Great article by Chris Mooney: The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

How is this informative, Nick?

We've known about how Americans are highly influenced by the source of the information, as opposed to the content, for decades now.

The notable part, and the part that must be addressed, ISN'T how we spin information; it's that it's clear that spin has more value that actual factual information!

sorry, but playing up to people's preconceptions isn't a long term solution to the problem. Instead, it will only act to REINFORCE the problem.

...oh, and for the record, one more time, here is a much earlier article from science that reviewed the problem far more thoroughly than Mooney ever even considered:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Assets/bloom&weisberg%20science.pdf

Did you ever get around to reading it?

And it doesn't address the issue of people whose mindset is dead against the facts by definition. Creationists are not going to accept evolutionary theory a priori. There is no way to "frame" the facts in a way that will make them change their minds. From reading the comments on Panda's Thumb (and talk.origins), those who were creationists but came to reject their early beliefs and accept evolution generally did so because they realised they were being lied to by their preachers/family. That is, the *facts* that made them change their minds, not framing or accommodationism or NOMA.

Let's take this further: in the paper that Ichthyic kindly linked to *AND* the review that Mooney was drawing from, one of the most important indicators of acceptance was not "framing", but the perceived trustworthiness of the advocate. That is, many Americans accept creationism because the people they are conditioned to trust tell them that evolution is wrong. It doesn't matter that these people have no expertise, what matters is that they are trusted.

So when that trust is broken -- say by discovering that the people they trust are lying to them about evolution -- then that is one of the most powerful events in creating a change of mind. And as the experience of many commenters here attests to me, this is probably the single most effective way to effect change when the opposition is lying. So, using the same articles that Mooney drew upon, I think one could make an excellent argument that we should be *more* aggressive in presenting the facts. Instead of bowing to the opposition and being nice, respectful, and deferential -- all of which *adds* to their perceived trustworthiness -- we should be showing them up for every lie they spout.

Now, I'm not about to suggest that everyone should start writing like Christopher Hitchens. It's up to the writer. Some people feel more comfortable tackling these issues as a quiet fireside chat. More power to them. But the problem with Mooney is he has spent the last 5 years telling everyone else that they are bad for science unless they present evidence according to his prescription despite objectively failing as a communicator on almost every level himself. In this article he even uses studies to draw what he wants from them while ignoring the parts of the evidence that don't suit him, all to maintain his glowing sense of self-importance. If this is framing, then I want nothing to do with it.

Addendum:

Mooney can't even get his facts straight. He closes by saying, "Conservatives are more likely to embrace climate science if it comes to them via a business or religious leader, who can set the issue in the context of different values than those from which environmentalists or scientists often argue."

Which would be nice if it were true. But as we know, the Catholic Church has officially rallied to the cause of preventing global warming, and George Soros, a famous financier and businessman and global warming campaigner, was subjected to a campaign of vilification by right-wing commentators who have created in their audience a perception that Soros is only into global warming to make himself richer. So, yeah, Mooney's prescription has *already failed*, and yet here he is advocating it all over again.

(Quoting Mooney's article quoting University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: "...when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. ... We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers...)

And thus we get Phillip Johnson - a lawyer, not a scientist - inventing intelligent design creationism, because it makes sense to him.

I disagree with Mooney, who seems more obsessed with content than with form, who thinks that propaganda is more important than truth and that the advertising is more important than the product.

We have a better chance of defeating the likes of the Duane Gishes and D. James Kennedys and Rousas Rushdoonys and the Dishonesty Institute and all the other Liars For Jesus(TM) by presenting facts, not by stooping to framing science in terms their crippled minds can deal with. Presenting their scientific illiteracy as scientific illiteracy has to be a better of combatting their ignorance.

There are some points here this YEC agrees with.
Yet its old news.
Authority has always led the way to peoples opinions. James Madison said this long ago. nOt the merits of the case or a careful appreciation of the facts and criticisms of the facts.
People do come from a history of accepting and rejecting or being inconclusive on matters based on their confidence in the sources.
Yes YEC creationists start from a acceptance of authority in the bible yet we insist we are open to persuasion but our opponents fail. iN fact we would say they fail to see the lack or unlikelyness of their ideas merits because of their acceptance of the authority behind them.
Howwww many times is the claim made evlution is true because its SCIENCE. So stop questioning it they say.
We say show us the evidence. Never mind your faith in the sources.
In fact YEC says show us evolution is based on science or rather a high standard of investigation.

I don't care or think about global cooling but I'm confident its not true.
I see the greatest of the globe from the ground up as too powerful for puffs of smoke from people to make a dent. Claims of melting are just misunderstood variations in climate over the centuries. i see in all this a upper middle class attempt to make a cleaner planet. I think they believe in their ideas but its always the same goofy crowd that so easily accepts anything any interest group pushes.
Its certainly not warming in stupid Toronto here in the middle of April. Yuck.

Robert Byers said: There are some points here this YEC agrees with. Yet its old news. Authority has always led the way to peoples opinions. James Madison said this long ago. nOt the merits of the case or a careful appreciation of the facts and criticisms of the facts. People do come from a history of accepting and rejecting or being inconclusive on matters based on their confidence in the sources.

Yes YEC creationists start from a acceptance of authority in the bible yet we insist we are open to persuasion but our opponents fail.

iN fact we would say they fail to see the lack or unlikelyness of their ideas merits because of their acceptance of the authority behind them.

Howwww many times is the claim made evlution is true because its SCIENCE. So stop questioning it they say.

We say show us the evidence. Never mind your faith in the sources. In fact YEC says show us evolution is based on science or rather a high standard of investigation.

I don't care or think about global cooling but I'm confident its not true.

I see the greatest of the globe from the ground up as too powerful for puffs of smoke from people to make a dent. Claims of melting are just misunderstood variations in climate over the centuries.

i see in all this a upper middle class attempt to make a cleaner planet. I think they believe in their ideas but its always the same goofy crowd that so easily accepts anything any interest group pushes.

Its certainly not warming in stupid Toronto here in the middle of April. Yuck.

Robert Byers wrote: "Yes YEC creationists start from a acceptance of authority in the bible yet we insist we are open to persuasion but our opponents fail."

There's you problem right there. Open to persuasion yet admit the Bible is the ultimate authority? Pick one, it cannot be both.

Besides, pretending that an old book written by people who did not have an inch of the knowledge we have today should be accepted as "authority", without evidence, is a bit of a nail in the head, is it not?

The bottom line is that the ideas the ancient Hebrew goat herders had about how all this came to be, what the Earth is and why life is so diverse is simply refuted by modern knowledge. I repeat, it is refuted by science. See the problem with claiming such ancient myths are "authority" yet?

So let's have a go at this whole "framing" issue. It is not that you are wrong Robert, it is simply that you are not right.

"Journalists also learn through their training–some of them, at least–how to be more dispassionate. How to take a deep breath before, you know, blogging something that agrees with your personal beliefs and attacks those who disagree with them." -- Chris Mooney

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Ichthyic said: How is this informative, Nick? We've known about how Americans are highly influenced by the source of the information, as opposed to the content, for decades now.

How about "19th Century British Biologist Demonstrates God Moves in Mysterious Ways"? or "Natural Processes Described But Not Fully Explained - 'No Glib Answers' Admits Man in White Coat"

Should be ok with the ignorigencia in the USA.

Please issue Post Of The Week - Pandas Thumb version ASAP to Amadan.

Thank you, that is all.

Chris Lawson said: Addendum: Mooney can't even get his facts straight. He closes by saying, "Conservatives are more likely to embrace climate science if it comes to them via a business or religious leader, who can set the issue in the context of different values than those from which environmentalists or scientists often argue." Which would be nice if it were true. But as we know, the Catholic Church has officially rallied to the cause of preventing global warming, and George Soros, a famous financier and businessman and global warming campaigner, was subjected to a campaign of vilification by right-wing commentators who have created in their audience a perception that Soros is only into global warming to make himself richer. So, yeah, Mooney's prescription has *already failed*, and yet here he is advocating it all over again.

First of all, please react to what Mooney is saying here, not some generalized reaction to whatever ridiculous grudge the Gnus have built up against Mooney over the years. Tell us what, specifically, you disagree with in what he wrote, and please back it up with science, like science defenders (TM) are supposed to do.

I never understand the hot death people rain down on Chris Mooney for this kind of thing (*). They tend to be the same people that rain hot death on all opponents, real or imagined, all the time. You've got to realize, the vast majority of people out there are not committed, deliberate creationists (or climate deniers, or whatever). The vast majority of people have very vague ideas about these topics, whatever their opinions. They can be reached, but not if you lead with you are stupid liers whose religion is also a lie and by the way there's no God, no objective meaning to life, and if you think otherwise then science is against you, it's a package deal and you have to accept all that if you accept evolution/global warming.

I've done a lot of speaking to general audiences -- students, civil rights groups, church groups, etc. Not once has it seemed even mildly likely that provoking a defensive reaction was a good idea. It's only good, maybe, when you are in a shouting match on a blog or on Fox News, and even in those venues it's extremely debatable if it does anything other than get people mad and shut down and repel the very people you would like to reach.

* hot death reference: Bloom County: http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/blm/1982/blm820728.gif

harold said: However, what I am saying is that humor, satire, ridicule, sarcasm, expressions of frustration, repetition of unanswered questions, accurate identification of dishonesty, accurate identification of hidden agendas, etc, are nothing to be concerned about when dealing with creationists. They won't stop an honest, persuadable person from being persuaded; in fact, they may often be persuasive. Shorter version - "A Concern Troll Gets It Wrong Again".

Nick Matzke said: First of all, please react to what Mooney is saying here, not some generalized reaction to whatever ridiculous grudge the Gnus have built up against Mooney over the years. Tell us what, specifically, you disagree with in what he wrote, and please back it up with science, like science defenders (TM) are supposed to do. I never understand the hot death people rain down on Chris Mooney for this kind of thing (*). They tend to be the same people that rain hot death on all opponents, real or imagined, all the time. You've got to realize, the vast majority of people out there are not committed, deliberate creationists (or climate deniers, or whatever). The vast majority of people have very vague ideas about these topics, whatever their opinions. They can be reached, but not if you lead with you are stupid liers whose religion is also a lie and by the way there's no God, no objective meaning to life, and if you think otherwise then science is against you, it's a package deal and you have to accept all that if you accept evolution/global warming. I've done a lot of speaking to general audiences -- students, civil rights groups, church groups, etc. Not once has it seemed even mildly likely that provoking a defensive reaction was a good idea. It's only good, maybe, when you are in a shouting match on a blog or on Fox News, and even in those venues it's extremely debatable if it does anything other than get people mad and shut down and repel the very people you would like to reach. * hot death reference: Bloom County: http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/blm/1982/blm820728.gif

I do not pay Mooney a lot of mind, nor do I necessarily agree with him on any of his specific points -- but I would say iin general it is Writing 101 to present your materials to readers in a fashion intended to provide them with the understanding the writer is trying to communicate.

People shoot back: "Well, we should just give the facts." The problem is that there's a wide range of ways of expressing something that are all equally factual. There's going to be some sort of spin on it. When we go out the door in public, we put on some kind of clothes, but as long as we wearing clothes that fit the task we're doing, we can wear what we like as suits our purposes.

There's an old corporate gag: "If our marketing department sold sushi, they'd call it COLD DEAD RAW FISH." It is hardly dishonest to use somewhat more flattering language to describe it.

those who were creationists but came to reject their early beliefs and accept evolution generally did so because they realised they were being lied to by their preachers/family. That is, the *facts* that made them change their minds, not framing or accommodationism or NOMA.

the Catholic Church has officially rallied to the cause of preventing global warming

this specific claim by Mooney is 1) factually wrong to an almost silly degree, because AGW and the theory of evolution already are supported by many business and religious leaders, and are still denied

You can follow the logic to its conclusion: Conservatives are more likely to embrace climate science if it comes to them via a business or religious leader....

In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

Flint said: harold:

this specific claim by Mooney is 1) factually wrong to an almost silly degree, because AGW and the theory of evolution already are supported by many business and religious leaders, and are still denied

This does not make Mooney wrong in any way. When the authorities you cite say things people don't want to hear, they are no longer accepted as authorities. People choose new authorities. If there are no suitable authorities around, then there's a schism when groups set up their own authorities. Martin Luther is said to have commented that if God Himself came down to earth and told Luther he was wrong, Luther would simply reject his God's authority, because his God got it wrong, and became unreliable.

I don’t understand how this fails to make Moody wrong. He’s saying “they’ll accept AGW if a ‘business leader’ tells them to, because they accept the authority of business leaders”. No, they won’t.

As far as how this applies to creationism, how much success has Ken Miller had in convincing Christians about evolution? I gave his books to a fundamentalist friend of mine and it didn't do squat. Maybe it was because of some anti-catholic bigotry, but I think that is irrelevant.

How do you think this will help in dealing with creationists??????????????????????

How do you think this will help in dealing with creationists??????????????????????

There's no persuading creationists. The only thing that can be done is make sure that people who get interested in the issue and sincerely want to know what's going can get good information.

I am not, however, going to weigh in on this argument and try to define "good information" in highly specific terms.

KP said: As far as how this applies to creationism, how much success has Ken Miller had in convincing Christians about evolution? I gave his books to a fundamentalist friend of mine and it didn't do squat. Maybe it was because of some anti-catholic bigotry, but I think that is irrelevant. How do you think this will help in dealing with creationists??????????????????????

jkc said:

KP said: As far as how this applies to creationism, how much success has Ken Miller had in convincing Christians about evolution? I gave his books to a fundamentalist friend of mine and it didn't do squat. Maybe it was because of some anti-catholic bigotry, but I think that is irrelevant. How do you think this will help in dealing with creationists??????????????????????

Finding Darwin's God was very helpful to me in my transition from YEC to theistic evolution. It mattered a lot to me that there was such a thing as a Christian who believed in evolution. Granted, I was already moving in that direction when I read the book, but without it (and others) that transition might have been stillborn.

KP said: As far as how this applies to creationism, how much success has Ken Miller had in convincing Christians about evolution? I gave his books to a fundamentalist friend of mine and it didn't do squat. Maybe it was because of some anti-catholic bigotry, but I think that is irrelevant. How do you think this will help in dealing with creationists??????????????????????

KP said: As far as how this applies to creationism, how much success has Ken Miller had in convincing Christians about evolution? I gave his books to a fundamentalist friend of mine and it didn't do squat. Maybe it was because of some anti-catholic bigotry, but I think that is irrelevant. How do you think this will help in dealing with creationists??????????????????????

I am not sure it is an honest use of the English language to call the ideology of the right "values."

I am also not sure that it is honest to deliberately frame one's argument in a way that caters to an opponents mental disabilities or prejudices.

It won't work anyway, that's the tactic they use, and they are much more practiced at it than any of us.

I am not sure it is an honest use of the English language to call the ideology of the right “values.”

I am also not sure that it is honest to deliberately frame one’s argument in a way that caters to an opponents mental disabilities or prejudices.

It won’t work anyway, that’s the tactic they use, and they are much more practiced at it than any of us.

I wonder if non-conservatives could ever be convinced that Thorium, or some modern version of nuclear power, could ever be safer than waiting until all the polar ice melts.

Or that the cost of wind power is actually horrendous, and is hidden away in Chinese magnet factories and rare earth mines. Something similar would be true of solar electric, if it were ramped up.

I suppose it is easier to believe in the Easter Bunny of fusion.

Flint said: Mooney seems to be saying that often the difference between thoughtful acceptance and hostile rejection of the same material is a function of good or bad salesmanship.

Nick Matzke said: First of all, please react to what Mooney is saying here, not some generalized reaction to whatever ridiculous grudge the Gnus have built up against Mooney over the years. Tell us what, specifically, you disagree with in what he wrote, and please back it up with science, like science defenders ™ are supposed to do.

Nick Matzke said: I've done a lot of speaking to general audiences -- students, civil rights groups, church groups, etc. Not once has it seemed even mildly likely that provoking a defensive reaction was a good idea. It's only good, maybe, when you are in a shouting match on a blog or on Fox News, and even in those venues it's extremely debatable if it does anything other than get people mad and shut down and repel the very people you would like to reach.

midwifetoad said: I wonder if non-conservatives could ever be convinced that Thorium, or some modern version of nuclear power, could ever be safer than waiting until all the polar ice melts.

Or that the cost of wind power is actually horrendous, and is hidden away in Chinese magnet factories and rare earth mines. Something similar would be true of solar electric, if it were ramped up.

I suppose it is easier to believe in the Easter Bunny of fusion.

While I'd hardly consider myself a hard-core political conservative, I think there's no real question that there are only two current economical approaches to addressing power shortages: nuclear and conservation. Other techniques either cannot produce anywhere near enough power (solar, wind, hydroelectric), or are currently not possible or feasible on anything close to the necessary scale (tides, geothermal, fusion).

