Tyson lecture on YouTube

Fixed a code error.

I see what you're seeing, Nick. Tyson is a very effective "science evangelist."

Heh heh.

I will focus here simply on why Tyson's lecture turned me into a fawning Tyson fanboy.

so get to it! We've seen the "highlights"?? let's see the details.

Surely you can watch it as well as I. Tyson's approach is (a) positive and upbeat, (b) doesn't focus on hunting down and killing every whiff of religion that dares to exist in the general vicinity of science, as if doing this were both possible and would solve the major problems this world faces if it were achieved, (c} appeals to everybody, not just in-your-face atheists, and (d) shows that science and nature are amazing and inspirational, not some kind of program to drain life of meaning. There are other points one could analyze, but basically I would like people to just sit back and enjoy.

(a) positive and upbeat,

— Nick (Matzke)

(b) doesn't focus on hunting down and killing every whiff of religion that dares to exist in the general vicinity of science, as if doing this were both possible and would solve the major problems this world faces if it were achieved,

(c} appeals to everybody, not just in-your-face atheists, and

(d) shows that science and nature are amazing and inspirational, not some kind of program to drain life of meaning.

Maybe I saw a different Tyson video, but how did you get more out of that that just a few interesting personal anecdotes? What did anything he had to say have anything to do with religion and science? The whole "we are star stuff" routine, much better articulated by Carl Sagan, was actually a little corny in that video. Based on the fawning in the previous threads, I expected a truly impressive speaker. Are scientists' public speaking standards really that low that he stood out so much?

Tyson certainly stands out way above some of the evangelical atheists/creationists. Moran recently called for flunking those who 'do not believe in evolution', PZ seems to be on a war path and then we have someone like Allen McNeill who is patiently educating those on UcD. What a difference...

evangelical atheists

then we have someone like Allen McNeill who is patiently educating those on UcD

Is that what's happening? More likely the one-eyed midget is handing somebody a bone.

Tyson is not terribly interesting. A hot blonde atheist female Ph.D. with a Southern accent and a wicked sense of humor would be interesting.

Tyson is not that. I'll wait patiently.

I believe that as a site dedicated to science, we should be vigilant against any evangelical abuse of science and reason. Especially since I see few differences between both evangelical extremes. At best they are uninteresting philosophical positions.

Tyson certainly stands out way above some of the evangelical atheists/creationists. Moran recently called for flunking those who 'do not believe in evolution',

— PvM

Especially since I see few differences between both evangelical extremes. At best they are uninteresting philosophical positions.

You see few differences between "Adopt my made up religious garbage or you will personally suffer in hell for infinity" and "America would be a better country with fewer religious idiots"?

I can see two possible explanations for this apparent blindness.

Especially since I see few differences between both evangelical extremes.

"appeals to everybody, not just in-your-face atheists"

As I recall, the discussion of Tyson's merits started because The Science Network held a meeting discussing science and religion. So I don't recall any in-your-face behavior. Except from a PT poster who pushed his 'criticizing religion is evangelical atheism' position in our faces.

When free discussion and critique is attacked, a society becomes polarized. Is that what we want here?

It is obvious that a secular state and secular science brings freedom for religion. And personal religion should be free and personal. Not every person is a christian, and science should indeed appeal to everybody.

When free discussion and critique is attacked, a society becomes polarized. Is that what we want here?

frankly i agee with nick but ive read other stuff by tyson too ..and im a bit errr "right brained" and ive always had that art-is-wonderful-for-learning-science thingy going on

had no trouble with college level organic chem because i'm a quilter and dancer (but my degree is in biology) ...its all about working in 3D

i agree with nick about tyson ...but im a bit errrr "right-brained" to begin with and i had no trouble with organic chem BECAUSE im a quilter and a dancer (my degree is biology).... it's all about movement/rotation in space

i agree with nick about tyson btw

im a bit "right-brained" and i passed organic chem BECAUSE im a quilter and dancer (my degree is in biology )....it's all rotations/movement thru space

i know about that overwhelming sense of awe he describes ....in biology -every organisms a, a, a... RELATIVE ......makes me go hug my dog

the universe is too large and scary for people who
can't see past an ignorant, usually, fundie worldview

"It's when evangelists are starting to call for flunking students for not believing in evolution that's when I start to worry."
Then you should not worry, since no one is discussing beliefs. For example, Moran said "If students entering university have already made up their minds that evolution should be rejected, then that's a serious problem. It's not a question of ignorance." He wants to flunk those who actively reject science. I would want that too, if I was a science teacher.

"As I said, I do not see much difference between the evangelists from either side."
Technically, evangelists exists only on the religious side. :-) More seriously, few atheists are advocating atheism, most are rejecting religion. Science is, and should remain, a secular domain. Religion is, and should remain, a personal domain.

"It's when '[atheist]evangelists' are starting to call for flunking students for not believing in evolution that's when I start to worry."

i don't worry too much ...frankly, those students fully deserve to flunk

the alternative for not understanding evolution isn't atheism...the real alternative is DEATH for billions .........the entire history of modern medicine is based on evolution /common descent ..starting with jenners 18th century smallpox vaccination ....that only worked because cowpox is a non-lethal, close relative of smallpox ......the common descent of those 2 viruses directly saved billions of lives

ask your neighborhood cardiologist about why they use dogs to test stents
or an orthopedist about surgical techniques perfected on other mammals

evolution/common descent isnt, merely, ivory-tower knowledge ...we really do USE it

Been reading here for awhile, first time I've commented. For reference, I'm an atheist.
I come here to learn fascinating new tidbits and be entertained by the endless debate.
For almost the entire duration of this lecture I was confused. I'm not sure I understand.
After skipping back through on youtube, I feel a major problem is that much of the lecture seems to be composed of extremely subjective statements.

Some are mundane though somewhat out of place- those first minutes describing his childhood seem unnecessary, a sentence or two detailing his tendencies towards rationality would seem to suffice.

The description of his inability to comprehend inarticulate instructions regarding 'drawing the energy in the music' seems strange to me. The goal is poorly stated but seems obvious- interpretation of a work of art using a different medium. I recall being required to decode such confusing and irrational instructions in art class during the 6th grade.

His frustration with drawing pumpkins resulting in a life-changing epiphany (apparently dealing with the basic artistic concept of the interpretation of form?) reminds me strongly of religious fervor. The description of his emotional state seems out of proportion to the subject at hand. Either the repeated drawing of pumpkins heightens one's grasp of spacial relations, or there is an emotional component I fail to see.

His statements about ego I take issue with. Some may well feel belittled or insignificant when presented with the realities of the universe. This may be due to a mismatch with their previous beliefs- a conflict with their ego. Conversely, a feeling of reduced size or significance may be a rational result of observation of the scale of the universe as compared to all reasonable frames of reference.

The commonality of physical origin on a cosmic scale is an obvious fact. Personally I feel this fact is fascinating but of no grand significance. He mentions commonality with new-age belief systems, but does not elaborate. Personally his viewpoint reminds me very strongly of a 'new-age' belief system based on the interconnected nature of earthly life, modified slightly to encompass a larger scale.

His claim of commonality between one's neural activity when pondering the interconnected nature of the universe as compared to religious enlightenment may well be true. While any such commonality between neural responses to two distinct stimuli is interesting, I see no significance to it.

Near the end I managed to extract some meaning- he seems to be requesting someone establish a study involving electroencephalography in order to test the above claim of commonality.

Equating spiritual pilgrimage with astronomical observation based on a few points of commonality strikes me as very odd.

