Monday, November 27, 2006

Something to be Proud of?

 

Gene Expression has a new icon in the sidebar. Apparently the author is proud to be an appeaser.

For the record, here's what it means to be a Neville Chamberlain Atheist. It means you're happy to attack Intelligent Design Creationists like Micheal Denton (Nature's Destiny) and Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) for mixing science and religion. But, you don't say a word when Ken Miller (Finding Darwin's God), Francis Collins (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief) and the Rev. Ted Peters (Evolution from Creation to New Creation) spout equally bad religious nonsense in the name of science.

The Neville Chamberlain Atheists object when Behe talks about intelligent design but mum's the word when Ken Miller talks about how God tweaks mutations to get what He wants. Hypocrisy is a strange thing to be proud of.

He must be joking, right?

22 comments:

  1. Since when did hypocrisy become a badge of honor?

    ReplyDelete
  2. As far as I can tell, it was about 6 hours ago. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. It means you're happy to attack Intelligent Design Creationists like Micheal Denton (Nature's Destiny) and Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) for mixing science and religion. But, you don't say a word when Ken Miller (Finding Darwin's God), Francis Collins (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief) and the Rev. Ted Peters (Evolution from Creation to New Creation) spout equally bad religious nonsense in the name of science.

    If the straw in that man were any drier it'd spontaneously ignite.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I actually tried to read some of Peters' woo...

    Now, I'm torn about whether I should recommend it or not.

    Depends, I guess. Did any of you enrich Chopra further by paying for his latest book?

    Well, then, knock yerselves out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Would you care to explain that comment?

    It means that in my informal survey of the people on the two "sides" of this tactical dispute (and it is about tactics) the people who have committed to the ground battle in U.S. education tend to be what you call "appeasers", while the lofty theoreticians preaching from their blog eminences tend to be the purists.

    By "people who have committed to the ground battle" I mean those of us who have spent long hours over multiple years attending local and state board of education meetings, spent long hours over multiple years educating and lobbying individual board members one on one, spent long hours over multiple years cultivating reporters and editorial boards, and in general who have done all the nitty gritty stuff that actually wins battles.

    Winning the education battle in the primary, middle, and secondary schools is critical to the war. Lose the education battle and the war is lost, unwinnable. Win it and the war, while not won, is winnable. And the education battle is unwinnable without theists working and voting on our side. I'm an atheist, but every single board member I've lobbied over the years has been a theist. If my first move were to tell them they're idiots for believing, my effectiveness would be nil. If in our organization, Ohio Citizens for Science, we had told the theists who are members and workers -- some of them scientists -- that they're idiots because they believe, we would have been down to a couple of atheist activists whose effectiveness would have been nil.

    Suicide by purity is not a virtue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It means that in my informal survey of the people on the two "sides" of this tactical dispute...

    Odd. Y'know, I'm just an observer here. But it really sounded to me like you were saying:

    'But, you don't say a word when Ken Miller (Finding Darwin's God), Francis Collins (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief) and the Rev. Ted Peters (Evolution from Creation to New Creation) spout equally bad religious nonsense in the name of science.'

    ... is a deceptive caricature of the actual situation...

    Which is normally what 'straw man' means.

    Y'know RBH, I'm no foot soldier. Got none of that rough 'n ready battlefield nobility you so admire, 'cause I've never had to have. Can't say 'I'm all about getting the job done, however it's to be done'... 'cause I've never even got close to the front.

    Yeah, I guess I'm just about as much use to you as tits on a bull.

    But still, coming from just such an irritating armchair quarterback as it is, y'know how you guys are supposedly all about respecting the beliefs of potential allies?

    Thing is, there's a breed among you who put a certain premium on intellectual honesty. And it looks to me like you're really pissing them off.

    Ain't showing them one damned bit of respect, really, oddly enough, as it seems to me.

    For what my ivory tower opinion is worth, I'd say you might want to look to that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. just testing to see if comment posts

    ReplyDelete
  8. aj, I don't think your ivory tower opinion is worth much. Seems that moran is doing a lot of pissing of as well with his strawman accusations

    ReplyDelete
  9. I mean those of us who have spent long hours over multiple years attending local and state board of education meetings,

    Boo hoo hoo hoo!!!! Kissing religionist ass is *hard* !!!

    spent long hours over multiple years educating and lobbying individual board members one on one,

    Boo hoo hoo!!! Kissing the butts of religionists is *hard*!!!

    spent long hours over multiple years cultivating reporters and editorial boards

    You mean fertilizing them with religion-friendly bullsh*t?

    and in general who have done all the nitty gritty stuff that actually wins battles.