I think the conservation effort will gradually be encouraged by steadily (and often rapidly) rising energy prices. But the time to start building nuclear plants is yesterday. Or else.

I think that the "motivated reasoning" research that Mooney cites is actually supportive of a more assertive argument style. The research suggests that people are not convinced by reason alone, but also by emotion. Many folks have argued that, by attaching negative affective evaluation to certain positions, one makes those positions less attractive to hold. So, if you want to convince someone, instead of just presenting the data dispassionately, make it clear that the opposing view is not only wrong, but ignorant and stupid. This may not shift the small hard core who are already strongly committed, but it may be a very effective way of convincing the large mushy middle of undecideds.

I totally saw this the other day in class. I teach biology and 8th grade science in a Muslim nation. One student introduced a study that suggested that you live longer if you drink alcohol. Another student vociferously denied this, because it was against Islam, because the Qur'an says alcohol is evil, therefore there could be no benefits from it, and the study must therefore be wrong. I had to nip that in the bud- in a style much like laid out in this article.

I referred him to the Huxley quote above the board,

“Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”

I told him there could be many reasons why the Qur'an might declare alcohol wrong, but we couldn't get into those in science class. However, we must go where the evidence leads. If the study is flawed or valid, we must investigate it with an open mind, no matter how great the abyss we face, no matter how much it flies in the face of our previous notions. That's what science is about.

Chris Lawson said: And it doesn't address the issue of people whose mindset is dead against the facts by definition. Creationists are not going to accept evolutionary theory a priori. There is no way to "frame" the facts in a way that will make them change their minds.

Tulse said: The research suggests that people are not convinced by reason alone, but also by emotion.

So, if you want to convince someone, instead of just presenting the data dispassionately, make it clear that the opposing view is not only wrong, but ignorant and stupid. This may not shift the small hard core who are already strongly committed, but it may be a very effective way of convincing the large mushy middle of undecideds.

Sorry harold, but midwifetoad has made an interesting point. At best, solar power, wind and tidal power could provide 10% of the United States's energy needs, and that, frankly, is optimistic. The rest would have to come from either carbon-based fuels or nuclear power or both. If we were to reduce drastically our overall carbon footprint and slow down substantially the rate of AGW, then we have to go nuclear. Two years ago, at a World Science Festival panel session here in New York City, I heard NASA climatologist James Hansen advocate strongly for nuclear power for the very reasons I have stated.

I am well aware that nuclear power has taken a substantial loss of credibility in light of the ongoing problems with the nuclear reactors near Sendai, Japan. However, these problems were due to poor planning by Japanese scientists and engineers who did not envision not only an earthquake as powerful as the one which struck that part of Japan last month, but more importantly, the size and intensity of the resulting tsunami.

Flint said:

I don’t understand how this fails to make Moody wrong. He’s saying “they’ll accept AGW if a ‘business leader’ tells them to, because they accept the authority of business leaders”. No, they won’t.

I think Mooney is being simplistic here to some degree, but I think you are also omitting some important context Mooney provided. AGW rejection seems to be based on a constellation of influences that extend considerably beyond individual authority figures. Mooney says that they are reinforced by the disbeliever's community, and conflict with his view of how business ought to work in a general sense. Mooney says that AGW denial (among the general public, not the fanatics) is reduced when AGW can be plausibly integrated with the larger model, as simply another aspect of how business ought to work. So if the authority figure simply decrees that AGW is real, this is probably discredited. If the authority figure instead says that AGW should be recognized as an element of good business generally, it gains credibility. It can more easily be assimilated into an existing model.

Not YOUR emotion, Tulse, THEIR emotions. Calling their position dumbassery isn’t going to make your argument more powerful

What studies like Kahan’s purport to show is that such strategies are less effective at convincing the middle

Flint said: While I'd hardly consider myself a hard-core political conservative, I think there's no real question that there are only two current economical approaches to addressing power shortages: nuclear and conservation. Other techniques either cannot produce anywhere near enough power (solar, wind, hydroelectric), or are currently not possible or feasible on anything close to the necessary scale (tides, geothermal, fusion). I think the conservation effort will gradually be encouraged by steadily (and often rapidly) rising energy prices. But the time to start building nuclear plants is yesterday. Or else.

John Kwok said: Sorry harold, but midwifetoad has made an interesting point. At best, solar power, wind and tidal power could provide 10% of the United States's energy needs, and that, frankly, is optimistic. The rest would have to come from either carbon-based fuels or nuclear power or both. If we were to reduce drastically our overall carbon footprint and slow down substantially the rate of AGW, then we have to go nuclear. Two years ago, at a World Science Festival panel session here in New York City, I heard NASA climatologist James Hansen advocate strongly for nuclear power for the very reasons I have stated. I am well aware that nuclear power has taken a substantial loss of credibility in light of the ongoing problems with the nuclear reactors near Sendai, Japan. However, these problems were due to poor planning by Japanese scientists and engineers who did not envision not only an earthquake as powerful as the one which struck that part of Japan last month, but more importantly, the size and intensity of the resulting tsunami.

Of course, thorium based reactors would mitigate the specific characteristics of nuclear energy that I discussed, which are somewhat specific to uranium-based reactors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Benefits_and_challenges

Therefore, it is doubly mysterious that midwifetoad sneeringly assumes that "non-conservatives" would oppose thorium reactors, if they were available.

Not only would thorium reactors mitigate the factors which have motivated past critics of nuclear power (and the factors are real - not impossible to deal with, not a reason to totally oppose nuclear power, but real), BUT thorium reactors would in no way, shape or form be desirable to those whose ideology denies AGW, denies fossil fuel supply exhaustion, and glorifies wasteful use of fossil fuels.

Paradoxically, midwifetoad's comment might have been accurate, if he or she had directed their criticism in precisely the opposite direction.

Tulse said: You've misread what I said. The point is to make a position distasteful to hold, and thus playing on the emotions of the target.

That sounds as if you’re saying that all use of wind and solar power is always worse than all use of nuclear power under all circumstances. Is that what you’re saying?

I am well aware that nuclear power has taken a substantial loss of credibility in light of the ongoing problems with the nuclear reactors near Sendai, Japan. However, these problems were due to poor planning by Japanese scientists and engineers who did not envision not only an earthquake as powerful as the one which struck that part of Japan last month, but more importantly, the size and intensity of the resulting tsunami.

eric said: When you associate a position your listener currently holds with stupidity, you don't make it more distasteful to them, you make YOU more distasteful to them.

The point is to get people to accept science on the evidence. 'Right result for wrong reason' is no better than 'wrong result for wrong reason,' and arguably worse than 'wrong result for right reason' (i.e., people who come to the wrong result based on rational consideration of evidence).

midwifetoad said:

That sounds as if you’re saying that all use of wind and solar power is always worse than all use of nuclear power under all circumstances. Is that what you’re saying?

I'm saying that Thorium is the only power technology that has any chance of mitigating global warming within the next 50 years. (Without making tons of potential weapons grade byproducts.) Conventional nukes could be safer than they are. Almost all are safer than the Russion graphite moderated versions (which were designed to supply weapons material). But however the Japanese experience turns out, the damaged nukes will probably harm fewer people than even a small earthquake and tidal wave. And probably release less radiation than our coal industry. Run the numbers, and take a look at what wind power is doing to the people who make the generator magnets. Clean alternatives to nukes are not going to happen within the next 50 years. My sneer is intended for anyone who rejects nuclear in a knee jerk fashion. Risks and side effects need to be compared and balanced, and alternatives need to have all their costs factored in.

John Kwok said: Sorry harold, but midwifetoad has made an interesting point. At best, solar power, wind and tidal power could provide 10% of the United States's energy needs, and that, frankly, is optimistic. The rest would have to come from either carbon-based fuels or nuclear power or both. If we were to reduce drastically our overall carbon footprint and slow down substantially the rate of AGW, then we have to go nuclear. Two years ago, at a World Science Festival panel session here in New York City, I heard NASA climatologist James Hansen advocate strongly for nuclear power for the very reasons I have stated. I am well aware that nuclear power has taken a substantial loss of credibility in light of the ongoing problems with the nuclear reactors near Sendai, Japan. However, these problems were due to poor planning by Japanese scientists and engineers who did not envision not only an earthquake as powerful as the one which struck that part of Japan last month, but more importantly, the size and intensity of the resulting tsunami.

Having said all that, I submit to you, again, that the ideology that most rejects ANY organized effort to address energy and environmental problems, via any methodology, is the ideology which denies AGW

So which political side owns immunization denial?

Tulse said: But I thought that Mooney's conclusion from all the research is that one has to make an emotional appeal, and arguments from authority (or at least by authority) in order to convince.

To be perfectly clear, I too wish that purely rational argument was effective. But I thought the whole point of Mooney's article is that it isn't.

I think the point is that humans sometimes aren’t rational - not that the evidence alone isn’t enough. If you want the evidence alone to win the day, you have to make sure you put your audience in a situation where they are willing to use the rational parts of their brains.

eric said:

Tulse said: But I thought that Mooney's conclusion from all the research is that one has to make an emotional appeal, and arguments from authority (or at least by authority) in order to convince.

How did you get that from "make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional reaction?" 'Doesn't trigger' seems pretty clear to me. The bit about having it come from a trusted figure makes perfect sense in this context. The goal is to stop the emotional defenses from coming up, as they might if the message was delivered from someone or a source that the group despises.

To be perfectly clear, I too wish that purely rational argument was effective. But I thought the whole point of Mooney's article is that it isn't.

I think the point is that humans sometimes aren't rational - not that the evidence alone isn't enough. If you want the evidence alone to win the day, you have to make sure you put your audience in a situation where they are willing to use the rational parts of their brains. For a university professors, there IS some value in intentionally bringing up emotionally charged subjects. One goal of academic training is to encourage people to have thick enough skins to do self-assessment and self-criticism: to be more in control of the 'gear shift,' to use my analogy. But that's a special circumstance. If you are trying to convince someone today, you aren't going to do so by waving a red flag in front of their face.

eric said:

Tulse said: But I thought that Mooney's conclusion from all the research is that one has to make an emotional appeal, and arguments from authority (or at least by authority) in order to convince.

How did you get that from "make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional reaction?" 'Doesn't trigger' seems pretty clear to me. The bit about having it come from a trusted figure makes perfect sense in this context. The goal is to stop the emotional defenses from coming up, as they might if the message was delivered from someone or a source that the group despises.

To be perfectly clear, I too wish that purely rational argument was effective. But I thought the whole point of Mooney's article is that it isn't.

I think the point is that humans sometimes aren't rational - not that the evidence alone isn't enough. If you want the evidence alone to win the day, you have to make sure you put your audience in a situation where they are willing to use the rational parts of their brains. For a university professors, there IS some value in intentionally bringing up emotionally charged subjects. One goal of academic training is to encourage people to have thick enough skins to do self-assessment and self-criticism: to be more in control of the 'gear shift,' to use my analogy. But that's a special circumstance. If you are trying to convince someone today, you aren't going to do so by waving a red flag in front of their face.

I'm still trying to figure out what defines "hierarchical individualists" (the ones whose nipples got hard at the mention of nukes). The term sounds inherently oxymoronic - most of the people I think of as individualists react to authority in vary degrees of negativity, and vice-versa.

But maybe I'm just stupid tonight, 'cuz I don't see any reason for the adjective in the headline for this piece either.

Pierce R. Butler said: ... vary degrees of negativity...

I don’t understand how this fails to make Moody wrong. He’s saying “they’ll accept AGW if a ‘business leader’ tells them to, because they accept the authority of business leaders”. No, they won’t. If Bill Gates tells them to, they’ll reject him out of hand as a “liberal” business leader (by their standards), and if the Koch brothers tell them to, they’ll accuse them of backsliding and still reject it.

Nick, who does this? Who are these people that go into church groups and provoke defensive reactions? You would be willing to back this up with more than a general comment I assume?

Advertise the sizzle...not the steak.

Flint said: While I'd hardly consider myself a hard-core political conservative, I think there's no real question that there are only two current economical approaches to addressing power shortages: nuclear and conservation. Other techniques either cannot produce anywhere near enough power (solar, wind, hydroelectric), or are currently not possible or feasible on anything close to the necessary scale (tides, geothermal, fusion). I think the conservation effort will gradually be encouraged by steadily (and often rapidly) rising energy prices. But the time to start building nuclear plants is yesterday. Or else.

Nick Matzke said: Well, I have seen Richard Dawkins address large general audiences and quite deliberately, but ridiculously, play the Nazi card against religion. It's an instance of Godwin's Law, and it's no better when Dawkins does it than when anyone else does it.

harold said:

There's something even worse about the Mooney "study"...He biased the results with the word "nuclear".

harold, you know I'm not fan of Mooney, but to be fair he was quoting a study performed by other people, so it shouldn't be called "the Mooney study", nor should Mooney be blamed for biasing the results. Other than that, I agree completely. The study was hopelessly biased from the outset and there is very little that can be safely inferred from the findings. Not that it stopped Mooney from doing so.

Nick Matzke said: I never understand the hot death people rain down on Chris Mooney for this kind of thing (*).

Flint said: Chris Lawson:

those who were creationists but came to reject their early beliefs and accept evolution generally did so because they realised they were being lied to by their preachers/family. That is, the *facts* that made them change their minds, not framing or accommodationism or NOMA.

I don't understand you here. What you seem to be saying is that scientific evidence, no matter how all-encompassing, consistent, or persuasive, was useless. Instead, what happened was that they came to view their authorities as being unreliable for reasons external to the evidence. They began to distrust the character, motivations, and probity of their authorities. And only THEN did they start to take the facts seriously.

And that trust is not based on any facts, so it can't be undermined by any facts. His trust is based on emotional needs which must be satisfied in some other way. Facts can't do that.

It's also worth noting that Mooney is proferring tactical advice which might be valuable to people with a limited goal: that of persuading a slightly larger number of people to answer "yes" to questions like "Do you think evolution happened" or "Do you think human action is changing the climate".

There's no indication that he's considering the strategic question of how you actually improve people's understanding of either issue. Nor does he seem to put any value on being able to publicly say what one believes to be true without being told to hush up and stop frightening the believers.

And the horrifying Tom Johnson affair has shown that Mooney can't be trusted to tell the truth or act ethically.

@ Robert byers: "...We say show us the evidence..."

The creationists have been shown 150 years' worth of solid positive scientific evidence for evolution. Creationists have shown zero positive scientific evidence for a creation.

QED.

But I'll bet your average creationist won't change their mind based on that.

Yes, but I don’t hold out much hope for convincing the truly committed creationist (or AGW denier or anti-vaxxer). This is, in fact, the problem with Mooney’s take on this. He says we should lead with values and not facts, but with these groups of people, the facts themselves are their value statements.

My hope is to convince those people who have an emotional attachment to evident facts that can used as a lever to move their other emotional attachments.

And while I have nothing against someone using Mooney’s approach of trying to find shared values first, I am thoroughly sick of him trying to shut down any other approach, esp. as his approach has demonstrably failed in some important instances (see my earlier examples of George Soros and the Catholic Church on global warming).

@ Robert byers: “…We say show us the evidence…” The creationists have been shown 150 years’ worth of solid positive scientific evidence for evolution. Creationists have shown zero positive scientific evidence for a creation.

You can follow the logic to its conclusion: Conservatives are more likely to embrace climate science if it comes to them via a business or religious leader, who can set the issue in the context of different values than those from which environmentalists or scientists often argue. Doing so is, effectively, to signal a détente in what Kahan has called a “culture war of fact.” In other words, paradoxically, you don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values–so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

It doesn’t say how we should “lead with the values” - should we adjust our values to match our audience? Should we actually change our values, or just pretend to have different values than we really have? Or should we try to bring people around to share our values first?

I also wanted to note Mooney's mention of "social desirabililty". Isn't changing the social desirability of religion exactly what gnu atheists are after?

@Flint: Car salesmen aren't exactly the most trusted group of people in society either, so you may want to rethink suggesting that science advocates should become more like car salesmen.

And yes, an audience that feels you're on their side is indeed going to be more receptive. But you're avoiding the real problem: what if in reality you're not really on their side? A car salesman isn't really on the side of the customer, is he? And I, as an atheist, am not really on the side of theistic evolution, am I?

SAWells said: It's also worth noting that Mooney is proferring tactical advice which might be valuable to people with a limited goal: that of persuading a slightly larger number of people to answer "yes" to questions like "Do you think evolution happened" or "Do you think human action is changing the climate". There's no indication that he's considering the strategic question of how you actually improve people's understanding of either issue. Nor does he seem to put any value on being able to publicly say what one believes to be true without being told to hush up and stop frightening the believers. And the horrifying Tom Johnson affair has shown that Mooney can't be trusted to tell the truth or act ethically.

