Intelligent Design

Off-topic (somewhat): Bydand . . .

Spread the love
WSC: "The finest regiment . . . "

Sometimes, it is necessary to draw a line in the sand and stand, regardless of cost.

DM, in his haste to play at clever ad hominem circumstantial, and in his ill-instructed hatred of Christendom and its blessings in our civilisation, has tried to cross such a line. (CY, thank you.)

This is just to serve notice to all on the character of what we are facing, and what is liable to happen if we are silent or unwilling to stand, cost what it may, when such a line is crossed.

And, again, let us see just what he and ilk are ever so desperate to distract our attention from.

This:

20 June 2011

He said it: PZM on the tolerance of evolutionary materialist atheists

kairosfocus

Since it is liable otherwise to be lost in the flood of distractive tangential comments,  I here headline my markup of PZM’s recent remarks on Dr Jonathan Wells.

Pardon some fairly direct comments, but unless we specifically expose capital examples of what we are objecting to, the destructive misbehaviour will continue:

[“They said it: Judge Jones of Dover …” is here. – UD News]

________________

PZM: >>Atheists tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant. [ –> deny, deny, deny . . . ] The tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. [ –> And, what does the bloody history of the past century at the hands of atheistical regimes tell us on this?] What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. [–> translated, we will censor the public square and the culture’s sense of what knowledge is on a priori evolutionary materialism as we have institutional power to do and if you object to the imposition of ideological censorship on origins science, we will come down on you like a ton of bricks, even threatening to hold your children hostage, on the excuse that you can have your little fantasies in quiet and that’s “freedom” enough for you; don’t you dare expose our censorship of science and science education] That’s the tolerance we’ll give them.

There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science [–> translation: they are exposing the use of misleading icons of evolution to indoctrinate the public and school children, starting with Haeckel’s frauds, cf the Google Books result here] in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals. [–> the bland denial of what one is about to do . . .]

I have to single out this man [–> in context, plainly Jonathan Wells], whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. ([editorial comment, OP:] PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)>>

_______________

Remember, too, this is the same whose crowd tried to shout down Jonathan M when he showed up at a discussion in a pub in Glasgow.

That tells us even more about what we are dealing with. END

9 Replies to “Off-topic (somewhat): Bydand . . .

  1. 1
    MathGrrl says:

    kairosfocus,

    Could you please provide a link to the original material you are quoting from PZ Myers so that those of us who are interested can see it in context? I did a Google search and found part of what you quoted here:

    Smith: If you could, if you will, divorce the people behind the idea from the idea itself. If you analyze the suggestion on its own, is their any merit?

    Myers: No, none at all. [laughs] No, I do that all the time. There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. At the same time, when you get to know them, when you talk to them, they’re generally nice people. They’re your neighbors. They’re ordinary people. So I would say, right off the bat, no, this is not about demonizing the individuals. It’s about demonizing really, really bad ideas.

    Then, for instance, what you find with these ideas that they present is that they have no evidence for them. The evidence, if you even want to call it that, is simply this negative form where they say, “Well, evolution cannot adequately explain this phenomenon, therefore, intelligent mystery, this invisible man did it.”

    But what you discover also when you start talking to these people is that they have no idea what evolution is all about, so they completely miss the story there. They are not qualified to tell us what evolution does not explain.

    in the transcript of an interview and another bit here:

    PZ Myers projected a slide displaying a portrait of Jonathan Wells, noting that “I have to single out this man, whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today,” apparently spitting the words out one by one. He paused. And then, as if to emphasise the point, said, “Yes. He’s a nasty, nasty person.” This was met with rapturous applause.

    in a lecture summary provided by UD’s own JonathanM.

    Are these the sources you are using?

    Please note that I’m not making any comment about Myers’ views or how he chooses to express them, nor am I addressing your markups of those views. I simply want to be sure that we’re looking at the same original material. Hopefully these links will also be useful to other readers who are similarly interested in more detail.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    MG:

    I have simply cited from a context of an ongoing exchange.

    PZM’s remarks, his public posting of a stolen host with a nail through it and dumped next to a banana skin in a waste basket, and his fans’ behaviour speak, all too tellingly, for themselves.

    No wider context is going to justify such conduct.

    Ever.

    Such, have plainly signalled what they are and what they intend. Which is what my markup addresses.

    They shall not pass.

    Bydand

    GEM of TKI

  3. 3
    MathGrrl says:

    kairosfocus,

    I have simply cited from a context of an ongoing exchange.

    I followed the links back to your previous posts and again followed the links from those, but I didn’t find the source of the original material written or spoken by PZ Myers. I do apologize for the inconvenience if I missed them, but in any case could you please confirm that the two links I provided are to the same source material you are using? If they are not, could you please provide the correct links?

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    MG:

    Please, don’t go down the usual line again. In particular, your habit of waiting till time has passed to raise an issue after the immediate context is no longer easily accessible is noted.

    Here is the original post for which I clipped a part of a comment [as linked] above, as the discussion thread was being side tracked by those out to defend Mr Myers.

    I have already clearly pointed out and linked the context of my remarks, which go to a thread at UD which points onward — cf here for a transcript.

    There is a lot more there of like ilk to the above that in some cases is so utterly distorted that it is outright slanderous.

    We could spend the rest of the week clipping really outrageous remarks by PZM and analysing them. Try this, which is a contempt-laced piece of willfully false strawman caricature: “Faith is simply the suspension of any critical faculties at all. It’s accepting it without consideration for reality . . .” FALSE, and easily known to be so.

