The other problem with media coverage is that certifiable idiots get to open their mouths and their noise goes unquestioned in print. Here's a regrettable example of an ignorant opinion piece, one so egregiously stupid that even Ian Musgrave is reduced to indignant spluttering.
The problem I face is weariness with science-based dialogue partners like Richard Dawkins. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate scientific conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions. A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide. Publicly, he advocates none of them.
You would think that, since Darwin himself did not consider any of those actions to be either commendable or a consequence of his theory, maybe someone would realize that perhaps those aren't logical conclusions of "Darwinism". You would think that somebody would consider that, while Newton described the acceleration of falling bodies accurately, it does not imply in any way that he he advocated pushing people off of tall buildings. Rational people might be able to see that.
The author of the piece is a professor of theology, though, so we ought to have lower expectations. I'm pretty sure he is probably capable of eating with a fork without putting his eye out.
- Log in to post comments
I still wouldn't give him a fork, just in case. Stick to spoons.
With just proves that he has no knowledge of logic. And there fore, we can only HOPE he puts his own eye out with a fork - if he uses one.
He should take his theology to its natural conclusion and find the pile of rotting logic next to the latrine. Besides, even Alfred Wallace was against social Darwinism. WTF?
Wait, no connection to communism and cannibalism?
This professor is way behind the times.
A cork on the tines of the fork helps to prevent serious injury. See Dirty Rotten Scoundrels for its application.
"Ruprect! Put the cork back on your fork!"
Yeah, but Darwin DID create all life on earth...didn't he?
Does anyone else find that irony, when we are accused of being imperialists and genocidal, almost to hysterical to contain?
I mean, the concepts of imperialism and genocide actually come from the Bible, where they are acknowledged as great things and the will of god.
Dawkins has been pretty clear in his books that he thinks we should develop an understanding of the occasionally cut throat nature of evolution in order to avoid that in our own lives and society. That seems like a pretty logical extension to me.
His premises seem to be:
1. God is real.
2. John Lennon's Imagine sucks.
3. Real scientists love Jesus.
Therefore, Darwin("ism") leads to genocide.
Give the guy a break! Reading all of that theological nonsense has sent him crazy.
You have to love his use of "Publicly" in the last sentence. Because I'm sure Dawkins does advocate "imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide" when he's behind closed doors....
If a theologian thinks Darwin's ideas should logically lead to tyranny, eugenics, etc., what does he/she think the Bible leads to? I mean all of the parts, not just the cherry-picked ones. Oh right, it leads to love, harmony and world peace, like we have right now!
In what reality does this happen?: A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide.
Oh right, his. Hitler was an Darwinian/Athiest you know.
And everyone who voted Hitler in and let him do this stuff too, right? I mean, Athiests are so hateful of other ethnic groups and races because a book tells us we're better. Right! RIGHT! And Germany was bad so it must be chalk full of evil Athiests! Right! RIGHT!
Okay I'm done.
PZ said;
I'm not.
Just in case, we should give him a fork and see if he's capable of not plucking his eye out. (and hope that he's not).
Oh, it just gets better. The essay is an edited piece from a book, Evolution in the Antipodes.
Ah, theology professor. Enough said. Knowledge of real science is probably zero. Ability to write a coherent sentence is limited.
No forks and a big dull spoon only.
... as in: Australia, the other side of the flat Earth disc/coin? ;-)
He might as well complain about people for their "oblate spheroid complacency" in missing the fact that he's the retarded one, while the scientists who have accepted evolution and its blow to human self-centredness (along with the increasingly obvious non-central nature of the planet Earth) are the advanced ones.
The problem I face is weariness with religion-based dialogue partners like ___(fill your favorite)___. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate religious conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take his depiction of christianity to logical conclusions. A dedicated christian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilizations and infanticide. Publicly, he advocates none of them.
Now it's more like it.
Love the little "publicly" that implies that Dawkins really holds these ideas, and is just lying about it. So, in the interest of fairness, I publicly believe that this fellow is a tremendous ass.
#1, yes let's give him a spoon to use. it will hurt more that way.
Theologians never get it. Science isn't about "why?" it's about "how?" or to paraphrase: "the bible tells how to go to heaven, not to tell the heavens how to go"
Plus i love how he just asserts we have a soul. IT'S TRUE!
OK, please whip it out for us. You can even use that spoon we gave you...
That is just bizarre-- the rest of the thing reads like a typical, moderate but self-indulgent theist who cherry-picks his way to an insipid and empty notion of God, but the sudden wild accusations against Dawkins and 'Darwinism' come right out of the foaming-at-the-mouth, Christo-fascist nutbar playbook. A Theology prof? What an embarrassment... this guy needs some serious medication for his repressed rage.
A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide.
Eh, no. This is just what a dedicated Darwinian would NOT advocate. Because all of the crimes mentioned are examples of artificial selection, not natural selection. A dedicated but profoundly unsophisticated Darwinian might advocate shutting down hospitals and allowing those who wouldn't survive without them to die, but unnaturally interfering with selection? No. That's more a creationist thing.
Incidentally, do the people who babble on about Darwinism have any real idea what "fit" means in evolutionary terms? Any organism that has successfully reproduced is fit in the given environment. Any that fails* is not fit. It doesn't matter if the organism in question is a well honed quasi-ubermensch or a mutant slime mold. The only question that determines evolutionary fitness or lack thereof is are the genes being passed to the next generation? (End obvious rant.)