Chris Lawson said:

Nick Matzke said: I never understand the hot death people rain down on Chris Mooney for this kind of thing (*).

Let's see. Mooney is a hypocritical tone troll who misrepresents almost everyone he writes about, sets himself up as the Lord High Judge of what counts as acceptable discourse, not to mention that he personally vouched for the veracity of a lying sock-puppet while banning the person the sock-puppet was lying about from his blog, thus making it impossible for her to correct the lies at their source, and then when the liar and his sock-puppets were revealed, refused to apologise, refused to correct the lies published on his blog, and refused to lift the ban on the person who had been the victim of the lies. Does that answer your question?

@Flint: Car salesmen aren’t exactly the most trusted group of people in society either, so you may want to rethink suggesting that science advocates should become more like car salesmen.

And yes, an audience that feels you’re on their side is indeed going to be more receptive. But you’re avoiding the real problem: what if in reality you’re not really on their side? A car salesman isn’t really on the side of the customer, is he? And I, as an atheist, am not really on the side of theistic evolution, am I?

Nick Matzke said: I never understand the hot death people rain down on Chris Mooney for this kind of thing (*). They tend to be the same people that rain hot death on all opponents, real or imagined, all the time.

Deen said: A car salesman isn't really on the side of the customer, is he? And I, as an atheist, am not really on the side of theistic evolution, am I?

Yet a great many cars are sold, and some salesmen are far more effective than others.

Yes, and yes. The car salesman seriously DOES want the customer to be happy.

And even as an atheist, you really DO want the theist to understand the scientific principles, don’t you?

And then there’s the fact how Creationists tend to view other Christians who accept Evolution as true as being evil, treacherous, God-hating traitors who are, at best, no better than the evil, God-hating atheists.

Deen said: @Stanton: we know there exist school teachers who teach outright creationism in public schools. In light of this, do you really think there aren't any school teachers who teach that evolution is all part of God's plan?

Theistic evolution is still wrong. Evolution doesn't need a designer, and it doesn't need a planner either.

And what's wrong with me arguing against something which I think is wrong? Religious people are allowed to do that. They don't have to justify themselves for it. Why should I?

And then there’s the fact how Creationists tend to view other Christians who accept Evolution as true as being evil, treacherous, God-hating traitors who are, at best, no better than the evil, God-hating atheists.

True. Which is another strike against the idea that you can sell any idea as long as you sugercoat it enough.

Deen said: @Flint:

Yet a great many cars are sold, and some salesmen are far more effective than others.

Where else are you going to buy your car, if not from a car seller?

Yes, and yes. The car salesman seriously DOES want the customer to be happy.

Sure, unhappy customers are bad for business. But the job of a salesman is to make you happy with what they sell you, not to sell you what makes you happy - because that might be a competitor's car, or a car without a nice profit margin. In the end, the car salesman is not on your side. The good ones just make it seem like they are. But do we really want to continue arguing about car salesmen?

And even as an atheist, you really DO want the theist to understand the scientific principles, don’t you?

Yes, I do. But I do not want to promote theistic evolution to do so, even if that would be more effective. And I can tell you, I am not on the side of theistic evolution - no idea why you think you can tell me I am.

There is, of course, a basic conflict between some interpretations of some bits of some scriputres, and reality. Most people, unlike Kurt Wise, aren't quite willing to reject reality altogether in these cases, they want them to to be consistent. It might not be, for most people, all that big a phase shift to regard reality as foremost, and reinterpret scripture to match. Since reality can be used as a model, it can be used as an effective interpreter of the intended meanings of the scriptures. Sometimes this works, I hope.

And I, as an atheist, am not really on the side of theistic evolution, am I?

harold said: If they simply understand evolution, while simultaneously believing in some kind of religion, that's what I call, for lack of a better term, "theistic evolution".

Flint said: There is, of course, a basic conflict between some interpretations of some bits of some scriputres, and reality. Most people, unlike Kurt Wise, aren't quite willing to reject reality altogether in these cases, they want them to to be consistent. It might not be, for most people, all that big a phase shift to regard reality as foremost, and reinterpret scripture to match. Since reality can be used as a model, it can be used as an effective interpreter of the intended meanings of the scriptures. Sometimes this works, I hope.

John Kwok said: I wouldn't quite state this in the manner that you've so described, but it's a predominnatly accurate assessment as to how Mooney handled the "Tom Johnson" affair. But he's not the only prominent science blogger who has demonstrated morally dubious behavior.

John Kwok said: PZ Myers has exhibited this more than once, as for example, here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ If you are logically consistent Chris, then you need to condemn Myers for treating as a joke, a threat that was posted at Pharyngula over a year ago in which the poster advocated raping and killing Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney. You need to condemn Myers for conceiving of and then acting out "CrackerGate". And, last, but not least, you should criticize him for dubbing Ken Miller, a "creationist", as he did here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_miller_creationist.php I am not trying to exonerate Chris Mooney for his own abysmal response to the "Tom Johnson" affair. But Nick Matzke has raised an excellent point as to how Mooney has been perceived by some New Atheists (A perception that, like Nick, I find most bewildering.).

To those who disagree with my calling Miller a creationist: tough. I've read his book, I've listened to several of his talks. He believes that evolution is insufficient to explain our existence, and has to postulate a mysterious intelligent entity that just happens to be the Christian god as an active agent in our history, and further, he believes he can make common cause with more overt creationists by highlighting his religious beliefs. Theistic evolutionists are part of the wide spectrum of creationist beliefs, and that he personally endorses the power of natural processes in 99.99% of all cases does not change what he is, it just means we're haggling over the degree.

Nick Matzke said: Well, I have seen Richard Dawkins address large general audiences and quite deliberately, but ridiculously, play the Nazi card against religion. It’s an instance of Godwin’s Law, and it’s no better when Dawkins does it than when anyone else does it.

Mike Elzinga said: Weird thinking indeed.

Mooney should really do more self reflection if he's going to be summarizing conclusions like this that only undermine his own dogmatic characterizations of imagined 'new atheist'.

Nick Matzke said: ridiculous grudge the Gnus have built up

but not if you lead with you

For evolutionists, he says, one of these is the conventional evolutionary assumption that all living things are descended from a common ancestor. Such beliefs are non-negotiable for the evolutionist. 'I would say that if you investigated any scientists in any field you would find issues they assume at the beginning that are unchangeable for them.'

Chad does bring up an interesting point.

Concern about "tone" on the pro-science side is usually expressed in the ostensible service of convincing atheists to be more polite.

Yet there is no reason not to use the same persuasive techniques, when attempting to reach atheists, as one would use when attempting to reach the religious.

For the record, I did not find the Mooney piece that this thread is about to be rude to atheists, nor to anyone else. As I made clear, my only problems with it were that I thought the survey he referred to was biased, and I thought he jumped to (or more fairly, endorsed), some unwarranted conclusions. (I certainly don't dispute the general conclusion that persuasive language works best, but do dispute the specific conclusion that scientific theories are viewed as more palatable by deniers when presented by "business or religious leaders".)

Why is stabilization of the planet’s population at an environmentally sustainable level never evaluated as a solution?

I certainly don’t dispute the general conclusion that persuasive language works best, but do dispute the specific conclusion that scientific theories are viewed as more palatable by deniers when presented by “business or religious leaders”

Flint said:

Why is stabilization of the planet’s population at an environmentally sustainable level never evaluated as a solution?

Because it is obvious, necessary, and impossible by political means. Ask the Chinese. There are, however, two workable approaches. The first is to let the inevitable population implosion (based on reasonable extrapolations) occur. The second is less direct -- it is observed that fertility rates fall below replacement levels in the most affluent societies. Which abundant cheap energy might approach, perhaps in enough of the world.

Jolo3509 said: What event was that at? I am genuinely curious now.

Aldotius said: Robert Byers wrote: "Yes YEC creationists start from a acceptance of authority in the bible yet we insist we are open to persuasion but our opponents fail." There's you problem right there. Open to persuasion yet admit the Bible is the ultimate authority? Pick one, it cannot be both. Besides, pretending that an old book written by people who did not have an inch of the knowledge we have today should be accepted as "authority", without evidence, is a bit of a nail in the head, is it not? The bottom line is that the ideas the ancient Hebrew goat herders had about how all this came to be, what the Earth is and why life is so diverse is simply refuted by modern knowledge. I repeat, it is refuted by science. See the problem with claiming such ancient myths are "authority" yet? So let's have a go at this whole "framing" issue. It is not that you are wrong Robert, it is simply that you are not right.

Aldotius, it is regrettably necessary to understand what Byers believes, and how he thinks, for some values of that verb.

Byers believes that God wrote the Bible, personally. Or at the very least, dictated it word for word. He also believes that everyone who had a hand in transmitting it was also directed by God. The scribes, the copyists, the editors, the selectors, the multiple layers of translators, the lot.

But that's not all. Byers also believes that he, Robert Byers, is directed by God on how to interpret the Bible. Byers knows that there are places where the Bible uses metaphor and doesn't say that it's metaphor, but he believes that he is infallibly directed to know when it is metaphor and when it is speaking literally.

Therefore, for Byers, his interpretation of the Bible is the evidence. Nothing contrary to the Byers interpretation of the Bible can possibly be evidence, because that would make God out to be a liar. That's why he's perfectly confident that you won't be able to persuade him. The "merits of the case" that he's talking about consist wholly, solely and entirely of how closely the case conforms to the Byers interpretation of the Bible.

You are addressing one of the real, true genuine godbots here. Nothing is crazy enough to bother Byers, so long as he thinks it's in the Bible. Nothing is reasonable enough for him to accept, if he thinks it goes against what's in the Bible.

Byers is remarkably stupid and ill-educated, if his prose is any index to his intelligence and schooling. But to look a wall of inescapable fact in the face and affirm, hand on heart, that it isn't there - that takes more than stupidity and ignorance. It takes something fairly close to self-induced psychosis.

We keep Byers around to remind everyone who comes here - this is your mind on fundamentalist religion. Watch and shudder.

Stanton said: Those teachers who teach Creationism in public schools are Creationists, not theistic evolution'ists.

Now you're conflating Theistic evolution with Intelligent Design Theory. Theistic evolution is where a person assumes that "GODDIDIT" using laws of nature

Where did Flint and I say you weren't allowed to argue against what you believe is wrong?

I'm not saying that you are obligated to share the beliefs of theistic evolution'ists, but I am trying to say is that you shouldn't go out of your way to denounce other people's personal beliefs if those other people aren't attempting to harm you in any way [emphasis mine].

I brought that up because I was trying to imply that it is not in anyone’s best interests to make more enemies, or spurn potential allies.

Dave Luckett said: Aldotius, it is regrettably necessary to understand what Byers believes, and how he thinks, for some values of that verb. Byers believes that God wrote the Bible, personally. Or at the very least, dictated it word for word. He also believes that everyone who had a hand in transmitting it was also directed by God. The scribes, the copyists, the editors, the selectors, the multiple layers of translators, the lot. But that's not all. Byers also believes that he, Robert Byers, is directed by God on how to interpret the Bible. Byers knows that there are places where the Bible uses metaphor and doesn't say that it's metaphor, but he believes that he is infallibly directed to know when it is metaphor and when it is speaking literally. Therefore, for Byers, his interpretation of the Bible is the evidence. Nothing contrary to the Byers interpretation of the Bible can possibly be evidence, because that would make God out to be a liar. That's why he's perfectly confident that you won't be able to persuade him. The "merits of the case" that he's talking about consist wholly, solely and entirely of how closely the case conforms to the Byers interpretation of the Bible. You are addressing one of the real, true genuine godbots here. Nothing is crazy enough to bother Byers, so long as he thinks it's in the Bible. Nothing is reasonable enough for him to accept, if he thinks it goes against what's in the Bible. Byers is remarkably stupid and ill-educated, if his prose is any index to his intelligence and schooling. But to look a wall of inescapable fact in the face and affirm, hand on heart, that it isn't there - that takes more than stupidity and ignorance. It takes something fairly close to self-induced psychosis. We keep Byers around to remind everyone who comes here - this is your mind on fundamentalist religion. Watch and shudder.

It is not unreasonable of Mooney (or original) to think that information can be somewhat more or less accepted depending on how it is presented and whether the source is already seen in a favorable or unfavorable light by the audience. But if you want to know why certain specific information is strongly rejected, consider that there may be specific reasons, just as specific institutions push anti-evolution. F = mA is a good general reason for acceleration but if you want to know specifically why the car slammed into the tree....

If you like Mooney you'll love Nisbet, who btw got a big boost in Nature this week.

And you think theistic evolutionist teachers who are willing to teach it don’t exist? Why? If creationist teachers can get away with teaching their beliefs, don’t you think theistic evolutionist teachers would have an even easier time getting away with it? There will probably always be a Stanton to defend theistic evolution as harmless.

Jolo3509 said:

John Kwok said: I wouldn't quite state this in the manner that you've so described, but it's a predominnatly accurate assessment as to how Mooney handled the "Tom Johnson" affair. But he's not the only prominent science blogger who has demonstrated morally dubious behavior.

He missed the part where Chris Mooney implied that Myers was sockpuppeting on the Intersection but he (Mooney) didn't have time to go back through all the threads to check.

John Kwok said: PZ Myers has exhibited this more than once, as for example, here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ If you are logically consistent Chris, then you need to condemn Myers for treating as a joke, a threat that was posted at Pharyngula over a year ago in which the poster advocated raping and killing Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney. You need to condemn Myers for conceiving of and then acting out "CrackerGate". And, last, but not least, you should criticize him for dubbing Ken Miller, a "creationist", as he did here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_miller_creationist.php I am not trying to exonerate Chris Mooney for his own abysmal response to the "Tom Johnson" affair. But Nick Matzke has raised an excellent point as to how Mooney has been perceived by some New Atheists (A perception that, like Nick, I find most bewildering.).

I am trying to see where PZ Myers advocated raping people with a rusty knife. Now if you had read the entire comment, not the piece that Sheril took, you would notice it calls them (Mooney, Kirshenbaum and the commenters on the Intersection) all names as well. Perhaps, now this might be a stretch, he was telling them that they were not worth his time in a more vulgar fashion. As for Miller, Myers says this:

To those who disagree with my calling Miller a creationist: tough. I've read his book, I've listened to several of his talks. He believes that evolution is insufficient to explain our existence, and has to postulate a mysterious intelligent entity that just happens to be the Christian god as an active agent in our history, and further, he believes he can make common cause with more overt creationists by highlighting his religious beliefs. Theistic evolutionists are part of the wide spectrum of creationist beliefs, and that he personally endorses the power of natural processes in 99.99% of all cases does not change what he is, it just means we're haggling over the degree.

This sounds like a creationist to me, what do you think?

Nick Matzke said: Well, I have seen Richard Dawkins address large general audiences and quite deliberately, but ridiculously, play the Nazi card against religion. It’s an instance of Godwin’s Law, and it’s no better when Dawkins does it than when anyone else does it.

What event was that at? I am genuinely curious now.

John Kwok said:

Jolo3509 said:

John Kwok said: I wouldn't quite state this in the manner that you've so described, but it's a predominnatly accurate assessment as to how Mooney handled the "Tom Johnson" affair. But he's not the only prominent science blogger who has demonstrated morally dubious behavior.

He missed the part where Chris Mooney implied that Myers was sockpuppeting on the Intersection but he (Mooney) didn't have time to go back through all the threads to check.

John Kwok said: PZ Myers has exhibited this more than once, as for example, here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ If you are logically consistent Chris, then you need to condemn Myers for treating as a joke, a threat that was posted at Pharyngula over a year ago in which the poster advocated raping and killing Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney. You need to condemn Myers for conceiving of and then acting out "CrackerGate". And, last, but not least, you should criticize him for dubbing Ken Miller, a "creationist", as he did here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_miller_creationist.php I am not trying to exonerate Chris Mooney for his own abysmal response to the "Tom Johnson" affair. But Nick Matzke has raised an excellent point as to how Mooney has been perceived by some New Atheists (A perception that, like Nick, I find most bewildering.).

I am trying to see where PZ Myers advocated raping people with a rusty knife. Now if you had read the entire comment, not the piece that Sheril took, you would notice it calls them (Mooney, Kirshenbaum and the commenters on the Intersection) all names as well. Perhaps, now this might be a stretch, he was telling them that they were not worth his time in a more vulgar fashion. As for Miller, Myers says this:

To those who disagree with my calling Miller a creationist: tough. I've read his book, I've listened to several of his talks. He believes that evolution is insufficient to explain our existence, and has to postulate a mysterious intelligent entity that just happens to be the Christian god as an active agent in our history, and further, he believes he can make common cause with more overt creationists by highlighting his religious beliefs. Theistic evolutionists are part of the wide spectrum of creationist beliefs, and that he personally endorses the power of natural processes in 99.99% of all cases does not change what he is, it just means we're haggling over the degree.