    LOL! You have the US Constitution clearly on your side and a bunch of religioun-spewing liars on the other side.

    The "nitty gritty" stuff is simply getting your facts together and writing a decent court brief.

    Kitzmiller v. Dover was *NOT* a close case. Interestingly, however, you and your fellow religion-lovin' martyrs (e.g., Nick Matske et al) did a piss poor job of communicating that fact, choosing instead to focus on their "clever" strategies and "essential contributions" to a victory that only a braindead lawyer could have failed to achieve, given the facts of the case.

    Until religionists admit that their religious beliefs exist in only in their brains for the purpose of making them feel oh-so-dandy about themselves, they can look forward to having their bullcrap trashed by rational folks who don't need to invent "gods" to brave the "cold cruel world."

    Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm an atheist, but every single board member I've lobbied over the years has been a theist.

    Or a liar. Or both. Who really gives a shit if someone is a theist or not, as long as they support a quality education, including biology without creationist lies? Oh yeah: theists give a shit. That's why they always want everyone to know that they are "deep believers" in their imaginary ultrapowerful friends.

    And the education battle is unwinnable without theists working and voting on our side.

    Let's get this straight: theists will only support a decent education, including evolutionary biology sans lies, as long as atheists who might criticize the ridiculousness of their religious beliefs are kept out of the picture?

    Do you want that says about theists? It says that they suck.

    Figure it out, bro'. You're really pushing some stinky bullcrap here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ...his strawman accusations...

    And there it is again. It's a strawman 'cos we say it is. And asked how that's a reasonable charge in this particular case, oh, let's answer on another subject entirely.

    In other words: merely arguing honestly is of no interest here, whatsoever.

    And ya wonder why folks get insulted.

    Good luck with it, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AJ Milne wrote

    Y'know RBH, I'm no foot soldier. Got none of that rough 'n ready battlefield nobility you so admire, 'cause I've never had to have. Can't say 'I'm all about getting the job done, however it's to be done'... 'cause I've never even got close to the front.

    Yeah, I guess I'm just about as much use to you as tits on a bull.


    The last sentence is accurate.

    Jesus, of course, is talking out his ass, as his namesake was wont to do on occasion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Suicide by purity is not a virtue.

    Kissing theists ass by reciting their theist-promoting scripts in exchange for their "support" is part of the reason why public education in this country continues to suck more butt every day.

    When asked about his/her religious beliefs, the smart theist says, "None of your goddamn business." That's a true statement.

    The smart atheist says the same thing and notes for the record that the evidence for pink unicorns is equal to the evidence for any of the world's popular "gods." That's also a true statement.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't know if it's a straw man, but it's definitely a blatant misrepresentation. Hell, Dawkins' own definition of the Neville Chamberlain School of Appeasement looks nothing like Moran's, and since Dawkins coined the phrase, and it was Dawkins' definition that led Razib to choose the label, I suppose we can dismiss Moran's dishonest nonsense.

    Dawkins' definition, if you're interested, is this:

    The Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease 'moderate' or 'sensible' religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do).

    Or wait, maybe Moran thinks young earth creationists aren't fundamentalists.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ummm, wha?

    Dawkins (as quoted by Chris...)

    The Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease 'moderate' or 'sensible' religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do).

    Moran (from the post we're told is a 'straw man')

    For the record, here's what it means to be a Neville Chamberlain Atheist. It means you're happy to attack Intelligent Design Creationists like Micheal Denton (Nature's Destiny) and Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) for mixing science and religion. But, you don't say a word when Ken Miller (Finding Darwin's God), Francis Collins (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief) and the Rev. Ted Peters (Evolution from Creation to New Creation) spout equally bad religious nonsense in the name of science.

    Chris:

    I don't know if it's a straw man, but it's definitely a blatant misrepresentation. Hell, Dawkins' own definition of the Neville Chamberlain School of Appeasement looks nothing like Moran's, and since Dawkins coined the phrase, and it was Dawkins' definition that led Razib to choose the label, I suppose we can dismiss Moran's dishonest nonsense.

