientific theories but who are also privately religious feel unwelcome."
I think that's probably accurate. You know what my response is to Easterbrook?
Boo hoo hoo hoo!!!! Since when do religions care about "welcoming" people? The bottom line with Christianity is that if you don't believe what's in the Book, you're going to hell -- see ya! Is that "welcoming"? It sounds an awful like an ultimatum to me.
Scientists have all kinds of opinions about all kinds of subjects. I think the Back Street Boys were a crappy band. OMIGOD -- now all those folks who love the Back Street Boys aren't going to accept my view on the age of the earth!!!!
Why do Christians demand that scientists kiss their rings and tell them how great and wonderful and insightful their collection of myths is? It's pathetic and childish.
Maybe it's a Southern US thing.
Is that Steve Verdon dimwit a proud Texan? He likes to play Easterbrook's card.
http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/evolutioncreationism/002409.html#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:19 PM -
And yet, if you look at the Yahoo Science page, LiveScience.com lists the creationism/evolution "debate" as the first of its top ten "scientific" events of the year. Not just in the US, but first in science, period.
Ha! Typical Amerocentricism.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:23 PM -
Jon
"I realise that the MSM have to make a living, but are they really such whores to sensationalism as this?"
I know it's a rhetorical question, Jon, but the answer is (sadly): they are even worse than that.
That is why I'm very curious as to how the media are going to spin the Dover case. Is it going to be the end of "intelligent design" and the credibility of the Discovery Institute?
Or is it going to be the beginning of "fundamental disagreements about the role of the judiciary in settling philosophical disputes about the nature of science"?
I hope not the latter but it's in the MSM's interest to keep the controvery brewing, isn't it?
Pathetic fxcktards.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:24 PM -
"All he provides to support that claim is that Dawkins did try to block the establishment of an endowed chair of theology at Cambridge. Good for him, I'd put up the same fight…and not because the public should not hear about it, but because the public already hears far too much about religion, and it's not the place for an institution dedicated to higher learning to also spread the gospel of religious dogma."
I'd disagree with you on this point because, unlike the United States, Great Britain has a state religion (the Church of England). In fact, their head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, is also the head of the Church of England. If Dawkins doesn't like having a state religion, maybe he should work on getting a First Amendment-type clause added to their constitution.
Until then, though, their government has a right to teach their state's religion, silly as that seems to us.
Oh, and Easterbrook is a wanker. Always has been.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:29 PM -
As a real, live British (my feeding time is 5.30, don'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 don't mince words as much as they do here in the USA. An old man, is "old", not elderly. Someone who has lost the use of their legs is "crippled" not "differently abled". So we must keep in mind that the British are not into the American habit of constantly changing terminology to avoid hurting peoples' feelings (while simultaneously avoiding the reall problem, I might add).
...
Um, I think I get what you are trying to say, although both your examples are off: "elderly" would be used over "old" in Britain, and the generally used term would be "disabled" - "crippled" would be considered offensive.
Secondly, the USA is unique in the industrialized world in the fact that evolution is even in dispute. It must be maddening to hear all of the nonsense that US creationists spew. No wonder Dawkins has little patience for them.
Oh no, its hilarious. Its when creationism turns up in Britain (which it wouldn't without the wellspring in the US) which is maddening.
There's actually a lot that could be discussed about arrogance and Dawkins' writing style, but I doubt this is the best arena in which to go into it.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:36 PM -
Hyperion,
I'm not sure I've missed any joke (feel free to clue me in if you're certain I have), but stop me before I...nevermind. It's off topic anyway.
Incorygible,
I'm afraid the pun was quite unintentional. Alas, as Hyperion noted, I don't get the joke well enough to make such clever puns.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:39 PM -
Awesome article here about Georgia Law Proessor L. Lynn Hogue, a conservative who doesn't believe in kissing the asses of ignorant Christians when it comes to creationist garbage.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1134554710835
"I'm sympathetic with their cause," said Hogue, who also has pushed for gay marriage bans, fought Atlanta's domestic partnership ordinance and battled the University of Georgia's affirmative action program.
"From my perspective as a conservative, I think science education is important," he added. "And I'm not religiously sympathetic to anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics."
Hogue is equally candid on his view of intelligent design, which suggests that organisms developed over time in accordance with the design of an intelligent agent. He called the theory "bullshit."