This sounds like a creationist to me, what do you think?

Nick Matzke said: Well, I have seen Richard Dawkins address large general audiences and quite deliberately, but ridiculously, play the Nazi card against religion. It’s an instance of Godwin’s Law, and it’s no better when Dawkins does it than when anyone else does it.

What event was that at? I am genuinely curious now.

Sorry Jolo3509, you are inaccurate on several accounts: 1) Myers - both at Pharyngula and The Intersection - thought the ensuing uproar was due to his toleration of coarse language, not that one of his zealous posters had threatened to rape and to kill Kirshenbaum and Mooney with a rusty knife. Your ludicrous observation merely is yet another in the Clintonesque New Speak of defining the meaning of the word is. 2) Apparently Myers hasn't heard Ken speak often enough. Consistently Ken has said - and maybe even more emphatically in his high school biology textbook - that he accepts evolution as a very well established scientific fact and recognizes the current Modern Synthesis as the best unifying theory that we have now for biology. I have also heard Ken say that those who espouse faiths hostile to science should reject them. Hardly the words of a bona fide "creationist" don't you think? Where Ken runs into trouble IMHO - and I make this observation as a friend - is in his espousal of a weak form of the anthropic principle, as for example, in his chapter in "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", he opines that the universe somehow knew we were coming. If that's "creationism" then I don't think you know what creationism is, since one can argue persuasively that this is the declaration of an avowed theistic evolutionist. Finally, relying upon Myers as your "oracle" with respect to whether or not Ken Miller is actually a creationist is merely an argument from authority. Instead of explaining why you agree with Myers's assessment, you believe that it is sufficient to accept this absurdity from Myers simply because Myers said so. Now, may I ask, is it fundamentally any different than an IDiot accepting as valid science, Intelligent Design cretinism, simply because Behe, Dembski, Luskin and Meyer have declared its scientific worthiness? I strongly suspect an impartial observer might agree with me that the answer is most obviously, a resounding "NO!".

I think that it is important to remember motivation here as well. A fundamentalist creationist is commanded by his god to proselytize. It is his very reason for existence. He can't help it. His entire belief structure requires him to put his religious beliefs above laws and governments and ethics and anything else. It is very likely the reason why he wanted to go into teaching in the first place, in order to preach to kids and try to convert them, especially those rascals who just don't want to come to church to be preached at.

A theistic evolution proponent on the other hand, need not necessarily have any of those motivations. He is just as likely to have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone else to share his views. He certainly would not ordinarily be motivated enough to break the law and introduce his own religious beliefs into the classroom, thus risking his job and angering the god he believes is watching. He certainly would have to reason to display any religious symbols or burn crosses on anyone.

Think of it this way, who would you rather have in front of your kids, a psychopath already convicted of ten murders who has publicly stated that they intend to kill again at the first opportunity because they just can't help themselves, or someone with a few unpaid parking tickets. Of course the guy could go nuts at any time and kill anyway, but it still seems like a better bet than the alternative.

John Kwok said: Sorry Jolo3509, you are inaccurate on several accounts: 1) Myers - both at Pharyngula and The Intersection - thought the ensuing uproar was due to his toleration of coarse language, not that one of his zealous posters had threatened to rape and to kill Kirshenbaum and Mooney with a rusty knife. Your ludicrous observation merely is yet another in the Clintonesque New Speak of defining the meaning of the word is.

John Kwok said: 2) Apparently Myers hasn't heard Ken speak often enough. Consistently Ken has said - and maybe even more emphatically in his high school biology textbook - that he accepts evolution as a very well established scientific fact and recognizes the current Modern Synthesis as the best unifying theory that we have now for biology. I have also heard Ken say that those who espouse faiths hostile to science should reject them. Hardly the words of a bona fide "creationist" don't you think?

John Kwok said: Finally, relying upon Myers as your "oracle" with respect to whether or not Ken Miller is actually a creationist is merely an argument from authority. Instead of explaining why you agree with Myers's assessment, you believe that it is sufficient to accept this absurdity from Myers simply because Myers said so. Now, may I ask, is it fundamentally any different than an IDiot accepting as valid science, Intelligent Design cretinism, simply because Behe, Dembski, Luskin and Meyer have declared its scientific worthiness? I strongly suspect an impartial observer might agree with me that the answer is most obviously, a resounding "NO!".

Jolo3509 said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Jolo3509, you are inaccurate on several accounts: 1) Myers - both at Pharyngula and The Intersection - thought the ensuing uproar was due to his toleration of coarse language, not that one of his zealous posters had threatened to rape and to kill Kirshenbaum and Mooney with a rusty knife. Your ludicrous observation merely is yet another in the Clintonesque New Speak of defining the meaning of the word is.

I read the link you posted by Sheril, I then went to the comment she linked and read it. I am not sure how anyone without arms like Plastic man could make the reach that Myers treated it like a joke, or that it was any sort of desire to have Mooney & Kirshenbaum raped with a rusty knife. Please note, I did not read the comments on the Intersection but only on Pharyngula.

John Kwok said: 2) Apparently Myers hasn't heard Ken speak often enough. Consistently Ken has said - and maybe even more emphatically in his high school biology textbook - that he accepts evolution as a very well established scientific fact and recognizes the current Modern Synthesis as the best unifying theory that we have now for biology. I have also heard Ken say that those who espouse faiths hostile to science should reject them. Hardly the words of a bona fide "creationist" don't you think?

Take it up with PZ, I have no real opinion on the issue.

John Kwok said: Finally, relying upon Myers as your "oracle" with respect to whether or not Ken Miller is actually a creationist is merely an argument from authority. Instead of explaining why you agree with Myers's assessment, you believe that it is sufficient to accept this absurdity from Myers simply because Myers said so. Now, may I ask, is it fundamentally any different than an IDiot accepting as valid science, Intelligent Design cretinism, simply because Behe, Dembski, Luskin and Meyer have declared its scientific worthiness? I strongly suspect an impartial observer might agree with me that the answer is most obviously, a resounding "NO!".

Dude, I didn't bring up Myers calling Miller a creationist, you did. I have no real opinion on the matter as I have not read enough Miller to make a decision. Nice try though.

Again, I should remind readers that I do not find objectionable PZ Myers's writings on science. When he reports science, he does a fine job, even if it doesn't quite display the literary eloquence that one sees from Carl Zimmer for example. Unfortunately, he tends to write substantially more about his anti-religious and political views than he does about science.

These claims of threats of rape are ridiculous. If I recall correctly, the language used was "Fuck them. Fuck them with a rusty blade". Was that crude? Yes, it was, but it takes quite some mental gymnastics and ignorance of the meaning of the phrase "fuck them" (or just plain old dishonesty of course) to spin that as a threat of rape.

No one cares about your old grudge against Myers that you bring up at every opportunity. The relevant topic here is that Nick Matzke lied when he claimed, "I have seen Richard Dawkins address large general audiences and quite deliberately, but ridiculously, play the Nazi card against religion." Matzke just made it up out of whole cloth.

Magicthighs said: These claims of threats of rape are ridiculous. If I recall correctly, the language used was "Fuck them. Fuck them with a rusty blade". Was that crude? Yes, it was, but it takes quite some mental gymnastics and ignorance of the meaning of the phrase "fuck them" (or just plain old dishonesty of course) to spin that as a threat of rape.

tomh said: No one cares about your old grudge against Myers that you bring up at every opportunity. The relevant topic here is that Nick Matzke lied when he claimed, "I have seen Richard Dawkins address large general audiences and quite deliberately, but ridiculously, play the Nazi card against religion." Matzke just made it up out of whole cloth.

Apparently several delusional Pharyngulites have forgotten that I wrote this in a Jack Scanlan thread from last week:

John Kwok replied to comment from harold | April 14, 2011 11:29 AM | Reply | Edit
harold said:

grasshopper said:

where does all of this time come from to discuss so many different topics relating to ID?

And that would mean that PZ Meyers is a non-productive pontificating wastrel of time, too, I guess.

Arguably. He is astoundingly prolific, and much of what he comments on is already covered all over the internet.

Yet I will note that, whether one agrees every word he says or not, or with his satirical tone, he opens rational discussions, tolerates honest and non-obsessive critique, and defends his own position without resort to distorting that of his opponents (he may harshly critique his opponents’ positions, but that is very different from distorting them).

None of this is true of Luskin.

Agreed, that’s a fair assessment of PZ and Luskin (And I know some of PZ’s fans are going to go into cardiac arrest because I am in agreement with you, since it’s public knowledge regarding my own prior history with him. Not once have I disputed his excellent science writing. It’s his militant Atheism and related matters that I have some grave concerns with.).

John Kwok said: I'm not a woman and I am especially not Sheril Kirshenbaum, but if she thought that was a threat to rape and to kill her and Chris Mooney, then I'll accept her interpretation.

I also regarded that absurd comment as a threat.

Your remarks are obtuse, ridiculous and no better than what I have seen from FL, Byers, IBIG or the other creo trolls infesting Pharynugla (And yes, I just wrote this knowing damn well I'll see yet another display of infantile stupidity expressed by you here at PT as a response.).

So Nick, Jerry Coyne has called you out
"So, I challenge Matzke to break his silence and either apologize, correct himself, or name any other incidents involving Nazis (since he says he’s seen Dawkins do this at “large general audiences,” which is plural)."
Do you intend to respond?

Magicthighs said:

John Kwok said: I'm not a woman and I am especially not Sheril Kirshenbaum, but if she thought that was a threat to rape and to kill her and Chris Mooney, then I'll accept her interpretation.

Let me paraphrase you for an answer: If you are willing to accept Kirshenbaum’s declaration at face value - which apparently you do - then you have accepted an argument from authority and have done so since Kirshenbaum is your New Accomodationist “prophet”. To claim otherwise, merely demonstrates just how much a hypocrite you are IMHO.

I also regarded that absurd comment as a threat.

Really? If I were to say "bite me" to you, you'd take that as an invitation to literally bite me?

Your remarks are obtuse, ridiculous and no better than what I have seen from FL, Byers, IBIG or the other creo trolls infesting Pharynugla (And yes, I just wrote this knowing damn well I'll see yet another display of infantile stupidity expressed by you here at PT as a response.).

No, they're not obtuse, they're just not completely divorced from reality, as yours are. Nice tone btw, John.

Jonathan Smith said: So Nick, Jerry Coyne has called you out "So, I challenge Matzke to break his silence and either apologize, correct himself, or name any other incidents involving Nazis (since he says he’s seen Dawkins do this at “large general audiences,” which is plural)." Do you intend to respond?

Jonathan Smith said: So Nick, Jerry Coyne has called you out ... Do you intend to respond?

John Kwok said: No Kirshenbaum isn't my "New Accomodationist 'prophet'". Only a delusional moron - to use PZ's favorite term (Though I could think of some colorful language as better substitutes, which, for example, Elton John would say when he's off-stage. As an aside I mention him only because I sat about one hundred feet from him last night, hearing him play a brief live set after the world premiere debut of the Cameron Crowe documentary film, "The Union", chronicling the recording sessions of the album of the same title, which opened the Tribeca Film Festival here in New York City last night. If anyone is my "prophet", it's more likely Elton John and his songwriting partner, lyricist Bernie Taupin, NOT Sheril Kirshenbaum or Ken Miller.) - such as yourself would arrive at such a conclusion.

Seriously, if you were to say to me "bite me", then I wouldn't regard it as threat. But if you were to add that you would try to "bite me" at NOON EDT today outside of Saint Patrick's Cathedral, then anyone might regard that as a threat.

By being so specific about using a "rusty knife", the person in question did threaten Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney; it wasn't a joke as he contended later

(and if it was, it merely showed just how depraved he was and how insensitive Myers was in dealing with the response to that "joke").

John Kwok -

We all know that P. Z. Meyers, despite his sharply satirical tone and frequent use of earthy language, is a strong advocate of human rights, and women's rights in particular.

He does not condone rape or other unjustified violence.

If a serious public threat to rape someone with a rusty knife had been made, there would unequivocally have been action by law enforcement authorities. We can take the implied disinterest of experts in law enforcement as strong circumstantial evidence that an actual reasonable threat never existed.

There is a lesson here - escalating emotional language escalates emotions. Language that has violent of sexual content can have an unintended emotional impact, even when it is clarified that the intent is metaphorical. So I'm perfectly willing to say that the rusty knife comment was in very, very poor taste.

Taste is a subjective judgment, and if someone disagrees with me on that, c'est la vie.

Summary - comment in poor taste, no credible threat, end of story.

tomh said:

Jonathan Smith said: So Nick, Jerry Coyne has called you out ... Do you intend to respond?

How can he respond, other than to say that he made it all up?

Magicthighs said:

John Kwok said: No Kirshenbaum isn't my "New Accomodationist 'prophet'". Only a delusional moron - to use PZ's favorite term (Though I could think of some colorful language as better substitutes, which, for example, Elton John would say when he's off-stage. As an aside I mention him only because I sat about one hundred feet from him last night, hearing him play a brief live set after the world premiere debut of the Cameron Crowe documentary film, "The Union", chronicling the recording sessions of the album of the same title, which opened the Tribeca Film Festival here in New York City last night. If anyone is my "prophet", it's more likely Elton John and his songwriting partner, lyricist Bernie Taupin, NOT Sheril Kirshenbaum or Ken Miller.) - such as yourself would arrive at such a conclusion.

But John, you said the exact same thing to Jolo about PZ. Guess you're a "delusional moron", as you put it.

Seriously, if you were to say to me "bite me", then I wouldn't regard it as threat. But if you were to add that you would try to "bite me" at NOON EDT today outside of Saint Patrick's Cathedral, then anyone might regard that as a threat.

So when did anyone say "rape Kirshenbaum at noon EDT"? Answer: they didn't, so what are you on about?

By being so specific about using a "rusty knife", the person in question did threaten Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney; it wasn't a joke as he contended later

Ah, you're aware that there was a clarification by the person who said "Fuck them with a rusty knife", but you brush it aside because, what, because you just know it wasn't a joke?

(and if it was, it merely showed just how depraved he was and how insensitive Myers was in dealing with the response to that "joke").

The response was hysterical. Myers gave the reply it deserved.

harold said: John Kwok - We all know that P. Z. Meyers, despite his sharply satirical tone and frequent use of earthy language, is a strong advocate of human rights, and women's rights in particular. He does not condone rape or other unjustified violence. If a serious public threat to rape someone with a rusty knife had been made, there would unequivocally have been action by law enforcement authorities. We can take the implied disinterest of experts in law enforcement as strong circumstantial evidence that an actual reasonable threat never existed. There is a lesson here - escalating emotional language escalates emotions. Language that has violent of sexual content can have an unintended emotional impact, even when it is clarified that the intent is metaphorical. So I'm perfectly willing to say that the rusty knife comment was in very, very poor taste. Taste is a subjective judgment, and if someone disagrees with me on that, c'est la vie. Summary - comment in poor taste, no credible threat, end of story.

Is there any chance left that Nick Matzke will reply to the multiple comments calling for him to specify when, where and how Prof. Dawkins allegedly "played the Nazi card", or are we going to have to go all Lenny Flank™ on him and keep raising the question every time his byline appears?

Could we at least civilly ask him (Nick M) to rename this thread "The Adventures of John Kwok and His Amazing Ego, Part CDXCIV"?

Hi all,

Well now this has somehow turned into an international scandal. See Coyne's post and my replies:

Here is Dawkins's slide:

http://i54.tinypic.com/2i772no.jpg

Original comment:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/04/great-article-b.html#comment-254124

Coyne's response:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/

My replies:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94525

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94596

Nick Matzke replied, not here, but on Jerry Coyne's blog.

John Kwok said: Speaking of credibility, I am surprised you didn't comment on my observation that I did hear Elton John perform live at the Tribeca Film Festival last night, noting that I may be delusional (I was a guest of someone in the film industry who was able to secure VIP tickets for us both.).

Magicthighs said: Nobody cares about your bloviating, John. Really, nobody whatsoever.

mrg said:

Magicthighs the delusional Pharyngulite whined: Nobody cares about your bloviating, John. Really, nobody whatsoever.

I really don't think that's an issue to him.

Pierce R. Butler said: Is there any chance left that Nick Matzke will reply to the multiple comments calling for him to specify when, where and how Prof. Dawkins allegedly "played the Nazi card", or are we going to have to go all Lenny Flank™ on him and keep raising the question every time his byline appears? Could we at least civilly ask him (Nick M) to rename this thread "The Adventures of John Kwok and His Amazing Ego, Part CDXCIV"?