    Umm, maybe I'm missin' something, but those first two paragraphs come off as pretty much the same damned thing to me, anyway...

    And how or why on Earth you'd work from Moran's description to assuming he thinks that YECs aren't fundamentalists... ummm... listen... I don't even know where you're coming from on this...

    Or where you're going, for that matter.

    But let me help you out with the perhaps merely cosmetic similarities I see between those descriptions, anyway:

    1. Ted Peters, Ken Miller, Francis Collins (Moran) are 'moderate' or 'sensible' religion (Dawkins)...

    2. Not saying a word when the above three spout 'equally bad religious nonsense' as the IDC crowd (Moran) is 'bending over backwards to appease' the same (Dawkins)

    ... this is my longer answer. My shorter one is just:

    I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. So here's a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kissing theists ass by reciting their theist-promoting scripts in exchange for their "support" is part of the reason why public education in this country continues to suck more butt every day.

    Wrong again, GWW. It sucks because of mediocre standards, a glut of inept teachers, and unions that fight to maintain the status quo.

    Until religionists admit that their religious beliefs exist in only in their brains for the purpose of making them feel oh-so-dandy about themselves, they can look forward to having their bullcrap trashed by rational folks who don't need to invent "gods" to brave the "cold cruel world."

    Bitch please. You would not last beyond the first round with an intelligent theist.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It means that in my informal survey of the people on the two "sides" of this tactical dispute (and it is about tactics) the people who have committed to the ground battle in U.S. education tend to be what you call "appeasers", while the lofty theoreticians preaching from their blog eminences tend to be the purists.

    Hmm. So I've worked with our state citizens for science group, I've been an activist with the Cafe Scientifique organization to get science to the public, I've attended school board meetings (even ones outside my school district), I've campaigned for good school board members in my town, I've worked with public school teachers, and I've even volunteered to teach high school classes (now that is a thankless job, and I'm relieved that I've only done it once or twice a year.)

    Are you calling me an appeaser now?

    I do wish "Ed's team" weren't so reliant on that obnoxious mischaracterization strategem.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It sucks because of mediocre standards ...

    That's right, Bob. And who sets those mediocre standards?

    Answer: theists, from top to bottom. Chickenshxts who reliably capitulate to the "evolution-is-atheism-is-bad" fundies.

    You would not last beyond the first round with an intelligent theist.

    LOL, coming from a virtual punching bag like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  19. PZ wrote

    Hmm. So I've worked with our state citizens for science group, I've been an activist with the Cafe Scientifique organization to get science to the public, I've attended school board meetings (even ones outside my school district), I've campaigned for good school board members in my town, I've worked with public school teachers, and I've even volunteered to teach high school classes (now that is a thankless job, and I'm relieved that I've only done it once or twice a year.)

    And do you open your remarks at school board meetings by instructing them that their job is to educate atheist freethinkers? Do you announce that any of them who are Christians but nevertheless think that their kids ought to be taught honest science are deluding themselves, since they can't accept good science while simultaneously believing in sky fairies? Have you told those board members or high school classes that if they're Christians they're deluded?

    If not, why not? Are you a closet appeaser?

    ReplyDelete
  20. aj, I'll put it differently:

    Dawkins is saying that we (the appeasers) are perfectly willing to let moderate theists, who don't try to misuse science, do their own thing, and we don't feel the need to criticize them for being religious. It says nothing about letting anyone get away with misusing or misrepresenting science. But hey, if you think letting religious people be religious automatically means that they're misusing science, then you too may be as insane as Moran

    ReplyDelete
  21. rbh-so let me get this straight-unless you're literally attacking and getting in EVERYONE'S face who is not an atheist, you're an "appeaser"? If we're not with you we're against you? Dude, what's with the black and white thinking? What are you, the pope of atheism now? Making prouncements from your chair and telling others that we HAVE to do things your way or else we must be on the side of the enemy? Do you have any idea how much like a cleric you sound? It's called freethinking for a reason-we have the RIGHT to disagree.
    You can spout off all you want, but guess what, we'll criticize you just as much as we want b/c your "all or nothing" mentality is not better than religion. So live with it-we're not going away, we won't shut up, and you can get mad all you want.

    ReplyDelete