Coyne on religion and evolution in Evolution

Just for my information, does the accomodationist position include getting into bed with the Templeton Foundation, whose president has just been outed as making a very substantial monetary donation to the gay bashing National Organization for Marriage?

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2012/04/john_templeton_religion_is_com.php

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/05/on_false_equivalencies.php

For the record, I hate the word “accomodationist” ...

Personally, I don't think that discussions of religion have any place in scientific journals. There are plenty of places more appropriate for such discussions.

That having been said, the Dobzhansky essay was an important contribution to the field. It is important to notice that it was published in a journal devoted to teaching biology and issues related to teaching, rather than a more traditional technical journal.

Nick: You make some very important points. I agree with your approach!

DS: I agree that discussions of religion have no place in regular science journals, except perhaps in science education journals where the subject may be relevant to teaching when students try to inject religiion into places it clearly does not belong.

I have no problems with Coyne and others posting their stands on blogs - that is their right.

Matt Young said:

For the record, I hate the word “accomodationist” ...

I hate it when it is spelled with one m.

Evolution is perceived as being hostile to fundagelical religion because it says humans were not created but evolved; therefore there was no Adam and Eve; therefore there is no such thing as Original Sin; therefore Jesus died for a mythical falsehood. Because of this, fundagelicals are hostile to evolution and all other sciences that disprove Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood and other parts of their mythos. (Evolution is just the start - they'll take out the rest of biology and geology and anything else next.)

IMHO accommodationism is suicidally wrong for "evolutionists" and any other science protagonists, because the enemy wants our utter destruction - the silence of the grave. Ask Neville Chamberlain how accomodationism worked out after 1938.

Personally, I don’t think that discussions of religion have any place in scientific journals. There are plenty of places more appropriate for such discussions.

Does the opinion of the editors of the journal in question have any relevance?

Nick:

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/05[…]alencies.php

If the link is a reply SLC, it does not address his question.

But Google-Fight says you win, 10,000 to 2,000, ...

here are a few points which are problematic for Coyne’s position

Aside from the few points, do you disagree with the main thrust of the article? That is, that the main impediment, indeed, virtually the sole impediment to the acceptance of evolution by Americans is religion. I understand you don't like his methods, but do you agree with the premise? Or do you think there is another reason that over half the country wants creationism taught in public high school science classes?

A little off target, sorry, but I just read that the Coppedge trial had final arguments and is awaiting the court's verdict:

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/david-coppedge-trial-its-over/

Speaking of "oft-repeated… talking points": Accommodationists never tire of pointing out that since a very large majority of the US population is religious, Gnu Atheists' insistence on criticizing religion cannot help but cause USAns to reject evolution. This argument is not obviously wrong on its face -- but it is an argument which is susceptible to being supported or refuted by evidence.
In particular: Gnu Atheism is a comparatively recent phenomenon, certainly not dating back more than a couple of decades, if even that long ago. Therefore, if Gnu Atheism's insistence on criticizing religious really is driving people into the Creationists' waiting arms, then the percentage of USAns who reject evolution should logically have increased significantly in recent years. More generally, there should be a discernable inverse correlation between (a) the percentage of evolution-rejectors, on the one hand, and (b) indicators of Gnu Atheist activity (i.e., sales of Richard Dawkins' Gnu Atheist books, and so on).
Is this what we actually do observe?

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution.

Once a group of students from a rather good alternative private school here came to visit my lab, and I gave them a talk about what I do. They were not into creationism at all. But one of them asked me whether there was any conflict of my work with religion. I knew that in some sense I was supposed to say that there is no conflict between science and religion. When people make statements like that, they really mean no conflict between science and those religions that they respect.

What I said instead was that if your religion insists that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then yes, you've got a big conflict there.

But I also remember that when I was a kid in the 1950s in Philadelphia, I would occasionally get into arguments with other kids about God. Most of these kids were Catholics. They would get very insistent that God made the world. But evolution never came up. It simply wasn't on their radar screen as something to object to.

I have also not had any arguments about evolution with Quakers, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Reform or Conservative Jews, or Buddhists. It does very much depend on what variety of religion one is talking about.

Here in the UK, large majorities of self described christians accept the evidence for evolution or appear neutral on the subject.

Coyne's suggested approach of kicking them in the shins and strongly implying that to accept the science they must give up their faith is in fact the very recruitment technique used by the creationists themselves over here.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Coyne makes statements like this:

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution.

Really, we're "much" more religious than Ireland, and Spain? Maybe they're not "as advanced" as the US, but they're certainly quite within the technological and economic spheres of the "first world," and more importantly, they accept evolution rather better than does the US. No, I'm afraid that this "analysis" is altogether simplistic and wrong. Of course America's opposition to evolution is almost entirely religious in nature (a few cranks latch on for their own purposes--big deal), but religion per se is not obviously the problem. Why Coyne persists in such shallow nonsense I have no idea. He can rightly identify US religion as the problem for biological sciences in the US, yet he insists on writing as if the US problems were universally the same, and they simply are not. More honest analysis, less BS, Coyne. Glen Davidson

Aside from the few points, do you disagree with the main thrust of the article? That is, that the main impediment, indeed, virtually the sole impediment to the acceptance of evolution by Americans is religion. I understand you don’t like his methods, but do you agree with the premise?

Forms: 15– accommodation, 16 accomadation, 16 accommadatione (Sc.), 16 acomadosion, 16 acomidasyon, 16– accomodation (now nonstandard), 17 accomidation. (Show Less) Etymology: Partly < Middle French, French accommodation, †accomodation...

I really think this whole argument is perhaps a high-strung, late-stage capitalism deal – to get this worked up you need a culture where untrammelled self-expression and relentless positive striving towards that goal are massively valued over emotional continence and mature, quiescent stoicism. Which is why it's so big in the US, where that disparity appears to be particularly large.

I’m as committed to the triumph of reason as anyone, but that’s going to come when religion is finally regarded as a sort of hobby or fetish – odd, but like most things in life not really worth getting worked up about. I do think that the shoutiness of some atheist communities is unhelpful in this regard, and don’t think that saying this out loud should be regarded as ‘accommodationism’. A weary, withering sigh and a refusal to engage in discussion on the grounds of having a near-infinite list of better things to do may work better than an oppositional rant in terms of letting someone know what an idiot they’re being and suggesting that they stop.

In the UK we’re getting there. Certainly open declarations of churchgoing in the admittedly white, relatively affluent urban middle class social world I inhabit here are greeted with a slight ‘that’s nice’ awkwardness, as if you’d mentioned that you’d been to a brilliant wrestling match. It occurred to me as I was walking through London the other day that I’m getting far more, and far more irksome, public pressure to pretend to give a rat’s arse about the Olympics (which, no) than I’ve ever had or, I suspect, will have, to care about Christianity of any sort.

Tactically, any scientist or philosopher of science that insists on atheism is shooting himself in the foot, as he is excluding a group of people that could easily be his allies. When it comes to people's choices about belief in creationism and religious conviction, there are four possibilities:

1. Someone can claim to be an atheist, and also believe in creationism over evolution. While a possibility, this group is so tiny that we can ignore it from now on.

2. Someone can claim religious faith, and as part of it, also believes in creationism of one form or another. These religious people are almost always fundamentalists, and will be very difficult to argue with over creation vs. evolution. For them, their opinions about science are the consequence of their faith, not the reason for their faith. Any arguments about creationism and evolution never gets to the core of their belief system.

3. Someone can claim a religious faith, and also accept the theory of evolution, the ancient age of the earth and the rest of the geological and biological evidence for these theories. These people tend to belong to mainline religious groups, which have made their accomodations with good science. it might be that they have allegorical or moral interpretations of their religion, or that they accept some form of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

4. Finally, there are those who accept modern science, and are atheists, either because they believe that science disproves any kind of religious faith, or because they have independently rejected religion for other reasons.

Most of the arguments about the role of science in society and its role in primary and secondary education are between groups 2 and 4 above. Both groups are, in my opinion, making a tactical mistake by rejecting those who can accomodate both a religious faith and an acceptance of science.

I myself fall into that middle group. When I'm in church, I try to explain that I have to be a methodological atheist within my work as a scientist - I can't attribute natural phenomena to miracles, or invoke God as an active agent in the ordinary workings of the natural world. At the same time, I don't find that sciece by itself provides meaning or moral guidance in life. By both believing in a faith tradition and accepting science, I am limited in what is reasonable to believe in - I can't be a fundamentalist, since I can't accept creationism, or intelligent design for that matter.

There are a lot of us out there too. We're just quieter. We currently don't side with the fundamentalists because their beliefs about science are so nonsensical, and their religious beliefs aren't much better. However, we don't appreciate hearing from the more vocal and obnoxious scientists who insist that we have to be atheists to be good scientists. When they make that kind of an argument, they appear to us to be just as dogmatic and unreasoning as the fundies, and just as deserving of being ignored.

So if your goal is to increase the acceptance of modern science, and good, factual science being taught in schools, please make room for all of us religious scientists too. You are free to reject religion for yourself, but don't mock the beliefs of those who are your allies.

For the record, I hate the word “accommodationist”, which as far as I can tell was recently invented in its present sense by the New Atheists as a term of abuse.

Mike Clinch said: When I'm in church, I try to explain that I have to be a methodological atheist within my work as a scientist - I can't attribute natural phenomena to miracles, or invoke God as an active agent in the ordinary workings of the natural world.

Dobzhansky's 'Nothing in Biology Makes Sense ...' also documents that it was once common among biologists to distinguish theory from fact, until the creationists exploited that false dilemma to their own advantage: http://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/2011/12/nothing-in-biology-makes-sense.html

Nick Matzke said: And once you've lost rigorous scholarship, you've lost the very credibility on which you were telling everyone else what to believe in the first place.

Is it good for the professional field of evolutionary biology for arguments about this kind of thing to be aired in the field’s top science journals?

Nick Matzke said: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/05/on_false_equivalencies.php

Mike Clinch said: However, we don't appreciate hearing from the more vocal and obnoxious scientists who insist that we have to be atheists to be good scientists. When they make that kind of an argument, they appear to us to be just as dogmatic and unreasoning as the fundies, and just as deserving of being ignored.

Nick Matzke said:
'For the record, I hate the word “accommodationist”'

For consolation, Jean Piaget used assimilation as a concept for cognitive integration and accommodation for cognitive differentiation. Accommodation is clearly the more challenging and difficult cognitive deed in Piaget's theory.

Roger said: Nick: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/05[…]alencies.php If the link is a reply SLC, it does not address his question.

gbjames.myopenid.com said:

Is it good for the professional field of evolutionary biology for arguments about this kind of thing to be aired in the field’s top science journals?

How on earth is it unreasonable for scientists to address the reasons for public resistance to science in science journals? The idea that this subject might be off limits is symptomatic of the core problem with the accomodationist position. This is willful make-believe, an activity that theologically inclined people are practiced at. There is no place for it in science.

Joachim said: Dobzhansky's 'Nothing in Biology Makes Sense ...' also documents that it was once common among biologists to distinguish theory from fact, until the creationists exploited that false dilemma to their own advantage: http://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/2011/12/nothing-in-biology-makes-sense.html

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry Moran here. Nick said,

For the record, I hate the word “accommodationist”, which as far as I can tell was recently invented in its present sense by the New Atheists as a term of abuse.

The original term was "Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school" of evolutionists" after the section in Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Some bloggers even put a sticker on their blogs announcing that they were proud to be a Neville Chamberlain atheist. By May 2007 it became apparent that the term "Neville Chamberlain Atheist" was an insult to Neville Chamberlain so we started to look around for a term that would be more acceptable, especially to people like you. We decided on accommodationist. So far, none of you have offered up a better description of your metaphysical and political views.

DS said: Personally, I don't think that discussions of religion have any place in scientific journals. There are plenty of places more appropriate for such discussions. That having been said, the Dobzhansky essay was an important contribution to the field. It is important to notice that it was published in a journal devoted to teaching biology and issues related to teaching, rather than a more traditional technical journal.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry Moran here.

Nick Matzke said: And once you've lost rigorous scholarship, you've lost the very credibility on which you were telling everyone else what to believe in the first place.

Nick, you've been corrected on these misconceptions dozens and dozens of times. You are the one who has lost rigorous scholarship in your desire to gain political points with the moderate theists. Nobody is disputing that there are various forms of creationism (i.e. belief in a creator God). We all know about Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism. We know that many advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism are not religious fundamentalists, but they're still creationists. There are also many Old Earth Creationists who aren't exactly fundamentalists, but they are still creationists. Where we part company with you is that we think Ken Miller and Francis Collins also believe in a creator God so, like Theodosius Dobzhansky, they are creationists. How does that position represent a loss of "rigorous scholarship" and what kind of "rigorous scholarship" do you defend in your effort to distinguish between the various forms of creationism? I'm anxious to hear about the "rigorous scholarship" showing that Dobzansky was wrong to call himself a creationist. You've also, as usual, missed the important point that we view the main war as one between superstition and rationalism. The evolution/creation dispute is just a local battle in that larger context. As atheists, we are trying to convince people to abandon incorrect, superstitious, beliefs in favor of an evidenced-based, rational, approach to solving problems. It's true that the Theistic Evolution form of creationism is closer to the facts than Young Earth Creationism but it's still "theistic" (i.e. superstitious). The proponents of that position (e.g. Francis Collins) still hold to some beliefs that we think are quite silly. Why should we excuse the belief in "moral law," or the belief that evolution has been directed by God to create humans, just because Collins accepts that natural selection happens? Why shouldn't we challenge the fine tuning arguments for the existence of God just as rigorously as we challenge "evidence" of the bacterial flagellum? Do you think we've lost "rigorous scholarship" because of that? Do you think you've gained it because you are willing to accept some kinds of a role for God in evolution but not others? There is rigorous scholarship defending the idea that science and religion are in conflict. There's also rigorous scholarship defending accommodationism. You and I have different opinions over which authorities are correct in this debate. For example, I think Michael Ruse is way off base and you think he's a hero. But I don't go around accusing all accommodationists of being less than rigorous scholars just because I disagree with their position. I do, however, accuse some individuals of a lack of rigorous scholarship based on their sloppy reasoning and inability to listen to their opponents.

What is Creationism? As Gould has pointed out, we can attempt to describe ideas through their history, or by identifying some core or essence (Gould 2002). In the case of creationism, the approaches are complementary. We have already examined the history of creationism and surveyed its diversity; having done so, we can make some judgments about its essence. The core idea unifying all the various forms of creationism is the conviction that divine intervention, i.e., special creation, is necessary to explain the diversity of life. It is true that the word “creationism” is occasionally used in broader or narrower senses, but these are special cases that manifestly do not correspond to the main body of historical or present usage. For example, theists who completely accept natural evolution as the best available science will sometimes describe themselves as “creationists”—theists who are evangelical Christians have even adopted the term “evolutionary creationist” as a semi-official term, which they prefer to “theistic evolutionist.” Yet they always go on to explain that they are only “creationists” in the very general sense that they believe God created and sustains the universe. Typically, these same individuals are active opponents of creationism in its standard sense, that is, they oppose the insertion of divine intervention into biology, and they explicitly refer to their opponents as “creationists.” Recently, some in the “New Atheists” movement have also taken to describing theistic evolutionists as “creationists,” basically a move that they use to attempt to discredit theism in general via association with fundamentalists. Unfortunately, they often leave out the important qualifier that theistic evolutionists are some of the staunchest foes of creationism as defined by divine intervention and special creation. An example of the narrower usage of the term comes from those who argue that the word “creationism” refers only to young-earth creationism or “creation science.” This view is popular with intelligent design advocates, who above all else want to avoid the “creationist” label for political and constitutional reasons. It is also sometimes popular with those who have accepted the ID advocates’ creationism denials with a bit too much innocence and have not taken the time to get past the chaff thrown up by ID advocates. There are several problems with the narrower definition of creationism. While it is plausible to argue that young-earth creationism was the dominant form in US popular discourse in the 1970s and 1980s, it is impossible to argue that the term “creationism” can be restricted to the young-earth view as a general matter. In the first place, Darwin, who appears to have coined the term in its modern sense (OED 2010), was not arguing against young-earth creationists—his opponents were those such as nineteenth-century Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz, who accepted the geological timescale of the day, but argued for the special creation of biological groups. Second, as we have seen, the most famous creationist of all time, William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Trial fame, was an old-earth creationist, as were most fundamentalist Christians until the 1960s. Third, many self-identified “old-earth creationists” have existed and propounded their views throughout the twentieth century. Many old-earth creationists exist today, accepting geology, but arguing vociferously for special creation and vehemently denying any significant role for natural evolution. Proponents of this view include Hugh Ross and his old-earther “Reasons to Believe” ministry. Any definition of “creationism” that excludes old-earth creationism does not reflect reality. Finally, regarding “intelligent design,” the movement is essentially an attempt to bring young-earthers and old-earthers together to battle the common enemy of evolution; how can a coalition of young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists (Pennock 1999), fighting the same old battle against evolution, suddenly become something non-creationist? In any case, whenever one takes the time to burrow to the heart of what ID advocates are actually saying, their proposal always boils down to divine intervention in biology, however obliquely stated (Forrest and Gross 2007, see chapters 5 and 9). This is true whether they are talking about the origin of Cambrian phyla, or of humans, or merely the origin of a biochemical complex like the bacterial flagellum, or the origin of new genetic information in the form of a new gene. At every level, divine intervention is implicitly or explicitly invoked. As Darwin put it, creationists think that “at innumerable periods in the earth’s history certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues” (Darwin 1859). The definition of creationism that focuses on divine intervention is the fairest and most accurate representation of not only the historical meaning of the term, but also predominant present meaning. Most importantly, the focus on divine intervention best captures what people have been and are still fighting over.

There is rigorous scholarship defending the idea that science and religion are in conflict. There's also rigorous scholarship defending accommodationism. You and I have different opinions over which authorities are correct in this debate. For example, I think Michael Ruse is way off base and you think he's a hero.

But Coyne et al. want to “kick them in the shins”, as someone just said, and furthermore they unfairly scapegoat pro-science religious people with the sins of the fundamentalists, make incredibly strained arguments which amount to saying that any belief in God equals creationism, and which fail to make any number of distinctions which are highly significant in society and history and politics between pro-evolution and anti-evolution religious belief. The hatred of religion and the overwhelming agenda to bash it at all costs leads to these scholarly mistakes. And once you’ve lost rigorous scholarship, you’ve lost the very credibility on which you were telling everyone else what to believe in the first place.

Thaddeus Aid said:

Mike Clinch said: When I'm in church, I try to explain that I have to be a methodological atheist within my work as a scientist - I can't attribute natural phenomena to miracles, or invoke God as an active agent in the ordinary workings of the natural world.

You do realise that you have just admitted the incompatibility between science and religion. If science was compatible with religion then supernatural agency would be an acceptable answer to natural phenomena. So science is incompatible with religion but humans are capable of holding conflicting ideals in their heads.

SLC said:

Roger said: Nick: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/05[…]alencies.php If the link is a reply SLC, it does not address his question.

Mr. Matzke and Josh Rosenau are on record here and on the latter's blog of defending scientists who take Templeton money. Abbie Smith's blog post documents the unsavory associations of the chairman of the Templeton foundation with bigots. I do not consider Mr. Matzke's apparent response to be responsive because the blog post he linked to was written almost a year before the information about Mr. Templeton came out. It would seem to me that the outing of Mr. Templeton changes the situation.

Nick, you’ve been corrected on these misconceptions dozens and dozens of times. You are the one who has lost rigorous scholarship in your desire to gain political points with the moderate theists. Nobody is disputing that there are various forms of creationism (i.e. belief in a creator God). We all know about Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism. We know that many advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism are not religious fundamentalists, but they’re still creationists. There are also many Old Earth Creationists who aren’t exactly fundamentalists, but they are still creationists. Where we part company with you is that we think Ken Miller and Francis Collins also believe in a creator God so, like Theodosius Dobzhansky, they are creationists. How does that position represent a loss of “rigorous scholarship” and what kind of “rigorous scholarship” do you defend in your effort to distinguish between the various forms of creationism? I’m anxious to hear about the “rigorous scholarship” showing that Dobzansky was wrong to call himself a creationist.

You’ve also, as usual, missed the important point that we view the main war as one between superstition and rationalism. The evolution/creation dispute is just a local battle in that larger context. As atheists, we are trying to convince people to abandon incorrect, superstitious, beliefs in favor of an evidenced-based, rational, approach to solving problems. It’s true that the Theistic Evolution form of creationism is closer to the facts than Young Earth Creationism but it’s still “theistic” (i.e. superstitious). The proponents of that position (e.g. Francis Collins) still hold to some beliefs that we think are quite silly.

Why should we excuse the belief in “moral law,” or the belief that evolution has been directed by God to create humans, just because Collins accepts that natural selection happens? Why shouldn’t we challenge the fine tuning arguments for the existence of God just as rigorously as we challenge “evidence” of the bacterial flagellum? Do you think we’ve lost “rigorous scholarship” because of that? Do you think you’ve gained it because you are willing to accept some kinds of a role for God in evolution but not others?

There is rigorous scholarship defending the idea that science and religion are in conflict. There’s also rigorous scholarship defending accommodationism. You and I have different opinions over which authorities are correct in this debate. For example, I think Michael Ruse is way off base and you think he’s a hero. But I don’t go around accusing all accommodationists of being less than rigorous scholars just because I disagree with their position.

I do, however, accuse some individuals of a lack of rigorous scholarship based on their sloppy reasoning and inability to listen to their opponents.

I'd like to make a comment about the word "irrational".

It may refer to beliefs that contradict empirical reality. That's the way I usually use it.

It may be used by others to refer to beliefs that either contradict or are merely not supported by logical empiricism. I consider that too broad a definition.

Lastly, and importantly, it may also be appropriately be used to refer to human behaviors (including verbalizations) which are based on emotional responses, and/or on heuristic rather than detailed analysis of a situation. It's important to remember that science supporters are as "irrational" as anyone else under this definition.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/__zhiLANweJQ__PdUuycjY2bPkGT6ZW.iaI1mWIc_yk-#b650f said:

But Coyne et al. want to “kick them in the shins”, as someone just said, and furthermore they unfairly scapegoat pro-science religious people with the sins of the fundamentalists, make incredibly strained arguments which amount to saying that any belief in God equals creationism, and which fail to make any number of distinctions which are highly significant in society and history and politics between pro-evolution and anti-evolution religious belief. The hatred of religion and the overwhelming agenda to bash it at all costs leads to these scholarly mistakes. And once you’ve lost rigorous scholarship, you’ve lost the very credibility on which you were telling everyone else what to believe in the first place.

Awesome insight Nick in pointing out Coyne's pathetic scholarship. Thanks for defending the truth. Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens scientific publication record are dwarfed by Evangelicals like Francis Collins. So much for the GNU prophet's supposed scientific superiority. They can't even surpass a theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins in quality and quantity.

Jerry Coyne's article is on the money.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/__zhiLANweJQ[…]Ic_yk-#b650f said:

But Coyne et al. want to “kick them in the shins”, as someone just said, and furthermore they unfairly scapegoat pro-science religious people with the sins of the fundamentalists, make incredibly strained arguments which amount to saying that any belief in God equals creationism, and which fail to make any number of distinctions which are highly significant in society and history and politics between pro-evolution and anti-evolution religious belief. The hatred of religion and the overwhelming agenda to bash it at all costs leads to these scholarly mistakes. And once you’ve lost rigorous scholarship, you’ve lost the very credibility on which you were telling everyone else what to believe in the first place.

Awesome insight Nick in pointing out Coyne’s pathetic scholarship. Thanks for defending the truth. Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens scientific publication record are dwarfed by Evangelicals like Francis Collins. So much for the GNU prophet’s supposed scientific superiority. They can’t even surpass a theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins in quality and quantity.

Am in full agreement, here. I would also nominate Larry Moran as one worthy of the list of names you cite. IMHO Moran is being ridiculous in dubbing Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Theodosius Dobzhansky as “creationists”. In Dobzhansky’s case that reeks of utter stupidity since it was Dobzhansky after all, who noted that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” As for Ken Miller being a “creationist” - the same absurd charge made by both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne - Ken has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science SHOULD REJECT THEM. Seriously, would a creationist ever say that?

You laud Francis Collins for being a "theistic evolutionist", yet you simultaneously argue that he is not a creationist? Jeesum Crowbar.

Joe Felsenstein said: What I said instead was that if your religion insists that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then yes, you've got a big conflict there.

I have also not had any arguments about evolution with Quakers, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Reform or Conservative Jews, or Buddhists. It does very much depend on what variety of religion one is talking about.

Dave Luckett said:

[some junk snipped] Coyne makes statements like this:

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution.

Really, we're "much" more religious than Ireland, and Spain? Maybe they're not "as advanced" as the US, but they're certainly quite within the technological and economic spheres of the "first world," and more importantly, they accept evolution rather better than does the US. No, I'm afraid that this "analysis" is altogether simplistic and wrong. Of course America's opposition to evolution is almost entirely religious in nature (a few cranks latch on for their own purposes--big deal), but religion per se is not obviously the problem. Why Coyne persists in such shallow nonsense I have no idea. He can rightly identify US religion as the problem for biological sciences in the US, yet he insists on writing as if the US problems were universally the same, and they simply are not. More honest analysis, less BS, Coyne. Glen Davidson

As to the comparison of Spain and Ireland to the USA, I think there's a problem. In the first place, the figures - I think the one from Wikipedia are accurate enough - show that although Ireland (Republic) has a fairly high proportion of religious believers at about 75%, Spain's is only 59%; and neither of them compare really, to the USA's 90-95% religious believers.

A survey done in 2001 by the City University of New York Graduate Center found that 85% of Americans identify with some religious faith. The same study concluded that by most standards the United States was a more professingly religious country than any European nations except Ireland and Poland. pseudosecularism.blogspot.com/2004/01/how-religion-defines-america.html

In the second place, the real religiously-motivated opponents of evolution and science largely don’t come from the Roman Catholic or Episcopalian traditions. No, they are almost always from the scriptura solus Protestant churches - usually independents with a very strong dash of Calvinism, millenarianism, ecstatic worship and anti-intellectualism. This tradition faded in Europe after the eighteenth century, losing most of its piss and ginger. It’s still around, in holes and corners, but it really hasn’t got power, numbers or influence in Europe now, as it has in the USA. Accordingly, it’s the US that has trouble with religiously-motivated opposition to evolution and science in general.

Roger said: https://me.yahoo.com/a/__zhiLANweJQ[…]Ic_yk-#b650f said: But Coyne et al. want to “kick them in the shins”, as someone just said, and furthermore they unfairly scapegoat pro-science religious people with the sins of the fundamentalists, make incredibly strained arguments which amount to saying that any belief in God equals creationism, and which fail to make any number of distinctions which are highly significant in society and history and politics between pro-evolution and anti-evolution religious belief. The hatred of religion and the overwhelming agenda to bash it at all costs leads to these scholarly mistakes. And once you’ve lost rigorous scholarship, you’ve lost the very credibility on which you were telling everyone else what to believe in the first place. Awesome insight Nick in pointing out Coyne’s pathetic scholarship. Thanks for defending the truth. Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens scientific publication record are dwarfed by Evangelicals like Francis Collins. So much for the GNU prophet’s supposed scientific superiority. They can’t even surpass a theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins in quality and quantity. Am in full agreement, here. I would also nominate Larry Moran as one worthy of the list of names you cite. IMHO Moran is being ridiculous in dubbing Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Theodosius Dobzhansky as “creationists”. In Dobzhansky’s case that reeks of utter stupidity since it was Dobzhansky after all, who noted that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” As for Ken Miller being a “creationist” - the same absurd charge made by both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne - Ken has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science SHOULD REJECT THEM. Seriously, would a creationist ever say that? You laud Francis Collins for being a "theistic evolutionist", yet you simultaneously argue that he is not a creationist? Jeesum Crowbar.

eric said:

Joe Felsenstein said: What I said instead was that if your religion insists that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then yes, you've got a big conflict there.

This is the approach I'd also favor. Doing science results in claims about the world. It will conflict with religions that make contrary claims.

You laud Francis Collins for being a “theistic evolutionist”, yet you simultaneously argue that he is not a creationist? Jeesum Crowbar.

As an empiricist, I can recognize three categories that claims about physical reality can fit into. There is 1) stuff that is supported by evidence and logical reasoning, 2) stuff that is directly contradicted by evidence and logical reasoning, and 3) stuff that is not supported by any evidence or logic, but is not contrary to any such either. I don’t hold any strong beliefs which fit into category “3)”, but I do differentiate it from category “2)”. People who deny science, and in particular, deny evolution, have co-opted the word “creationist”, and I’m happy to let them have it. Dobzhansky’s comments were made in a time before this strongly implied meaning of “creationist” became established. In general, when dealing with evolution deniers, I try to focus on evolution, the evidence for it, how they explain the evidence, what alternative they propose, and what evidence supports their alternative. Still, I do often use the term “creationist”, and even though Francis Collins and Ken Miller have religious beliefs that I strongly disagree with and consider unjustified, when I use it, I mean the likes of Behe or Ray Comfort, and others generally understand me to mean that.

Rolf said:

Thaddeus Aid said:

Mike Clinch said: When I'm in church, I try to explain that I have to be a methodological atheist within my work as a scientist - I can't attribute natural phenomena to miracles, or invoke God as an active agent in the ordinary workings of the natural world.

You do realise that you have just admitted the incompatibility between science and religion. If science was compatible with religion then supernatural agency would be an acceptable answer to natural phenomena. So science is incompatible with religion but humans are capable of holding conflicting ideals in their heads.

Aren't you overlooking the possibility of religion within the human psyche as opposed to religion as faith in supernature? The concept of "Kingdom of Heaven within (the human psyche)" may be more true than moste people realize. Plus, what about Buddhism?

Not that running off to Wikipedia isn’t excellent scholarship.

Are we going to engage in systematic attacks on a “theistic evolutionist” like Collins by dubbing him a “creationist”? I’m not thrilled with his religiously-inspired thought, but that’s not enough to condemn him as a creationist. The same holds true for Frank J’s declaration a few days ago that Ken Miller is a creationist, and I wrote back that Ken is most certainly not, even though I strongly object to his acceptance of a weak form of the anthropic principle (And I say this even though I have the utmost admiration for Ken; admiration which started decades ago when I assisted him in his very first debate against a creationist, which was held at the Brown University hockey arena.). As for Ken, as I said earlier this morning, if Ken was really a “creationist”, then why would he say that those who embrace faiths hostile to science should reject them?

Ken is undoubtedly the most tireless and effective opponent of creationism in America, a star witness for the prosecution in the Dover trial, and he also co-wrote our country’s most popular high school biology textbook, so I have always admired him a great deal. But the admiration is not unmixed. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/darwin-day-philadelphia-1-i-meet-ken-miller/

harold said: Is the next move of the "Gnu atheists" really going to be an insistence on redefining the word "creationist" to mean exactly the same thing as "religious"?

John said: Needless to say my respect for Jerry and for Myers sank as fast as the Titanic as soon as I saw their "praise" for Ken's "espousal" of creationism. And now of course, Larry Moran has dubbed Ken a creationist too. My advice to all three is to just grow up and begin recognizing who your real enemies are, starting with the delusional creationist mendacious intellectual pornographers of the Dishonesty Institute, Answers in Genitals and the Institute for Cretin Research.

I am reading Bellah's Religion in Human Evolution. It seems to be written from a non-believers point of view, oddly enough funded in part by the Templeton Foundation. His point, and it is obviously true, is that religion has evolutionary roots. As in fact does morality and other such things. I would observe that all feelings humans experience regarding religion, meaning, philosophy,and morality are and must be metaphorical. And no less the powerful for all that. Obviously involved as religion evolved were the power of what we now call the state.

Trying to defend anything so metaphorical as 'truth', 'pure science', 'secular humanism' (of which I have always been a great admirer, or any other such feeling hooks into the same part of the brain as does tribalism and religious feelings.

Fundamentalism is a characteristic of the human mind, which asserts that whatever 'truth' the person has grasped is an ultimate truth. Us non-fundamentalist people don't think such a thing as ultimate truth exists, it is all metaphorical. Some metaphors are helpful, and others are not.

harold said: Seriously? Is that going to be your next move? "Both someone who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur, versus a productive mainstream astrophysicist who happens to be a theologically liberal adherent to Reform Judaism (random example of denomination not associated with science denial), will henceforth be described as creationists!"? Man that's going to be tiresome.

Joachim said: Nick Matzke said: 'For the record, I hate the word “accommodationist”' For consolation, Jean Piaget used assimilation as a concept for cognitive integration and accommodation for cognitive differentiation. Accommodation is clearly the more challenging and difficult cognitive deed in Piaget's theory.

How about the idea that you can influence the political battle for science education by insulting the majority of the population is just barking insane? The conclusion that bringing about a new enlightenment is more important than science education is just nihilistic insanity.

trnsplnt said: How about the idea that you can influence the political battle for science education by insulting the majority of the population is just barking insane? The conclusion that bringing about a new enlightenment is more important than science education is just nihilistic insanity.

Carl Drews said:

John said: Needless to say my respect for Jerry and for Myers sank as fast as the Titanic as soon as I saw their "praise" for Ken's "espousal" of creationism. And now of course, Larry Moran has dubbed Ken a creationist too. My advice to all three is to just grow up and begin recognizing who your real enemies are, starting with the delusional creationist mendacious intellectual pornographers of the Dishonesty Institute, Answers in Genitals and the Institute for Cretin Research.

Calling Ken Miller and Francis Collins "creationists" displays zero intellect and integrity. People who do that are just tossing out smears. My theological beliefs are similar to Miller's and Collins'. I will vehemently reject the "creationist" epithet while I still draw breath.

Why should we excuse the belief in “moral law,” or the belief that evolution has been directed by God to create humans, just because Collins accepts that natural selection happens?

Why shouldn’t we challenge the fine tuning arguments for the existence of God just as rigorously as we challenge “evidence” of the bacterial flagellum?

Do you think we’ve lost “rigorous scholarship” because of that?

Do you think you’ve gained it because you are willing to accept some kinds of a role for God in evolution but not others?

"Calling Ken Miller and Francis Collins “creationists” displays zero intellect and integrity. People who do that are just tossing out smears.

My theological beliefs are similar to Miller’s and Collins’. I will vehemently reject the “creationist” epithet while I still draw breath. "

A creationist is anyone who believes God, not natural forces, created the world. Some people in this thread evidently think that all creationists are young earth creationists, and/or that all creationists oppose evolution. Not so.

Someone who espouses "theistic evolution" believes that God created the world (and is therefore a creationist) and that he maintains an active hand in its development by guiding evolution. Such a person is not only a creationist, but either doesn't understand, or does not believe in evolution. There is no room in true scientific evolution for guidance of the process by a supernatural entity. None. But, breathe easy if you can. :)

Some questions:

Can someone explain to me how exactly it is that atheists are the problem and not creationists? Or exactly how one accommodates religion with science? Can Collins or Miller show me exactly when, where, and how God injects a soul into a human? What is the science of souls and theistic evolution? If Collins or Miller, et al reject physics in favor of religious belief, what difference is it to them if creationists do the same? Why aren't they more supportive of YEC? If you don't like the term accommodationist, why do you insist on using the term New Atheist, or for that matter, Gnu Atheist? If you really care about such things, you would drop it as the abusive term that it is.

There is no room in true scientific evolution for guidance of the process by a supernatural entity. None. But, breathe easy if you can. :)

Roger said: A creationist is anyone who believes God, not natural forces, created the world. Some people in this thread evidently think that all creationists are young earth creationists, and/or that all creationists oppose evolution. Not so. Someone who espouses "theistic evolution" believes that God created the world (and is therefore a creationist) and that he maintains an active hand in its development by guiding evolution. Such a person is not only a creationist, but either doesn't understand, or does not believe in evolution.

