Evidently PZ smoted a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in a debate over evolution. The DI is the leading "think tank" (man, how hard was that to type!) for Intelligent Design creationism in this country, and is largely responsible for the laughing stock that Dover, Pennsylvania became.
PZ debated Brian Geoffrey Simmons, and evidently it was a true debacle. You can download an MP3 of the hour-long train wreck here, and I look forward to listening to it. It sounds like it has lots of squishy biology in it, but I’ll sit through that just to hear one of those DI liars get his brain squeezed.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:41 am
They are also responsible for the laughing stock of the two Kansas BOE attempts at stupidity. Which is what irks me, people from out of state wrote the new Kansas standards. The organized a very small minority who bushwacked us the first time. We defeated them soundly, they tried it again, we smacked them down again every election, and will continue to do so as long as they try it. What also irks me, is that Kansas is still a laughing stock even though we are a example of defeating the idiots without having a lengthy costly trial that the tax payers have to pay for as in Dover. We voted the bums out, and get little thanks for it. Kansas should be held up as a shining example of keeping the candle lit against the darkness, but it amazes me how much crap i still get about creationism, and how little people are informed about the state of things here when I mention I’m from Kansas. The first time we had a Republican Governor that not only told them they embarrassed the whole state to the world, but offered suggestions on how to keep the stupidity from happening again. Not all Republicans are blithering religious anti-science fanatics. The second time it happened, they shot themselves in the foot ’cause there is serious discussion on how to limit the power of the BOE. (Which is sometimes referred to as the fourth branch of government here in Kansas).
February 1st, 2008 at 7:47 am
Is there really any point in debating ID? It’s not science, it’s not rational, and neither are any of it’s proponents.
IDer: “You Evulushinists are all doody heads”
Biologist sinking to the level of debating IDer: “I know you are but what am I?”
ID isn’t even worthy of being acknowledged by the scientific community and all it’s supporters are far beneath contempt IMNSHO.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:53 am
RayCeeYa,
I’d say it’s worth it, if only for the listeners, who might not know much science (particularly evolutionary biology), and might not have made up their minds yet. If someone like PZ is able to reach people and make them think ‘Maybe I need to look into this more’ and get them to understand evolution (and why ‘evolution’ = ’science’ and ‘ID’ = ‘creationism’ = ‘not science’) even a bit more than they did, then that’s good, even if PZ’s opponent is still taking about ID.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Holy crap, this creationist guy is lying out of his posterior. LIES!
February 1st, 2008 at 7:58 am
This is a trainwreck.
I’m thinking I’ll make an anti-anti-science blog too
February 1st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Actually it’s Geoffrey Simmons. Dr. Simmons to the hosts of course. Everyone noticed how PZ Myers never got called by his title while GS never got called anything else.
I listened to it live and we all kind of live blogged it for people who couldn’t listen. It was indeed a blood bath. A couple Pharyngulites got on air in the call in section after the show. The hosts seem to not be used to preaching to the choir, so to speak, so when they were trying to trip up the second guy they had their posteriors handed to them as well. Some of those commercials were funny too. Kaopectate was appropriate and the one featuring the obviously African-American lady talking about how she over came her ecstasy addiction through Jesus with the help of some group just fed the stereotype of fundies being clueless and intolerant.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am
@ Rift
You’re correct. Citizens of Kansas deserve accolades for standing up to a crew of bullies from the Discovery Institute, and it isn’t fair to criticize people there simply because the DI targeted your BOE.
Do you have a blog? I’d love to read about your personal experiences during all that hoo-ha.
I think, also, you’ve highlighted something that doesn’t get discussed when these issues arise. A well-funded, small group of people descend on an out of town school board, backed by a huge budget, and try to force their world view on people (without a referendum, a vote, or even a focus group). It’s pretty insidious behavior.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:30 am
Okay, just listened to it all.
That was a waste of time. I mean, I’m sorry, and I love scientists, but .. these are people who have no concept of reality. It’s just a waste of Dr. Myers’ time.
