Pandas gone wild!
by Krauze
Remember that post from biologist PZ Myers that I mentioned the other day? Well, it has spawned a huge discussion (555 replies and counting) over at the anti-ID blog The Panda's Thumb, in which the pandas have some disagreements about how best to handle intelligent design. No, scratch the last part: They're screaming at each other, throwing feces around like it was bead necklaces at a Mardi Gras festival. Bill Dembski has collected the highlow-lights over at Uncommon Descent, but he didn't catch the most amazing comment. Go here to read ex-panda Gary Hurd viciously slander his previous co-bloggers, calling them as "scum", "swine", "the party of fanatics and death", and even referring to co-Panda Jack Krebs as "Gruppen Fürer" [sic]. Ed Brayton, another Panda, has responded, disclosing that Hurd has a drinking problem and was often writing when drunk.
Back when the bloggosphere was abuzz with speculation about what had happened to religious studies professor Paul Mirecki, Gary Hurd used The Panda's Thumb to post a thoroughly bizarre theory, accusing the police of beating up Mirecki (see commentary here). Unsatisfied with his fellow Pandas' refusal to accept this theory, he then announced that he was quitting the blog. Apparently, he's been sitting on a lot of anger, and the general slime-fest gave him an opportunity to let it all out.
This nicely complements my post from yesterday, in which I predicted that as whatever threat intelligent design might have posed to education goes away, the fanatics among the ID critics will start turning on each other. Or, as Lenny Flank put it in a comment at Panda's Thumb:
We're a room full of highly motivated well-trained big-game hunters armed with large-caliber weapons, who suddenly find themselves without a live target. So we begin to fidget a bit, glance sideways at the person next to us and say, "ya know, I never *did* like the way that guy looks at me "¦."
I've saved Hurd's comment for posterity, and tucked it beneath the fold.
Even PT hosts people who are devoted to the death of species, and the destruction of civil government. Look up the Pacific Law Foundation: they are a pack of deadly supporters of species extinction, clear cutting and death. Tim Sandefur [works] for these pigs and earns his living working to clear cut forests and eliminate protection of endangered species. Ed Brayton is his self-professed "libritarina" soul mate. They are scum that should not be entertained as "science" presenters or supporters. They can not be trusted further than they can be kicked. The Republican Jihad is nothing different from those creatures killing in the rest of the world.Their effort to cover over, and support the physical and political attacks against scientists and anti-fundamentalists was why I ended my participation as an active contributor to PT. Brayton made a big deal when he was trying to protect the Mirecki attackers about his imaginary role as a "founder" of PT and how this precluded me from criticizing him, but as Wesley has documented, PT was largely my idea while the development was done by others. Jack Krebs hinted about "secret" information from "background" sources that made Mirecki a bad person to support. Matt Brauer was lying about the case even as I expressed it on PT. (I have archived the all the emails and webposts off-line, Matt. Scientists who lie as you have should never be trusted. You are now merely in the class of von Sternberg and the other creationists).
This inappropriate "tolerance" by liberals of the latest generation of right-wing witch burners has gone beyond any functionality. As long as Liberals persist in allowing the libertarian, fundamentalist, Republican crypto-facists to promulgate their lies out of some asinine sense of "fairness," we will be doomed.
PZ is forthright opposing these assholes, and sadly, Frank [probably Lenny Flank] seems willing to play "patty cakes."
Frank is in the company of Ruse, Numbers, and Sober. Ordinarily this might be good company, but we are on the brink of disaster and these accommodationists are just as dangerous as their fundamentalist allies. They want us to "play nice" with global warming deniers, HIV deniers, species extinction deniers, ozone depletion deniers, professional antiscience huxters and con-men.
Paul Gross hates the social sciences and actively tries to deny that they are sciences at all. No creationist has a lower opinion of anthropology than Paul. He is also a strong, even fervent Republican who would rather vote for any evil (particularly the evil named Bush)than any non-Republican. Profesionally junior PT contibuters were afraid to contradict his rightwing positions becasue he could harm their careers. Jack Krebs was a Republican County Chairman, a position I equate with a Gruppen Fürer.
The Republican attack on the environment and even Life on Earth was presented decades ago by Ronnie Raygun's Secretary of the Interior James Watt, "My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus Returns." -James Watt to the Wall Street Journal as quoted in "James Watt & the Puritan Ethic." By Colman McCarthy. Washington Post, May 24, 1981. PAGE L5
These swine and their supporters like Gross, Krebs, Brayton, and Sandefur have no supportive role to play. They are the party of fanatics and death. They are the faults in the foundations, and a probable back channel source to our enemies. They can not be trusted. I strongly recommend that anyone concerned about the future at least read:
American Theocracy Kevin Phillips, 2006 New York: Viking and
The Republican War on Science Chris Mooney 2005 New York: Basic Books.
There can be no doubt what so ever that the Republican Party and its base have abandoned the Constitution (particularly the First Amendment) and are actively attacking freedom, science and reason itself.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Wow, Hurd's post is a perfect example showing that most anti-ID beliefs are based on political and social motivations rather than scientific ones. Quite revealing isn't it?
Stu Harris
http://www.theidbookstore.com
Comment by Stuart Harris — June 27, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Stuart,
No, he's just passionate about truth (pardon his language).
Comment by Douglas — June 27, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I'm thinking it should be a sit-com on HBO (where crude language and sexual retorts are safely non-prime time). I've never enjoyed any PT thread so much or laughed so heartily at the cartoon characters who post there!
Comment by Joy — June 27, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
June 28th, 2006 at 12:16 am
No, Stu, Mr. Hurd's comments aren't representative of anything. They are his opinions.
The funny thing is that even a raving advocate of science is more accurate than the most benign, sincere creationist, closer to the truth, and probably more constructive in research.
Unlike the ID Guild, which refuses to demand accountability or even productivity from any of its members, people of sciencehave full-blown disagreements about what should be done, and whether enough is being done. That's why so much more is done in science than in ID.
Comment by edarrell — June 28, 2006 @ 12:16 am
June 28th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Stuart,
Given that Hurd is (clearly) widely and vocally disagreed with amongst the anti-ID community, using him as a representative of all anti-IDists is like using Fred Phelps as representative of the Christian community.
Comment by Mesk — June 28, 2006 @ 12:42 am
June 28th, 2006 at 1:04 am
edarrell,
Obviously. Actually, even the most sincere creationist is merely a deluded anti-science zealot who has absolutely no understanding of science. It's painful to even use "creationist" and "science" in the same sentence.
Comment by Douglas — June 28, 2006 @ 1:04 am
June 28th, 2006 at 3:31 am
Ed:
"The funny thing is that even a raving advocate of science is more accurate than the most benign, sincere creationist, closer to the truth, and probably more constructive in research."