*And, of course, whether something is "fit" or not changes with the environment. A woman with polycystic ovarian disease may have been unfit in the early 20th century but may be quite fit in the early 21st century with current interventions to induce ovulation and improve the chances of conception and carrying to term. Will her children (who presumably inherit the risk of PCOD) be "less fit"? It depends on the environment. If society collapses and we no longer have access to reproductive technology, yes. If knowledge and biotech continue to improve, they may well be more fit if they happen to have some adaptation that helps them. Say, high tolerance for dumb internet jokes.
I know this is off topic, but here's a crazy superfundynut poll that is BEGGING to be crashed:
http://www.silencingchristians.com/
These crazy fucktards are airing a video about the "homosexual agenda" in the Grand Rapids area.
It's just another diseased mind who cannot bear the idea of not having a special place just for him in a cold universe. There are no logical ethical conclusions that can be reached from an unthinking process like evolution. It cannot insist on certain human behavior because it has no intention. I never cease to be surprised at how difficult this concept is to these people.
Coyote @ #20--gotcha by ten minutes!
"I still wouldn't give him a fork, just in case. Stick to spoons"
No, hasn't anyone read "The Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosiński? There is a very nasty scene involving an eye and a spoon: let the clown who made these comments eat with his hands.
Why do some people confuse science and philosophy?
Evolution is science and makes no recommendations, conclusions, or judgments regarding imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilizations and infanticide. What philosophies one has concocted based on their belief system and their own application of the theory of evolution have no bearing on the accuracy of the theory itself.
Obviously religion has never had any responsibility in imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, or any concepts such as manifest destiny. (Where did all the original inhabitants of North America go, by the way?)
Religion has a get out of jail free card that science isn't allowed to play. When atrocities such as the inquisition, the trail of tears, or bombing of abortion clinics are done in the name of God & religion, it's a perversion of the true beliefs and morals of said God & religion, but any atrocities blamed on science or scientific theories are the logical conclusion to those evil scientific theories.
Isn't it neat how that works? Heads I win, tails you loose.
*sigh, saw this at Digg right after I read this post: http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1471/darwinislq2.jpg
or type into google: darwin is
The problem I face is weariness with religion-based dialogue partners like Tom Frame. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate religious conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take the depiction of his god in the Old Testament to logical conclusions. A dedicated Christian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide. Publicly, he advocates none of them.
Oops. Strike part of my last post...it's not a poll, it's a survey (they ask for your name and your email, so send 'em a junk email addy).
"A professor of theology"? His first title denigrates a learned position, and his second title of abject nonsense marks him as an idiot. We, of course, would totally dismiss this moron as not worth the sum of both titles, as either one renders him useful only to the morons he impresses. Now if he had the doctorate before the insane moniker, then he would truly be an outright embarrassment to reason and ensconced in the Deranged Institute as an exhibit. If it wasn't for us, these morons would run rampant and flood us with more of their insane progeny. The horror.
Based on history and his convictions, he wouldn't use the fork to injure himself in any case. It's the rest of us who should be worried.
Yeah, but keep an eye on him if he asks permission to go to the bathroom...
I think Dianne's right; the train of thought seems to run like this:
Evolution by natural selection = "survival of the fittest."
"Fit" = big, strong, powerful, dominant
Darwinianismists think that what is in nature ought to be in human society.
Therefore, Dawkins wants to eat babies and kill all the Inuits.
All three premises are wrong, wrong wrong. GIGO.
Ouchimoo@29: All that really proves is that Creationists struggle with tenses (except for "Darwin is dead" which is both in the right tense and true).
Not really OT, since the thread is about Dawkins--I have my tickets to see Sir Richard at at UM Northrup on March 4!
PZ--any decision on where the afterglow will be held?
(I remember seeing James Watson speak a couple of times, and both times I suspect he went to a beforeglow...)
What exactly does a modern professor of theology do? What are they good for? If theology were to somehow disappear as a distinct academic subject, would the world be poorer?
I don't quite get the argument that if we're products of nature then we're obliged to emulate nature. Nature goofed up and endowed us with brains that can formulate better ways than her own.
@37: Pretty sure Dr. Dawkins isn't a knight.
Does anyone have a copy of the homosexual agenda they could send me? Maybe a .pdf file? I keep hearing about it, but I haven't seen it yet. I'm sure there's a copy floating around the internet somewhere...a bulleted list, with check boxes, so that the action items can be checked off as they are achieved. (The homosexuals like it tidy, I'm sure.)
People who don't want or are too lazy to think judge or believe, giving away reason, evidence, logic and humanity. It's awful to see Prof. Dawking being attacked in such a plump, unfair way. That's weariness, to hear this people over and over again. Prof. Dawking is a Gentleman and to hear him is a pleasure (I confess: Ilove his English). By the way: I have no faith in Prof. Dawkins but great respect because is an educated, polite man with culture, something i miss so much at all the dark age voodoo worshippers insulting him.
Sorry, my English is not as fluent as it should be for this blog. Appreciate your work Prof.s. Meyers,Dawking ......................
