Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

PZ Myers: The Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarian

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Is there a religious influence and authoritarian tradition in science? Evolutionist PZ Myers rejects any such notion. Though Myers relies on the usual theological truth claims that are fundamental to evolution, he is sure that science is free of all such nonsense. When he is not busy shutting down scientific inquiry with religious dictates, he reassures his readers that science is a process that empowers questioning and change.

Certainly that is what science should be, but it is precisely the opposite in the hands of evolutionists such as Myers. They believe evolution is a fact, based on religious dogma that goes back centuries. Far from the empowering the asking of questions when the evidence contradicts their theory, they protect evolution from harm. You can see examples of Myers’ religious commitment here and here. Myers criticizes the religious ignorance and dogma he disagrees with, but he ignores the religious dogma that is foundational to evolution.

Comments
Dave Kellogg:
Could you back up (or perhaps withdraw) your earlier claim that discussions of macroevolution should be restricted to animals?
That all depends on what one counts as "macroevolution". I know for a fact that the definition that evolutionary biologists use is useless because it includes an arbitrary word- species- and not even YECs have a beef with their definition. Therefor when evolutionists say they have an example of "macroevolution" there needs to be a giant salt-lick nearby. That said if you have an example of plants "evolving" entirely new structures and organs please let us know. But if all you have is plants beefing up what they already have the you don't have anything to brag about.Joseph
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Hi Dave [15], I was just making the very pedestrian observation that at least Darwin must have thought the concept of species was important, since the word appears in the title of his seminal work. Regarding your other questions, I don't know the answers. If there weren't species or "kinds", if you will, wouldn't that mean that any two organisms could interbreed? That would lead to things like crocoducks and such. Eventually every member of the animal kingdom would be a form of beetle.herb
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
David Kellogg:
Everybody who expects claims to be taken seriously should back them up.
Which means evolutionists should not be taken seriously. Especially when they say that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.Joseph
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
@ Herb "Whew! I can’t imagine a millions-of-years long week. I’m beat after just 5 days of work!" Imagine if you were born on a Monday.NSM
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Hi herb, The Darwinistas can’t even make sense of this concept which is fundamental to their theory Can you please explain how the species concept is essential to evolutionary theory? For example, how does variation and natural selection depend on any particular definition of a species? Is population genetics dependent upon any taxonomic definitions? If so, how?Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
All they can do is bloviate over the definitions promoted by IDists all-the-while concealing the fact that their position doesn’t have anything nearly as well defined.
Precisely! One example would be the hedging and back-peddling we see over in the "Species" thread right now. The Darwinistas can't even make sense of this concept which is fundamental to their theory. Maybe they should simply change the name of Darwin's OOS and cut their losses! OTOH, on the ID side you will find a wealth of rigorously defined concepts and associated theorems, such as specified complexity, irreducible complexity, LCI, physical inertia, ontogenetic depth, 10^-120, baramin, etc, etc, etc, all of which place biology on a firm non-materialist foundation.herb
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Joseph, Everybody who expects claims to be taken seriously should back them up. Could you back up (or perhaps withdraw) your earlier claim that discussions of macroevolution should be restricted to animals?David Kellogg
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Dialogue with evolutionists is unproductive because they NEVER substantiate their claims. All they can do is bloviate over the definitions promoted by IDists all-the-while concealing the fact that their position doesn't have anything nearly as well defined. People like PZ and Dawkins just don't realize that ID will fade away if they EVER start suppoorting their position with actual scientific data as opposed to relying on glossy narratives.Joseph
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
allanius @ 2:
The difference is that Christianity is rational and evolutionism is not.
Could you show us an example of that?Cabal
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
To be fair, I wouldn't say it's religious in the sense that revealed dogma is religious, but only philoshical theology.PhilosophyFan
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Stephen C. Meyer has stated his belief for how the universe started at the beginning of this video: Evolution vs. Information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL2-56eF34cbornagain77
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Ken Ham, quoted in Meyer’s blog
it's Paul Zachary Myers not, for instance, Stephen C. Meyer!Alan Fox
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Ken Ham, quoted in Meyer's blog:
Ken Ham: God worked for six days and then rested for one. This is where our seven-day week comes from! If God created everything in six long periods (or millions of years), our week would be millions of years long! That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.
Whew! I can't imagine a millions-of-years long week. I'm beat after just 5 days of work!herb
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Though I suspect PZ endorses Richard Dawkins expressed view that dialogue with creationists is unproductive. I hasten to add that what Dr. Dawkins considers a creationist does not necessarily equate with everyone's idea of a creationist.Alan Fox
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
If it does, maybe Professor Myers could tell us what he believes, rather than commenters like allanius asserting "Myers believes that the universe created itself and that life came from that which is not life."Alan Fox
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Oops, Professor MyersAlan Fox
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Does Barry's invitation to Professor Myer still stand?Alan Fox
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
The difference is that Christianity is rational and evolutionism is not. Myers believes that the universe created itself and that life came from that which is not life. The more we learn about nature, the more we realize just how irrational these beliefs really are.allanius
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
This article reminds me of this quote I just read over at ENV: In fact, even some of the evolutionary biologists who risked "ridicule" to seek function for junk-DNA have lamented how their paradigm has stifled research into junk-DNA. Also in 2003, John Mattick, an evolutionist biologist who is a standout because of his research seeking function for junk-DNA, stated in Scientific American the following striking comment: “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (John S. Mattick quoted in W. Wayt Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome, Gems Among the Junk,” Scientific American (November, 2003).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/bornagain77
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply