[_ Old Earth _] PZ Myers - Science and Atheism

[John]

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris and the author of Pharyngula, the most heavily-trafficked science blog online.

In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, P.Z. Myers explains the purpose and impact of his blog, and whether his priority is to advance science education or atheism.

He talks about what he sees as his roles in the scientific community and the atheist movement, and how related these roles are.

He explores the relationship between science and atheism, and argues that the more a public learns science, the likelier it is that they will become atheistic. And he talks about where a science educator's atheism fits in the classroom.

He also addresses the position of leading scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies of Science regarding evolution being compatible with religious belief, and their use of religious scientists as spokespeople, and he assesses their motivations and strategies to advance science to a largely religious American public.

evolution being compatible with religious belief

LMBO, My big toe is smarter then this ignorant man.

But at least he admits more or less that Bad science = Atheism. Now we just need to get religion out of the classroom. :wink:

 

[John]

Listen to how this guy goes on. (edited for this forum, because this guy is obviously an over grown child)

Oh, dear. Earlier, I wrote about Ken Ham's visit to the Pentagon, a soul-shuddering thought if ever there was one, and it seems Ken has read it. He has replied with a blog entry titled Biology Professor Calls Me “Wackaloonâ€Â. Ken, Ken, Ken. You act shocked at the thought that one guy publicly stated that you were Mr Flaming Nutbar, but you shouldn't be. Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ---, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a --------, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a ----------, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a ------, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a --------, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.

You're a clueless schmuck who knows nothing about science and has arrogantly built a big fat fake museum to promote medieval --------  you should not be surprised to learn that you are held in very low esteem by the community of scholars and scientists, and by the even larger community of lay people who have made the effort to learn more about science than you have (admittedly, though, you have set the bar very, very low on that, and there are 5 year old children who have a better grasp of the principles of science as well as more mastery of details of evolution than you do.)

Maybe you should write a blog entry calling attention to each insult given to you. I think that's your calling, and it's probably god's intended mission for you in life, to inspire contempt.

(I encourage each and every one of my readers to express their true feelings about Ken Ham in the comment thread here. Then I want Mr Ham to write an indignant post complaining that "So-and-so called me a “disgrace to brain-damaged clownsâ€Â", or whatever  that'll keep him occupied for years, and will distract him from his campaign of abusing the minds of young children. Be creative.)

I mean wow, this guy has problems and his voice should not be heard in any science environment.

 

[jmm9683]

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris and the author of Pharyngula, the most heavily-trafficked science blog online.

In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, P.Z. Myers explains the purpose and impact of his blog, and whether his priority is to advance science education or atheism.

He talks about what he sees as his roles in the scientific community and the atheist movement, and how related these roles are.

He explores the relationship between science and atheism, and argues that the more a public learns science, the likelier it is that they will become atheistic. And he talks about where a science educator's atheism fits in the classroom.

He also addresses the position of leading scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies of Science regarding evolution being compatible with religious belief, and their use of religious scientists as spokespeople, and he assesses their motivations and strategies to advance science to a largely religious American public.

evolution being compatible with religious belief

LMBO, My big toe is smarter then this ignorant man.

But at least he admits more or less that Bad science = Atheism. Now we just need to get religion out of the classroom. :wink:

PZ Myers is very intelligent. The man has a PhD in biology and is a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris. He also has the top ranked blog written by a scientist. But seeing as this is coming from someone that believes that Kent Hovind has any kind of credentials, it's not surprising.

 

[John]

Dude....

 

[jmm9683]

Listen to how this guy goes on. (edited for this forum, because this guy is obviously an over grown child)

Oh, dear. Earlier, I wrote about Ken Ham's visit to the Pentagon, a soul-shuddering thought if ever there was one, and it seems Ken has read it. He has replied with a blog entry titled Biology Professor Calls Me “Wackaloonâ€Â. Ken, Ken, Ken. You act shocked at the thought that one guy publicly stated that you were Mr Flaming Nutbar, but you shouldn't be. Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ---, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a --------, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a ----------, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a ------, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a --------, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.

