15 Responses to “Ken Miller, Bible-Walloping Yahoo”

1. MikeGene Says:
   September 9th, 2006 at 5:10 pm

   LOL. Actually, it's worse than being a Bible-Walloping Yahoo. Ol' Steel Toes accuses Miller of being a Creationist. We at Telic Thoughts have long noted that the critics label others as a 'creationist' for purely political reasons. In fact, I put together a series of essays and blogs that debunks the "ID=creatioism" meme. Myers latest venting simply adds more power to my case. Look how easy it is for him to lump evolutionists like Collins and Miller with the "Creationists." Myers, being the bully-boy that he is, understands the McCarthyist-like appeal to this label, especially among his "enlightened" colleagues. And that is what the label has always been about.

   The funny thing about Myers is that while he ejaculates (his word) all over everyone he disagrees with, he is a rather thin-skinned crybaby who desperately wants to be the victim. Miller's point was spot-on and nothing in Myer's gaseous reply puts a dent in it. Myer's last sentence is the perfect merging of his cry-baby side with his bully-boy side.

   It still doesn't excuse suggesting that everyone needs to start shooting at the godless, and he should realize that what he's doing with that kind of argument is antagonizing a rather large subset of the scientific community.

Comment by MikeGene — September 9, 2006 @ 5:10 pm

2. MikeGene Says:
   September 9th, 2006 at 5:43 pm

   Oh, what the heck, since I have worked my butt off all week, I declare that I deserve some play:

   Myers:
   

   If that account is accurate (I trust Pat Hayes to be accurate, and I also have independent confirmation*), then that was a shot at the majority of biologists, and a declaration of common cause with creationists.

   What a delusional observation. The majority of biologists do not buy into Dawkins' anti-religious agenda thinking, for example, that raising a child to be religious is child abuse. Not only is such a notion pseudoscience, it is bigotry. Miller is correctly noting that there are some people in the scientific community who use science as a Trojan Horse to evangelize for atheism. They are the mirror image version of the Ken Hams in more ways than one. Miller is correctly noting that religious people should not be targeting evolution, which does not argue against the existence of God or the truth of religion, but instead focusing on the way that Dawkins and his ilk use science as the platform to attack religion and religious people.

   After calming down some, Myers tries to be analytical in his comments section:

   Religion IS anti-science; it invokes a way of 'knowing' something that is antithetical to the method of science. Similarly, science is anti-religion because it rejects revealed knowledge and faith as a legitimate way to understand the world. Those are the battle-lines, not disagreements on the conclusions, but different ways of figuring things out.

   As you see, the scientist approaches this complex issue in simplistic binary terms, complete with warfare metaphors. It's as if there is EITHER science OR religion. This unenlightened perspective ignores the vast middle ground between the two "ways of knowing." Take Myers own blog, for example. As he daily ejaculates, does he conform to the method of science? Of course not. Does that mean all his ejaculations are thus religion? Nope. So where does it fit?

   If aliens dropped in tomorrow and showed us documentation for an intervention that created Homo sapiens 2 million years ago, that would vindicate the conclusions of ID, but not the methods, and science, by relying on and requiring evidence, would still be correct. Too many people fail to realize that science is measured by how you know something, not what specific answer you've arrived at.

   Nice sermon, but what if we applied this to all to Myers' blogs? How well would they hold up? And don't forget that Myers had another tantrum when he learned that far more Europeans accept evolution than do Americans. Yet these same Europeans scored no better when it came to basic scientific literacy. Did anyone see Myers lamenting the fact that his envied Europeans accept evolution (the specific answer) when they don't seem to excel at how you know something? Nope.

   Myers' argument is just an attempt to rationalize his anti-relgious agenda.

Comment by MikeGene — September 9, 2006 @ 5:43 pm

3. Krauze Says:
   September 9th, 2006 at 5:44 pm

   Hi Mike,

   "he is a rather thin-skinned crybaby who desperately wants to be the victim."

   Indeed. As I pointed out:

   PZ has in the past bragged about using his "steel-toed boots and brass knuckles" to hammer on the lunatics and idiots, but it seems as though he expects everyone else to don the fluffy slippers so they can walk around on egg shells without hurting his and Dawkins' feelings.

Comment by Krauze — September 9, 2006 @ 5:44 pm

4. MikeGene Says:
   September 9th, 2006 at 6:34 pm

   Hi Krauze,

   Yes, that was nicely stated.

   Of course, as you know, there are two basic schools of ID critics. There are those critics who opposed ID because they perceived it as something that undermined science and science education. And then there are those who opposed ID for an additional, more inspirational, reason "“ ID was perceived as being religion.

   Myers, and his ilk, seem to be getting a little nervous. Keep in mind that Myers did very little to keep ID from being taught in the schools. It was Miller who wrote the anti-ID book, not Myers. It was Miller who debated the ID people, not Myers. And it was Miller who contributed the crucial showing at Dover, not Myers. Myers has always been on the side-lines.