I think if they refuse to follow any scientific method or to posit any logical and sensible scientific arguments, we should stop playing in their sandbox.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:31 am
P.Z. was given a chance, but didn’t go into one of the fundamental reasons that I.D. isn’t debated in academic contexs: it is neither useful nor valid to invoke god in the explanation of evolution. Before you even begin debating I.D., you need to establish existence of god, but you can’t, becuase there is no evidence for it nor for the mechanisms by which it might affect the development of species.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:32 am
As much as I would have loved to have the DiscoTute smacked for their participation in Dover, they really did not after some initial consult. I have no doubt they were “behind the scenes” though.
From reference at Wiki: http://tinyurl.com/dl3k4
“Despite its earlier involvement, the Discovery Institute was concerned that this would be a test case and that the defendants had earlier displayed their religious motivations. This tension led to disagreements with the Thomas More Law Center and the withdrawal of three Discovery Institute fellows as defense experts prior to their depositions “
February 1st, 2008 at 8:34 am
D’oh! Not sure where the “Brian” came from. Corrected, thanks.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:37 am
I listened to the MP3 whatsis this morning. I must say, it was hard going.
I don’t know if I would say that our PZ laid the smackdown on the Disco-toot, mainly because it sounded more like PZ banging his head against a wall. As the old cliche goes.
Mr. Simmons refused to “defend” ID, would not allow himself to be called on his (OBVIOUS) ignorance regarding not only the fossil record, but the Scientific Method itself!–and he had the nerve to make his assertions without having done any more research than to read a pile of Chick tracts.)Oh, and an issue of Scientific American.
Honestly, it seems damn close to hopeless when dealing with such willful and dishonest ignorance of this magnitude.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:38 am
I just listened to the debate - I would not call it a train wreck or a smack-down at all. Dr. Simmons is just another slick-tongued speaker with an agenda who can take advantage of the ignorance of the populace and the complexity of the subject (evolutionary biology). All you have to do is have the appearance of a good debater, be able to baffle the audience with BS, and be in a venue where there isn’t enough time to get deep enough. He got all three like usual.
The radio station who aired this debate seemed to me to be a Christian-based one based on the commercial messages I heard (for instance an upcoming Focus On The Family Event). Although the host repeated over and again about the limited time available, there was plenty of interruption and rehash such that nearly nothing was talked about in depth. I do applaud the hosts for remaining for the most part unbiased.
All this led to, in my opinion, a stalemate in the eyes of most listeners. And that is a shame. PZ may be one of the most able defenders of the “truth” that I know of, and is able to hold his own against the tactics of the creationists. That cannot be said of some past performances by others in the field. But I still think Science is at a disadvantage with the current rules of the game put forth by the science deniers, and I am not sure what to do about it. To just refuse to play, which is what many scientists understandably do, is also not the answer.
I would like to see if any other bloggers have any ideas.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:44 am
I agree.
Basically, the whole debate started with Dr. PZ being placed on the defensive by the debate rules in general, and then resumed with him having to fight his way back to a neutral position.
There’s no way to win a debate like that. The best you can do is tie.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am
I really think we are seeing what happened originally with astrology and astronomy here. People, including me, really really long to know what’s coming up, what’s next. Any predictive ability must have seemed like magic, so when your local starwatcher says that the morning star will be “up” in the morning in a few days, and lo and behold there it is, he must have some magical predictive power. So people copy that, and attempt to extrapolate the idea of predicting heavenly movement to have some associative power, as if reversing the eqation will make things happen here when it’s really just science and observation that kicked it off.