Yes, let's look at some of those "accurate" statements:
"These swine and their supporters like Gross, Krebs, Brayton, and Sandefur have no supportive role to play. They are the party of fanatics and death. They are the faults in the foundations, and a probable back channel source to our enemies."
Paul Gross is a "probable back channel source" to the "enemies" of PT? Jack Krebs is one of the "faults in the foundations" By which measure is this "close to the truth"
Oh yes, and let's not forget Hurd's "research". From Brayton:
"In fact, when things got heated on the PT list, one of the first things [Hurd] did was give me his address to come see him so he could beat me up (this after bragging about his long history of bar fights and what a tough guy he is). This is the sort of behavior one might expect from a 19 year old thug, not from a grown man and a scientist. The bottom line is that this man needs a shrink badly."
Comment by Krauze — June 28, 2006 @ 3:31 am
June 28th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Interesting that the defenders of science and truth are over here at TT rather than slumming over at the PT.
Comment by Mung — June 28, 2006 @ 9:34 am
June 28th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
edarell, we all know how much you know about the science. So, please tell as, why are you so angry?
Comment by inunison — June 28, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
June 28th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Well, after 700 comments in the gang war over at PT, Peez has finally wrapped up his issue and tied it with a bow in response to a reasonable commenter:
I've got atheist friends I've known for decades. I've got pagan friends, Jewish friends, Baptist friends, Catholic friends, Buddhist friends, and who knows what friends. Amazingly enough, we don't talk much religion around the campfire or the dinner table, and we don't fight about it at all. That's a "social situation." Why, Isaac Asimov came to dinner once! Over the years we've entertained Avner the Eccentric, the Troyans a bunch of times, 'Mr. Bill' Hamilton and three Karamazovs. But I can say with conviction that PZ's not the sort of person I'd invite over for dinner.
Myers' problem isn't his atheism, it's his personality.
Comment by Joy — June 28, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Glad y'all are having a ball here, but really, what is surprising or newsworthy about this? That pro-science advocates' opinions about religion and politics differ widely? Duh. Honestly, I am glad they do. That many people among us are extremely passionate about these topics, that some can't keep their temper, that some in fact can be real jerks? Duh, duh, and duh.
The only newsworthy thing is perhaps that certain contentious topics are actually discussed on PT, rather that being kept under wraps or censored, and when they do the discussion can be free and, shall we say, frank (ehm). Compare that with how ID advocates tiptoe around, carefully avoid or occasionally outright censor contentious topics on their sites, such as the literal acceptance of Biblical mythology by much of the ID base, or the role religious belief patently played in the origin of modern ID and its advocacy.
Really, you may want to consider having a fuck-you-fight (can I say that here?) among yourselves too once in a while. Who knows what damage keeping it all bottled up can do in the long run! And I promise PT won't gloat about it (can't vouch for the AE board though).
Comment by Andrea — June 29, 2006 @ 8:34 am
June 29th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Hi, Andrea. We are having fun with this. It's highly entertaining in a WWF sort of way, so why not? I've been a clown for more than a quarter of a century, and know how demanding it can be to pull off a center ring laugh-riot that'll play well to the nosebleed seats - nothing subtle allowed - so I say "good show!" Surely you don't begrudge the audience reaction. Isn't that what 'street theatre' is all about?
Why would we want to do that? If we've got issues, there's a nifty invention called "email" where we can rant and rave to our hearts' content directly to whoever p*sses us off. Not everything in life has to be done in public, and I for one wouldn't take just your word for it that PT's denizens wouldn't enjoy the show.
As for those always incredibly boring shouting matches over interpretations, Telic Thoughts isn't a religion forum. But if you hop on over to Yahoo I'm sure there's an ongoing bar fight or two you can eavesdrop in on. §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 29, 2006 @ 10:54 am
June 29th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Hi Andrea,
"Glad y'all are having a ball here, but really, what is surprising or newsworthy about this?"
I don't remember saying anything about this being "surprising". In fact, I wrote that it supported what I had blogged about earlier.
As for newsworthy, when an ex-member of a blog erupts, calling his once-fellow-bloggers of being "the party of fanatics and death", and accusing them of having lied to their readers about confidential information, I think that's pretty newsworthy. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
"That pro-science advocates' opinions about religion and politics differ widely? Duh. Honestly, I am glad they do. That many people among us are extremely passionate about these topics, that some can't keep their temper, that some in fact can be real jerks? Duh, duh, and duh."
That some among the ID critics are true fanatics, unable to discuss even the slightest disagreements in a civil tone, is not surprising, and is something that I and others have been pointing out for a long time.
"The only newsworthy thing is perhaps that certain contentious topics are actually discussed on PT, rather that being kept under wraps or censored, and when they do the discussion can be free and, shall we say, frank (ehm)."
Isn't one of PZ's complaints that these issues aren't discussed at PT? As he so eloquently put it:
"Compare that with how ID advocates tiptoe around, carefully avoid or occasionally outright censor contentious topics on their sites, such as the literal acceptance of Biblical mythology by much of the ID base, or the role religious belief patently played in the origin of modern ID and its advocacy."
Considering that you're writing these words on a blog that has a long history of preserving dissenting opinions, you might go a little easy on those sweeping generalizations. You remind me of a guy starting a blog to complain that all technology is evil.
"Really, you may want to consider having a fuck-you-fight (can I say that here?) among yourselves too once in a while. Who knows what damage keeping it all bottled up can do in the long run!"
This may come as a surprise to you, but in most groups, the members do not hate and distrust each other to such a degree that they have to have a screw-you-fight every once in a while to "clear the air".
Comment by Krauze — June 29, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Don't worry Andrea, for what it's worth, I don't give a shit.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Krauze-
Perhaps someday we can look forward to hearing your comments on the systematic deletion of posts at Uncommon Descent, and the spittle-flecked rants by "DaveScot" and others. Or, is it simply easier for you to maintain your image of the saintliness of ID proponents by ignoring such people, like most of the rest of us do with Hurd?
You might want to take some time to think about your double standard. If you don't feel it appropriate to take the actions of individual ID proponents and generalize to all IDists, why is it ok for you to do so for ID critics?
Comment by Myrmecos — June 29, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Weren't you the guy who conspired with Mesk to "overtake" the ARN forum?
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Guts-
Boy, those were the good old days, weren't they? Little did I know at the time that I'd end up for several years as a moderator of the ARN boards. An interesting experience, to say the least.
Do you think it appropriate that one man's words can be used to smear all ID critics? If so, do you think it ok if I use some of DaveScot's comments to assess your character? What's the difference?