   But now that the ID Trojan Horse has been dismantled, maybe more and more Millers out there are starting to notice the only Trojan Horse left standing "“ the one that houses people like Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Wilson, and Myers. Miller did, after all, put the spot light on this in his book. So when Myers accuses Miller of being a Creationist, he is reaching for the heavy artillery. Why? Because not only did Miller do more to defeat the ID Movement than Myers, but it is people like Myers and his hero, Dawkins, who played the crucial role in inspiring the ID Movement. Miller thus clearly threatens people like Myers, especially if this is going to become a common public message from Miller as he travels the country on his speaking gigs. In fact, some of Myers' PT allies are even giving him some heat (see the comments section of his blog; will he back down?).

   Anyway, it's good to see Miller making such comments in public. Then again, maybe Miller et al. read Telic Thoughts.

Comment by MikeGene — September 9, 2006 @ 6:34 pm

5. MikeGene Says:
   September 9th, 2006 at 7:10 pm

   More for the peanut gallery.

   Myers is getting a good spanking, as the Matzke-type critics team up on him (which, BTW, is understandable, given that Myers cross-posted at PT):

   Mr. Myers:
   While this is an interesting discussion, your attacks on Ken Miller here seem largely based on out-of-context quotes of a paraphrase of a talk you did not attend, and I do not think they were appropriate for outright inlining on the Panda's Thumb front page– especially since you then denied people the ability to respond there. - Andrew McClure

   Are such puerile hysterics really your usual reaction when anyone has the gall (oh the nerve!) to question your contempt of religion? "Atheist-burning" PZ? I truly expect better from you, and I know you are capable of it.
   The truly humorous (and warmly ironic) part is that in your absurd comments you have just established Miller's very point: if you are someone concerned about political/sociological attacks on religion, forget about evolutionary biology which in and of itself has nothing pertinent to say about God. Rather, attack the arguments (note Miller did not say "attack the person", as you falsely imply) that actually undermine religion, specifically the arguments of "some humanists" (Miller's exact words according to the report, not "all humanists", as you falsely imply) like, well, our visibly overwrought PZ.
   Care to explain, PZ, preferably with a mixture of less emotion and more logic, why Miller was wrong? Why should Creationists target evolutionary theory, instead of your personal anti-religious, metaphysical extrapolations from it? - Douglas Theobald

   PZ, you're a great guy, but I think the only thing that would make you happy is if everyone submitted to your personal metaphysical beliefs. Ken Miller is correct that theists should argue against atheism, not mistarget science or evolution. You just don't seem to get the distinction between science and metaphysics.

   PZ, I respect you greatly for your contributions as a scientist, evolution educator, and effective foe of creationism. But if you're going to be bashing Ken, would it not be worth comparing you two in these categories? Isn't there a good chance he would come out ahead in all three? - Nick (Matzke)

   Unfortunately, many people can't seem to handle disagreements without getting personal, or seeing it in terms of a violent conflict. Ken is not like that; but Paul is the one here putting it in those terms.

   Paul's response immediately escalates this into an attack on people. He describes it as "a shot at the majority of biologists, and a declaration of common cause with creationists", and after a series of shrill ejaculations, Paul goes into a comment about "atheist-burning".

   That's irrational and destructive, Paul. - Chris Ho-Stuart

   Myers reply?

   What [Miller] believes "is ultimately the road to peace" between evolutionists and creationists is to start shooting at those who make anti-theistic interpretations"¦.Do you really think the guy being thrown out of the sled to distract the wolves is going to cheer on your plan? -PZ

   Ouch.

Comment by MikeGene — September 9, 2006 @ 7:10 pm

6. Pez Says:
   September 9th, 2006 at 9:14 pm

   PZ:

   Religion IS anti-science; it invokes a way of 'knowing' something that is antithetical to the method of science.
   …

   "Claims that gods do not exist … have been the essential operational basis of all of science"

   …

   Curiously, I have not asserted that science claims that god doesn't exist, nor that that declaration can be (or should be) found in a science textbook.'
   Got any more strawmen?

   Wow.

Comment by Pez — September 9, 2006 @ 9:14 pm

7. MikeGene Says:
   September 9th, 2006 at 11:27 pm

   A few comments from the pz's fellow critics are noteworthy:

   Your attacks on Ken Miller here seem largely based on out-of-context quotes

   Care to explain, PZ, preferably with a mixture of less emotion and more logic, why Miller was wrong?

   Unfortunately, many people can't seem to handle disagreements without getting personal, or seeing it in terms of a violent conflict"¦..Paul's response immediately escalates this into an attack on people.

   Do you think these critics just figured out that Myers operates like this?

   These are his standard techniques he employs against all "creationists."

Comment by MikeGene — September 9, 2006 @ 11:27 pm

8. Krauze Says:
   September 10th, 2006 at 2:57 am

   PZ Myers:

   What [Miller] believes "is ultimately the road to peace" between evolutionists and creationists is to start shooting at those who make anti-theistic interpretations"¦.Do you really think the guy being thrown out of the sled to distract the wolves is going to cheer on your plan?