James Mckaskle said: Some questions: Can someone explain to me how exactly it is that atheists are the problem and not creationists? Or exactly how one accommodates religion with science? Can Collins or Miller show me exactly when, where, and how God injects a soul into a human? What is the science of souls and theistic evolution? If Collins or Miller, et al reject physics in favor of religious belief, what difference is it to them if creationists do the same? Why aren't they more supportive of YEC? If you don't like the term accommodationist, why do you insist on using the term New Atheist, or for that matter, Gnu Atheist? If you really care about such things, you would drop it as the abusive term that it is.

harold said: Is the next move of the "Gnu atheists" really going to be an insistence on redefining the word "creationist" to mean exactly the same thing as "religious"? Seriously? Is that going to be your next move? "Both someone who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur, versus a productive mainstream astrophysicist who happens to be a theologically liberal adherent to Reform Judaism (random example of denomination not associated with science denial), will henceforth be described as creationists!"? Man that's going to be tiresome.

Carl Drews said: My theological beliefs are similar to Miller's and Collins'. I will vehemently reject the "creationist" epithet while I still draw breath.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: .....from that well-known accommodationist group called The National Center for Science Education.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry Moran here ...

Carl Drews said: My theological beliefs are similar to Miller's and Collins'. I will vehemently reject the "creationist" epithet while I still draw breath.

Do you, or do you not, believe in a God who created the universe?

John said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry Moran here ...

Carl Drews said: My theological beliefs are similar to Miller's and Collins'. I will vehemently reject the "creationist" epithet while I still draw breath.

Do you, or do you not, believe in a God who created the universe?

I do, but not the Christian GOD. I am a Deist. Are you happy, Larry?

@John

I don't recall the online presence of any of those people you call militant suggestive of militantism, ie, advocating military combative readiness of atheist insurgent fighters, preparing for armed revolt or plotting and engaging in violent terroristic activities. That's what militant Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists do. Maybe you know something that the FBI doesn't? Are you accusing Jerry Coyne of fire bombing churches and kidnapping pastors?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry Moran here ...

Carl Drews said: My theological beliefs are similar to Miller's and Collins'. I will vehemently reject the "creationist" epithet while I still draw breath.

Do you, or do you not, believe in a God who created the universe?

I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:

R.A. Fisher was an Anglican and a deacon, Sewall Wright a unitarian, J.B.S. Haldane a communist, Dobzhansky Eastern Orthodox, David Lack Roman Catholic, ... to stick to dead ones.
The major triumph of Young Earth Creationism is setting evolutionary biologists against each other on something that should be a private opinion, not anyone else's concern.
Gnu Atheist versus accommodationist is a self destructive fight. Evolutionary biologists should stop that internal fight, and concentrate on spreading good science in popular venues.

Nick Matzke said: I wouldn't say it is scientific to assert that God guided evolution, but I wouldn't assert that it is scientific to declare that he didn't, either. Essentially the same issues come up with meteorology. The Bible asserts, and Christians believe, that God in some sense controls the weather. Yet modern meteorology gives us the physical equations that describe how the weather happens. For some reason, though, there aren't any Christians complaining about the dogmatic atheistic meteorologists, and there aren't any meteorologists complaining about how we have to get rid of religion because it conflicts with meteorology. The reasons for the warfare about evolution specifically are primarily accidents of western history, I think, and IMHO if there is no necessary conflict over meteorology, there isn't over evolution, either.

Under your definition then, may I assume that distinguished - and devout - Christian and Jewish evolutionary biologists like Cambridge University invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris (best known for his spectacular reinterpretation of the Cambrian "Burgess Shale Fauna") University of Pennsylvania vertebrate paleobiologist Peter Dodson (an authority on ceratopsian dinosaurs), and University of Arizona ecologist Michael Rosenzweig (one of the great ecologists of our time; his achievements include independently of Leigh Van Valen, discovering the "Red Queen") should be considered creationists too?

First, I want to say that while I'm not a regular visitor to this site, I've appreciated it as a useful resource as I've worked on my biology teaching degree and thought about the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution in U.S. schools. This post, however, doesn't meet the standards of the posts I've seen in the past. Your responses to the points Jerry makes, which you see as problematic, are non-sequiturs, plain and simple. Further you don't ever address the data Jerry cites, unless you consider saying that "the cause of creationism isn’t religion-in-general, it’s fundamentalism," is addressing it. But for that statement to be relevant, you would also have to make the unwarranted assumption that mainline protestants and Catholics are fundamentalists, and that's just silly. Perhaps your use of the term "fundamentalist" is rhetorical and a way of demonizing religious views unfriendly to science. If so, say so, and realize that you aren't really disagreeing with Jerry about anything other than rhetorical preference.

Nick Matzke said:

SLC said:

Roger said: Nick: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/05[…]alencies.php If the link is a reply SLC, it does not address his question.

Mr. Matzke and Josh Rosenau are on record here and on the latter's blog of defending scientists who take Templeton money. Abbie Smith's blog post documents the unsavory associations of the chairman of the Templeton foundation with bigots. I do not consider Mr. Matzke's apparent response to be responsive because the blog post he linked to was written almost a year before the information about Mr. Templeton came out. It would seem to me that the outing of Mr. Templeton changes the situation.

The conservative associations of Templeton (Jr., the current head of the Templeton Foundation is the son. The son is I gather much more conservative than the father, Templeton Sr., who founded it and died some time ago) have, I believe, been well-known for some time. The question is whether or not the Foundation, which is essentially like a big nonprofit company with an official written-down mission statement, a board of directors, numerous staff, etc., is influenced by the son's right-wing activities. I haven't seen much evidence of that. Certainly it bears watching, and I was suspicious back 10 years ago since Templeton Foundation flirted with ID a bit (as did many people, who thought it was an innocent, new, non-creationist idea). But since then TF formally and quite loudly denounced ID. In the main TF seems to support mainstream scholarship, and atheist as well as religious scholars, so I just don't see much evidence of a problem, although I could be convinced if evidence came to light. Josh's post and others of his posts have looked at this in much more detail. Nick Matzke said:

SLC said:

Roger said: Nick: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/05[…]alencies.php If the link is a reply SLC, it does not address his question.

Mr. Matzke and Josh Rosenau are on record here and on the latter's blog of defending scientists who take Templeton money. Abbie Smith's blog post documents the unsavory associations of the chairman of the Templeton foundation with bigots. I do not consider Mr. Matzke's apparent response to be responsive because the blog post he linked to was written almost a year before the information about Mr. Templeton came out. It would seem to me that the outing of Mr. Templeton changes the situation.

The conservative associations of Templeton (Jr., the current head of the Templeton Foundation is the son. The son is I gather much more conservative than the father, Templeton Sr., who founded it and died some time ago) have, I believe, been well-known for some time. The question is whether or not the Foundation, which is essentially like a big nonprofit company with an official written-down mission statement, a board of directors, numerous staff, etc., is influenced by the son's right-wing activities. I haven't seen much evidence of that. Certainly it bears watching, and I was suspicious back 10 years ago since Templeton Foundation flirted with ID a bit (as did many people, who thought it was an innocent, new, non-creationist idea). But since then TF formally and quite loudly denounced ID. In the main TF seems to support mainstream scholarship, and atheist as well as religious scholars, so I just don't see much evidence of a problem, although I could be convinced if evidence came to light. Josh's post and others of his posts have looked at this in much more detail.

Nick Matzke said: I wouldn't say it is scientific to assert that God guided evolution...

...but I wouldn't assert that it is scientific to declare that he didn't, either.

Carl Drews said: But Senator Inhofe is wrong in his interpretation of Scripture.

H.H. said: John wrote:

Under your definition then, may I assume that distinguished - and devout - Christian and Jewish evolutionary biologists like Cambridge University invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris (best known for his spectacular reinterpretation of the Cambrian "Burgess Shale Fauna") University of Pennsylvania vertebrate paleobiologist Peter Dodson (an authority on ceratopsian dinosaurs), and University of Arizona ecologist Michael Rosenzweig (one of the great ecologists of our time; his achievements include independently of Leigh Van Valen, discovering the "Red Queen") should be considered creationists too?

If he believes in a creator god, then yes, his beliefs should be correctly classified a form of creationism. Why is that so preposterous? Because you are used to assuming all creationists are idiots? Or because you are used to assuming creationists must reject evolution rather than misappropriating it? Or is it because you would also have to self-identify as a type of creationist and that's damaging to your self-image? What? I'm having a difficult time discerning any actual point coming from you.

Carl Drews said: I often use Nick's example of meteorology to demonstrate the harmony of Christian faith and science. Nick Matzke is quite correct that there is no necessary conflict between the two.

As a Deist, it would not be accurate to describe Mr. Kwok as a creationist relative to evolution or abiogensis. However, he might be accurately termed a creationist relative to the beginning of the universe, which Deists claim was initiated by a supreme being of some sort who then withdrew and allowed natural processes to take over. Thus for instance, if the universe came into being via a sudden discontinuity in the quantum vacuum, then a Deist might believe that the supreme being caused the discontinuity.

H.H. said:

As a Deist, it would not be accurate to describe Mr. Kwok as a creationist relative to evolution or abiogensis. However, he might be accurately termed a creationist relative to the beginning of the universe, which Deists claim was initiated by a supreme being of some sort who then withdrew and allowed natural processes to take over. Thus for instance, if the universe came into being via a sudden discontinuity in the quantum vacuum, then a Deist might believe that the supreme being caused the discontinuity.

I mostly agree, with one caveat. If a deist in some way holds that human beings were "inevitable" or somehow "front-loaded" into the creation of the universe, then that's a still a form of biological creationism.

James Mckaskle said: @John I don't recall the online presence of any of those people you call militant suggestive of militantism, ie, advocating military combative readiness of atheist insurgent fighters, preparing for armed revolt or plotting and engaging in violent terroristic activities. That's what militant Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists do. Maybe you know something that the FBI doesn't? Are you accusing Jerry Coyne of fire bombing churches and kidnapping pastors?

SLC said:

H.H. said:

As a Deist, it would not be accurate to describe Mr. Kwok as a creationist relative to evolution or abiogensis. However, he might be accurately termed a creationist relative to the beginning of the universe, which Deists claim was initiated by a supreme being of some sort who then withdrew and allowed natural processes to take over. Thus for instance, if the universe came into being via a sudden discontinuity in the quantum vacuum, then a Deist might believe that the supreme being caused the discontinuity.

I mostly agree, with one caveat. If a deist in some way holds that human beings were "inevitable" or somehow "front-loaded" into the creation of the universe, then that's a still a form of biological creationism.

Agreed. I don't know what Mr. Kwok's position is on front loading.

H.H. said:

As a Deist, it would not be accurate to describe Mr. Kwok as a creationist relative to evolution or abiogensis. However, he might be accurately termed a creationist relative to the beginning of the universe, which Deists claim was initiated by a supreme being of some sort who then withdrew and allowed natural processes to take over. Thus for instance, if the universe came into being via a sudden discontinuity in the quantum vacuum, then a Deist might believe that the supreme being caused the discontinuity.

I mostly agree, with one caveat. If a deist in some way holds that human beings were "inevitable" or somehow "front-loaded" into the creation of the universe, then that's a still a form of biological creationism.

Which would you rather do:

1. Argue about atheism, or

2. Teach science without interference from religious fundamentalists.

?

H.H. said: John wrote:

Under your definition then, may I assume that distinguished - and devout - Christian and Jewish evolutionary biologists like Cambridge University invertebrate paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris (best known for his spectacular reinterpretation of the Cambrian "Burgess Shale Fauna") University of Pennsylvania vertebrate paleobiologist Peter Dodson (an authority on ceratopsian dinosaurs), and University of Arizona ecologist Michael Rosenzweig (one of the great ecologists of our time; his achievements include independently of Leigh Van Valen, discovering the "Red Queen") should be considered creationists too?

If he believes in a creator god, then yes, his beliefs should be correctly classified a form of creationism. Why is that so preposterous? Because you are used to assuming all creationists are idiots? Or because you are used to assuming creationists must reject evolution rather than misappropriating it? Or is it because you would also have to self-identify as a type of creationist and that's damaging to your self-image? What? I'm having a difficult time discerning any actual point coming from you.

You know, if you want to argue against the New Atheist position, it would help if you actually presented it accurately. I notice you still haven’t touched Eric’s comment about the importance of making a distinction between conflicting claims vs. conflicting methodologies. I humbly suggest that your hatred of new atheism and the overwhelming accommodationist agenda to bash it at all costs leads to these scholarly mistakes.

SLC said: At one time, Ken Miller was a "front loader" who thought that human beings were inevitable.

John said:

SLC said:

H.H. said:

As a Deist, it would not be accurate to describe Mr. Kwok as a creationist relative to evolution or abiogensis. However, he might be accurately termed a creationist relative to the beginning of the universe, which Deists claim was initiated by a supreme being of some sort who then withdrew and allowed natural processes to take over. Thus for instance, if the universe came into being via a sudden discontinuity in the quantum vacuum, then a Deist might believe that the supreme being caused the discontinuity.

I mostly agree, with one caveat. If a deist in some way holds that human beings were "inevitable" or somehow "front-loaded" into the creation of the universe, then that's a still a form of biological creationism.

Agreed. I don't know what Mr. Kwok's position is on front loading.

I'm a pure Spinozan with regards to my Deism. Unfortunately Ken Miller has described that the universe "anticipated" or made "inevitable" humanity, and I have strongly criticized him for saying that. But that theological belief of his does not mean that he is a creationist (Or is it analogous to your fascination with the likes of Scarlett Johannsson - who could be a long lost relative simply because I have relatives who spell their name Johanneson - because she is physically attractive?), especially when Ken has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should reject them.

Nick Matzke said:

You know, if you want to argue against the New Atheist position, it would help if you actually presented it accurately. I notice you still haven’t touched Eric’s comment about the importance of making a distinction between conflicting claims vs. conflicting methodologies. I humbly suggest that your hatred of new atheism and the overwhelming accommodationist agenda to bash it at all costs leads to these scholarly mistakes.

Snark noted. But, I actually agree that it is useful to draw a distinction between "conflicting claims" vs. "conflicting methodologies". The Gnus' problem with e.g. theistic evolutionists isn't really about problems with theistic evolutionists' science, which is typically the same as everyone else (I agree Collins's early claim about morality might be a counterexample, at least if given an unforgiving interpretation, but then again Collins has backed off his claim on that point in later works). Gnus' problem is that they think, basically, that science is the One True Way to any truth worth knowing, and they are offended that the theistic evolutionists hold a broader view, and are apparently equally offended by the claims of e.g. philosophers, agnostics, etc., that it is at least reasonable to think that there might be a broader view, and also that Grand Metaphysical Claims such as atheism go beyond strict science in a way similar to the way theism goes beyond strict science. So Gnus are pushing the philosophical position that the methods of science should be applied to *everything*. You sometimes see this particularly clearly when Gnus are challenged about music, art, politics etc., and respond with incredibly strained attempts to shoehorn these areas into a scientific paradigm. Their philosophical position is quite optional, in my view, and many philosophers agree, which is perhaps why Gnus sometimes take philosophy and disparage it in the same way they disparage theology.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Spare us from being tiresome by looking at the graph I've included in the following post: The Fallacy of the Continuum. Perhaps you could do us the favor of identifying the cutoff between creationism and non-creationism?

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

H.H. said:

As a Deist, it would not be accurate to describe Mr. Kwok as a creationist relative to evolution or abiogensis. However, he might be accurately termed a creationist relative to the beginning of the universe, which Deists claim was initiated by a supreme being of some sort who then withdrew and allowed natural processes to take over. Thus for instance, if the universe came into being via a sudden discontinuity in the quantum vacuum, then a Deist might believe that the supreme being caused the discontinuity.

I mostly agree, with one caveat. If a deist in some way holds that human beings were "inevitable" or somehow "front-loaded" into the creation of the universe, then that's a still a form of biological creationism.

Agreed. I don't know what Mr. Kwok's position is on front loading.

I'm a pure Spinozan with regards to my Deism. Unfortunately Ken Miller has described that the universe "anticipated" or made "inevitable" humanity, and I have strongly criticized him for saying that. But that theological belief of his does not mean that he is a creationist (Or is it analogous to your fascination with the likes of Scarlett Johannsson - who could be a long lost relative simply because I have relatives who spell their name Johanneson - because she is physically attractive?), especially when Ken has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should reject them.

As I stated in my comment following Mr. Kwok's my impression is, based on a lecture of his which I downloaded, that he has somewhat backed off from that claim (I believe we had this discussion a couple of years ago).

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

H.H. said:

As a Deist, it would not be accurate to describe Mr. Kwok as a creationist relative to evolution or abiogensis. However, he might be accurately termed a creationist relative to the beginning of the universe, which Deists claim was initiated by a supreme being of some sort who then withdrew and allowed natural processes to take over. Thus for instance, if the universe came into being via a sudden discontinuity in the quantum vacuum, then a Deist might believe that the supreme being caused the discontinuity.

I mostly agree, with one caveat. If a deist in some way holds that human beings were "inevitable" or somehow "front-loaded" into the creation of the universe, then that's a still a form of biological creationism.

Agreed. I don't know what Mr. Kwok's position is on front loading.

I'm a pure Spinozan with regards to my Deism. Unfortunately Ken Miller has described that the universe "anticipated" or made "inevitable" humanity, and I have strongly criticized him for saying that. But that theological belief of his does not mean that he is a creationist (Or is it analogous to your fascination with the likes of Scarlett Johannsson - who could be a long lost relative simply because I have relatives who spell their name Johanneson - because she is physically attractive?), especially when Ken has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should reject them.

As I stated in my comment following Mr. Kwok's my impression is, based on a lecture of his which I downloaded, that he has somewhat backed off from that claim (I believe we had this discussion a couple of years ago).

Nick Matzke said: The Gnus' problem with e.g. theistic evolutionists isn't really about problems with theistic evolutionists' science, which is typically the same as everyone else (I agree Collins's early claim about morality might be a counterexample, at least if given an unforgiving interpretation, but then again Collins has backed off his claim on that point in later works). Gnus' problem is that they think, basically, that science is the One True Way to any truth worth knowing, and they are offended that the theistic evolutionists hold a broader view, and are apparently equally offended by the claims of e.g. philosophers, agnostics, etc., that it is at least reasonable to think that there might be a broader view, and also that Grand Metaphysical Claims such as atheism go beyond strict science in a way similar to the way theism goes beyond strict science.

So Gnus are pushing the philosophical position that the methods of science should be applied to *everything*. You sometimes see this particularly clearly when Gnus are challenged about music, art, politics etc., and respond with incredibly strained attempts to shoehorn these areas into a scientific paradigm.

Do you then defend the role of revelation and textual authority in music, art, politics, etc.? How does your “broader view” resolve claim conflicts? If there is a “broader view” which yields “truth”, how does it work? How can I test that “truth” for myself? Or must I simply take the word of authorities about their revelations?

Nick Matzke said:

There is no room in true scientific evolution for guidance of the process by a supernatural entity. None. But, breathe easy if you can. :)

You can only reach this conclusion if you take words like "random" in "random mutation" in some sort of absolute metaphysical way. But formally, all that science actually assumes is the everyday statistical sense of "random." I prefer to not load up my science with extra metaphysical assumptions which range between unproved and unprovable. I wouldn't say it is scientific to assert that God guided evolution, but I wouldn't assert that it is scientific to declare that he didn't, either. Essentially the same issues come up with meteorology. The Bible asserts, and Christians believe, that God in some sense controls the weather. Yet modern meteorology gives us the physical equations that describe how the weather happens. For some reason, though, there aren't any Christians complaining about the dogmatic atheistic meteorologists, and there aren't any meteorologists complaining about how we have to get rid of religion because it conflicts with meteorology. The reasons for the warfare about evolution specifically are primarily accidents of western history, I think, and IMHO if there is no necessary conflict over meteorology, there isn't over evolution, either.

eric said:

Nick Matzke said: The Gnus' problem with e.g. theistic evolutionists isn't really about problems with theistic evolutionists' science, which is typically the same as everyone else (I agree Collins's early claim about morality might be a counterexample, at least if given an unforgiving interpretation, but then again Collins has backed off his claim on that point in later works). Gnus' problem is that they think, basically, that science is the One True Way to any truth worth knowing, and they are offended that the theistic evolutionists hold a broader view, and are apparently equally offended by the claims of e.g. philosophers, agnostics, etc., that it is at least reasonable to think that there might be a broader view, and also that Grand Metaphysical Claims such as atheism go beyond strict science in a way similar to the way theism goes beyond strict science.

I think this is overbroad almost to the point of being baloney. I, for example, don't think science is the One True Way of knowing, with capital letters. I think its the one effective way we've discovered so far of knowing empirical things. I'll go so far as to say its the "only" way in that there are no other credible contenders. But - and here's where you go wrong Nick - this is a tentative belief based on evidence and subject to revision. If someone tomorrow starts using revelation build a fusion generator, revise Einstein, and make other remarkable discoveries, I'll be open to the possibility that revelation works. Especially if its reproducible by others who do the same dance or believe the same things as the original person. What I am not willing to do - and where I think you give a lot of religious people an undeserved pass - is say that revelation is another effective way of knowing stuff when thousands of years of human experience trying it says it isn't. Believers in revealed truth are not in the position of making a claim about some evidence-neutral way of knowing. They are in he position of making a claim about a way of knowing that has been tried, and failed, and failed, and failed, and failed over and over again. IOW, it may be reasonable to think that there are other ways of knowing in principle. Okay, I buy that. It is not reasonable to think that the other ways of knowing actually promoted by theists, today, in the real world when you ask them how they know about God, have anything to them. To draw an analogy; is it reasonable to think there are undiscovered species? Absolutely. Does that mean someone's belief in bigfoot is reasonable? Absolutely not. Revelation and biblical authority are sasquatches, Nick.

So Gnus are pushing the philosophical position that the methods of science should be applied to *everything*. You sometimes see this particularly clearly when Gnus are challenged about music, art, politics etc., and respond with incredibly strained attempts to shoehorn these areas into a scientific paradigm.

Could you give some examples? I'm not aware of anyone claiming they have an aesthetic-o-meter. Or rightpolicyscope. Sure, it makes sense to try and use science on the bits of other fields that are objective and empirical. But not on the bits thare are subjective. I'm perfectly content for questions of morality, artistic merit, even public policy to be decided by nonscientific means. I'd like some of those areas to be better informed by science where it can help, sure. I think you are tilting at straw men here; I don't think anyone's doing that shoehorning.

Nick Matzke said: The Gnus’ problem with e.g. theistic evolutionists isn’t really about problems with theistic evolutionists’ science, which is typically the same as everyone else (I agree Collins’s early claim about morality might be a counterexample, at least if given an unforgiving interpretation, but then again Collins has backed off his claim on that point in later works). Gnus’ problem is that they think, basically, that science is the One True Way to any truth worth knowing, and they are offended that the theistic evolutionists hold a broader view, and are apparently equally offended by the claims of e.g. philosophers, agnostics, etc., that it is at least reasonable to think that there might be a broader view, and also that Grand Metaphysical Claims such as atheism go beyond strict science in a way similar to the way theism goes beyond strict science.

I think this is overbroad almost to the point of being baloney.

Deep in their heart of hearts, they fear that a sequel to St Augustine’s City of God is in the works, and it’s going to be written by an atheist…and it will speak of a brand new world and new opportunities, it will create a new ecumene of people united under something other than the folly of faith. So how do you kill an idea? How will we sack the city of faith? By coming up with a better, more powerful idea. That’s the only way we can win. Now I’m not so arrogant that I’d come in front of you all to tell you that I’ve come up with the grand idea that will be a religion-killer. This isn’t the kind of thing that pops into existence out of one guy’s mind — it takes refinement over time, lots of smart people hammering it out, just like those holy books weren’t magicked into existence in an instant. Fortunately, our idea has been incubating for a few centuries, and has involved multitudes of our civilization’s greatest minds. It’s called science. freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/15/sunday-sacrilege-sacking-the-city-of-god/

Nick Matzke said:

Do you then defend the role of revelation and textual authority in music, art, politics, etc.? How does your “broader view” resolve claim conflicts? If there is a “broader view” which yields “truth”, how does it work? How can I test that “truth” for myself? Or must I simply take the word of authorities about their revelations?

Is there truth in Handel's Messiah? Or is it crap because it's based on religion? Yes or no, pick a side, we're at war.

Nick Matzke said: Is there truth in Handel's Messiah?

Or is it crap because it's based on religion? Yes or no, pick a side, we're at war.

Nick Matzke said:

Do you then defend the role of revelation and textual authority in music, art, politics, etc.? How does your “broader view” resolve claim conflicts? If there is a “broader view” which yields “truth”, how does it work? How can I test that “truth” for myself? Or must I simply take the word of authorities about their revelations?

Is there truth in Handel's Messiah? Or is it crap because it's based on religion? Yes or no, pick a side, we're at war.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I'm not saying that all gnus approve of such scientism, but clearly a good many do. Glen Davidson

Nick Matzke said: Gnus' problem is that they think, basically, that science is the One True Way to any truth worth knowing, and they are offended that the theistic evolutionists hold a broader view, and are apparently equally offended by the claims of e.g. philosophers, agnostics, etc., that it is at least reasonable to think that there might be a broader view, and also that Grand Metaphysical Claims such as atheism go beyond strict science in a way similar to the way theism goes beyond strict science.

You sometimes see this particularly clearly when Gnus are challenged about music, art, politics etc., and respond with incredibly strained attempts to shoehorn these areas into a scientific paradigm. Their philosophical position is quite optional, in my view, and many philosophers agree, which is perhaps why Gnus sometimes take philosophy and disparage it in the same way they disparage theology.

What does this even mean? I think it is a wonderful piece of music, but the only “truth” in that is that this is truly my opinion.

Nick Matzke said:

What does this even mean? I think it is a wonderful piece of music, but the only “truth” in that is that this is truly my opinion.

So it's just a matter of opinion, is it?

eric said: Here's the problem with doing that Larry: the word creationist is already in use for a group of believers that does not correspond to your grouping. 'Creationist' specifically denotes a rejection of scientific claims about evolution.

So, when you pick the word 'creationist' to describe the higher taxa of anyone with theistic beliefs, you are confusing the issue. I think, frankly, you're doing it on purpose. 'Creationist' has negative connotations, and you want people to view theistic evolution in a negative light, so lumping it in with creationist is your way of adding a negative connotation to it.

The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creationism which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth.

Nick Matzke said: Is there truth in Handel's Messiah? Or is it crap because it's based on religion? Yes or no, pick a side, we're at war.

Nick Matzke said:

Do you then defend the role of revelation and textual authority in music, art, politics, etc.? How does your “broader view” resolve claim conflicts? If there is a “broader view” which yields “truth”, how does it work? How can I test that “truth” for myself? Or must I simply take the word of authorities about their revelations?

Is there truth in Handel's Messiah? Or is it crap because it's based on religion? Yes or no, pick a side, we're at war.

Nick Matzke said:

What does this even mean? I think it is a wonderful piece of music, but the only “truth” in that is that this is truly my opinion.

So it's just a matter of opinion, is it? Strange that so many peoples' opinions agree, then.

Take it up with Nick. He worked at NCSE for many years so he’ll be able to explain why they refer to “Progressive Creationism,” “Evolutionary Creationism,” and “Intelligent Design Creationism.” He’ll also try to explain why he quotes Dobzhansky referring to himself as a creationist. When you’re done with Nick, you might want to take on the authors of the Wikipedia article on Creationism because they say …

Nick Matzke said: So it's just a matter of opinion, is it? Strange that so many peoples' opinions agree, then.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said:

Larry Moran here, Most of us "gnus" think that science is a way of knowing that applies to every problem where you want to know a universal truth.

That's exactly what I thought you think. The view to which you ascribe above is called scientism -- it's an extreme form of logical positivism. And it is a self-contradicting postulate; it is necessarily false. Philosophers abandoned it many decades ago (your view is exactly what Popper criticized), but for some reason it has recently been taken up uncritically by the gnus. I would bet that most people here, you included, believe that Last Thursdayism is false. Problem is, neither you nor anyone else has come to that conclusion using the methods of science. Lesson: there are some very basic things we think we know where that knowledge was not acquired using the "way of knowing" called science. Anti-solipsism, the existence of other minds besides your own, the "truth" of the rules of logic, views on free will, ethics, etc. Science is inherently incapable of answering some (very fundamental) questions. Namely, any proposition that cannot be empirically and objectively tested.

Most of us are aware of other ways of knowing that possibly compete with the science way of knowing. We've heard, for example, that religion is one way of knowing that leads to universal truths, just like science. Problem is, nobody has been able to demonstrate that religion as a way of knowing actually works. Nobody seems to be able to point to a universal truth discovered by religion and not science. This doesn't seem to bother the accommodationists even though they don't accept any of the so-called "truths" that religion claims to have discovered.

You also believe things that you did not get from the "scientific way of knowing". Tu quoque.

SLC said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

H.H. said:

As a Deist, it would not be accurate to describe Mr. Kwok as a creationist relative to evolution or abiogensis. However, he might be accurately termed a creationist relative to the beginning of the universe, which Deists claim was initiated by a supreme being of some sort who then withdrew and allowed natural processes to take over. Thus for instance, if the universe came into being via a sudden discontinuity in the quantum vacuum, then a Deist might believe that the supreme being caused the discontinuity.

I mostly agree, with one caveat. If a deist in some way holds that human beings were "inevitable" or somehow "front-loaded" into the creation of the universe, then that's a still a form of biological creationism.

Agreed. I don't know what Mr. Kwok's position is on front loading.

I'm a pure Spinozan with regards to my Deism. Unfortunately Ken Miller has described that the universe "anticipated" or made "inevitable" humanity, and I have strongly criticized him for saying that. But that theological belief of his does not mean that he is a creationist (Or is it analogous to your fascination with the likes of Scarlett Johannsson - who could be a long lost relative simply because I have relatives who spell their name Johanneson - because she is physically attractive?), especially when Ken has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should reject them.

As I stated in my comment following Mr. Kwok's my impression is, based on a lecture of his which I downloaded, that he has somewhat backed off from that claim (I believe we had this discussion a couple of years ago).

The spelling Nazi rises again but the lady spells her name Johansson.

Douglas Theobald said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said:

Larry Moran here, Most of us "gnus" think that science is a way of knowing that applies to every problem where you want to know a universal truth.

That's exactly what I thought you think. The view to which you ascribe above is called scientism -- it's an extreme form of logical positivism. And it is a self-contradicting postulate; it is necessarily false. Philosophers abandoned it many decades ago (your view is exactly what Popper criticized), but for some reason it has recently been taken up uncritically by the gnus. I would bet that most people here, you included, believe that Last Thursdayism is false. Problem is, neither you nor anyone else has come to that conclusion using the methods of science. Lesson: there are some very basic things we think we know where that knowledge was not acquired using the "way of knowing" called science. Anti-solipsism, the existence of other minds besides your own, the "truth" of the rules of logic, views on free will, ethics, etc. Science is inherently incapable of answering some (very fundamental) questions. Namely, any proposition that cannot be empirically and objectively tested.

Most of us are aware of other ways of knowing that possibly compete with the science way of knowing. We've heard, for example, that religion is one way of knowing that leads to universal truths, just like science. Problem is, nobody has been able to demonstrate that religion as a way of knowing actually works. Nobody seems to be able to point to a universal truth discovered by religion and not science. This doesn't seem to bother the accommodationists even though they don't accept any of the so-called "truths" that religion claims to have discovered.

You also believe things that you did not get from the "scientific way of knowing". Tu quoque.

phhht said: The undisputed fact that science cannot answer every question does not mean that there is some alternative, unnamed, unspecified, hazy, fuzzy, other way of knowing.

It just means we don't know. I make an effort not to "believe things" for which there is no evidence. I content myself with not knowing. What alternative is there?

SLC said: At one time, Ken Miller was a "front loader" who thought that human beings were inevitable. However, of late, it is my impression that he has somewhat backed off this position and now claims that the evolution of intelligent beings, not necessarily human was inevitable. This is a position that actually has some evidence supporting it.

eric said: I, for example, don't think science is the One True Way of knowing, with capital letters. I think its the one effective way we've discovered so far of knowing empirical things. I'll go so far as to say its the "only" way in that there are no other credible contenders.

Matt G said:

SLC said: At one time, Ken Miller was a "front loader" who thought that human beings were inevitable. However, of late, it is my impression that he has somewhat backed off this position and now claims that the evolution of intelligent beings, not necessarily human was inevitable. This is a position that actually has some evidence supporting it.

Given that total extinction on Earth is a distinct possibility, what does "inevitable" mean, exactly?

Douglas Theobald said:

phhht said: The undisputed fact that science cannot answer every question does not mean that there is some alternative, unnamed, unspecified, hazy, fuzzy, other way of knowing.

Assuming that you implicitly mean that science can answer some questions, your claim is self-contradictory. One simple way to see this (by no means the only way) is that science assumes the truth of propositional logic. Yet science cannot answer the question of whether that assumption is true. That would be circular logic, for one thing, and in any case the proposition "the axioms of propositional logic are true" is not empirically testable. How do you know, then, that science can answer some questions if you don't know that the assumptions undergirding science are true? You can't. The fact that you think that science has the power to answer questions means that you must believe that the axioms of propositional logic are true. Why do you believe that even though there is no scientific evidence for it? I'll let you ponder that, but one thing we do know is that you do not believe it because of scientific evidence --- you necessaily must have some alternative way of knowing it. And just as obviously you are not content to just say "we don't know".

It just means we don't know. I make an effort not to "believe things" for which there is no evidence. I content myself with not knowing. What alternative is there?

Douglas Theobald said:

phhht said: The undisputed fact that science cannot answer every question does not mean that there is some alternative, unnamed, unspecified, hazy, fuzzy, other way of knowing.

Assuming that you implicitly mean that science can answer some questions, your claim is self-contradictory. One simple way to see this (by no means the only way) is that science assumes the truth of propositional logic. Yet science cannot answer the question of whether that assumption is true. That would be circular logic, for one thing, and in any case the proposition "the axioms of propositional logic are true" is not empirically testable. How do you know, then, that science can answer some questions if you don't know that the assumptions undergirding science are true? You can't. The fact that you think that science has the power to answer questions means that you must believe that the axioms of propositional logic are true. Why do you believe that even though there is no scientific evidence for it? I'll let you ponder that, but one thing we do know is that you do not believe it because of scientific evidence --- you necessaily must have some alternative way of knowing it. And just as obviously you are not content to just say "we don't know".

It just means we don't know. I make an effort not to "believe things" for which there is no evidence. I content myself with not knowing. What alternative is there?

Glen Davidson said:

Now I’m not so arrogant that I’d come in front of you all to tell you that I’ve come up with the grand idea that will be a religion-killer. This isn’t the kind of thing that pops into existence out of one guy’s mind — it takes refinement over time, lots of smart people hammering it out, just like those holy books weren’t magicked into existence in an instant. Fortunately, our idea has been incubating for a few centuries, and has involved multitudes of our civilization’s greatest minds. It’s called science. freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/15/sunday-sacrilege-sacking-the-city-of-god/

That's full-blown scientism. Science simply doesn't tell us how we then should live, or anything like that.

Science has a large role to play, but there is so much more going on in most people's lives that science isn't able to answer.

SLC said:

Matt G said:

SLC said: At one time, Ken Miller was a "front loader" who thought that human beings were inevitable. However, of late, it is my impression that he has somewhat backed off this position and now claims that the evolution of intelligent beings, not necessarily human was inevitable. This is a position that actually has some evidence supporting it.

Given that total extinction on Earth is a distinct possibility, what does "inevitable" mean, exactly?

I don't want to speculate on what Prof. Miller means by inevitable by I would say inevitable assuming total extinction does not occur. Actually, the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions came close.

