The "Anti-Science" Scientists
by MikeGeneOf course everyone compartmentalizes…but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore or excuse those compartments that blatantly contradict observable reality. I'd say that a scientist who believes in elves or perpetual motion machines or the magic properties of energized water is just as anti-science as the one who tries to reconcile the absurdities of Christianity or Wicca or Asatru or Islam with science "” but the Christianity problem is more of an epidemic than free energy scams. (emphasis added).
So now we understand why Dr. Myers attacks Ken Miller and Francis Collins: theists who attempt to reconcile their religious faith with science are "anti-science." Perhaps the "pro-science" crowd will soon be coming out with a bumper sticker that reads, Real scientists don't believe in God.
BTW, this is the same Dr. Myers who told us:
I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them. If someone thinks the sun orbits around the earth, I will vote against them. If someone thinks fairies live in their garden and pull up the flowers out of the ground every spring, I will vote against them. Tenure decisions are not pro forma games, but a process of evaluation, and I'd rather not have crackpots promoted.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
It is, of course, ridiculous for PZ to label religious scientists as "anti-science", especially since later in the thread he acknowledges that religiosity doesn't preclude scientific greatness:
It makes little sense to speak of great scientists as "anti-science", and PZ is smart enough to recognize this.
Also, his statement that "you can't mix your theism with your science and get anything other than pure crap" is crap itself. Nothing in a solid-state physics paper, for example, is going to be "poisoned" simply because the author believes that God created matter.
What I think PZ should have said is that it is a mistake for scientists to relax their standards of evidence and reason when examining religious questions, as Collins has done. It doesn't make them anti-science, but it does encourage others to point to them to justify their own belief, applying what Richard Dawkins called "the argument from admired religious scientists."
Comment by keiths — January 23, 2007 @ 10:50 am
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 am
I sure hope the New Atheists continue their extremist rhetoric and persist in offending and ostracizing people of good will, thus ensuring the percentage of the population in the Anti-religious ranks will remain low.
Comment by Inquisitive Brain — January 23, 2007 @ 10:52 am
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Myers is a nut-job.
Comment by Joy — January 23, 2007 @ 11:20 am
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
I'd say that a scientist who believes in elves or perpetual motion machines or the magic properties of energized water or that evolution can create irreducibly complex systems is just as anti-science as the one who tries …
Comment by AdR — January 23, 2007 @ 11:26 am
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
PZ's Courtier's reply cracked me up.
I hope Dawkins comes out with a sequel to his 'The God Delusion'. The subtitle could be: "How you too can be theologically ignorant, just like me, use pathos and ethos in order to write a book attacking religion, then go on a worldwide book tour."
Then PZ could continue his defense of Dawkins by offering the 'Jester's reply', which says that if critics continue to accuse someone of addressing a subject they are ignorant of, one can justify ignorance by saying, "The subject is not entertaining enough to really dig into anyways."
More people would realize how ignorant Dawkins is on the issues he is talking about, and PZ's defense of Dawkins' ignorance would provide endless entertainment for those who know what theology really says.
Comment by Inquisitive Brain — January 23, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Ken Miller defends himself against Wells whenever Wells criticizes him…. Has Miller attempted to defend himself against Myers?
Comment by Doug — January 23, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Doug,
I see your point, and I think it is a good one. I can see a simple explanation:
Miller hasn't replied because PZ's claims are irrelevant.
In fact, PZ himself is completely irrelevant to Miller's purposes. Who needs to defend themselves against PZ?
PZ is only relevant as an exemplary illustration of what an extremist is doing to hinder proper understanding of good science.
Whereas Wells is very relevant to Miller's purposes, since Wells is using sound reasoning to directly undermine Miller's purposes.
For the purposes of the ID socio-political movement, I think PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins should be the star witnesses in the next ID trial. That way it will be plain to see how atheistic teachers in classrooms pervert science as a primary tool for inhibiting religion, and how the atheist's classroom rhetoric results in "excessive entanglement" with religion.