In short, I found his lecture extremely hard to follow for what was apparently a vast introduction to a brief and poorly explained description of a desired EEG experiment.

Been reading here for awhile, first time I've commented. For reference, I'm an atheist.
I come here to learn fascinating new tidbits and be entertained by the endless debate.
For almost the entire duration of this lecture I was confused. I'm still not sure I understand.
After skipping back through on youtube, I feel a major problem is that much of the lecture seems to be composed of extremely subjective statements.

Some are mundane though somewhat out of place- those first minutes describing his childhood seem unnecessary, a sentence or two detailing his tendencies towards rationality would seem to suffice.

The description of his inability to comprehend inarticulate instructions regarding 'drawing the energy in the music' seems strange to me. The goal is poorly stated but seems obvious- interpretation of a work of art using a different medium. I recall being required to decode such confusing and irrational instructions in art class during the 6th grade.

His frustration with drawing pumpkins resulting in a life-changing epiphany (apparently dealing with the basic artistic concept of the interpretation of form?) reminds me strongly of religious fervor. The description of his emotional state seems out of proportion to the subject at hand. Either the repeated drawing of pumpkins heightens one's grasp of spacial relations, or there is an emotional component I fail to see.

His statements about ego I take issue with. Some may well feel belittled or insignificant when presented with the realities of the universe. This may be due to a mismatch with their previous beliefs- a conflict with their ego. Conversely, a feeling of reduced size or significance may be a rational result of observation of the scale of the universe as compared to all reasonable frames of reference.

The commonality of physical origin on a cosmic scale is an obvious fact. Personally I feel this fact is fascinating but of no grand significance. He mentions commonality with new-age belief systems, but does not elaborate. Personally his viewpoint reminds me very strongly of a 'new-age' belief system based on the interconnected nature of earthly life, modified slightly to encompass a larger scale.

His claim of commonality between one's neural activity when pondering the interconnected nature of the universe as compared to religious enlightenment may well be true. While any such commonality between neural responses to two distinct stimuli is interesting, I see no significance to it.

Near the end I managed to extract some meaning- he seems to be requesting someone establish a study involving electroencephalography in order to test the above claim of commonality.

Equating spiritual pilgrimage with astronomical observation based on a few points of commonality strikes me as very odd.

In short, I found his lecture extremely hard to follow for what was apparently a vast introduction to a brief and poorly explained description of a desired EEG experiment.

If as some suggest this is scientific evangelism, I find it distasteful and irresponsible.

If it isn't, I find it a confusing and overall unproductive exercise.

Been reading here for awhile, first time I've commented. For reference, I'm an atheist.
I come here to learn fascinating new tidbits and be entertained by the endless debate.
For almost the entire duration of this lecture I was confused. I'm still not sure I understand.
I feel a major problem is that much of the lecture seems to be composed of extremely subjective statements.
Some are mundane though somewhat out of place- those first minutes describing his childhood seem unnecessary, a sentence or two detailing his tendencies towards rationality would seem to suffice.

His frustration with drawing pumpkins resulting in a life-changing epiphany (apparently dealing with the basic artistic concept of the interpretation of form?) reminds me strongly of religious fervor. The description of his emotional state seems out of proportion to the subject at hand. Either the repeated drawing of pumpkins heightens one's grasp of spacial relations, or there is an emotional component I fail to see.

His statements about ego I take issue with. Some may well feel insignificant when presented with the realities of the universe. This may be due to a mismatch with their previous beliefs- a conflict with their ego. Conversely, a perception of reduced significance may be a rational result of observation of the scale of the universe as compared to all reasonable frames of reference.

The commonality of physical origin on a cosmic scale is an obvious fact. Personally I feel this fact is fascinating and potentially useful to interest young children in astronomy, but otherwise of little significance. He mentions commonality with new-age belief systems, but does not elaborate. Personally his viewpoint reminds me very strongly of a 'new-age' belief system based on the interconnected nature of earthly life, modified slightly to encompass a larger scale.

His claim of commonality between one's neural activity when pondering the interconnected nature of the universe as compared to religious enlightenment may well be true. While any such commonality between neural responses to two distinct stimuli is interesting, I see no significance to it.
Near the end I managed to extract some meaning- he seems to be requesting someone establish a study involving electroencephalography in order to test the above claim of commonality.

In short, I found his lecture extremely hard to follow for what was apparently a vast introduction to a brief and poorly explained description of a desired EEG experiment.
If as some suggest this is scientific evangelism, I find it distasteful and irresponsible.
If it isn't, I find it a confusing and overall unproductive exercise.

I keep trying to post my thoughts on the lecture, and the page consistently times out.
Therefore, a test post.

and yes it is nice that he is a black guy.
since nobody else mentioned it... it does matter especially for a public figure involved in educating public about science. Imagine how much more effective he is for reaching out to NYC public school kids. great cross cutting secondary (after the science) message for both african-americans and everybody else too.

It's when evangelists are starting to call for flunking students for not believing in evolution that's when I start to worry.

— PvM

For the briefest moment after I submitted the test post I saw I'd managed to post all three previous times, despite the timeout error.
As before, when I go back to the main page and view comments I see nothing of my posts.
Assuming my ethereal vision is accurate, I apologize profusely for the multiple posts. If someone could kindly kill the duplicates I would be most grateful.
Again, apologies.

"It's when evangelists are starting to call for flunking students for not believing in evolution that's when I start to worry." Then you should not worry, since no one is discussing beliefs. For example, Moran said "If students entering university have already made up their minds that evolution should be rejected, then that's a serious problem. It's not a question of ignorance." He wants to flunk those who actively reject science. I would want that too, if I was a science teacher.

I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it's hopeless to expect that a single lecture---even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock---will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.

Ed Brayton has declared himself one of the leading members of the Neville Chamberlain School. And now, John Lynch and Pat Hayes have joined the Ed Brayton team. Me and PZ are on the side of science and rationalism.

People who reject evolutionary science based on their faith can still be good scientists and even apply that which they believe is flawed.

— PvM

And the students did not reject evolution but rather Darwinism...

Ed Brayton has declared himself one of the leading members of the Neville Chamberlain School. And now, John Lynch and Pat Hayes have joined the Ed Brayton team. Me and PZ are on the side of science and rationalism.

To be honest, I'm rapidly becoming convinced that there are two very different groups involved in fighting against the ID public relations campaign to distort science education. The distinction between the two groups is that one is fighting to prevent ID creationism from weakening science education while the other is fighting, at least in their minds, to eliminate all religious belief of any kind, even those perspectives that have no quarrel with evolution specifically or science in general, from society.

— Ed Brayton

The right place to argue with Larry Moran, I think, is over on his blog the Sandwalk.

However ...
Larry is aware that people don't get his sarcasm in that misfired post and besides he had seemingly not understood the circumstances of the lecture. But now, it's a day or so too late to debate the above mishap with him. Nor is there a lot of point in informing him that he does not prefer theism. But if there is still a bone to pick with Larry, bravely do it on his blog. No one needs to re-run that whole mess here. Let's keep this discussion for people who don't get Tyson.

making it something to do with atheism is shedding very little light on Larry and rather more on yourself.

Tyson's lecture turned me into a fawning Tyson fanboy.

Why the personal attacks? Is it that pointing out the irrational responses of some evangelical atheist who is now trying to claim that it was all an unfortunate mistake since it was all meant as sarcasm?
If anything this whole episode and especially the responses by Myers and Moran have shown how evangelical or should we say fundamental atheists are not much different from evangelical or fundamentalists religious people.

Anton Mates

Me and PZ are on the side of science and rationalism.

PvM: Evangelical fundamentalism at its best...