Can someone send me a copy of the homosexual agenda -- maybe in .pdf format? I'm sure there's a copy floating around somewhere -- a nice bulleted list, with checkboxes, so that the action items can be checked off as they're achieved. (The homosexuals keep it tidy, I'm sure.)
"I'm pretty sure he is probably capable of eating with a fork without putting his eye out."
As we see time and time again, the dogma of religion binds more profoundly than any accident with a fork possibly could.
I think that the public misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest" is a shame. It's advertised as meaning that the biggest and strongest individual survives by pummeling the snot out of the weaker ones, taking their resources, and producing offspring with their mates. If only people could understand the sublety and realize it's more about fitness at the genetic level, and not entirely at the organism level, maybe boneheads like Tom "Ruprecht" ("Not Mother?") Frame here would have fewer idiots to warp with his misunderstanding and misinformation. Like Karl Withakay (hehe) said above, evolutionary theory makes no social or philosophical provisions, much like weather patterns producing drought does not imply that we should let people and animals starve, the existence of diseases does not mean we should let the infected fight it off or die, etc. This is what I'd like to say to this asshole: A dedicated Darwinian (if such a person exists) would most likely not welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide. Publicly, Dawkins advocates the exact opposite, if you took the time to actually read what he advocates instead of just making shit up about him.
If I recall Dawkins, in the Blind Watchmaker, made it clear that what makes us human is our ability to overcome the tyranny of the self-replicators. He said it much better than my paraphrasing of course.
Imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, and infanticide are all unsupportable from an ecological view of evolutionary biology.
Forced sterilisations and other forms of Eugenics might have some RARE applications. However, our history shows that our current social systems have generally done more harm than good with such tools. Put simply: we're not wise enough, and show no sign of getting there in the next couple decades. Ask about it again in thirty years. At that point, science might not only know how to do it, but might have an idea how to evaluate whether it should be done. (I'd expect developing the ability to make that evaluation will take another couple decades after that.)
Euthanasia? As a matter of realities, it's probably going to be a voluntary option for those in serious agony as long as we have the Second Amendment. (I'd prefer heroin overdose, myself, but the legal obstacles make it more difficult to obtain.) A realistic attitude should recognize this; however, from an ecological/social standpoint, voluntary euthanasia should be far more rare and disapproved of than abortion. Involuntary euthanasia? Well, we arguably do make some use of it: the death penalty for some severe crimes. Medically? As long as the patient has the will to live and the resources to support the effort, they should be allowed to try. At some point, the existence of resource limits means society has to stop providing assistence (transplant organs and transplant teams, for example). Ineptness at determining that point (and resource allocation more generally) is one of the weak points of our society, and has much room for debate. However, once the determination has finally been made that "no more resources can be provided to prolong life", the question of "should resources be provided to reduce both duration and pain of life" isn't unreasonable. Presuming they are available, you then go back a similarly difficult question of who gets to make the decision on behalf of the patient, as to whether or not to avail of this opportunity.
So, the remark is five parts abysmal ignorance (of the wider arena of science), two parts arrogant presumption (that science cannot recognize the limits of its understanding), and one part internal confusion (between the question of "when should we" with that of "should we ever"; the former is difficult, but the latter seems pretty straightforward).
The problem I face is weariness with fork-based dialogue partners like Dr. Myers. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate forking conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take the depiction of his fork in the January 2008 issue of Cook's Illustrated to logical conclusions. A dedicated forkist would welcome forks in the eye, ear, nose and throat. Publicly, he advocates none of them.
I have to disagree with you there. Our ancestors were social creatures, dependent upon each other to survive, long before humans got the big brains.
In nature, one can find pure individuals that survive and pure collectives the survive. It all depends on the environment and the niche. That is what the critics of "Darwinism" cannot and will not understand.
Dribble, that´s all I hav to say.
Interestingly enough, plenty of people who believe in an afterlife are more willing to commit violence against others. Because after all, you're not REALLY killing people when you kill them.
So belief in the relative unimportance of life because there's an (imagined) much longer and more significant life afterward DOES lead some people to welcome imperialism, murder and genocide.
He teaches at the same university I went to, though I was under a very different faculty. I sent in a short response to SMH, hope it gets published. Also wrote a more thorough criticism here.
It was really pathetic writing, commercial media sucks but I expected more from SMH.
Just to pick a (rether big) nit:
"And everyone who voted Hitler in and let him do this stuff too, right?"
What is this supposed to mean? That Hitler was democratically elected? Please, go read a history book. Thanks.
I fail to understand why colleges and universities can place "divinity" on the same academic realm of existence as actual academic subjects like history, biology, economics, or basket weaving.
These colleges are basically supporting a school of mysticism and dogma. It's like Hogwarts, except without any actual power.
In places where evolution-accepters are common, there have been relatively few mass deportation and ethic cleansing incidents. Imperialism has existed before Darwin, and has been swept away mostly in the 20th century, which is after Darwin. Just a some observations.
OT ALERT! manna anyone... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/caption-this-photo_n_165160.ht…... enjoy
Of course Darwin read Divinty at Cambridge.
However it seems to have been the science element of his studies that interested him most.
@#53 Christophe Thrill
"Hitler was democratically elected?"
Nationalist Socialist Party was elected to a large minority in around 1930, which was helped by the decline of the other far-right-wing party. Then the Enabling Act of 1933, and then that was it.
