Culture Humor

“Matzke is a Liar”

Spread the love

Nick Matzke is the famous former employee of the National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE). For many years, he has been on the frontlines on the war on ID. His finest hour was at the Dover Trial where he provided a lot of technical support to the ACLU lawyers.

Matzke’s attacks on ID are fundamentally based on misrepresentation, strawman arguments, equivocation, distortions, etc. Well, it seems his way of doing business has finally caught up with him. There is poetic justice in his public humiliation at the hands of fellow Darwinists. 🙂

[Matzke is] a nasty piece of work

Matzke has apparently made stuff up

Jerry Coyne
Another Tom Johnson

Coyne refers to the words of Matzke and friends as “meanness, invective, and even fabrication or gross exaggeration of incidents”.

Also from Jerry Coyne’s blog, someone posting under the name “Richard Dawkins” had this to say about Nick Matzke:

Matzke is a liar.

Richard Dawkins

22 Replies to ““Matzke is a Liar”

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    HT: Mike Gene


    By the way, I salute Nick for sticking up for the dignity of religious folks. He ain’t all bad, imho.

    The amusing thing about Coyne’s blog is Coyne seems to argue that GNUS behave in a civil manner.

    Invariably the instances of “stridency” turn out to be either false (as in the case of Walter Smith—the real “Tom Johnson“), or of strong criticism that barely reaches the level of invective (as in Stangroom’s pathetic—and now abandoned—attempts to show us up as evil).

    Jerry Coyne

    Err, if Jerry’s definition of “civil” is PZ Myers and Abbie Smith, I suppose all GNU atheists are civil!

  2. 2
    scordova says:

    PZ Myer and Abbie Smith weigh in:

    Nazi’s Everywhere

    Yeah, I’m looking at you, Nick Matzke. …sleazy.

    and Abbie Smith

    Nick completely and utterly slighted me, in what I viewed as a sexist manner

  3. 3
    scordova says:

    Dawkins Speaks 3693120

    Nick Matzke is a deliberate, intentional, unrepentant liar.

    Richard Dawkins

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    Thus Saith Dawkins

    You are a liar, Matzke and you should apologise immediately. Is it really so very difficult to admit it and apologise? Liar.

    See Nick, what happens to you when you dare to question the Pope of Darwinism?

  5. 5
    Ilion says:

    Of course, Dawkins’ “officially” holds (that is, publicly asserts and personally disbelieves his own assertion) that liars are not morally responsible for their lies … logically, his assertion reduces to “There are no such things as lies.”

    So, even if that really was Dawkins assertion that Matzke is a liar, the assertion is meaningless from that source; for the source itself is fundamentally dishonest.

  6. 6
    Joseph says:

    Now Nick is getting it from both sides.

    Mayb one of the Gnus will step in and prevent him from getting his PhD… 😎

  7. 7
    mike1962 says:

    You don’t seriously believe the “Richard Dawkins” on Coyne’s blog is the real Dawkins, do youse? As if he cares about this Matzke brouhaha.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    …the National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE)

    Is this a lie about what the letters NCSE stand for?

    There is poetic justice in his public humiliation at the hands of fellow Darwinists.

    IMO, poetic justice would be his conversion to Christ.

    Ilion, great point. Whence all this manufactured moral outrage?

  9. 9

    Among GNU atheists only Nick Matzke is a liar???

  10. 10
    scordova says:

    Mike1962 wrote:

    You don’t seriously believe the “Richard Dawkins” on Coyne’s blog is the real Dawkins, do youse? As if he cares about this Matzke brouhaha.

    First, this post was file under humor.

    That said, Coyne went so far as to contact Dawkins on the matter and then post Dawkins response. So Dawkins is taking the matter seriously enough to respond to Coyne. There has at least been correspondence between Coyne and Dawkins on the matter.

    Also Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers are taking the matter seriously enough to post on the topic. PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne are personal friends of Dawkins and they are letting “Richard’s” posts go through.

    Whether the commenter is really Richard himself is a good question. But why would PZ and Jerry let a sock speak on behalf of the real Richard? So it has a chance of being authentic.

    But I share the view this seems a bit petty of Dawkins if that is indeed Dawkins.

  11. 11
    nullasalus says:

    Just to add in a side example regarding the “Is this really Richard Dawkins? Wouldn’t this be beneath him?” schtick…

    Remember that Scott Adams (a pretty darn successful guy by any measure) recently got outed with flat-out comments-section sockpuppetry. And part of Dawkins’ daily routine does involve running his website, and now and then descending into the comments section there as well.