Mates: Uh, Pim, this was in response to Ed declaring that there were "two groups," and John and Pat both declaring that they're on Ed's team. Or did you miss that?

Me and PZ are on the side of science and rationalism... Sure... And ID is all about positive scientific arguments... Please.... I am glad to see that John and Pat are on Ed's side... Count me in as well.

If you think that dividing the pro-science forces into the Good Guys and the Bad Guys is "evangelical fundamentalism," then please---take it up with Ed.

"saying that evolution equals atheism."
Um, yes. I can't believe I missed the reverse of that confusion! Thanks for bringing out the bleeding obvious conflation done here.

"People who reject evolutionary science based on their faith can still be good scientists and even apply that which they believe is flawed. ... And the students did not reject evolution but rather Darwinism..."
I don't believe you said that! Those arguments could be used to define "ID(iotic) claims on evolutionary science".

I have already pointed out that Moran doesn't flunk their faith but their active rejection of science. As Mates points out, this is a serious confusion which leads to conflating science and atheism.

"Evangelical fundamentalism at its best... Not to mention the pathetic strawmen... This is not about science anymore..."
Not to mention the pathetic strawmen... - Moran's flunking proposal isn't about advocating atheism nor is this 'scientific opinions' but an answer to Brayton's grouping.

Repeating from another PT thread that which is more appropriate here where Pim wants to argue (I will try to bring any answers over here):
Over on the Pharyngula thread the post-analysis is starting to converge onto the problems of Brayton's action. It is clear something must be done with education.

"educational efforts on a much larger and more fundamental scale over a much longer time period rather than Dover-type court battles- including the very efforts the "moderates" are so eager to denounce- are the only route to bringing about real change. To put it bluntly, Ed Brayton is part of the problem and Richard Dawkins is part is the solution." (Steve LaBonne)

It seems clear this case does harm. A case where Brayton's selfprofessed group keep blurring the borders between religion and science (by projecting an attack on beliefs instead of an insistence on not rejecting knowledge). It is a double failure since they are confirming what they attack - that science must be a secular practice. As Moran says, this is about science and rationalism.

Ehrm, what is it about discussions that brings out pontification and pompousness in me? Well, at least I'm not the only blogger who reacts so. :-) All part of a healthy confidence, I guess.

It's when evangelists are starting to call for flunking students for not believing in evolution that's when I start to worry.

You should have started worrying when the education evangelist called for flunking physics students for not believing that the earth rotates around the sun, or math students for not believing that problems with fractions were solvable.

It's when evangelists are starting to call for flunking students for not believing in evolution that's when I start to worry. You should have started worrying when the education evangelist called for flunking physics students for not believing that the earth rotates around the sun, or math students for not believing that problems with fractions were solvable.

Moran did not really say that this is about science and rationalism, he said that there were two groups and he and PZ were on the side of science and rationalism.

Sure calling for the flunking of incoming freshmen for holding a belief about Darwinian evolution... And given the climate in the US, this often does equate with flunking for religious faith. Are we now going to flunk physics students for doubting string theory for instance?
It's not as if the issue of Darwinian theory has plenty of pitfalls and hazards to overcome, especially the level of ignorance amongst students and the general public as to what Darwinian theory really is all about.

What about students who doubt global warming? Flunk? What about students who doubt Reaganomics? Flunk...

Moran did not really say that this is about science and rationalism, he said that there were two groups and he and PZ were on the side of science and rationalism.

Why the personal attacks?

From comments at Sandwalk:

larry Moran said...

orac says,
I saw your original comments, and, quite frankly, they didn't sound like a joke to me.

Did you think I would seriously advocate that UCSD flunk 40% of their students just because they didn't believe in evolution?

Is there anything on my blog that would make you think I'm that stupid?

11:13 PM

Flunking students for not believing X is a terrible idea. A near-by solution is: All students at the university are required to sit at least one semester of biology. Students are not required to 'believe' in the theory of evolution, however they must understand it well enough to pass the course.

This scheme works well enough. It has been years since young YECers have complained about the theory of evolution. But the near-by psycologists interested in belief formation find that after sitting, and passing, this course, the young YECers are still YECers. It just they are ones who learned the theory of evolution well enough to pass the required course (and then presumably promptly forgot all about it).

Why the personal attacks?

— PvM

Is it that pointing out the irrational responses of some evangelical atheist who is now trying to claim that it was all an unfortunate mistake since it was all meant as sarcasm? If anything this whole episode and especially the responses by Myers and Moran have shown how evangelical or should we say fundamental atheists are not much different from evangelical or fundamentalists religious people.

— One sentence later, PvM

Ah, but there is a major difference here. The question was 'Darwinism' and as such the question is quite a loaded one.

Moran did not really say that this is about science and rationalism, he said that there were two groups and he and PZ were on the side of science and rationalism.

Neil deGrasse Tyson may be the most effective advocate for science active today and some people will find what he says in the video under discussion here inspiring. But I strongly suspect that it will appeal primarily to those who are already scientifically inclined. On the other hand I found his
formal presentation at the same conference more valuable.

In particular I think his 15% question (check it out) is the crux of the issue. We aren't talking about a cognitive issue but a psychological one and I wish he had explored that more thouroughly.

Thanks so much for these links. We really do need a new Carl Sagan, and Tyson certainly has many of the makings. I enjoyed many of the others as well, especially Steven Weinberg's "crazy old aunt!"

Best wishes,
Tom Moore

In addition, why flunk incoming freshmen for holding opinions about these matters?

Holding opinions about these matters? What the f....???!

If that's your attitude, then why flunk students for being ignorant about ANYTHING, Pim?

As Sir TJ has alluded to, you increasingly seem to be adopting the baseline position of the fundie ignorance peddlers: the "truth" depends on one's "worldview" and everybody is "entitled" to "draw their own conclusions." Even while attending school!

First you tell us that we must deal with the "scientific" aspects of intelligent design in order to label it as crap. Now you tell us that simply because somebody is too stupid to understand that life on earth evolved with a lot of help from natural selection, they shouldn't be given an F in biology.

What's next, Pim?

You're not just repeating CreationID arguments now, you're using false factual information put into play by Sal Cordova. Is that really where you want to be coming from, Pim?

Come to think of it, I haven't seen any personal attacks on you yet in this thread. Lots of people have pointed out that your arguments and positions lack foundation, and that they seem very different from what you've espoused in the past. But no one's actually insulted you by calling you, for instance, an "evangelical fundamentalist Christian." Because---aside from the fact that clearly you aren't one---that's just not helpful to a discussion, don't you think? It's best not to confuse the sinner with the sin.

When ... atheists are calling for the destruction of beliefs that run counter to theirs

You can't destroy beliefs, PvM. You can, however, hope to destroy institutions which promote ignorance. Are you opposed to the destruction of institutions which promote ignorance, Pim? Or should we keep them around so you can "discuss" "these matters" with their agents? Seriously. What do you want?

or show behavior that indicates little considerance for the opinions and beliefs of others, then we should speak out.

So when are you going to speak out on behalf of those of us who campaign against homophobia and racism, Pim? Because I have little consideration for the opinions and beliefs of homophobes and racists. When are you going to speak out on behalf of homophobes and racists, Pim?

Or do you just have a soft spot for creationists for some reason?

First you tell us that we must deal with the "scientific" aspects of intelligent design in order to label it as crap. Now you tell us that simply because somebody is too stupid to understand that life on earth evolved with a lot of help from natural selection, they shouldn't be given an F in biology.

I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place.