You're a clueless schmuck who knows nothing about science and has arrogantly built a big fat fake museum to promote medieval --------  you should not be surprised to learn that you are held in very low esteem by the community of scholars and scientists, and by the even larger community of lay people who have made the effort to learn more about science than you have (admittedly, though, you have set the bar very, very low on that, and there are 5 year old children who have a better grasp of the principles of science as well as more mastery of details of evolution than you do.)

Maybe you should write a blog entry calling attention to each insult given to you. I think that's your calling, and it's probably god's intended mission for you in life, to inspire contempt.

(I encourage each and every one of my readers to express their true feelings about Ken Ham in the comment thread here. Then I want Mr Ham to write an indignant post complaining that "So-and-so called me a “disgrace to brain-damaged clownsâ€Â", or whatever  that'll keep him occupied for years, and will distract him from his campaign of abusing the minds of young children. Be creative.)

I mean wow, this guy has problems and his voice should not be heard in any science environment.

It's a blog, you can write your opinion on your own blog. The fact is that Ken Ham is regarded as a joke and his museum is also a joke. If you brainwash children with B.S. you should be called out on it. If anyone has seen any of Ham's videos where he is talking to large groups of kids, it's disturbing.

 

[John]

Ken Ham is a great intelligent guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgcilh4Z0s And he does not resort to name calling like Myers.

 

[jmm9683]

Ken Ham is a great intelligent guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgcilh4Z0s And he does not resort to name calling like Myers.

He is willfully ignorant of modern science. He loves to say "were you there?" in reference to the origin of life and evolution. That is the most anti-intellectual thing you can say and is intended to mislead children. However he wasn't there either. All of the independent empirical evidence leads to the conclusion that the earth is over 6 billion years old and leads to evolution by common descent. And his museum is nothing more than a shrine to ignorance.

 

[freeway]

Say what you want about Dr. Kent Hovind. I would love to see this self glorified windbag Meyers debate Hovind or Dr. William Craig Lane... He's blows a lot of wind on his blogs.. like to see how he reacts to one on one in person.... Of even Ken Ham debate would be sweet to watch.... :wink: I don't care about your difference on a subject you have, name calling to this degree is just pure childish and "insecure."

jmm9683 wrote
It's a blog, you can write your opinion on your own blog. The fact is that Ken Ham is regarded as a joke and his museum is also a joke. If you brainwash children with B.S. you should be called out on it. If anyone has seen any of Ham's videos where he is talking to large groups of kids, it's disturbing.

now is Ken Ham a joke because you say so? or have you again talked to the entire scientific community ... just wondering ... if you brainwash children with B.S. You again are the sole authority on the subject...and that every child that is not taught evolution is brainwashed. Man Hilter would just love you... or could I say brainwash like children in school today with the religion of evolution. After all your hero Meyers says its a religion and should be taught as so...

 

[jwu]

Say what you want about Dr. Kent Hovind. I would love to see this self glorified windbag Meyers debate Hovind or Dr. William Craig Lane... He's blows a lot of wind on his blogs.. like to see how he reacts to one on one in person.... Of even Ken Ham debate would be sweet to watch.... :wink: I don't care about your difference on a subject you have, name calling to this degree is just pure childish and "insecure."

Unfortunately, fake-Dr. Hovind has rejected all requests for written debates so far...

 

[jmm9683]

Say what you want about Dr. Kent Hovind. I would love to see this self glorified windbag Meyers debate Hovind or Dr. William Craig Lane... He's blows a lot of wind on his blogs.. like to see how he reacts to one on one in person.... Of even Ken Ham debate would be sweet to watch.... :wink: I don't care about your difference on a subject you have, name calling to this degree is just pure childish and "insecure."