Sigh, how many times do I have to explain this (quoth by me the other night at a bar):
Natural selection and survival of the fittest means that, by definition, that which is alive is fit for its current environment. Conditions can change which would make an individual or group unfit, but as long as the individual survives and/or passes on its genes, it is fit. As I am childless, I am, despite my intelligence and good health, evolutionarily unfit.
Societies selecting which individuals can pass on their genes, particularly if by force, is not natural selection, it is agriculture.
Evidently "Dedicated Darwinist" is the new code word for "atheist." After all, the aptly-named Frame is waxing eloquent on how well evolutionary theory fits in with a sophisticated God which creates "in and through natural processes" in an act of continual creation. He has no problem with evolution. He has no problem with Darwin.
It's those "dedicated Darwinists."
So his problem is with atheism, and the conviction that an atheist must be getting his morals from looking at a nature that is amoral. Morals derived from something amoral leads to immorality. The concept of deriving morals from human interactions doesn't seem to have occurred to him. No, either love and meaning has always existed, in perfect form or it doesn't count.
In addition to being pissed off that Dawkins isn't showing how wrong atheism is by advocating genocide, he is also pissed off that Dawkins isn't whining properly about how his life has no meaning anymore. Real atheists admit that, without God, people's lives have no meaning. Poor Frame is really, really pissed that atheists don't all toe the line and admit that. It should be so obvious to non-believers.
The only group of people I know of that actually think Darwinian evolution leads to eugenics and genocide are...the Godbots. Coinky-dinky?
And all those dedicated Newtonists recommend jumping off of skyscapers, and never ever ask their children to pick up anything off the floor. Of course, for some reason, they just won't admit to this in public.
If only the "Darwinists" were the Satanic bastards that we call them. Sob, why can't we ever be right? Sob.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
*15
'Just in case, we should give him a fork and see if he's capable of not plucking his eye out. (and hope that he's not).'
Yep ...ya gotta have faith! ;-)...As a certain gay pop star would assert!
*22
'A Theology prof? What an embarrassment... this guy needs some serious medication for his repressed rage.'
Methinks he needs medication for being a total dick head!
The most insipid attempt at being a intellectual I have ever had the displeasure to read...beaten only in dick headedness by the Arch idiot of Canterbury!
*24
'It's just another diseased mind who cannot bear the idea of not having a special place just for him in a cold universe.'
Amen brother!
*38
'What exactly does a modern professor of theology do?'
Irritate those of a rational disposition !
'What are they good for?'
Pointing and laughing at...then getting quietly depressed at the inanity of man...or at least some of them!
'If theology were to somehow disappear as a distinct academic subject, would the world be poorer?'
Nope... but it would be a damn sight happier !
The way these clones attack RD and atheism in particular tends to the realisation that these bunnies are actually worried that suddenly the sheeple will get the smarts...that must be terrifying.
They only have one trick left...denigrating personally anyone that does not agree with their flaky delusions!
Hoping to bolster the godwotdidit crew with a basic pep talk to try and get them nodding fit ta rapture...
And insulting others... that do not dance the jeebus jig... in roundly libellous scandalous and hysterical terms.
And always trying to be clever about it...but always failing in the style of 'EPIC'....hard of thinking...hard of learning...hard of relevance!
Gute Pfund
von Raivo Pommer
Die britische Großbank Barclays hat trotz Finanzkrise das Jahr 2008 mit einem Milliardengewinn abgeschlossen.
Zwar brach der Vorsteuergewinn im Vergleich zum Vorjahr um 14 Prozent auf 6,1 Milliarden Pfund (knapp 7 Mrd Euro) ein, Analysten waren aber von einem niedrigeren Ergebnis ausgegangen.
2,4 Milliarden Pfund der Gewinne stammen aus Übernahmen, vor allem aus dem Nordamerika- Geschäft der zusammengebrochenen US-Investmentbank Lehman Brothers. 2009 werde erneut eine Herausforderung, sagte Unternehmenschef John Varley am Montag in London. Trotzdem wolle die Bank in der zweiten Jahreshälfte ihre Dividendenzahlungen wieder aufnehmen.
Der Barclays-Chef kündigte an, dass die Banken-Vorstände für das vergangene Jahr keine Bonus-Zahlungen erhalten sollten und die Ausschüttungen für die übrigen Beschäftigten deutlich geringer als 2007 ausfallen werde. Nach unbestätigten Medienberichten soll sich die Höhe der Boni auf 600 Millionen Pfund belaufen
Too bad.
10ch.org, it was not so much that the other far right parties were in decline. In the wake of the Great Depression, the moderate voting blocks disappeared shifting either far left or far right. The Nazi formed alliances with like minded groups in order to gain a majority in the Reichtstag, which they never got. By the time Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Nazis were losing seats. This was an attempt by conservatives like Franz Von Papen to discredit the Nazis by showing the could not run a government. That turned out well.
@Becca (#41)
Homosexual Agenda
(Looks guilty...)
Umm... he didn't?
I mean... Ummm... Oh, of course he didn't. That would be silly. Who on Earth would consider that a reasonable excuse... erm... reason...
(Anyway, later. Things to do, plane to catch to somewhere without an extradition agreement, you know...)
Matthew 19:12--
Why doesn't Bishop Tom Frame preach--and especially practice--this recommendation from his Holy Word?