— Moran

I am a fan of Tyson as well. I got it. It was not hard to understand his points. Tyson reflects the best that scientists have to offer in a way that is understandable to more than just academics. I have downloaded most of the talks at Beyond Belief and as I review them I find it amazing that this hasn't been happening more often and more regularly.

There is not any specific need for one spokesman for all of science though. That is by itself absurd. We need more scientists to speak up and be counted. We need less just sitting around waiting for something to happen.

ID seems strongly motivated by the atheist influence on science and religion and atheists seem to be on a war path to do exactly that which IDers seem to fear most.

What is going on here?

Do not keep going on as that famous jest from Larry were in earnest. Do not.

... which pretty much dissolves the artificial argument found here.

When ... atheists are calling for the destruction of beliefs that run counter to theirs

RU: You can't destroy beliefs, PvM.

That of course is incorrect and there are countless examples of people changing their beliefs

RU: You can, however, hope to destroy institutions which promote ignorance. Are you opposed to the destruction of institutions which promote ignorance, Pim? Or should we keep them around so you can "discuss" "these matters" with their agents? Seriously. What do you want?

That of course depends on how you define 'promote ignorance' and in what context. I have no problem with churches proclaiming their religions, even though some may consider their faith to be promoting ignorance. I do have problems when churches or groups, or even individuals call for institutionalizing this ignorance in our schools and educational systems. In other words, I believe in the freedom of personal faith.

or show behavior that indicates little considerance for the opinions and beliefs of others, then we should speak out.

RU: So when are you going to speak out on behalf of those of us who campaign against homophobia and racism, Pim? Because I have little consideration for the opinions and beliefs of homophobes and racists. When are you going to speak out on behalf of homophobes and racists, Pim?

An interesting logical fallacy. Are you suggesting that we should not speak out at all, or are you agreeing with me and you now move the goalposts to unrelated although important issues? And 'when i am going to speak out on behalf of homophobes and racists'? Why should I be speaking out on their behalf? I have no patience with either group, and there are far more groups that fall into that category. It just happens that this is not about homophobes or racists but about science, religion and those who seem intent on supressing or trivializing the faith based beliefs of others.

RU: Or do you just have a soft spot for creationists for some reason?

Begging the question. I have a soft spot for creationists when it comes to attacks on their faith, just like I have a soft spot for atheists when christians attack them. When it comes to creationists stepping out of bounds then I will speak out as I have done so many times on this blog. And similarly I will speak out when others, even those who are aligned with me on a scientific level, step out of bounds.
I respect the beliefs of anyone and will speak out in disagreement when such beliefs extend beyond the personal experience and starts to affect education, public policy etc. If that translates to having a soft spot for creationists, then I will carry that label with the same kind of pride as being one of the many "flag bearers" for the term "Scientifically Vacuous" to describe Intelligent Design.
And while I naturally appreciate the approval of my peers/friends/fellow scientists/fellow evolutionsts etc, it does not prevent me from seeking out controversy if I believe that my peers have stepped out of bounds.
Perhaps my fault is that I try to hold my own side to higher standards than those with whom I disagree.

Darn, so much for my response to RU. Suffices to say that RU is making an illogical claim that I should also be speaking out against homophobes and racists (although he seems to also suggest the contrary so I am somewhat confused as to what his argument is). There are so many that deserve to be exposed and I certainly have no patience with homophobes and racists who take their message to the streets, our educational system or our public policies. But this is not about them or the many other groups that deserve us speaking out. This is about science and religion and those speaking out against either side, trying to silence their faith based beliefs or to surpress their faith.

I hope that RU understand how silly his argument is...

As to destroying beliefs, that indeed is possible. As to institutions that promote ignorance, that depends on how one defines ignorance. Atheists may consider any form of religious expression to be a promotion of ignorance, and yet I believe that people are free to chose what some others may perceive to be ignorance. If your question is: Do I support ignorance to be taught in public schools, or forced upon public policy then the answer is of course a resounding no.

Here's another Tyson talk from the meeting:

Neil deGrasse Tyson - on Incompetent Design

Anton Mates also seems to think that my use of the term evangelical atheist if a personal insult. On the contrary, it is an expression of my interpretation of their behavior. It's not meant as an insult and merely indicates that I believe that their position is not different from evangelical religious people. Or should we now consider calling someone an evangelical christian to be an insult as well?

As to me not being personally insulted, I fail to see how this is relevant. I call it how I see it and if it includes personal insults towards others, it is still personal insults. Does it matter to whom the insults are directed?

Indeed. Both the evangelical fundamentalists and the evangelical atheists hold the opinion that science and religion are incompatible (and seem to forget that it is, indeed, just an opinion --- one not held by most people, by the way, who simply see no such incompatibility). Nevertheless, one side thinks, based on that opinion, that it's *science* (all of it) that should therefore be rejected, and the other side, based on that same opinion, thinks it's *religion* (all of it) that should be rejected. Both sides, of course, are extremists. And both sides are far far more alike than either one would like to admit. Different feathers, same bird.

— Lenny Frank

It is obvious that a secular state and secular science brings freedom for religion. And personal religion should be free and personal. Not every person is a christian, and science should indeed appeal to everybody.

— Larson

A secular state is a state or country that officially is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, and has no state religion or equivalent.

— Wikipedia

I believe that people are free to chose what some others may perceive to be ignorance.

So do I. I also believe that people who willfully recite butt-ignorant claptrap should suffer consequences, even if those consequences are as trivial as getting an F in a class when those beliefs are "freely expressed", say, on an entrance exam or final exam.

And what if I, despite my disbelief in evolution/darwinism, I still manage to pass the classes? Should I still be flunked for my disbelief in evolution?

You mean flunked for lying on your exam? Of course not.

What if i do not believe in global warming? Should I be flunked?

If you were taught that global temperatures have, on average, increased from 1900 to the present and you were asked, "True or False: global temperatures have increased from 1900 to present" and you answered "False," on your ecology exam then, yeah, I see problem with flunking you. It boggles the mind that anyone -- except an apologist for religious beliefs as knowledge -- would find this proposition remotely controversial.

It's interesting that you would pick global warming, though. Why not the sun-centered solar system "controversy", Pim? Is there something special about the evolution and global warming "controversies" Pim?

I see problem with flunking you.

Should be "I see no problem with flunking you."

I believe that people are free to chose what some others may perceive to be ignorance.

RU: So do I. I also believe that people who willfully recite butt-ignorant claptrap should suffer consequences, even if those consequences are as trivial as getting an F in a class when those beliefs are "freely expressed", say, on an entrance exam or final exam.

But this was not about exams or getting an F in a class. This was about rejecting freshmen who had stated their disbelief in evolution.

And what if I, despite my disbelief in evolution/darwinism, I still manage to pass the classes? Should I still be flunked for my disbelief in evolution?

RU: You mean flunked for lying on your exam? Of course not.

Who said anything about lying? Please try again.

What if i do not believe in global warming? Should I be flunked?

RU: If you were taught that global temperatures have, on average, increased from 1900 to the present and you were asked, "True or False: global temperatures have increased from 1900 to present" and you answered "False," on your ecology exam then, yeah, I see problem with flunking you. It boggles the mind that anyone --- except an apologist for religious beliefs as knowledge --- would find this proposition remotely controversial.

So you have shown that global warming like evolution can be formulated in a non-threatening manner but also it loses much of its relevance. So let's not create strawmen here. I am sure that you understand what I am trying to say here. Let's define evolution as the change in frequency of alleles and suddenly most people would have no problem with such a concept.

RU: It's interesting that you would pick global warming, though. Why not the sun-centered solar system "controversy", Pim? Is there something special about the evolution and global warming "controversies" Pim?