Pierce R. Butler said: Is there any chance left that Nick Matzke will reply to the multiple comments calling for him to specify when, where and how Prof. Dawkins allegedly "played the Nazi card", or are we going to have to go all Lenny Flank™ on him and keep raising the question every time his byline appears? Could we at least civilly ask him (Nick M) to rename this thread "The Adventures of John Kwok and His Amazing Ego, Part CDXCIV"?

Nick (Matzke) said: Hi all, Well now this has somehow turned into an international scandal. See Coyne's post and my replies: Here is Dawkins's slide: http://i54.tinypic.com/2i772no.jpg Original comment: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/04/great-article-b.html#comment-254124 Coyne's response: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/ My replies: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94525 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94596

Nick (Matzke) said: Hi all, Well now this has somehow turned into an international scandal. See Coyne's post and my replies: Here is Dawkins's slide: http://i54.tinypic.com/2i772no.jpg Original comment: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/04/great-article-b.html#comment-254124 Coyne's response: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/ My replies: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94525 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94596

John Kwok said:

Nick (Matzke) said: Hi all, Well now this has somehow turned into an international scandal. See Coyne's post and my replies: Here is Dawkins's slide: http://i54.tinypic.com/2i772no.jpg Original comment: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/04/great-article-b.html#comment-254124 Coyne's response: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/ My replies: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94525 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94596

What f**king hypocrites posting here, but I'm not surprised. Obviously they are more concerned that you may have lied or misrepresented yourself in your negative observation of Dawkins than in realizing that Myers had erred substantially in treating as a joke, the threat by a delusional Pharyngulite posting over at Pharyngula to rape and to kill two prominent science bloggers. To them the issue of what you have stated regarding Dawkins is of far more importance than the excellent work you did behind the scenes while working for NCSE during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial or what you have done since then, both for NCSE, and especially, with regards to a certain paper on extinctions that was discussed here at Panda's Thumb not so long ago.

Ignoring theism is not the same as denying theism.

Flint said:

Ignoring theism is not the same as denying theism.

True in principle, false in practice. The problem is that in practice, theism of various forms tends to make a sizeable number of TESTABLE assertions about the natural universe. Should science ignore testable claims because they have theistic association? And if these claims are indeed tested, and found to be false, does this not effectively deny their theistic basis? Dawkins generally divides theistic-based claims into two categories: those amenable to empirical test, and those in principle not testable. He points out that those that can be tested, fail the tests. And the underlying problem is, theists don't generally worship a hypothetical god who doesn't DO anything. And everything they claim their god does in the natural universe, can be fully explained without any supernatural component. Which doesn't leave the theist very much to work with. So we get to the core issue: To the degree that theists make scientific claims, they are open to scientific investigation. Science is in the BUSINESS of investigating such claims, and if theists encroach into the scientific domain, they are not acting as theists but as (bad) scientists. Science really can hardly help inadvertently offending those making falsifiable claims.

But I consider that my opinion, not factual.

Dale Husband said: It's all about attacking religion to some people, not discussing science. And it doesn't matter to me whether the issue is slamming Christianity or promoting atheism. Those issues should be SEPARATED from science education, period!

What f**king hypocrites posting here, but I'm not surprised. Obviously they are more concerned that you may have lied or misrepresented yourself in your negative observation of Dawkins than in realizing that Myers had erred substantially in treating as a joke, the threat by a delusional Pharyngulite posting over at Pharyngula to rape and to kill two prominent science bloggers. To them the issue of what you have stated regarding Dawkins is of far more importance than the excellent work you did behind the scenes while working for NCSE during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial or what you have done since then, both for NCSE, and especially, with regards to a certain paper on extinctions that was discussed here at Panda's Thumb not so long ago.

John Kwok is still lying about the rusty knife comment at Pharyngula? Seriously? Quick, someone distract him - I know, ask him if he went to an important school, or met anyone there who would go on to be famous while he was there!

Anything to stop him flogging that dead... - whoops, since John is obviously clueless about the concepts of metaphor and hyperbole (I guess that school of his didn't have any decent English teachers - heh), I'd better not use a literary device to illustrate what it is he's doing - continuing to harp on a topic that has been conclusively dismissed by anyone who isn't a freaking loon.

Uh-oh. "To harp on" is a metaphor, I guess, and "freaking loon" definitely is!

Chris Lawson said: John Kwok said:

What f**king hypocrites posting here, but I'm not surprised. Obviously they are more concerned that you may have lied or misrepresented yourself in your negative observation of Dawkins than in realizing that Myers had erred substantially in treating as a joke, the threat by a delusional Pharyngulite posting over at Pharyngula to rape and to kill two prominent science bloggers. To them the issue of what you have stated regarding Dawkins is of far more importance than the excellent work you did behind the scenes while working for NCSE during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial or what you have done since then, both for NCSE, and especially, with regards to a certain paper on extinctions that was discussed here at Panda's Thumb not so long ago.

John, normally I let your comments pass by even when I disagree with them, but this time I'm going to call you out. Your post is completely indefensible. First of all, *nobody* here has said that Nick's work at the NCSE and on Panda's Thumb is or was unimportant. I am responding specifically to Nick's apparent inability to grasp why so many of us find Mooney a reprehensible creep *and* to his assertion about Dawkins "playing the Nazi card." This has nothing at all to do with Nick's work elsewhere. I can't speak for others here, but I am perfectly capable of admiring a person for some actions while being critical of other actions. Voltaire, for instance, is one of the founding giants of modern humanism. He was also a disgusting anti-Semite. Secondly, I would like to remind you that it was *you* who introduced the Pharyngula episode into the conversation as a cheap rhetorical ploy. We were discussing Nick's statement about Dawkins. For you to say, "well whatever you think of Nick's statement, this other person (who has previously not figured in the conversation) did something worse" is pure creationist-level rhetorical crap. Plus, Meyer's defenders are *not* saying that threatening violent rape is less serious than misrepresenting Dawkins, they are denying that there was ever any serious threat of violent rape. Now if someone posted a comment like that on my blog I would have erased it and it and left a note explaining that I wasn't going to host threats of physical violence even as a joke...so, yeah, I think Meyers did the wrong thing here (but I would add that Meyers did not seem to lose any support from his strong feminist supporters over the matter, so I doubt it's as cut and dried as you represent it). Regardless, what Meyers did was completely unrelated to the original stimulus of the thread and you have been dishonest by both bringing it up in the first place, by creating false comparisons that were never actually made by those who disagree with you, and finally by inferring opinions in other people (1) on a topic unrelated to the one at hand (2) that they do not actually hold (3) for the purpose of dismissing their arguments on the topic that is at hand.

Chris Lawson said: John Kwok said:

What f**king hypocrites posting here, but I'm not surprised. Obviously they are more concerned that you may have lied or misrepresented yourself in your negative observation of Dawkins than in realizing that Myers had erred substantially in treating as a joke, the threat by a delusional Pharyngulite posting over at Pharyngula to rape and to kill two prominent science bloggers. To them the issue of what you have stated regarding Dawkins is of far more importance than the excellent work you did behind the scenes while working for NCSE during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial or what you have done since then, both for NCSE, and especially, with regards to a certain paper on extinctions that was discussed here at Panda's Thumb not so long ago.

John, normally I let your comments pass by even when I disagree with them, but this time I'm going to call you out. Your post is completely indefensible. First of all, *nobody* here has said that Nick's work at the NCSE and on Panda's Thumb is or was unimportant. I am responding specifically to Nick's apparent inability to grasp why so many of us find Mooney a reprehensible creep *and* to his assertion about Dawkins "playing the Nazi card." This has nothing at all to do with Nick's work elsewhere. I can't speak for others here, but I am perfectly capable of admiring a person for some actions while being critical of other actions. Voltaire, for instance, is one of the founding giants of modern humanism. He was also a disgusting anti-Semite. Secondly, I would like to remind you that it was *you* who introduced the Pharyngula episode into the conversation as a cheap rhetorical ploy. We were discussing Nick's statement about Dawkins. For you to say, "well whatever you think of Nick's statement, this other person (who has previously not figured in the conversation) did something worse" is pure creationist-level rhetorical crap. Plus, Meyer's defenders are *not* saying that threatening violent rape is less serious than misrepresenting Dawkins, they are denying that there was ever any serious threat of violent rape. Now if someone posted a comment like that on my blog I would have erased it and it and left a note explaining that I wasn't going to host threats of physical violence even as a joke...so, yeah, I think Meyers did the wrong thing here (but I would add that Meyers did not seem to lose any support from his strong feminist supporters over the matter, so I doubt it's as cut and dried as you represent it). Regardless, what Meyers did was completely unrelated to the original stimulus of the thread and you have been dishonest by both bringing it up in the first place, by creating false comparisons that were never actually made by those who disagree with you, and finally by inferring opinions in other people (1) on a topic unrelated to the one at hand (2) that they do not actually hold (3) for the purpose of dismissing their arguments on the topic that is at hand.

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said:

Nick (Matzke) said: Hi all, Well now this has somehow turned into an international scandal. See Coyne's post and my replies: Here is Dawkins's slide: http://i54.tinypic.com/2i772no.jpg Original comment: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/04/great-article-b.html#comment-254124 Coyne's response: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/ My replies: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94525 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/another-tom-johnson-did-dawkins-call-religious-people-nazis/#comment-94596

What f**king hypocrites posting here, but I'm not surprised. Obviously they are more concerned that you may have lied or misrepresented yourself in your negative observation of Dawkins than in realizing that Myers had erred substantially in treating as a joke, the threat by a delusional Pharyngulite posting over at Pharyngula to rape and to kill two prominent science bloggers. To them the issue of what you have stated regarding Dawkins is of far more importance than the excellent work you did behind the scenes while working for NCSE during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial or what you have done since then, both for NCSE, and especially, with regards to a certain paper on extinctions that was discussed here at Panda's Thumb not so long ago.

It's all about attacking religion to some people, not discussing science. And it doesn't matter to me whether the issue is slamming Christianity or promoting atheism. Those issues should be SEPARATED from science education, period! I cringe whenever I see books like the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins shelved in the science section of bookstores. Atheism is not scientific! It is a philosophical position that may be held without any reference to scientific theories or methods whatsoever. An atheist is simply a person who says, "(I beleive) there is no God." The theory of evolution by natural selection simply ignores the issue of theism. So do ALL scientific theories. Ignoring theism is not the same as denying theism.

Nick (Matzke) said: ... Here is Dawkins's slide: http://i54.tinypic.com/2i772no.jpg ...

I just responded to Wowbagger's contempible post on the Bathroom Wall, since I'm sure it would have been sent there anyway.

3) To the best of my knowledge, science blogger Sheril Kirshenbaum still regards the “rusty knife” incident as a threat to rape and to kill her and her colleague journalist Chris Mooney.

Wowbagger said: John Kwok wrote:

3) To the best of my knowledge, science blogger Sheril Kirshenbaum still regards the “rusty knife” incident as a threat to rape and to kill her and her colleague journalist Chris Mooney.

Why don't you post there and ask for her to clarify her position? Oh, that's right - you're banned from there, like you're banned from so many other places. I've no idea why PT hasn't yet followed suit. Oh, so sorry - I forgot you don't understand non-literal expressions as used in written communication - I mean I don't understand why PT hasn't done what the other blogs have. That aside, I'll ask you again to answer the question you were unable to answer at the time the so-called incident occurred: if you thought it was a genuine threat, why did you (or Sheril, or Chris or anyone else) not report it to the police? Making a genuine threat on the internet is a serious crime, with severe penalties; plenty of charges have been laid against people found guilty of doing so. So, John, why didn't you report it? Could it be that you're fully aware any investigator would look at the comment (in the context in which it was written (something anyone wishing to weigh in on the discussion needs to do - yes, I'm looking in your direction, Dale Husband, you pig-ignorant moron), realise it was nothing of the sort, and laugh you out of the station? I think we all know that that's exactly why - and also that you only keep dragging out the proven lie because you're obsessed with lying about PZ after he mocked you, banned you, and that he and the regulars at Pharyngula (and pretty much everywhere else for that matter) consider you to be, at best, a complete joke and, while occasionally making an insightful comments, overall you're an embarrassment to pro-science advocates everywhere. Perhaps if you stopped being so damn inane and focused on the actual issues at hand you might be able to change that opinion.

John Kwok said:

Wowbagger said: [Insults.]

[Reply to insults]

Dale Husband said: I just responded to Wowbagger's contempible post on the Bathroom Wall, since I'm sure it would have been sent there anyway.

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said:

Wowbagger said: [Insults.]

[Reply to insults]

I'll make the same challenge to you that I made to Wowbagger: Prove your case. Link to the incident at Pharyngula, link to the blog that Kirshenbaum made, and do it on the Bathroom Wall, please.

Excuse me Wowbagger, but if that was really a joke, do you think Sheril Kirshenbaum would devote a blog entry to it?

Obviously she couldn’t ask for the offender to be arrested since it’s likely he wasn’t posting under his real name, and more importantly, because law enforcement officials wouldn’t have had the time or resources to take it seriously

Even if the “rusty knife” joker could be identified, it would have been difficult to determine his location and whatever that location would allow the appropriate law enforcement authorities to go after him.

John Kwok said:

Dale Husband said: I'll make the same challenge to you that I made to Wowbagger: Prove your case. Link to the incident at Pharyngula, link to the blog that Kirshenbaum made, and do it on the Bathroom Wall, please.

For the second time in this thread, I am posting this link to Sheril Kirshebaum's blog entry about the "rusty knife" threat that someone posted back in early March, 2010 at Pharyngula: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science All the relevant links can be found at Sheril's page.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | March 9, 2010 11:38 PM sandi: Are you kidding me? The Intersection is a veritable clown car filled with rejects from any blog with standards of discourse. It is so much better there. There is NO SWEARING. Oh, and by the way, fuck their sorry, appeasing, milque-toast bullshit. Fuck them all sideways with a rusty fucking knife*. * This particular post to be whined about on the Colgate Twins blog around mid-2011.

There was no need for such violent, hateful language, period. But if you think that proper anywhere, Wowbagger, my regard for you just dropped even lower than I thought possible. You are sick!

How about those Bulls?

Wowbagger said: Dale Husband, obsequious Kwok sycophant, wrote:

There was no need for such violent, hateful language, period. But if you think that proper anywhere, Wowbagger, my regard for you just dropped even lower than I thought possible. You are sick!

I made no claims to it not being offensive - not a one; feel free to cite me from here, there or anywhere else where I claimed it wasn't offensive. It's quite plainly and deliberately offensive, and I wouldn't spend even a second trying to argue that it's not. As for 'proper' - well, in the words of a great (fictional) philosopher, 'that's just, like, your opinion...man.' But that wasn't what I accused John of lying about, now, was it - you dishonest fawning little suckup? Was. It. A. Threat? An aside: for anyone else who wishes to read the thread, see if you can count just how many commenters in it were revealed to be sock-puppets of 'Tom Johnson'. It'll give you a very good idea of the character of the sort of people making the tired, intellectually dishonest claims that Kwok and his oleaginous protege 'Dogmatic' Dale Husband are still making this long after being discredited.

Wowbagger said: John Kwok wrote:

Excuse me Wowbagger, but if that was really a joke, do you think Sheril Kirshenbaum would devote a blog entry to it?

Where did I say it was a joke? I'm reading through my comments, and I don't see the word 'joke' in there at all. Maybe you should check again.

Obviously she couldn’t ask for the offender to be arrested since it’s likely he wasn’t posting under his real name, and more importantly, because law enforcement officials wouldn’t have had the time or resources to take it seriously

'Obviously' you're flailing wildly. First you claim that it was a serious threat of bodily harm, rape and murder - that's a little bit more serious than your being dumb enough to be scammed out of photographic equipment - but then you suddenly retreat and claim it's something the authorities wouldn't want to spend time and resources on. Let's focus in on that aspect: someone makes a genuine threat of bodily harm, rape and murder isn't serious enough for your authorities to want to be notified about? I think you show a profound disrespect to the efforts of the law enforcement officials in your country when you state they wouldn't make such a grave offence a priority. Either way, that's not for you to decide. A responsible citizen who believes a real threat has been made has a duty to report it. But, funnily enough, the best reason a person would have for not reporting it is because they know that it wasn't a real threat and that they knew the police would tell them so - as well as chiding them for wasting everyone's time. But it doesn't stop you lying about it on blogs, of course.

Even if the “rusty knife” joker could be identified, it would have been difficult to determine his location and whatever that location would allow the appropriate law enforcement authorities to go after him.

So now it is a joke? Which is it, John - a serious threat or a joke? You really need to make up your mind here.

Wowbagger said: John Kwok wrote:

Excuse me Wowbagger, but if that was really a joke, do you think Sheril Kirshenbaum would devote a blog entry to it?

Where did I say it was a joke? I'm reading through my comments, and I don't see the word 'joke' in there at all. Maybe you should check again.