Comment by Myrmecos — June 29, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Yeah you got sucked in. I think it's rather hypocritical of you to talk about the "systematic deletion of posts" at an ID forum given that the mentality such as yours before you joined ARN is rampant among ID critics.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Guts-
I notice that you aren't even attempting to defend Krauze's double-standard. Is there a reason you are ignoring my point to attack my character? Can I now assume that all ID proponents prefer to attack the character of people instead of the substance of the arguments?
One thing that I learned in great detail at ARN is that there is no difference at all between the psychology of ID proponents and the psychology of ID critics. Both sides are essentially tribal in how they act, only acknowledging the bomb-throwers on their own side with great difficulty while at the same time hyperventilating about minor infractions of the other. Krauze's post is a perfect example of this.
Comment by Myrmecos — June 29, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
I notice that you're trying to change the subject.
I am attacking the substance of your argument. You aren't saying it anymore, ever since I showed up, but a few posts up you said "Perhaps someday we can look forward to hearing your comments on the systematic deletion of posts at Uncommon Descent" as if it was something to be shameful of. You're a hypocrit.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Guts-
No, you appear to have completely missed my point. Try re-reading my posts. Unless, of course, you are simply more interested in calling me names.
Comment by Myrmecos — June 29, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I'm not interested in calling you names. I'm simply interested in observing a fact. You had the mentality, like many many other ID critics, of "conquering" the ARN forum for Darwin. Do you really think that such moderation in a forum as at all surprising? It seems that you do , and that is what is really shameful.
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
"If you don't feel it appropriate to take the actions of individual ID proponents and generalize to all IDists, why is it ok for you to do so for ID critics?"
Where in my post did I generalize to all ID critics?
Comment by Krauze — June 29, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
With all due respect, you don't know me, you weren't there, and you have absolutely no idea.
Are you going to answer any of my questions to you? You seem much more interested in proclaiming me to be a shameful hypocrite while simultaneously denying that you have any interest in throwing insults.
To bring this back on topic, is it OK for me to decide that Mike Gene is an insult-hurler, just because you are? You're both ID proponents, after all, and it seems acceptable here to judge people based not on their own actions but on the actions of others in their "tribe". If Krauze can do it, why can't I?
Comment by Myrmecos — June 29, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Krauze,
You implied it when you wrote:
"That some among the ID critics are true fanatics, unable to discuss even the slightest disagreements in a civil tone, is not surprising, and is something that I and others have been pointing out for a long time."
You qualify it with the word "some", but I don't buy your qualification given the context of your tone and the rest of the sentence. You clearly imply a general phenomenon among ID critics, otherwise what is the point of writing your post? And what's the point of noting that you've been talking about this for some time, if you weren't speaking of a general phenomenon?
There are also plenty of true fanatics among the ID proponents, who say some pretty nasty things and do odd things like turn scientists in to the Department of Homeland Security based on little more than rumor. But you don't discuss them in the same tone, like you're an anthropologist observing some indigenous culture from on high, like you do with the ID critics. Instead, ID proponents for you are always treated as individual people, capable of their own opinions and not responsible for the opinions of others.
I'm not saying that ID critics don't do this either- they certainly do. It just strikes me as absurd, these mirror images of the other's psychology with no one recognizing the irony in their self-righteous proclamations about the psychology of "the other".
Comment by Myrmecos — June 29, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Golly there's a surprise!
Many of the the self-apponted true defenders of science turn out to be idiots!
How surprising is that! Didn't we know that all along?!
Science has a rich history in idiocy. LOL
Comment by Rock — June 29, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
More hypocrisy. Are you saying Krauze is lying? Are you calling him a liar? Isn't that "throwing insults"
Comment by Guts — June 29, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
In reply to Krauze, you write:
You can't omit Krauze's qualification and proceed to criticize him as if he was the one who omitted the qualification. It may not be a "general phenomenon," yet that does not mean it is uncommon. While you yourself have shown an ability to remain civil and to minimize the condescension and judgmentalism, there are many more critics of ID who cannot make the same claim. And yes, the same holds true among the proponents of ID. As you wisely note, "One thing that I learned in great detail at ARN is that there is no difference at all between the psychology of ID proponents and the psychology of ID critics. Both sides are essentially tribal in how they act, only acknowledging the bomb-throwers on their own side with great difficulty while at the same time hyperventilating about minor infractions of the other." The problem here is that I am not sure many critics would agree that they are behaving no better that the IDiots.
Anyway, the behavior on the PT does not influence the way I look at you, Mesk, Daniel, Rock, etc.
I do, however, think there are two "newsworthy" elements of that thread. First, it becomes very obvious (from peoples' own words and passions) that there is a significant contingent among the critics who are in this debate for reasons other than "defending science" or "defending science education." It becomes clear there are many who desire to use science as a tool to evangelize for atheism. Thus, it looks to me as if two basic disagreements are in play. First, there is the general agreement among the atheists who think science must be employed to further secularize society. Their passionate disagreement is about method, not the attempt itself to merge science and atheism. Secondly, it appears as if that nasty debate has caused the TEs to question the merging in the first place. Are the TEs playing a "useful idiot" role in someone else's socio-political agenda? It's now clear the "culture wars" theme really does have two armies of cultural warriors and that for large numbers on both sides, this debate is not simply about "defending science." When PZ talks about ID and science, is he simply "defending science" or defending his need for making sure that science can only be a tool for atheistic evangelism?
Second, we can see the fallout that comes from the reliance on caustic rhetoric. One such example is the knee-jerk fashion in which people accuse others of telling "lies." I personally think this is a rather primitive form of thinking that ties into the tribalism. But now we see the effect.
If a mindset becomes used to reckless charges of lying simply because the accusation is aimed at the other tribe, it's only a matter of time before the reckless charges start getting thrown around among dissenting members of the tribe. Thus, Hurd, the one who accused Sternberg of being a liar, now accuses Jack and Matt of being liars. In return, Brayton, who accused Paul Nelson of being a liar, now accuses Hurd of being a liar. Are you really comfortable with all these liar accusations?
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
"You qualify it with the word "some", but I don't buy your qualification given the context of your tone and the rest of the sentence."
By all means, let's look at the "context": Andrea drops by, expressing incredulity at why anyone would think this was newsworthy. Why, it was just a case of people being free to express their disagreements. It was in this context that I made my comment, pointing out that this was a case of more than some spirited discussion.
As Mike points out, it's rarely acknowledged that there even are cases of fanaticism among ID critics. Of all of those posts we've written about Dawkins and PZ Myers, I can't remember a single time an ID critic showed up, saying, "I agree with what you say, but don't judge all critics on the basis of these guys." In fact, that's another newsworthy aspect of this in-fight: ID critics feel what it's like to be on the receiving end of Myers' outbursts, which helps some of them realize what a close-minded bully he is. The last time we saw this was the last time Hurd was attacking his fellow Pandas: Ed Brayton wrote a very balanced post, saying that "we have more than our fair share of simple-minded bomb throwers on our side as well", and that the "problem with the real extremists on both sides, in my view, is that they become blinded by their own zeal and trapped inside this simple dichotomy where everyone be placed in one of two categories - us or them."