Saying “divine revelation is not a way of knowing and needs to be killed as an idea” is NOT a denial of all other possible ways of knowing.

Deep in their heart of hearts, they fear that a sequel to St Augustine’s City of God is in the works, and it’s going to be written by an atheist…and it will speak of a brand new world and new opportunities, it will create a new ecumene of people united under something other than the folly of faith.

Science has a large role to play, but there is so much more going on in most people’s lives that science isn’t able to answer.

And how, exactly, is that a reason to believe in revelatory ways of knowing?

phhht said: But I don't "believe" in science because of logic. I "believe" in science because it works.

I don't think science CAN supply "truth," only fact. And no, I am not content to say I don't know. But content or not, I still don't know.

Is it good for these publications to talk about politics and metaphysics of evolutionary thought the author of the thread asks?

If the mag is about evolutionary biology as a science then it should just be that.
if it strays into politics etc then its not just about science.
So it can't say its just about science. its about other subjects surrounding it.
So it should allow creationist criticisms or any criticisms of the the whole evolutionary theme.

It just shows evolution is under great stress because it is so rejected by so many North Americans and it doesn't make a persuasive case.
So it demands that , unlike actual scientific studies, it must deal with the problem of great and serious rejection of evolutionism.

If evolutionary biology was actually a scientific based thing there would be no need for other topics.
However its a special case of conclusions that don't stand on their own merits.

Yes this mag must talk about politics, religion, and metaphysics.
It should allow creationist contributions since its directly attacking us.
Anybody know anybody there?

Douglas Theobald said:

phhht said: But I don't "believe" in science because of logic. I "believe" in science because it works.

You miss the point. I never claimed you believe in science because of logic. You believe science works because you assume the truth of the axioms of logic. If you don't believe the axioms of logic are true, then you have no reason to think that science works.

I don't think science CAN supply "truth," only fact. And no, I am not content to say I don't know. But content or not, I still don't know.

So am I supposed to take it that you really don't believe the axioms of logic are true (or "fact" or whatever euphemism you prefer)? If so, our discussion ends.

The fact that you think that science has the power to answer questions means that you must believe that the axioms of propositional logic are true. Why do you believe that even though there is no scientific evidence for it?

Glen Davidson accuses me of a number of things.

I am actually not criticising him, and I regret having annoyed him. He may not believe this, but all I really meant to say is that it isn't "religion" or "religiosity" generally that is the problem that the rational people in the US face in gaining overwhelming public acceptance of well-established science in a number of fields. It is a specific religious tradition, the roots of which are historical.

I refer specifically to independent Protestantism of a scritura solus, Calvinist, millenarian, ecstatic and anti-intellectual background. To which, if I'd thought about it sufficiently, I'd have added "militant".

It is not moving the goalposts to remark that almost all religiously-based opposition to science in the US comes out of this tradition. All of the elements I identified are anti-science in specific ways. Scriptura solus means that the Bible is the only and ultimate authority; Calvinism requires that the State itself be godly, or its laws are not valid; millenarianism conduces to ignoring nature entirely; ecstatic communion actively encourages disconnection of the intellect; anti-intellectualism speaks for itself.

I quite see that Professor Moran does not consider it worthwhile to take on any particular religion or expression of religion, but attacks all religious thought and feeling whatsoever, as superstition. Perhaps he is right; nevertheless, I urge that there is the tactical consideration that a successful attack along the whole of a line may be beyond the resources available, but that an assault on an exposed salient while holding elsewhere might be more gainful.

Jon said: As Mr. Carl Drews noted in mentioning Sen. Inhofe, there has been significant pushback from Christians about anthropogenic climate change (not all of it is explicitly Christian, but at least some of it is).

It is not moving the goalposts to remark that almost all religiously-based opposition to science in the US comes out of this tradition.

So your barometer for truth is how many people share your opinion? That kind of thing is really dangerous.

A number of people I went to college with thought Handel’s work (along with most classical music) was crap, and they were almost uniformly Christian. I personally prefer Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. What’s the “truth” in that?

Glen,

Just say what you meant to say, rather than spending so much time accusing everyone else of dishonesty for misunderstanding you. By now, I don't have the slightest idea what your point was, and apparently neither does anyone else. Instead, you sound like a demented chihuahua with colic.

The point is that saying that Handel’s music is a great work of art isn’t just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you’d be as bonkers as a creationist to do so.

Douglas Theobald said: That's exactly what I thought you think. The view to which you ascribe above is called scientism -- it's an extreme form of logical positivism. And it is a self-contradicting postulate; it is necessarily false. Philosophers abandoned it many decades ago (your view is exactly what Popper criticized), but for some reason it has recently been taken up uncritically by the gnus.

I would bet that most people here, you included, believe that Last Thursdayism is false. Problem is, neither you nor anyone else has come to that conclusion using the methods of science.

Lesson: there are some very basic things we think we know where that knowledge was not acquired using the "way of knowing" called science. Anti-solipsism, the existence of other minds besides your own, the "truth" of the rules of logic, views on free will, ethics, etc. Science is inherently incapable of answering some (very fundamental) questions. Namely, any proposition that cannot be empirically and objectively tested.

You also believe things that you did not get from the "scientific way of knowing". Tu quoque.

Dear Sirs,

I will leave it up to the "scientists" to decide whether or not it is appropriate for Jerry Coyne's metaphysical/philosophical/atheistic musings to be published in a science journal. For Jerry Coyne himself, however, it is quite appropriate and quite typical to mix atheistic philosophy and science. This is because, for Dr. Coyne, Darwin, evolution and atheism are the "holy trinity" of his passionate religious committment. I have no public position on evolutionary theory because I lack the scientific credentials to give weight to such positions. However, in the course of my blog to blog sparring with Coyne on Origin of Life - a subject which I am prepared to discuss/argue/debate with anyone - it is clear that Jerry Coyne has closed his eyes and taken a great leap of faith to hold on to his "NU? ATHEISM" (after all he is Jewish). Origin of Life is the defenseless underbelly of those - like Coyne - who claim that "Science" supports an atheistic worldview. For those who are interested in the discussions between myself and Coyne on this subject, it is summed up in this article: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/01/23/orthodox-rabbi-vs-atheistic-biologist-who-wont-put-his-money-where-his-mouth-is-a-history/

Sincerely, (Rabbi) Moshe Averick

Nick Matzke said: The point is that saying that Handel's music is a great work of art isn't just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you'd be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here.

Handel was a musical genius and found a way to stir the deepest emotions of people with music.

But did we get his music from science? No. Does the objectively true statement that Handel's Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.

Normally, reasonable people would just admit all of this right away, since it's obvious after a moments' reflection, but some people are committed to "science is the only way of knowing" for some strange reason.

Glen, Just say what you meant to say, rather than spending so much time accusing everyone else of dishonesty for misunderstanding you. By now, I don’t have the slightest idea what your point was, and apparently neither does anyone else. Instead, you sound like a demented chihuahua with colic.

There are too many idiots who just attack here, btw. So I'm out of this thread, 90% + certainty, both not to derail the thread further--or anyway, not to allow cretinous attacks to derail it--and not to deal further with the unthinking and undeserved hatred from someone like Flint.

It's just not worth it.

Glen Davidson

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said:

Do you then defend the role of revelation and textual authority in music, art, politics, etc.? How does your “broader view” resolve claim conflicts? If there is a “broader view” which yields “truth”, how does it work? How can I test that “truth” for myself? Or must I simply take the word of authorities about their revelations?

Is there truth in Handel's Messiah? Or is it crap because it's based on religion? Yes or no, pick a side, we're at war.

What truth? What claim does Handel's Messiah make? I say no one can address a comment like yours because it is vague to the point of meaninglessness. So how does your "broader view" work to reveal the truth claims in music? How does it produce "truth"?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said:

Nick Matzke said: The point is that saying that Handel's music is a great work of art isn't just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you'd be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here.

Nick, you're being really, really silly about this. Do you honestly believe that everyone in the rural parts of Mongolia would immediately recognize Handel's music as a great work of art? Gimme a break. I loathe the Messiah. It's long, boring, extremely repetitive and the words are gibberish.

The point is that saying that Handel’s music is a great work of art isn’t just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you’d be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here. Handel was a musical genius and found a way to stir the deepest emotions of people with music. But did we get his music from science? No. Does the objectively true statement that Handel’s Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.

But did we get his music from science? No. Does the objectively true statement that Handel’s Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.

Nick Matzke said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said:

Nick Matzke said: The point is that saying that Handel's music is a great work of art isn't just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you'd be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here.

Nick, you're being really, really silly about this. Do you honestly believe that everyone in the rural parts of Mongolia would immediately recognize Handel's music as a great work of art? Gimme a break. I loathe the Messiah. It's long, boring, extremely repetitive and the words are gibberish.

Uh-huh. I think you are just conveniently loathing it for the moment in an attempt to avoid admitting an obvious counterpoint, and/or you've never seen the Portland Baroque Orchestra do it properly with the original arrangement. As for Mongolia: http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/pr.cfm?articleid=4053 ...it's a small world I guess.

Nick Matzke said: Uh-huh. I think you are just conveniently loathing it for the moment in an attempt to avoid admitting an obvious counterpoint, and/or you've never seen the Portland Baroque Orchestra do it properly with the original arrangement.

co said:

Nick Matzke said: Uh-huh. I think you are just conveniently loathing it for the moment in an attempt to avoid admitting an obvious counterpoint, and/or you've never seen the Portland Baroque Orchestra do it properly with the original arrangement.

Did someone just make a No-True-Messiah argument?

Shakespeare is good in English, but you need to read him in the original Klingon.

Interesting. Never thought I'd see a bunch of scientism fans insisting upon relativism. Next we'll be hearing that it's not objectively true that Abraham Lincoln was a great president, I suppose, because science is the only road to truth and the statement isn't science.

Nick Matzke said: Interesting. Never thought I'd see a bunch of scientism fans insisting upon relativism. Next we'll be hearing that it's not objectively true that Abraham Lincoln was a great president, I suppose, because science is the only road to truth and the statement isn't science.

It's hard to believe that someone actually thinks there is an objective way to judge music - art and literature too? Can you detail what the criteria are for this judging? There must be more than just the fact that lots of people like a certain piece, but I haven't seen you mention anything else. Perhaps you could list a few of the requirements that would make a piece of art a great work, as an "objective truth," the way you claim. There must be criteria beyond your opinion.

Nick Matzke said: Interesting. Never thought I'd see a bunch of scientism fans insisting upon relativism. Next we'll be hearing that it's not objectively true that Abraham Lincoln was a great president, I suppose, because science is the only road to truth and the statement isn't science.

No, I’m afraid that this “analysis” is altogether simplistic and wrong. Of course America’s opposition to evolution is almost entirely religious in nature (a few cranks latch on for their own purposes–big deal), but religion per se is not obviously the problem. Why Coyne persists in such shallow nonsense I have no idea. He can rightly identify US religion as the problem for biological sciences in the US, yet he insists on writing as if the US problems were universally the same, and they simply are not.

Nick Matzke said: Interesting. Never thought I'd see a bunch of scientism fans insisting upon relativism. Next we'll be hearing that it's not objectively true that Abraham Lincoln was a great president, I suppose, because science is the only road to truth and the statement isn't science.

... redemial English ...

tomh said:

Carl Drews said: But Senator Inhofe is wrong in his interpretation of Scripture.

How do you know? What makes your interpretation, or the interpretation of the site you link to, any better that Inhofe's? It seems a bit arrogant to assert that only you can correctly interpret what many accept as God's word.

phhht said: So am I supposed to take it that you really don't believe the axioms of logic are true (or "fact" or whatever euphemism you prefer)? If so, our discussion ends.

Axioms of logic have no meaning outside the system of logic in question. Nor do "true" and "false." They are, in my view, irrelevant to "believing" in science.

mandrellian said:

Nick Matzke said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said:

Nick Matzke said: The point is that saying that Handel's music is a great work of art isn't just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you'd be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here.

Nick, you're being really, really silly about this. Do you honestly believe that everyone in the rural parts of Mongolia would immediately recognize Handel's music as a great work of art? Gimme a break. I loathe the Messiah. It's long, boring, extremely repetitive and the words are gibberish.

Uh-huh. I think you are just conveniently loathing it for the moment in an attempt to avoid admitting an obvious counterpoint, and/or you've never seen the Portland Baroque Orchestra do it properly with the original arrangement. As for Mongolia: http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/pr.cfm?articleid=4053 ...it's a small world I guess.

You like it. I like it. Even Mongolians like it. Awesome! But none of that matters in the least. You're doing nothing more than making an argument from popularity. And following it up with "Well you obviously haven't heard X play it!" is pretty much on a par with "Well, you haven't read the Koran in Arabic, which is why you don't believe it." Come on, seriously, Messiah is a work of art. It's grandiose, huge in scope, stirring when done competently. But to claim it's objectively great is utter nonsense.

mandrellian said:

Shakespeare is good in English, but you need to read him in the original Klingon.

I'd like to see Nick argue with Lieutenant Worf about whose Hamlet has more objective greatness.

mandrellian said: Because, honestly:

But did we get his music from science? No. Does the objectively true statement that Handel’s Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.

That is one of the silliest things I've ever read. If I'd read that in a vacuum I'd assume one of the PT creo-trolls wrote it.

Nick said: Is there truth in Handel’s Messiah? Or is it crap because it’s based on religion? Yes or no, pick a side, we’re at war.

Dave Lovell said: ... I remember being particularly impressed some years ago by the huge frescos of The Last Judgement in Albi Cathedral in southern France. An artistic masterpiece with no doubt as to its purpose. (Examples pictures at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Albi_cathedral_-_fresco_1.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Albi_cathedral_-_fresco_2.jpg but you need to see it in the flesh to appreciate it. ) Like some medieval IMAX playing during every church service, the message of the part of it "based on religion" could not be more clear, even if you can't read the text (Which Dave Luckett could probably translate for us). The graphic details of what awaits the damned are like something from FL's wildest dreams.

Question for Larry Moran or Roger -

Back on the topic of the meaning of the word "creationist". As far as I can see, that's the only source of actual disagreement between us.

I use the word in a common way, to differentiate between, say, Ray Comfort and Francis Collins. The main reason I use this particular word is because Ray Comfort uses it to describe himself, Francis Collins doesn't, and it seems reasonable to use it in this way.

I completely disagree with Ray Comfort on both religious matters and on objective scientific matters for which the merit of our respective views can be evaluated with reference to objective evidence. In particular, Ray Comfort focuses on evolution denial. With Francis Collins, I completely disagree with him on religious matters and feel that his arguments in favor of his own religion are illogical. But when it comes to objective science, especially biomedical science, I'm not aware of any significant difference between me and Francis Collins.

A major, major factor here is whether magic is required. From Ray Comfort to Behe, the people I refer to as creationists don't just say magic is "possible", they say it was required to generate the diversity of life on earth. Ray Comfort and Behe, although different in some ways, essentially deny that biological evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity and relatedness of life on earth.

You're correct that Ray Comfort and Francis Collins have things in common. They're human, they're male, they're white, they're middle aged, they're American, and they're both religious Protestants. I suppose that it's true that Francis Collins thinks that in some way his god created, intended, willed, or whatever, the universe.

But Francis Collins' views are still compatible with mine, in the sense that neither of us can prove the other wrong, and we both agree on almost all objective science. I don't think his god created the universe, but maybe it did, how should I know? Whatever Steven Hawking can measure, maybe it's one step before that. Maybe the multiverse is a manifestation of its consciousness or something. I don't think so, but also don't know or care.

Clearly there is a major difference here.

So my question is -

Do you have a word that differentiates between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins?

harold said: But Francis Collins' views are still compatible with mine, in the sense that neither of us can prove the other wrong, and we both agree on almost all objective science. I don't think his god created the universe, but maybe it did, how should I know? Whatever Steven Hawking can measure, maybe it's one step before that. Maybe the multiverse is a manifestation of its consciousness or something. I don't think so, but also don't know or care. Clearly there is a major difference here. So my question is - Do you have a word that differentiates between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins?

Oh, there's a second panel. The top inscription is a direct quote, Revelations 20:12 "I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne; and the books were opened."

This lot above are apparently the just, and are entering Paradise.

The torments below are for the prideful, left, and traitors to God (I think - I can't actually make out the letters) in a version of the frozen lake of Cocytus.

Nick Matzke said:

So your barometer for truth is how many people share your opinion? That kind of thing is really dangerous.

Nope. The point is that saying that Handel's music is a great work of art isn't just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you'd be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here. Handel was a musical genius and found a way to stir the deepest emotions of people with music. But did we get his music from science? No. Does the objectively true statement that Handel's Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.

Glen Davidson said:

Saying “divine revelation is not a way of knowing and needs to be killed as an idea” is NOT a denial of all other possible ways of knowing.

Is that what was written there, or are you dishonestly eliding crucial parts? Why do you think I included so much? It was to include the part that suggests that a new "ecumene" will come about via science, but that doesn't stop you from utterly misrepresenting what was written there. I included this part:

Matt G said:

harold said: But Francis Collins' views are still compatible with mine, in the sense that neither of us can prove the other wrong, and we both agree on almost all objective science. I don't think his god created the universe, but maybe it did, how should I know? Whatever Steven Hawking can measure, maybe it's one step before that. Maybe the multiverse is a manifestation of its consciousness or something. I don't think so, but also don't know or care. Clearly there is a major difference here. So my question is - Do you have a word that differentiates between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins?

The difference between you and Collins is that the burden of proof rests on him, not on you. He says that this god person exists and did things, and you are not. He is stating a belief, which he may or may not acknowledge is a belief. There are three positions here, not two: (i) god did something, (ii) god did not do something, and (iii) there is no evidence to support the idea that god (who may or may not exist) did something. Science doesn't exclude god; it simply does not include god.

John said:

Matt G said:

harold said: But Francis Collins' views are still compatible with mine, in the sense that neither of us can prove the other wrong, and we both agree on almost all objective science. I don't think his god created the universe, but maybe it did, how should I know? Whatever Steven Hawking can measure, maybe it's one step before that. Maybe the multiverse is a manifestation of its consciousness or something. I don't think so, but also don't know or care. Clearly there is a major difference here. So my question is - Do you have a word that differentiates between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins?

The difference between you and Collins is that the burden of proof rests on him, not on you. He says that this god person exists and did things, and you are not. He is stating a belief, which he may or may not acknowledge is a belief. There are three positions here, not two: (i) god did something, (ii) god did not do something, and (iii) there is no evidence to support the idea that god (who may or may not exist) did something. Science doesn't exclude god; it simply does not include god.

While I am in agreement with your latest observation, Matt G, I think harold has made a most compelling point in which I am in agreement as well. It seems as though the Militant (New) Atheists are too quick to dub religiously devout scientists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris "creationists", when the only thing that they have in common with bona fide creationists in a belief in GOD. By that most expansive criterion then - according to Donald Prothero - since nearly 60% of evolutionary biologists polled in the 1990s have identified themselves as religious, must we conclude then that they should be dubbed "creationists" too? IMHO this blanket accusation by GNUs is fundamentally no different than the breathtakingly inane assertion of creationists of all stripes that those who "believe" in Evolution must therefore be GODLESS LIBERAL SECULAR HUMANISTS. I think it is rather sad that people like Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, PZ Myers, and even Richard Dawkins (For whom I have the utmost respect as a splendid writer and popularizer of science), fail to see that their harsh condemnation of religiously devout scientists echoes all too precisely, a similar condemnation from creationists of those who accept the overwhelming scientific fact of biological evolution and recognize that the best explanation for that fact is the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution.

John said: While I am in agreement with your latest observation, Matt G, I think harold has made a most compelling point in which I am in agreement as well. It seems as though the Militant (New) Atheists are too quick to dub religiously devout scientists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris "creationists", when the only thing that they have in common with bona fide creationists in a belief in GOD. By that most expansive criterion then - according to Donald Prothero - since nearly 60% of evolutionary biologists polled in the 1990s have identified themselves as religious, must we conclude then that they should be dubbed "creationists" too? IMHO this blanket accusation by GNUs is fundamentally no different than the breathtakingly inane assertion of creationists of all stripes that those who "believe" in Evolution must therefore be GODLESS LIBERAL SECULAR HUMANISTS. I think it is rather sad that people like Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, PZ Myers, and even Richard Dawkins (For whom I have the utmost respect as a splendid writer and popularizer of science), fail to see that their harsh condemnation of religiously devout scientists echoes all too precisely, a similar condemnation from creationists of those who accept the overwhelming scientific fact of biological evolution and recognize that the best explanation for that fact is the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution.

But Francis Collins’ views are still compatible with mine, in the sense that neither of us can prove the other wrong, and we both agree on almost all objective science. I don’t think his god created the universe, but maybe it did, how should I know? Whatever Steven Hawking can measure, maybe it’s one step before that. Maybe the multiverse is a manifestation of its consciousness or something. I don’t think so, but also don’t know or care. Clearly there is a major difference here. So my question is - Do you have a word that differentiates between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins?

The difference between you and Collins is that the burden of proof rests on him, not on you. He says that this god person exists and did things, and you are not. He is stating a belief, which he may or may not acknowledge is a belief. There are three positions here, not two: (i) god did something, (ii) god did not do something, and (iii) there is no evidence to support the idea that god (who may or may not exist) did something. Science doesn’t exclude god; it simply does not include god.

No. They believe God CREATED the universe. I mean, duh?

If you want to tell a creationist from a non-creationist, you should ask the question: Is god necessary to explain the natural world? If the answer is yes - which is a positive claim - you have a creationist.

MosesZD said: No. They believe God CREATED the universe. I mean, duh? That is the bottom-line with "creationism." God created the universe.

Within creationism, there are flavors. Thestic evolution (or unguided-ensoulment) creationists, like Miller, are just one kind of creationist.

So while you want to make an issue... The only issue is why are you making an issue out of an obvious fact?

MosesZD said:

John said:

Matt G said:

harold said: But Francis Collins' views are still compatible with mine, in the sense that neither of us can prove the other wrong, and we both agree on almost all objective science. I don't think his god created the universe, but maybe it did, how should I know? Whatever Steven Hawking can measure, maybe it's one step before that. Maybe the multiverse is a manifestation of its consciousness or something. I don't think so, but also don't know or care. Clearly there is a major difference here. So my question is - Do you have a word that differentiates between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins?

The difference between you and Collins is that the burden of proof rests on him, not on you. He says that this god person exists and did things, and you are not. He is stating a belief, which he may or may not acknowledge is a belief. There are three positions here, not two: (i) god did something, (ii) god did not do something, and (iii) there is no evidence to support the idea that god (who may or may not exist) did something. Science doesn't exclude god; it simply does not include god.

While I am in agreement with your latest observation, Matt G, I think harold has made a most compelling point in which I am in agreement as well. It seems as though the Militant (New) Atheists are too quick to dub religiously devout scientists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris "creationists", when the only thing that they have in common with bona fide creationists in a belief in GOD. By that most expansive criterion then - according to Donald Prothero - since nearly 60% of evolutionary biologists polled in the 1990s have identified themselves as religious, must we conclude then that they should be dubbed "creationists" too? IMHO this blanket accusation by GNUs is fundamentally no different than the breathtakingly inane assertion of creationists of all stripes that those who "believe" in Evolution must therefore be GODLESS LIBERAL SECULAR HUMANISTS. I think it is rather sad that people like Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, PZ Myers, and even Richard Dawkins (For whom I have the utmost respect as a splendid writer and popularizer of science), fail to see that their harsh condemnation of religiously devout scientists echoes all too precisely, a similar condemnation from creationists of those who accept the overwhelming scientific fact of biological evolution and recognize that the best explanation for that fact is the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution.

No. They believe God CREATED the universe. I mean, duh? That is the bottom-line with "creationism." God created the universe. Within creationism, there are flavors. Thestic evolution (or unguided-ensoulment) creationists, like Miller, are just one kind of creationist. So while you want to make an issue... The only issue is why are you making an issue out of an obvious fact? Nobody is saying they're mouth-breathing, ignorant cretins. Just they're creationists because they believe, regardless of the level of sophistication with which they hide their beliefs, God created the universe.

Can Nick Matzke point us to where he has called for the top journal for evolutionary science to not publish articles concerning evolution and religion prior to now. Coyne's is not the first article on the subject to appear in such a journal. It would be interesting to know if his opposition is genuine, or based on the known animus he has towards Coyne ?

Matt G said: If you want to tell a creationist from a non-creationist, you should ask the question: Is god necessary to explain the natural world? If the answer is yes - which is a positive claim - you have a creationist. Actually, you'd have two positive claims: the existence of god, and the agency of god. Funny that while the official description of the Templeton Prize says that it has "no particular conception of the divine", it goes on to list two, the same two I mention above. The non-existence of the divine is not an option, apparently.

Does the objectively true statement that Handel’s Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.

Dave Luckett said: 1) The problems that the USA has in obtaining general consensus on well-proven science (such as the theory of evolution, an ancient earth and anthropomorphic global warming) are not completely unique in the western world. Other western democracies have those problems, too, but to nothing like so great a degree or accompanied by such furious pertinacity in the opposition. Nowhere else is there a serious, broad-based, well-funded, well-organised political movement to replace science in the public schools with religious doctrine. Nowhere else (among western democracies) is there anything like the same proportion of people who don't accept the science on these topics. 2) This fact has to be explained.

harold said: But is there a word that you can use to differentiate between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins?

Carl Drews said:

Dave Luckett said: 1) The problems that the USA has in obtaining general consensus on well-proven science (such as the theory of evolution, an ancient earth and anthropomorphic global warming) are not completely unique in the western world. Other western democracies have those problems, too, but to nothing like so great a degree or accompanied by such furious pertinacity in the opposition. Nowhere else is there a serious, broad-based, well-funded, well-organised political movement to replace science in the public schools with religious doctrine. Nowhere else (among western democracies) is there anything like the same proportion of people who don't accept the science on these topics. 2) This fact has to be explained.

In his book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality, science journalist Chris Mooney discusses the American resistance to scientific findings. He attributes science denial primarily to the liberal/conservative divide, not to religion. (Obviously liberal/conservative correlates to certain denominations.) Here is the link: The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science -- and Reality

harold said: But is there a word that you can use to differentiate between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins? Prediction - the next few answers to this question, if there are any, will be some form of evasion.

harold said: Question for Larry Moran or Roger - Back on the topic of the meaning of the word "creationist". As far as I can see, that's the only source of actual disagreement between us.

I use the word in a common way, to differentiate between, say, Ray Comfort and Francis Collins. The main reason I use this particular word is because Ray Comfort uses it to describe himself, Francis Collins doesn't, and it seems reasonable to use it in this way.

Few religions or scientific views can be neatly summarized up in a single word. The application of misleading labels for particular perspectives has regularly muddied the debate between science and faith throughout the modern era. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of the "creationist" label, which has featured so prominently in the science-and-faith debates over the past century. Taken at face value, the term "creationist" would seem to imply the general perspective of one who argues for the existence of a God who was directly invovled in the creation of the universe. In that broad sense, many deists and nearly all theists, including me, would need to count themselves as creationists.

Over the past century, however, the term "Creationist" has been hijacked (and capitalized) to apply to a very specific subset of such believers, specifically those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis ...

Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) is the newest form of creationism, and yet it resembles a much earlier idea. In some ways. IDC is a descendant of William Paley's Argument from Design (Paley 1803), which argued that God's existence could be proved by examining His works.

Theistic Evolution (TE) is a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. ... TE is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the position of the Catholic Church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic version of the TE position, in which God created, evolution happened, humans may indeed be descended from more primitive forms, but the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul.

You're correct that Ray Comfort and Francis Collins have things in common. They're human, they're male, they're white, they're middle aged, they're American, and they're both religious Protestants. I suppose that it's true that Francis Collins thinks that in some way his god created, intended, willed, or whatever, the universe.

But Francis Collins' views are still compatible with mine, in the sense that neither of us can prove the other wrong, and we both agree on almost all objective science.

So my question is - Do you have a word that differentiates between Ray Comfort and Francis Collins?

Larry, the difference between you, PZ, Jerry, etc. and Genie Scott is that she doesn't use her definition of "theistic evolutionist" as a perjorative. Instead, like McCarthyites, you have no hesitation in labeling someone a "creationist" even if that isn't an accurate description of a person's philosophical worldview.

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said:

Do you then defend the role of revelation and textual authority in music, art, politics, etc.? How does your “broader view” resolve claim conflicts? If there is a “broader view” which yields “truth”, how does it work? How can I test that “truth” for myself? Or must I simply take the word of authorities about their revelations?

Is there truth in Handel's Messiah? Or is it crap because it's based on religion? Yes or no, pick a side, we're at war.

What truth? What claim does Handel's Messiah make? I say no one can address a comment like yours because it is vague to the point of meaninglessness. So how does your "broader view" work to reveal the truth claims in music? How does it produce "truth"?

Creationism is commonly used to denote a belief that God created the universe in a way similar to what’s described in Genesis.

— eric

The only difference between Ken Ham and Jerry Coyne is that one is Australian.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said:

Douglas Theobald said: That's exactly what I thought you think. The view to which you ascribe above is called scientism -- it's an extreme form of logical positivism. And it is a self-contradicting postulate; it is necessarily false. Philosophers abandoned it many decades ago (your view is exactly what Popper criticized), but for some reason it has recently been taken up uncritically by the gnus.

I notice you haven't offered any other way of knowing that arrives at universal truths. Does that mean there aren't any, in your opinion?

I'm not going to get into a discussion of what "scientism" actually means. You clearly mean it as an insult because you say it's been proven false. That's another way of saying that I must be an irrational idiot for presumably holding this view. Given your stance on other issues, I don't have any idea how you can say that anything is "necessarily false" without making some assumptions about logic and rationality.

I would bet that most people here, you included, believe that Last Thursdayism is false. Problem is, neither you nor anyone else has come to that conclusion using the methods of science.

Science is a way of knowing that requires evidence. There is no evidence in support of Last Thursdayism. Therefore it is not scientific to believe in it. The default (tentative) assumption is that Last Thursdayism is not true but I can't PROVE that it's false. I also can't prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy or that there isn't some green cheese somewhere on the moon.

My version of science as a way of knowing does not depend on empirical testing (whatever that is). But you know that already since we've been debating this topic for more than a decade. I guess you just temporarily forgot, right?

eric said: Creationism is commonly used to denote a belief that God created the universe in a way similar to what's described in Genesis. That's the way its commonly used by English speakers.

Its also the way the term is commonly used in the courts to decide first amendment issues.

And if that isn't enough, its also defined that way in most dictionaries. When you chop off the italicized part of the definition, you're playing humpty dumpty; deciding that words mean what you want them to mean.

As I mentioned in my response to Larry, we already have a term that describes the Ken Ham + Ken Miller category: theist. The only reason I can imagine for people not being satisfied with that term is that it is insufficiently negative for their tastes.

Frank J said:

Creationism is commonly used to denote a belief that God created the universe in a way similar to what’s described in Genesis.

— eric

That's how most people define it who are at most vaguely familiar with the tactics of anti-evolution activists. Whereas those who are familiar tend to define it as a pseudoscience that is first and foremost dedicated to promoting unreasonable doubt of evolution - with the mutually contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis optional. And, sadly, as we see, some insist on defining it in terms of personal belief in ultimate causes that may or may not be testable, this including theistic evolution. All I can say is that ID peddlers love that disagreement, and exploit it to the fullest. While I realize that I'm a minority of one, I simply avoid the C-word in all its forms, unless I make it 100% clear which definition I'm referring to. Whether one agrees with Ken Miller's brand of theism (very different than mine) one cannot disagree with his observation (from "Only a Theory") that the anti-evolution activists have suceeded in dividing us and uniting themselves. If we absolutely can't unite ourselves, the least we can do is keep dividing them. To do that we must constantly ask them for details on "what happened when" accoring to their "theories," and avoid "taking the bait" by allowing them to keep the "debate" on "weaknesses" of evolution and/or whether or not some Creator/designer "did it." Sooner or later their "creative" evasion will be noticed by the majority of the public that's neither hopelessly in denial of evolution, nor aware of how sleazy anti-evolution activism is.

I appreciate Nick Matzke's impatience with the tendency of the new atheists and their allies to overestimate the reach of science. People object to his use of the expression "scientism" in this connection, but I rather like the word since what's involved here is not a philosophical position. There have been, after all, philosophers that maintained that scientific reason simply is reason; but positivists defined what they claimed and attempted to defend it. "Scientism," on the other hand, is more like an attitude than a thesis. Arguing against it is like arguing against color blindness. If you simply define the job of reason in advance as saying x about y and posit that the universe is a big room with y's in it, that's what you'll find when you look, which is what used to be called begging the question. Ergo the notion that evaluating a piece of music is like coming up with the mass of an electron. It's not that physics and mathematics are irrelevant to music or, for that matter, that a sociologist, psychologist, or neurologist can't have something useful to say about literature, just as factual information is often highly important in making political or ethical decisions. Music, literature, and human action, however, don't reduce to such matters of fact. Knowing music, for example, means having the ability to compose it or at least appreciate it.

Trying to reduce reason to science carries the very unpleasant implication that everything that people do, feel, or suffer outside of science, which is to say the overwhelming proportion of everybody's life, is mindless emotion. That was already a problem for an actual philosopher such as A.J.Ayers, who famously asserted that the statement "x is good" simply means "I like it!" but at least Ayer had the courage of his convictions and was willing to live with the consequences. The trouble is, this outlook is not only problematic because of its consequences. It's pretty obviously objectively false since, for example, it is pretty clear that I'm not just saying that I like something when I say it's good, which is why movie critics aren't contradicting themselves when they admit they enjoyed a bad movie.

It's too bad that arguments about scientism always seem to come down to debates about aesthetics as if the only possible hold out against the universal empire of science were the relic republic of the arts. I guess the assumption is that even people with extraordinarily narrow mental horizons like a tune now and then so that talking about music might reach the typical votary of scientism. In fact, however, it's the sciences that are the tiny sliver of experience. That's not a complaint against the scientific method, of course. As in microscopy, there's a trade off between magnifying power and depth of field. It's just sometimes hard to communicate with those squished under the cover plate.

Jim said: People object to his use of the expression "scientism" ...

Did you ask John Wilkes Booth for his opinion?

dr who said:

Nick Matzke said:

So your barometer for truth is how many people share your opinion? That kind of thing is really dangerous.

Nope. The point is that saying that Handel's music is a great work of art isn't just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you'd be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here. Handel was a musical genius and found a way to stir the deepest emotions of people with music. But did we get his music from science? No. Does the objectively true statement that Handel's Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.

The answer to your last question is "yes". The only way in which we can assess the objective greatness of a composition is by making repeatable observations about it. If we can say that many people from many different countries on all inhabited continents have enjoyed it for many generations, then we could make the "greatness" claim. "Scientism" certainly wouldn't answer your first question "did we get [Handel's] music from science" with "yes". Of course we didn't. It is human nature to make music. The claim of scientism isn't that science is literally everything. Rocks, trees, humans and their music aren't science, neither do they come from science. Scientism is merely that claim that science is the only way to objectively study such things. As individuals, we do not decide whether or not we like the Messiah scientifically, we do so subjectively. But as soon as we make repeatable observations that support a claim to its "objective greatness", we are being scientific. I wouldn't have to be particularly fond of the Messiah personally to agree with you that there's a reasonable evidence based case for its objective greatness!

Nick Matzke said: ... objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

Nick Matzke said: Are you saying that John Wilkes Booth and the South had the correct view of things?

This is one of the most hilarious piles of crap I've ever read.

Nick old buddy you sound like IBIG. Give it a rest dude.

Douglas Theobald said: There is simply no empirical evidence against Last Thursdayism (unlike your inappropriate analogy of green cheese on the moon, for which there is plenty of opposing empirical evidence). You make the assumption that a lack of evidence, either for or against, means "shouldn't believe in it". That is a philosophical assumption that itself cannot be addressed by the scientific method.