Now biology is in the same digs regarding past events, and folks like the DI apparently think that if they go through the same cargo-cult motions with their own beakers and test tubes and calculators that they can make their ideas substantial. Kind of like the astrology, it is an attempt to reverse cause and effect. If we sound scientific enough, the conclusions we want will be supported by evidence.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
I don’t know if I’ll listen. From the sounds of it, PZ would’ve been better chit-chatting to a wall. The wall might’ve replied something intelligent.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:08 am
Yes, he did a good job, but to be fair, any collection of organic material could have beat this idiot.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:08 am
I mean “beaten”, not “beat”.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
OT, but in the interest of good grammar on Bad Astronomy, this former English (and science) teacher feels compelled to point out that “smote” is the past participle of “smite,” not “smoted.” Maybe you meant “smoked?”
BA is great daily reading.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:17 am
This is a waste of time for everyone. Nobody learns anything from this and its just another place for each position to pat themselves on the back for being so smart and so great.
Pointless.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am
[…] Original post by The Bad Astronomer […]
February 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
“D’oh! Not sure where the “Brian” came from. Corrected, thanks.”
That’s OK, BA… my name is Brian and it happens in reverse to me all the time. The VP I work for has never once addressed me in any email as anything other than “Brain”… for 4 years.
It happens.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
@Celtic
Except - that wasn’t what he corrected. It was “Geoffrey”, not Brian. Or Brain.
Yeah - I had to go look too.
JC
February 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am
Honest to goodness question from some religionaut I bumped into some time ago:
“Have you ever noticed how Evilution begins with ‘Evil’?”
My answer was simply “Oh”
February 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
“lots of squishy biology”
You astronomers are so squeamish.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:57 am
No… I know… just saw it as a sort of a name_goof_up commentary and decided to post it since in involved my name…
February 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
“Thank you, and God bless you both”?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
jmd, I had to rub my eyes when I saw your post. I live in Squamish, a small town in British Columbia. It’s so much like squeamish! Anyway, as I was breaking free of all this nonsense, (I was an evangelical fundie at one time), I actually recommended that an ardent creationist consider ID as an alternative to creationism. It’s the same thing! Arghhhhh…. me bad
February 1st, 2008 at 10:21 am
Gotta agree with Becca Stareyes regarding whether it’s worthwhile for scientists to continue this ‘debate’.
I fully understand why some refuse to. On one hand, debating the issue gives the cdesign proponentists credibility that we may not want them to have.
On the other hand, the cdesign folks are going for a win in the court of public opinion, since they know that they can’t win the debate based on scientific evidence. If they’re not met head-to-head in that court, they win by default. If we don’t stand up and challenge them, then their voice is the only one heard by the masses.
We’ll never convince the hard-core Troo B’lievers. They’ll never convince us. But they’re fighting for the middle ground. Can we afford to give it to them by default just because we think that their position isn’t worthy of debate?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
Don’t call this kind of thing a “debate”. You have to have TWO valid sides for there to be a debate.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
Mena posts:
[[the one featuring the obviously African-American lady talking about how she over came her ecstasy addiction through Jesus with the help of some group just fed the stereotype of fundies being clueless and intolerant.]]
I’m intrigued by your conclusion here, Mena. An African-American woman says she overcame an ecstasy addiction with the help of Jesus and some 12-step group or something of the sort — and this proves that “fundies” are clueless and intolerant? The court finds itself unable to follow the alleged reasoning. How does the conclusion follow from the premises? It seems like a pure non sequitur. She’s black/a woman/a Christian, therefore intolerant? An ex-drug addict, therefore intolerant? Is in an addiction-fighting group, therefore intolerant? I can’t make it add up.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Celtic_Evolution posts:
[[The VP I work for has never once addressed me in any email as anything other than “Brain”… for 4 years. ]]
What d’ye wanna do tonight, Brain?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
… Try to take over the WORLD!!!!!
… of course.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am
Phooey. A brain cramp. I meant to write that “smote” is the past tense of smite, not the past participle, which is “smitten.”
Dumb irregular verbs. Oh, well, TGIF.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:16 am
Reminds me of a Cectic comic:
http://cectic.com/069.html
One thing that I’ve noticed most evolution defenders failing to point out, is how topics get accepted into ANY class room or text book. Biology, math, physics, geology, or otherwise.