Comment by Krauze — June 29, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Oh yeah, let me just echo Mike's statement about there being reasonable critics out there. Some examples include Mesk, KC, Brayton, Daniel, and yes, you Myrmecos.
Comment by Krauze — June 29, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Krauze and Mike-
Thanks for your posts, they'll give me something to chew over. I'm too busy to write anything meaningful now and will be out of town for a couple of days, so don't think that I'm ignoring this thread.
Comment by Myrmecos — June 29, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
To clear this misunderstanding on your part, this is certainly not PZ's position, or - as far as I know - even Dawkins's. PZ's idea - and I sure hope I am interpreting correctly
- is that to expouse science, which is by necessity empirical, skeptical and rationalistic, de facto means that one is less likely to believe in the supernatural, or adopt positions based on faith alone. His beef is that he thinks that some pro-science people purposefully refrain from stating this rather obvious fact, for fear of alienating those believers who feel their own personal faith is therefore threatened by science (which is clearly nonsense).
(It doesn't help of course that among ID advocates and creationists it is not uncommon to misrepresent science as a giant conspiracy to destroy religion or, as in this case, to portray atheists as using science as a tool for proselytism. )
As for Krauze's claim that all is always peachy in ID-land, I actually thought ID advocates, spanning people who believe in Noah's Ark, Ann Coulter groupies as well as rather more rational folks, would have entirely similar problems with differences of opinions as we do (a diverse and argumentative bunch if there ever was one), but I guess you are either more disciplined, or more homogeneous than it seems at first sight.
Comment by Andrea — June 29, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Andrea:
But PZ's "idea" is nonsense, Andrea. I spent years and years in science. My father and sisters and brother spent lifetimes in science. The most brilliant minds I've ever known (and I've known some) were scientific. I love science!
I think you're not admitting the obvious - PZ Myers has a personal ego problem. I've certainly spent enough time in training and practice (after I left walked out of the science-gate on purpose) dealing with angry, at-risk and adjudicated juvenile delinquents to recognize the symptoms. If you make PZ's problem your own, you'll be abdicating the high road science absolutely must take if it hopes to win this ideology-war.
Analogy: It doesn't - and shouldn't - matter to anyone what my personal metaphysical beliefs might be when I offer an argument toward whatever interpretation of scientific evidence I care to give. So long as I don't include that metaphysic in my argument as anything other than a conclusion-modifier - and I should be completely honest about that, which is one thing I'm glad to give to Peez - he's honest. IOW, if I believe that design is present, I may believe as I wish as to who/what is responsible. All I have to do is argue the science.
PZ doesn't do that. His issues are personal, and his ambitions are political. He might have been a CPA in life, and would be using his economics credentials to tell us all what we must believe. We'd be exactly as likely to subscribe, which is not at all. Hate always does more harm to the hater than the hatee, and I do not buy the excuse that haters don't know this perfectly well. That all boils down to "Misery Loves Company." I've got way better things to do.
You shouldn't be trying to admonish us for noticing the hatreds and the haters who promulgate them. You should be trying to distance yourself from them. The reason Telic Thoughts exists is because there were no "independent" forums on which we could offer our own ideas, sans the emotion-packed ideological insanity you get with folks like PZ Myers [et. al.] and Kent Hovind [et. al.]. They've got a culture war and/or jihad going. I'm just defending science, which I love. No "orthodoxies" need apply.
Can you understand that?
Comment by Joy — June 29, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Seriously, not sure which part you think is nonsense. That rationalistic, scientific thinking tends to be accompanied by skepticism of supernatural claims and beliefs? Or that some on the pro-science side purposefully refrain from admitting that, not to upset some believers? The first one is obviously true, the second one is also true but I think is much less pervasive than what PZ thinks (or perhaps it just upsets him more than it does upset me, so I notice less).
I am pretty sure PZ is neither juvenile, nor delinquent, nor at-risk or adjudicated. He feels very strongly about certain subjects and certainly doesn't mince words about them. Regardless, I hardly can make PZ's "problems" my own by simply pointing out Mike's rather forced interpretation of the facts in question.
By all means, and I strongly doubt PZ would disagree. (Of course, that's not what most ID advocates do, but that's another story.)
I didn't admonish anyone. I also wouldn't characterize PZ as a hater, and certainly it is simply ludicrous to compare him to a dishonest hack like Hovind. PZ is very passionate about his rationalism and believes religion is uniformly a negative force in society. Whether you agree or not with him (and I don't, to a large extent, besides disliking his penchant for heated rhetoric), that is a legitimate position to have and advocate for, and does not equate to hatred anymore than, say, strong, vocal anti-communism, or anti-evolutionism, are hateful.
As for the "ideological insanity" bit, I'll pass on commenting for the sake of detente.
Comment by Andrea — June 29, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Andrea:
Never mind.
Comment by Joy — June 29, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Regarding Pandas Thumb, I think this is reflective of a cultural divide on two fronts.
The first divide is over "how to deal with IDers". This is reflected by Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett. I was very surprised by this, and I was surprised at the atheist vs. atheist fight at PT. I did not expect it. This cultural divide I do not view as too serious, it is more about personalities, egos, and strategies rather than core values…
The second cultural divide (far more serious) is between the TE's and the Richard Dawkins type atheists. This is a clash of core values, and has culture war written all over it:
Darwin's Rotweiler
What might have irritated Dawkins against Ken Miller? Here is Ken Miller's comment in his book: Much of the problem lies with atheists
One won't find that kind of adversarial relationship in the ID community, it simply does not exist. There are very few ID-sympathetic atheists (Frank Tipler, a provisional atheist, is the only name that comes to mind).
I would say however, a major target of the ID movement are the young TE's. Recall Behe was a TE, the transition from TE to ID sympathizer (not even full-blooded IDer), for someone who is young, is not going to be that hard, imho. It is only a matter of exposure. And even the Deist position could gather more solid strength (Antony Flew) because of ID. Both would be intolerable to Richard Dawkins and friends….Thus I sense panic from certain quarters (I mean if Flew would jumped ship, a TE like Behe jumped ship, how much easier for the next generation).
And regarding some other issues:
Even the homogeniety at first sight should be enough to indicate why there will not be the same divides in the ID community as there are in the anti-ID community. How many pro-ID atheists are there? (I can think of only a handful, Frank Tipler, the directed pan spermists, and the 2004 JMU Freethinkers who supported my IDEA efforts at JMU). And of the the agnostics in the ID camp, do we have evangelically minded agnostics? Generally no, as far as I'm aware. So there is no powder keg really that anyone is sitting on….