Yes, they are both hotly disputed and depend on how the topics are defined for them to become 'controversial'. I am not too familiar with the hot topic of sun centered solar system but perhaps you can fill me in on this controversy.

But the question is simple: If people should be flunked for not believing in evolution, should they be flunked for not believing in global warming? Should they be flunked for not believing in other controversial topics? I hope that you understand that these topics have a lot of baggage, due to poorly formulated definitions as starters.

Surely flunking people for poorly phrased questions or ambiguous questions seems hard to support. And yet, it seems that that's exactly what Moran had in mind.

Do you believe in evolution: the concept that the frequencies of alleles change over time?

Do you believe in global warming: the concept that the temperature of the earth has on average been increasing?

Do you believe in evolution: the concept that variation and selection are sufficient to explain the origin and variation in life we presently see?

Do you believe in global warming: the concept that human contributions is the main or significant contributor to the observed rise in temperatures?

Michael Shermer Skeptic Magazine founder Michael Shermer takes us on a hilarious romp through the strange claims we humans put forth as truth - from alien encounters to Virgin Mary sightings on pizza pies, to hidden messages revealed while playing "Stairway to Heaven" backwards - and explains the evolutionary and cognitive basis for these lapses in reason. Don't miss the one-minute challenge testing your own observational skills... Shermer is the founder/publisher of Skeptic Magazine, and author of several books, including Why People Believe Weird Things. (Recorded February 2006 in Monterey, CA. Duration: 17:29)

Now let's assume for argument's sake that religiosity is due to evolution? There is some research which suggests that this may indeed be the case.

LOL! there is research which suggests that Bigfoot exists, too. Better research, I might add. How many times are you going to insist on peddling this latest incarnation of religion apologetics, Pim? Because that's all it is.

Would one still insist on rejecting religion at all cost?

Wow. Yeah, Pim, it may come as a surprise to you but I am not more inclined to embrace idiocy simply because some moron perfesser claims that "we evolved to be idiots."

If people should be flunked for not believing in evolution, should they be flunked for not believing in global warming? Should they be flunked for not believing in other controversial topics?

Evolution is not controversial, Pim.

Maybe your problem is that you watch too much TV.

Now let's assume for argument's sake that religiosity is due to evolution? There is some research which suggests that this may indeed be the case.

RU: LOL! there is research which suggests that Bigfoot exists, too. Better research, I might add. How many times are you going to insist on peddling this latest incarnation of religion apologetics, Pim? Because that's all it is.

On the contrary, this is quite the opposite of religion apologetics and is based on research that shows how religiosity may indeed have a genetic component. Just like the findings that there exists a moral grammar.

In other words, these data would help understand why religion evolved.

Would one still insist on rejecting religion at all cost?

RU: Wow. Yeah, Pim, it may come as a surprise to you but I am not more inclined to embrace idiocy simply because some moron perfesser claims that "we evolved to be idiots."

Are you that afraid to confront these questions? Should we reject these scientific findings just because it offends your sensibilities?

See for instance

Koenig LB, McGue M, Krueger RF, Bouchard TJ Jr. Genetic and environmental influences on religiousness: findings for retrospective and current religiousness ratings. J Pers. 2005 Apr;73(2):471-88.

And of course the work by Hauser on moral grammars :-)

When creationists and atheists are calling for the destruction of beliefs that run counter to theirs, or show behavior that indicates little considerance for the opinions and beliefs of others, then we should speak out.

— PvM

Anton Mates also seems to think that my use of the term evangelical atheist if a personal insult. On the contrary, it is an expression of my interpretation of their behavior. It's not meant as an insult and merely indicates that I believe that their position is not different from evangelical religious people.

Or should we now consider calling someone an evangelical christian to be an insult as well?

As to me not being personally insulted, I fail to see how this is relevant. I call it how I see it and if it includes personal insults towards others, it is still personal insults. Does it matter to whom the insults are directed?

If people should be flunked for not believing in evolution, should they be flunked for not believing in global warming? Should they be flunked for not believing in other controversial topics? Evolution is not controversial, Pim. Maybe your problem is that you watch too much TV.

So you have shown that global warming like evolution can be formulated in a non-threatening manner but also it loses much of its relevance.

Huh? No, Pim, facts are facts. Whether religious people are "threatened" by facts (you certainly are) or not does not change the facts, much as religious people wish otherwise.

That is why when someone says "life on earth did not evolve" we know they are ignorant about the subject. People who are ignorant about certain subjects are punished for that ignorance in school -- sooner or later -- unless they learn to lie about it.

This is why religious people are some of the world's best liars. They lie to themselves all the time because it makes them feel good to do so. Do I have a problem with religious people lying to themselves to make themselves feel good? Nope. More power to them!

Do I have a problem with religious people repeating those lies to others?

Yeah. Big time.

Apparently, Pim, you don't share my feelings about liars. Perhaps you think there is no such thing as a liar. Maybe lying about scientific facts is just another product of "natural selection" like religion itself (according to your perfesser friends) or like my occasional desire for orange juice.

If so, perhaps I shouldn't reject liars about scientific facts so quickly. Maybe it's important to lie about scientific facts for some evolutionary reason. What does the literature say about this, Pim? It's really fascinating all of a sudden.

Are you that afraid to confront these questions?

LOL! Nothing remotely "evangelical" about that sort of rhetoric ...

Anton

Evangelical Christians call themselves "evangelical Christians."

But they'll stop doing so as soon as "evangelical Christianity" becomes synonymous with "reality-denying morons and political suckers."

I predict this will occur within a generation or two. Remember: they called themselves "fundamentalists" at one point until that term became equated with "freak idiot."

Unless one values ignorance, one shouldn't feel bad about this at all. It's a good thing. This is how the Ku Klux Klan was driven underground.

And even if people do not believe in evolution for whatever reason and for whatever definition of evolution, should this be a reason to flunk them?

Guess what, Pim: I already answered this question. Do you have any new interesting questions to ask about college admission standards and grading of exams?

I must have misunderstood. I assumed that when you said, "Why the personal attacks?" you meant attacks on this thread. If you just meant, "Why are people in the Scienceblogosphere being mean to each other over this issue now?" you should probably start with Ed Brayton. He being the first one, after all, to define the "Bad Guys" and then accuse them of a plan of global ideological domination.

I have been very careful in my posts about the various disputes among the anti-ID folks not to make the issue a personal one. These are disagreements, clearly, and they're not going to go away. But I have kept my focus exclusively on the validity and wisdom of our respective positions, not on the personalities involved. Sadly, PZ Myers cannot seem to do the same. In his post on the subject he sees fit to throw in several gratuitous insults, calling me "that sad panjandrum of the self-satisfied mean, medium, middle, moderate, and mediocre" as well as a "clueless non-academic" and various other things.

at Hayes at Red State Rabble put up a post agreeing with me on the whole "two teams" controversy, which brought a response from PZ Myers, which Pat then put up top on his blog in its own post and answered. That brought an additional response from Myers that points up the need for a couple of clarifications on my position. First, Myers seems to be particularly bothered by my statement that he and others set out not only to protect science education but to "attack and destroy religion by any means necessary", which he calls an "outrageous distortion" of his position. Let me say that I did choose my words badly and the little rhetorical flourish of "by any means necessary" was a poor choice on my part. I certainly don't believe that he or anyone else of the same mindset is in favor of killing religious people or rounding them up into reeducation camps or anything like that. But clearly they do favor more authoritarian tactics than I am comfortable with. Myers is on record as supporting the denial of tenure to anyone advocating ID, while Moran is on record in favor of applying ideological litmus tests of orthodox belief prior to allowing someone into college.