The (a?) problem is these people don’t understood that theories are proposed, revised, peer-reviewed, revised, etc and that there are criteria for what theories are accepted in the class room. Instead of following this process (because they’d obviously fail every step of the way), they instead try to push their crackpot pseudoscience into the classroom with legislation and the “well shouldn’t the alternatives be discussed?” crap.
Yes, the alternatives should be discussed, in acadamia, by PhDs, with great scrutiny. IF the alternatives hold water, then they may be considered.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Did…
Did Simmons actually imply that the cellular formations in my brain are specifically designed step by step?
He’s actually ignorant enough to miss the concept that they grow themselves? 100 shoot out, 2 find solid footing?
Does he think that each muscular contraction of my heart is also a designer’s choice, that the muscles themselves are incapable of contracting on their own?
My brain hurts
February 1st, 2008 at 11:51 am
Just listened to it….
Simmons didn’t like PZ calling him ignorant, and his ideas as infantile…..but i don’t know any other words that could describe it…..
I could have schooled Simmons and i am a political science major…..
PZ did great…too bad he didn’t have a challenge…..
February 1st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Was it a waste of time? Maybe. I threw away a whole hour that I could have used instead for watching part of creature feature on the Sci Fi Channel.
Come on, get real. We all “waste time” in various ways — I think a public butt-kicking of a creationist actually does have some usefulness as an example. I didn’t invest a lot of effort in it (and clearly, neither did Simmons), but just dumped a lot of common knowledge on the guy. Easy.
Oh, and the reason I agreed to do this: AM TALK RADIO. Maybe you don’t listen to it, I don’t listen to it much, and it’s not the medium where you usually get exposed to any kind of science…but that’s the point. We’ve been pretty much ignoring this medium for a long, long time, but for huge numbers of people it is their primary source for news and opinion. Next time you’re on a long drive through farm country sometime, turn the radio to the AM dial and browse. You will feel like you are listening to the moans of a great empty wasteland, but it’s not — people are listening to that stuff all the time.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Dr. Meyers,
While I appreciate your candor , and I enjoyed listening to you debate, if you check the creationist blogs and what not right now.. they think they won.
That’s the problem. You’re playing in their sandbox, by their rules, and they think you lost. I listen to AM radio a lot. That’s the end result of this. They confirmed their beliefs that scientists are arrogant and obnoxious.
The first clue should have been how they never called you by your professional title.
Jarrod
February 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Of course they think they’ve won; they’re creationists. They don’t listen to reason and they’re never wrong.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I don’t think that the ID folk so much think they won, as much as they will convince each other that they have won, if you get my meaning.
At any rate, I do not think that trying to educate the listeners is a waste of time. If he only got one person to start questioning the ID nonsense, PK won. On the other hand, does anyone really believe that someone listening to that debate that originally believed in evolution would now seriously consider ID as an alternative?
February 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Er… PZ… don’t know where I got that K…
February 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Really? Which ones? Because the general concensus on Uncommon Descent, before the thread disappeared into the usual memory hole, was that PZ thrashed Simmons comprehensively.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
No, of course no one could consider ID as an alternative, Fuller.
Because there were no alternatives offered. The debate wasn’t ID vs “Darwinism”, it was basically “Here we have PZ Myers, some guy over at University of Minnesota, he’ll be taking the side of Darwin as written in the 1871 edition of Descent of Man, versus the esteemed High Royal Doctor Simmons, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, who will be taking the side of the proper scientists.”
The deck was loaded, stacked, and dealt against PZ. He performed beyond admirably, but he should have walked out on the intellectual dishonesty alone. It just hurt me listening to the show because he’s not going to convince a single person listening to that station, and he basically was brought on to be shot at.
Of course, Dr. Myers is his own man, and it is wrong of me to state it’s a waste of time, he might have felt it was time well spent.