Even if it is metaphorical--and it has been taken literally by certain sects--it is at best a rather horrible metaphor, something Nietzsche used for attacking Xianity.
The difference between this and "Darwinism" is that the latter is not a matter of values (beyond honesty), nor does it have an inherent set of recommendations in it. Religion, by contrast, is usually nothing but a set of value claims, as we have seen from a rather large number of atrocities committed in its name, though I do not forget that many good things have also been done in its name.
Somehow, though, so many forget to bring up texts like "I bring not peace, but a sword," "his blood be on us and upon our children" (unfortunately, many have used this supposed "blood curse" against the Jews--nothing comparable exists for anti-Semites to use in "Darwinism" or in any honest derivation of that science), while trying to make objective scientific inferences state what is not entailed by that science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Hey, what did you really expect from a professor in Bovine Scatology, - anything sensible?? Get real!
Just read the opening sentence in the fool's diatribe, and what follows is guaranteed garbage. The creep is also an anglican pedophile bishop, so what can one expect?
Survival of the fittest? Fittest for what? I'm small, slow, and very nearsighted. My hearing isn't particularly acute, and I don't smell so good. On the African savannah or in Ice Age Europe, my chances aren't very good. But getting around New York City, sitting at my computer, or working my way around a courtroom, I'll take on any dozen strapping Cro-Magnons with one hand tied behind my back, at least as long as I have my glasses.
On the other hand, I'm infertile, so I guess I'm a Darwinian loser after all.
The problem the good Bishop faces is weariness. He ought to take a nap.
Methinks someone posted on the wrong thread...probably me....!
Spork?
Sounds as though the Bishop is simply upset because atheists don't espouse those things that rational people would find abhorrent. This denies him the ability to put atheists firmly in the anti-social, pathological category once and for all. We've denied him his lever with which to move the world.
Maybe there's a 12 step program for genocidal madpersons like us.
QD: Hello, my name is Quiet, and I'm a Darwinist.
Group: Hi, Quiet!
QD: I have committed atrocities such as imperialism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, removing the tags from mattresses and I once accidentally used the word "irregardless".
Group: We're here for you, Quiet.
QD: Oh, and I can't stop putting th period after the closing quitation. It just seems better that way to me.
Roger> thanks for the link... gotta love a site that can't even control for fake emails. "First name: You'reabunchofbigots Email:gofuckyourself@yaweh.com" These things shouldn't go through, but they do... Leads me to believe the originators of the poll will tweak the results as well.
See, this is what happen when fuckwits go to see 'Expelled'.
You mean that the good bishop has committed the 'no true atheist' fallacy?'
The theology professor/Bishop perhaps needs to be accused of not being a good professor/bishop because he may not be in favor of the inquisition, pedophilia, genocide, witch hunts, suicide bombings, etc. all things we know 'Abrahamic religulism' lead to.
If this is annoying to you, try a softer commentary about the busses in Britain:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/religion-chr…
Well, I can tell you one thing for certain Professor Frame: there will be no honorary degree from Vermont for you either.
*81
"There is definitely a God. So join the Christian party and enjoy your life",
That advert is destined for the Advertising standards board...methinks that will get pulled...it asserts an untruth !
Ahhhhhh the Don Marquis/Warty Bliggens school of cosmology raises its head on the Opinion Pages yet again.
sigh.
warty bliggens the toad
i met a toad
the other day by the name
of warty bliggens
he was sitting under
a toadstool
feeling contented
he explained that when the cosmos
was created
that toadstool was especially planned for his personal
shelter from sun and rain
thought out and prepared
for him
do not tell me
said warty bliggens
that there is not a purpose
in the universe
the thought is blasphemy
a little more
conversation revealed
that warty bliggens
considers himself to be
the centre of the said
universe
the earth exists
to grow toadstools for him
to sit under
the sun to give him light
by day and the moon
and wheeling constellations
to make beautiful
the night for the sake of
warty bliggens
to what act of yours
do you impute
this interest on the part
of the creator
of the universe
i asked him
why is it that you
are so greatly favoured
ask rather
said warty bliggens
what the universe has done to deserve me
if i were a
human being i would
not laugh
too complacently
at poor warty bliggens
for similar
absurdities
have only too often
lodged in the crinkles
of the human cerebrum
archy
What a shyster! It says everything about how Ian Musgrave views evolution and nothing about how Dawkins views it. Musgrave is most likely covering for his own embarrassment because for evolution to be real, his god must have created it along with the "imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide" that he believes it entails. In other words, Musgrave has committed blasphemy by condemning his own god to the same predilections that Dawkins humorously recites in his book, The God Delusion (p. 31):
Musgrave better watch his back because his god's probably got an eye on him if it is real. <Joker>Oooop! Oooop!</Joker>
oh gosh.... religious people talking about 'taking things to their logical conclusion'...
how many times have i heard: 'you can't be an atheist because if you think nothing has intrinsic meaning and take it to its logical conclusion, you would be killing people.' after that, usually the religious person triumphantly leaves the discussion because he has proven once again that there must be a god.
i think it's time christians and muslims took their faiths to their logical conclusions. their brains would probably explode.
I thought that dining philosophers were notoriously incapable of using forks. :rimshot:
(Look up "dining philosophers problem" if you don't have training in computer science.)