This is the peculiar problem with the scientific method --- there are some propositions that could be true, but science has no way of finding out.

Errr...Nick, not Jason. My apologies, got my RL and OL conversations confused. :)

Frank J said:

Creationism is commonly used to denote a belief that God created the universe in a way similar to what’s described in Genesis.

— eric

That's how most people define it who are at most vaguely familiar with the tactics of anti-evolution activists. Whereas those who are familiar tend to define it as a pseudoscience that is first and foremost dedicated to promoting unreasonable doubt of evolution - with the mutually contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis optional. And, sadly, as we see, some insist on defining it in terms of personal belief in ultimate causes that may or may not be testable, this including theistic evolution. All I can say is that ID peddlers love that disagreement, and exploit it to the fullest. While I realize that I'm a minority of one, I simply avoid the C-word in all its forms, unless I make it 100% clear which definition I'm referring to. Whether one agrees with Ken Miller's brand of theism (very different than mine) one cannot disagree with his observation (from "Only a Theory") that the anti-evolution activists have suceeded in dividing us and uniting themselves. If we absolutely can't unite ourselves, the least we can do is keep dividing them. To do that we must constantly ask them for details on "what happened when" accoring to their "theories," and avoid "taking the bait" by allowing them to keep the "debate" on "weaknesses" of evolution and/or whether or not some Creator/designer "did it." Sooner or later their "creative" evasion will be noticed by the majority of the public that's neither hopelessly in denial of evolution, nor aware of how sleazy anti-evolution activism is.

Starbuck said: The only difference between Ken Ham and Jerry Coyne is that one is Australian.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry Moran here. ...I've tried pretty hard to document my claim that the word "creationism" is used in a much broader sense than you say. I'm not denying that there's a dispute. Why can't you also admit that there are legitimate differences of opinion?

I'm as fond of the cuts and thrusts of debate as the next person but aren't you being a bit hypocritical here? Do you attack Genie Scott and NCSE in the same manner you attack me?

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said: ... objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

How?

Douglas Theobald said:

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said: ... objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

How?

Well, this will probably open a can of philosophical worms, and I'm content to let them crawl, but I will offer mathematics as one way. None of the truths in mathematics can be tested experimentally --- mathematical propositions cannot be falsified; there is no empirical observation that could, for instance, contradict the Pythagorean theorem. Science is unnecessary for mathematics; mathematical theorems can be true and have nothing to do with the physical world. Mathematical theorems only exist in minds; they are purely mental objects. Conversely, mathematics is unnecessary for empirical science --- for instance, basically all of classic organic chemistry has been developed without any recourse to mathematics, and it has been a spectacularly successful science. As Einstein said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Lastly, I can treat beliefs with equal evidentiary support with equal credibility, AND not be stuck in philosophical paralysis, by treating the ones with no support as not credible. No scientism is involved. No metaphysics. There's no philosophical assumption being made here, except the pretty broad one that beliefs with equal evidence should be treated the same. The non-believer's decision to ignore Last Thursdayism and all similar beliefs is just pragmatism + general rationality.

phhht said: ... being inside "the limits of science as normally defined"?

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said: ... objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

How?

Nick Matzke said:

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said: ... objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

How?

We just saw two examples, with Handel's Messiah being objectively a great work of music, and Abraham Lincoln objectively being a great president. Science as normally defined would have required measurements, statistical testing, peer-reviewed publication, etc., but we got to objective truth (approximately, as always with any truth statement) without all of that.

Douglas Theobald said: ... this... rational and reasonable course... is a slim reed to hang all of reality on.

tomh said:

Nick Matzke said: Are you saying that John Wilkes Booth and the South had the correct view of things?

Who are you to decide the "correct" view of history? You have an opinion, that's all, just like you do on music or art. Lincoln presided over the biggest mass slaughter of US citizens in the history of the country. Does that factor in to him being a great president? Many people, and not just southerners, feel the country would be better off if it had been allowed to split. The idea that deciding who is great and who is not so great can be objectively quantified is laughable.

Nick Matzke said:

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said: ... objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

How?

We just saw two examples, with Handel's Messiah being objectively a great work of music, and Abraham Lincoln objectively being a great president. Science as normally defined would have required measurements, statistical testing, peer-reviewed publication, etc., but we got to objective truth (approximately, as always with any truth statement) without all of that.

"It's a wrong opinion"

Hellfire, it it's a matter of opinion it's hardly an objective truth, is it?

boys i reckon we have finally figured out who IBIG is after all these years. Nick has been playing sockpuppet on PT. Good one dude, you have been very entertaining. +10000000 for troll points

Your examples seem to me to suggest that you understand “objective” in a way different from my understanding. I mean that in order to demonstrate the objective truth of a claim such as “the Messiah is a great piece of music”, you must provide a test which I myself can, at least in principle, use to determine the truth or falsity of your claim. Is that your meaning too? If not, what do you mean?

Nick Matzke said:

Your examples seem to me to suggest that you understand “objective” in a way different from my understanding. I mean that in order to demonstrate the objective truth of a claim such as “the Messiah is a great piece of music”, you must provide a test which I myself can, at least in principle, use to determine the truth or falsity of your claim. Is that your meaning too? If not, what do you mean?

Oh come now, neither you nor anyone else goes through life requiring testability of every last thing you think or know is objectively true. You are just expressing a crude old-fashioned logical positivism here, one which philosophy abandoned decades ago.

phhht said:

Douglas Theobald said: ... this... rational and reasonable course... is a slim reed to hang all of reality on.

What other course do you propose? In particular, how is one to distinguish between conflicting propositions for which there is no evidence?

"if any of the learned be inclined, from their natural temper, to haughtiness and obstinacy, a small tincture of Pyrrhonism might abate their pride, by showing them that the few advantages, which they may have attained over their fellows, are but inconsiderable if compared with the universal perplexity and confusion which is inherent in human nature. In general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner."

Nick Matzke said:

dr who said:

Nick Matzke said: Nope. The point is that saying that Handel's music is a great work of art isn't just mere subjective opinion. You can disagree, but you'd be as bonkers as a creationist to do so. There is objective truth here. Handel was a musical genius and found a way to stir the deepest emotions of people with music. But did we get his music from science? No. Does the objectively true statement that Handel's Messiah is a great work come from from science? No.

The answer to your last question is "yes". The only way in which we can assess the objective greatness of a composition is by making repeatable observations about it. If we can say that many people from many different countries on all inhabited continents have enjoyed it for many generations, then we could make the "greatness" claim. "Scientism" certainly wouldn't answer your first question "did we get [Handel's] music from science" with "yes". Of course we didn't. It is human nature to make music. The claim of scientism isn't that science is literally everything. Rocks, trees, humans and their music aren't science, neither do they come from science. Scientism is merely that claim that science is the only way to objectively study such things. As individuals, we do not decide whether or not we like the Messiah scientifically, we do so subjectively. But as soon as we make repeatable observations that support a claim to its "objective greatness", we are being scientific. I wouldn't have to be particularly fond of the Messiah personally to agree with you that there's a reasonable evidence based case for its objective greatness!

Now this at least is a fairly reasonable overall position. I think it stretches the meaning of the word "science" far beyond its everyday usage, its political/policy/legal usage, etc., but at least it acknowledges that objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

Then what DO you mean by “objective”?

Larry MOran said: My version of science as a way of knowing does not depend on empirical testing (whatever that is). But you know that already since we've been debating this topic for more than a decade. I guess you just temporarily forgot, right?

Douglas Theobald replied: Well, that does come as a surprise to me. Perhaps you have told me, and I forgot (I'm guilty of forgetting many things, yes). But your statement that "science ... does not depend on empirical testing" is so extraordinary that I should have remembered somebody saying that. And it is so incredibly at odds with the usual conception of science that I'm really at a loss for comment. I guess this may explain why I find it so hard to understand your arguments. AFAICT, your personal "version of science" is unique to yourself, and has little relation to anyone else's.

These and similar examples are easy enough to uncover, and they make two crucial points: first, good science does not require experiments, it can be done with intelligent use of observational evidence; second, there is more than one way to do science, depending on the nature of the questions and the methods typical of the field.

Douglas Theobald said:

phhht said: ... being inside "the limits of science as normally defined"?

I've no idea what that means.

...objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

Nick Matzke said:

Then what DO you mean by “objective”?

One definition of an objective statement would be one that corresponds with reality enough that people will independently reach that same conclusion far more than would be expected by chance, especially when the conclusion is converged upon by people in the face of diverse cultural, linguistic, historical, etc., backgrounds, and especially when such people have carefully examined the matter in question. Complete agreement is not required. Scientific testing is useful but not required. Science is objective, but it's not the only known path to objective truth in all conceivable matters. I don't see why admitting this is such a huge friggin' deal for some folks.

Nick Matzke said: But it's a wrong opinion, and most people know it.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: As for "empirical testing" I agree with many philosophers who don't restrict science by requiring empirical testing, or experiments.

... good science does not require experiments, it can be done with intelligent use of observational evidence

Douglas Theobald said:

phhht said:

Douglas Theobald said: ... this... rational and reasonable course... is a slim reed to hang all of reality on.

What other course do you propose? In particular, how is one to distinguish between conflicting propositions for which there is no evidence?

Well, following up on my previous example (which is only one of several possibilities) --- in the absence of any and all empirical evidence, how would you distinguish between these two propositions? e^{i π} = 0 e^{i π} = -1

"if any of the learned be inclined, from their natural temper, to haughtiness and obstinacy, a small tincture of Pyrrhonism might abate their pride, by showing them that the few advantages, which they may have attained over their fellows, are but inconsiderable if compared with the universal perplexity and confusion which is inherent in human nature. In general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner."

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said:

Then what DO you mean by “objective”?

One definition of an objective statement would be one that corresponds with reality enough that people will independently reach that same conclusion far more than would be expected by chance, especially when the conclusion is converged upon by people in the face of diverse cultural, linguistic, historical, etc., backgrounds, and especially when such people have carefully examined the matter in question. Complete agreement is not required. Scientific testing is useful but not required. Science is objective, but it's not the only known path to objective truth in all conceivable matters. I don't see why admitting this is such a huge friggin' deal for some folks.

How, then, do you resolve conflicting claims?

Nick Matzke said: But it's a wrong opinion, and most people know it.

Accepting evolution or scientific findings does not necessarily mean one has to be non-religious or an Atheist. The people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs are just as bad as the religious zealots who refuse to accept evolution because of their faith. Until science can 100% disprove all types of gods, there will be a large number of religious people. And honestly, that is not ALWAYS a terrible thing. There is just as much good from religion as there is bad. Some forms of Buddhism for instance are considered religion even though they teach no dogma, only kindness toward all life. Exactly how do such beliefs cause harm? Maybe if Atheists and agnostics fostered more goodwill toward people (including the religious), we wouldn't be have to fight this war. Reason and COMPASSION can overcome all.

jeramyd.murray said: Accepting evolution or scientific findings does not necessarily mean one has to be non-religious or an Atheist. The people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs are just as bad as the religious zealots who refuse to accept evolution because of their faith. Until science can 100% disprove all types of gods, there will be a large number of religious people. And honestly, that is not ALWAYS a terrible thing. There is just as much good from religion as there is bad. Some forms of Buddhism for instance are considered religion even though they teach no dogma, only kindness toward all life. Exactly how do such beliefs cause harm? Maybe if Atheists and agnostics fostered more goodwill toward people (including the religious), we wouldn't be have to fight this war. Reason and COMPASSION can overcome all.

tomh said:

Nick Matzke said: Are you saying that John Wilkes Booth and the South had the correct view of things?

Who are you to decide the "correct" view of history? You have an opinion, that's all, just like you do on music or art. Lincoln presided over the biggest mass slaughter of US citizens in the history of the country. Does that factor in to him being a great president? Many people, and not just southerners, feel the country would be better off if it had been allowed to split. The idea that deciding who is great and who is not so great can be objectively quantified is laughable.

John said:

tomh said:

Nick Matzke said: Are you saying that John Wilkes Booth and the South had the correct view of things?

Who are you to decide the "correct" view of history? You have an opinion, that's all, just like you do on music or art. Lincoln presided over the biggest mass slaughter of US citizens in the history of the country. Does that factor in to him being a great president? Many people, and not just southerners, feel the country would be better off if it had been allowed to split. The idea that deciding who is great and who is not so great can be objectively quantified is laughable.

And who the hell are you in asserting that the USA should have been split apart? Maybe you've been reading too many Harry Turtledove alternative history novels, right ? (In fairness to Turtledove, at least he tries his best to get both his setting and facts straight in those novels.) Maybe both the USA and Afro-Americans would have been better off if the USA didn't wage a war of independence from the British Empire, the American Revolution, right? Why? Well slavery would have been abolished all over the original Thirteen Colonies under an act of Parliament in 1830 that banned slavery throughout the British Empire. Based on your absurd logic, then Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman must be mass murderers too, for sanctioning unrestricted bombing against Nazi-held European cities (Though this was primarily Churchill's fault, since the RAF did the bombing; the Americans opted for more "precision" bombing.) and Japanese cities. And of course a special note of infamy must be noted for Truman, since he gave permission to the US Army Air Force to nuke both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that probably more than a million American and Japanese casualties were averted by not having the USA invade the Japanese home islands probably doesn't register inside your Reptilian-like Militant Atheist brain. Do me a favor and go back to your online pigpen in the GNU blogosphere. You have no business judging Nick, moron.

jeramyd.murray said: Accepting evolution or scientific findings does not necessarily mean one has to be non-religious or an Atheist. The people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs are just as bad as the religious zealots who refuse to accept evolution because of their faith. Until science can 100% disprove all types of gods, there will be a large number of religious people. And honestly, that is not ALWAYS a terrible thing. There is just as much good from religion as there is bad. Some forms of Buddhism for instance are considered religion even though they teach no dogma, only kindness toward all life. Exactly how do such beliefs cause harm? Maybe if Atheists and agnostics fostered more goodwill toward people (including the religious), we wouldn't be have to fight this war. Reason and COMPASSION can overcome all.

Nick Matzke said:

Then what DO you mean by “objective”?

One definition of an objective statement would be one that corresponds with reality enough that people will independently reach that same conclusion far more than would be expected by chance, especially when the conclusion is converged upon by people in the face of diverse cultural, linguistic, historical, etc., backgrounds, and especially when such people have carefully examined the matter in question. Complete agreement is not required. Scientific testing is useful but not required. Science is objective, but it's not the only known path to objective truth in all conceivable matters. I don't see why admitting this is such a huge friggin' deal for some folks.

John said:

tomh said:

Nick Matzke said: Are you saying that John Wilkes Booth and the South had the correct view of things?

Who are you to decide the "correct" view of history? You have an opinion, that's all, just like you do on music or art. Lincoln presided over the biggest mass slaughter of US citizens in the history of the country. Does that factor in to him being a great president? Many people, and not just southerners, feel the country would be better off if it had been allowed to split. The idea that deciding who is great and who is not so great can be objectively quantified is laughable.

And who the hell are you in asserting that the USA should have been split apart? Maybe you've been reading too many Harry Turtledove alternative history novels, right ? (In fairness to Turtledove, at least he tries his best to get both his setting and facts straight in those novels.) Maybe both the USA and Afro-Americans would have been better off if the USA didn't wage a war of independence from the British Empire, the American Revolution, right? Why? Well slavery would have been abolished all over the original Thirteen Colonies under an act of Parliament in 1830 that banned slavery throughout the British Empire. Based on your absurd logic, then Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman must be mass murderers too, for sanctioning unrestricted bombing against Nazi-held European cities (Though this was primarily Churchill's fault, since the RAF did the bombing; the Americans opted for more "precision" bombing.) and Japanese cities. And of course a special note of infamy must be noted for Truman, since he gave permission to the US Army Air Force to nuke both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that probably more than a million American and Japanese casualties were averted by not having the USA invade the Japanese home islands probably doesn't register inside your Reptilian-like Militant Atheist brain. Do me a favor and go back to your online pigpen in the GNU blogosphere. You have no business judging Nick, moron.

Nick Matzke said:

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said: ... objective truth can be reasonably determined outside the limits of science as normally defined.

How?

We just saw two examples, with Handel's Messiah being objectively a great work of music, and Abraham Lincoln objectively being a great president. Science as normally defined would have required measurements, statistical testing, peer-reviewed publication, etc., but we got to objective truth (approximately, as always with any truth statement) without all of that.

mandrellian said:

John said:

tomh said:

Nick Matzke said: Are you saying that John Wilkes Booth and the South had the correct view of things?

Who are you to decide the "correct" view of history? You have an opinion, that's all, just like you do on music or art. Lincoln presided over the biggest mass slaughter of US citizens in the history of the country. Does that factor in to him being a great president? Many people, and not just southerners, feel the country would be better off if it had been allowed to split. The idea that deciding who is great and who is not so great can be objectively quantified is laughable.

And who the hell are you in asserting that the USA should have been split apart? Maybe you've been reading too many Harry Turtledove alternative history novels, right ? (In fairness to Turtledove, at least he tries his best to get both his setting and facts straight in those novels.) Maybe both the USA and Afro-Americans would have been better off if the USA didn't wage a war of independence from the British Empire, the American Revolution, right? Why? Well slavery would have been abolished all over the original Thirteen Colonies under an act of Parliament in 1830 that banned slavery throughout the British Empire. Based on your absurd logic, then Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman must be mass murderers too, for sanctioning unrestricted bombing against Nazi-held European cities (Though this was primarily Churchill's fault, since the RAF did the bombing; the Americans opted for more "precision" bombing.) and Japanese cities. And of course a special note of infamy must be noted for Truman, since he gave permission to the US Army Air Force to nuke both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that probably more than a million American and Japanese casualties were averted by not having the USA invade the Japanese home islands probably doesn't register inside your Reptilian-like Militant Atheist brain. Do me a favor and go back to your online pigpen in the GNU blogosphere. You have no business judging Nick, moron.

And, thus, the point against Matzke is proven. One's assessment of "greatness" is entirely subjective. Truman, FDR, Churchill DID order the indiscriminate killings of countless German and Japanese civilians. Did it shorten the war or harm enemy production or lower morale? Certainly. Were these actions - or the men who ordered them - "great"? That depends on whether you were looking up at a Lancaster or looking down from one. And what of the brutality regularly utilised by Russian forces invading Germany? Greatness? They, too, shortened the war - they secured the heart of the German Reich! That the actions described ended the worst conflict in our history does not, necessarily, make them or the people who ordered or performed them great - certainly not objectively. At most, it makes them necessary. But that was a war "we" won. It was won at great cost and was won, partially, by fighting dirty, but those were the rules we were given. I had relatives involved in shortening that war, in defeating a chilling and relentless enemy and I'm thankful every day about the outcome. Ho Chi Minh is considered a saviour in Viet Nam. Kim Il Sung is practically a deity in North Korea. Fidel Castro is revered in Cuba. Ned Kelly is considered by many a hero in Australia. Is this objective greatness? Popular opinion? Is it just differences in perspective?

Frankly, the charge that there are “people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs” is flat false. No “new atheist” demands that; what they do insist on is leaving aside supernatural beliefs (or any belief for which no evidence or logical implication can be produced) when performing science, and that scientists and scientific organisations don’t go out of their way to accommodate beliefs that do not comport with reality as it is currently understood.

Nick Matzke said: Showing that some things in politics and art are legitimate matters of debate with no objective answer Does Not Equal showing that all things in politics and art are legitimate matters of debate with no objective answer. There are any number of ideas in science that are legitimately debatable, for instance, even though we have well-established testing procedures there.

Nick Matzke said:

Frankly, the charge that there are “people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs” is flat false. No “new atheist” demands that; what they do insist on is leaving aside supernatural beliefs (or any belief for which no evidence or logical implication can be produced) when performing science, and that scientists and scientific organisations don’t go out of their way to accommodate beliefs that do not comport with reality as it is currently understood.

Oh, come on. Words like "eradicate religion" and other overwrought, hostile, intolerant, and occasionally exterminationist rhetoric is quite common with Gnus. E.g. "religion poisons everything." That's a large part of what bugs a lot of us about the gnu movement.

Nick Matzke said: ... rhetoric... E.g. "religion poisons everything." [is] a large part of what bugs a lot of us about the gnu movement.

Matzke errs by making the test of rationality objectivity, but his critics on this site fall into the same error in the way they talk about the sciences. Last time I looked, the sciences don't arrive at a once for all truth; the best we get is a perpetually tentative consensus. What marks the sciences as rational is not that they yield absolute objective truth--how are a bunch of mammals ever going to do that?--but that they give us a way of meaningfully investigating the world through observation, experiment, and argument. Other rational human activities are not so different. I don't know whether Handel is the greatest composer of oratorios: indeed, I don't think that's a particularly interesting question outside of the pages of the Huffington report. I merely observe that learning about Handel and other musicians, listening to his music, singing or otherwise preforming it, and talking about it with others, does makes one appreciate it differently and better. There may not be some absolute destination in the quest to understand, value, and take pleasure in music, but there certainly more going on then a popularity contest. Similarly, one may be skeptical that there are complete and final answers to ethical and political questions or historical interpretations, but that doesn't mean that ethics, politics, law, and history aren't rational activities since, as a matter of fact, thinking about them does get you some where.

In many human activities, definitive conclusions aren't reached but the quality of the argument improves. Example that comes to mind: people have been arguing about the significance of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 ever since 1688 and the debate remains fraught because interpreting this event in English history is bound up with fundamental political issues, which is why political thinkers from John Locke and Edmund Burke to Thomas Macaulay and John Rawls have written about it. There is no consensus on whether this Revolution was a revolution or simply the re-establishment of the rights of Englishmen or, more simply, a good thing or a bad thing. Thing is, though, the various sides of this argument are not what they once were because 300 plus years of thinking have upped the ante on what counts as a serious interpretation of the Revolution. For example, a bit over a year ago, a historian named Pincus published his own book on the topic, a magisterial tome if there ever was one. He didn't settle things either, of course; but you can't read his book without becoming less simple minded about English history and its continuing implications. Serious history is not science, but it is not a matter of "O yeah? sez you" either.

Jim said: Serious history is not science...

phhht said:

Jim said: Serious history is not science...

Serious history is a profoundly scientific pursuit. It seeks evidence, it reaches tentative, rational conclusions based on that evidence, and when possible, it devises tests for its conclusions. It abjures conclusions for which there is no evidence.

Nick Matzke said: One definition of an objective statement would be one that corresponds with reality enough that people will independently reach that same conclusion far more than would be expected by chance, especially when the conclusion is converged upon by people in the face of diverse cultural, linguistic, historical, etc., backgrounds, and especially when such people have carefully examined the matter in question.

Jim said:

phhht said:

Jim said: Serious history is not science...

Serious history is a profoundly scientific pursuit. It seeks evidence, it reaches tentative, rational conclusions based on that evidence, and when possible, it devises tests for its conclusions. It abjures conclusions for which there is no evidence.

phhht makes the common mistake of taking a necessary condition for a sufficient one. Historians are certainly obliged to pay attention to what actually happened and in so doing they act as fact accumulators and fact checkers. What makes history history and not mindless stamp collecting, however, depends on what the historians leave out, not what they stash in the attic. History is profoundly about selection, about deciding what matters, and creating narratives that explain what happened and what the events mean.

mandrellian said:

jeramyd.murray said: Accepting evolution or scientific findings does not necessarily mean one has to be non-religious or an Atheist. The people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs are just as bad as the religious zealots who refuse to accept evolution because of their faith. Until science can 100% disprove all types of gods, there will be a large number of religious people. And honestly, that is not ALWAYS a terrible thing. There is just as much good from religion as there is bad. Some forms of Buddhism for instance are considered religion even though they teach no dogma, only kindness toward all life. Exactly how do such beliefs cause harm? Maybe if Atheists and agnostics fostered more goodwill toward people (including the religious), we wouldn't be have to fight this war. Reason and COMPASSION can overcome all.

Frankly, the charge that there are "people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs" is flat false. No "new atheist" demands that; what they do insist on is leaving aside supernatural beliefs (or any belief for which no evidence or logical implication can be produced) when performing science, and that scientists and scientific organisations don't go out of their way to accommodate beliefs that do not comport with reality as it is currently understood. Religious beliefs would be no problem if people held them privately; when people don't do so they should be prepared to have them discussed, as any claim, belief or opinion on any other subject. The standard trope of "atheists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists" is way too well-worn to deserve anything but instant dismissal. And this "war" is on because certain politically active elements of conservative theistic religions started the bloody thing, before any of us were alive, and have been fighting it ever since on numerous fronts. It might have started on the evolution front, but this isn't just about evolution and how it invalidates Scripture and humanity's feeling of "specialness" anymore; it's part of a multi-faceted cultural campaign to conflate evolution with atheism, Darwinism, immorality, societal decay, abortion, gay rights, nihilism and with any "-ism" or social trend currently considered hateful by conservatives. But evolution is one place that can't be argued or debated by emotion: we have the facts, we have the evidence and we must make sure that people know that; we must also make sure that people denying those facts and evidence or seeking to dilute them are called on their bullshit. If that means a little snark or fiery talk from non-religious scientists who are passionate about education, so be it. Compared to what atheists and scientists routinely get accused of by the creationist lobby, it's a drop in a bucket.

jeramyd.murray said: Most religious people are adhering to their cultures and thus, we must GENTLY guide them away from these delusions. Attacking them or their intelligence is counter-productive.

Matzke seems to be making the mistake (I will say mistake rather than attibute maliciousness to his error, although his track record on honesty suggests that is unwise) that because he can arrive at explanations of phenomena that do not rely on science (at least in his opinion) then such phenonoma cannot be explained by science.

If one wants to talk about who is a great president then there is a requirement to have some agreement on what makes a president great. Once one has some criteria against which presidents can be compared, one can work through the presidents and decide if they meet the criteria or not. This is a form of science of course.

Matzke has also mention the Messiah being a great piece of music. Well in this context great can mean a number of things. If it means popular (or perhaps held in high regard might be a better term), then this can be checked by comparing record sales, how often the Messiah is played on the radio, how often it is performed and by carrying out research asking people their opinion on the composition. All these criteria are objective, and so can reasonably considered scientific.

So it seems Matzke is making claims for knowledge he claims can be arrived at without using science, but is simply not realising that he is wrong. I can only assume he is either unable to understand this, or his personal animus with respect to Coyne means he is not capable of being rational. Either way, it seems time others at PT step in and stop someone who once did a great service making even more of a fool of himself.

Matt Penfold said: Matzke seems to be making the mistake (I will say mistake rather than attibute maliciousness to his error, although his track record on honesty suggests that is unwise) that because he can arrive at explanations of phenomena that do not rely on science (at least in his opinion) then such phenonoma cannot be explained by science. If one wants to talk about who is a great president then there is a requirement to have some agreement on what makes a president great. Once one has some criteria against which presidents can be compared, one can work through the presidents and decide if they meet the criteria or not. This is a form of science of course. Matzke has also mention the Messiah being a great piece of music. Well in this context great can mean a number of things. If it means popular (or perhaps held in high regard might be a better term), then this can be checked by comparing record sales, how often the Messiah is played on the radio, how often it is performed and by carrying out research asking people their opinion on the composition. All these criteria are objective, and so can reasonably considered scientific. So it seems Matzke is making claims for knowledge he claims can be arrived at without using science, but is simply not realising that he is wrong. I can only assume he is either unable to understand this, or his personal animus with respect to Coyne means he is not capable of being rational. Either way, it seems time others at PT step in and stop someone who once did a great service making even more of a fool of himself.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said:

Larry MOran said: My version of science as a way of knowing does not depend on empirical testing (whatever that is). But you know that already since we've been debating this topic for more than a decade. I guess you just temporarily forgot, right?

Douglas Theobald replied: Well, that does come as a surprise to me. Perhaps you have told me, and I forgot (I'm guilty of forgetting many things, yes). But your statement that "science ... does not depend on empirical testing" is so extraordinary that I should have remembered somebody saying that. And it is so incredibly at odds with the usual conception of science that I'm really at a loss for comment. I guess this may explain why I find it so hard to understand your arguments. AFAICT, your personal "version of science" is unique to yourself, and has little relation to anyone else's.

My brief description of science is that it's a way of knowing that relies on evidence, rationality, and healthy skepticism. The key point is that my version of science as a way of knowing applies to all kinds of things and not just math, physics, geology, chemistry, and biology. It's also not constrained by methodological naturalism. It's unfortunate that you have forgotten this since conflicting definitions are at the heart of the dispute. As for "empirical testing" I agree with many philosophers who don't restrict science by requiring empirical testing, or experiments. Massimo Pigliucci describes the situation very well in Nonsense on Stilts. (Note that there are lots of things about his description of science that I dispute but on this point he is right.) He describes (pp. 20-21) the development of Big Bang Theory based on the observation of cosmic background radiation and other observations. Then he describes how Luis and Walter Alvarez came up with the idea of a meteor impact being responsible for the K-T extinction event. These are clear examples of science. Pigliucci then says,

These and similar examples are easy enough to uncover, and they make two crucial points: first, good science does not require experiments, it can be done with intelligent use of observational evidence; second, there is more than one way to do science, depending on the nature of the questions and the methods typical of the field.

When we're discussing this in class, I also use the example of a historian investigating why Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo. That historian uses scientific way of knowing but doesn't do a lot of experiments. Whenever this issue comes up I'm reminded of how angry Stephen Jay Gould would get when scientists tried to dismiss paleontology on the grounds that it wasn't an experimental science.

phhht said:

Matt Penfold said: Matzke seems to be making the mistake (I will say mistake rather than attibute maliciousness to his error, although his track record on honesty suggests that is unwise) that because he can arrive at explanations of phenomena that do not rely on science (at least in his opinion) then such phenonoma cannot be explained by science. If one wants to talk about who is a great president then there is a requirement to have some agreement on what makes a president great. Once one has some criteria against which presidents can be compared, one can work through the presidents and decide if they meet the criteria or not. This is a form of science of course. Matzke has also mention the Messiah being a great piece of music. Well in this context great can mean a number of things. If it means popular (or perhaps held in high regard might be a better term), then this can be checked by comparing record sales, how often the Messiah is played on the radio, how often it is performed and by carrying out research asking people their opinion on the composition. All these criteria are objective, and so can reasonably considered scientific. So it seems Matzke is making claims for knowledge he claims can be arrived at without using science, but is simply not realising that he is wrong. I can only assume he is either unable to understand this, or his personal animus with respect to Coyne means he is not capable of being rational. Either way, it seems time others at PT step in and stop someone who once did a great service making even more of a fool of himself.

I must say that I do not read Nick Matzke as one who is motivated by personal animosity. Nor do I find him incapable of rationality. Nor do I think he is a fool.

SLC said:

Whenever this issue comes up I'm reminded of how angry Stephen Jay Gould would get when scientists tried to dismiss paleontology on the grounds that it wasn't an experimental science.

Neither is astrophysics.

Matt Penfold said:

phhht said:

Matt Penfold said: Matzke seems to be making the mistake (I will say mistake rather than attibute maliciousness to his error, although his track record on honesty suggests that is unwise) that because he can arrive at explanations of phenomena that do not rely on science (at least in his opinion) then such phenonoma cannot be explained by science. If one wants to talk about who is a great president then there is a requirement to have some agreement on what makes a president great. Once one has some criteria against which presidents can be compared, one can work through the presidents and decide if they meet the criteria or not. This is a form of science of course. Matzke has also mention the Messiah being a great piece of music. Well in this context great can mean a number of things. If it means popular (or perhaps held in high regard might be a better term), then this can be checked by comparing record sales, how often the Messiah is played on the radio, how often it is performed and by carrying out research asking people their opinion on the composition. All these criteria are objective, and so can reasonably considered scientific. So it seems Matzke is making claims for knowledge he claims can be arrived at without using science, but is simply not realising that he is wrong. I can only assume he is either unable to understand this, or his personal animus with respect to Coyne means he is not capable of being rational. Either way, it seems time others at PT step in and stop someone who once did a great service making even more of a fool of himself.

I must say that I do not read Nick Matzke as one who is motivated by personal animosity. Nor do I find him incapable of rationality. Nor do I think he is a fool.

Well, I have read comments he left of Coyne's blog a year or so ago, and animus would seem to be the best description, assuming one wants to ignore his lack of honesty. HNe clearly has been capable of excellent work, but not now when it comes to Coyne. Matzke was basically asked to stop commenting on the blog owing to his lack of manners. (For those who are not aware, Matzke claimed on Coyne's blog the AAAS did not take a position of the compatibility of science and religion. I pointed out to Matkze that the AAAS had an section in the FAQ on its website that stated science and religion need not be conflict. Matzke was unable to admit he was wrong, and was asked to refrain from commenting owing to his lack of manners is this, as well as in respect of other issues.

phhht said:

Matt Penfold said:

phhht said:

Matt Penfold said: Matzke seems to be making the mistake (I will say mistake rather than attibute maliciousness to his error, although his track record on honesty suggests that is unwise) that because he can arrive at explanations of phenomena that do not rely on science (at least in his opinion) then such phenonoma cannot be explained by science. If one wants to talk about who is a great president then there is a requirement to have some agreement on what makes a president great. Once one has some criteria against which presidents can be compared, one can work through the presidents and decide if they meet the criteria or not. This is a form of science of course. Matzke has also mention the Messiah being a great piece of music. Well in this context great can mean a number of things. If it means popular (or perhaps held in high regard might be a better term), then this can be checked by comparing record sales, how often the Messiah is played on the radio, how often it is performed and by carrying out research asking people their opinion on the composition. All these criteria are objective, and so can reasonably considered scientific. So it seems Matzke is making claims for knowledge he claims can be arrived at without using science, but is simply not realising that he is wrong. I can only assume he is either unable to understand this, or his personal animus with respect to Coyne means he is not capable of being rational. Either way, it seems time others at PT step in and stop someone who once did a great service making even more of a fool of himself.

I must say that I do not read Nick Matzke as one who is motivated by personal animosity. Nor do I find him incapable of rationality. Nor do I think he is a fool.

Well, I have read comments he left of Coyne's blog a year or so ago, and animus would seem to be the best description, assuming one wants to ignore his lack of honesty. HNe clearly has been capable of excellent work, but not now when it comes to Coyne. Matzke was basically asked to stop commenting on the blog owing to his lack of manners. (For those who are not aware, Matzke claimed on Coyne's blog the AAAS did not take a position of the compatibility of science and religion. I pointed out to Matkze that the AAAS had an section in the FAQ on its website that stated science and religion need not be conflict. Matzke was unable to admit he was wrong, and was asked to refrain from commenting owing to his lack of manners is this, as well as in respect of other issues.

Ah, lack of manners. I'm glad I don't suffer from that particular fucking affliction.

Matt Penfold said:

phhht said:

Matt Penfold said:

phhht said:

Matt Penfold said: Matzke seems to be making the mistake (I will say mistake rather than attibute maliciousness to his error, although his track record on honesty suggests that is unwise) that because he can arrive at explanations of phenomena that do not rely on science (at least in his opinion) then such phenonoma cannot be explained by science. If one wants to talk about who is a great president then there is a requirement to have some agreement on what makes a president great. Once one has some criteria against which presidents can be compared, one can work through the presidents and decide if they meet the criteria or not. This is a form of science of course. Matzke has also mention the Messiah being a great piece of music. Well in this context great can mean a number of things. If it means popular (or perhaps held in high regard might be a better term), then this can be checked by comparing record sales, how often the Messiah is played on the radio, how often it is performed and by carrying out research asking people their opinion on the composition. All these criteria are objective, and so can reasonably considered scientific. So it seems Matzke is making claims for knowledge he claims can be arrived at without using science, but is simply not realising that he is wrong. I can only assume he is either unable to understand this, or his personal animus with respect to Coyne means he is not capable of being rational. Either way, it seems time others at PT step in and stop someone who once did a great service making even more of a fool of himself.