"Dr." Kent Hovind got his master's and doctorate degrees in Christian Education from a diploma mill called Patriot Bible University. William Lane Craig was a communications major and has a masters in religion and church history. Wow, what qualified people they are on scientific matters. Hovind rehashes the same straw man arguments time and time again even though they have been debunked countless times. Well, he did do that before he got put in jail for tax evasion. And I've never really listened to Craig, but he's about as qualified as my chair to debate evolution.

now is Ken Ham a joke because you say so? or have you again talked to the entire scientific community ... just wondering ... if you brainwash children with B.S. You again are the sole authority on the subject...and that every child that is not taught evolution is brainwashed. Man Hilter would just love you... or could I say brainwash like children in school today with the religion of evolution. After all your hero Meyers says its a religion and should be taught as so...

The scientific community does not take him seriously because all of his teachings go against all of modern science. I don't get what you are implying? Are you saying he is accepted by the scientific community, because that is a bold faced lie. And If you don't teach children evolution, it is like saying that it is not accepted in the scientific community, which is lying to kids. Also, telling kids to ask their teachers "were you there?" when taught evolution or anything that disagrees with his view of the Bible is brainwashing.

 

[John]

When a person asks that question "were you there?", they are asking "were you at that place at that time to observe what really happened?" When people normally talk to each other about past events in general and ask "where you there?", for example, when a sports game was won or lost, or when something monumental happened where you had to be there to experience it, would it be sensible to answer "yes, because 'there' is here" if you were not that there at that time?

The question "Were you there?" is posed by creationists to highlight that the study of origins is a historical science. In contrast, the fields of physics and chemistry are operational science. In historical science, deductions are made about an historical event by examining the traces that are left by the event. However it is impossible to verify that these conclusions are correct because no one witnessed the original event, and there is no way to 'rewind' and watch again. Operational sciences on the other hand are based on repeatable experiments. If an individual proposes that one of the laws of physics is incorrect, then they are free to conduct an experiment to demonstrate their theory. If disagreement persists, further experiments can be conducted.

It is true that events in the past can leave traces. But then again, they may not. There may also be several different possible events that could have lead to the observed traces. Further, subsequent events may obscure or even erase traces. Also those traces can be so slight as to disappear, or too big to be humanly perceived. For example, I just took a step outside today onto some dried concrete. Go there 100 years later, and show me the traces. Other people may have left footprints, so I dare you to pick me out from them. Even if I was the only one and it was on slightly wet concrete to leave an impression, what can you tell me about me from that trace I left? You see, there are so many possibilities and external factors that to even try to make a certain interpretation be considered undoubtedly true is ridiculous. Now it is true that with maybe more evidence you could make some more interpretations and raise some possibilities, but since you were not there when I made that impression, and you cannot ask me anything about it, then all you can do is come up with some possibilities based on assumptions, but no way of objectively verifying your findings. All you have is "possibilities".

To summarize:

* there is no way to be certain about a historical event

* study of a historical event is limited by the evidences that remain

* events may or may not leave traces.

* there may be different possible events that could have left the observed traces

* if they do leave traces, without documented historical records, in real life there are many external factors, including time itself, that can limit the absolute certainty of reconstructions of past events.

So even with events leaving traces, it is still not enough to say "Yes, because "there" is here". To be awfully blunt, "there" is not here.

 

[jmm9683]

When a person asks that question "were you there?", they are asking "were you at that place at that time to observe what really happened?" When people normally talk to each other about past events in general and ask "where you there?", for example, when a sports game was won or lost, or when something monumental happened where you had to be there to experience it, would it be sensible to answer "yes, because 'there' is here" if you were not that there at that time?

The question "Were you there?" is posed by creationists to highlight that the study of origins is a historical science. In contrast, the fields of physics and chemistry are operational science. In historical science, deductions are made about an historical event by examining the traces that are left by the event. However it is impossible to verify that these conclusions are correct because no one witnessed the original event, and there is no way to 'rewind' and watch again. Operational sciences on the other hand are based on repeatable experiments. If an individual proposes that one of the laws of physics is incorrect, then they are free to conduct an experiment to demonstrate their theory. If disagreement persists, further experiments can be conducted.