Right on!
I can hear Steve Verdon and his whimpering ilk sniffing back crocodile tears as those huge crowds of Christians about to convert to evolutionism are driven away by Hogue's "unpleasant tone." As if.
There's also this at the end from one of the lunatics:
"The issue is not whether the Sticker has educational merit, whether it is well-written, or whether one can imagine persons offended by its meaning. The issue is whether the Sticker endorses religion. Both on its face, and in its specific content, this Sticker does not," wrote Gunn, who did not return a call for comment.
If the sticker has no educational merit (cuz it's factually incorrect), is not well-written (it isn't well-written), and is offensive to some people (it is), then what is the point of the sticker Ms. Gunn?
That's what we're all curious about. If the sticker is wrong to the extent it's incomprehensible and it offends people, then why is it there? And if it doesn't endorse religion, then why are religious people so desperate to have it put in evolutionary biology textbooks?#: Posted by on 12/19 at 03:45 PM -
Dawkins may be a bit tactless in his phrasing, but his statement about ignorance is almost certainly correct. To be honest, I am relatively ignorant about many aspects of biology, and I have a Ph.D. in physics. I'm not completely ignorant, mind you, just relatively so. The simple fact of the matter is that for fields with a great deal of technical history, which includes evolutionary biology, the majority of people are ignorant about them to one extent or another. This is not inherently a problem, as we cannot all be experts about everything (nor even all above average a la Lake Wobegon). It should tell us that if we are not trained in something, we might consider deferring to those who are, at least until we are in a position to make an informed criticism of that person's views (as opposed to a ad hominem one). Questions are always fine, of course, as they can educate, but personal jabs really serve no purpose in a debate. In practice, many people can't seem to handle the idea that other people are better informed than they, and make silly statements about "ivory towers" and respond to scientific arguments with personal counterattacks.
Or to paraphrase Tom Lehrer, "If you can't communicate [intelligently], the least you can do is to shut up!"#: Posted by jfaberuiuc on 12/19 at 03:54 PM -
I get the feeling that Easterbrook is really saying something like, "If you have the facts on your side, the least you can do is act like you don't."
But when was this article published? The references to the Kansas SBoE makes me think it was before the latest go-round in that state.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 04:18 PM -
"I'd disagree with you on this point because, unlike the United States, Great Britain has a state religion (the Church of England)...If Dawkins doesn't like having a state religion, maybe he should work on getting a First Amendment-type clause added to their constitution. Until then, though, their government has a right to teach their state's religion, silly as that seems to us."
But what's that got to do with an endowed chair of theology (or anything else) at Cambridge? Endowed chairs aren't a government thing, are they? And teaching theology is by no means the same thing as teaching the state's religion, surely.#: Posted by Ophelia Benson on 12/19 at 04:27 PM -
Tigerbear - thanks for the correction. I guess what I mean, is that here in the USA - we went from crippled - to handicapped - to disabled - to differently abled. And while most people with physical impairments don't like the term crippled, they feel that going all the way to "differently abled" is just patronizing.
Meanwhile, you still can't get adequate services no matter what the current term is.
Like there was a black comedian who was talking about the recent change to "African-American". She went in for a home loan and the loan officer said "you were in here last week, we refused your loan". The comedian said "oh, no, that was when I was black. I'm African-American now."#: Posted by on 12/19 at 04:57 PM -
unlike the United States, Great Britain has a state religion (the Church of England). In fact, their head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, is also the head of the Church of England. If Dawkins doesn't like having a state religion, maybe he should work on getting a First Amendment-type clause added to their constitution."
Point 1. We don't have a constitution, so it can't be amended. This is a great shame, since Tony Blair has a free hand to erode rights that we have, but aren't written down in a constitution. We have to rely on the Council of Europe to protect us from him.
Point 2. The Church of England is great. It has to reflect the majority opinion. Since 48% of Britons don't believe in god (even though, paradoxically, 74% say they are Christian, although only 4% attend church regularly), they have a problem. They have to go with the flow. That means the loonies are on the fringe and the church follows the opinions of the great masses, hoping to stay relevant. End result - no powerful loonies.
I hate the fact that the C of E has such political influence (several seats in the Upper House) but I'm glad they are there rather than Pat Robertson.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 04:59 PM -
Perhaps "formerly well-regarded" would be a more apt description of Easterbrook's football column. Both this season and last, I manage to read to the point where he issues his first clever political or social observation, then I write "Game Over" in my notebook.