I must say that I do not read Nick Matzke as one who is motivated by personal animosity. Nor do I find him incapable of rationality. Nor do I think he is a fool.

Well, I have read comments he left of Coyne's blog a year or so ago, and animus would seem to be the best description, assuming one wants to ignore his lack of honesty. HNe clearly has been capable of excellent work, but not now when it comes to Coyne. Matzke was basically asked to stop commenting on the blog owing to his lack of manners. (For those who are not aware, Matzke claimed on Coyne's blog the AAAS did not take a position of the compatibility of science and religion. I pointed out to Matkze that the AAAS had an section in the FAQ on its website that stated science and religion need not be conflict. Matzke was unable to admit he was wrong, and was asked to refrain from commenting owing to his lack of manners is this, as well as in respect of other issues.

Ah, lack of manners. I'm glad I don't suffer from that particular fucking affliction.

I assumed you realise "lack of manners" was a euphemism for talking total bollocks. Coyne does not banish people from his blog lightly. In fact, unless you are there to proselytise (and Matzke was not doing that) then you essentially have to be making claims you then refuse to support, and generally be disingenuous.

Nick Matzke said:

Then what DO you mean by “objective”?

One definition of an objective statement would be one that corresponds with reality enough that people will independently reach that same conclusion far more than would be expected by chance, especially when the conclusion is converged upon by people in the face of diverse cultural, linguistic, historical, etc., backgrounds, and especially when such people have carefully examined the matter in question. Complete agreement is not required. Scientific testing is useful but not required. Science is objective, but it's not the only known path to objective truth in all conceivable matters. I don't see why admitting this is such a huge friggin' deal for some folks.

Nick Matzke said:

Frankly, the charge that there are “people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs” is flat false. No “new atheist” demands that; what they do insist on is leaving aside supernatural beliefs (or any belief for which no evidence or logical implication can be produced) when performing science, and that scientists and scientific organisations don’t go out of their way to accommodate beliefs that do not comport with reality as it is currently understood.

Oh, come on. Words like "eradicate religion" and other overwrought, hostile, intolerant, and occasionally exterminationist rhetoric is quite common with Gnus. E.g. "religion poisons everything." That's a large part of what bugs a lot of us about the gnu movement.

Mr. Matzke, you make many assertions re: the harmful consequences of the Gnu Atheist insistence on criticizing religion. Now, Gnu Atheists have been doing this 'harmful' thing for a number of years -- long enough that *if* there were, indeed, any harmful consequences to be seen, *those* *harmful* *consequences* *WOULD* *be* *seen*.
*Do* we see those consequences, Mr. Matzke?

jeramyd.murray said:

mandrellian said:

jeramyd.murray said: Accepting evolution or scientific findings does not necessarily mean one has to be non-religious or an Atheist. The people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs are just as bad as the religious zealots who refuse to accept evolution because of their faith. Until science can 100% disprove all types of gods, there will be a large number of religious people. And honestly, that is not ALWAYS a terrible thing. There is just as much good from religion as there is bad. Some forms of Buddhism for instance are considered religion even though they teach no dogma, only kindness toward all life. Exactly how do such beliefs cause harm? Maybe if Atheists and agnostics fostered more goodwill toward people (including the religious), we wouldn't be have to fight this war. Reason and COMPASSION can overcome all.

Frankly, the charge that there are "people who demand that humans drop all religious or spiritual beliefs" is flat false. No "new atheist" demands that; what they do insist on is leaving aside supernatural beliefs (or any belief for which no evidence or logical implication can be produced) when performing science, and that scientists and scientific organisations don't go out of their way to accommodate beliefs that do not comport with reality as it is currently understood. Religious beliefs would be no problem if people held them privately; when people don't do so they should be prepared to have them discussed, as any claim, belief or opinion on any other subject. The standard trope of "atheists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists" is way too well-worn to deserve anything but instant dismissal. And this "war" is on because certain politically active elements of conservative theistic religions started the bloody thing, before any of us were alive, and have been fighting it ever since on numerous fronts. It might have started on the evolution front, but this isn't just about evolution and how it invalidates Scripture and humanity's feeling of "specialness" anymore; it's part of a multi-faceted cultural campaign to conflate evolution with atheism, Darwinism, immorality, societal decay, abortion, gay rights, nihilism and with any "-ism" or social trend currently considered hateful by conservatives. But evolution is one place that can't be argued or debated by emotion: we have the facts, we have the evidence and we must make sure that people know that; we must also make sure that people denying those facts and evidence or seeking to dilute them are called on their bullshit. If that means a little snark or fiery talk from non-religious scientists who are passionate about education, so be it. Compared to what atheists and scientists routinely get accused of by the creationist lobby, it's a drop in a bucket.

Mandrellian, Would you agree that humanity could do with a strong dose of compassion? That you and I have the power to unite all people instead of draw lines in the sand? My point wasn't about who is wrong or right, it is that when we focus on our differences (religion, culture, race, preference of toothpaste) we are missing the point of our lives. Most religious people are adhering to their cultures and thus, we must GENTLY guide them away from these delusions. Attacking them or their intelligence is counter-productive. JM

xubist said: Mr. Matzke, you make many assertions re: the harmful consequences of the Gnu Atheist insistence on criticizing religion. Now, Gnu Atheists have been doing this 'harmful' thing for a number of years -- long enough that *if* there were, indeed, any harmful consequences to be seen, *those* *harmful* *consequences* *WOULD* *be* *seen*. *Do* we see those consequences, Mr. Matzke?

I'm still waiting to hear about these "other" ways of knowing

I am also waiting for someone to explain to me why they are so butthurt about having it pointed out that by *definition* theists believe in an interventionist deity and will *always* be at odds with scientific explanations. This isn't going to go away and no amount of pretending that "Sweet Leaf" or "Fastest Rhyme" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" or "Wheel of Fortune" contain objective truths will change the fact that all christians are creationists. If you are mad about that perhaps it's because you feel guilty. If you fancy yourself a deist (seriously?) then i want to know what in the hell you think that means anyway. Let me guess, you wear a long white wig to work and write with a quill pen too?

It's also worth pointing out, yet again, that not all creationists are anti-evolution activists. You want another word, come up with one yourself. Something better than "gnu athiest" por favor.

Speaking of the late Christopher Hitchins, have a look at this:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/485306-the-narcissism-of-the-small-difference

I notice that FL and Biggy on the bathroom wall have gone really, really quiet, too.

Well, on inspection, FL hasn't.

Nick Matzke said:

Then what DO you mean by “objective”?

One definition of an objective statement would be one that corresponds with reality enough that people will independently reach that same conclusion far more than would be expected by chance, especially when the conclusion is converged upon by people in the face of diverse cultural, linguistic, historical, etc., backgrounds, and especially when such people have carefully examined the matter in question. Complete agreement is not required. Scientific testing is useful but not required. Science is objective, but it's not the only known path to objective truth in all conceivable matters. I don't see why admitting this is such a huge friggin' deal for some folks.

If Jon is right in his approach to understanding art, it's big news for literary criticism since we'll finally figure out the Remembrance of Things Past once we autopsy Proust's typewriter and chemically analyze the ink in the ribbon.

Seriously, don't they teach you guys about category mistakes? Do you really think that the only alternative to scientism is some sort of theology? For starters, how about thinking about things from the point of view of data types?

mandrellian said:

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said:

Then what DO you mean by “objective”?

One definition of an objective statement would be one that corresponds with reality enough that people will independently reach that same conclusion far more than would be expected by chance, especially when the conclusion is converged upon by people in the face of diverse cultural, linguistic, historical, etc., backgrounds, and especially when such people have carefully examined the matter in question. Complete agreement is not required. Scientific testing is useful but not required. Science is objective, but it's not the only known path to objective truth in all conceivable matters. I don't see why admitting this is such a huge friggin' deal for some folks.

How, then, do you resolve conflicting claims?

This really is like arguing with IBIG isn't it? A perfectly well-understood word like "objective" now appears to mean "something most people think", even when applied to something as completely subjective as a work of art, just because Nick says so. Well, bollocks: I don't even give a rat's arse about the accommodation question anymore; if people want to coddle or collude with myth and magic, fine: keep it from interfering or slowing down actual scientific discovery and keep creationism from diluting kids' understanding of the facts of evolution and the hated species of gnu scientismus will have to find something else to talk about. Maybe kittens. But this convenient, Humpty-Dumpty-esque redefintion of words is ridiculous. As I said before, I happen to think Messiah IS great and IS Handel's masterwork, but objectively so? No. Now matter how much I like something there is absolutely no reason for me to expect anyone else to like it at all, let alone as much as I or for the same reasons. Even if there were 100% agreement on Messiah's "greatness" between all 7 billion people on this planet, that still wouldn't prove a damn thing. First off: how do you define "great" and would that definition suit everyone? I'll repeat my question from two pages ago: if Messiah is objectively great, would you - or why wouldn't you - say the same thing about Frances The Mute by The Mars Volta? By what standards would you judge both works and by what process would you arrive a decision regarding their respective greatness? How big a role would personal opinion, prior artistic tastes and emotional response play in this judgement?

Mandrellian,

Believe me, if anyone knows about attacks from religious people it is me. I grew up in the great state of Mississippi and have had to deal with scorn and rhetoric from both my family and friends for accepting well-supported scientific facts. I get it. But, from the lengthy 'discussions' where one person has their fingers in their ears and the near shouting matches I've had, I have learned that the best thing to do is LISTEN. The vast majority of religious people are clear-headed and surprisingly open-minded. If you take a minute 1-on-1 to listen to their (often ridiculous) beliefs, and then calmly, even lovingly, state your case you may find that they engage in a dialogue with you. They may have questions about evolution, about your lack of faith, and their curiosity about how such a kind, compassionate, reasonable person is an ATHEIST could get the best of them. However, if you take a snarky tone or approach anyone with anger then all you do is push them away. All the best to you.

phhht said:

jeramyd.murray said: Most religious people are adhering to their cultures and thus, we must GENTLY guide them away from these delusions. Attacking them or their intelligence is counter-productive.

Please see my previous post addressed to Mandrellian, How do you suggest that I gently tell a religious believer that his conviction that there is an invisible, immortal space alien who hears his thoughts and grants his wishes strikes me as so ludicrously silly I want to laugh aloud? How do you suggest that I deal with the widely recognized self-defensive mechanism of religious belief which suppresses questions and discussion on the grounds of outrage? How can I tell a religious believer about the parallels between religious faith and delusional disorder without ruffling his feathers? Thanks for your advice in these delicate matters.

Just for my information, does the accomodationist position include getting into bed with the Templeton Foundation, whose president has just been outed as making a very substantial monetary donation to the gay bashing National Organization for Marriage?

phhht said:

SLC said:

Whenever this issue comes up I'm reminded of how angry Stephen Jay Gould would get when scientists tried to dismiss paleontology on the grounds that it wasn't an experimental science.

Neither is astrophysics.

What about the Arcminute Cosmology Bolometer Array Receiver (whew!)? Isn't that an experiment? Or WMAP?

certain accommodationists

No, it’s not the only source of disagreement. Even if we find a new word for the milder forms of creationism I will not become an accommodationist.

Now I have a question for you. Do you have a word that distinguishes between the “scientific” views of Ken Miller & Francis Collins and the scientific views of Richard Dawkins & Jerry Coyne?

Keep in mind that both Miller and Collins believe God created a universe that was fine tuned for the evolution of sentient beings that would eventually merit the prize of a soul. They think there’s scientific evidence to support this claim.

On the subject of Handel's Messiah etc. -

I love it. A lot of the art I love makes use of religious themes, even though I am totally non-religious. Such art produces an emotional response in my brain.

If you study objective characteristics or art, you should use scientific methodology. This includes objective study of what goes on in the brain of the observer. You can study the physical characteristics of musical instruments (including voice, of course) and the sounds they emit when playing the Messiah, to a great degree of precision. You can study the brains of the listeners using a variety of techniques.

Whether something is "great", though, is subjective, unless you define "great" in terms that can be measured objectively.

If you do something like have a group of subjects listen to standardized versions of pieces of music, while controls listen to something else and/or nothing, and you do PET scans on everybody during the experience, or even just give people questionnaires about how much they liked what they listened, and you define some threshold of audience response as making music "great", you've simply played a game with the word "great", redefining it in terms of your experiment.

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said:

Creationism is commonly used to denote a belief that God created the universe in a way similar to what’s described in Genesis.

— eric

That's how most people define it who are at most vaguely familiar with the tactics of anti-evolution activists. Whereas those who are familiar tend to define it as a pseudoscience that is first and foremost dedicated to promoting unreasonable doubt of evolution - with the mutually contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis optional. And, sadly, as we see, some insist on defining it in terms of personal belief in ultimate causes that may or may not be testable, this including theistic evolution. All I can say is that ID peddlers love that disagreement, and exploit it to the fullest. While I realize that I'm a minority of one, I simply avoid the C-word in all its forms, unless I make it 100% clear which definition I'm referring to. Whether one agrees with Ken Miller's brand of theism (very different than mine) one cannot disagree with his observation (from "Only a Theory") that the anti-evolution activists have suceeded in dividing us and uniting themselves. If we absolutely can't unite ourselves, the least we can do is keep dividing them. To do that we must constantly ask them for details on "what happened when" accoring to their "theories," and avoid "taking the bait" by allowing them to keep the "debate" on "weaknesses" of evolution and/or whether or not some Creator/designer "did it." Sooner or later their "creative" evasion will be noticed by the majority of the public that's neither hopelessly in denial of evolution, nor aware of how sleazy anti-evolution activism is.

I tend to use ID/creationism to describe them because of their history. Demanding such accountability from these sectarians – as you suggest - is probably more important than debunking their pseudoscience. There is nothing these sectarian word-gamers like more than to fritter away all the time there is over word-gaming that prevents anyone from learning anything about science. It is never a good idea to let these glory hounds ride on one’s coattails in a public debate. On the other hand, being able to articulate how these sectarians mangle science is also effective in discrediting them; and it has the added advantage of making one think carefully about scientific concepts and how to present them to students in a way that is not misleading or confusing. My own experience in debunking sectarian pseudoscience for lay audiences suggests that it is quite effective in discrediting the pushers of this crap; especially when one learns that ID/creationists repeat the same misconceptions over and over even after they have been thoroughly debunked and discredited and knowing all the while that they have been debunked and discredited. That speaks volumes about their dishonesty. I am more of the opinion that ID/creationists need to be taken down hard by nobodies coming out of nowhere. Thus good, effective teaching of science by myriads of knowledgeable public school teachers and professors who are aware of ID/creationist tactics - but don’t advertise it and attract the attention of ID/creationists – is probably a better way to go. I think that ID/creationists should always be denied the celebrity they crave.

phhht said:

John said:

tomh said:

Nick Matzke said: Are you saying that John Wilkes Booth and the South had the correct view of things?

Who are you to decide the "correct" view of history? You have an opinion, that's all, just like you do on music or art. Lincoln presided over the biggest mass slaughter of US citizens in the history of the country. Does that factor in to him being a great president? Many people, and not just southerners, feel the country would be better off if it had been allowed to split. The idea that deciding who is great and who is not so great can be objectively quantified is laughable.

And who the hell are you in asserting that the USA should have been split apart? Maybe you've been reading too many Harry Turtledove alternative history novels, right ? (In fairness to Turtledove, at least he tries his best to get both his setting and facts straight in those novels.) Maybe both the USA and Afro-Americans would have been better off if the USA didn't wage a war of independence from the British Empire, the American Revolution, right? Why? Well slavery would have been abolished all over the original Thirteen Colonies under an act of Parliament in 1830 that banned slavery throughout the British Empire. Based on your absurd logic, then Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman must be mass murderers too, for sanctioning unrestricted bombing against Nazi-held European cities (Though this was primarily Churchill's fault, since the RAF did the bombing; the Americans opted for more "precision" bombing.) and Japanese cities. And of course a special note of infamy must be noted for Truman, since he gave permission to the US Army Air Force to nuke both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that probably more than a million American and Japanese casualties were averted by not having the USA invade the Japanese home islands probably doesn't register inside your Reptilian-like Militant Atheist brain. Do me a favor and go back to your online pigpen in the GNU blogosphere. You have no business judging Nick, moron.

What do you think this is, John, the Bathroom Wall?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: ....I'm reminded of how angry Stephen Jay Gould would get when scientists tried to dismiss paleontology on the grounds that it wasn't an experimental science.

What the hell is the defintion of “accommodationist”? I don’t consider myself to be one. I couldn’t care less if I am or not, I’m just not sure what the word means.

mandrellian said:

John said:

tomh said:

Nick Matzke said: Are you saying that John Wilkes Booth and the South had the correct view of things?

Who are you to decide the "correct" view of history? You have an opinion, that's all, just like you do on music or art. Lincoln presided over the biggest mass slaughter of US citizens in the history of the country. Does that factor in to him being a great president? Many people, and not just southerners, feel the country would be better off if it had been allowed to split. The idea that deciding who is great and who is not so great can be objectively quantified is laughable.

And who the hell are you in asserting that the USA should have been split apart? Maybe you've been reading too many Harry Turtledove alternative history novels, right ? (In fairness to Turtledove, at least he tries his best to get both his setting and facts straight in those novels.) Maybe both the USA and Afro-Americans would have been better off if the USA didn't wage a war of independence from the British Empire, the American Revolution, right? Why? Well slavery would have been abolished all over the original Thirteen Colonies under an act of Parliament in 1830 that banned slavery throughout the British Empire. Based on your absurd logic, then Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman must be mass murderers too, for sanctioning unrestricted bombing against Nazi-held European cities (Though this was primarily Churchill's fault, since the RAF did the bombing; the Americans opted for more "precision" bombing.) and Japanese cities. And of course a special note of infamy must be noted for Truman, since he gave permission to the US Army Air Force to nuke both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that probably more than a million American and Japanese casualties were averted by not having the USA invade the Japanese home islands probably doesn't register inside your Reptilian-like Militant Atheist brain. Do me a favor and go back to your online pigpen in the GNU blogosphere. You have no business judging Nick, moron.

And, thus, the point against Matzke is proven. One's assessment of "greatness" is entirely subjective. Truman, FDR, Churchill DID order the indiscriminate killings of countless German and Japanese civilians. Did it shorten the war or harm enemy production or lower morale? Certainly. Were these actions - or the men who ordered them - "great"? That depends on whether you were looking up at a Lancaster or looking down from one. And what of the brutality regularly utilised by Russian forces invading Germany? Greatness? They, too, shortened the war - they secured the heart of the German Reich! That the actions described ended the worst conflict in our history does not, necessarily, make them or the people who ordered or performed them great - certainly not objectively. At most, it makes them necessary. But that was a war "we" won. It was won at great cost and was won, partially, by fighting dirty, but those were the rules we were given. I had relatives involved in shortening that war, in defeating a chilling and relentless enemy and I'm thankful every day about the outcome. Ho Chi Minh is considered a saviour in Viet Nam. Kim Il Sung is practically a deity in North Korea. Fidel Castro is revered in Cuba. Ned Kelly is considered by many a hero in Australia. Is this objective greatness? Popular opinion? Is it just differences in perspective?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: I'm still waiting to hear about these "other" ways of knowing I am also waiting for someone to explain to me why they are so butthurt about having it pointed out that by *definition* theists believe in an interventionist deity and will *always* be at odds with scientific explanations. This isn't going to go away and no amount of pretending that "Sweet Leaf" or "Fastest Rhyme" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" or "Wheel of Fortune" contain objective truths will change the fact that all christians are creationists. If you are mad about that perhaps it's because you feel guilty. If you fancy yourself a deist (seriously?) then i want to know what in the hell you think that means anyway. Let me guess, you wear a long white wig to work and write with a quill pen too? It's also worth pointing out, yet again, that not all creationists are anti-evolution activists. You want another word, come up with one yourself. Something better than "gnu athiest" por favor.

Ian Derthal said:

Just for my information, does the accomodationist position include getting into bed with the Templeton Foundation, whose president has just been outed as making a very substantial monetary donation to the gay bashing National Organization for Marriage?

Wot's an "accommodationist" ? Is Jerry Coyne now suggesting that in order to be a "proper" or "real" scientist you must now be an Atheist ? This sounds vey much like the opposite of the term "Christian compromiser" to me. In this respect, Coyne isn't any different from Ken Ham.

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South, and even if he had lived, it might have been impossible. Regardless, such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

John said: ...you shouldn’t distinguish between ID and creationists, since the Dishonesty Institute IDiots want us to think that there is something “different” between ID and creationism, when one could do a cladistic analysis on both and show that ID, as a more derived “species” is really a part of the creationist “clade”. Philosopher Robert Pennock (“Tower of Babel”), historian Ronald Numbers (“The Creationists”), Paul R. Gross, Barbara Forrest, Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, NCSE and many, many others recognize that ID IS creationism. When we speak of Intelligent Design, it should be referred to as Intelligent Design creationism.

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: I'm still waiting to hear about these "other" ways of knowing I am also waiting for someone to explain to me why they are so butthurt about having it pointed out that by *definition* theists believe in an interventionist deity and will *always* be at odds with scientific explanations. This isn't going to go away and no amount of pretending that "Sweet Leaf" or "Fastest Rhyme" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" or "Wheel of Fortune" contain objective truths will change the fact that all christians are creationists. If you are mad about that perhaps it's because you feel guilty. If you fancy yourself a deist (seriously?) then i want to know what in the hell you think that means anyway. Let me guess, you wear a long white wig to work and write with a quill pen too? It's also worth pointing out, yet again, that not all creationists are anti-evolution activists. You want another word, come up with one yourself. Something better than "gnu athiest" por favor.

Maybe you can ask physicist Lisa Randall, who recognizes that science and faith are different ways of knowing. (She stated this in one of her essays regarding the relationship between science and faith, especially with regards to the anti-science attitudes of some religious people. In her latest book, "Knocking on Heaven's Door", she summarizes her encounter with a liberal Democratic Obama supporter, an actor, on a flight to Los Angeles immediately after Obama's inauguration who refused to accept that humanity had evolved from other great apes because of his religious conviction, even though he had majored in biochemistry in college and had taught science in an urban middle science school. A longer version of this appeared originally as a response to Jerry Coyne's "The Edge" essay in January, 2009, in which he began his latest attack on "accomodationism".)

Gonorrhea is an objectively great venereal disease.

Adolf Hitler was an objectively great political leader.

David Allan Coe's song Suckem Silly Shirley, and Warren Hayne's guitar work on said song, is objectively, a great country song.

Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South, and even if he had lived, it might have been impossible. Regardless, such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. See, for instance, http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/05/7266107-map-the-tea-party-confederacy and http://newsone.com/474792/opinion-the-tea-party-is-channeling-the-confederacy/

Still waiting for that definition of "accommodationist".

harold said: Still waiting for that definition of "accommodationist".

Paul Burnett said:

John said: ...you shouldn’t distinguish between ID and creationists, since the Dishonesty Institute IDiots want us to think that there is something “different” between ID and creationism, when one could do a cladistic analysis on both and show that ID, as a more derived “species” is really a part of the creationist “clade”. Philosopher Robert Pennock (“Tower of Babel”), historian Ronald Numbers (“The Creationists”), Paul R. Gross, Barbara Forrest, Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, NCSE and many, many others recognize that ID IS creationism. When we speak of Intelligent Design, it should be referred to as Intelligent Design creationism.

John's right - intelligent design is creationism, and should always be referred to as "intelligent design creationism" (that's called "framing). Those who don't refer to it as "intelligent design creationism" are accommodationists with the Dishonesty Institute. Maybe instead of "accommodationist" we should use "fellow traveler." Or "useful idiot." Or am I dating myself?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said:

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: I'm still waiting to hear about these "other" ways of knowing I am also waiting for someone to explain to me why they are so butthurt about having it pointed out that by *definition* theists believe in an interventionist deity and will *always* be at odds with scientific explanations. This isn't going to go away and no amount of pretending that "Sweet Leaf" or "Fastest Rhyme" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" or "Wheel of Fortune" contain objective truths will change the fact that all christians are creationists. If you are mad about that perhaps it's because you feel guilty. If you fancy yourself a deist (seriously?) then i want to know what in the hell you think that means anyway. Let me guess, you wear a long white wig to work and write with a quill pen too? It's also worth pointing out, yet again, that not all creationists are anti-evolution activists. You want another word, come up with one yourself. Something better than "gnu athiest" por favor.

Maybe you can ask physicist Lisa Randall, who recognizes that science and faith are different ways of knowing. (She stated this in one of her essays regarding the relationship between science and faith, especially with regards to the anti-science attitudes of some religious people. In her latest book, "Knocking on Heaven's Door", she summarizes her encounter with a liberal Democratic Obama supporter, an actor, on a flight to Los Angeles immediately after Obama's inauguration who refused to accept that humanity had evolved from other great apes because of his religious conviction, even though he had majored in biochemistry in college and had taught science in an urban middle science school. A longer version of this appeared originally as a response to Jerry Coyne's "The Edge" essay in January, 2009, in which he began his latest attack on "accomodationism".)

Oh really? LMAO Plese, do tell me (and you can surely do this without giving a biography and 6 degress of separation from you or Ken Miller right?) what exactly anyone "knows" by this method of "faith"? Theistic evolutionists are certainly creationists. What do you think "theism" means for christs sake. It's OK to admit this. However, I do think you are on solid ground for expecting those of us who pay attention to antievolution to recognize a distinction between theistic evolutionist creationists and evolution deniers. Done, I recognize the distinction. Everything Larry Moran says still applies. and for FFS this objective truth business is completely ludicrious please leave it to the evolution denier creationists on the BW. OR explain why Jeffrey Dahmer can't be considered an objectively great serial killer.

“Someone who is willing to make a concession someone else is unwilling to make”?

Handel's Messiah is NOT a great work of music.

Abraham Lincoln is NOT a great president.

Now we have conflicting truth claims.

I defy anyone here to resolve them to "objective" - that is, NOT subjective - "truth."

f3ae8 said: Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Is there truth in Handel’s Messiah? Or is it crap because it’s based on religion?

apokryltaros said:

harold said: Still waiting for that definition of "accommodationist".

"Someone who is willing to make a concession someone else is unwilling to make"?

harold said:

apokryltaros said:

harold said: Still waiting for that definition of "accommodationist".

"Someone who is willing to make a concession someone else is unwilling to make"?

That would apply to 100% of the world's population, though.

Ian Derthal said:

“Someone who is willing to make a concession someone else is unwilling to make”?

So, what's the "concession" these accommodationists have made, with respect to science ? It still sounds like Ham's "Christian compromise" nonsense, but with an Atheist spin.

John said:

Ian Derthal said: So, what's the "concession" these accommodationists have made, with respect to science ? It still sounds like Ham's "Christian compromise" nonsense, but with an Atheist spin.

Unfortunately, I must concur. Militant Atheists are more interested in exposing the "disease" of "accomodationism" than in joining with others who wish to educate the public on what is REAL valid mainstream science like biological evolution.

Is there truth in Handel’s Messiah?

Well... "'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Keats, "Ode to a Grecian Urn".

Which, being poetry, must be true.

Now I suppose we have to decide if the Messiah has beauty.

Seconds out, round two.

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: I'm still waiting to hear about these "other" ways of knowing I am also waiting for someone to explain to me why they are so butthurt about having it pointed out that by *definition* theists believe in an interventionist deity and will *always* be at odds with scientific explanations. This isn't going to go away and no amount of pretending that "Sweet Leaf" or "Fastest Rhyme" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" or "Wheel of Fortune" contain objective truths will change the fact that all christians are creationists. If you are mad about that perhaps it's because you feel guilty. If you fancy yourself a deist (seriously?) then i want to know what in the hell you think that means anyway. Let me guess, you wear a long white wig to work and write with a quill pen too? It's also worth pointing out, yet again, that not all creationists are anti-evolution activists. You want another word, come up with one yourself. Something better than "gnu athiest" por favor.

Maybe you can ask physicist Lisa Randall, who recognizes that science and faith are different ways of knowing. (She stated this in one of her essays regarding the relationship between science and faith, especially with regards to the anti-science attitudes of some religious people. In her latest book, "Knocking on Heaven's Door", she summarizes her encounter with a liberal Democratic Obama supporter, an actor, on a flight to Los Angeles immediately after Obama's inauguration who refused to accept that humanity had evolved from other great apes because of his religious conviction, even though he had majored in biochemistry in college and had taught science in an urban middle science school. A longer version of this appeared originally as a response to Jerry Coyne's "The Edge" essay in January, 2009, in which he began his latest attack on "accomodationism".)

SLC said:

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: I'm still waiting to hear about these "other" ways of knowing I am also waiting for someone to explain to me why they are so butthurt about having it pointed out that by *definition* theists believe in an interventionist deity and will *always* be at odds with scientific explanations. This isn't going to go away and no amount of pretending that "Sweet Leaf" or "Fastest Rhyme" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" or "Wheel of Fortune" contain objective truths will change the fact that all christians are creationists. If you are mad about that perhaps it's because you feel guilty. If you fancy yourself a deist (seriously?) then i want to know what in the hell you think that means anyway. Let me guess, you wear a long white wig to work and write with a quill pen too? It's also worth pointing out, yet again, that not all creationists are anti-evolution activists. You want another word, come up with one yourself. Something better than "gnu athiest" por favor.

Maybe you can ask physicist Lisa Randall, who recognizes that science and faith are different ways of knowing. (She stated this in one of her essays regarding the relationship between science and faith, especially with regards to the anti-science attitudes of some religious people. In her latest book, "Knocking on Heaven's Door", she summarizes her encounter with a liberal Democratic Obama supporter, an actor, on a flight to Los Angeles immediately after Obama's inauguration who refused to accept that humanity had evolved from other great apes because of his religious conviction, even though he had majored in biochemistry in college and had taught science in an urban middle science school. A longer version of this appeared originally as a response to Jerry Coyne's "The Edge" essay in January, 2009, in which he began his latest attack on "accomodationism".)

Gee, just like Brown University graduate Bobby Jindal, currently Rethuglican Governor of Louisiana. By the way, I saw Prof. Randall on a clip from Stephen Colbert's program and she's hot.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Coyne makes statements like this:

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution.

Really, we're "much" more religious than Ireland, and Spain? Maybe they're not "as advanced" as the US, but they're certainly quite within the technological and economic spheres of the "first world," and more importantly, they accept evolution rather better than does the US. No, I'm afraid that this "analysis" is altogether simplistic and wrong. Of course America's opposition to evolution is almost entirely religious in nature (a few cranks latch on for their own purposes--big deal), but religion per se is not obviously the problem. Why Coyne persists in such shallow nonsense I have no idea. He can rightly identify US religion as the problem for biological sciences in the US, yet he insists on writing as if the US problems were universally the same, and they simply are not. More honest analysis, less BS, Coyne. Glen Davidson

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: I'm still waiting to hear about these "other" ways of knowing I am also waiting for someone to explain to me why they are so butthurt about having it pointed out that by *definition* theists believe in an interventionist deity and will *always* be at odds with scientific explanations. This isn't going to go away and no amount of pretending that "Sweet Leaf" or "Fastest Rhyme" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" or "Wheel of Fortune" contain objective truths will change the fact that all christians are creationists. If you are mad about that perhaps it's because you feel guilty. If you fancy yourself a deist (seriously?) then i want to know what in the hell you think that means anyway. Let me guess, you wear a long white wig to work and write with a quill pen too? It's also worth pointing out, yet again, that not all creationists are anti-evolution activists. You want another word, come up with one yourself. Something better than "gnu athiest" por favor.

Maybe you can ask physicist Lisa Randall, who recognizes that science and faith are different ways of knowing. (She stated this in one of her essays regarding the relationship between science and faith, especially with regards to the anti-science attitudes of some religious people. In her latest book, "Knocking on Heaven's Door", she summarizes her encounter with a liberal Democratic Obama supporter, an actor, on a flight to Los Angeles immediately after Obama's inauguration who refused to accept that humanity had evolved from other great apes because of his religious conviction, even though he had majored in biochemistry in college and had taught science in an urban middle science school. A longer version of this appeared originally as a response to Jerry Coyne's "The Edge" essay in January, 2009, in which he began his latest attack on "accomodationism".)

Gee, just like Brown University graduate Bobby Jindal, currently Rethuglican Governor of Louisiana. By the way, I saw Prof. Randall on a clip from Stephen Colbert's program and she's hot.

I haven't seen Lisa in years. When I do see her, I'll pass along your endorsement.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry MOran here. Nick said,

For the record, I hate the word “accommodationist”, which as far as I can tell was recently invented in its present sense by the New Atheists as a term of abuse.

The original term was "Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school" of evolutionists" after the section in Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Some bloggers even put a sticker on their blogs announcing that they were proud to be a Neville Chamberlain atheist. By May 2007 it became apparent that the term "Neville Chamberlain Atheist" was an insult to Neville Chamberlain so we started to look around for a term that would be more acceptable, especially to people like you. We decided on accommodationist. So far, none of you have offered up a better description of your metaphysical and political views.

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: I'm still waiting to hear about these "other" ways of knowing I am also waiting for someone to explain to me why they are so butthurt about having it pointed out that by *definition* theists believe in an interventionist deity and will *always* be at odds with scientific explanations. This isn't going to go away and no amount of pretending that "Sweet Leaf" or "Fastest Rhyme" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" or "Wheel of Fortune" contain objective truths will change the fact that all christians are creationists. If you are mad about that perhaps it's because you feel guilty. If you fancy yourself a deist (seriously?) then i want to know what in the hell you think that means anyway. Let me guess, you wear a long white wig to work and write with a quill pen too? It's also worth pointing out, yet again, that not all creationists are anti-evolution activists. You want another word, come up with one yourself. Something better than "gnu athiest" por favor.

Maybe you can ask physicist Lisa Randall, who recognizes that science and faith are different ways of knowing. (She stated this in one of her essays regarding the relationship between science and faith, especially with regards to the anti-science attitudes of some religious people. In her latest book, "Knocking on Heaven's Door", she summarizes her encounter with a liberal Democratic Obama supporter, an actor, on a flight to Los Angeles immediately after Obama's inauguration who refused to accept that humanity had evolved from other great apes because of his religious conviction, even though he had majored in biochemistry in college and had taught science in an urban middle science school. A longer version of this appeared originally as a response to Jerry Coyne's "The Edge" essay in January, 2009, in which he began his latest attack on "accomodationism".)

Gee, just like Brown University graduate Bobby Jindal, currently Rethuglican Governor of Louisiana. By the way, I saw Prof. Randall on a clip from Stephen Colbert's program and she's hot.

I haven't seen Lisa in years. When I do see her, I'll pass along your endorsement.

Actually, now that I think of it I saw her on Jon Stewart's program. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/lisa-randall

Paul Burnett said:

John said: ...you shouldn’t distinguish between ID and creationists, since the Dishonesty Institute IDiots want us to think that there is something “different” between ID and creationism, when one could do a cladistic analysis on both and show that ID, as a more derived “species” is really a part of the creationist “clade”. Philosopher Robert Pennock (“Tower of Babel”), historian Ronald Numbers (“The Creationists”), Paul R. Gross, Barbara Forrest, Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, NCSE and many, many others recognize that ID IS creationism. When we speak of Intelligent Design, it should be referred to as Intelligent Design creationism.

John's right - intelligent design is creationism, and should always be referred to as "intelligent design creationism" (that's called "framing). Those who don't refer to it as "intelligent design creationism" are accommodationists with the Dishonesty Institute. Maybe instead of "accommodationist" we should use "fellow traveler." Or "useful idiot." Or am I dating myself?

John said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Larry MOran here. Nick said,

For the record, I hate the word “accommodationist”, which as far as I can tell was recently invented in its present sense by the New Atheists as a term of abuse.