It is true that events in the past can leave traces. But then again, they may not. There may also be several different possible events that could have lead to the observed traces. Further, subsequent events may obscure or even erase traces. Also those traces can be so slight as to disappear, or too big to be humanly perceived. For example, I just took a step outside today onto some dried concrete. Go there 100 years later, and show me the traces. Other people may have left footprints, so I dare you to pick me out from them. Even if I was the only one and it was on slightly wet concrete to leave an impression, what can you tell me about me from that trace I left? You see, there are so many possibilities and external factors that to even try to make a certain interpretation be considered undoubtedly true is ridiculous. Now it is true that with maybe more evidence you could make some more interpretations and raise some possibilities, but since you were not there when I made that impression, and you cannot ask me anything about it, then all you can do is come up with some possibilities based on assumptions, but no way of objectively verifying your findings. All you have is "possibilities".

To summarize:

* there is no way to be certain about a historical event

* study of a historical event is limited by the evidences that remain

* events may or may not leave traces.

* there may be different possible events that could have left the observed traces

* if they do leave traces, without documented historical records, in real life there are many external factors, including time itself, that can limit the absolute certainty of reconstructions of past events.

So even with events leaving traces, it is still not enough to say "Yes, because "there" is here". To be awfully blunt, "there" is not here.

Can't you argue on your own without copying and pasting huge blocks of text? Not to mention you don't give credit for the material.

 

[John]

I don't cite often because then you guys say stuff like " O these guys are bias" or " they are frauds" etc. It does not matter that i copied it, it applies, address it or not i don't really care.

 

[jmm9683]

I don't cite often because then you guys say stuff like " O these guys are bias" or " they are frauds" etc. It does not matter that i copied it, it applies, address it or not i don't really care.

Maybe because Creation Wiki is a biased piece of crap... that article you posted misrepresents science and doesn't even warrant a response.

 

[John]

I don't cite often because then you guys say stuff like " O these guys are bias" or " they are frauds" etc. It does not matter that i copied it, it applies, address it or not i don't really care.

Maybe because Creation Wiki is a biased piece of crap... that article you posted misrepresents science and doesn't even warrant a response.

HA my prediction came true. :

 

[freeway]

I don't cite often because then you guys say stuff like " O these guys are bias" or " they are frauds" etc. It does not matter that i copied it, it applies, address it or not i don't really care.

Maybe because Creation Wiki is a biased piece of crap... that article you posted misrepresents science and doesn't even warrant a response.

you mean like how you are the self appointed expert here on the forum.. when you can't back what for faith says.... and yes "faith" I don't care how much perfume you spray on a pig,"evolution" its still a pig, and your explanations on what christians should and should not believes has the same sink to it... after all, all these "scientific proofs" that you hold so tightly to....where you there to see it happen??? :wink: ...

 

[jmm9683]

I don't cite often because then you guys say stuff like " O these guys are bias" or " they are frauds" etc. It does not matter that i copied it, it applies, address it or not i don't really care.

Maybe because Creation Wiki is a biased piece of crap... that article you posted misrepresents science and doesn't even warrant a response.

you mean like how you are the self appointed expert here on the forum.. when you can't back what for faith says.... and yes "faith" I don't care how much perfume you spray on a pig,"evolution" its still a pig, and your explanations on what christians should and should not believes has the same sink to it... after all, all these "scientific proofs" that you hold so tightly to....where you there to see it happen??? :wink: ...

Hmmm were you there to see it the way you believe it happened?

 

[Deep Thought]

The "were you there argument" can be turned around of course. A scientist could quite easily ask the same question of a Creationist and according to the logic of the argument, the entire Creationist view is invalid.

 

[John]

So then, None of us were there. So we both act on faith. Admit it 8-)

 

[jmm9683]

So then, None of us were there. So we both act on faith. Admit it 8-)

One view uses the process of science to determine what happened and one uses an old book of mythology...