Obviously she couldn’t ask for the offender to be arrested since it’s likely he wasn’t posting under his real name, and more importantly, because law enforcement officials wouldn’t have had the time or resources to take it seriously

'Obviously' you're flailing wildly. First you claim that it was a serious threat of bodily harm, rape and murder - that's a little bit more serious than your being dumb enough to be scammed out of photographic equipment - but then you suddenly retreat and claim it's something the authorities wouldn't want to spend time and resources on. Let's focus in on that aspect: someone makes a genuine threat of bodily harm, rape and murder isn't serious enough for your authorities to want to be notified about? I think you show a profound disrespect to the efforts of the law enforcement officials in your country when you state they wouldn't make such a grave offence a priority.

Oh, give it a rest, you morons.

It's called hyperbole. The sole reason that phrase is used anymore is that we know it will throw dimwitted knobs like yourselves into hysterics, as you so amply demonstrate in this thread. It's been elevated to the status of a meme on my site simply because it freaks you and your silly peers out.

Kwok, you've done far worse, I've seen you make posts about how you'll rejoice in other poster's deaths here.

In particular, in the comments here.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/open-thread-que.html

That was rather blunt. More so than the hyperbole you're complaining about.

If you guys don't stop arguing, I'll defriend you on Facebook and ask for a camera!

JT said: Kwok, you've done far worse, I've seen you make posts about how you'll rejoice in other poster's deaths here. In particular, in the comments here. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/open-thread-que.html That was rather blunt. More so than the hyperbole you're complaining about.

PZ Myers said: Oh, give it a rest, you morons. It's called hyperbole. The sole reason that phrase is used anymore is that we know it will throw dimwitted knobs like yourselves into hysterics, as you so amply demonstrate in this thread. It's been elevated to the status of a meme on my site simply because it freaks you and your silly peers out.

PZ Myers said: Oh, give it a rest, you morons. It's called hyperbole. The sole reason that phrase is used anymore is that we know it will throw dimwitted knobs like yourselves into hysterics, as you so amply demonstrate in this thread. It's been elevated to the status of a meme on my site simply because it freaks you and your silly peers out.

John Kwok said:

JT said: Kwok, you've done far worse, I've seen you make posts about how you'll rejoice in other poster's deaths here. In particular, in the comments here. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/open-thread-que.html That was rather blunt. More so than the hyperbole you're complaining about.

Wishing that someone might drop dead is not exactly the same as wanting to stab someone with a rusty knife, moron. At least two frequent PT posters, Dale Husband, and SWT, also recognize that that rusty knife "joke" was a threat.

Hey Kwok, are you still sore that PZ never sent you the $1500 camera you demanded from him? Or are you still pretending your attempted blackmail was a joke even though you sent the demand to several of PZ's academic colleagues?

BTW, you haven't mentioned being an alumnus of Bedford-Stuyvesant High School for at least ten minutes. Don't you miss the old alma mater?

Kwok, it wasn't a threat, it was an uncommonly ugly curse, phrased carefully for maximum offence. Accordingly, maximum offence was taken. It's hardly surprising that it should be, but you're bright enough to understand that you're doing exactly what your opponent wants you to do. Dale, you too.

P Z Myers admits its purpose, and that he keeps it around precisely because it provokes maximum offence, in which he apparently delights. Because of that, both parties are now slagging each other furiously. Who do you think profits from this?

It's astonishing. Myers clearly knows what he's doing - he's a University professor, for bog's sake. Kwok and Dale Husband, whatever their failings, defend science in public. He's acting as though they were his worst enemies. He's perfectly happy to swap insults with them in public. What he imagines is to be gained from this defeats me.

For the question of who profits from this bubble was a real one. Who would that be?

The DI profits. Ahmanson and Ham and Roberts profit. FL and Byers and Biggy profit, and every sectary, Jesus freak, godbot, holy roller and Bible basher in the world profits. And blokes like me - non-religious, a non-scientist, but a willing taxpayer who wants science to go forward because I want my flying car and I want to go to the moon, dammitall - we look on aghast while our allies lay into each other with the utmost insults they can muster, to the delight of people who'd march us all back to the Middle Ages. Science loses. Reason loses.

We all lose.

Dave Luckett said: Science loses. Reason loses. We all lose.

Dave, with all due respect, it was a threat. The invitation to suicide and statement that he would enjoy his death was merely tactless, but the insinuation that the posters death would be "soon" is a perfectly clear insinuation on Kwok's part. It was a death threat, pure and simple.

Dave Luckett said: ...we look on aghast while our allies lay into each other with the utmost insults they can muster, to the delight of people who'd march us all back to the Middle Ages. Science loses. Reason loses. We all lose.

Dave Luckett said: Kwok, it wasn't a threat, it was an uncommonly ugly curse, phrased carefully for maximum offence. Accordingly, maximum offence was taken. It's hardly surprising that it should be, but you're bright enough to understand that you're doing exactly what your opponent wants you to do. Dale, you too. P Z Myers admits its purpose, and that he keeps it around precisely because it provokes maximum offence, in which he apparently delights. Because of that, both parties are now slagging each other furiously. Who do you think profits from this? It's astonishing. Myers clearly knows what he's doing - he's a University professor, for bog's sake. Kwok and Dale Husband, whatever their failings, defend science in public. He's acting as though they were his worst enemies. He's perfectly happy to swap insults with them in public. What he imagines is to be gained from this defeats me. For the question of who profits from this bubble was a real one. Who would that be? The DI profits. Ahmanson and Ham and Roberts profit. FL and Byers and Biggy profit, and every sectary, Jesus freak, godbot, holy roller and Bible basher in the world profits. And blokes like me - non-religious, a non-scientist, but a willing taxpayer who wants science to go forward because I want my flying car and I want to go to the moon, dammitall - we look on aghast while our allies lay into each other with the utmost insults they can muster, to the delight of people who'd march us all back to the Middle Ages. Science loses. Reason loses. We all lose.

JT said:

John Kwok said:

JT said: Kwok, you've done far worse, I've seen you make posts about how you'll rejoice in other poster's deaths here. In particular, in the comments here. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/open-thread-que.html That was rather blunt. More so than the hyperbole you're complaining about.

Wishing that someone might drop dead is not exactly the same as wanting to stab someone with a rusty knife, moron. At least two frequent PT posters, Dale Husband, and SWT, also recognize that that rusty knife "joke" was a threat.

And I recognize your little "joke" as a threat. Saying that you look forward to someone's death in the near future very much is a threat, and you should have been banned for it, if not arrested. You're a sick person. You're rude, you're threatening, you're obsessive, and to put it bluntly you are a far more credible danger than any of the people you rail against.

'Tis Himself said: Hey Kwok, are you still sore that PZ never sent you the $1500 camera you demanded from him? Or are you still pretending your attempted blackmail was a joke even though you sent the demand to several of PZ's academic colleagues? BTW, you haven't mentioned being an alumnus of Bedford-Stuyvesant High School for at least ten minutes. Don't you miss the old alma mater?

John Kwok said: You're the one in dire need of mental help, not me. That comment I posted almost two years ago was aimed at one person only; on the other hand, the fellow who uttered the "rusty knife" comment (see Dale Husband's post earlier today for a copy of that) wished to see not only Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney, but also their supporters (including me) to be raped and then slaughtered. Since you have ignored - and if my memory serves, even mocked - Sheril Kirshenbaum's correct observation that the "rusty knife" remark was indeed a threat, then you have no business to be sanctimonious in claiming that I am guilty as charged. You're a F**King Pharyngulite hypocrite, JT. If anyone ought to be banned it is you, not me.

And now, out of character, let me just say that that was tiring. Really, really tiring. And boring.

I don't get how you keep it up all the time John.

JT the clueless, delusional Pharyngulite whined: And now, out of character, let me just say that that was tiring. Really, really tiring. And boring. I don't get how you keep it up all the time John.

JT said: I don't get how you keep it up all the time John.

JT the delusional, clueless Pharyngulite barked:

John Kwok said: You're the one in dire need of mental help, not me. That comment I posted almost two years ago was aimed at one person only; on the other hand, the fellow who uttered the "rusty knife" comment (see Dale Husband's post earlier today for a copy of that) wished to see not only Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney, but also their supporters (including me) to be raped and then slaughtered. Since you have ignored - and if my memory serves, even mocked - Sheril Kirshenbaum's correct observation that the "rusty knife" remark was indeed a threat, then you have no business to be sanctimonious in claiming that I am guilty as charged. You're a F**King Pharyngulite hypocrite, JT. If anyone ought to be banned it is you, not me.

You're not framing very well you know. And I very much do accept that the rusty knife comment was a threat (I make no claims either way of intent). What I don't accept is that you, who has made "threats" of a similar nature are in any way justified in your moral crusade. As to your 1.5 (not two) year old comment, please not that your rants are about a 1 year old comment. Clearly you don't consider time to be a mitigating factor. And in case you haven't grasped the obvious (which knowing you, is a certainty) I'm imitating you. Using your own style of obsessive posting, only with you as the target. So I accept the "dire need of mental help" prognosis you gave concerning my earlier posts.

Ban everybody who is commenting on the Kwok and Co. hissyfit butthurtfest to the BW, please. This includes me.

JT the utterly clueless delusional Pharyngulite whined: And I very much do accept that the rusty knife comment was a threat (I make no claims either way of intent).

tomh said: How dramatic.

John Kwok said: Don't be dishonest, JT, please, or be so sanctimoniously smug in deciding whether I'm worse or Mr. "Rusty Knife" is. If you really thought that the "rusty knife" remark was a threat, you would have stepped in after Dale Husband told Wowbagger that he was a liar for not accepting as a threat. You would have acknowledged it after SWT recognized that it was a threat. No, you waited to acknowledge that the "rusty knife" remark as a threat only after you found something you regarded as incriminating against me, and then say, in effect, oh Kwok, you're no better than Mr. "Rusty Knife" himself. So don't lie to me or anyone else here at Panda's Thumb. You really don't regard the "rusty knife" remark as a threat, period.

Science Avenger said:

Dave Luckett said: ...we look on aghast while our allies lay into each other with the utmost insults they can muster, to the delight of people who'd march us all back to the Middle Ages. Science loses. Reason loses. We all lose.

It's an unavoidable side-effect of the kind of mind necessary to develop a pro-scientific attitude in such an anti-science society. Its one of best evidences that atheism and science are not religions. They do NOT unite us in the same way religions do, if they unite us at all.

Within the subdivisions, sure. Between them, not so much.

JT the clueless delusional Pharyngulite whined:

John Kwok said: Don't be dishonest, JT, please, or be so sanctimoniously smug in deciding whether I'm worse or Mr. "Rusty Knife" is. If you really thought that the "rusty knife" remark was a threat, you would have stepped in after Dale Husband told Wowbagger that he was a liar for not accepting as a threat. You would have acknowledged it after SWT recognized that it was a threat. No, you waited to acknowledge that the "rusty knife" remark as a threat only after you found something you regarded as incriminating against me, and then say, in effect, oh Kwok, you're no better than Mr. "Rusty Knife" himself. So don't lie to me or anyone else here at Panda's Thumb. You really don't regard the "rusty knife" remark as a threat, period.

I don't know enough about the incident to comment. I've read the beginnings of a few of your rants about it, but you rant on so many things it's never really occurred to me to take any of them at all seriously. I only thought it odd that you brought up something so old, then remembered that I bookmarked a thread ages ago to bring up when you got into a tone crusade again, and the similarity struck me as serendipitous. Also, I didn't come into this post until today (which makes it interesting how you ascribe so many prior motivations to me).

Dave Luckett said: He did that because he thought the remark was a threat in itself. I agree that it's just on the side of obscene abuse rather than actual threat. I regret that in the context of discourse I don't regard that as being much of a useful distinction. Please do not conclude from this that I think either utterance was justifiable.

Science Avenger said: Within the subdivisions, sure.

But the subdivisions show a very strong tendency to schism further - although usually over personalities, politics or money, not doctrine. For that reason, I think it would be very difficult to make out a case that religion in the west was generally, or even mostly, a unifying influence.

Dave Luckett said: But the subdivisions show a very strong tendency to schism further - although usually over personalities, politics or money, not doctrine. For that reason, I think it would be very difficult to make out a case that religion in the west was generally, or even mostly, a unifying influence.

Dave Luckett said: But the subdivisions show a very strong tendency to schism further - although usually over personalities, politics or money, not doctrine. For that reason, I think it would be very difficult to make out a case that religion in the west was generally, or even mostly, a unifying influence.

Dave Luckett said: JT, I agree that Kwok reacted to an uncommonly ugly curse - the "rusty knife" remark - with a veiled threat. Scarcely veiled, if you like. He did that because he thought the remark was a threat in itself. I agree that it's just on the side of obscene abuse rather than actual threat. I regret that in the context of discourse I don't regard that as being much of a useful distinction. Please do not conclude from this that I think either utterance was justifiable.

JT the delusional demented Pharyngulite moron whined:

Dave Luckett said: JT, I agree that Kwok reacted to an uncommonly ugly curse - the "rusty knife" remark - with a veiled threat. Scarcely veiled, if you like. He did that because he thought the remark was a threat in itself. I agree that it's just on the side of obscene abuse rather than actual threat. I regret that in the context of discourse I don't regard that as being much of a useful distinction. Please do not conclude from this that I think either utterance was justifiable.

Dale, Kwoks little death threats there were made well before the "rusty knife" incident (at least, I assume from his repetition of "March 2010"). He was basically just telling a random poster to go kill himself and then implying that his death would happen "soon", for pretty much no reason other than that poster didn't agree with him. Paranoia, petty insults, and conspiracy theories are pretty much his standard way of talking to people as you can see in his responses to me. He just took it up a notch there.

JT the demented delusional gutless Pharyngulite whined: Dale, Kwoks little death threats there were made well before the "rusty knife" incident (at least, I assume from his repetition of "March 2010"). He was basically just telling a random poster to go kill himself and then implying that his death would happen "soon", for pretty much no reason other than that poster didn't agree with him. Paranoia, petty insults, and conspiracy theories are pretty much his standard way of talking to people as you can see in his responses to me. He just took it up a notch there.

John Kwok said: You were addressing Dave Luckett, not Dale Husband, moron. Your final paragraph underscores your own mental problems, not mine. Why? You may have missed my comments in the latest Panda's Thumb thread, especially my comments to Mike Clinch.

How telling that anybody who doesn't subscribe to Kwok's point of view/version of reality is "a delusional Pharyngulite". That I've brought this point up will no doubt flag me as a delusional Pharyngulite, too.

Snerk.

JT the clueless delusional demented Pharyngulite whined: Paranoia, petty insults, and conspiracy theories are pretty much his standard way of talking to people as you can see in his responses to me. He just took it up a notch there.

Wolfhound said: How telling that anybody who doesn't subscribe to Kwok's point of view/version of reality is "a delusional Pharyngulite". That I've brought this point up will no doubt flag me as a delusional Pharyngulite, too. Snerk.

JT the clueless demented delusional Pharyngulite finally admits to this mistake:

John Kwok said: You were addressing Dave Luckett, not Dale Husband, moron. Your final paragraph underscores your own mental problems, not mine. Why? You may have missed my comments in the latest Panda's Thumb thread, especially my comments to Mike Clinch.

Right, my mistake. Please read that as "Dave" then.

SWT said: Where do you think the subdivisions come from? Unity is an aspiration. The reality is that things are as factious within denominations (and congregations) as they are in most organizations populated by humans.

Excuse me, may I interrupt a moment? I have a question.

Does every single thread on PT really have to be about John Kwok?

Thanks in advance.

John Kwok said:

Wolfhound said: How telling that anybody who doesn't subscribe to Kwok's point of view/version of reality is "a delusional Pharyngulite". That I've brought this point up will no doubt flag me as a delusional Pharyngulite, too. Snerk.

No, to use PZ's favorite word, you're just a blithering moron.

John Kwok said: Have you opted to read Sheril Kirshenbaum's post at The Intersection and the links she provided? Dale Husband has. What's your excuse, moron?

Lou FCD said: Excuse me, may I interrupt a moment? I have a question. Does every single thread on PT really have to be about John Kwok? Thanks in advance.

JT said:

John Kwok said: Have you opted to read Sheril Kirshenbaum's post at The Intersection and the links she provided? Dale Husband has. What's your excuse, moron?

Disinterest.

tomh said:

Lou FCD said: Excuse me, may I interrupt a moment? I have a question. Does every single thread on PT really have to be about John Kwok? Thanks in advance.

Short answer, yes. As long as he is allowed to post here it will be all Kwok, all the time. The big question is, why is he still allowed to post here?

JT the clueless whined:

John Kwok said: Have you opted to read Sheril Kirshenbaum's post at The Intersection and the links she provided? Dale Husband has. What's your excuse, moron?