The original term was "Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school" of evolutionists" after the section in Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Some bloggers even put a sticker on their blogs announcing that they were proud to be a Neville Chamberlain atheist. By May 2007 it became apparent that the term "Neville Chamberlain Atheist" was an insult to Neville Chamberlain so we started to look around for a term that would be more acceptable, especially to people like you. We decided on accommodationist. So far, none of you have offered up a better description of your metaphysical and political views.

I also hate the word "accomodationist", Larry Mo, nor do I regard the work done by current and former NCSE employees, including Nick Matzke, as being anything that is "accomodationist" (That also includes what Peter M J Hess does for NCSE, since his job is to explain the science of biological evolution to religious communities, not to sugar-coat that science.). Would you regard as an "accomodationist" E. O. Wilson, who has spoken to environemtally-concerned congregations of Fundamentalist Protestant Christians interested in preserving "GOD's Creation" from further harm by humanity, expressing his desire to work with them, but also reminding them that they must learn to accept as scientific fact, biological evolution? I don't think Wilson goes out of his way to make evolution something that is "edible" to the Fundamentalist Protestant Christians he meets. Or would you also dub as an "accomodationist" your fellow New Atheist Lawrence Krauss, simply for no other reason that Krauss willingly speaks to Fundamentalist Protestant Christian audiences whenever he's invited by them. I think the term "Neville Chamberlain Atheist" should be resurrected, if it makes you and your fellow Militant New Atheists happy. (It is also not insulting to Chamberlain, considering his willingness to appease both Hitler and Mussolini.)

Mike, while I am in agreement here, you shouldn’t distinguish between ID and creationists, since the Dishonesty Institute IDiots want us to think that there is something “different” between ID and creationism, when one could do a cladistic analysis on both and show that ID, as a more derived “species” is really a part of the creationist “clade”. Philosopher Robert Pennock (“Tower of Babel”), historian Ronald Numbers (“The Creationists”), Paul R. Gross, Barbara Forrest, Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, NCSE and many, many others recognize that ID IS creationism. When we speak of Intelligent Design, it should be referred to as Intelligent Design creationism.

— John

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Gonorrhea is an objectively great venereal disease. Adolf Hitler was an objectively great political leader. David Allan Coe's song Suckem Silly Shirley, and Warren Hayne's guitar work on said song, is objectively, a great country song. Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Frank J said:

Mike, while I am in agreement here, you shouldn’t distinguish between ID and creationists, since the Dishonesty Institute IDiots want us to think that there is something “different” between ID and creationism, when one could do a cladistic analysis on both and show that ID, as a more derived “species” is really a part of the creationist “clade”. Philosopher Robert Pennock (“Tower of Babel”), historian Ronald Numbers (“The Creationists”), Paul R. Gross, Barbara Forrest, Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, NCSE and many, many others recognize that ID IS creationism. When we speak of Intelligent Design, it should be referred to as Intelligent Design creationism.

— John

The problem, as I'm sure you are well aware, is that if you pick a stranger at random and ask him/her to define "creationism," ID won't be a "species" of it. But both will be a "species" of "creationism" as critics define it. What's even scarier is to ask that stranger if he/she ever heard of any of those people you mentioned. I doubt that 5% heard of even one of them, and most of that 5% have a only vague or inaccurate idea of that person's contribution to combating pseudoscience. "Creationism" as critics define it has not been an honest belief, even an honest misguided belief, for 50+ years. If we must use that term to denote the pseudoscience that has been, at least since the Morris era, centered on promoting unreasonable doubt of evolution, it's absurd to use the same term ("creationists") for the both the snake oil peddlers, and the ones scammed by them. Especially since the latter range from hopeless Genesis-literalists or the "kind" that merely says "I guess something like evolution is true, but I heard that / it has gaps / is "only a theory" / it's fair to teach both..." As for the scam artists, another thing I like to say is that one can't truly appreciate their similarities (obsession with "Darwinism" and irrational fear of its implications) unless one understands the radical differences, among each other, and with their target audience.

Nick Matzke said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Gonorrhea is an objectively great venereal disease. Adolf Hitler was an objectively great political leader. David Allan Coe's song Suckem Silly Shirley, and Warren Hayne's guitar work on said song, is objectively, a great country song. Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Inventing opposite propositions is not an argument. The same could be done for anything in science. Presumably the point is we have objective criteria we can apply to judge statements in science. Well, we have those in history as well. It's not an accident that Lincoln is always at or near the top of the list for great presidents. It's not just a bunch of random opinions that happen to agree by chance in the random flux of opinions floating about in the Universe. People have made the arguments and you haven't addressed them. Lincoln defeated slavery. Lincoln saved the country. Point to other presidents who did similar things. Well, there are a few, and they are also at the top of the list of great presidents. People have similar opinions because they are aware of what these men achieved, which other men didn't. Dismissing all of this as just subjective is, well, bonkers. I would expect better from self-proclaimed "defenders of reason".

Unfortunately, I must concur. Militant Atheists are more interested in exposing the “disease” of “accomodationism” than in joining with others who wish to educate the public on what is REAL valid mainstream science like biological evolution.

Nick Matzke said:

Unfortunately, I must concur. Militant Atheists are more interested in exposing the “disease” of “accomodationism” than in joining with others who wish to educate the public on what is REAL valid mainstream science like biological evolution.

I disagree a bit. They see the "disease" as religion (more intolerant, exterminationist rhetoric, there), they see the "accomodationists" as, say, anti-vaxers. So you can understand the emotion they put behind it a bit, from that perspective. Over here in the real world, religion is tremendously diverse, probably does at least as much good as bad, in its absence the same problems crop up under new names (e.g. the absolutism and exclusivism, sometimes even futurism and eschatology which we find in various forms of scientism), and there has been a general failure so far to come up with a convincing form of similar community organization with similar broad appeal. On top of that, long historical and political experience shows the never-ending perils of religious intolerance and hostility -- which is precisely why the Founding Fathers separated church and state in the first place. So, many of us scientists don't look fondly on attempts to take science, which is basically a government-funded public trust, open to all regardless of race, sexuality, or religion (as is official policy for any governmental entity), and for the benefit of all -- and coopt it for one group's apologetics for their metaphysical views. We oppose it when creationists do it, and so we have to oppose it when overwrought atheists with a congenital lack of sense of proportion do it. (Obviously I'm not referring to all atheists, just the current crop of Gnu activists.)

Re: truth in The Messiah. Really? Are you so robotic a rationalist that you can't see meaningful ways in which there is truth in music? You are killing off a lot more than just religion in your quest for "reason", my friends.

I'm off to Cal Day, but if you need someone to explain the concept in journal-article prose, read this:

...then consider that he is talking about "absolute music" -- music without words, probably the hardest case for talking about truth in music. Whereas Handel's Messiah has words, an easier case. Music evokes emotion. Words by themselves, less so. Does the music evoke the emotions that go with what the participants in the stories would have felt, and/or with what an observer of the story would have felt? It doesn't matter whether or not the stories are fictions, it takes a deep understanding of the stories, and human nature, and music, to make this work at the level that Handel made it work.

Or, if the above is insufficiently blunt to impress the emotionless robotic rationalist, do this thought experiment. Take the two most famous bits of Handel's Messiah, the Hallelujah chorus, and the "Amen" at the end. Now, keep the music the same, but have people sing the word "Amen" wherever they use to sing the word "Hallelujah", and vice versa. Would it work? Would Handel be famous if he had this kind of tin ear? No -- the music in Hallelujah is celebratory, because that's what hallelujahs are about, and the music in Amen is about closure and peace, because that's what amens are about. And it makes even more sense considered within the arc of the whole Messiah. These are human universals, even though the music in this case is Christian. Correspondence between the words and the emotions is a form of truth, and we can see how false it would be when we destroy the correspondence as in our thought experiment.

It's very similar to the score of a movie. Anyone who has ever seen a particularly good or particularly bad scoring of a movie, or a parody scoring (e.g. cartoon fun music during a war scene), knows what I mean. There is a story, and there are associated emotions which we attempt to convey with music, and they either match up or they don't. When they match up really well, it's called genius. And that's as objective as history or, well, science, even if it's not quite as quantifiable as the latter.

Nick Matzke said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Gonorrhea is an objectively great venereal disease. Adolf Hitler was an objectively great political leader. David Allan Coe's song Suckem Silly Shirley, and Warren Hayne's guitar work on said song, is objectively, a great country song. Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Inventing opposite propositions is not an argument. The same could be done for anything in science. Presumably the point is we have objective criteria we can apply to judge statements in science. Well, we have those in history as well. It's not an accident that Lincoln is always at or near the top of the list for great presidents. It's not just a bunch of random opinions that happen to agree by chance in the random flux of opinions floating about in the Universe. People have made the arguments and you haven't addressed them. Lincoln defeated slavery. Lincoln saved the country. Point to other presidents who did similar things. Well, there are a few, and they are also at the top of the list of great presidents. People have similar opinions because they are aware of what these men achieved, which other men didn't. Dismissing all of this as just subjective is, well, bonkers. I would expect better from self-proclaimed "defenders of reason".

Oops, here's the link I meant to put in:

Truth in Music
J Levinson - The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1981 - JSTOR

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=truth+in+music&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

Anyone who says Lincoln is a great president is bonkers. Of course, I could defend my opinion, but I don’t have to.

The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious.

First, such opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Second, apart from invective and appeals to the opinions of others, there is no methodology for resolving such conflicting claims. At the end, all you have are claims which still conflict.

Nick Matzke said:

Anyone who says Lincoln is a great president is bonkers. Of course, I could defend my opinion, but I don’t have to.

You do if you want to convince anyone that it's reasonable to say Lincoln wasn't a great president. If you don't present such an argument, you lose, since we've present several quite obvious and objective reasons that he was.

The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious.

I didn't. I did say that when people from diverse cultures and backgrounds reach the same conclusion, this is evidence that there is some objective reality, either outside or inside humans or both, that is causing this. The "it's all just arbitrary subjective opinion" explanation doesn't work at all in these cases.

First, such opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Second, apart from invective and appeals to the opinions of others, there is no methodology for resolving such conflicting claims. At the end, all you have are claims which still conflict.

You missed the part above where I said that Lincoln is great because he freed the slaves and saved the country. Those are the *reasons* he's objectively great. The fact that lots of people from all around the world have reached the same conclusion is evidence that it's not just arbitrary opinion-mongering behind this. It's almost like you've forgotten how important peer-review, debate, and consensus are in science. Reality is complex, empirical observation of it is crucial, but every person and every scientists has a slightly different and partial view of the data. So when they agree despite all this, it's significant, if not determinative. Please stop nuking the humanities and other useful things in your quest to take down religion.

Now you are just playing word games about what the word "great" means when referring to presidents. It's pretty obvious what it means for presidents -- great for the country. A significant improvement and/or avoiding a probably catastrophe. Self-sacrifice in pursuit the achievement of the above makes them even greater. Etc.

Why are you digging in so deep on this? Just because you admit Lincoln was a great president doesn't mean you have to accept religion or anything.

Nick Matzke said: Now you are just playing word games about what the word "great" means when referring to presidents. It's pretty obvious what it means for presidents -- great for the country. A significant improvement and/or avoiding a probably catastrophe. Self-sacrifice in pursuit the achievement of the above makes them even greater. Etc. Why are you digging in so deep on this? Just because you admit Lincoln was a great president doesn't mean you have to accept religion or anything.

phhht said: But you disregard the fact that no president can be great who lived before the twentieth century. You disregard the fact that Lincoln was as racist as most people who lived in his period. That disqualifies him as great. No president who was great would have allowed himself to be assassinated. The fact that he was killed by John Wilkes Booth proves he was a little, insignificant president. See how it works? These are matters of opinion, not objective truth. It's almost like you reject the notion of testable, objective truth for some sort of post-modern relativism. And you still give no methodology for resolving conflicting claims, other than appeals to the opinions of others.

John said: Your knowledge of American history seems to be as abysmal as tomh's. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, McKinley, as well as Lincoln, would not meet your criterion of a "great" president. Lincoln's racism was "benign" compared to Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest's. (Forrest was involved in the Ku Klux Klan after the war, but by the time of his death in 1887, had changed his views toward blacks, having given a speech to black Southerners in 1875, expressing hope that there would be equality and harmony between black and white Americans as noted here, under the Ku Klux Klan Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest) I agree with Nick, stop playing word games with him.

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Gonorrhea is an objectively great venereal disease. Adolf Hitler was an objectively great political leader. David Allan Coe's song Suckem Silly Shirley, and Warren Hayne's guitar work on said song, is objectively, a great country song. Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Inventing opposite propositions is not an argument. The same could be done for anything in science. Presumably the point is we have objective criteria we can apply to judge statements in science. Well, we have those in history as well. It's not an accident that Lincoln is always at or near the top of the list for great presidents. It's not just a bunch of random opinions that happen to agree by chance in the random flux of opinions floating about in the Universe. People have made the arguments and you haven't addressed them. Lincoln defeated slavery. Lincoln saved the country. Point to other presidents who did similar things. Well, there are a few, and they are also at the top of the list of great presidents. People have similar opinions because they are aware of what these men achieved, which other men didn't. Dismissing all of this as just subjective is, well, bonkers. I would expect better from self-proclaimed "defenders of reason".

Anyone who says Lincoln is a great president is bonkers. Of course, I could defend my opinion, but I don't have to. The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious. First, such opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Second, apart from invective and appeals to the opinions of others, there is no methodology for resolving such conflicting claims. At the end, all you have are claims which still conflict. Or do you, Nick Matzke, want to reveal the secrets of a "broader view" which permit such resolution? I think you do not, because you cannot. There is no such methodology which can resolve matters of opinion to objective truth. If I am wrong, show me how.

jamiewriteswords said:

Nick Matzke said: Interesting. Never thought I'd see a bunch of scientism fans insisting upon relativism. Next we'll be hearing that it's not objectively true that Abraham Lincoln was a great president, I suppose, because science is the only road to truth and the statement isn't science.

Did you ask John Wilkes Booth for his opinion?

SLC said:

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Gonorrhea is an objectively great venereal disease. Adolf Hitler was an objectively great political leader. David Allan Coe's song Suckem Silly Shirley, and Warren Hayne's guitar work on said song, is objectively, a great country song. Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Inventing opposite propositions is not an argument. The same could be done for anything in science. Presumably the point is we have objective criteria we can apply to judge statements in science. Well, we have those in history as well. It's not an accident that Lincoln is always at or near the top of the list for great presidents. It's not just a bunch of random opinions that happen to agree by chance in the random flux of opinions floating about in the Universe. People have made the arguments and you haven't addressed them. Lincoln defeated slavery. Lincoln saved the country. Point to other presidents who did similar things. Well, there are a few, and they are also at the top of the list of great presidents. People have similar opinions because they are aware of what these men achieved, which other men didn't. Dismissing all of this as just subjective is, well, bonkers. I would expect better from self-proclaimed "defenders of reason".

Anyone who says Lincoln is a great president is bonkers. Of course, I could defend my opinion, but I don't have to. The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious. First, such opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Second, apart from invective and appeals to the opinions of others, there is no methodology for resolving such conflicting claims. At the end, all you have are claims which still conflict. Or do you, Nick Matzke, want to reveal the secrets of a "broader view" which permit such resolution? I think you do not, because you cannot. There is no such methodology which can resolve matters of opinion to objective truth. If I am wrong, show me how.

I won't comment on whether Lincoln was a great president but there can be no doubt or question that he was a great war leader. At the start of the Civil War, there could not have been a greater contrast between the leaders of the two sides. Lincoln had no military training, and no military experience; Jefferson Davis, on the other hand was a graduate of West Point, had fought in the Mexican War, and had been a Secretary of War in the Pierce Administration. Thus anybody looking at the two men in 1861 and evaluating them based on their military experience would have concluded that Lincoln was in way over his head. However, as General Fuller put it, in military matters, there is no substitute for a fine mind. Lincoln had a fine mind, Davis did not. Lincoln became a great military strategist, far better then any of the generals on either side until Grant showed up in Washington. Davis was a dried up old stick more suited to the cloister then the president's house in Richmond. Davis is a perfect example of the old saw, Napoleon's mules went through 20 campaigns with him and at the end were still mules. His concept of military strategy bore no relationship to the facts on the ground. He was not helped by his closest adviser, Robert E. Lee who, in may respects, was one of the most incapable commanding generals in history. Even when Lee gave him good advise, he ignored it.

He's as objective as everyone else. That's the point. You can't base objective facts (or objective "truth") on subjective opinions. These days, we have a group of historians (and/or whoever else) decide "this is what we want to use to say that a president is great". The problem is, the criteria they use are entirely subjective and formed merely by consensus of the group who claim authority. They are based upon the popular opinions of the time they are formed, not on any objective criteria removed from that time and space. They are subjective, and if society changes (let's say that causing death through war becomes evil), then the list of Great Presidents will change. This isn't the changing of conclusions in science through new data, it's a change in the basic ground rules. I'm not sure if I've explained it well, but that seems to be the issue to me.

other comments:

I'm still waiting for Nick to post what "truth" is found in Handel's Messiah. Appeals to popularity, or whether it stirs up emotions in people, isn't answering the question. Nor is pointing to one 31-year old paper in what seems to be an obscure journal (compared to popular culture/well-known and publicized journals, no offense to what may or may not be a good journal in it's field). Can you finally answer this instead of evade?

Larry Moran did give an answer to the "differentiate Ham (or whoever) and Collins". The fact that people didn't like it is irrelevant. However, someone did give a less-pithy response (I forget if it was Larry or someone else, sorry) - one is a Young Earth Creationist, another is a Theistic Evolution (Creationist, I would add if it wasn't there already). Again, if someone disagree's that this is acceptable, that's a different thing than not having answered already. If I could see that, why couldn't others?

Re: if Darwin and the others were Accommodationists, and let's assume for the sake of argument that they were, I'd have to ask - so what? If they were, we could still disagree with them on that standing without throwing out everything they did. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is really idiotic, and I don't know of anyone who would do that. I'd say that most biologists would agree with the statement that Darwin was correct about many things in evolution, but also got a lot wrong - things he couldn't have known about due to progress in science or due to other factors. The same way we can look and see that, yes, Sainted Ken Miller has fought the young-and-old-earth (as well as ID) creationists, yet at the same time believes a lot of unevidenced superstitious garbage and tries to promote that with the same authority as he tries to do the science. Yes, the Gnu atheists (and others) are really focused beyond the narrow "hold the fort and pray the theists let us teach evolution, so long as we don't question their god belief" attitude and try to get to the heart of the problem - superstitious, magical thinking. Is that so hard to understand?

As for tactics, if anyone has ever taught any kid, you use whatever works. Some respond to politeness and reason, others to ridicule and shaming. Some need quiet conversation, others need their parents to have a "talk" with them, in whatever form that takes in their household. There is no "one size fits all", especially since the tactics that tone-trolls (speaking directly to Matzke who made this point as his concern up above) want us to use haven't been successful. What was that word that has this definition "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"?

Badger3k, not googlemess.

phhht said:

SLC said:

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Gonorrhea is an objectively great venereal disease. Adolf Hitler was an objectively great political leader. David Allan Coe's song Suckem Silly Shirley, and Warren Hayne's guitar work on said song, is objectively, a great country song. Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Inventing opposite propositions is not an argument. The same could be done for anything in science. Presumably the point is we have objective criteria we can apply to judge statements in science. Well, we have those in history as well. It's not an accident that Lincoln is always at or near the top of the list for great presidents. It's not just a bunch of random opinions that happen to agree by chance in the random flux of opinions floating about in the Universe. People have made the arguments and you haven't addressed them. Lincoln defeated slavery. Lincoln saved the country. Point to other presidents who did similar things. Well, there are a few, and they are also at the top of the list of great presidents. People have similar opinions because they are aware of what these men achieved, which other men didn't. Dismissing all of this as just subjective is, well, bonkers. I would expect better from self-proclaimed "defenders of reason".

Anyone who says Lincoln is a great president is bonkers. Of course, I could defend my opinion, but I don't have to. The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious. First, such opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Second, apart from invective and appeals to the opinions of others, there is no methodology for resolving such conflicting claims. At the end, all you have are claims which still conflict. Or do you, Nick Matzke, want to reveal the secrets of a "broader view" which permit such resolution? I think you do not, because you cannot. There is no such methodology which can resolve matters of opinion to objective truth. If I am wrong, show me how.

I won't comment on whether Lincoln was a great president but there can be no doubt or question that he was a great war leader. At the start of the Civil War, there could not have been a greater contrast between the leaders of the two sides. Lincoln had no military training, and no military experience; Jefferson Davis, on the other hand was a graduate of West Point, had fought in the Mexican War, and had been a Secretary of War in the Pierce Administration. Thus anybody looking at the two men in 1861 and evaluating them based on their military experience would have concluded that Lincoln was in way over his head. However, as General Fuller put it, in military matters, there is no substitute for a fine mind. Lincoln had a fine mind, Davis did not. Lincoln became a great military strategist, far better then any of the generals on either side until Grant showed up in Washington. Davis was a dried up old stick more suited to the cloister then the president's house in Richmond. Davis is a perfect example of the old saw, Napoleon's mules went through 20 campaigns with him and at the end were still mules. His concept of military strategy bore no relationship to the facts on the ground. He was not helped by his closest adviser, Robert E. Lee who, in may respects, was one of the most incapable commanding generals in history. Even when Lee gave him good advise, he ignored it.

Now you are just playing word games about what the word “great” means when referring to war leaders.

SLC said:

phhht said:

SLC said:

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Gonorrhea is an objectively great venereal disease. Adolf Hitler was an objectively great political leader. David Allan Coe's song Suckem Silly Shirley, and Warren Hayne's guitar work on said song, is objectively, a great country song. Are we done with this yet? Nick when are you going to admit you are just trolling PT and not making this silly argument in good faith?

Inventing opposite propositions is not an argument. The same could be done for anything in science. Presumably the point is we have objective criteria we can apply to judge statements in science. Well, we have those in history as well. It's not an accident that Lincoln is always at or near the top of the list for great presidents. It's not just a bunch of random opinions that happen to agree by chance in the random flux of opinions floating about in the Universe. People have made the arguments and you haven't addressed them. Lincoln defeated slavery. Lincoln saved the country. Point to other presidents who did similar things. Well, there are a few, and they are also at the top of the list of great presidents. People have similar opinions because they are aware of what these men achieved, which other men didn't. Dismissing all of this as just subjective is, well, bonkers. I would expect better from self-proclaimed "defenders of reason".

Anyone who says Lincoln is a great president is bonkers. Of course, I could defend my opinion, but I don't have to. The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious. First, such opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Second, apart from invective and appeals to the opinions of others, there is no methodology for resolving such conflicting claims. At the end, all you have are claims which still conflict. Or do you, Nick Matzke, want to reveal the secrets of a "broader view" which permit such resolution? I think you do not, because you cannot. There is no such methodology which can resolve matters of opinion to objective truth. If I am wrong, show me how.

I won't comment on whether Lincoln was a great president but there can be no doubt or question that he was a great war leader. At the start of the Civil War, there could not have been a greater contrast between the leaders of the two sides. Lincoln had no military training, and no military experience; Jefferson Davis, on the other hand was a graduate of West Point, had fought in the Mexican War, and had been a Secretary of War in the Pierce Administration. Thus anybody looking at the two men in 1861 and evaluating them based on their military experience would have concluded that Lincoln was in way over his head. However, as General Fuller put it, in military matters, there is no substitute for a fine mind. Lincoln had a fine mind, Davis did not. Lincoln became a great military strategist, far better then any of the generals on either side until Grant showed up in Washington. Davis was a dried up old stick more suited to the cloister then the president's house in Richmond. Davis is a perfect example of the old saw, Napoleon's mules went through 20 campaigns with him and at the end were still mules. His concept of military strategy bore no relationship to the facts on the ground. He was not helped by his closest adviser, Robert E. Lee who, in may respects, was one of the most incapable commanding generals in history. Even when Lee gave him good advise, he ignored it.

Now you are just playing word games about what the word “great” means when referring to war leaders.

No, I'm quoting General Fuller in his book, "Lee and Grant, a Study in Generalship and Personality".

Mr. Matzke, the question is not whether or not people have declared Handel's Messiah to be 'great'. It's perfectly obvious that a lot of people have done that, and it would be kind of stoopid to deny that Handel's Messiah has, indeed, been declared 'great' by a lot of people.
The question is whether or not the quality to which the word 'great' refers, is an objective quality, or a subjective quality.
Pointing out that lots of people have called Handel's Messiah 'great' does not address that question. Not unless you're working from the unspoken premise that "X is objectively true because lots of people agree with X", at least. Because we can both think of lots of different X's which are both (a) subjective as all get-out, and (b) agreed-with by lots of people, yes? Maybe you think a subjective statement becomes objective when a large number of people agree with it, Mr. Matkze; I don't.
I think that a subjective statement which is agreed to by a billion people is still a subjective statement.
I think that in general, objective truth cannot be determined by looking at the results of opinion polls. If the objective truth you['re investigating happens to be something in the neighborhood of "the distribution of opinions at Time T, among people who belong to Group X", then sure, an opinion poll is about as good as it gets for determining that sort of objective truth. But, again, I think that a subjective opinion which is shared by a billion people is still a subjective opinion.
'Truth' in Handel's Messiah? I don't see it, myself. If you, or anyone else, wants to claim there is 'objective truth' in Handel's Messiah, do clue us all in on what 'truth' there might be in that work, hm?

If "objective truth" can be established by a great many people agreeing that it's true, or believing it to be true, then objective truth changes over time.

CIP: geocentrism

Of course objective truths change over time. It's objectively true that it's late afternoon.

If the "objective truth" of a claim is to be established by the majority of a group of people agreeing that it's true, then objective truth cannot be established for the claim in groups with an even number of members, when exactly half the members dissent.

For example, in a group of two, if the members disagree on the truth of the claim, no absolute truth can be determined for it.

Nick Matzke said: So it's just a matter of opinion, is it? Strange that so many peoples' opinions agree, then.

phhht said: If the "objective truth" of a claim is to be established by the majority of a group of people agreeing that it's true, then objective truth cannot be established for the claim in groups with an even number of members, when exactly half the members dissent. For example, in a group of two, if the members disagree on the truth of the claim, no absolute objective truth can be determined for it.

This whole tangent is silly, and I'm embarassed for Matzke.

If I say, "I don't like Handel's Messiah and I don't think it's great," how could you convince me without appealing to popularity and authority?

If I say "I don't believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor," you would have no need to use fallacies. You could bury me with evidence.

phhht said: If the "objective truth" of a claim is to be established by the majority of a group of people agreeing that it's true, then objective truth cannot be established for the claim in groups with an even number of members, when exactly half the members dissent. For example, in a group of two, if the members disagree on the truth of the claim, no absolute objective truth can be determined for it.

Nick Matzke said:

The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious.

I didn't. I did say that when people from diverse cultures and backgrounds reach the same conclusion, this is evidence that there is some objective reality, either outside or inside humans or both, that is causing this.

I’m still waiting for Nick to post what “truth” is found in Handel’s Messiah. Appeals to popularity, or whether it stirs up emotions in people, isn’t answering the question. Nor is pointing to one 31-year old paper in what seems to be an obscure journal (compared to popular culture/well-known and publicized journals, no offense to what may or may not be a good journal in it’s field). Can you finally answer this instead of evade?

tomh replied to a comment from Nick Matzke | April 21, 2012 5:25 PM | Reply Nick Matzke said: So it’s just a matter of opinion, is it? Strange that so many peoples’ opinions agree, then. But they don’t agree, not in America. By a huge majority, Americans prefer country music over classical, as I do myself. There are about 10,000 commercial radio stations in the US, and 2000 of them play country music. 30-35 play classical. You like Amens and Hallelujahs? Listen to some gospel music. I was raised on gospel music and, while I have no use for the Gospels, I still love gospel music. There is far more meaning and “truth” (in your sense), in Amazing Grace, than in your Handel. And all this means is that it’s all subjective. To each his/her own. Different strokes for different folks. And so on. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this, and insist that because you and others you admire like something, why it must be great. That attitude simply marks you as pretentious and narrowminded.

Nick Matzke said: Now you are just playing word games about what the word "great" means when referring to presidents. It's pretty obvious what it means for presidents -- great for the country. A significant improvement and/or avoiding a probably catastrophe. Self-sacrifice in pursuit the achievement of the above makes them even greater. Etc.

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Nick Matzke said: Re: truth in The Messiah. Really? Are you so robotic a rationalist that you can't see meaningful ways in which there is truth in music? You are killing off a lot more than just religion in your quest for "reason", my friends. I'm off to Cal Day, but if you need someone to explain the concept in journal-article prose, read this: ...then consider that he is talking about "absolute music" -- music without words, probably the hardest case for talking about truth in music. Whereas Handel's Messiah has words, an easier case. Music evokes emotion. Words by themselves, less so. Does the music evoke the emotions that go with what the participants in the stories would have felt, and/or with what an observer of the story would have felt? It doesn't matter whether or not the stories are fictions, it takes a deep understanding of the stories, and human nature, and music, to make this work at the level that Handel made it work. Or, if the above is insufficiently blunt to impress the emotionless robotic rationalist, do this thought experiment. Take the two most famous bits of Handel's Messiah, the Hallelujah chorus, and the "Amen" at the end. Now, keep the music the same, but have people sing the word "Amen" wherever they use to sing the word "Hallelujah", and vice versa. Would it work? Would Handel be famous if he had this kind of tin ear? No -- the music in Hallelujah is celebratory, because that's what hallelujahs are about, and the music in Amen is about closure and peace, because that's what amens are about. And it makes even more sense considered within the arc of the whole Messiah. These are human universals, even though the music in this case is Christian. Correspondence between the words and the emotions is a form of truth, and we can see how false it would be when we destroy the correspondence as in our thought experiment. It's very similar to the score of a movie. Anyone who has ever seen a particularly good or particularly bad scoring of a movie, or a parody scoring (e.g. cartoon fun music during a war scene), knows what I mean. There is a story, and there are associated emotions which we attempt to convey with music, and they either match up or they don't. When they match up really well, it's called genius. And that's as objective as history or, well, science, even if it's not quite as quantifiable as the latter.

phhht said:

Nick Matzke said: Re: truth in The Messiah. Really? Are you so robotic a rationalist that you can't see meaningful ways in which there is truth in music? You are killing off a lot more than just religion in your quest for "reason", my friends. I'm off to Cal Day, but if you need someone to explain the concept in journal-article prose, read this: ...then consider that he is talking about "absolute music" -- music without words, probably the hardest case for talking about truth in music. Whereas Handel's Messiah has words, an easier case. Music evokes emotion. Words by themselves, less so. Does the music evoke the emotions that go with what the participants in the stories would have felt, and/or with what an observer of the story would have felt? It doesn't matter whether or not the stories are fictions, it takes a deep understanding of the stories, and human nature, and music, to make this work at the level that Handel made it work. Or, if the above is insufficiently blunt to impress the emotionless robotic rationalist, do this thought experiment. Take the two most famous bits of Handel's Messiah, the Hallelujah chorus, and the "Amen" at the end. Now, keep the music the same, but have people sing the word "Amen" wherever they use to sing the word "Hallelujah", and vice versa. Would it work? Would Handel be famous if he had this kind of tin ear? No -- the music in Hallelujah is celebratory, because that's what hallelujahs are about, and the music in Amen is about closure and peace, because that's what amens are about. And it makes even more sense considered within the arc of the whole Messiah. These are human universals, even though the music in this case is Christian. Correspondence between the words and the emotions is a form of truth, and we can see how false it would be when we destroy the correspondence as in our thought experiment. It's very similar to the score of a movie. Anyone who has ever seen a particularly good or particularly bad scoring of a movie, or a parody scoring (e.g. cartoon fun music during a war scene), knows what I mean. There is a story, and there are associated emotions which we attempt to convey with music, and they either match up or they don't. When they match up really well, it's called genius. And that's as objective as history or, well, science, even if it's not quite as quantifiable as the latter.

This is fuzzy feel-good nonsense. If there are "truths" in music, what are they? You cannot answer that question except to say that there is emotion involved, and narrative. You assume that everyone, from the Aleuts to the Zulus, will hear the same things you hear and feel the same things you feel on hearing the piece. That's naively false, but even if it were true, it would not say what these "truths" are, nor establish their objective nature. I'm sorry to say that at this point, Nick Matzke, you have convinced me that you do not know of any effective "broader view" or "other way of knowing" objective truth. I will continue to lurk here in hopes that I am mistaken. Thanks for the conversation.

I said the Messiah was objectively a great work

phhht said: Anyone who says Lincoln is a great president is bonkers. Of course, I could defend my opinion, but I don't have to. The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious. First, such opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Second, apart from invective and appeals to the opinions of others, there is no methodology for resolving such conflicting claims. At the end, all you have are claims which still conflict. Or do you, Nick Matzke, want to reveal the secrets of a "broader view" which permit such resolution? I think you do not, because you cannot. There is no such methodology which can resolve matters of opinion to objective truth. If I am wrong, show me how.

Nick Matzke said:

phhht said: This is fuzzy feel-good nonsense. If there are "truths" in music, what are they? You cannot answer that question except to say that there is emotion involved, and narrative. You assume that everyone, from the Aleuts to the Zulus, will hear the same things you hear and feel the same things you feel on hearing the piece. That's naively false, but even if it were true, it would not say what these "truths" are, nor establish their objective nature. I'm sorry to say that at this point, Nick Matzke, you have convinced me that you do not know of any effective "broader view" or "other way of knowing" objective truth. I will continue to lurk here in hopes that I am mistaken. Thanks for the conversation.

You are now just basically saying "nuh-uh" in response to my arguments, so yeah, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I too appreciated the conversation.

dalehusband said:

phhht said: Anyone who says Lincoln is a great president is bonkers. Of course, I could defend my opinion, but I don't have to. The problems with defining popularity or consensus as objective truth are manifest and obvious. First, such opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Second, apart from invective and appeals to the opinions of others, there is no methodology for resolving such conflicting claims. At the end, all you have are claims which still conflict. Or do you, Nick Matzke, want to reveal the secrets of a "broader view" which permit such resolution? I think you do not, because you cannot. There is no such methodology which can resolve matters of opinion to objective truth. If I am wrong, show me how.

It is not possible to show you are wrong...

... because anything an opponent of yours says about the matter you could counter with some other form of rhetoric. You cannot beleive in objective truth alone, because you are human...unless in fact you are somehow NOT human.

And at the same time, opinions CAN be based on objective truths and can thus gain overwhelming popularity among people who live in the same universe and precieve it with the same senses together. Including you. I'm amazed that anyone would even question this.

I wonder if phhht is a follower of the Objectivist dogmas of Ayn Rand. Sure seems like it. And I have made my contempt for that right wing extremist b!tch abundantly clear on many occations.

On the planet Tralfmadore (sorry, Kurt) there is a species of vast intellect that senses their environment and communicates solely by the exchange of pheremones. I can state with a fairly high degree of confidence that they would not put Handel's Messiah on their smellIPhone playlist, nor would they consider it 'great.' By the way, by dint of their incredible brainpower they did in fact decide to test my proposition (they can read teh internets forward in time) by translating the Messiah into a pheromone composition that was fully as culturally and aesthetically rich as the original (of course we only have their word for this, as to humans the result smelled like a herd of flatulent wildebeests). Having done so,their conclusion was - 'trivial.' (Or an odor to that effect.)

There is also a Tralfamadorian analog of an apple - when it detaches from its tree-equivalent, I can state with a fairly high degree of confidence that when it falls, it will adopt a trajectory that depends on the nature of the medium in which it is moving and the net gravitational potential in its vicinity. The Tralfamadorians are inclined to agree with this assessment.

This establishes the subjectivity of the statement that Handel's Messiah is 'great' and demonstrates a cognate example of what with reasonable confidence we can call an objective statement.

Please make it stop.

rags_2004#462fd said: Please make it stop.