    So it’s not like this is unthinkable, especially given that Coyne does seem to police his blog rather sternly.

  12. 12
    scordova says:


    In case you’re reading, Mike Gene has some kind words to help you through your ordeal:

    Telic Thoughts Comment 267353

  13. 13
    Ilion says:

    Oh, don’t misunderstand me … I believe/know that Mr Matzke is intellectually dishonest, for he willingly chooses to misrepresent the nature of both truth and reason — that is, I know that he is *worse* than a liar — I’m just vastly amused as self-proclaimed atheists getting worked up about whatever “lies” they’re currently worked up over.

  14. 14
    Ilion says:

    IMO, poetic justice would be his conversion to Christ.

    That would be where Justice and Mercy intersect.

  15. 15
    Ilion says:

    So, these people are calling themselves “Gnu Atheists”? Here I thought that the “gnu” was added by non-atheists laughing and the supposed “new” of the so-called New Atheists.

    So, what do *they* mean by the “Gnu”?

  16. 16
    MedsRex says:

    Let me see if I can put this together…
    1.In the GNU’s view they are the highest point Darwinian Evolution has thus far reached.
    2.The only “moral code” that matters to a Darwinian worldview is one where evil is defined as that which is detrimental to the success of a species.
    3.Matzke’s lies were directed to the highest evolutionary form alive.
    4.That makes him guilty of a sin . . .

  17. 17
    Ilion says:

    Let me see if I have this right —

    1) Richard Dawkins has repeatedly asserted that the religious upbringing of children is morally worse than the sexual abuse of children;

    2) Richard Dawkins has repeatedly asserted that religious belief (by which he almost always means Christianity) is the cause of most of the serious problems in the world, past and present;

    3) Richard Dawkins has repeatedly asserted that religious belief justifies mass-murder – while conveniently eliding the industrial-scale mass-murders of atheism in the 19th and (especially) 20th centuries as not really atheism nor due to atheism;

    4) Richard Dawkins has repeatedly asserted that ‘Science!’ shows us that there is no such thing as moral responsibility — while also publicly admitting that he doesn’t for an instant believe what he just asserted;

    X) And these silly fools are hyperventilating because Nick Matzke was maneuvered into stating the meaning of what Dawkins says, even if Dawkins has not explicitly equated “religion” with Nazism.

    Now, I’m not sure what “playing the Nazi card against religion” entails, but it *does* seem to me that whatever it means, these foolish persons, including Dawkins, are misrepresenting Matzke. The OP quotes Matzke as writing “ Well, I have seen Richard Dawkins address large general audiences and quite deliberately, but ridiculously, play the Nazi card against religion” … which, somehow, gets turned into “Matzke said that Dawkins equates religious people (i.e. Christians) with Nazis.

    Ah, well. What else does one expect of fools but foolish behavior?

  18. 18
    MedsRex says:

    It’s beautiful to realize, as a Christian, that YHWH gave me, a mere musician/graphic designer, enough common sense to easily smell the stinky bull-droppings left by these so-called academic elites. He gave it to us all. It’s one of His most glorious gifts.
    I state this as one who took a long trip through the house of horrors known as Post-Modernism.

  19. 19
    Ilion says:

    MedsResx @16,
    Sure, I get that. I’m just mystified about this “Gnu” business.

    Are these silly people trying to imply that the so-called “New Atheism” is somehow “open source” … which would seem to indicate that there is no single criterion by which any claim advanced as being a part of, or an entailment of, the “New Atheism” may be judged either to be or not to be. And, that seems just another way of admitting that the “New Atheism” is altogether lacking in content.

  20. 20
    MedsRex says:

    Ilion @19
    It would sure seem that way.
    But remember these people are generally completely lost outside of their extremely narrow fields of focus. So I’m sure most of the “founders” have no idea what GNU implies (they just thought it looked really cool, especially when the T-shirts come in!).
    And the fan-boys are too nervous to tell them.
    plus as we see in the OP: questioning is not without serious consequence and ex-communication.

  21. 21
    paragwinn says:


    With so many Christians i’ve seen believing in homeopathy, psychic abilities, end-of-the-world predictions, the Bible Code, etc, it appears that He did not distribute the ability equally.

  22. 22
    MedsRex says:


    Oh He did…humans are just good at ignoring it for something “more-complex” or “more-interesting”.
    and again this comes from personal experience.
    But I did not mean to express that as if my good common sense was contingent on my Christianity.
    I was just expressing thanks. 🙂

Leave a Reply