We're a Koufax Award finalist

Posted 11 February 2005 by PZ Myers

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/were-a-koufax-a.html

The Panda's Thumb has made it into the final voting for Best Group Blog. If you're a fan of evolution, leave a message to vote.

P.S. You can also vote for Pharyngula in the Best Expert Blog category.

20 Comments

Great White Wonder · 11 February 2005

Wow. This recent pro-ID screed from Jonathan (t)Witt has to be seen to be believed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/csc.php/2005/02/10/title_6#trackbacks

Intelligent design, [Derbyshire] writes, "is, by the way, not a scientific theory though it may be a metaphysical one." Rhetorically punchy, but is it a scientific way to defend a theory---victory by definition?

Excuse us, Witt, but it's the Discovery Institute that is trying to re-define science to include deities and mysterious alien beings as the explanation for any phenomenon that a small group of cranks finds too extraordinary to believe (or too heretical, according to the cranks' preachers). Scientists can't be blamed for responding directly to the arguments made by the charlatans at the Disclaimery Institute for the Promotion of Moonie/Fundamentalist Garbage.

We have to put our theories in empirical harm's way, and see if they continue to stand when assailed with fresh evidence. It's called "The Scientific Method." But for Derbyshire, Darwinism is the damsel and he will not have her virtue besmirched, will not have her dragged into the dock to be cross-examined, will not have her competing for our affections like a common harlot.

HAahahahaaha!!!! What ironic poetry flows from the mealy mouth of this hypocritical sack of dung whose fake blog **doesn't permit comments**. Can you believe the hypocricy? Truly breathtaking. I welcome this dishonest nitWitt to come here to Panda's Thumb and debate me. I promise not to call him any names during the course of the debate. All he has to do is explain to me how "ID theory" is science and why we should ignore the view of nearly every single expert in the field that evolution is a rock solid foundational principle of biology. And he has to do that without dissembling or making a claim that is so absurd it is more likely to be a lie than not. Will he be the first to achieve that feat? I doubt it. Because (t)Witt is obviously a chicken-hearted rube reading from a script.

Bayesian Bouffant · 11 February 2005

Hello! Anybody awake here? Isn't it about time to put up a thread on Darwin Day?

afarensis · 11 February 2005

I'd almost pay to see that. One of these days the ID crowd is actually going to trot out some research in support of their theory rather than attacking evolution - at which point I'll faint in shock. Unfortunately, their attacks have been working. At least based on what I'm seeing in Kansas, Missouri, and most recently Alabama (House Bill 352 and Senate Bill 240 - both recently introduced). I guess the great thing about not actually having a theory or evidence is that it makes it hard to land a counterattack.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 11 February 2005

PT and MyDD are in about a dead heat in the voting so far. Go put in your vote...

Joe McFaul · 12 February 2005

I voted early and often.

Is my check in the mail?

Nick (Matzke) · 12 February 2005

Um, GWW, did you take your meds this morning? Down boy. I'm all for criticizing IDists, but "nitWitt" and similar childish tactics aren't going to impress anyone...

Steve Reuland · 12 February 2005

Good grief PZ, a quick look shows Pharyngula running away with the best expert blog award. If PT wins as well, we're not going to let you keep both trophies on your mantle, you'll have to relinquish the second one.

PZ Myers · 12 February 2005

It's still early in the voting, so I have no illusions. I haven't had much luck with elections in the last few years.

Dave Cerutti · 13 February 2005

Great White Wonder, The best part of the Witt screed is this little gem:

I don't think Derbyshire likes to have his cherished opinions knocked down at all. Most of us don't. So we have to fight our tendency to guard our pet scientific theories from contrary evidence. We have to put our theories in empirical harm's way, and see if they continue to stand when assailed with fresh evidence. It's called "The Scientific Method."

Yes, indeed...

DaveScot · 14 February 2005

PZ Meyers

What do you mean by "fan of evolution"?

I'm a big fan of evolution. It's how I got here.

I just don't believe evolution is an aimless process driven from top to bottom by mutation + natural selection.

I'll give Panda my vote.

me2i81 · 15 February 2005

I'm as lefty as the next guy...but why is defending science against theistic attacks considered "lefty" and hence worthy of a Koufax? PZ's blog, sure, but this one?

PZ Myers · 15 February 2005

Yeah, we avoid the political comments, mostly, at PT. Strangely enough, though, the right wing has moved so far to the extreme in the US that even taking a neutral and sensible position that "Hey, gang! We ought to practice and teach good science!" has become a left-wing stance in comparison.

Gary Hurd · 15 February 2005

I voted and all, for PT and PZ, but I forgot why. Does this matter in some tangible way?

The point, as far as I can see it, of this or any other blog or website is to advance a position by exposing people to information. I like the notion that Kofax was a ball player, and also that he was a "lefty." I like baseball- my wife's masters thesis was about baseball and being an American (and learning to read English, + other things).

But, remind me about this award; why did I care?

ts · 16 February 2005

I'm as lefty as the next guy...but why is defending science against theistic attacks considered "lefty" and hence worthy of a Koufax?

These attacks are one element of an attempt to impose theism -- in fact, theocracy -- on all aspects of society. Specifically, the attempt to introduce ID into public schools is an attempt to bypass the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. These "theistic" attacks are not politically neutral -- they are promoted and funded by right wing theists, not theists at large, who (so far) generally oppose them.

me2i81 · 16 February 2005

These "theistic" attacks are not politically neutral --- they are promoted and funded by right wing theists, not theists at large, who (so far) generally oppose them.

I guess so, but if someone were to, say, try and rehabilitate Mao's image (don't laugh--I remember a bookstore in Berkeley that had a large sign that read "Down with phony communism! Up with real communism! Mao more than ever!" in their window during the collapse of the Soviet Union), the response wouldn't be "right-wing", it would be "everone but a particular group of nutcases on the fringe left." I'm just lamenting the excessive polarization of discourse, where everyone not advocating theocratic neo-fascism is considered "left-wing." *sigh*

Steve Reuland · 16 February 2005

I voted and all, for PT and PZ, but I forgot why. Does this matter in some tangible way?
— Gary Hurd

It brings us traffic and recognition. That's worthwhile, IMO.

Great White Wonder · 16 February 2005

Nick

I'm all for criticizing IDists, but "nitWitt" and similar childish tactics aren't going to impress anyone . . .

I'm quite certain that Witt knows about this blog and he likely read my comment. Witt was the only person I was interested in "impressing." I assume he got the message but, as anyone could have predicted, he has not dared to creep out into the sunlight. I don't blame Witt for hiding behind the choir boys whose soft minds he habitually inoculates with his repugnant distortions. I would do the same if I was as dishonest and afraid as he obviously is. Chicken-hearted men like Witt know better than to set their oily half-baked arguments anywhere near the crucible.

DaveScot · 18 February 2005

Great White Wonder

Isn't it a tad hypocritical to call Witt dishonest and afraid whilst you yourself are hiding behind an anonymous alias in the calling?

Marines are evidently made of sterner stuff than Army Airborne.

Gary Hurd · 18 February 2005

So, did we win yet?

Reed A. Cartwright · 18 February 2005

Last night myDD had about a 40 vote lead on us.