    Similarly, I clip again:

    Myers: Well, there’s a subtle difference here that what I try to do is promote a conversation that is tolerant. I mean, we do. Think literally about the meaning of the word. We tolerate them, but we do not do is give them a false respect. What this is all about is eroding this unwarranted respect that’s given to religion and foolishness like creationism in this country. We back off so much from this and we refuse to confront it. We cover it over with manners and nice words. We shouldn’t be doing that. We should be openly dismissing a lot of these bad ideas and doing it loudly and proudly. That’s what we do.

    But of course the tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective.

    Things like religion and creationism do not belong in government. They do not belong in the public schools. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. That’s the tolerance we’ll give them.

    But if you’re telling me that the earth is 6,000 years old, I’m going to call you an idiot.

    While IDNET could have done a more academic job of clipping and putting in ellipses, the substance is plainly correct to what PZM said.

    And, as the ghosts of 100 millions remind us, the substance of this clip is an utter outrage, given the real context in the wider culture and the history of the past 100 years. Evolutionary materialism has usurped serious power in key institutions of education, media and government, but has a worrying 2,300 year history of promoting amorality, factions and oppression leading to bloodshed. That is a lot to answer to, as the ghosts of 100 millions dead over the past 100 years confirm, if we will but listen.

    Not to mention PZM’s habitual conflation of what he knows or should know are very different and diverse things, Young Earth Creationism, Creationism more widely, and Design theory and thought. That “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” slander is a lie, and those who use it or think it should stop.

    And the associated attitude that would take a host, punch it with a nail and dump it in a wastebasket next to a banana peel, putting the picture up on the Internet — I saw it at the time, here is his “justification” before the event — says far more, far more clearly than any smooth words that try to cover up what that said. So does his remark on tenure voting on ideology, as is documented here.

    PZM’s behaviour and words are utterly indefensible.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: Kindly research what Alcibiades and co did in Athens on the eve of the Sicily expedition. (And note, I point this out as a Protestant, not a Catholic. But I know exactly what Myers’ behaviour points to. After such a stunt, no decent person should have anything to do with him until he apologises and amends his ways.)

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Now, put that with the Lewontin remarks and see where that gets us, for remember we are looking at the parameters of a cultural movement that has gained a lot of power and influence:

    _________

    >> To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. [[Perhaps the second saddest thing is that some actually believe that these last three sentences that express hostility to God and then back it up with a loaded strawman caricature of theism and theists JUSTIFY what has gone on before. As a first correction, accurate history — as opposed to the commonly promoted rationalist myth of the longstanding war of religion against science — documents (cf. here, here and here) that the Judaeo-Christian worldview nurtured and gave crucial impetus to the rise of modern science through its view that God as creator made and sustains an orderly world. Similarly, for miracles — e.g. the resurrection of Jesus — to stand out as signs pointing beyond the ordinary course of the world, there must first be such an ordinary course, one plainly amenable to scientific study. The saddest thing is that many are now so blinded and hostile that, having been corrected, they will STILL think that this justifies the above. But, nothing can excuse the imposition of a priori materialist censorship on science, which distorts its ability to seek the empirically warranted truth about our world.]

    [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.] >>

    __________

    is this where we want our civilisation going,and are these safe hands to entrust it to?

    I say, for good reason, no and no.

    GEM of TKI

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    MathGrrl, don’t you think you’re obsessing just a bit (HT: markf)?

  7. 7
    MathGrrl says:

    kairosfocus,

    Here is the original post for which I clipped a part of a comment

    Thank you for clarifying your source.

    Similarly, I clip again:

    If I might make a suggestion, which I hope you will take in the constructive vein I offer it, this would be an ideal place to include a link so that readers can easily view the full source material. As you note,

    While IDNET could have done a more academic job of clipping and putting in ellipses, the substance is plainly correct to what PZM said.

    References to source material and clear indications where elisions have been made are vitally important in academic and scientific writing. While I even agree with you that idnet did not distort Myers’ meaning, it is important not only to be intellectually honest when quoting but to be transparent. That means making it as easy as possible for readers to evaluate excerpts in their original context.

    Since I was curious, over an early lunch I chased down each of the statements that idnet presented. (Did you see what I did there?) All but one were from the Minnesota Public Radio interview I linked to above. Several are missing brackets or ellipses, for example:

    I’m buddies with a lot of the big shot new atheists, people like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. […] There’s nothing we’re saying that Betrand Russell didn’t say. This is all the same old stuff. The only difference is that we’ve got the primal scream therapy of atheism. New atheists are the people who shout and yell a lot about this stuff. But it’s the same old stuff that atheists have been talking about for years and years.

    [Atheists] tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant. […]the tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. That’s the tolerance we’ll give them.

    There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. […] This is not about demonizing the individuals.

    The last was from JonathanM’s summary of Myers’ pub talk.

    Does this combining of two different sources and failure to quote exactly what Myers said misrepresent his views? In this case, I would say no. It does, however, not demonstrate the common courtesy towards one’s readers and one’s source that is expected in formal writing.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    MG:

    Sorry, I am not entering into a discussion with you on any topic of significance at this time. You forfeited that privilege over the past three months. I only make a remark for the record as of this point, until you resolve some fairly serious outstanding issues.

    You see, your ilk went too far and crossed a line that should NEVER ever be crossed in civil discussion.

    And, your comments on this thread have been distractive on a subject of so great moment that you should look up why I have led with that particular logo, with that particular motto.

    Bydand

    GEM of TKI

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    Klinghoffer weighs in on essentially the same point.

Leave a Reply