I just know I know people here who will refer to this as a “Leading Darwinist’s Defeat” in a sanctioned and totally educational debate.
Calvinball is fun, but if you’re going to play it, be the one making the rules.
Oogy to Boogy.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Wow, I never get sick of the anti-Creationists/anti-ID slant of this scientific website.
What is PZ’s background? And what is Geoff Simmons background?
Seems PZ is a Biologist
Seems Simmons is an M.D. that has ’studied evolutionary theory for 40 years’ - whatever that means - doesn’t sound like a strong creationist contemporary
Next time PZ wants to debate someone, perhaps he should debate another biologist such as:
Dr. Raymond Bohlin - Ph.D from Univ. of Texas - Creationist
Dr. Kenneth Cumming - Ph.D Harvard University - Creationist
(many others)
Funny how all the noise comes from knocking down fringe creationists.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
And if he’d backed out after the topic bait-and-switch, they’d have said ‘leading Darwinist chickens out of scientific debate with prominent IDer.’ Had no one given the radio hosts the time of day in the first place, the party line would have been ‘leading Darwinists all too afraid to defend their beliefs.’
February 1st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
C. Taylor:
First, the Debate was set up by a Christian radio station. They contacted a prominent Christian “Think Tank” and that “Think Tank” sent over their “prominent author.” PZ didn’t set up this debate, and, in fact, was apparently TOLD that the debate would be about one thing.. whereas the show switched topics and decided NOT to tell PZ about it.
I’m certain if the radio show wasn’t so busy colluding with the “fringe creationist” that the “Discovery Institute” sent over to take potshots at a scientist, that PZ would not have minded a more “honest” debate.
But, as it stood, he was lied to, misled, misrepresented, and still somehow managed to wipe the floor with a man who was debating absolutely no position.
This was your “expert”, and he failed. Cope. But don’t blame “our guy” for walking into a gunfight with a rigged gun, an opponent told to fire on two, and the entire debate structure set up against him .. don’t blame HIM for winning. If this “Senior Fellow” of a leading policy group in the ID/Creationist movement had ANY educational scruples or .. dare I say.. Knowledge of what he was talking about, much less what he’d written.. then maybe you’d have stood a chance.
But , what can I expect from people that fit their observations around their conclusions.. it’s just typical. You’re whining that the deck was stacked in your favor and the dealer screwed it up.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
And I would also ask why this radio station OVER inflated the credentials of Simmons and UNDERCUT those of PZ Myers.
Unless I’m reading THIS page wrong:
http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
There is NO Dr. Geoffrey Simmons listed as a “Senior Fellow”.. anywhere. Am I missing it? I see him as a Fellow in the CSC. .but.. not as a Senior Fellow.
http://www.kkms.com/blogs/JeffandLee/11566451/
February 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
First off, I believe PZ won this because he pointed to knowledge that the other debater didn’t know, stayed on his point, and generally presented a better case. My opinion is probably in the minority compared to those who listened to the program.
I know that there are people out there who believe PZ lost because (framed in the reference of the people who think PZ lost) he:
1. Got upset over the ‘minor detail’ of the name of the debate, even though the DJ said over and over it was the DJ’s fault.
2. Called his opponent names. (Remember, this is from someone else’s point of view. I know PZ didn’t call the other person names)
3. Said there WERE problems with evolution.
and the opponent won because:
1. He said he read something in Scientific American (most listeners have heard of that magazine, but PZ didn’t mention any magazine for a reference. Remember! I’m talking from their point of view here)
2. He never called PZ a name, and continually took the “high road” when PZ did so.
3. He pressed PZ when PZ didn’t ask why the evolution ‘debate’ doesn’t take place in school.
I found it an interesting listen, but would not claim it to be any ‘big win’
Yes, it is possible that it made one person wonder, and then it’s definitely a win. PZ, you have more patience than I.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
For all the talk of stacking the debate, I’m really impressed that a religious station allowed a real scientist to expose their listeners to facts. The moderators didn’t shout PZ down and, to me, they seemed to be trying to be fair and give both speakers ample time to make their points.