There are politicians that are pro-ID but they are not part of the intellectual community. This was very much in evidence at the Dover Trial. That was the only visible flap, the DI vs. the Thomas Moore Law center. A battle between the politicians and the intellectuals. But the intellectual ID-community gets along well with each other.
The Wedge document was a fundraising document, it does not reflect the temperment of the ID think-tank community (think of Behe, Minnich, Gonzalez, Berlinski — do they strike anyone as Billy Grahams or Jerry Falwells or Ken Hams?).
Finally, the major demographic group of doctrinarians (the AiG-type YECs) simply choose not to be a part of ID's big tent. (AiG-ers do not view someone like me with enthusiasm, I'm too much of an ID-compromiser in their eyes, yikes! Thus they will not enter ID's less-than-holy tent). So that element is not there…and even if it is, the divide is not as great as between the atheists and theists.
As for UD, I can only recall two instances of ruffled feathers:
1. common ancestry thread
2. genetic-ID thread
#2 was the only issue I was involved with. If there were other instances, at least among the ID contributors, I'm not generally aware. #2 was hardly over any poltical or religious issue!
So in conclusion, I think PT is the more likely place for howler monkey fights today and in the future. One simply should not expect that kind of mud-slinigng at the ID weblogs. I don't think the "Pandas Gone Wild" was so much news worthy as much as it was sheer entertainment.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 29, 2006 @ 10:35 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Hi Andrea,
You write:
I don't think this is a misunderstanding. All you are doing is fleshing out the evangelistic strategy. Espouse science because you believe it will encourage an empirical, skeptical and rationalistic approach because you think it will eventually spill-over into atheism (rejection of theism and/or religious-based faith). Myers tries to "substantiate" this belief in a rather unscientific manner - by pointing to atheistic anecdotes and a correlation between scientific training and atheism. If he wants to espouse science, why doesn't he first use science to establish this point you say he is advocating?
If it is Myers' strategy to simply espouse science in the hope that an empirical, skeptical and rationalistic mindset will flourish, why does he spend so much time bashing and ridiculing religious faith instead of espousing science? I don't think PZ's message would have generated so much hostility if he was simply encouraging others to espouse science. He stirred up the hornet's nest because he wanted to connect atheism with science (whether the direction is direct or indirect is irrelevant) and feels victimized because others criticize him for this. He wants to be able to say the word "˜science' as many times as possible while talking about atheism or bashing religion. So why does Myers want to connect science with atheism when mainstream science organizations (including the NCSE) inform us there is no such connection?
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
June 29th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
I'm not sure about Myrmecos, but I'm almost 100% sure that it wasn't me - unless someone can refresh my memory? I was a little more militant during my earlier days at ARN, but I don't recall ever conspiring to do anything of that sort.
AFAIK, the only sincere attempt I've ever made to influence the culture at ARN was an empassioned but ultimately rather naive post calling for better behaviour amongst forum evolutionists.
Comment by Mesk — June 29, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 12:42 am
http://killdevilhill.com/darwi...
I don't really like drudging up the past. People change, obviously, I was pretty militant myself in the early days (mostly out of boredom), but there are still many ID critics with this mentality , can't really blame the UDers for moderating like that. Especially when they have one of the most popular websites on the net about ID/evo.
Comment by Guts — June 30, 2006 @ 12:42 am
June 30th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Andrea: "As for Krauze's claim that all is always peachy in ID-land, …"
Is the misrepresentation of my posts going to be a recurrent feature? Where did I say that "all is always peachy in ID-land"
Comment by Krauze — June 30, 2006 @ 12:57 am
June 30th, 2006 at 1:15 am
Mr. Cordova said:
Of course not. As Ben Franklin observed, when people aren't thinking, there is no difference of opinion. What could IDists possibly discuss?
Comment by edarrell — June 30, 2006 @ 1:15 am
June 30th, 2006 at 2:52 am
Hi Salvador,
"As for UD, I can only recall two instances of ruffled feathers:
1. common ancestry thread
2. genetic-ID thread"
Yes, Uncommon Descent has also had its in-fights - which received extensive coverage on anti-ID blogs. Imagine this scenario: DaveScot leaves Uncommon Descent over disagreements on how to handle some particular case, and posts some absurd conspiracy theory about the police beating up Richard Sternberg. Months later, he's fulminating in the comments, calling Dembski "Gruppen Führer" and accusing the other UDers of lying about confidential information.
Are we to believe that the Pandas would respond by saying, "Gee, this sure isn't newsworthy. If we mention this at all, it would be to remind people that there are fanatics on both sides." Yet this is how Telic Thoughts is supposed to react.
"Even the homogeniety at first sight should be enough to indicate why there will not be the same divides in the ID community as there are in the anti-ID community."
This is wrong. The ID community also has its witch hunters and close-minded fanatics. I speak from bitter experience here. This thing could just as easily have happened to a pro-ID blog, in which case it would have been the ID critics crowing about it (without any acknowledgments that yes, there are fanatics on both sides).
Comment by Krauze — June 30, 2006 @ 2:52 am
June 30th, 2006 at 3:25 am
Guts - that was a pretty weak conspiracy.
But yeah, I certainly was a hot-headed young evolutionist six years ago, although I think my militant nature was driven by incomprehension rather than boredom. Having just finished Dawkins' Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype I simply couldn't understand how anyone could not accept evolutionary theory. It appeared so simple, clear and elegant, and it infuriated me that there were people that couldn't see that.
I've mellowed quite a bit since then. However, I won't argue with your claim that many ID critics still carry this mentality. As Myrmecos stated above:
Comment by Mesk — June 30, 2006 @ 3:25 am
June 30th, 2006 at 3:33 am
dam you all non-tag closers…must….close..tags…
Comment by Guts — June 30, 2006 @ 3:33 am
June 30th, 2006 at 3:47 am
I don't want to take this thread off-topic, but in a lot of ways, I felt the same about Behe's Darwin's Black Box . Such a simple and useful concept. Yet, people, still to this day, are coming up with so much crap to try to "refute" it. And the search engine queries that were just simply stupid, with regard to his claim about the journals.
Comment by Guts — June 30, 2006 @ 3:47 am
June 30th, 2006 at 4:18 am
Sorry about the tags, Guts… I'm usually good with closing them, but that's twice I've messed it up today.
Comment by Mesk — June 30, 2006 @ 4:18 am
June 30th, 2006 at 4:18 am
Considering that most of us have, at some point in our life, advocated positions we no longer hold, maybe we should stop this investigation of various commenters' pasts?
Comment by Krauze — June 30, 2006 @ 4:18 am
June 30th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Yeah, I was going to say, "If Andrea is properly characterizing Krauze's position, then Krauze either has a poor medium-term memory or is delusional about the recent past."