Nick Matzke said: Re: truth in The Messiah. Really? Are you so robotic a rationalist that you can't see meaningful ways in which there is truth in music? You are killing off a lot more than just religion in your quest for "reason", my friends. I'm off to Cal Day, but if you need someone to explain the concept in journal-article prose, read this: ...then consider that he is talking about "absolute music" -- music without words, probably the hardest case for talking about truth in music. Whereas Handel's Messiah has words, an easier case. Music evokes emotion. Words by themselves, less so. Does the music evoke the emotions that go with what the participants in the stories would have felt, and/or with what an observer of the story would have felt? It doesn't matter whether or not the stories are fictions, it takes a deep understanding of the stories, and human nature, and music, to make this work at the level that Handel made it work. Or, if the above is insufficiently blunt to impress the emotionless robotic rationalist, do this thought experiment. Take the two most famous bits of Handel's Messiah, the Hallelujah chorus, and the "Amen" at the end. Now, keep the music the same, but have people sing the word "Amen" wherever they use to sing the word "Hallelujah", and vice versa. Would it work? Would Handel be famous if he had this kind of tin ear? No -- the music in Hallelujah is celebratory, because that's what hallelujahs are about, and the music in Amen is about closure and peace, because that's what amens are about. And it makes even more sense considered within the arc of the whole Messiah. These are human universals, even though the music in this case is Christian. Correspondence between the words and the emotions is a form of truth, and we can see how false it would be when we destroy the correspondence as in our thought experiment. It's very similar to the score of a movie. Anyone who has ever seen a particularly good or particularly bad scoring of a movie, or a parody scoring (e.g. cartoon fun music during a war scene), knows what I mean. There is a story, and there are associated emotions which we attempt to convey with music, and they either match up or they don't. When they match up really well, it's called genius. And that's as objective as history or, well, science, even if it's not quite as quantifiable as the latter.

Look, can we stop this stuff about objective criteria about greatness? There aren't any. All we have is consensus and universality of appeal to many people of many cultures across time and space, and as has been pointed out many times, this doesn't equal any sort of objectivity.

There are people who attempt to provide objective criteria for assessment of art, music and literature. They develop schemes of these criteria, some of which get called "theories", and they themselves are called art, music or literary "theorists". Trust me on this; I spent two of the most mind-bogglingly maddening years of my life trying to understand what some of them are saying, only to discover that they often neither know themselves nor give very much of a damn if anyone else ever does.

The point is that what such theorists call "theory" is not what a scientist means by the word, nor what the man-in-the-street means by it either. To them, it means something like "a set of techniques for analysing how a given effect or effects are achieved", with the implication that successful application of these techniques results in the desired effect. This implies some sort of explanatory power, true. Alas, it doesn't seem to be so simple. At any rate, an examination of the techniques doesn't explain the effect itself.

And yet, there is such an effect. It exists. It doesn't matter what art, literature or music moves you, or even that none of it moves you, as an individual, at all. The point is that some of it does move people, and a tiny proportion of that moves so many people that the effect can reasonably be said to be general.

I understand that there is an opinion that this effect is perfectly explicable on purely mechanical, chemical, physical grounds. Maybe it is. I don't know. If I say I don't know, does that make me an accommodationist?

If so, colour me accommodationist.

Oddly, my old classics prof, who liked to collect art, bought a big Albers painting from Albers at a time when the man was utterly unknown. I think the piece only cost him a hundred or two. So there was this huge, museum-quality painting in Dr. Carroll's modest suburban home. Just lucky, I guess.

It's probably pointless to try to make the point that science is merely one of many ways to approach the world when the people you're speaking to are trying to turn their Asperger's syndrome into a philosophical system. (You may think that it's wrong of me to make such a comment: I quite agree but please note that you have no business complaining. By your own epistemological rules, your sense of what is appropriate is simply a subjective whim and has no scientific value. Indeed, reasoning about matters of right and wrong is as much a mindless popularity contest as any aesthetic judgment.)

Actually, very intelligent Asperger's sufferers are sometimes able to infer the dimensions of experience that they have difficulty registering directly. Doesn't seem to happen too often, though. Which is why so many scientists continue to think that literary critics are to novels and poems as ornithologists are to birds and are puzzled that English profs don't seem to expect to come up with definitive answers. The humanities aren't science. Neither are morality, politics, history, music, and many other things. They are something else, the dark matter that dominates the human universe though you aren't able to detect it.

Jim never said: It's probably pointless to try to make the point that science is the only way to approach objective truth when the people you're speaking to are trying to turn their subjective convictions into a philosophical system. (You may think that it's wrong of me to make such a comment: I quite agree but please note that you have no business complaining. By your own epistemological rules, your sense of what is appropriate is simply a subjective whim and has no objective value. Indeed, reasoning about matters of right and wrong is as much a senseless popularity contest as any aesthetic judgment.) Actually, very intelligent sufferers of delusional disorder are sometimes able to infer the dimensions of experience that they have difficulty registering directly. Doesn't seem to happen too often, though. Which is why so many classicists continue to think that literary critics are to novels and poems as fish are to bicycles and are puzzled that Physics profs don't seem to come up with definitive answers about opinion. The humanities aren't science. Neither are morality, politics, history, music, and many other things. They are something else, the dark matter that dominates the human universe though you aren't able to detect it. They do not contain objective truth.

That's pretty cool about your old professor. I'm actually a fan of some of Albers' work, I have just always been confused by the particular acclaim for the "Square" series - I worked with/for some museum curators, and what started as a simple question turned into daily lectures on modern art. Hence my slight preoccupation with that series.

I actually agree with much of what you say here. I actually challenged Mr. Matzke on his apparent argumentum ad populum on moral grounds earlier. And I don't think the scientific method would be of much help applied to the humanities in many respects. My problem is that Mr. Matzke made sweeping assertion earlier about "broader views" on evolution, and, when challenged to define how these broader views work, he made a snarky comment about Handel's "Messiah" being either "true" or crap. And he has since defended that comment as being some kind of "objective truth" from a consensus of opinion.

Now, I am a bit of an art lover. As stated previously, I worked in a museum (renovations, but still counts!), I was a musician and still dabble a bit (even played part of "Messiah" once). The thing is, unless you're talking about neuroscience with respect to how people perceive art, there is nothing remotely objective about it, or politics, or any of the other fields of humanities.

tomh said:

Nick Matzke said: So it's just a matter of opinion, is it? Strange that so many peoples' opinions agree, then.

But they don't agree, not in America. By a huge majority, Americans prefer country music over classical, as I do myself. There are about 10,000 commercial radio stations in the US, and 2000 of them play country music. 30-35 play classical. You like Amens and Hallelujahs? Listen to some gospel music. I was raised on gospel music and, while I have no use for the Gospels, I still love gospel music. There is far more meaning and "truth" (in your sense), in Amazing Grace, than in your Handel. And all this means is that it's all subjective. To each his/her own. Different strokes for different folks. And so on. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this, and insist that because you and others you admire like something, why it must be great. That attitude simply marks you as pretentious and narrowminded.

Paul Burnett said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Maybe some of the larger urban areas in the former Confederacy have been reconciled, but the rural areas certainly have not, remaining bastions of theocratic fundagelicalism and racism.

sez jim: "It’s probably pointless to try to make the point that science is merely one of many ways to approach the world when the people you’re speaking to are trying to turn their Asperger’s syndrome into a philosophical system."
Who is more Asperger-like: A person who acknowledges that 'greatness' is a subjective quality that can be defined in many different ways, or a person who insists that 'greatness' is not subjective at all while, at the same time, raising an argument that is based on the unspoken premise that a subjective opinion becomes objective when enough people share it, and refusing to explain how to determine which of two different concepts of 'greatness' is the 'real', 'objectively true' concept of 'greatness'?

xubist said: sez jim: "It’s probably pointless to try to make the point that science is merely one of many ways to approach the world when the people you’re speaking to are trying to turn their Asperger’s syndrome into a philosophical system." Who is more Asperger-like: A person who acknowledges that 'greatness' is a subjective quality that can be defined in many different ways, or a person who insists that 'greatness' is not subjective at all while, at the same time, raising an argument that is based on the unspoken premise that a subjective opinion becomes objective when enough people share it, and refusing to explain how to determine which of two different concepts of 'greatness' is the 'real', 'objectively true' concept of 'greatness'?

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Maybe some of the larger urban areas in the former Confederacy have been reconciled, but the rural areas certainly have not, remaining bastions of theocratic fundagelicalism and racism.

The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

John said: The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

John said:I like country music too...

John said:The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

Sylvilagus said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Maybe some of the larger urban areas in the former Confederacy have been reconciled, but the rural areas certainly have not, remaining bastions of theocratic fundagelicalism and racism.

The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

You've got to be kidding! Ever been in the South? I'm from Tennessee and even now spend a good bit of time with family still in the South, and traveling around there. The old KKK-Style racism is still found throughout the South, TN, NC, SC, and not in isolated pockets. Of course, they're not the majority, but common enough. In SC a widespread BBQ chain pushes pro-Confederate ("happy slave") revisionist pamphlets and books at their checkout stand. Spend any time with folks that know you (and are therefore relaxed) outside the cities and you'll hear "nigger" pretty regularly, or at least phrases like "those blacks". More common is the less virulent, quieter racism that creates underfunded de facto segregated schools. IF you've spent time in the South and don't see the racism, you'd best re-calibrate your sensor systems. Oh, and by the way, the elections in New Orleans and Atlanta, reflect the large black populations there, NOT a significant absence of white racism. Also, New Orleans has always been atypical in race relations compared to the rest of the South, largely because of the French influence color liones were less strictly drawn.

Paul Burnett said:

John said:The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

You don't get out much, do you?

Paul Burnett said:

John said:I like country music too...

One evening when Mstislav Rostropovich was directing the National Symphony Orchestra at the Kennedy Center in Washington DC, he came out on stage and said a suggestion had been made that the orchestra should play some country music. 2,400 people simultaneously gasped. "So tonight," he said,"we will play some music from the country of Poland."

As you are well aware Frank J, the Discovery Institute scam artists - I believe they should more aptly be dubbed mendacious intellectual pornographers - have succeeded in persuading the public that Intelligent Design isn’t creationism. .... We need to remind others that Intelligent Design is just another flavor of creationism; most notably as a Madison Avenue advertising-styled variety.

— John

Flint said: Of course objective truths change over time. It's objectively true that it's late afternoon.

Nick Matzke said: I disagree a bit. They see the "disease" as religion (more intolerant, exterminationist rhetoric, there), they see the "accomodationists" as, say, anti-vaxers. So you can understand the emotion they put behind it a bit, from that perspective.

Over here in the real world, religion is tremendously diverse, probably does at least as much good as bad, in its absence the same problems crop up under new names (e.g. the absolutism and exclusivism, sometimes even futurism and eschatology which we find in various forms of scientism), and there has been a general failure so far to come up with a convincing form of similar community organization with similar broad appeal.

On top of that, long historical and political experience shows the never-ending perils of religious intolerance and hostility -- which is precisely why the Founding Fathers separated church and state in the first place.

So, many of us scientists don't look fondly on attempts to take science, which is basically a government-funded public trust, open to all regardless of race, sexuality, or religion (as is official policy for any governmental entity), and for the benefit of all -- and coopt it for one group's apologetics for their metaphysical views.

The war is between rationalism and superstition and part of that encompasses the differences between science as a way of knowing and religion. Many gnus think that science is the only way of knowing that has a proven track record. We don’t think that science and religion are compatible.

The accommodationists are atheists who think that science and religion are compatible.

They believe that religion represent a valid other way of knowing even though they have not been personally convinced by that way of knowing.

I don’t think that all religions are evil. Many of them are almost harmless and it’s certainly true that many believers are very nice people. However, that’s also true of astrology and homeopathy but that doesn’t stop me from pointing out their logical flaws.

I want to live in a society that values rational thinking and rejects superstitious thinking of all kinds.

I oppose the accommodationists because they are defending a point of view that I think is false; namely, that religion represents another valid way of knowing and the scientific way of knowing is restricted to only a part of human knowledge.

Nick Matzke said:

I’m still waiting for Nick to post what “truth” is found in Handel’s Messiah. Appeals to popularity, or whether it stirs up emotions in people, isn’t answering the question. Nor is pointing to one 31-year old paper in what seems to be an obscure journal (compared to popular culture/well-known and publicized journals, no offense to what may or may not be a good journal in it’s field). Can you finally answer this instead of evade?

Asked and answered. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/04/coyne-on-religi.html#comment-284548 http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/04/coyne-on-religi.html#comment-284550 Quote me and respond, and/or quote the paper and respond, or I've got nothing to respond to and I'll just assume I'm right and you've got no substantive response. The journal is exactly the sort of journal where the kind of obscure question we are asking is answered. It's not like this is a new question. I remember a whole class in undergrad devoted to the debate about "programmatic" music in the 18th and 19th centuries. Beethoven's Ninth was revolutionary in part because he threw out the rulebook and put an obviously representational, story-telling chunk into the fourth movement.

You have gone so far off the rails that I don’t even know how to response to this kind of nonsense.

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Maybe some of the larger urban areas in the former Confederacy have been reconciled, but the rural areas certainly have not, remaining bastions of theocratic fundagelicalism and racism.

The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

Frank J said:

As you are well aware Frank J, the Discovery Institute scam artists - I believe they should more aptly be dubbed mendacious intellectual pornographers - have succeeded in persuading the public that Intelligent Design isn’t creationism. .... We need to remind others that Intelligent Design is just another flavor of creationism; most notably as a Madison Avenue advertising-styled variety.

— John

They have succeeded only because the public defines "creationism" differently than criics do. The only way we can convince those people that ID is "just another flavor of creationism" is to alert them to the differences in definiton. If we don't, we're helping the "pornographers." Fellow "Darwinists" rarely miss an opportunity to explain to the public the differences in definitons of "theory," and how anti-evolution activists bait-and-switch them. Why is it so hard to do the same thing with "creationism"?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlEeMeZ3zKLRoRaOrAKRE9zAUknjctC9wk said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Maybe some of the larger urban areas in the former Confederacy have been reconciled, but the rural areas certainly have not, remaining bastions of theocratic fundagelicalism and racism.

The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

I have to assume that either you are blind or don't live anywhere close to the south. I've lived here in Texas for the last 22 years. Racism is alive and doing extremely well in small towns and big cities. Working with lower-income students, many of whom are non-white, and dealing with lots of people....it's incredibly easy to see it in action. Hell, listen to the GOP debates, and you can see culturally institutionalized racism. Richard Land? The Traveon case (spelling?)? Obama the Kenyan-muslim? Seriously, I know being a Libertarian means being disconnected from reality, but that's a bit much even for someone as mendacious as you.

And there was NO "Tea Party" until we elected a "black" president--even though ALL of the problems the teapers are so "concerned" about were just as problematic in the preceding administration.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlEeMeZ3zKLRoRaOrAKRE9zAUknjctC9wk said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Maybe some of the larger urban areas in the former Confederacy have been reconciled, but the rural areas certainly have not, remaining bastions of theocratic fundagelicalism and racism.

The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

I have to assume that either you are blind or don't live anywhere close to the south. I've lived here in Texas for the last 22 years. Racism is alive and doing extremely well in small towns and big cities. Working with lower-income students, many of whom are non-white, and dealing with lots of people....it's incredibly easy to see it in action. Hell, listen to the GOP debates, and you can see culturally institutionalized racism. Richard Land? The Traveon case (spelling?)? Obama the Kenyan-muslim? Seriously, I know being a Libertarian means being disconnected from reality, but that's a bit much even for someone as mendacious as you.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlEeMeZ3zKLRoRaOrAKRE9zAUknjctC9wk barfed: ....but that's a bit much even for someone as mendacious as you.

Just Bob said: And there was NO "Tea Party" until we elected a "black" president--even though ALL of the problems the teapers are so "concerned" about were just as problematic in the preceding administration.

John said:

Just Bob said: And there was NO "Tea Party" until we elected a "black" president--even though ALL of the problems the teapers are so "concerned" about were just as problematic in the preceding administration.

Right. Let's see. George W. Bush increased the Federal deficit by 5 trillion years during the eight years of his presidency, while Caesar Barack Obamaus equalled that feat in just three and a half years. (And it might double should he, GOD forbid, win re-election.)

Just Bob said: And there was NO "Tea Party" until we elected a "black" president--even though ALL of the problems the teapers are so "concerned" about were just as problematic in the preceding administration.

John said:

Just Bob said: And there was NO "Tea Party" until we elected a "black" president--even though ALL of the problems the teapers are so "concerned" about were just as problematic in the preceding administration.

IMHO, he may have been elected because of his ethnic background, not because of his executive leadership qualifications, which were nonexistent. IMHO, astrophysicist Neil de Grase Tyson, Brown University President Ruth Simmons, General Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice would have been much better choices if that ethnic background was a key reason for his election, since all of them had substantial executive leadership skills, whereas his "leadership" was as a community organizer.

John said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlEeMeZ3zKLRoRaOrAKRE9zAUknjctC9wk said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Maybe some of the larger urban areas in the former Confederacy have been reconciled, but the rural areas certainly have not, remaining bastions of theocratic fundagelicalism and racism.

The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

I have to assume that either you are blind or don't live anywhere close to the south. I've lived here in Texas for the last 22 years. Racism is alive and doing extremely well in small towns and big cities. Working with lower-income students, many of whom are non-white, and dealing with lots of people....it's incredibly easy to see it in action. Hell, listen to the GOP debates, and you can see culturally institutionalized racism. Richard Land? The Traveon case (spelling?)? Obama the Kenyan-muslim? Seriously, I know being a Libertarian means being disconnected from reality, but that's a bit much even for someone as mendacious as you.

I lived in the Southwest for over a decade and the racism I saw - and occasionally - felt was far more subtle than you insist. Moreover, I think you are describing more differences in class rather than differences in ethnic backgrounds. As for Obama, I think it's silly he should be viewed as the "native Kenyan Muslim". I think it's more apt to describe him as the American crypto-Socialist politican who acts like a Romulan.

Here is a vote to relegate Kwok to the BW with the others just like him.

John Kwok -

1) There is plenty of racism in the US and in New York City, however, I agree that, in the more affluent parts of the NYC area, overt expression of racist ideology is a social taboo. Which is a good thing. However, the idea that racism no long exists in (all parts of) the US (and Canada, where it is less of an issue for historical reasons) is excessively optimistic, to put it mildly.

2) I would also much rather have Neil de Grasse Tyson as president than any of the current options (he wouldn't have to do a very good job to be an improvement). We have totally opposite complaints about President Obama. I have issues with him, but my complaints are that he hasn't made enough of a break with the authoritarian right wing policies of the Bush administration. This comment belongs on the Bathroom Wall, at best, as do all other political and economic comments not related to evolution.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Here is a vote to relegate Kwok to the BW with the others just like him.

harold said: John Kwok - 1) There is plenty of racism in the US and in New York City, however, I agree that, in the more affluent parts of the NYC area, overt expression of racist ideology is a social taboo. Which is a good thing. However, the idea that racism no long exists in (all parts of) the US (and Canada, where it is less of an issue for historical reasons) is excessively optimistic, to put it mildly. 2) I would also much rather have Neil de Grasse Tyson as president than any of the current options (he wouldn't have to do a very good job to be an improvement). We have totally opposite complaints about President Obama. I have issues with him, but my complaints are that he hasn't made enough of a break with the authoritarian right wing policies of the Bush administration. This comment belongs on the Bathroom Wall, at best, as do all other political and economic comments not related to evolution.

harold said: John Kwok - 1) There is plenty of racism in the US and in New York City, however, I agree that, in the more affluent parts of the NYC area, overt expression of racist ideology is a social taboo. Which is a good thing. However, the idea that racism no long exists in (all parts of) the US (and Canada, where it is less of an issue for historical reasons) is excessively optimistic, to put it mildly. 2) I would also much rather have Neil de Grasse Tyson as president than any of the current options (he wouldn't have to do a very good job to be an improvement). We have totally opposite complaints about President Obama. I have issues with him, but my complaints are that he hasn't made enough of a break with the authoritarian right wing policies of the Bush administration. This comment belongs on the Bathroom Wall, at best, as do all other political and economic comments not related to evolution.

I don’t know, Frank J, especially since I have encountered creotards over at HuffPo who tell me that the “evil” “evolutionists” are the ones who “change definitions and decide what the definition should be”. We should insist at each and every opportunity that Intelligent Design is creationism; nothing more, nothing less.

— John

@John: In the last sentence I meant to write "creationism."

SLC said:

harold said: John Kwok - 1) There is plenty of racism in the US and in New York City, however, I agree that, in the more affluent parts of the NYC area, overt expression of racist ideology is a social taboo. Which is a good thing. However, the idea that racism no long exists in (all parts of) the US (and Canada, where it is less of an issue for historical reasons) is excessively optimistic, to put it mildly. 2) I would also much rather have Neil de Grasse Tyson as president than any of the current options (he wouldn't have to do a very good job to be an improvement). We have totally opposite complaints about President Obama. I have issues with him, but my complaints are that he hasn't made enough of a break with the authoritarian right wing policies of the Bush administration. This comment belongs on the Bathroom Wall, at best, as do all other political and economic comments not related to evolution.

I wonder what Mr. Kwok has to say about his a*hole buddy John Derbyshire, who he constantly trumpets as a defender of evolution. Derbyshire is an example of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

John said: As someone who admits that physicist Lisa Randall is hot, I don't think you're a suitable judge of a person's character, SLC. (I know several people who know her reasonably well and let her know that she has a washed-up physicist, SLC, who is stalking her.)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Here is a vote to relegate Kwok to the BW with the others just like him.

co said:

John said: As someone who admits that physicist Lisa Randall is hot, I don't think you're a suitable judge of a person's character, SLC. (I know several people who know her reasonably well and let her know that she has a washed-up physicist, SLC, who is stalking her.)

As someone who incessantly name-drops and who implied that Ophelia Benson was a bitch with PMS, I don't think you're a suitable judge of anyone's character, Kwok.

SLC said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said: Here is a vote to relegate Kwok to the BW with the others just like him.

I don't agree. Actually, I find that Mr. Kwok provides a much needed dose of comic relief to the blog.

John said:

SLC said:

harold said: John Kwok - 1) There is plenty of racism in the US and in New York City, however, I agree that, in the more affluent parts of the NYC area, overt expression of racist ideology is a social taboo. Which is a good thing. However, the idea that racism no long exists in (all parts of) the US (and Canada, where it is less of an issue for historical reasons) is excessively optimistic, to put it mildly. 2) I would also much rather have Neil de Grasse Tyson as president than any of the current options (he wouldn't have to do a very good job to be an improvement). We have totally opposite complaints about President Obama. I have issues with him, but my complaints are that he hasn't made enough of a break with the authoritarian right wing policies of the Bush administration. This comment belongs on the Bathroom Wall, at best, as do all other political and economic comments not related to evolution.

I wonder what Mr. Kwok has to say about his a*hole buddy John Derbyshire, who he constantly trumpets as a defender of evolution. Derbyshire is an example of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

What Derbyshire wrote on that Taki journal with regards to white - black relations in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman case was ridiculous and repugnant. National Review had no choice but to fire him. However, we should not judge him solely for that, but instead, for his harsh, and eloquent, condemnations of Beh Stein and "Expelled", of Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism, and in stressing the overwhelmingly robust scientific fact of biological evolution. As someone who admits that physicist Lisa Randall is hot, I don't think you're a suitable judge of a person's character, SLC. (I know several people who know her reasonably well and let her know that she has a washed-up physicist, SLC, who is stalking her.)

co said:

John said: As someone who admits that physicist Lisa Randall is hot, I don't think you're a suitable judge of a person's character, SLC. (I know several people who know her reasonably well and let her know that she has a washed-up physicist, SLC, who is stalking her.)

As someone who incessantly name-drops and who implied that Ophelia Benson was a bitch with PMS, I don't think you're a suitable judge of anyone's character, Kwok.

John said: I don't know, Frank J, especially since I have encountered creotards over at HuffPo who tell me that the "evil" "evolutionists" are the ones who "change definitions and decide what the definition should be". We should insist at each and every opportunity that Intelligent Design is creationism; nothing more, nothing less.

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said: John Kwok - 1) There is plenty of racism in the US and in New York City, however, I agree that, in the more affluent parts of the NYC area, overt expression of racist ideology is a social taboo. Which is a good thing. However, the idea that racism no long exists in (all parts of) the US (and Canada, where it is less of an issue for historical reasons) is excessively optimistic, to put it mildly. 2) I would also much rather have Neil de Grasse Tyson as president than any of the current options (he wouldn't have to do a very good job to be an improvement). We have totally opposite complaints about President Obama. I have issues with him, but my complaints are that he hasn't made enough of a break with the authoritarian right wing policies of the Bush administration. This comment belongs on the Bathroom Wall, at best, as do all other political and economic comments not related to evolution.

I wonder what Mr. Kwok has to say about his a*hole buddy John Derbyshire, who he constantly trumpets as a defender of evolution. Derbyshire is an example of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

What Derbyshire wrote on that Taki journal with regards to white - black relations in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman case was ridiculous and repugnant. National Review had no choice but to fire him. However, we should not judge him solely for that, but instead, for his harsh, and eloquent, condemnations of Beh Stein and "Expelled", of Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism, and in stressing the overwhelmingly robust scientific fact of biological evolution. As someone who admits that physicist Lisa Randall is hot, I don't think you're a suitable judge of a person's character, SLC. (I know several people who know her reasonably well and let her know that she has a washed-up physicist, SLC, who is stalking her.)

Stalking, stalking? Not hardly. I have never had any contact whatsoever with Prof. Randall and probably wouldn't know who she was if she walked into a room. Mr. Kwok is a fine one to talk about stalking. He was guilty of stalking Abbie Smith to the extent that she had to give him the heave ho from her blog. She has since opined that Mr. Kwok is not right in the head. By the way, I forgot to mention on the previous thread where Mr. Kwok bad mouthed the school where I got my PhD that it was recommended to me by a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Owen Chamberlain, and, at the time I went there, was rated ahead of Brown in physics. So there.

Tenncrain said:

John said: I don't know, Frank J, especially since I have encountered creotards over at HuffPo who tell me that the "evil" "evolutionists" are the ones who "change definitions and decide what the definition should be". We should insist at each and every opportunity that Intelligent Design is creationism; nothing more, nothing less.

ID and creationism may not be exactly the same (many if not most in the ID camp are perhaps not fundamentalists like those in the 'creationism' of the 70s/80s). Yet, ID and creationism are the same in this sense: They both basically use 'ultimate' causes as an answer for scientific/proximate questions. Of course, creationists, er, ID advocates whined during Kitzmiller trial that the two were unrelated despite the revelation of the 'cdesign proponentsists' transitional fossil between creationism and ID.

Unfortunately, Jerry Coyne regards PZ Myers as an exceptional thinker; a first-rate intellect. If that was indeed the case, then why is this “first-rate” evolutionary development biologist still teaching at the “Harvard of Morris, MN”, and not instead, as a colleague of Jerry’s at the University of Chicago’s world-class Program in Evolutionary Biology?

John said:

Tenncrain said:

John said: I don't know, Frank J, especially since I have encountered creotards over at HuffPo who tell me that the "evil" "evolutionists" are the ones who "change definitions and decide what the definition should be". We should insist at each and every opportunity that Intelligent Design is creationism; nothing more, nothing less.

ID and creationism may not be exactly the same (many if not most in the ID camp are perhaps not fundamentalists like those in the 'creationism' of the 70s/80s). Yet, ID and creationism are the same in this sense: They both basically use 'ultimate' causes as an answer for scientific/proximate questions. Of course, creationists, er, ID advocates whined during Kitzmiller trial that the two were unrelated despite the revelation of the 'cdesign proponentsists' transitional fossil between creationism and ID.

Be careful Tennecrain, The Discovery Institute IDiots want you to think that they're different. If so, then why have Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, and Stephen Meyer spoken before Fundamentalist Christian audiences on at least two different continents on numerous occasions. As Robert Pennock, Ronald Numbers, Genie Scott, Glenn Branch, Nick Matzke, Josh Rosenau and many, many others, have demonstrated more than once, Intelligent Design IS creationism and should be referred to as Intelligent Design creationism.

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said: John Kwok - 1) There is plenty of racism in the US and in New York City, however, I agree that, in the more affluent parts of the NYC area, overt expression of racist ideology is a social taboo. Which is a good thing. However, the idea that racism no long exists in (all parts of) the US (and Canada, where it is less of an issue for historical reasons) is excessively optimistic, to put it mildly. 2) I would also much rather have Neil de Grasse Tyson as president than any of the current options (he wouldn't have to do a very good job to be an improvement). We have totally opposite complaints about President Obama. I have issues with him, but my complaints are that he hasn't made enough of a break with the authoritarian right wing policies of the Bush administration. This comment belongs on the Bathroom Wall, at best, as do all other political and economic comments not related to evolution.

I wonder what Mr. Kwok has to say about his a*hole buddy John Derbyshire, who he constantly trumpets as a defender of evolution. Derbyshire is an example of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

What Derbyshire wrote on that Taki journal with regards to white - black relations in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman case was ridiculous and repugnant. National Review had no choice but to fire him. However, we should not judge him solely for that, but instead, for his harsh, and eloquent, condemnations of Beh Stein and "Expelled", of Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism, and in stressing the overwhelmingly robust scientific fact of biological evolution. As someone who admits that physicist Lisa Randall is hot, I don't think you're a suitable judge of a person's character, SLC. (I know several people who know her reasonably well and let her know that she has a washed-up physicist, SLC, who is stalking her.)

Stalking, stalking? Not hardly. I have never had any contact whatsoever with Prof. Randall and probably wouldn't know who she was if she walked into a room. Mr. Kwok is a fine one to talk about stalking. He was guilty of stalking Abbie Smith to the extent that she had to give him the heave ho from her blog. She has since opined that Mr. Kwok is not right in the head. By the way, I forgot to mention on the previous thread where Mr. Kwok bad mouthed the school where I got my PhD that it was recommended to me by a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Owen Chamberlain, and, at the time I went there, was rated ahead of Brown in physics. So there.

Bullshit, SLC. You've stated how much you regard as hot, Cameron Diaz, Scarlett Johanneson, Dr. Lisa Randall, and many, many others. Abbie Smith thinks she's hot because she took Behe down (with Ian Musgrave's ample assistance). Really? I'd say that Sheril Kirshenbaum - whom Abbie detests as one of the "Colgate Twins" - has been a far more effective and thoughtful woman science blogger than Abbie ever has - or will be.

Mike said:

Unfortunately, Jerry Coyne regards PZ Myers as an exceptional thinker; a first-rate intellect. If that was indeed the case, then why is this “first-rate” evolutionary development biologist still teaching at the “Harvard of Morris, MN”, and not instead, as a colleague of Jerry’s at the University of Chicago’s world-class Program in Evolutionary Biology?

Non-sequitir much? He has chosen to live where he lives because he likes living there and teaching there. Are you implying that he has been rejected in application after application to prestigious universities? Have you seen the man's wardrobe? The car he chooses to drive? He does what he does because he loves to do what he does and it has nothing to do with whether he is a "world class intellect."

John said:

co said:

John said: As someone who admits that physicist Lisa Randall is hot, I don't think you're a suitable judge of a person's character, SLC. (I know several people who know her reasonably well and let her know that she has a washed-up physicist, SLC, who is stalking her.)

As someone who incessantly name-drops and who implied that Ophelia Benson was a bitch with PMS, I don't think you're a suitable judge of anyone's character, Kwok.

I'm not going to apologize for implying that, especially since she was hoping that my favorite high school teacher would drop dead. (Which he did do not too longer thereafter; in his memory, he was the subject of many glowing obituaries in the USA, Ireland, Great Britain and elsewher.)

John said: So again, you have no business condemning me, co. Go back to your favorite New Atheist online Romper Room and say your blessings to your "Messiah", the great cephalopod-lover-in-chief.

Frank J said:

I don’t know, Frank J, especially since I have encountered creotards over at HuffPo who tell me that the “evil” “evolutionists” are the ones who “change definitions and decide what the definition should be”. We should insist at each and every opportunity that Intelligent Design is creationism; nothing more, nothing less.

— John

I'm not talking about the "creotards" who are either in on the scam or hopelessly addicted to it. I'm talking about the ~3/4 of the public that is neither, but usually equates creationism with honest belief of one of the "6 literal day" versions of Genesis. Why would you let them think that ID is that, then have an ID peddler say that ID takes no position on "what happened when," after which you would look like the clueless one? When all it would take is 10 seconds to alert them that critics simply define creation differently than they do? And that ID peddlers bait-and-switch the definitions?

Your last comment merely confirms how much of a jackass you are co. Quit while you're still ahead. You whine and moan about what I said to Benson in response to her hope that someone I know would drop dead? (He was dying of cancer.)

Go back to your online New Atheist Romper Room. (BTW in case you missed my earlier comment, I told one of the skeptics I spoke to last night to tell cephalopod-lover-in-chief that I send my love and kisses.)

John said: Your last comment merely confirms how much of a jackass you are co. Quit while you're still ahead. You whine and moan about what I said to Benson in response to her hope that someone I know would drop dead? (He was dying of cancer.) Go back to your online New Atheist Romper Room. (BTW in case you missed my earlier comment, I told one of the skeptics I spoke to last night to tell cephalopod-lover-in-chief that I send my love and kisses.)

co said:

John said: Your last comment merely confirms how much of a jackass you are co. Quit while you're still ahead. You whine and moan about what I said to Benson in response to her hope that someone I know would drop dead? (He was dying of cancer.) Go back to your online New Atheist Romper Room. (BTW in case you missed my earlier comment, I told one of the skeptics I spoke to last night to tell cephalopod-lover-in-chief that I send my love and kisses.)

Sorry, John. I have to apologize. I usually don't find your particular quirks that annoying. However, rank hypocrisy is one of my pet-peeves, and your pushing that particular button of mine got me to build in some buttons with big bulls-eyes painted on them, designed for YOU to push. If you'd like to ignore my question about where else you've seen me post about Matzke, go ahead. Also, you're welcome to ignore this question: Where have I "whined and moaned" about Benson, other than my one previous comment in this forum?

John said:

co said:

John said: Your last comment merely confirms how much of a jackass you are co. Quit while you're still ahead. You whine and moan about what I said to Benson in response to her hope that someone I know would drop dead? (He was dying of cancer.) Go back to your online New Atheist Romper Room. (BTW in case you missed my earlier comment, I told one of the skeptics I spoke to last night to tell cephalopod-lover-in-chief that I send my love and kisses.)

Sorry, John. I have to apologize. I usually don't find your particular quirks that annoying. However, rank hypocrisy is one of my pet-peeves, and your pushing that particular button of mine got me to build in some buttons with big bulls-eyes painted on them, designed for YOU to push. If you'd like to ignore my question about where else you've seen me post about Matzke, go ahead. Also, you're welcome to ignore this question: Where have I "whined and moaned" about Benson, other than my one previous comment in this forum?

You "whined and moaned" when you said I had "implied" to Benson that she was a "b**th suffering from PMS". I wouldn't have said that if she hadn't wished my favorite teacher from high school to drop dead. And yes, from now on in this thread, I'll ignore you.

Bingo!

I wonder if I might remark that Nick Matzke's headline started this thread and he has come under pretty heavy attack since. He could have shut the attackers down at any time and deleted their comments, or at least sent them to the BW. As has been remarked in the Freshwater thread, the policy of the opposition is usually not to allow dissent to appear at all, and certainly to cut it off as soon as it does, with free use of the banhammer.

Nick didn't do that. I think some credit is due.

Dave Luckett said: I wonder if I might remark that Nick Matzke's headline started this thread and he has come under pretty heavy attack since. He could have shut the attackers down at any time and deleted their comments, or at least sent them to the BW. As has been remarked in the Freshwater thread, the policy of the opposition is usually not to allow dissent to appear at all, and certainly to cut it off as soon as it does, with free use of the banhammer. Nick didn't do that. I think some credit is due.