I dunno, but there's one thing certain for me, that dude can go fork himself.
aratina | February 9, 2009 12:25 PM, #85:
Ian Musgrave did not write the despicable paragraph PZ quoted. It was written by Bishop Tom Frame. PZ mentions Ian Musgrave because Ian wrote about Bishop Tom Frame's essay. That's why Ian was 'reduced to indignant spluttering'.
Prometheus @ 84
O Rare Don Marquis
"No no no....you know who else was an atheist...Stalin! That's who!"
*declares self victorious*
*goes back to injecting poisonous absurdities into children's brains*
"I find the materialist atheism of some rational sceptics harder to accept than theistic belief, and cannot make sense of my life in this world without believing in God and providence."
Another fool who will go to his grave believing in a load of crap. So inspiring.
Has anyone else noticed that the only way you can connect Darwin to the Holocaust "logically" is if one of your unstated major premises is that Jews are inferior?
CalGeorge @ 92
And he will take his crap god with him, both which the worms will crap out, rendering them both to nothing.
"Has anyone else noticed that the only way you can connect Darwin to the Holocaust "logically" is if one of your unstated major premises is that Jews are inferior?"
Yea, bad things happen when you use medieval prejudices against the only people in your culture to charge interest as the basis of a social policy and restrict science to working within those parameters. Shame Hitler didn't become the Benedictine Abbot of his childhood ambitions. He would have had a career limited to institutionalized bigotry as opposed to genocide. St. Schickelgruber of Lambach hee hee hee.
Roger - I watched the video that you linked to. Mentally I switched the words homosexual with atheist through about half of it. By the end I was so pissed I almost punched my screen.
One thing you have to give christian freaks is that they are damn good at propaganda. My favorite part was noting that the homosexuals were going to use lies, no logic and no proof to get their agenda approved. Humm...I remember hearing those same three things in church for decades.
@40
You're right, of course--sorry. It seems to me I recall a discussion in which it which it was suggested that he would not even accept a knighthood if offered one. I don't think Dr. Dawkins was in on that discussion, though...
Ok, guess I better follow the link... Whoa! Deepest apologies to Ian Musgrave and a big "fuck you" to Bishop Tom Frame. Corrected version:
Am I the only one who is amused by the fact the author of that rubbish is called Frame and the links to Nisbet that word conjures up ?
I'm not a bioligist but it seems to me that increasing genetic variation should improve the fitness of a population by providing more opportunities for adaption or further evolution. If this is true, then wouldn't an ardent Darwinian evolutionist be opposed to genocide/eugenics/etc as decreasing the fitness of the population (as opposed to the individual's fitness)?
gort, you got it. In a species, variation IS fitness. That's what sexual reproduction is all about, mixing things up for a little more variation.
Doesn't this guy have any understanding of the concept of scope? Evolutionary theory only goes back as far as there are replicators, and isn't meant to cover anything before that. It's like complaining about meteorology because it doesn't explain where the atmosphere came from.
I've long fought that evolutionary truth finds NOT the "survival of the fittest", since the fittest in strength often destroy themselves... but the "survival of species able to achieve balance"... in other words, long-term survival requires a strength, so the species can win food battles, but a weakness too so that they can also lose some... so to speak.
So long-term evolution rewards... believe it or not... mediocrity! In a sense. But it really makes right-wing heads explode, so I love putting it that way.
I wonder why so many of the living seem able to channel the thought process of the dead? No one that didn't live in Darwin's generation can expect to understand it. Religion was still institutionalized and worshipped as a taboo.
How can anyone fault someone that was able to bring science out of such dark ages?
"...and metaphysical complacency."
Oh, that metaphysical complacency will bite you in the rear every time a new breakthrough in metaphysics is found! Why, I hear they're only five years away from finding the fairies at the bottom of the garden! Then Dawkins will look like quite the dinosaur!
"There is definitely a God. So join the Christian party and enjoy your life"
Wow. First of all, a Christian party doesn't sound very fun. Second of all, it could be mistaken for a political party. And we all know what happens when political parties based on religion get any amount of power. I sure hope the Londoners are laughing at these buses.
It sure seems funny to me that the second that atheists come out with their own advertisements, the Christianists have to scramble to get some targeted counterprogramming out. What, their constant endless hum of "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD and JEEEEEEEEEEESSSSUUUUUUSS" isn't enough. I suppose it's because this is Britain, and people aren't constantly tripping over Jesus billboards like in parts of the States.
#103, re survival of the fittest...
"the fittest" shouldn't be interpret as 'most physically fit', but rather as 'fitting the best' (in the environment)
#103, re survival of the fittest...
"the fittest" shouldn't be interpret as 'most physically fit', but rather as 'fitting the best' (in the environment)
Besides being a Darwinist, I'm also a Newtonist, an Einsteinis, a Maxwellist, a Van Leeuwenhoeckist, a Mendeleevist, a Galileoist, a Heisenbergist and so on. Keeps me quite busy.
I think I'll convert to being no -ist at all. Labelling a line of thought as an -ism, and people who think that line is OK as an -ist, is a trick of narrowminded people to make porper ideas look like belief.
Given that Darwin was an active member of the Jamaica Committee, which sought the prosecution of Governor Edward John Eyre for murder and for the unconscionable crime of imposing martial law on her majesty's black subjects in Jamaica following the Morant Bay Rebellion in Jamaica in 1865, those accusations seem a bit much.