Nice work as always, PZ.#: Posted by on 12/19 at 05:02 PM -
Easterbrook's science commentary has always gotten under my skin, perhaps in part because there is often an inkling of a worthy topic nestled among the poop nuggets. Where he could discuss the very real issue of allocation of funding and how to prioritize basic research and applications thereof, he instead rants about how silly a concept dark matter is, without even a hint of understanding of why something like dark matter is part of physical theory at all.
When I first started reading his football column, I really liked it. He seemed to buck some of the trendy 'analyses' that typical football commentators repeat ad nauseam, plus he would throw in entertaining digressions about pop culture, politics, whatever else was on his mind. He seemed smarter than the average football writer. After reading it for a couple of years, though, it is clear that he is running on fumes now. Each week's column is really, really long, and it consists of far too much 'auto-text' repetitions of the same damn thing he said the previous week. For a while, I enjoyed reading the weekly discussion thread/Easterbrook trashing about Tuesday Morning Quarterback on footballoutsiders.com, but even that's not very entertaining anymore (though the rest of footballoutsiders is, if you like the football).#: Posted by on 12/19 at 06:35 PM -
We don't have a constitution, so it can't be amended. This is a great shame, since Tony Blair has a free hand to erode rights that we have, but aren't written down in a constitution.
In America, however, our President has a free hand to erode rights that we have that are written down in a constitution.
Just sayin'.
(Actually, the rights written down in the Magna Carta, but who's counting, right?)#: Posted by on 12/19 at 10:29 PM -
I wonder about Easterbrook's claim that "polls show Americans overwhelmingly accept many findings of modern research, such as the theories of relativity and of cosmic expansion". The Big Bang gets a fair old kicking in most of the creationist stuff I've read over the years. And am I being too negative if I said that the vast majority of people would know next to nothing about relativity or quantum mechanics?
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 12:40 AM
-
And while most people with physical impairments don't like the term crippled, they feel that going all the way to "differently abled" is just patronizing.
Meanwhile, you still can't get adequate services no matter what the current term is.
Exactly, Dave. Much as I disagree with some of Steven Pinker's pronouncements, his concept of the "euphemism treadmill" is right on. As long as a group is discriminated against, whatever they are called becomes a denigration (notice the "nigra" in "denigration"), and political correctness, which is too often merely nominally "correct", demands a new, unblackened, name.
For years, I did attendant work for several handicapped people in Berkeley. They all referred to themselves as "crips", and could not have cared less what "abies" (the "able bodied") called them, as long as they were considered equal humans. The (very enjoyable) work we attendants did enabled them to live at home instead of in a hospital at taxpayer's expense, thus saving the State lots of money. Was the State thankful? Uh, no. Our handicapped friends had to engage in all kinds of legal and extra-legal chicanery to even scrape up enough to pay us minimum wage.
This was twenty years ago. From what I've heard, things are worse now.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 01:53 AM -
Another Englishman piping up here. Creationism in various forms has been hanging around in Britain for a while. I first encountered it in the early '80s via a friend who was a devoutly Christian physics teacher. As an A-Level geology student (as I was in those days) I could pick holes in many of the tracts even then.
However, belief in a scientific proof of God, a highly wishful form of thinking, simmers away. When expressed openly in Britain, it tends to be laughed down. Tony Blair made the mistake of sounding vaguely sympathetic towards ID a couple of years back and, sensitive populist that he is, swiftly backed away from something so plainly 'fruit loop'.
So it IS present over here, but you will have to turn over the stones to find it. And when revealed it scurries from the light. I do worry whether that makes us British complacent to the threat. On the other hand, we are a largely irreligious lot (A.N.Wilson in 'God's Funeral' points out that from the 19th Century onward religion has traditionally been a middle-class disease in this country; the working classes have had little time for it) and it is difficult to imagine creationism gaining any significant traction over here.
Still, the threat must be met whenever it rears its ugly head and stomped on mercilessly.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 03:30 AM -
Hinschelwood - right; the majority here are culturally Christian but functionally atheist. E.g. we'll spontaneously wish you a merry Christmas (none of that "Holidays" business) but won't feel any need to go anywhere near a church during the season.