It turns out that Krauze is nicely sober after all. Andrea on the other hand…
Comment by bipod — June 30, 2006 @ 6:30 am
June 30th, 2006 at 10:49 am
First, regarding Mike's characterization of PZ's goal as "evangelism", it's either just some way to try to piss him off and get a reaction, or some form of projection based on the propaganda soundbites I mentioned above, or some attempt to dilute the term "evangelism" to the point of being meaningless. Atheism being a philosophical position, and not a religion, one cannot "evangelize' for atheism any more that one can evangelize for platonism or existentialism. If you mean to imply that anyone strongly arguing for anything is ipso facto "evangelizing", it certainly is your prerogative to use the term that way, but a) most people will just think you're using the term loosely, and b) evangelical Yankees fans may object.
Second, when I pointed out that I would imagine ID activists, given their diversity, would ahve just as heated arguments as pro-science activists do, Krauze reply that they do not, which I assumed to mean that they do not (although this is manifestly false at least in some instances - see below), hence the "peachy" comment. Pardon me for misinterpreting then.
Finally,
To be clear, John A Davison, prominent signatory of the DI "list of scientists", PCID published author and occasionally presented as some sort of scientific luminary by ID advocates has had a very public and virulent spat with DaveScot, who's pretty much the second-in-command at Dembski's blog, qyuite possibly the most read ID blog out there. The tone of that spat makes PZ's thread look boring and formal in comparison. Yet, PT has not deemed it worthy of public comment or gloating.
Comment by Andrea — June 30, 2006 @ 10:49 am
June 30th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Excellent point MG, and one worthy of additional consideration. Science, like just about any other tool, can be misused, or used for a purpose other than what it was designed or intended for. Haha, isn't that an interesting way to talk about science. Science as a teleological activity. So which poses the greater threat to science? The abusers, or the ID proponents, and why?
Comment by Mung — June 30, 2006 @ 11:01 am
June 30th, 2006 at 11:04 am
I do not understand why anyone at PT would be surprised by this or expect anything different. After all, isn't the us v them mentality a prediction of evolutionary theory? Have you reached the essay yet in Intelligent Thought that provides the evolutionary "explanation" for this?
Comment by Mung — June 30, 2006 @ 11:04 am
June 30th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Hi Andrea,
"Second, when I pointed out that I would imagine ID activists, given their diversity, would ahve just as heated arguments as pro-science activists do, Krauze reply that they do not,"
But I never claimed that the ID community isn't diverse, nor did I deny that "heated arguments" could just as well occur there. The only one who've said something like that was Salvador, and that was after you made your peachy-comment, so that can't have been what you were relying on. It seems to me that you're reading your own prejudices about ID supporters into my comments.
"Yet, PT has not deemed it worthy of public comment or gloating."
Are you sure about that?
Comment by Krauze — June 30, 2006 @ 11:24 am
June 30th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Are you spreading the ID = Creationism meme? Are the witch hunters and close-minded fanatics Creationists, or ID'ists?
Comment by Mung — June 30, 2006 @ 11:37 am
June 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am
It's called "revisionism".
Comment by Guts — June 30, 2006 @ 11:39 am
June 30th, 2006 at 11:46 am
So, Mesk…
Do you still feel that way?
1. Are you still unable to understand how people cannot accept evolutionary theory?
2. Do you still think evolutionary theory is so simple, clear, and elegant?
3. Have you changed your opinions at all about those two books by Dawkins? Would you recommend them today as a first choice for someone to read if they wanted to understand evolutionary theory?
cheers
Comment by Mung — June 30, 2006 @ 11:46 am
June 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Hey, Sal,
This is probably largely true as a generality. That is, I don't think we're likely to ever see an ID forum explode in the way that PT has, for the simple reason that IDers, as a whole, just don't possess the frequency or the intensity of loathing and mistrust for each other that the PTers seem to have. However, I can tell you that the single nastiest, witch-huntingest person I have personally had to deal with was actually an IDer, and the crap I and others had to take from them was at least as bad as what the PTers are throwing at each other.
Comment by Deuce — June 30, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Hi Mung,
"Are you spreading the ID = Creationism meme? Are the witch hunters and close-minded fanatics Creationists, or ID'ists?"
Since an ID supporter can also be a creationist (just ask Paul Nelson), my answers to those questions would be "no" and "both".
Comment by Krauze — June 30, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Well, you had answered my original comment by stating that "in most groups, the members do not hate and distrust each other to such a degree [presumably, the degree that you think pro-science activists hate and distrust each other - A] that they have to have a screw-you-fight every once in a while to "clear the air"", and I assumed you included ID advocates into groups that do not display such internecine "hate and distrust" and have such fights. But I guess you are know saying that, in fact, they do?
Mmm… that post by PZ is making fun of John Davison for opening a new blog for every new entry, and not for his squabbling with DS, really. Isn't it?
Comment by Andrea — June 30, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Whenever I see Ed Darrel debate with someone, I just reference back to his exchange with Guts, in regards to Behe's IC-blood clotting cascade. It just reminds me how deluded his reasoning is.
Comment by Doug — June 30, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Andrea,
According to dictionary.com, one definition of evangelism is "Militant zeal for a cause." It's hard to see how that doesn't apply to PZ. If he is espousing science because he believes it will encourage an empirical, skeptical and rationalistic approach because he thinks it will eventually spill-over into atheism, he is using science as part of an atheistic agenda or cause. That's why he looks, with great envy, to secular Europe.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Yes, Mike, and the other definition is "Zealous preaching and dissemination of the gospel, as through missionary work.".
As I said, you are free to use the term that loosely if you wish, but it is quite transparent to me that you are trying to give it a negative, religious connotation, perhaps to counterbalance the - much better substantiated - evangelism by the majority of ID advocates.
And in order to look with "great envy" to "secular Europe", as far as church-and-state and science education issues go, you don't need to be an atheist, it's sufficient to just not be a fundamentalist.
Comment by Andrea — June 30, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Haven't been following this discussion closely so I'll just put in my bit on the use of "evangelizing" "evangelization" etc. in contexts outside of religion.
As an over 50 year old native speaker of English (okay, so I'm a New Yawker, but I t'ink I still qualifies……..) I can say that I've encountered such usages in written English texts dozens, if not hundreds, of times, texts done by journalists and other professional writers.
That is so much the case that one would be hardpressed to come up with a substitute: (to inveigle? No, too weak, not passionate enough. Wheedle? Same problem. Coax? Same deal. Importune? Still not right. Etc.)
No. Mike's got the best word for passionate polemicists, on the Internet or elsewhere, who are trying to 'convert' interlocutors to an entirely different Weltanschauung, be it secular or explicitly religious…..