Disinterest.

Badger3k said: Maybe a com

tomh said:

Lou FCD said: Excuse me, may I interrupt a moment? I have a question. Does every single thread on PT really have to be about John Kwok? Thanks in advance.

Short answer, yes. As long as he is allowed to post here it will be all Kwok, all the time. The big question is, why is he still allowed to post here?

Maybe a commitment to freedom of speech, or maybe because every now and then we need a chew toy?

Holy crap, John. Take a deep breath.

Setting aside the fact that your latest crusade has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread (as usual), let's just for a moment take a look at your claim of a threat having been made.

If "Fuck them with a rusty knife" is an actual threat, then so is "Fuck them and the horse they rode in on". Are you seriously contending that someone who uses this phrase is threatening to rape someone's horse (which in all likelihood does not even exist)? If so, you really are a complete idiot.

Go cool off. Take a shower. Drink a beer. Give it a yank.

But most importantly, take your damned meds and stop making every thread on the blog all about *you*.

Lou FCD said: Holy crap, John. Take a deep breath. Setting aside the fact that your latest crusade has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread (as usual), let's just for a moment take a look at your claim of a threat having been made. If "Fuck them with a rusty knife" is an actual threat, then so is "Fuck them and the horse they rode in on". Are you seriously contending that someone who uses this phrase is threatening to rape someone's horse (which in all likelihood does not even exist)? If so, you really are a complete idiot. Go cool off. Take a shower. Drink a beer. Give it a yank. But most importantly, take your damned meds and stop making every thread on the blog all about *you*.

If so, you really are a complete idiot.

It's not that the Kwokster is an idiot. It's that he suffers from a specific personality disorder.

seriously.

some of us simply refuse to even deal with it any more, but at least it should be recognized by the people who still wish to interact with him.

JT said:

John Kwok said: Have you opted to read Sheril Kirshenbaum's post at The Intersection and the links she provided? Dale Husband has. What's your excuse, moron?

Disinterest. Probably not the word you mean. You probably mean you are UNinterested, lacking interest, Not DISinterested, meaning having no stake in the outcome.

John Kwok said:

Lou FCD said: Holy crap, John. Take a deep breath. Setting aside the fact that your latest crusade has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread (as usual), let's just for a moment take a look at your claim of a threat having been made. If "Fuck them with a rusty knife" is an actual threat, then so is "Fuck them and the horse they rode in on". Are you seriously contending that someone who uses this phrase is threatening to rape someone's horse (which in all likelihood does not even exist)? If so, you really are a complete idiot. Go cool off. Take a shower. Drink a beer. Give it a yank. But most importantly, take your damned meds and stop making every thread on the blog all about *you*.

Not mentioning Sheril Kirshenbaum isn't relevant? Then why are you attempting to smear Nick Matzke with the absurd, baseless charge that he's guilty of another "Tom Johnson"? When and if you and the other GNU zealots opt to stop your persecution of Nick, then I might consider not mentioning the more serious accusation - which others, especially SWT - have recognized that Sheril Kirshenbaum, Chris Mooney and their The Intersection supporters (which included me back then) were threatened with rape and murder by the "Rusty Knife" zealot over at Pharyngula back in March, 2010. Speaking of taking meds, since when was Richard Dawkins annointed as a New Atheist "saint"? This ridiculous comment from Ben Goren (I saw a similar one over at Pharyngula in which the poster asserted that Richard Dawkins has done more to fight creationism than NCSE and BCSE combined.) ignores the fact that while Carl Sagan opposed fundamentalist religious zealots, he was able to convey that in a friendly, thoughtful way (Much in the same manner that Neil de Grasse Tyson is doing now BTW.), instead of hurtling rhetorical fire and brimstone against religious fanatics (Though in fairness to Dawkins - whom I do admire alot, even though I disagree with his espousal of a strict selectionist version of modern evolutionary theory and especially, of Militant Atheism - his rhetorical fire isn't nearly as hot as either Myers or Hitchens.): Reply ◦ Ben Goren Posted April 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm | Permalink I’m not sure that’d be a fair test. Richard is one of those rare superstars of science, in the same league as Carl Sagan, David Attenborough, and Stephen Hawking. Ken Miller, for all the wonderful things he’s done to further science education, simply isn’t in that league. By sheer virtue of the difference in the sizes of the audiences each enjoys, Richard will have far more notches on his belt. And I don’t think Richard’s alleged “stridency” has anything to do with it, in either direction. Neither Sagan, Attenborough, nor Hawking get tarred with the “strident” brush. I must admit I’m at a complete loss as to why, though…Sagan’s garage dragon, Attenborough’s eye worm, and Hawking’s recent “je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là” are all as unapologetically anti-religious as anything I’ve ever heard from Richard, if not more so. Cheers, b&

This observation of Ben Goren's is utter nonsense:

"Ken Miller, for all the wonderful things he’s done to further science education, simply isn’t in that league. By sheer virtue of the difference in the sizes of the audiences each enjoys, Richard will have far more notches on his belt."

Ken has played a far more important role in dealing with creationists, especially here in the United States, than Dawkins has ever done (And I think that Dawkins himself would admit this.).

You should remind Ben Goren that Ken Miller was responsible for assisting pro-science forces during the Kansas State Board of Education hearings in the late 90s and early 00s. He has been a most effective critic of Michael Behe and Intelligent Design Creationism since the mid 1990s, and even one of his opponents, the late William F. Buckley, found him admirable after both participated in a "Firing Line" debate on Intelligent Design vs. modern evolutionary theory back in 1996 (or 1997) that aired on PBS. But most importantly, Ken was the lead witness for the plaintiffs during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.

My observations will be supported by many others who read Panda's Thumb regularly, even by those who would not regard me as their friends. Goren should study the history of scientific creationism, and especially, of Intelligent Design, here in the United States before making yet another silly comment comparing and contrasting Ken Miller with Richard Dawkins.

Ichthyic said: If so, you really are a complete idiot. It's not that the Kwokster is an idiot. It's that he suffers from a specific personality disorder. seriously. some of us simply refuse to even deal with it any more, but at least it should be recognized by the people who still wish to interact with him.

Hey John, since you've accused me of something I didn't do, but I already own the best camera out there, I think you should buy me this:

http://amzn.to/e9JhoJ

Amazon already has my address and it's on my wishlist. Just have it sent straight to me.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry Lou FCD, but the ones who are in dire need of psychological attention are those who are lynching Nick Matzke now over at Pharyngula and Coyne's blog. I will concede that Nick may have been wise to choose wording other than what he did, but frankly, that's really a tempest in the teapot. Earlier in this thread, I remarked that if Douglas Adams was still alive, he'd probably tell Richard Dawkins just to take it easy.

As for me, I think it is still appropriate to mention the "rusty knife" incident as long as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne (and now, apparently, even Richard Dawkins) are in attack mode over "accomodationists" like Nick Matzke and Ken Miller. I will mention it again if Myers and Coyne opt to condemn Brian Greene again for seeking funding from the "evil" John Templeton Foundation or organizing yet another Science Faith panel discussion for Greene's World Science Festival.

Lou FCD said: Hey John, since you've accused me of something I didn't do, but I already own the best camera out there, I think you should buy me this: http://amzn.to/e9JhoJ Amazon already has my address and it's on my wishlist. Just have it sent straight to me. Thanks in advance.

lol, I didn't realize you had bought PT, John. When should I expect my lens?

John Kwok said: Maybe you should jackass, if you insist on pontificating about my own misdeeds. Since you refuse to read it, then you have no business commenting about my own rhetoric.

I see yet another thread has become Kwoked-up beyond all recognition. Too bad another topic ruined is by a derail.

JT said:

John Kwok said: Maybe you should jackass, if you insist on pontificating about my own misdeeds. Since you refuse to read it, then you have no business commenting about my own rhetoric.

"Other people are doing it too" has never been a valid excuse, John.

JD said: I see yet another thread has become Kwoked-up beyond all recognition. Too bad another topic ruined is by a derail.

Lou FCD said: lol, I didn't realize you had bought PT, John. When should I expect my lens?

Lou FCD said: Hey John, since you've accused me of something I didn't do, but I already own the best camera out there, I think you should buy me this: http://amzn.to/e9JhoJ Amazon already has my address and it's on my wishlist. Just have it sent straight to me. Thanks in advance.

John Kwok said:

Lou FCD said: lol, I didn't realize you had bought PT, John. When should I expect my lens?

When I receive a million dollar advance for my unpublished novel (probably never) or, more likely, when you buy the Leica M7 rangefinder camera on my Amazon.com wish list.

John Kwok said: Nor has your sanctimonious bulls**t, JT. You claim ignorance, and yet you are as delusional as the GNU zealots posting over at PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne's blogs.

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said:

Lou FCD said: lol, I didn't realize you had bought PT, John. When should I expect my lens?

When I receive a million dollar advance for my unpublished novel (probably never) or, more likely, when you buy the Leica M7 rangefinder camera on my Amazon.com wish list.

Come to think of it Lou, maybe you do owe me a Leica M7 rangefinder camera. If you can dream of a lens that's worth three brand new Leica M7 cameras - and it's a crappy Canon lens, not a superb Leica or Carl Zeiss lens - then I think I'm entitled to a Leica M7 rangefinder camera from you.

Lou FCD said: Hey John, since you've accused me of something I didn't do, but I already own the best camera out there, I think you should buy me this: http://amzn.to/e9JhoJ Amazon already has my address and it's on my wishlist. Just have it sent straight to me. Thanks in advance.

John Kwok said:

Badger3k said: Maybe a com

tomh said:

Lou FCD said: Excuse me, may I interrupt a moment? I have a question. Does every single thread on PT really have to be about John Kwok? Thanks in advance.

Short answer, yes. As long as he is allowed to post here it will be all Kwok, all the time. The big question is, why is he still allowed to post here?

Maybe a commitment to freedom of speech, or maybe because every now and then we need a chew toy?

Do you really care? You were too busy helping to whip up a frenzy against Nick Matzke over at Jerry Coyne's blog. But I do appreciate this as well as that bit of breathtaking inanity from Ms. Hale: Badger3k Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:01 am | Permalink I started last night, went to bed, and finished today. I never thought I’d see a Kw*k apologist, but even he has one. The camera-fiend sure can derail a thread. Reply ■ Miranda Celeste Hale Posted April 22, 2011 at 11:41 am | Permalink If only someone would send him that damn Leica M7 rangefinder already! And they should probably also include a note saying “Yes, we know that Frank McCourt was one of your high school teachers. Blessed be thy name, Kw*k” Reply (And oh, Badger3k, you can tell Miranda that Frank would probably get a kick seeing this too. But I can't tell him since he's dead. Maybe she can conjur up his spirit? And don't forget to remind her that I don't want a Leica M7 rangefinder camera from PZ Myers; it's Bill Dembski who owes me one.)

Anyway, are you thinking NPD

I'm not a therapist, I only play one on TV (and took basic psych courses at uni).

but, yeah, some form of it for sure. His symptoms fit perfectly.

It's sad he doesn't have people close enough to him to help him get treated.

I really have thought that if John could ever get treatment, he actually would have something useful to contribute to any forum.

as it stands, IMO he's more of a detraction than a boon.

but then, this has gone on for so long it should no longer even require comment.

so, I shan't be bothering any more.

does he pollute ATBC too?

Lou FCD said: Holy crap, John. Take a deep breath. Setting aside the fact that your latest crusade has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread (as usual), let's just for a moment take a look at your claim of a threat having been made. If "Fuck them with a rusty knife" is an actual threat, then so is "Fuck them and the horse they rode in on". Are you seriously contending that someone who uses this phrase is threatening to rape someone's horse (which in all likelihood does not even exist)? If so, you really are a complete idiot. Go cool off. Take a shower. Drink a beer. Give it a yank. But most importantly, take your damned meds and stop making every thread on the blog all about *you*.

You were too busy helping to whip up a frenzy against Nick Matzke over at Jerry Coyne’s blog.

actually, Nick himself was doing just fine whipping up a frenzy against Nick over there...

he really didn't need any help!

jaw dropping, really.

Ichthyic said: You were too busy helping to whip up a frenzy against Nick Matzke over at Jerry Coyne’s blog. actually, Nick himself was doing just fine whipping up a frenzy against Nick over there... he really didn't need any help! jaw dropping, really.

does that really qualify?

nope, you're right. In fact, I should have used scare quotes around the word "frenzy".

the only reason I included it at all was because it was part of John's inane rant to begin with.

“fuck me sideways” and “fuck me running” - am I threatening myself?

according to the Kwokster, you are a very self-destructive individual!

He'll probably report you to local authorities for threatening bodily harm to yourself.

I really have to laugh that this particular bit of insanity is STILL being played out, literally YEARS after the initial stupidity claiming the comment was a personal attack on SK was spewed at the Intersection.

Ichthyic asked: does he pollute ATBC too?

JT the clueless demented delusional Pharyngulite whined and moanded:

John Kwok said: Nor has your sanctimonious bulls**t, JT. You claim ignorance, and yet you are as delusional as the GNU zealots posting over at PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne's blogs.

So, how does my "sanctimonious"-ness excuse your telling another poster to commit suicide and threateningly implying that he would die soon?

Lou FCD said:

Ichthyic asked: does he pollute ATBC too?

Nah, the audience is too small, I guess.

Badger3k said:

John Kwok said:

Badger3k said: Maybe a com

tomh said:

Lou FCD said: Excuse me, may I interrupt a moment? I have a question. Does every single thread on PT really have to be about John Kwok? Thanks in advance.

Short answer, yes. As long as he is allowed to post here it will be all Kwok, all the time. The big question is, why is he still allowed to post here?

Maybe a commitment to freedom of speech, or maybe because every now and then we need a chew toy?

Do you really care? You were too busy helping to whip up a frenzy against Nick Matzke over at Jerry Coyne's blog. But I do appreciate this as well as that bit of breathtaking inanity from Ms. Hale: Badger3k Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:01 am | Permalink I started last night, went to bed, and finished today. I never thought I’d see a Kw*k apologist, but even he has one. The camera-fiend sure can derail a thread. Reply ■ Miranda Celeste Hale Posted April 22, 2011 at 11:41 am | Permalink If only someone would send him that damn Leica M7 rangefinder already! And they should probably also include a note saying “Yes, we know that Frank McCourt was one of your high school teachers. Blessed be thy name, Kw*k” Reply (And oh, Badger3k, you can tell Miranda that Frank would probably get a kick seeing this too. But I can't tell him since he's dead. Maybe she can conjur up his spirit? And don't forget to remind her that I don't want a Leica M7 rangefinder camera from PZ Myers; it's Bill Dembski who owes me one.)

You keep saying things like that as if we should care. I didn't know you believed in spirits, but now it makes sense - you take an insulting curse as a threat because you believe in magic!

Ichthyic said: If so, you really are a complete idiot. It's not that the Kwokster is an idiot. It's that he suffers from a specific personality disorder. seriously. some of us simply refuse to even deal with it any more, but at least it should be recognized by the people who still wish to interact with him.

Badger3k said:

Lou FCD said: Holy crap, John. Take a deep breath. Setting aside the fact that your latest crusade has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread (as usual), let's just for a moment take a look at your claim of a threat having been made. If "Fuck them with a rusty knife" is an actual threat, then so is "Fuck them and the horse they rode in on". Are you seriously contending that someone who uses this phrase is threatening to rape someone's horse (which in all likelihood does not even exist)? If so, you really are a complete idiot. Go cool off. Take a shower. Drink a beer. Give it a yank. But most importantly, take your damned meds and stop making every thread on the blog all about *you*.

When surprised by something, I have been known (when not at work) to say "fuck me sideways" and "fuck me running" - am I threatening myself?

John Kwok, as someone who has been a neutral observer for some time I say - go get some professional psychiatric help. Your disjointed ranting has trashed this thread just as it has done to others in the past. It's not fair to those interested in serious discourse to have to wade through your narcissistic eruptions and constant stream of insults.

Kwok's voluminous excretions often anount to a Denial Of Service spam attack. Some time ago, I learned that if his name was on a post, just skip it. Sometimes this has meant skipping whole pages of noise, and if anyone decides to get into a pissing match with him, then it means skipping what might have been promising discussions that were crushed.

If only he'd include some ads for viagra, he'd be banned altogether and we could all get back to what this site is about.

Page after page after page of nothing but kwokking. This kind of sustained, unproductive derailing is what destroys comment threads, and would get anyone swiftly banned at Pharyngula.

Why does the Panda's Thumb permit one mentally ill obsessive to one-sidedly dominate their comments?