Re Blair and ID, I think he briefly went for the "teach all sides" crap because he thought it would sound inclusive and anti-"elitist", not because he believes evolution is wrong.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 04:21 AM -
So, British law and religion.
Hinschelwood:
Point 1. We don't have a constitution,
To be somewhat pedantic; we do, though it's uncodified and a lot of it is unwritten - our law relies extremely heavily upon tradition and convention, and is based predimonately upon ordinary court findings. The idea of inalienable rights (like constitutional amendments or the Bill of Rights) doesn't exist though, and any law is as easy to overturn as any other.
The courts still have some limited powers as a bulwark against the Commons, for instance they struck down or heavily caveated some of the most insane pieces of supposedly antiterrorist legislation. Their powers been rather weakened in recent years though, for good or ill.
Mnemosyne:
Until then, though, their government has a right to teach their state's religion,
Well - mainstream religious education, not just Anglican, is counted as charitable work and may be funded by the government, though in practice it's biased pretty much the way you'd expect it to be. This includes religious state schools or partially state-funded schools (most of which are Anglican, but there are other Christian denominations, and a handful of Muslim, Jewish and Sikh schools.) I'm a bit shakier on this but I believe 'moral' teaching and religious instruction are mandatory for all of our primary schools (roughly 6-11 year olds.)
Ah Britain, why are you so terribly daft.
-The Rev. Schmitt.#: Posted by The Rev. Schmitt. on 12/20 at 07:15 AM -
...unlike the United States, Great Britain has a state religion (the Church of England). In fact, their head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, is also the head of the Church of England. If Dawkins doesn't like having a state religion, maybe he should work on getting a First Amendment-type clause added to their constitution.
Until then, though, their government has a right to teach their state's religion, silly as that seems to us.
Pedant's point: Great Britain doesn't have a state religion. The C of E is the state religion only in England; Scotland has its own Church; the church was disestablished in Wales and Northern Ireland decades ago. It was the case for a long time - still is very much so in Northern Ireland - that religiosity was considerably stronger in the two latter parts of Britain than in the former. Some might not consider that entirely coincidental.
And believe me, if you'd ever spent time in any religious ed. classes in English schools you'd know how silly it seems to us too. Still, it was always useful for catching up on homework.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 07:35 AM -
I see that the good reverend has beaten me to the punch in correcting the common misapprehension that the UK 'has no constitution'. (What it lacks is a justiciable constitution, i.e., one under which a court can declare null acts of parliament that are constitutionally repugnant.)
Sharon and Hinschelwood are quite right. If you want to protect secular society from clerical interference, it's less effective to persecute parsons than to put them on the state payroll.#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 12/20 at 08:48 AM -
ziltch - thanks for your comments.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:10 PM
-
OK, "no constitution" was a bit of an exaggeration. I said that as a quick answer to somebody who suggested we get a First Amendment style change to the constitution, which is clearly not possible.
It is incredibly malleable however. Tony's mishandling of the Upper House (abolish hereditary peers - good idea, not know how to replace them - bad idea) shows that the constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.
That said, somebody pointed out that Dubya pisses all over a written constitution that Americans are rightly proud of, so maybe there's no advantage there either.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:13 PM -
Since Richard Dawkins supports evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, isn't he pretty much by definition a moron? Surely there would be many better allies for the pro-evolution side in the battle against creationist ignorance.
#: Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on 12/20 at 03:30 PM
-
Easterbrook says:
"But I suspect one reason so many Americans have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory is that overbearing figures such as Dawkins talk down to them and act contemptuous of their religious beliefs. So people respond—perhaps quite rationally—by screening out the views of scientists whose motives they distrust."
Some people might that find that an agressive athiest fulfills their need to feel persecuted an extend that experience till they think all scientists are against their most cherished beliefs. We know those people, but like you, I'm sure that they are a minority. I've had certain subjects spoiled for me because I associate them with the memory of certain obnoxious individuals. But, while there is a grain of truth in Easterbrook's claim, it directs us away from a larger truth: most people's first exposure to evolution did not come from reading Richard Dawkins, it came from our public school teachers. Is Easterbrook really claiming that most public school science teachers are overbearing figures who talk down to us and act contemptuous of our religious beliefs?#: Posted by John McKay on 12/20 at 04:44 PM