You’re never going to sway hard core IDers, and they’re the only ones who are going to crow about their victory on the net. We can only hope that PZ imparted some knowledge to some listeners out there.
Also, if I were an IDer I think PZ may have come off as arrogant, but it’s so hard not to just laugh in the face of the inanity Simmons was spouting. It’s a catch 22, either you take them seriously, thus giving their point credibility, or you call them out on their complete lack of facts and sound closed-minded.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Anybody who was on the fence and seriously listened to the debate must have come away more skeptical about ID. PZ did a great job, staying calm, presenting facts, and exposing intellectual dishonesty. However, I felt it was a mistake to use the rhetorical “ignorance” and “infantile”. It just gave Simmons a way to take the high ground without engaging with the content of the argument.
Still, I couldn’t have done it better…
February 1st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
C. Taylor, maybe he could debate “Dr.” Kent Hovind. He’s apparently never lost a debate. He is a real doktur by teh way. It says so in the phone book.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Many intelligent design people claim that it’s not about religion. Yet shortly after the people of Dover voted those school board members out of office, Pat Robertson warned that God would soon unleash his wrath on the town.
Well, that was 815 days ago (yes, I actually have a counter), and so far Dover has not been wiped from the face of the Earth.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
[b]Calvinball is fun, but if you’re going to play it, be the one making the rules.
Oogy to Boogy.[/b]
THAT made me laugh outloud…thank you very much…it’s been a while since I thought of that
BUT did you touch the secret base?
Pete
PS Hobb’s favourite imaginary number: eleventeen
February 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Sorry, but it’s a very weak arguement when a person turns to “logic” such as, “You don’t know why they prune! It could be by design! You don’t know! You don’t know why!” A clever person could argue at least as successfully that adaptation is driven by Sarah Lee blue berry muffin mix.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Geoffrey Simmons is a complete moronic idiot. PZ pwned him.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
I just listned to this whole thing.
Wow.
The mind-boggling lack of factual knowledge on the ID side is just astounding.
As to PZ calling anyone names, he didn’t. He made mention of Dr. Simmon’s ignorance of the fossil record. That wasn’t an insult, it was a statement of fact. Dr. Simmons was unaware of transitional fossils showing the development of whales. A lack of knowledge about something is ignorance.
At another point he indicated that the ID point of view is infantile. He didn’t call Dr. Simmons infantile, just the belief in ID.
Great job, PZ. Sucks to be you, Dr. Simmons.
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
http://cectic.com/069.html
Yeah, Game, set, match to Myers (but the other side probably mostly think they won too). IIRC, many of the features of the early whale fossils were predicted before any of them were found, showing once again that evolutionary theory has predictive value as well as descriptive value.
It would have been interesting to pin Simmons down on whether he thought brain development was entirely coded for in DNA (he seemed to state that was inadequate), or if this so-called intelligent designer had to intervene in the development of each and every human brain.
Thanks, PZ, and Phil and all the others, for lighting a candle against the darkness.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:35 am
Xavier, I agree with you that PZ did not call Simmons names per se. What I was trying to convey is that strong words such as “ignorance” and “infantile” tend to draw attention away from the actual argument. It did in this case, because Simons got away with taking a moral high ground.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
What is the fringe of a fringe called? And how and what positions do you take to get to be the fringe of a fringe? I am curious.
Is the DI fringe because they break away from canonical creationist thought? Or are the creationists (Answers in Genesis) fringe because they take biblical inerrancy so far? Is either group willing to listen, as Lewis Black put it, to the folks for whom the original testament is still good enough for, the Jewish people? Because, oddly enough, they don’t seem to have this same problem.