Now let's assume for argument's sake that religiosity is due to evolution? There is some research which suggests that this may indeed be the case. Would one still insist on rejecting religion at all cost?

— PvM

How does this compare to for instance the discussion about nature versus nurture of homosexuals?

Just because we may not understand the choices made or the genetic components, we should still show respect, even if we personally disagree.

It's one thing to hold personal opinions about ones own belief and the beliefs of others, it's a whole other thing when one takes such beliefs to the public in order to undermine the freedom of and from religion.

None of them are guilty of undermining religious freedom simply because they choose to exercise their own. It's when any of them try to sneak their beliefs into the government or the classroom that we have a problem.

Bad news: many of Dawkins' beliefs have already infiltrated our children's textbooks.

Maybe we need to put in a disclaimer or something so people don't get the wrong idea ...

Now if you can show that PZ Myers or Larry Moran do accept the religious and political beliefs associated with fundamentalism and evangelicalism, or some atheist mirror image of same, I look forward to it.

If you can't take your beliefs to the public, you don't have freedom of and from religion.

Am I the only one that feels like he's in a remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?

Sheesh, at least Lenny admits it's an insult when he calls someone a "fundie."

It's when any of them try to sneak their beliefs into the government or the classroom that we have a problem.

Sadly, PZ Myers cannot seem to do the same.

The problem I have with Dawkins and Sam Harris, but especially Dawkins, is that they seem, in part, politically motivated. For them its not just religion vs science, its right vs left, and theyre on the left obviously. Thats what makes them seem so strident too and what causes them to be such a turn off to many. People can sense they have a political agenda.

The argument against religion should be, first of all, that it should be kept completely seperate from the state, and also thats if its not, its a threat to freedom and progress. Thats why the middle east has stagnated and become such a hell hole. But Dawkins and Harris always seem to frame it as about violence and gays or whatever, and theyre always attacking christianity almost to the complete disregard of all the other religions. They could get alot of mileage and make alot more converts if they at least tried to seem unbiased and attacked Islam a little bit too.

LOL! there is research which suggests that Bigfoot exists, too. Better research, I might add. How many times are you going to insist on peddling this latest incarnation of religion apologetics, Pim? Because that's all it is.

Bad news: many of Dawkins' beliefs have already infiltrated our children's textbooks.

Pim is wrong in overrreaching the implications of the study.

that said, extrapoliting the idea that there might be a genetic component to the behavior that predisposes one towards support of extreme religious motifs DOES NOT in any way suggest that religion itself is anything more that a construct that appeals to that specific behavioral predisposition. It's like saying "alchohol" is the reason for alcholism.

This would suggest that there is a sort of "morality module" in the brain that is activated at an early age. Evidence from neuroscience would back this up, to a degree. In my last book, The Human Mind, I noted that certain brain areas become activated when we engage in cooperation with others, and that these areas are associated with feelings of pleasure and reward. It also seems that certain areas of the brain are brought into action in situations where we feel empathy and forgiveness. So religion does not seem to be produced by a specific part of our psychological make-up. Is it more likely, then, that religious ideas are something of an accidental by-product created by other parts of our basic blueprint, by processes deep in the unconscious mind that evolved to help us survive?

But they'll stop doing so as soon as "evangelical Christianity" becomes synonymous with "reality-denying morons and political suckers." I predict this will occur within a generation or two. Remember: they called themselves "fundamentalists" at one point until that term became equated with "freak idiot."

— Registered User

That's an interesting revisionism of history as well as again missing the point. Brayton did not resort to name calling or personal attacks but rather described his description of two sides in the debate. Can you tell me how PZ Myers started his article to which Brayton responded?

— PvM

Let me say that I did choose my words badly and the little rhetorical flourish of "by any means necessary" was a poor choice on my part. I certainly don't believe that he or anyone else of the same mindset is in favor of killing religious people or rounding them up into reeducation camps or anything like that. But clearly they do favor more authoritarian tactics than I am comfortable with. Myers is on record as supporting the denial of tenure to anyone advocating ID, while Moran is on record in favor of applying ideological litmus tests of orthodox belief prior to allowing someone into college.

What I am interested in is if religiosity is in fact governed by genetics, or in other words, if religion is an evolved feature.

Temper temper my dear friend. Let me rephrase my statement in the hope it will help reduce your bloodpressure. Yes religion is a social construct or whatever you want to call it, driven by the religiosity of people. In other words, genetics explain religiosity which explains the existence of religions/churches etc which are manifestations of the religiosity of people. The question is, is religiosity and religion an outcome of evolutionary pressures. In other words, if genetics can be shown to contribute to religiosity and if religiosity leads to stronger ties to a religion/religious community and if such ties help increase survival then this would be an interesting outcome.

Now if you can show that PZ Myers or Larry Moran do accept the religious and political beliefs associated with fundamentalism and evangelicalism, or some atheist mirror image of same, I look forward to it.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Dude, their message shines through loud and clear. They want to stamp out religion. No one misses it. No one mistakes it.

Why, again, should "science" give a flying fig about "freedom of and from religion" .... ?

If this is just a political fight over the role (or lack thereof) of religion in society, then why on earth does everyone keep dragging "science" into this ....?

But Pim is, I think, right in this. Both the extremist fundies and the extremist atheists are "evangelical", in the sense that both of them not only think their particular religious/philosophical opinions are correct, but they will not rest until everyone ELSE thinks so, too. That is not an "insult" --- it is a simple observation.

It's when any of them try to sneak their beliefs into the government or the classroom that we have a problem.

personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims.

— Wikipedia

Well, let's see. Brayton claimed, on the strength of a Moran post that had absolutely nothing to do with religion, that Moran and Myers and so forth were " fighting, at least in their minds, to eliminate all religious belief of any kind, even those perspectives that have no quarrel with evolution specifically or science in general, from society," and that they believed that "religion itself, in any form, is to be attacked and destroyed by any means necessary," and that the policy Moran suggested was "not only wrong, but appalling and vile." If you really think that wasn't a personal attack simply because Brayton didn't also call them doodyheads, well, I don't think there's anything else I can say.

— Mates

Moran's post was just about science; don't ask me why his critics dragged religion into it.

As Brayton points out, Moran's claim that he's joking is seriously undermined by his also saying that, ... behind the humor is a serious point. If students entering university have already made up their minds that evolution should be rejected, then that's a serious problem. It's not a question of ignorance. Those students have made an active decision to choose superstition over science. Given a choice of students to admit into university science programs, I would choose the ones who show some understanding of science over those who reject one the fundamental facts of biology.

When Eugenie Scott and others promote a theistic version of science they seem to think they are allowing for a safe middle ground where Theistic Evolutionists like Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, and Ken Miller can find common cause with scientists who don't let superstition masquerade as science.

You do know that "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" both mean more than "really want to convince everyone they're right," yes?

And simply incorrect, since the "extremist atheists" in question are explicitly opposed to just about any method of conversion other than talking about their beliefs in the public square.

Science is still sheltered by a policy of religious freedom---it was definitely important in the Dover win.

It's a matter of whether it screws up their ability to do their job. People have a right to do any crazy damn thing that doesn't harm others outside the workplace...but when they're advocating lunacy in their profession, then it's bye-bye time.

since the "extremist atheists" in question are explicitly opposed to just about any method of conversion other than talking about their beliefs in the public square.

Welp, I gotta say I did like the way Tyson tried to talk Dawkins into having a softer touch in his job as chair of the public understanding of science, and Dawkins' response was pretty juvenile. Tyson's "Incompetent Design" talk was very engaging as well.