Dave Luckett said: I wonder if I might remark that Nick Matzke's headline started this thread and he has come under pretty heavy attack since. He could have shut the attackers down at any time and deleted their comments, or at least sent them to the BW. As has been remarked in the Freshwater thread, the policy of the opposition is usually not to allow dissent to appear at all, and certainly to cut it off as soon as it does, with free use of the banhammer. Nick didn't do that. I think some credit is due.

Dave Luckett said: I wonder if I might remark that Nick Matzke's headline started this thread and he has come under pretty heavy attack since. He could have shut the attackers down at any time and deleted their comments, or at least sent them to the BW. As has been remarked in the Freshwater thread, the policy of the opposition is usually not to allow dissent to appear at all, and certainly to cut it off as soon as it does, with free use of the banhammer. Nick didn't do that. I think some credit is due.

co said: Bingo!

John said:

co said: Bingo!

Too bad you couldn't write something as dignified as what you just wrote in reply to Dave Luckett as a final comment addressed to me: "This is absolutely true, and tremendously important. Thanks, Dave, for pointing it out." Spare me your false notions of sincerity and run along to play online tag with Benson and Myers.

co said:

John said:

co said: Bingo!

Too bad you couldn't write something as dignified as what you just wrote in reply to Dave Luckett as a final comment addressed to me: "This is absolutely true, and tremendously important. Thanks, Dave, for pointing it out." Spare me your false notions of sincerity and run along to play online tag with Benson and Myers.

There's a very simple and good reason for that, John. Cogitate on it.

Hm. I'm about as hard-core an atheist you will meet. I don't believe religion is a method of knowing much of anything, and I believe that science is the best--nay, the only--method of acquiring reliable knowledge that we have.

But I just came home from a meeting of a political action committee formed to support local school board candidates who support honest science education centered around mainstream science. The meeting was in a church (the pastor is a friend of mine) because it has a good (and free) meeting room in its educational wing. Some of the members of the PAC are atheists, some are theists, and somehow we manage to work together on a specific problem in our community.

What does that make me? A hard-core atheist who's a closet accommodationist? A soft-hearted gnu atheist who's being hypocritical? Or does it make those labels at best misleading in the real world? I vote the latter. I've argued the incompatibility of science and (Christian) religion online and in person with theist friends and acquaintances in the appropriate context, and have worked with them in opposition to fundamentalists' efforts to subvert the teaching of science in another appropriate context. I'd get a little pissed off if I were called an accommodationist with respect to the compatibility of science and religion, and equally pissed off if I were accused of hypocrisy for working with theists on a common goal. It's a fruitless argument over a false dichotomy, in my view, one that is rapidly becoming hard to take seriously because the participants in the argument persist in talking past each other to an amazing degree.

And the straw men are reproducing like rabbits.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Hm. I'm about as hard-core an atheist you will meet. I don't believe religion is a method of knowing much of anything, and I believe that science is the best--nay, the only--method of acquiring reliable knowledge that we have. But I just came home from a meeting of a political action committee formed to support local school board candidates who support honest science education centered around mainstream science. The meeting was in a church (the pastor is a friend of mine) because it has a good (and free) meeting room in its educational wing. Some of the members of the PAC are atheists, some are theists, and somehow we manage to work together on a specific problem in our community. What does that make me? A hard-core atheist who's a closet accommodationist? A soft-hearted gnu atheist who's being hypocritical? Or does it make those labels at best misleading in the real world? I vote the latter. I've argued the incompatibility of science and (Christian) religion online and in person with theist friends and acquaintances in the appropriate context, and have worked with them in opposition to fundamentalists' efforts to subvert the teaching of science in another appropriate context. I'd get a little pissed off if I were called an accommodationist with respect to the compatibility of science and religion, and equally pissed off if I were accused of hypocrisy for working with theists on a common goal. It's a fruitless argument over a false dichotomy, in my view, one that is rapidly becoming hard to take seriously because the participants in the argument persist in talking past each other to an amazing degree. And the straw men are reproducing like rabbits.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Hm. I'm about as hard-core an atheist you will meet. I don't believe religion is a method of knowing much of anything, and I believe that science is the best--nay, the only--method of acquiring reliable knowledge that we have. But I just came home from a meeting of a political action committee formed to support local school board candidates who support honest science education centered around mainstream science. The meeting was in a church (the pastor is a friend of mine) because it has a good (and free) meeting room in its educational wing. Some of the members of the PAC are atheists, some are theists, and somehow we manage to work together on a specific problem in our community. What does that make me? A hard-core atheist who's a closet accommodationist? A soft-hearted gnu atheist who's being hypocritical? Or does it make those labels at best misleading in the real world? I vote the latter. I've argued the incompatibility of science and (Christian) religion online and in person with theist friends and acquaintances in the appropriate context, and have worked with them in opposition to fundamentalists' efforts to subvert the teaching of science in another appropriate context. I'd get a little pissed off if I were called an accommodationist with respect to the compatibility of science and religion, and equally pissed off if I were accused of hypocrisy for working with theists on a common goal. It's a fruitless argument over a false dichotomy, in my view, one that is rapidly becoming hard to take seriously because the participants in the argument persist in talking past each other to an amazing degree. And the straw men are reproducing like rabbits.

John said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Hm. I'm about as hard-core an atheist you will meet. I don't believe religion is a method of knowing much of anything, and I believe that science is the best--nay, the only--method of acquiring reliable knowledge that we have. But I just came home from a meeting of a political action committee formed to support local school board candidates who support honest science education centered around mainstream science. The meeting was in a church (the pastor is a friend of mine) because it has a good (and free) meeting room in its educational wing. Some of the members of the PAC are atheists, some are theists, and somehow we manage to work together on a specific problem in our community. What does that make me? A hard-core atheist who's a closet accommodationist? A soft-hearted gnu atheist who's being hypocritical? Or does it make those labels at best misleading in the real world? I vote the latter. I've argued the incompatibility of science and (Christian) religion online and in person with theist friends and acquaintances in the appropriate context, and have worked with them in opposition to fundamentalists' efforts to subvert the teaching of science in another appropriate context. I'd get a little pissed off if I were called an accommodationist with respect to the compatibility of science and religion, and equally pissed off if I were accused of hypocrisy for working with theists on a common goal. It's a fruitless argument over a false dichotomy, in my view, one that is rapidly becoming hard to take seriously because the participants in the argument persist in talking past each other to an amazing degree. And the straw men are reproducing like rabbits.

I am in complete agreement, RBH. Well said. You're not being a hypocrite, nor are others like Lawrence Krauss and E. O. Wilson when they speak before Fundamentalist Christian audiences explaining politely, but firmly, that they must recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution. Instead, like them, you are interested merely in building bridges, in finding some common ground to meet your objectives (which in Wilson's case is to strengthen public awareness and action on behalf of conservation biology).

On the news here today was an item about the govt. wanting to tighten the rules for food supplement and health products marketing and retail.

They want to put a ban on products and claims "not supported by science."

IMHO, as long as creationism is unsupported by science it should be withdrawn from the marketplace.

Did I say "products"? I don't know about that, I suppose it is the hype they want and can do anything about...

John said:

Sylvilagus said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said:

Paul Burnett said:

John said: Where Lincoln failed is that he wanted to have a genuine reconciliation with the South...such a "reconciliation" didn't emerge until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I'm not so sure "reconciliation" has happened yet. The Tea Party loons and the Confederacy seem to have a lot in common. ...

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree. When you have had major cities in the South like Atlanta and New Orleans electing Afro-American mayors and these states electing scores of Afro-American congressmen, then that reconciliation has occurred. ...

Maybe some of the larger urban areas in the former Confederacy have been reconciled, but the rural areas certainly have not, remaining bastions of theocratic fundagelicalism and racism.

The racism that you speak of exists only in isolated corners of Alabama and Mississippi, if it does at all.

You've got to be kidding! Ever been in the South? I'm from Tennessee and even now spend a good bit of time with family still in the South, and traveling around there. The old KKK-Style racism is still found throughout the South, TN, NC, SC, and not in isolated pockets. Of course, they're not the majority, but common enough. In SC a widespread BBQ chain pushes pro-Confederate ("happy slave") revisionist pamphlets and books at their checkout stand. Spend any time with folks that know you (and are therefore relaxed) outside the cities and you'll hear "nigger" pretty regularly, or at least phrases like "those blacks". More common is the less virulent, quieter racism that creates underfunded de facto segregated schools. IF you've spent time in the South and don't see the racism, you'd best re-calibrate your sensor systems. Oh, and by the way, the elections in New Orleans and Atlanta, reflect the large black populations there, NOT a significant absence of white racism. Also, New Orleans has always been atypical in race relations compared to the rest of the South, largely because of the French influence color liones were less strictly drawn.

You've obviously missed my point that scores of Afro-American politicians have been elected to Congress and, I might add, also to the state legislatures of the former Confederacy. The racism you speak of is more overt than what exists here in New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, etc. BUT, in comparison to what occurred prior to, during and after the Civil War has diminished substantially. (One could conclude that New York City has serious racism given the Crown Heights riots between blacks and Jews in the 1990s, and the fact that there is hostility from the black community toward those of us, like yours truly, who are of East Asian descent.)

harold said:

The war is between rationalism and superstition and part of that encompasses the differences between science as a way of knowing and religion. Many gnus think that science is the only way of knowing that has a proven track record. We don’t think that science and religion are compatible.

I find your message mixed. You claim to be fighting a "war" against superstition. Yet you use the most ineffective possible persuasion techniques, and attempt to drive people away from science.

John said:

harold said: John Kwok - 1) There is plenty of racism in the US and in New York City, however, I agree that, in the more affluent parts of the NYC area, overt expression of racist ideology is a social taboo. Which is a good thing. However, the idea that racism no long exists in (all parts of) the US (and Canada, where it is less of an issue for historical reasons) is excessively optimistic, to put it mildly. 2) I would also much rather have Neil de Grasse Tyson as president than any of the current options (he wouldn't have to do a very good job to be an improvement). We have totally opposite complaints about President Obama. I have issues with him, but my complaints are that he hasn't made enough of a break with the authoritarian right wing policies of the Bush administration. This comment belongs on the Bathroom Wall, at best, as do all other political and economic comments not related to evolution.

On these two points harold, I am in full agreement, even if our political views are substantially different. I didn't say that racism has disappeared; it may never disappear completely. What I believe I have said - and others aren't paying attention - is that the outrageous behavior associated with the worst aspects of racism in the deep South (and elsewhere) from the 1840s till the 1950s have diminished substantially enough that we have not only, Afro-American politicians serving in the Congress, state and local governments, but even one as President of the United States. (Even if I strongly disagree with his policies and believe his performance has been abysmal.) If nothing else, I think one could say that there has been some substantial progress toward reducing racism here in the United States if we can elect someone who is not entirely of European-American ancestry.

Richard B. Hoppe said: But I just came home from a meeting of a political action committee formed to support local school board candidates who support honest science education centered around mainstream science. The meeting was in a church (the pastor is a friend of mine) because it has a good (and free) meeting room in its educational wing. Some of the members of the PAC are atheists, some are theists, and somehow we manage to work together on a specific problem in our community. What does that make me? A hard-core atheist who's a closet accommodationist?

Look, there are other things to do with the world than know about it.

I don’t think that anything other than science can make verifiable reality claims and thus provide a way of knowing – and I consider providing a way of knowing a noble and important endeavour in that respect.

I do think that there are disciplines and activites that make no verifiable reality claims and instead provide ways of feeling, experiencing, being, conversing, thinking about etc. etc. etc, and that all of these are equally (yes, equally) noble and important endeavours. And that is it possible to meaningfully discuss them in ways that don’t reduce simply to ‘this is your opinon, and that’s mine’ followed by an awkward silence.

For some people, art does these things. For some, philosophy does these things. For some people – not for me, but for some people – it appears that religion somehow provides these things.

These people bewilder me, but provided they claim benefits only for their subjective experience of life I remain uncertain as to the point of making such a big deal of 'opposing' them or using the slightly Soviet language of 'accomodationism' to describe those who don't see the need to do so. I’m coming round to the view that it’s having the effect of making spectators to the debate feel they must choose not between religion and science, but between any kind of delight at all in mutually exploring subjective experience and science. I can thoroughly understand, faced with that, why someone might go for the former option.

Yet, ID and creationism are the same in this sense: They both basically use ‘ultimate’ causes as an answer for scientific/proximate questions. Of course, creationists, er, ID advocates whined during Kitzmiller trial that the two were unrelated despite the revelation of the ‘cdesign proponentsists’ transitional fossil between creationism and ID.

— Tenncrain

Matt Bright said: For some people, art does these things. For some, philosophy does these things. For some people – not for me, but for some people – it appears that religion somehow provides these things. These people bewilder me, but provided they claim benefits only for their subjective experience of life I remain uncertain as to the point of making such a big deal of 'opposing' them

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: But you knew that didn't you? You just thought to try to show, one more time, how nice and tolerant the accommodationist side is and how eveil the gnus must be.

It’s a fruitless argument over a false dichotomy, in my view, one that is rapidly becoming hard to take seriously because the participants in the argument persist in talking past each other to an amazing degree. And the straw men are reproducing like rabbits.

"3. Darwin’s point about Leibnitz guts a great many of Coyne’s arguments that science is necessarily opposed to religion, since Coyne’s logical arguments mostly rely on the premise that religious people aren’t allowed to endorse natural explanations as a method of God’s action. But pretty much no religious person ever has ever taken this position." Am I reading this right that Nick is of the opinion that most religous people assign only "natural explanations" to their god? If so, this seems ridiculous since we have millions of people in the US who are quite sure that "natural explanations" e.g. evolutionary theory, geology, astronomy, etc are totally wrong and do not explain what their god supposedly did at all. They are sure of a magical, literal interpretation of their story book.

tomh said: But, at least in America, "these people" don't just claim benefits for their subjective experience of life - that's the least of what they do and probably something no one objects to. Unlike art, philosophy, or other endeavors, they insist that religious beliefs are special, that they must be privileged by law, with exceptions from secular laws ranging from child abuse laws to civil rights laws, and everything in between.

Frank J said: ...ID and creationism as critics define it are pseudoscience.

Matt Bright said: Not all of them - merely a vocal minority, most of whom do, in fact, make bogus reality claims to support otherwise unsupportable cases (e.g. The supposed 'health risks' of homosexuality). They are justly opposed. Mostly, they fail.

John said:

John said:

co said:

John said: Your last comment merely confirms how much of a jackass you are co. Quit while you're still ahead. You whine and moan about what I said to Benson in response to her hope that someone I know would drop dead? (He was dying of cancer.) Go back to your online New Atheist Romper Room. (BTW in case you missed my earlier comment, I told one of the skeptics I spoke to last night to tell cephalopod-lover-in-chief that I send my love and kisses.)

Sorry, John. I have to apologize. I usually don't find your particular quirks that annoying. However, rank hypocrisy is one of my pet-peeves, and your pushing that particular button of mine got me to build in some buttons with big bulls-eyes painted on them, designed for YOU to push. If you'd like to ignore my question about where else you've seen me post about Matzke, go ahead. Also, you're welcome to ignore this question: Where have I "whined and moaned" about Benson, other than my one previous comment in this forum?

You "whined and moaned" when you said I had "implied" to Benson that she was a "b**th suffering from PMS". I wouldn't have said that if she hadn't wished my favorite teacher from high school to drop dead. And yes, from now on in this thread, I'll ignore you.

I will only add that one of those I spoke to last night told me that Benson is quite shy and very, very reserved in person (I didn't tell him that she had wished that my old mentor would drop dead as he was dying from cancer.) We were too busy discussing PZ's attacks on that person and another notable skeptic; all three were attending this weekend's skeptics convention here in New York City. But, as I had mentioned earlier, it was a surprising realization to both of us that both PZ and Benson have a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality; two completely personas in person and online (And I am not saying this just to attack PZ; I do believe the sincerity of others who have met him in person who have said how kind and courteous he can be. I just wished he would start displaying some of that refined, dignified behavior online too (Though I suppose if he did, his fans would think he'd gone "soft".) If I had a chance to meet PZ, I would have told him just to cool it between us. I even had my Leica M7 rangefinder camera in hand, thinking I might photograph him smiling. (But he didn't show up.)

SLC said:

John said:

John said:

co said:

John said: Your last comment merely confirms how much of a jackass you are co. Quit while you're still ahead. You whine and moan about what I said to Benson in response to her hope that someone I know would drop dead? (He was dying of cancer.) Go back to your online New Atheist Romper Room. (BTW in case you missed my earlier comment, I told one of the skeptics I spoke to last night to tell cephalopod-lover-in-chief that I send my love and kisses.)

Sorry, John. I have to apologize. I usually don't find your particular quirks that annoying. However, rank hypocrisy is one of my pet-peeves, and your pushing that particular button of mine got me to build in some buttons with big bulls-eyes painted on them, designed for YOU to push. If you'd like to ignore my question about where else you've seen me post about Matzke, go ahead. Also, you're welcome to ignore this question: Where have I "whined and moaned" about Benson, other than my one previous comment in this forum?

You "whined and moaned" when you said I had "implied" to Benson that she was a "b**th suffering from PMS". I wouldn't have said that if she hadn't wished my favorite teacher from high school to drop dead. And yes, from now on in this thread, I'll ignore you.

I will only add that one of those I spoke to last night told me that Benson is quite shy and very, very reserved in person (I didn't tell him that she had wished that my old mentor would drop dead as he was dying from cancer.) We were too busy discussing PZ's attacks on that person and another notable skeptic; all three were attending this weekend's skeptics convention here in New York City. But, as I had mentioned earlier, it was a surprising realization to both of us that both PZ and Benson have a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality; two completely personas in person and online (And I am not saying this just to attack PZ; I do believe the sincerity of others who have met him in person who have said how kind and courteous he can be. I just wished he would start displaying some of that refined, dignified behavior online too (Though I suppose if he did, his fans would think he'd gone "soft".) If I had a chance to meet PZ, I would have told him just to cool it between us. I even had my Leica M7 rangefinder camera in hand, thinking I might photograph him smiling. (But he didn't show up.)

If Mr. Kwok had ever downloaded presentations given by Prof. Myers, he would have seen that the gentleman is soft spoken and courteous, and his public personality in no way represents his online personality.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Hm. I'm about as hard-core an atheist you will meet. I don't believe religion is a method of knowing much of anything, and I believe that science is the best--nay, the only--method of acquiring reliable knowledge that we have. But I just came home from a meeting of a political action committee formed to support local school board candidates who support honest science education centered around mainstream science. The meeting was in a church (the pastor is a friend of mine) because it has a good (and free) meeting room in its educational wing. Some of the members of the PAC are atheists, some are theists, and somehow we manage to work together on a specific problem in our community. What does that make me? A hard-core atheist who's a closet accommodationist? A soft-hearted gnu atheist who's being hypocritical? Or does it make those labels at best misleading in the real world? I vote the latter. I've argued the incompatibility of science and (Christian) religion online and in person with theist friends and acquaintances in the appropriate context, and have worked with them in opposition to fundamentalists' efforts to subvert the teaching of science in another appropriate context. I'd get a little pissed off if I were called an accommodationist with respect to the compatibility of science and religion, and equally pissed off if I were accused of hypocrisy for working with theists on a common goal. It's a fruitless argument over a false dichotomy, in my view, one that is rapidly becoming hard to take seriously because the participants in the argument persist in talking past each other to an amazing degree. And the straw men are reproducing like rabbits.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

harold said:

The war is between rationalism and superstition and part of that encompasses the differences between science as a way of knowing and religion. Many gnus think that science is the only way of knowing that has a proven track record. We don’t think that science and religion are compatible.

I find your message mixed. You claim to be fighting a "war" against superstition. Yet you use the most ineffective possible persuasion techniques, and attempt to drive people away from science.

That's an objective claim. What evidence do you have to support it? (I've been following this discussion since it started and the comments by Dr. Moran and yourself are among the few that seem to address the core issues of what is meant by accommodationism, whether or not it is beneficial, and if so, in the context of what goals. I look forward to reading your response.)

6 key principles of persuasion by Robert Cialdini Reciprocity - People tend to return a favor, thus the pervasiveness of free samples in marketing. In his conferences, he often uses the example of Ethiopia providing thousands of dollars in humanitarian aid to Mexico just after the 1985 earthquake, despite Ethiopia suffering from a crippling famine and civil war at the time. Ethiopia had been reciprocating for the diplomatic support Mexico provided when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. The good cop/bad cop strategy is also based on this principle. Commitment and Consistency - If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment because of establishing that idea or goal as being congruent with their self image. Even if the original incentive or motivation is removed after they have already agreed, they will continue to honor the agreement. For example, in car sales, suddenly raising the price at the last moment works because the buyer has already decided to buy. Cialdini notes Chinese brainwashing on American prisoners of war to rewrite their self image and gain automatic unenforced compliance. See cognitive dissonance. Social Proof - People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders would then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were looking up that they stopped traffic. See conformity, and the Asch conformity experiments. Authority - People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts. Cialdini cites incidents such as the Milgram experiments in the early 1960s and the My Lai massacre. Liking - People are easily persuaded by other people that they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed. See physical attractiveness stereotype. Scarcity - Perceived scarcity will generate demand. For example, saying offers are available for a "limited time only" encourages sales.

Paul Burnett said:

Frank J said: ...ID and creationism as critics define it are pseudoscience.

So if any entity describes intelligent design creationism as a pseudoscience, they're a critic? How about when an objective third party describes intelligent design creationism as a pseudoscience? "The National Science Teachers Association NSTA is a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators. "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design "Intelligent design is pseudoscience" - headline of UCLA Today Faculty and Staff News at http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/050927voices_pseudoscience.aspx

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that a truthful assessment of it is identical to a criticism of it.

tomh said: They are no vocal minority, they are every single organized religion,

The result of this failure is that there are thousands of exemptions for religious beliefs written into US laws and regulations, and the list is growing.

Every religion bears responsibility for the privileges they have accrued since every religion takes advantage of some of the privileges,

and, when any single privilege is threatened, they all circle the wagons to protect all privilege.

Even something like children dying because parents substituted prayer for medicine, and who are then protected from the law because of their religious beliefs, is a responsibility of all religion.

Eliminate religious privilege altogether and the problem won't arise.

harold said: ... the issue is how to present the case for strong scientific education unemcumbered by illegal government favoritism of narrow religious sects, strong public understanding of science, good funding for science, and so on, and there isn't much reason to ignore these principles.

Matt Bright said: In all of the cases I’m aware of, parents who have done this have been successfully prosecuted

harold said:

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

harold said:

The war is between rationalism and superstition and part of that encompasses the differences between science as a way of knowing and religion. Many gnus think that science is the only way of knowing that has a proven track record. We don’t think that science and religion are compatible.

I find your message mixed. You claim to be fighting a "war" against superstition. Yet you use the most ineffective possible persuasion techniques, and attempt to drive people away from science.

That's an objective claim. What evidence do you have to support it? (I've been following this discussion since it started and the comments by Dr. Moran and yourself are among the few that seem to address the core issues of what is meant by accommodationism, whether or not it is beneficial, and if so, in the context of what goals. I look forward to reading your response.)

First of all, I'm glad I actually came back to this thread. You are right, I do present that claim in what may be an excessively strong way. I have two responses. First, let me broadly defend the claim. There is abundant literature on persuasion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=persuasion Social psychology as exact a science as some, but if we're going to ask how to persuade, it is one good discipline to turn to. Whatever one may think of the ways that Robert Cialdini markets his summaries of persuasion research, I find his well-known overall summary of well-supported aspects of successful persuasion to be quite useful.

tomh said: I can see you're unfamiliar with the US situation in this regard, laws, and Constitution. My apologies.

harold said:

The problem with Intelligent Design is that a truthful assessment of it is identical to a criticism of it.

Very much so. I think what Frank J. meant was "creationism as critics define it (as opposed to definitions of creationism that include major mainstream biologists because they happen to be religious)". Intelligent Design with a capital "I" and a capital "D" refers to a group of works by authors associated with the Discovery Institute. These works avoid direct mention of religion, but argue that biological evolution cannot explain the diversity of life on earth. Despite the verbosity and subsequent high volume of material, a few core arguments are repeated, and those core arguments are either factually false, logically incoherent, or both. It is fair to summarize and paraphrase the key arguments of ID as follows - 1) Paleyism - false analogy to known human design, i.e. because watches, Mount Rushmore, sand castles, items investigated by archaeologists or forensic scientists, etc, exhibit human design, therefore living cells must also be "intelligently designed". As has been pointed out many times, even if accepted, this absurd argument would suggest that humans created life. 2) Vitalism - the claim that life contains some kind of mysterious vital essence, "complex specified information", which, however, can never be adequately defined. 3) Incorrect statements about probability. 4) False dichotomy - the "explanatory filter" of Dembski, for example - anything not immediately explained in detail by science must be the result of "design". 5) Repetition of straw man characterizations of evolution, thermodynamics, etc, that have their origin in openly YEC material. That's about it.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, there's a second panel. The top inscription is a direct quote, Revelations 20:12 "I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne; and the books were opened." This lot above are apparently the just, and are entering Paradise. The torments below are for the prideful, left, and traitors to God (I think - I can't actually make out the letters) in a version of the frozen lake of Cocytus.

harold said:

The problem with Intelligent Design is that a truthful assessment of it is identical to a criticism of it.

Very much so. I think what Frank J. meant was "creationism as critics define it (as opposed to definitions of creationism that include major mainstream biologists because they happen to be religious)". Intelligent Design with a capital "I" and a capital "D" refers to a group of works by authors associated with the Discovery Institute. These works avoid direct mention of religion, but argue that biological evolution cannot explain the diversity of life on earth. Despite the verbosity and subsequent high volume of material, a few core arguments are repeated, and those core arguments are either factually false, logically incoherent, or both. It is fair to summarize and paraphrase the key arguments of ID as follows - 1) Paleyism - false analogy to known human design, i.e. because watches, Mount Rushmore, sand castles, items investigated by archaeologists or forensic scientists, etc, exhibit human design, therefore living cells must also be "intelligently designed". As has been pointed out many times, even if accepted, this absurd argument would suggest that humans created life. 2) Vitalism - the claim that life contains some kind of mysterious vital essence, "complex specified information", which, however, can never be adequately defined. 3) Incorrect statements about probability. 4) False dichotomy - the "explanatory filter" of Dembski, for example - anything not immediately explained in detail by science must be the result of "design". 5) Repetition of straw man characterizations of evolution, thermodynamics, etc, that have their origin in openly YEC material. That's about it.

"Coyne claims that the Society for the Study of Evolution’s official statement on teaching evolution is completely neutral about religion and “accommodationism”, and recommends that organizations like the AAAS, NAS, and NCSE follow this example."

Is really Coyne think that only evolution teaching in the public school is completely neutral thing? As Sir Fred Hoyle comments on evolution, "well, as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small, but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either primeval soup or potatoes. where they come from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale."

"For the record, I hate the word “accommodationist”, which as far as I can tell was recently invented in its present sense by the New Atheists as a term of abuse."

The abuse is deserved. Since 9/11/2001 the time for sucking up to religious insanity is over with.

Type "darwin killed god" in the google search box then click the I'm Feeling Lucky button.

Why must we bow our minds at the throne of naturalism? I understand applying scientific method to what presently is, examining things to try to understand how they work now, but I do not understand how guessing about the unrepeatable past with the close-minded blindness of "everything must have unintelligent natural causes" is any more scientific than "everything must have divine origins." If you demand a conclusion before examining the evidence, you are no longer practicing pure science.

The funny part about rc's grotesque perversion of what actually happens in science is that "applying scientific method to what presently is" is exactly where the original geologists and Darwin himself started. They began with the assumptions that the Earth was relatively young and that the species were created, and ended convinced that the Earth was ancient and the species had evolved from common ancestors.

What caused that? Everything they had been brought up to believe, the whole society of their time, all knowledge received from the past, were against that conclusion. Only one thing was for it: their observation of evidence.

What's missing from rc's post is even the slightest nod to that evidence. Apparently rc doesn't think it exists, or perhaps that it doesn't matter.

Is rc really saying that the evidence that exists today cannot illuminate the events of the past? Does s/he really think that logical inference from evidence, followed by further investigation to find further evidence, is the same thing as "guessing"?

Plainly, rc has no notion of what science is, what it does, or how it does it, doesn't want to know, and thinks it can't be trusted. I wonder from what poisoned source s/he acquired such an embittered prejudice? Could it be fundamentalist religion?

rc19 said: Why must we bow our minds at the throne of naturalism? I understand applying scientific method to what presently is, examining things to try to understand how they work now, but I do not understand how guessing about the unrepeatable past with the close-minded blindness of "everything must have unintelligent natural causes" is any more scientific than "everything must have divine origins." If you demand a conclusion before examining the evidence, you are no longer practicing pure science.

Jay said: "Coyne claims that the Society for the Study of Evolution’s official statement on teaching evolution is completely neutral about religion and “accommodationism”, and recommends that organizations like the AAAS, NAS, and NCSE follow this example." Is really Coyne think that only evolution teaching in the public school is completely neutral thing? As Sir Fred Hoyle comments on evolution, "well, as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small, but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either primeval soup or potatoes. where they come from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale."

Dave Luckett said: The funny part about rc's grotesque perversion of what actually happens in science is that "applying scientific method to what presently is" is exactly where the original geologists and Darwin himself started. They began with the assumptions that the Earth was relatively young and that the species were created, and ended convinced that the Earth was ancient and the species had evolved from common ancestors. What caused that? Everything they had been brought up to believe, the whole society of their time, all knowledge received from the past, were against that conclusion. Only one thing was for it: their observation of evidence. What's missing from rc's post is even the slightest nod to that evidence. Apparently rc doesn't think it exists, or perhaps that it doesn't matter. Is rc really saying that the evidence that exists today cannot illuminate the events of the past? Does s/he really think that logical inference from evidence, followed by further investigation to find further evidence, is the same thing as "guessing"? Plainly, rc has no notion of what science is, what it does, or how it does it, doesn't want to know, and thinks it can't be trusted. I wonder from what poisoned source s/he acquired such an embittered prejudice? Could it be fundamentalist religion?

"Humans are still humans"

Yes, humans are humans. And from this, you deduce...?

Was Australopithecus afarensis human? What about Homo habilis? Homo ergaster? Homo erectus? Homo neanderthalis? Where was the line crossed? When did a bipedal tailless ape become a large-brained bipedal tailless ape?

Same for dogs. The evidence for their descent is more scant, it's true. But it is not true to say that there is none. There are many candidate species as transitionals. DNA studies have demonstrated their lineage and estimated their divergence from the ancestral wolf.

There are not "plenty of theories" that account for the emergence and the origin of the species. There is only one: the theory of evolution.

You cite two pieces of evidence, then: stalactites and petrified trees in sediments. Neither are evidence against evolution. Both are creationist staples, so forgive me for my skepticism that you thought of them yourself. Whatever, neither are evidence for a young Earth, either, as you appear to believe.

Some stalactites grow quite quickly. Some don't grow quickly. Some have stopped growing, and are eroding. Caves themselves have long been recognised to be transient features, in geological terms - this from actual observation of their erosion and collapse. If some stalactites grow fast, what does this demonstrate about the age of the Earth? The answer is "nothing". It is only evidence that some stalactites are young, or at least relatively so.

Sedimentary layers do take very long periods under water to form. What happened at Mt St Helens was not sedimentation, but a volcanic explosion and a pyroclastic flow that put down ash very rapidly. Upright trees buried in ash can mineralise very quickly, but trees buried in sediment typically do not. And some of these upright trees are clearly seen to be buried in paleosols - ancient soils - under Carboniferous coal seams and further sedimentary strata. These must be very ancient.

But all this to one side. The theory of evolution is now over a hundred and fifty years old, and for all that time the evidence has been steadily flowing in. Hundreds of thousands of scientists have added to it, clarified it, filled in gaps, elaborated detail, spent careers chasing evidence down. It has stood every test. All the evidence fits.

Darwin didn't know the patterns of how traits were passed on; he knew nothing of Mendel. He didn't understand the detail of how evolutionary mechanisms operate; Ronald Fisher and J B S Haldane provided them. He had no clue about the biochemistry - the subject barely existed then. Crick and Watson and thousands of others showed, little by little, what was involved. And there was and is more, far more. A century and a half of patient fact-finding, research, corroboration, attestation by evidence.

So when you deny the theory of evolution, you are not denying "Darwin's well-intentioned mistakes". Rather, you malign and traduce the effort and scholarship of generations of scientists who have taken us to the very point of understanding the processes that constitute life itself. You do this on the basis of what you remember from a high school textbook, looking at a stalactite, and, I have no doubt, reading creationist pamphlets or websites.

Well, you're wrong.

rc19 said: Dave, I do not bemoan Darwin for trying to understand his observations. But, his conclusions were not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; therefore, anyone demanding that they be taught exclusively in schools or favored exclusively in government funding is intentionally teaching close-mindedness. If they know what they are doing, they are no longer ethical scientists. If they do not know what they are doing, they are ignorant. There is nothing grotesque about this accusation. Ethical science looks at evidence and hypothesizes possible explanations, testing them for proof when possible. Ethical science does not demand outcomes or pretend unproven theories are law. You want a nod to Darwin’s evidence? Finches modified their beaks to suit their environment. That’s outstanding! We see other animals do the same. Fantastic! But, finches are still finches. Humans are still humans. Dogs are still dogs. There is zero proof that dogs have ever been anything but dogs. There are plenty of theories but no proof. Therefore, anyone demanding Darwin’s theory is exclusively taught in schools makes themselves unethical. What made me skeptical of modern scientists? My science text books in public schools lied to me. I was told that stalactites formed over hundreds of thousands of years, but when I used to spelunk as a teenager I saw stalactites in natural caves grow at least an inch in one year. I was told that petrified trees take an exceptionally long time to petrify, and sedimentary layers occurred over millions of years, but Mount St. Helens volcanic explosion proved they don’t, at least not always. Reference, for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEPf-D0h0Y. The “poisoned source” that jaded me against close-minded Darwinists was the reality of nature as observed through four of my five senses. (I can’t say I ever tasted stalactites or petrified wood.) I gladly choose the reality of nature over Darwin’s well-intentioned mistakes. Anyone claiming science should.

rc19 said: What made me skeptical of modern scientists? My science text books in public schools lied to me.

I was told that stalactites formed over hundreds of thousands of years, but when I used to spelunk as a teenager I saw stalactites in natural caves grow at least an inch in one year.

I was told that petrified trees take an exceptionally long time to petrify, and sedimentary layers occurred over millions of years, but Mount St. Helens volcanic explosion proved they don’t, at least not always. Reference, for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEPf-D0h0Y.

The “poisoned source” that jaded me against close-minded Darwinists was the reality of nature as observed through four of my five senses. (I can’t say I ever tasted stalactites or petrified wood.) I gladly choose the reality of nature over Darwin’s well-intentioned mistakes. Anyone claiming science should.

rc19 said: I was told that petrified trees take an exceptionally long time to petrify, and sedimentary layers occurred over millions of years, but Mount St. Helens volcanic explosion proved they don’t, at least not always. Reference, for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEPf-D0h0Y.

Nick Matzke wrote: "Coyne claims that the Society for the Study of Evolution’s official statement on teaching evolution is completely neutral about religion and 'accommodationism', and recommends that organizations like the AAAS, NAS, and NCSE follow this example."

Then, much later, Nick wrote: "It looks like Dobzhansky and Darwin were just the sort of “accommodationists” that Coyne et al. have been campaigning against."

How can Coyne recommend X then campaign against X?

It appears that Nick Matzke has contradicted himself.