Behaviorally, the DI and AIG are camps, a way of saying “us” and “them” - a litmus test for fundamentalism. The “them” is not science; it’s modern education which is ultimately the bogeyman in being “godless” and the ultimate goal of their agendas. They not only want to get into schools, they want to be part of the foundational curriculum.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
Sorry, what I mean is that scientists who debate on DI/AIG terms play into their hands. Fighting each pitched battle as it is framed is frustrating at best, but each fight should instead be pulled to the frame of education.
As it is framed by DI/AIG it ends up as an assault on faith, when it really should be “What should children be taught?” Parents can get AIG/DI in church (or, currently, at the gift shop in the Grand Canyon), at the whim of the parents. Parents who feel strongly enough can do this. By framing it this way, though some parents might rankle at the assault-on-faith angle, many more will rankle at the my-view-taught-in-the-classroom angle. Invoke the tyranny of the majority argument if it is posited that enough people in the community feel this way and “majority rules.” Making it an educational standard forces it beyond the classroom and into home schooling.
It takes the argument from truism of faith versus assault on faith to imposition of worldview versus supported competitive science. I think fewer people will buy the evolution as worldview argument compared to the AIG/DI as worldview argument.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
The problem is that this strategy doesn’t help much, either. A lot of people, particular people the DI and AIG are targetting, want to impose their world view. They are taught it is their job to impose their world view. And many others don’t care about the world views of others as long as their children are only exposed to their world view. They are called evangelical because that is what they are. Also, the DI loves to make the debate about competitiveness in science. “Teach the controversy” is their new mantra after the rout at Dover.
There is no single argument that I think will work in all categories. I think people need to do what PZ tried to do, and seemed to largely succeed, and that is to figure out what arguments their opponents are going to make and then make them look like complete idiots who don’t know the first thing about what they are talking about. Because, let’s face it, they don’t. They know next to nothing about the current state of scientific knowledge on the areas which they discuss. This is the strategy was one of the main factors that led to our win at Dover, the lawyers on our side showed he was completely and totally clueless about the molecular systems which he discussed.
However, what those arguments are varies considerably. It seems that most of the creationist speakers have a few talking points that they focus on over and over. It is easy to figure out what they are going to say just by looking at their previous discussions. They will pretty much just repeat that again, since it seems they can’t even be bothered in learning the talking points of other creationists (not to mention learn the truth). In this case that is what PZ did, he knew this guy was going to use the whale argument and was ready. Behe traditionally talked about the bacteria flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. The Dover plaintiffs knew this and were prepared. Next time around he will probably also talk about malaria and HIV. It will be trivial to show his ignorance on this matter, since it has already been done. It had already been done with the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting. Even if he doesn’t bringing up his ignorance in his book will show just how little research he actually did when he wrote it.
Creationists are their own worst enemies. Approaching the subject purely on evidence-based grounds doesn’t work because they have thousands of examples they can throw out and although they are all flawed it takes too long to show that. Approaching it in terms of culture wars or world views doesn’t work because a lot of people want that. Approaching it in terms of the scientific method doesn’t work because explaining terminology tends to bore people and they can always do what Behe did and try to argue that those definitions are set up to stifle scientific progress. The approach that seems to work is to demonstrate how these people are a bunch of cretins. Show how they are talking out of their arses with next to no real knowledge, demonstrate the absurdities of their statements (like they did with Behe and astrology being science), show how they lie, cheat, steal, move the goalposts, and generally play dirty. Show how everything they demand that scientists provide them scientists had already provided before they even asked, then just sit back and watch as they sputter and change their demands in front of everyone. That is how you beat a creationist, you let them dig their own grave. This is far from an easy task. It takes planning and research. But these are two things creationists rarely do, which gives us the advantage.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
But they aren’t cretins. They are cargo-cultists, and to uneducated folks what they do looks as valid at what scientists do. They are, as you point out, savvy enough to weasel out of appearing to be pinned down. In theological circles, the conflict goes to the emotional argument that is most well documented. Right or no, a pile of data is the equivalent of an airfield to a cargo-cultist. Looks right, regardless of what it actually does.