What struck me, though, is that Tyson really is just as hard on religion as Dawkins is. He hammered the point over and over in "Incompetent Design" that a benevolent deity doesn't fit with what we see of the universe. And again when he's talking about the uselessness of prayer, he says, "The bigger the universe, the less sensible a personal God seems."

Tyson's taking the Gould approach--religion has value, but you have to neuter it of any attempt at factual claims first. Which is great, for the liberal believers who are willing to do that, and I'd love to have a Gould-Dawkins style literary rivalry going again. Between them, Dawkins and Tyson can definitely pull more people into science than either could alone.

Welp, I gotta say I did like the way Tyson tried to talk Dawkins into having a softer touch in his job as chair of the public understanding of science, and Dawkins' response was pretty juvenile. Tyson's "Incompetent Design" talk was very engaging as well.

What struck me, though, is that Tyson really is just as hard on religion as Dawkins is. He hammered the point over and over in "Incompetent Design" that a benevolent deity doesn't fit with what we see of the universe. And again when he's talking about the uselessness of prayer (also available on YouTube), he says, "The bigger the universe, the less sensible a personal God seems."

Tyson's taking the Gould approach--religion has value, but you have to neuter it of any attempt at factual claims first. Which is great, for the liberal believers who are willing to do that, and I'd love to have a Gould-Dawkins style literary rivalry going again. Between them, Dawkins and Tyson can definitely pull more people into science than either could alone.

...and if such ties help increase survival then this would be an interesting outcome.

The Dominion Theology folks, on the other hand, want to give Mao a run for his money

I wonder what would happen if Myers' advice were applied consistently

the negative behaviors of the religious

evangelical atheists

Ya mean like Martin Luther King, Jr, or Mother Theresa, or Mohandas Gandhi ... ?

In the examples quoted Brayton attacked the policy suggested by Moran as vile, not Moran. If you consider Brayton's comments to be personal attacks then perhaps you may not fully appreciate the difference between attacking the person "larry is a moron" and "Larry's ideas are vile" which attacks not the person but the ideas.

— PvM

Moran's post was just about science; don't ask me why his critics dragged religion into it.

And simply incorrect, since the "extremist atheists" in question are explicitly opposed to just about any method of conversion other than talking about their beliefs in the public square.

er, Ted Haggard. it's late, and no I'm not watching "airplane"

Between them, Dawkins and Tyson can definitely pull more people into science than either could alone.

So you're saying, yet again, that the Discovery Institute has been right all this time: you can't criticize ID or Creationism without automatically taking a stance on religion in general. Sigh.

Apparently, the university has become alarmed at the stupidity of its freshman class and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism.

Tyson's taking the Gould approach---religion has value, but you have to neuter it of any attempt at factual claims first. Which is great, for the liberal believers who are willing to do that

Comment 90422: Some atheists hope that the metastasizing tumor that religion is on the body of reason will become so moderate, so ultra-lite, in the face of science that one day they will wake up and realize that the whole enterprise is foolish and counter-productive. But the moderates will fail to do that because they still endorse a bad book.

Comment 91809: I was trying to explain why it is dominant and why liberal interpretation of the Bible are doomed to fail the test of textual context and history. And why liberal Christianity is ultimately an enabler of fundamentalism.

Please reread that Wiki definition, Pim, and notice: "...is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles." Yes, attacking ideas is a personal attack, especially when they're attacked as "appalling" and "vile."

Science is still sheltered by a policy of religious freedom---it was definitely important in the Dover win.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

No kidding. What has that to do with whether or not science supports theism or atheism?

(BTW, you do understand that, in Dover, most of the plaintiffs, most of the lawyers from both sides and the judge, were all, uh, theists. Right?)

since the "extremist atheists" in question are explicitly opposed to just about any method of conversion other than talking about their beliefs in the public square.

If all they are arguing about is the role of religion in society (or the lack of it), then why the hell is this even being discussed in SCIENCE blogs ... ?

extremist ideologues

If one cannot attack ideas, then what is there left? Surely you see the difference.

— PvM

sure you not just miffed he banned you from most of his threads?

Ya mean like Martin Luther King, Jr, or Mother Theresa, or Mohandas Gandhi ... ?

no... i mean like Ted Haggerty, Pat Robertson, and Jim Bakker. like the guy Dawkins interviewed in Israel who screamed death to all isrealis and westerners.

could you be a bit less pedantic?

still think you are trying too hard to create a term here.

Because they can't.

Now, if you show me a textbook Dawkins or Myers or Moran are pushing which says, "And so we see from evolutionary theory that there is no God,"

Surprisingly enough, scientists discuss all sorts of things that are important to them but lie outside science. Like their pets, and their children, and their religious and political beliefs.

May I humbly suggest that henceforth we stop tossing around the term "evangelical atheist". The term is ridiculous - an atheist can't evangelise by definition. A more apt (though still not perfect) term might be "proselytising atheist". I think most people on this blog would have a more reasonable reaction to this term, as it is not as emotionally loaded as "evangelical", whilst still conveying the idea of promoting one's "religious" beliefs.

an atheist can't evangelise by definition

Posted by demallien on November 26, 2006 3:33 AM (e) May I humbly suggest that henceforth we stop tossing around the term "evangelical atheist". The term is ridiculous - an atheist can't evangelise by definition...

This is far from clear.

— Nick Matzke

Welp, I gotta say I did like the way Tyson tried to talk Dawkins into having a softer touch in his job as chair of the public understanding of science, and Dawkins' response was pretty juvenile.

As an evian jellycat anti godnik I totally agree with Dawkins summing up of the totally anal American obcession with their god word manifest. ("Thankyou for that rebuke")

Who is being upset here?

Is it when their chosen brand of godwash is being pulled from behind the curtain and asked for the record what the hell him and his followers had to do with anything prior to the arival of the Maybach or was that the Mayflower, on the shores of someone elses country?

Let's just profile this SOB and find out where he gets his money and his airtime from, which political party does he belong to and which church he decided he would be his one and only franchise here on the ground.

Is he a tax haven?

Does he get to have the poor as long as they attend his franchise outlets, is his finger on the big red button, does he have an airforce, why did he go to Baghdad, does he have his own TV stations in fact does this guy think he IS god?
(if one were to exist, which is extremely unlikely even a pansy moderate like Dawkins says so :P )

And simply incorrect, since the "extremist atheists" in question are explicitly opposed to just about any method of conversion other than talking about their beliefs in the public square.

PIM: Was it not Moran who wanted to flunk those who did not believe in evolution? Was it not PZ who wanted to reject tenure to ID professors? It surely seems more than just talking about their beliefs in the public square.

Now, if you show me a textbook Dawkins or Myers or Moran are pushing which says, "And so we see from evolutionary theory that there is no God,"

Dude, their message comes shining through loud and clear. No one here mistakes it. Let's at least be honest about their motives.

Lenny said: What's a good term for "someone who not only think their religious/philosophical opinions are right, but who will not rest until he has convinced everyone ELSE in the world that they're right, too"

Lenny said: But when they DO get a little power in their hands, they are just as happy as the fundies to be heavy-handed with it. Just ask PZ, who has twice now banned me from all his threads.

Welp, I gotta say I did like the way Tyson tried to talk Dawkins into having a softer touch in his job as chair of the public understanding of science, and Dawkins' response was pretty juvenile.