If you take the theory of gravity to its logical conclusion, we should all be nailed to the ground.
I say we give him some chopsticks and see how he fares...
Ok, why doesn't he just go for it and accuse evolutionary biologists of molesting twelve year old girls and Modest Proposal style infanticide? He's accused them of everything else in the most egregious example of an ad homonym I've ever seen in a legitimate publication. His argument in a one sentence summary:
"My opponent has made some very convincing sounding points, but he beats his wife, killed his mistress with a barb wire club, keeps his child in an attic with diseased rats and spits in the faces of children as he walks down the street."
This is a mean spirited article by an ignorant, self-undulgent professor of a non-subject.
I'm glad this is getting the coverage and rebuttal it deserves. I wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in response, but they didn't publish it. Beasts.
He is living proof that one cannot claim scientific assessment, or 'expertise' in the field of theology. It's philosophy in a cheap tuxedo!
@29 Try also putting in google "People are s"
Notice the top two results.
James
PZ, coincidentally, I took this guy to task too in my blog, but took a few more paragraphs to explain to him exactly why his conclusion is so flawed. He confuses a scientist's deductions for the scientist's opinions, and offers no basis for tying the two together. It's a stunning mistake for a man with a chair in theology at a major university. My blog:
http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2009/02/aussie-professor-turns-logic-…
Below appears a letter I wrote in response to this article when it appeared online yesterday, to date it remains unpublished by the newspaper.
Tom Frame writes in his new novel "Evolution in the Antipodes" to propose that the natural world around us is best explained by divinely guided evolutionary convergence, a sort of Theo-Darwinism. The problem with Frame's argument is that he tries to have his metaphysical cake and eat it too, suggesting the co-existence of an interventionist God and the Darwinian model of evolution.
This suggestion is manifestly absurd, no two ideas could be more fundamentally opposed. The first requires a divine plan which makes humanity special, immortal and the subjects of the creator's attention. The other requires no external agent, no intervention, the world is the way it is because billions of years of natural processes have made it that way. To try and reconcile the two is a staggering act of intellectual dishonesty which is insulting to the intelligence of any clear thinking person.
However, Frame has a far more odious suggestion to offer, namely that rational sceptics like Richard Dawkins are blind in not following their Darwinian convictions to their logical conclusion of "imperialism, genocide, mass deportation" and so on. Rationalist sceptic's and materialist atheists believe the material world is the only world. Fortunately this belief can be the foundation of a very powerful kind of morality. A morality that asserts that humanity and the finite natural resources of our world are to be cherished, because existence is a one-time-only and limited experience. Once you believe this it is easy to see how your estimation of the value of human life, and the importance of kindness, will increase.
@ #29, Ouchimoo
If it makes you feel any better, go to google and type
Ben Stein is
I think Pz confuses Darwinism with evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory about common descent with modification and doesn't have much to say outside the scientific realm.
Darwinism is a wider ideology that promotes strict materialism and attempts to derive meaning ,purpose and ethics from natural processes like evolution.
I think Darwinism does lead to those logical conclusions but evolution doesn't necessarily lead to them.
No Facilis, Darwinism is a creationist word that means several things to the religious idiots, nothing to atheists and scientists.
It is often used as a strawman when used as an "example" to explain how "Darwinism" can not explain the origin of the universe, therefore evolution is weak.
@CosmicTeapot
Darwinism is an ideology. Evolution is a scientific theory.The only way they are related is that Darwinists use the scientific theory to support their views.
It's obvious he was critiquing the former, as scientific theories say nothing abut ethics
Once again Facilis poops out of his mouth.
Facilis the Fallacious Fool. Yawn, reason and logic escape you. Keep wearing your tin foil hat and stay in your basement.
Falacious, repeating a falsehood does not make it true.
Only religious people use "Darwinism", as in the above quote - "A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide."
It's a pathetic attempt to imply this is where the acceptence in evilution takes you.
That is why it is called Darwinism, even though Darwin wrote nothing about imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, euthanasia and infanticide.
The only mention Darwin made regarding eugenics and forced sterilisations was in rejecting them outright.
It should be more appropriately called Galtonism. Strange how you people always forget to mention Galton in your need to demonize Darwin.
As Darwin never concerned himself with imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide, it is just as valid to call it KenHamism.
PZ, do you really want the likes of Facilis explaining what evolution is or isn't to you, on your blog?
Why isn't Facilis, the repetitive, plagiarizing godbot, festering in the dungeon after weeks of his same dreary and contemptible drivel, when ZR gets banished after only one driveby?
Facilis is an object of derision and a very easy practice target to bash. He's the clueless zealot who thinks he's teaching the big kids something but is unaware of the booger hanging tenuously out of his left nostril or that his hand-me-down- white pants have skidmarks or that everyone had already heard his silly ideologies and rejected them as pathetically naive. He's a pest, but harmlessly impotent.
So, Facilis is one of those inflated, sand at the bottom punching bags who keeps bouncing back with the same idiot grin no matter how many times he's squarely KO'ed?
Carry on. I don't see how anybody could expect anything novel out of the practice dummy, but the way the punches land on make for some strong demonstration sports.
But his nose beeps really loud and sound really funny when you hit it.
Facilis really is getting boring, isn't he?