While it might look like a victory to “our side” to show them up on reasoning it really isn’t. The folks they have already convinced browbeat the rest in the guise of bewailing religious persecution. It’s baiting pure and simple.
It should be education that is the focus. Couching it in terms of imposed worldview is more effective because, while the cries of persecution are answered by many the call to restrict education to a particular flavor of doctrine is actually answered by few. It’s been reversed in Kansas quite a few times now, and de facto reversed in Dover even before it went to trial.
In the olden days it was debated that Thomas Jefferson would not be elected because he was a Deist - but asked, the Presbyterians (I vaguely recall) said it was fine as long as he wasn’t a Calvinist. It is the best strategy to use fixed worldviews’ perceived schisms against them, and portray their strategy for what it is: indoctrination into specific sect X. Religious coalitions fall apart /within/ themselves much less among themselves, so its less likely they’d hold together when one is making a grab for power.
Pin them down on what they actually believe, and how their doctrine specifically differs. Mocking doesn’t work other than to polarize the sides - showing it as the naked grab for power which it is seems more effective and has been reversed by the native process ahead of law. Law is still a good fallback, but it is so much nicer to see democracy really work.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Pat, most Presbyterians are Calvinists.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
BPL: Blasphemer!
It might have been the anabaptists then… memory’s a bit foggy without reference at hand.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
What’s the standard GodZombie response these days to the old classic “Why can we see a six thousand year old star that is 100,000 light years away?” question? That one always seemed to be a clincher for me - they’d either have to argue that the heliocentric model is false or that God backdated the light from stars, presumably because it would be a terrible waste for him the create them when we’d never see them.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Something about the speed of light changing really really fast for a short period of time and then stabilizing right when we develop the technology necessary to detect the change.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:55 am
[…] PWNDDugg for later listening… Submitted: 3 days ago Category: Science Submitter: RssFeed Website: www.badastronomy.com Report this link: Click here to report Comments: 0 […]
February 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Isn’t one of the best arguments against ID the many, many examples of crappy design in the biological world? It’s a pity that we don’t see this argument a lot from the people debating against ID. For example, the human appendix. It has absolutely no biological function whatsoever and yet, if it gets infected, it can kill you. Now what kind of moronic Intelligent Designer (a.k.a God, a.k.a. Yahweh, a.k.a Allah) would design an organ like that? He wouldn’t unless he was a complete moron.
I am reminded of this every time I go to the chiropractor to get my piss-poor designed lower spine adjusted.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Tom Marking writes:
[[Isn’t one of the best arguments against ID the many, many examples of crappy design in the biological world? It’s a pity that we don’t see this argument a lot from the people debating against ID. For example, the human appendix. It has absolutely no biological function whatsoever and yet, if it gets infected, it can kill you. Now what kind of moronic Intelligent Designer (a.k.a God, a.k.a. Yahweh, a.k.a Allah) would design an organ like that? He wouldn’t unless he was a complete moron.]]
As it turns out, the appendix holds materials that can reboot your digestive system after an infection kills all your standard intestinal symbiotes. It’s vulnerable to infection itself, which is why so many appendices have to be removed, but apparently it does have a physiological use.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
O.K. So maybe you’ve got me on the appendix. But here’s one that’s incontrovertible. The optic nerve from the right eye connects to the left hemisphere. The optic nerve from the left eye connects to the right hemisphere. The cable lengths are maximized which is the opposite of optimal (is pessimal a word?). More nerve tissue is needed for no obvious benefit. Why would an Intelligent Designer do it this way unless he/she was a DD (Dumbass Designer)? And don’t get me started on the human spine. It’s such a pain in the neck.
Oh Holy Dumbass Designer!
To You we pray!
Amen!!!!!
February 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Yes, the eye thing is a poor design. I still have no problem seeing God behind the scenes, though. I believe in special providence; I don’t have to believe in continuous miracles, which is what accepting ID would require. God created a nature which can bring about results by itself, without continuous tinkering from outside.