The online dictionaries aren't much good for this stuff (very superficial in giving seconary, tertiary etc. definitions) but this one wasn't TOO bad:
——————————————–
Definitions
evangelize
evangelise
verb evangelized, evangelizing
tr & intr
1. To attempt to persuade someone to adopt Christianity.
intr
2. To preach Christianity, especially travelling from place to place to do so.
tr & intr
3. often facetious
To attempt to persuade someone to adopt a particular principle or cause.
Thesaurus: proselytize, preach, convert, crusade, campaign, propagandize.
Derivative: evangelization
noun
Etymology: 14c.
http://www.allwords.com/word-e...
Comment by len — June 30, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
It's funny but. as we once discussed at ARN some time ago:
1) Sweden only recently abandoned an offical state church (denomination):
From Encarta:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclo...
(partial)
B Religion
Edit this section
Lutheranism is the religion of about 68 percent of the Swedish people. The Evangelical Lutheran Church was the state church of Sweden from the 16th century until the end of the 20th century. From January 1, 1996, children no longer automatically acquired membership in the church at birth, and the separation of church and state was completed on January 1, 2000. [...]
————————————-
So, by ONE standard of church/state separation (and the most important one IMHO), Sweden was, oh, about 2 FULL CENTURIES behind the United States…(since in 1776 and thereafter there was no official American denomination, indeed LOTS of groups came to the New World because of religious oppression in…….Europe).
2) (not discussed at ARN but worth a look): Great Brittain, despite a low level of religious practice, STILL has an offical church:
(partial from Wikepedia)
The Church of England is the officially established Christian church in England, and acts as the 'mother' and senior branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Originally established as part of the Roman Catholic Church in 597AD by Augustine of Canterbury on behalf of Pope Gregory I, the Church split from Rome in 1534 during the reign of Henry VIII of England. The Church of England is a state church, and its bishops sit in the House of Lords. The British monarch is required to be a member of the Church of England under the Act of Settlement 1701 and is the Supreme Governor. Roman Catholics are expressly forbidden from becoming monarch, stemming from conflict over the crown and whether Britain was in the past, Catholic or Protestant.[...]
———————-
My, my! Isn't 'secular Europe' looking better and better on church/state separation?!
——————-
3)Then there are the 'church taxes' (ie taxes IMPOSED by the government to support churches: (from Wikipedia):
Germany
About 70% of church revenues do come from church tax. This is about €8.5 billion (in 2002).
Article 137 of the Weimar Constitution of 1919 and article 140 of the Grundgesetz of 1949 are the legal basis for this practise.
In Germany, on the basis of tax regulations passed by the communities and within the limits set by state laws, communities may
either require the taxation authorities of the state to collect the fees from the members on the basis of income tax assessment (then, the authorities withhold a collection fee),
or they may choose to collect the church tax themselves.
In the first case, membership in the community is entered onto a tax document (Lohnsteuerkarte) which employees must surrender to their employers for the purpose of withholding tax on paid income. If membership in a tax-collecting religious community is entered on the document, the employer has to withhold church tax prepayments from the income of the employee in addition to other tax prepayments. In connection with the final annual income tax assessment, the state revenue authorities also finally assess the church tax owed. In case of self-employed persons or other tax payers not employed, state revenue authorities collect prepayments on the church tax together with prepayments on the income tax.
If, however, religious communities choose to collect church tax themselves, they may demand the tax authorities to reveal taxation data of their members to calculate the contributions and prepayments owed. In particular, some smaller communities (e.g. the Jewish Community of Berlin) choose to collect taxes themselves to save collection fees the government would charge otherwise.
Collection of church tax may be used to cover any church-related expenses such as founding institutions and foundations or paying ministers.
The church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not member of a church tax collecting denomination do not have to pay it. Members of a religious community under public law may formally declare to state - not religious - authorities that they wish to leave the community. With such declaration, the obligation to pay church taxes ends. Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave it.
The money flow of state and churches is distinct at all levels of the procedures. The church tax is not meant to be a way of the state directly alimenting the churches - but as expenses for church tax are fully deductible in fact alimentation occurs on a somewhat large scale.
The church tax is historically rooted in the pre-Christian Germanic custom where the chief of the tribe was directly responsible for the maintenance of priests and religious cults. During Christianization of Western Europe, this custom was adopted by the Christian churches (Arian and Catholic) in the concept of "Eigenkirchen" (churches owned by the landlord) which stood in strong contrast to the central church organization of the Roman Catholic church. Despite the resulting medieval conflict between emperor and pope, the concept of church maintenance by the ruler remained the accepted custom in most Western European countries. In Reformation times, the local princes in Germany became officially heads of the church in Protestant areas and were legally responsible for the maintenance of churches. Only in the 19th century, the financial flows of churches and state got regulated to a point where the churches became financially independent - the church tax was introduced to replace the state benefits the churches had obtained before.
A taxpayer, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant or member of another tax-collecting community, will pay additionally between 8% (Bavaria) and 9% (rest of the country) of his income tax to the church or other community he or she belongs to.
[edit]
Denmark
The members of Folkekirken pay a church tax, which varies between municipalities, but can be as large as 1.51%. The tax is generally in the vicinity of 1% of the taxable income. Even people who are not members of the church finances it over their normal taxes as it is part of the governments budget.
[edit]
Sweden
The members of Svenska kyrkan pay church tax, which varies between municipalities. Church and state are separated as of 2000, however the burial tax (begravningsavgift) is paid by everyone regardless of membership.
In a recent development, the Swedish government has agreed to continue collecting from individual taxpayers the annual payment that has always gone to the church. But now the tax will be an optional checkoff box on the tax return. The government will allocate the money collected to Catholic, Muslim, Jewish and other faiths as well as the Lutherans, with each taxpayer directing where his or her taxes should go.
[edit]
Austria
Church tax is compulsory in Austria and Catholics can be sued by the Church for not paying it. Anyone who wants to stop paying it has to declare in writing, at their local municipal council, that they are leaving the Church. They are then crossed off the Church registers and can no longer receive the sacraments. The tax amounts to about 1% of the income.
[edit]
Switzerland
There is no official state church in Switzerland. However, all the 26 cantons (states) financially support at least one of the three traditional denominations–Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, or Protestant–with funds collected through taxation. Each canton has its own regulations regarding the relationship between church and state. In some cantons, the church tax (up to 2.3%) is voluntary but in others an individual who chooses not to contribute to church tax may formally have to leave the church. In some cantons private companies are unable to avoid payment of the church tax.
[edit]
Finland
All members of either the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church (the two state churches of Finland) pay an income-based church tax of between 1% and 2.25%, depending on the municipality.