— Dean Morrison

- yes - but very, very funny - you can't accuse the man of going for cheap laughs as a matter of habit - and seeing him swear comes as a shock: suddenly you realise he's human:

Z, who has twice now banned me from all his threads. If Normie and Puppy's Ghost had the authority to do so, they'd do it in a second. Like I said, I would not want to live in a world run by them. I thank God (so to speak) that they have no more real political power than the Dominionists or the Maoists do. And I hope it stays that way.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Welp, you heard it here first. All the people who'd ban Lenny from their threads are morally and politically equivalent.

I'd ban you too.

Give the radical atheists control

If you want to defend the use of "evangelical atheist", one can only assume that you do so because you actively want to insult said atheists

Dude, their message comes shining through loud and clear. No one here mistakes it.

Just sit religion next to astrology on the societal bench, and we'll be happy.

None of you guys have yet shown any behavior by any atheist that is even remotely close to what evangelical christians have done or attempted.

9. While religion played an instrumental role in helping civilization past its infancy, it has done more harm than good for the last several thousand years. It is in the best interest of mankind that religion be completely eliminated.

1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament. 2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel. 3. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life. 4. Evangelical a. Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland. b. Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany. 5. Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith. 6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

Dude, don't be an ass. That's not what I said, and you know it.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

I am pointing out that all ideological extremists, whatever their ideology, tend to act exactly the same when they get power. And PZ was kind enough to demonstrate that for me.

Oddly enough, there ARE places in history where "radical atheists" have gained political control. The Soviet Union. China. Kampuchea. Perhaps you've heard of them? Like I said, extremist ideologues all act the same way when they get power.

Oh come on Anton, try to understand what Lenny is saying and more importantly what he isn't saying.

raise the anti-atheist paranoia quotient

I do not accept, and I do not assert, the existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or any other supernatural entity whatsoever, in any way shape or form.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Anton wrote: Oh, sure. But it was the wrong time for it. Dawkins should be pulling the cheap laugh card and showing his humanity when he's talking to the public; he should be in serious "I'm listening to your criticism and am prepared either to accept it or to rationally refute it" mode when responding to Tyson. Doing it the other way around leaves the impression that he only acts like a scientist to impress the commoners.,

Oh, come on, PvM, try to understand what PZ and Dawkins are really saying and more importantly what they aren't saying.

Jeez you Americans can be so anally retentive. I reckon this is a cultural thing - we like people who are straight talkers - and one can be polite without being deferential.

— Dean Morrison

Dawkins' answer to Tyson made the point that he thinks straight talk is important, and he's not as extreme in the matter as some people - and he managed to do it in a funny way - I doubt very much that Tyson was at all offended. Lighten up Anton...

Gosh, maybe PvM and Nick can remind me what Carl Sagan's attitude toward religion was.

If CS was around today, he'd probably be getting the back of their hands for his "evangelical atheist" attitude.

Sheesh.

Oh, come on, PvM, try to understand what PZ and Dawkins are really saying and more importantly what they aren't saying.

Oh, come on, PvM, try to understand what PZ and Dawkins are really saying and more importantly what they aren't saying.

The claim that evolution somehow leads to the evil of atheism is a pretext that the anti-science forces have seized upon. Having good guys like Nick and confused people like Pim buy into this hoax isn't going to boost science.

Okay, then, Pim.

Lay it out in your own words: why is it that you are spending your time attacking Dawkins and PZ, instead of focusing all your efforts on our mutual opposition, the IDers.

About whom, of course, we should say only civil things, not indulge in personal attacks, etc.

Explain your seeming inconsistencies in these regards, and I'll be happy to retract any inappropriate mischaracterization in which I may have pinheadedly indulged.

some have raised atheism to the status of a religious concept despite claims that atheism should not be treated as such.

ID seems strongly motivated by the atheist influence on science and religion

As such a secular state is hardly sufficient for religious freedom.

There is indeed a lot of controversy as to the relative importance of the many mechanisms of evolution.

A more apt (though still not perfect) term might be "proselytising atheist".

Well, I'm pretty sure that I understand what PZ and Dawkins are saying and not saying.

Okay, then, Pim. Lay it out in your own words: why is it that you are spending your time attacking Dawkins and PZ, instead of focusing all your efforts on our mutual opposition, the IDers.

About whom, of course, we should say only civil things, not indulge in personal attacks, etc.

Explain your seeming inconsistencies in these regards, and I'll be happy to retract any inappropriate mischaracterization in which I may have pinheadedly indulged.

The claim that evolution somehow leads to the evil of atheism is a pretext that the anti-science forces have seized upon. Having good guys like Nick and confused people like Pim buy into this hoax isn't going to boost science.

There is indeed a lot of controversy as to the relative importance of the many mechanisms of evolution.

You keep saying this. People keep disagreeing with you

Pim: It's hard to deny that Dawkins has been instrumental in generating much concern amongst Christians and other religious groups, motivating them to get involved in shaping public policy to defend Christianity against Atheism. Stevie: It's hard to deny that this is yet another evidence-free assertion from Pim. Pim: Of course, if the question is can I back up my assertion, which seemed self evident to anyone who has read the literature by Intelligent Design proponents, then I will be more than happy to do so.

Perhaps you may want to start with your fallacious claim

The claim that evolution somehow leads to the evil of atheism is a pretext that the anti-science forces have seized upon. Having good guys like Nick and confused people like Pim buy into this hoax isn't going to boost science.

— PvM

Certainly, a disbelief in a vaguely defined concept of evolution as asked in a university poll hardly seems to qualify as a justification for flunking someone who has expressed such an opinion?

Dude, their message comes shining through loud and clear. No one here mistakes it.

I do normally know how to spell "shrug" and "unpretentious."

Must be time to step slowly away from the keyboard, pick up the phone, and dial for the pizza.

Gosh, maybe PvM and Nick can remind me what Carl Sagan's attitude toward religion was.

Oh, most certainly. So, since PZ has agreed with this, and Moran says he was only joking in the first place...where's the argument, exactly?

Assume that one were an ID proponent who believes that the mechanism involves some undeterminate design? Even though the same person may very well accept Darwinian theory although considers it to be insufficient if not irrelevant?

I would call that rejecting science in the sense Moran was discussing. You may argue that there are some "measurement difficulties" and I'm certainly not going to argue that Moran's idea is the correct one. As Mates notes, neither are M&M. However, there is a qualitative and easily discernible difference between discussing mechanisms and rejecting the theory, which is why I call this arguments of yours a straw man.

Larry's 'explanation' that he was just joking sounds quite hollow as others have already shown.

— PvM

As to your erroneous claim about Nick and me, can we expect a retraction/apology or supporting evidence?

Y
A
W
N

(Seen it all before, several times...)

To state that evolution is uncontroversial requires some context and the constraints often reduce the relevancy of the 'unremarkable' fact of evolution on the discussion.

Certainly, a disbelief in a vaguely defined concept of evolution as asked in a university poll hardly seems to qualify as a justification for flunking someone who has expressed such an opinion?

(a) positive and upbeat, (b) doesn't focus on hunting down and killing every whiff of religion that dares to exist in the general vicinity of science, as if doing this were both possible and would solve the major problems this world faces if it were achieved, (c} appeals to everybody, not just in-your-face atheists, and (d) shows that science and nature are amazing and inspirational, not some kind of program to drain life of meaning.

— Matzke

Tyson certainly stands out way above some of the evangelical atheists/creationists. Moran recently called for flunking those who 'do not believe in evolution'

— PvM

PZ seems to be on a war path

Holy...you're repeating Larry Fafarman's arguments now?! Is this Bizarro Pim?

If Normie and Puppy's Ghost had the authority to do so, they'd do it in a second.