There's a certain kind of commenter who simply makes my eyes glaze over when I see their comments -- it's like reaching a certain lower threshold of dullness is a kind of cloaking device. I'll watch the next few comments from him a little more attentively, as if I were a hungry raptor who has sensed a mouse stirring in the grass.
Facilis: bring your A game for a while...you're on the edge.
So that's what that sound is that I keep hearing in certain threads.
That's just it, his A game looks like he's phoning it in.
He doesn't have new ideas and he doesn't answer questions.
It's lazy thinking if it's really thinking at all.
There's also a lesson we all need to learn: Don't feed the repetitive Trolls.
Facilis, Alan and Silver Fox keep posting their brainless prattle and a few of us go pointlessly SIWOTI on their asses. (Guilty as charged) Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to answer it; just because Facilis posts doesn't mean anyone has to respond anymore, although Newbies won't be able to resist. (we get it Facilis, you believe in an imaginary deity and think we're bad for not believing right along with you)
Walton is another story. I'm sure there's a Norman Bate's mother/father figure somewhere behind all his oddness. If you have a passing resemblance to Janet Leigh, I'd steer clear.
Facilis #120 wrote:
It sounds to me like you're saying that "Darwinism" = Social Darwinism plus atheism. That's not a common coupling. Atheists in general -- and secular humanists in particular -- seldom try to derive their meanings and purposes from observations of natural processes. That usually requires a magical, "spiritual" view of nature, where the microcosm reflects the macrocosm ("as above, so below") and Nature is made into a benevolent Authority telling us what we ought to do (which, as you know, is the Naturalist Fallacy.)
Secular humanists reject both the Naturalist Fallacy, and Social Darwinism as pseudoscience.
If this is what you (and Frame) mean by the term 'Darwinism,' then it won't include Dawkins, PZ Myers, or even the fire-breathing atheists in the Pharyngula comments.
So you're arguing against a position we don't agree with, which, I suppose, we could choose to see as one of those rare but happy occasions where we're all on the same side. Yay, Facilis! Well met!
PZ Myers #130 wrote:
Not necessarily. He's varying his apologetics, and usually stays on topic. He repeats himself, but I think that's more the fault of the arguments he's using, than it is Facilis himself. He's sincere, polite, and keeps trying new angles. He also tends to keep to the ends of long threads which are not otherwise active. Yes, he cuts and pastes. As time goes on, he's doing it less I think.
I'll say it again: I don't understand the need to kick off someone who generates so much interest, on a regular basis. If individual people are sick of him, then don't read him, don't answer him, and move on while others who do read and answer him engage him in discussions they're unaccountably getting something out of, or they wouldn't keep at it. Facilis is not a troll, and he's not being disruptive. Everyone has different tastes and interests. In the wise words of Confucius, "Sometimes you feel like a nut; sometimes you don't."
"Mom, Facilis keeps lookin' at me."
No. It's the internet. This whole "PZ Save Me From SIWOTI Syndrome!" bit escapes me. PZ is not Mom. Save yourself.
It's what I was trying to say, but you say it so much better.
I had a bad-brain moment - I was trying to work out how you get SIWOTI from WALTON - I thought, that's not an anagram!
silly me!
...you say it so much better
Sastra says everything better.
I raised the question this time in the context of ZR being banned on his first night (and Garfunkle after only polluting mostly one thread), when (apart from the Compulsive Prevaricator routine) ZR showed far more soundness of logic in the case he made for his position than Facilis ever has. I'm more interested in the Old Testament capriciuosness of PZ, and where and why he aims his thunderbolts, than in getting facilis banned per se.
The problem isn't that facilis offers no novelty, it's that even the best of the troll-bashers are running out of it too.
Ken Cope #137 wrote:
I don't remember ZR (must have missed whatever thread he was on), but my recollection is that Garfunkle was banned because he had already been banned under another nick, and was sneaking back in from the dungeon. I forget who he "really" was, or what he had done to begin with -- though I do remember Garfunkle was using one variant of the Argument from Reason (if our ability to reason comes from material sources, then it is itself material, which is clearly not the case, so it didn't.)
That's what it looks like re: Garfunkle, from a quick peek at the dungeon. ZR provided minutes of amusement Monday evening, daring PZ to ban him. In contrast, Facilis wonders if this time, the cut and paste of his previous post will earn a Molly.
Actually, I suspect that ZR was a morph of a previously-banned racist troll. There have been some genuinely icky ones.
Facilis was doing some of his worst posting* when PZ was away (and at the end of a thread which had already sunk somewhat down the listing). So it's not surprising that PZ didn't have time to notice and get annoyed by Facilis' insipidity and repetitiousness.
* apparently regurgitating semi-masticated stuff he'd got elsewhere, since it was very apparent he didn't understand it and could only keep repeating things rather than ever explain coherently or address the numerous flaws pointed out to him in it.
The inane regurgi-spew from facilis should be credited for having at least been free of the other denialist and political monomania that engulfs so many threads.
Jebus, Facilis is trying to post testimonials on another thread. He doesn't have a clue that testimonials aren't worth anything. He either needs to learn real physical evidence or leave. I get the feeling he will be like SH from the anti-AGW thread. PZ finally had to close the thread to shut the idiot up.
A fine example of projection. Let's ask the professor how many babies died in the flood, or what happened to the tribe of Midian once Joshua got through with it, eh?