To stop paying church tax, one must formally leave the church, originally by giving in a notice and to allow a time of refection. But this has been removed, to just a written statement to the church. Non-church members don't have to pay church tax.
—————————————-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
————————————————————————–
This is getting somewhat long so I won't bother with the RCC status in Ireland, Poland etc.
Seems to me that 'secular Europe' has far MORE entanglements of a financial type than the US does…….but it may just be me…..
Comment by len — June 30, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
len, your definition supports what I have been saying: one can use "evangelist" for non-religious activists/polemicists/advocates/proponents/propagandists (there's some "secular" alternatives for you), but it's clear that in those instances one is using the term loosely or, as the definition you give says, "facetiously".
Mike however is using it here in its full, "missionary" connotation, as if comparing the apologetics many Creationism and ID advocates are explicitly involved in with PZ's "evangelism". That is of course part of the ID/Creationist lore - science advocates supposedly are out to convert Christians to atheism.
It's as if I compared some bona fide church sermon with a Telic Thoughts post, claiming the latter "preaches" ID. Sure, I can use the term that way ("facetiously"), but that's where the similarity ends.
Comment by Andrea — June 30, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Nope. Actually he's making fun of both.
Comment by Guts — June 30, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Andrea, this is silly. It seems like you're quibbling here, arguing just to argue. Look, we've all seen PZ talk on this subject before, we all know what he thinks about science and religion, and that he thinks science ought to be used to aggressively bash and marginalize religion, and to push atheism. Everyone here knows what Mike is describing, and complaining about the particular way he's employing the label doesn't really change anything. The most precise use of the term is specifically Christian, so clearly Mike doesn't mean that, but his use falls pretty easily within some of the other uses in the definition len gave. But, honestly, that's neither here nor there, because we know what Mike's talking about without having to look in a dictionary, and it's not as if he's misleading anyone.
Comment by Deuce — June 30, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
I wonder, are church services in European countries that levy these taxes built around the "collection plate", as are services in the USA? Or do churches in Europe dispense with this (IMO odious) practice?
Comment by Art — June 30, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
This sucks, I came into this thread expecting a bunch of pictures of college-age pandas letting go of their inhibitions.
Comment by Guts — June 30, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Hi Guts,
Well, I had a clip with a wasted Gary Hurd dancing topless on a table, but due to bandwith concerns, I decided to go with the "drunk panda" drawing instead.
Comment by Krauze — June 30, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Hi Andreas,
"Well, you had answered my original comment by stating that "in most groups, the members do not hate and distrust each other to such a degree [presumably, the degree that you think pro-science activists hate and distrust each other - A]"
You presume wrongly. I wasn't speaking about "pro-science activists" at large, but about the PT crew. Anyway, the comment was simply a snarky comeback to your suggestion that we should have a screw-you-fight instead of "keeping it all bottled up", as if flying off the handle and calling your fellow bloggers "the party of fanatics and death" was something every blog team went through once in a while.
"Mmm"¦ that post by PZ is making fun of John Davison for opening a new blog for every new entry, and not for his squabbling with DS, really. Isn't it?"
As Guts pointed out, the post makes fun/gloats at both. Besides, we've already established that the Pandas do use internal feuds among ID supporters for rhetorical mileage, so a neglect of any particular feud is most likely due to lack of interest ("How many of our readers know who 'John A. Davison' is?"), not any principled stand.
Comment by Krauze — June 30, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Andrea, the subject of this blog-thread is the hilarious display of denominational in-fighting among Scientism's many wannabe popes over the most effective way of converting the public to the faith. Some favor evangelism, others like the idea of forced conversion better. PZ's in the latter camp with yet another thread over on his blog in which he re-asserts his belief that Science = Atheism with such classics as…
and…
PZ does not see his scientistic faith as a matter of belief or choice. He sees it as Absolute Truth, and hasn't enough respect for basic human rights (or the US Constitution) to tolerate the existence of alternative opinions. In short, he's a Fundamentalist Whack-Job. Whack-jobs don't waste time trying to convince people - evangelizing. They believe in tyranny.
So you're right - it's not evangelism.
Comment by Joy — June 30, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Guts: Weren't you [Myrmecos] the guy who conspired with Mesk to "overtake" the ARN forum?
Mesk: I'm not sure about Myrmecos, but I'm almost 100% sure that it wasn't me - unless someone can refresh my memory? I was a little more militant during my earlier days at ARN, but I don't recall ever conspiring to do anything of that sort.
Jack: I remember this incident and Mesk wasn't involved. Not sure but it might have been Gendaken.
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Joy, your use of absurdly over-the-top rhetoric does not really increase a reader's confidence in your ability to discriminate and criticize the use of absurdly over-the-top rhetoric by others, believe me.
Krauze
I may be wrong, but I think the "party of fanatics and death" Gary was referring to is not his fellow bloggers, but the Republicans (which some of his fellow bloggers, in his mind, support, although in fact none of the 4 gentlemen he lists are actually Republicans - go figure). I also didn't say that every blog team has to "fly off the handle" against each other once in a while (although it seems some solo off-the-handle-flying is not uncommon here), but that highly heterogenous groups of very opinionated people tend to once in a while, and that I would expect ID advocates to do the same. The response in his thread apparently seems to have gone from "oh no we don't" to "oh yes we do", but anyway.
Oh please. All that post does is make fun of JAD's blogging style, and the attention it pays to the JAD-DS squabble is contained in the following quote:
The post got 12 comments on PT, all from the peanut gallery. Compare that to the dissection of the PT shitfest in the o.p. here, plus all the comments, with multiple blogs contributors pitching in with their interpretation (and I am not even going into UD's reaction, with Dembski himslef reading all the hundreds of posts to extract and post juicy nuggets for his readers' amusement). Seriously.
Not sure we have established anything like that. PT notes, not just for rhetorical mileage, when there are substantial disagreements that relate to ID among its proponents. I am quite sure that if Paul Nelson publicly accused Behe of being a drunk, it would not get mentioned with obvious delight on PT.
Comment by Andrea — June 30, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Thats because the only difference is in degree. It was only two IDers going at it. On the other hand, what happened on PT was a circus. Your statement, "Yet, PT has not deemed it worthy of public comment or gloating.", however, is completely false (you people would say it was a "lie").
Comment by Guts — June 30, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Isn't this because PT (and Elsberry) have a special public forum set up for peanut galleries?
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
One short response, and then I'm off to bed. More tomorrow.
"I am quite sure that if Paul Nelson publicly accused Behe of being a drunk, it would not get mentioned with obvious delight on PT."
You mean like when Wesley Elsberry wrote a post, relishing in the news that one of the Dover school board members had been charged with driving under influence (disappeared without a trace after a short while)? Yup, that piece of news was highly related to ID.
Comment by Krauze — June 30, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 8:28 pm