   Talk about being thin-skinned! Miller criticizes Dawkins et al. for using evolution to support their atheistic beliefs, and Myers feels that he's being "shot at" and "thrown to the wolves". Poor PZ! Let's all keep quiet when he's around, as the criticism is upsetting him.

Comment by Krauze — September 10, 2006 @ 2:57 am

9. MikeGene Says:
   September 10th, 2006 at 10:45 am

   Hi Krauze,

   This is typical of bullies. But notice this sense of entitlement is not specific to pz. Consider over the years how many critics get downright upset if I dare criticize pz's hero, Richard Dawkins. They don't come up with counter-arguments that show my criticisms to be off-base. Instead, they turn the millionaire scientist into a victim.

   In PZ-like minds, if you simply contemplate criticizing them and their views, you victimize them.

Comment by MikeGene — September 10, 2006 @ 10:45 am

10. Bradford Says:
    September 10th, 2006 at 11:04 am

    They don't come up with counter-arguments that show my criticisms to be off-base. Instead, they turn the millionaire scientist into a victim.

    Playing victim is an art form. It is also very effective when correctly done. Denomizing the opposition and playing victim are opposite sides of the same coin. Negative drawback to the victim image needs to be balanced by some strong counter feedback in the form of hated creationism or what ever ism will do.

Comment by Bradford — September 10, 2006 @ 11:04 am

11. Pez Says:
    September 10th, 2006 at 11:29 am

    Speaking of 'isms': it's good to know that PZ has made subscribing to his version of scienticism a requirement for tenure.

Comment by Pez — September 10, 2006 @ 11:29 am

12. MikeGene Says:
    September 10th, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    You mean like here? Yep, he is so oppressed, isn't he?

Comment by MikeGene — September 10, 2006 @ 12:17 pm

13. Bradford Says:
    September 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    Speaking of 'isms': it's good to know that PZ has made subscribing to his version of scienticism a requirement for tenure.

    Speaking of tenure, this brings up some unfinished business. It was with reference to the refusal to grant tenure to Francis Beckwith that PZ made his tenure remarks. Note the following from his blog:

    PZ: "I agree completely with this fellow, Dr Jim Patton, who clearly states a legitimate reason for kicking Beckwith out (warning: Free Republic link):"

    When tenure time approached, the anti-Sloan [Sloan was the former Baylor president who had hired Dembski and Beckwith] interim president, William Underwood, appointed psychology professor Jim Patton, the chair of the anti-Sloan faculty senate, to Mr. Beckwith's tenure committee. In an e-mail message about another faculty member shown to WORLD, Mr. Patton wrote, "I clearly do not think highly of anyone who claims ID theory is science."

    First, Francis J. Beckwith is a philosopher, specializing in politics, jurisprudence, religion, and applied ethics, not biology. More to the point though PZ used heresay for a reference. These are Beckwith's actual statements about intelligent design as contrasted with the hearsay statement referred to by Meyers:

    "Intelligent design (or ID) is not one theory. It is a short-hand name for a cluster of arguments that offer a variety of cases that attempt to show that intelligent agency rather than unguided matter better accounts for apparently natural phenomena or the universe as a whole. Some of these arguments challenge aspects of neo-Darwinism. Others make a case for a universe designed at its outset, and thus do not challenge any theory of biological evolution.

    But even ID advocates who criticize neo-Darwinism are technically not offering an alternative to evolution, if one means by evolution any account of biological change over time that claims that this change results from a species' power to accommodate itself to varying environments by adapting, surviving, and passing on these changes to its descendants. This is not inconsistent with a universe that has earmarks and evidence of intelligent design that rational minds may detect.

    This is why it is incorrect to think of ID as a form of "creationism," a term of art in constitutional law that refers to a belief that a literal interpretation of Genesis' first thirteen chapters is true. Because that belief served as the primary reason for some states to ban evolution or teach creationism, the Supreme Court struck down those laws as violations of the Establishment Clause.

    Because ID arguments do not contain Genesis and its tenets as propositions, and because ID arguments rely on empirical facts and conceptual notions by which they support their conclusions, ID does not run afoul of the Constitution. Of course, the cases for ID may indeed fail as arguments, but that is not a violation of the Establishment Clause."

Comment by Bradford — September 10, 2006 @ 12:28 pm

14. Douglas Says:
    September 10th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    If Pz Myers didn't throw such hysterical tantrums, no one would listen to him, I imagine. Or maybe he's just lonely and delusional. (Please note that these are not merely my personal opinions, but hypotheses based on his natural behavior, and thus in the realm of science.)

Comment by Douglas — September 10, 2006 @ 2:09 pm

15. Ilion Says:
    September 10th, 2006 at 9:28 pm

    Playing victim is an art form. It is also very effective when correctly done. Denomizing the opposition and playing victim are opposite sides of the same coin.

    "Enabling" is also a highly developed art-form.

Comment by Ilion — September 10, 2006 @ 9:28 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.