Comment by Inquisitive Brain — January 23, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Mike, I think you've invented the new "*hit happens"!
Comment by Deuce — January 23, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
How about "NAS scientists don't believe in God"
Comment by keiths — January 23, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Has Meyers never done a history and philosophy of science course ?
Some of the "greatest" scientists did much of there work in light of rather than inspite of their religious convictions.
And it is pretty undeniable that many christians (and quite devout ones as well) have made enormous contributions to science. If you doubt this then you'll need to explain why so many of the units of measure in physics are named after devout and commited christians.
Comment by thesciphishow — January 23, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
January 24th, 2007 at 3:25 am
I agree with Joy. I can't believe people like this, who claim to be followers of reason and careful, critical thought (freethinkers, skeptics, atheists, naturalists, blah blah blah) can make so much noise and yet seem to make such simplistic crappy statements about reasonably complex topics. Why? And then all of their fans lap it up as "the way"!
It reminds me ironically of the people they so oppose.
Comment by Plump-DJ — January 24, 2007 @ 3:25 am
January 24th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Yeah, thanks to Collins, you might actually have people who think you can both accept Christianity and evolution. Or, you can be both a devout religious person and an excellent scientist. This could step on the Argument from the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.
Comment by MikeGene — January 24, 2007 @ 4:54 am
January 24th, 2007 at 4:58 am
They did cross paths once. Myers later blogged about having some friendly e-mails with Miller.
Comment by MikeGene — January 24, 2007 @ 4:58 am
January 24th, 2007 at 5:15 am
It just demonstrates that fundamentalism is not the sole province of religoius believers. How they are so blind to their hypocrisy is stunning really. Especially since they worship at the altar of rationality and reason.
Evidently they abandon reason and rationality at their atheistic church door.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 24, 2007 @ 5:15 am
January 24th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Hi Vivid,
Just thought I'd offer a belated "Welcome to TT!" to an old ARNie!
Comment by MikeGene — January 24, 2007 @ 5:21 am
January 24th, 2007 at 11:40 am
So, Mike, may we assume that you'd vote to grant tenure to the professor who says the Sun orbits the Earth?
Just how crazy and whacked out would a tenure candidate have to be not to earn your vote? I assume you'd vote for the constant drunk as well? Do you make exceptions for those who are threats to students or faculty or staff?
Comment by edarrell — January 24, 2007 @ 11:40 am
January 24th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Edarrell,
Do you ever make an exception and draw a conclusion consistent with the evidence?
Comment by Pez — January 24, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
January 24th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I was wondering where all my friends went..I guess they are all over here. Thanks for the welcome. Love your site.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 24, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
January 24th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
edarrell,
Good point. Someone should fire Collins from whatever science position or positions he holds. What a crackpot.
Comment by Douglas — January 24, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
January 25th, 2007 at 8:04 am
edarrell,
You should have read the second link in the above blog, as it answers your questions:
Look at it this way. You have a crazy and whacked out view of the tenure process. But that alone would not cause me to vote against giving you tenure.
Comment by MikeGene — January 25, 2007 @ 8:04 am
January 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
The second link doesn't answer the question, Mike: Would you vote to grant tenure to a science prof, or any other prof, who says the Sun orbits the Earth?
Comment by edarrell — January 25, 2007 @ 10:27 am
January 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Ed,
Will you please provide a name of a science prof (or any other prof) who believes this?
I think you're dealing with two very different types of evidence. Saying that determining the invalidity of ID is based off of evidence that is as apparently clear as the earth orbiting the sun just isn't warranted.
Like Ken Miller (and Michael Behe) I am also Roman Catholic. I have attended Catholic schools since grade school through college. NDE was assumed in every biology course I had.
So it's not because of religious indoctrination that I am in dissent with NDE (or any unguided approach) but it's precisely because of the evidence (or lack of evidence) that I question the validity of NDE. The problem with the theories is that the mechanisms they claim can create life from non-life lack any meaningful/believable method for generating the sort of information/specification that cells contain.
Comment by Doug — January 25, 2007 @ 1:16 pm