Flint said: Kwok's voluminous excretions often anount to a Denial Of Service spam attack. Some time ago, I learned that if his name was on a post, just skip it. Sometimes this has meant skipping whole pages of noise, and if anyone decides to get into a pissing match with him, then it means skipping what might have been promising discussions that were crushed. If only he'd include some ads for viagra, he'd be banned altogether and we could all get back to what this site is about.

Wolfhound said:

Flint said: Kwok's voluminous excretions often anount to a Denial Of Service spam attack. Some time ago, I learned that if his name was on a post, just skip it. Sometimes this has meant skipping whole pages of noise, and if anyone decides to get into a pissing match with him, then it means skipping what might have been promising discussions that were crushed. If only he'd include some ads for viagra, he'd be banned altogether and we could all get back to what this site is about.

This was my view, as well. Mr. Kwok is most decidedly a bright fellow and I've no doubt he has positive contributions to make, and likely does. Sadly, it's impossible to get past the name dropping, narcissism, Star Trek references, insults to anybody who disagrees with him, references to his nursery school/high school/college, continuous rehashings of perceived persecution, fixation with PZ Myers, and other such socially autistic behaviors. Like you, I typically skip whole pages and sometimes whole threads if there is an infestation. I know I'm missing a lot of great stuff but I simply lack the mental discipline to sift through the garbage heap to find what treasures might have been scattered throughout. It's a personal failing, I admit, but I can't be arsed to make any effort toward self improvement at the moment.

John Kwok said:

JT the clueless demented delusional Pharyngulite whined and moanded:

John Kwok said: Nor has your sanctimonious bulls**t, JT. You claim ignorance, and yet you are as delusional as the GNU zealots posting over at PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne's blogs.

So, how does my "sanctimonious"-ness excuse your telling another poster to commit suicide and threateningly implying that he would die soon?

As Dave Luckett noted, I was threatened by that poster. But stop being such a sanctimonious prick please. What I said pales in comparison to someone posting a threat at Pharyngula to rape and to kill Sheril Kirshenbaum, Chris Mooney and their The Intersection suppporters (which included me). What I said in essence was to tell that jerk to go F**K OFF and I say that to you now, especially since you're a sufficiently demented bastard unable and unwilling to read the very blog entry that Sheril Kirshenbaum wrote in response to the "rusty knife" comment, correctly recognizing - as SWT himself as noted here at PT recently - that it was a threat.

What is saddest to me is how remarkably oblivious Kwok is to his own behavior. The peculiar sequence of posts which led to his banning show a person who simply cannot understand how is perceived by others. "Know thyself.". He won't or can't. I pity him.

Paraphrasing Christ, let the GNU without sin be the first to cast a (metaphorical) stone at me. May I suggest that you work on cleaning that intellectual cesspool known as Pharyngula first before whining and moaning again about my remarks?

there's a difference between invective and libel, John.

If you don't learn it, from us, you might end up learning it the hard way.

again, and I say this with all due sincerity: You have a personality disorder. PLEASE SEEK TREATMENT. You will be happier, more productive, and people will actually start to listen to what you say, because it won't be irrational rants.

Ichthyic said: Paraphrasing Christ, let the GNU without sin be the first to cast a (metaphorical) stone at me. May I suggest that you work on cleaning that intellectual cesspool known as Pharyngula first before whining and moaning again about my remarks? there's a difference between invective and libel, John. If you don't learn it, from us, you might end up learning it the hard way. again, and I say this with all due sincerity: You have a personality disorder. PLEASE SEEK TREATMENT. You will be happier, more productive, and people will actually start to listen to what you say, because it won't be irrational rants.

PZ Myers said: Page after page after page of nothing but kwokking. This kind of sustained, unproductive derailing is what destroys comment threads, and would get anyone swiftly banned at Pharyngula. Why does the Panda's Thumb permit one mentally ill obsessive to one-sidedly dominate their comments?

JT the clueless demented delusional Pharyngulite barked:

John Kwok said:

JT the clueless demented delusional Pharyngulite whined and moanded:

John Kwok said: Nor has your sanctimonious bulls**t, JT. You claim ignorance, and yet you are as delusional as the GNU zealots posting over at PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne's blogs.

So, how does my "sanctimonious"-ness excuse your telling another poster to commit suicide and threateningly implying that he would die soon?

As Dave Luckett noted, I was threatened by that poster. But stop being such a sanctimonious prick please. What I said pales in comparison to someone posting a threat at Pharyngula to rape and to kill Sheril Kirshenbaum, Chris Mooney and their The Intersection suppporters (which included me). What I said in essence was to tell that jerk to go F**K OFF and I say that to you now, especially since you're a sufficiently demented bastard unable and unwilling to read the very blog entry that Sheril Kirshenbaum wrote in response to the "rusty knife" comment, correctly recognizing - as SWT himself as noted here at PT recently - that it was a threat.

How exactly does a threat of murder pale in comparison to a threat of rape? You can SAY it's not on the same level, but it clearly is. He said "fuck her sideways with a rusty knife". You told a poster to kill himself and then implied that he would be dieing in the near future. If anything, your offense is clearly the more serious one.

Thorton said: John Kwok, as someone who has been a neutral observer for some time I say - go get some professional psychiatric help. Your disjointed ranting has trashed this thread just as it has done to others in the past. It's not fair to those interested in serious discourse to have to wade through your narcissistic eruptions and constant stream of insults.

PZ Myers said: Page after page after page of nothing but kwokking. This kind of sustained, unproductive derailing is what destroys comment threads, and would get anyone swiftly banned at Pharyngula.

Badger3k said: I just skim through the comments, and if I see Kwok posting I skip over it, unless someone points me specifically to something, or if he responds to something I posted (joy!). Kwok, you owe me a new irony meter, by the way. I'll try to see if Amazon has any on sale, but with you I'll need the industrial strength model. Until he grows up or learns how people operate in a social environment, I'm afraid his chances of making a positive contribution are slight.

PZ Myers said: Why does the Panda's Thumb permit one mentally ill obsessive to one-sidedly dominate their comments?

John Kwok said:

Badger3k said: I just skim through the comments, and if I see Kwok posting I skip over it, unless someone points me specifically to something, or if he responds to something I posted (joy!). Kwok, you owe me a new irony meter, by the way. I'll try to see if Amazon has any on sale, but with you I'll need the industrial strength model. Until he grows up or learns how people operate in a social environment, I'm afraid his chances of making a positive contribution are slight.

Given your own "noteworthy" comments over at Pharyngula and Why Evolution is True, you are a fine one to judge, Badger3k. Say, how about honoring my request for a brand new Leica M7 rangefinder camera? You can buy that and a brand new 35mm f1.4 ASPH Summilux-M lens (the newly improved version) over at Amazon, or better yet, try here: http://www.tamarkin.com (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

John Kwok said:

Magicthighs said: These claims of threats of rape are ridiculous. If I recall correctly, the language used was "Fuck them. Fuck them with a rusty blade". Was that crude? Yes, it was, but it takes quite some mental gymnastics and ignorance of the meaning of the phrase "fuck them" (or just plain old dishonesty of course) to spin that as a threat of rape.

I'm not a woman and I am especially not Sheril Kirshenbaum, but if she thought that was a threat to rape and to kill her and Chris Mooney, then I'll accept her interpretation. I also regarded that absurd comment as a threat. However, PZ Myers later treated it as a joke, in which he paraphrased it as "fob me sideways etc." in yet another rhetorical jab at the Irish Roman Catholic Church within days after the threat was posted at Pharyngula back in March, 2010. Your remarks are obtuse, ridiculous and no better than what I have seen from FL, Byers, IBIG or the other creo trolls infesting Pharynugla (And yes, I just wrote this knowing damn well I'll see yet another display of infantile stupidity expressed by you here at PT as a response.).

John Kwok said: (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

Wolfhound said:

John Kwok said: (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

Jimminy Christmas, you really can't help yourself, can you?

Malchus said: No. And that is the point that several people have made: he can't. The compulsive behavior he shows here is apparently uncurable and is probably what gets him banned from most websites.

Wolfhound said:

John Kwok said: (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

Jimminy Christmas, you really can't help yourself, can you?

John Kwok said:

Malchus said: No. And that is the point that several people have made: he can't. The compulsive behavior he shows here is apparently uncurable and is probably what gets him banned from most websites.

Wolfhound said:

John Kwok said: (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

Jimminy Christmas, you really can't help yourself, can you?

Oh yes I can, moron. If you want to bring up the Leica camera "demand" I made of Myers again - even after I told him privately and also publicly here that it was a stunt I did just to irritate him - then methinks you owe me a brand new Leica M7 rangefinder camera. When the GNUs here stop mentioning it, then I'll stop making similar demands of the GNUs to have them buy me one.

Malchus said: And here you play the argument from authority that you condemned only a comment or two ago. John, you are increasingly incoherent; apparently obsessed with an incident that everyone but you has forgotten about.

John Kwok said:

Magicthighs said: These claims of threats of rape are ridiculous. If I recall correctly, the language used was "Fuck them. Fuck them with a rusty blade". Was that crude? Yes, it was, but it takes quite some mental gymnastics and ignorance of the meaning of the phrase "fuck them" (or just plain old dishonesty of course) to spin that as a threat of rape.

I'm not a woman and I am especially not Sheril Kirshenbaum, but if she thought that was a threat to rape and to kill her and Chris Mooney, then I'll accept her interpretation. I also regarded that absurd comment as a threat. However, PZ Myers later treated it as a joke, in which he paraphrased it as "fob me sideways etc." in yet another rhetorical jab at the Irish Roman Catholic Church within days after the threat was posted at Pharyngula back in March, 2010. Your remarks are obtuse, ridiculous and no better than what I have seen from FL, Byers, IBIG or the other creo trolls infesting Pharynugla (And yes, I just wrote this knowing damn well I'll see yet another display of infantile stupidity expressed by you here at PT as a response.).

If I am "increasingly incoherent" as you claim, then explain this retort to Ichthyic:

“Some of the most obsessed people I know online are GNUs like yourself Ichthyic. I am confident that Coyne and Myers will be obsessing over physicist Brian Greene’s financial support from the John Templeton Foundation for Greene’s World Science Festival. Given some of their prior condemnations on that support - in which they all but asserted that Greene is somehow an ‘intellectual whore’ of the Templeton Foundation - a more objective reader might ask what Greene did to make them hit the roof and whether or not Coyne and Myers had forgotten to take their psych meds yet.”

“Trust me, we’ll hear Coyne and Myers whine and moan about Greene and the World Science Festival in the near future. It’s become an annual ritual with them.”

The World Science Festival will be held in New York City from June 1st through 5th. I am certain that will be a lot of spilled ink - in plain English, GNUs howling with rage - at Pharyngula, Why Evolution is True, and other GNU blogs over Brian Greene's ties to the John Templeton Foundation.

Do you seriously think you can be a judge as to whether I am getting "increasingly incoherent" when I have read how Coyne and Myers, among others, have acted hysterically over Greene's behavior, as though Greene was an "intellectual whore" of the John Templeton Foundation (And no, I'm not defending Greene because he went to high school with me. I'm defending him because he doesn't deserve the abuse he has received from Coyne, Myers and other GNUs these past two years; abuse I am certain he will receive again quite soon.).

I agree that John Kwok can go too far.....but when are the atheist fanatics going to clean up their own obsessive acts against ANYONE and ANYTHING religious? The issue of extreme obsessions and prejudices cuts both ways and that's why I'm more sympathetic to Kwok than most, because I know he means well and he is sometimes actually right.

Dale Husband said: I agree that John Kwok can go too far.....but when are the atheist fanatics going to clean up their own obsessive acts against ANYONE and ANYTHING religious? The issue of extreme obsessions and prejudices cuts both ways and that's why I'm more sympathetic to Kwok than most, because I know he means well and he is sometimes actually right.

I agree that John Kwok can go too far.….but when are the atheist fanatics going to clean up their own obsessive acts against ANYONE and ANYTHING religious? The issue of extreme obsessions and prejudices cuts both ways

Flint said:

I agree that John Kwok can go too far.….but when are the atheist fanatics going to clean up their own obsessive acts against ANYONE and ANYTHING religious? The issue of extreme obsessions and prejudices cuts both ways

While I'm sure obsession and prejudice are part of the human condition, I wonder about this alleged obsession. I do see requests that faith-based claims be supported by evidence, and I suppose such requests can be regarded as obsessive or prejudiced considering that faith-based claims are specifically NOT evidence-based. Beyond this, I see some people who appear to drag their religious (or perhaps anti-religious) convictions into discussions where they don't fit. And in this regard, I see the religious obsessives basically shooting first - they ALWAYS drag their religion into EVERYTHING, original topic irrelevant. I see their opponents being primary reactive. And again, most of this reaction seems to take the form of mockery against the sheer unsupported imaginary nature of the religious claims. On a science-oriented site, that posture is hardly surprising. So, uh, who ARE these "atheist fanatics" and can you point to an example of where one of these deliberately changes the thread subject so as to preach? Maybe I haven't been here long enough to observe this yet?

Flint said:

I agree that John Kwok can go too far.….but when are the atheist fanatics going to clean up their own obsessive acts against ANYONE and ANYTHING religious? The issue of extreme obsessions and prejudices cuts both ways

While I'm sure obsession and prejudice are part of the human condition, I wonder about this alleged obsession. I do see requests that faith-based claims be supported by evidence, and I suppose such requests can be regarded as obsessive or prejudiced considering that faith-based claims are specifically NOT evidence-based. Beyond this, I see some people who appear to drag their religious (or perhaps anti-religious) convictions into discussions where they don't fit. And in this regard, I see the religious obsessives basically shooting first - they ALWAYS drag their religion into EVERYTHING, original topic irrelevant. I see their opponents being primary reactive. And again, most of this reaction seems to take the form of mockery against the sheer unsupported imaginary nature of the religious claims. On a science-oriented site, that posture is hardly surprising. So, uh, who ARE these "atheist fanatics" and can you point to an example of where one of these deliberately changes the thread subject so as to preach? Maybe I haven't been here long enough to observe this yet?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/06/in-defense-of-m.html#comment-219719 truthspeaker | June 15, 2010 2:53 PM It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise – and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it – promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/misdefining-terms-for-purposes-of-propaganda/#comment-678 As a Theist, I guess I could be accused of dogmatism, and I can really understand why. But that doesn’t mean that I am closed to the idea of the non-existence of God, since I do think that SOME OF THE QUESTIONS raised by atheists and non-theists ARE valid and interesting in their own right. — I try to be reasonable. . though I feely admit I do fail, to be absolutely honest. I think the only statement that doesn’t take dogmatism is: “God may or may not exist,” I.e., agnosticism. There are times when I DO find myself making the lean towards agnosticism, and . . that is the first time I ever admitted that to anyone. — Even though i personally believe in God, I do accept the possibility that he may not exist.

John Kwok said:

Malchus said: No. And that is the point that several people have made: he can't. The compulsive behavior he shows here is apparently uncurable and is probably what gets him banned from most websites.

Wolfhound said:

John Kwok said: (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

Jimminy Christmas, you really can't help yourself, can you?

Oh yes I can, moron. If you want to bring up the Leica camera "demand" I made of Myers again - even after I told him privately and also publicly here that it was a stunt I did just to irritate him - then methinks you owe me a brand new Leica M7 rangefinder camera. When the GNUs here stop mentioning it, then I'll stop making similar demands of the GNUs to have them buy me one.

Malchus said: So the emails you sent to Myers colleagues asking them to put pressure on Myers to send you a camera were also part of the "joke"? It looks far more like you simply did something publicly humiliating and tried to backtrack. And why should ANYONE send you a camera at all? Why should anyone pay attention to these odd request? Why do you even make them? Don't you realize how foolish it makes you look?

John Kwok said:

Malchus said: No. And that is the point that several people have made: he can't. The compulsive behavior he shows here is apparently uncurable and is probably what gets him banned from most websites.

Wolfhound said:

John Kwok said: (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

Jimminy Christmas, you really can't help yourself, can you?

Oh yes I can, moron. If you want to bring up the Leica camera "demand" I made of Myers again - even after I told him privately and also publicly here that it was a stunt I did just to irritate him - then methinks you owe me a brand new Leica M7 rangefinder camera. When the GNUs here stop mentioning it, then I'll stop making similar demands of the GNUs to have them buy me one.

Dale Husband said: ... when are the atheist fanatics going to clean up their own obsessive acts against ANYONE and ANYTHING religious?

John Kwok said:

Malchus said: So the emails you sent to Myers colleagues asking them to put pressure on Myers to send you a camera were also part of the "joke"? It looks far more like you simply did something publicly humiliating and tried to backtrack. And why should ANYONE send you a camera at all? Why should anyone pay attention to these odd request? Why do you even make them? Don't you realize how foolish it makes you look?

John Kwok said:

Malchus said: No. And that is the point that several people have made: he can't. The compulsive behavior he shows here is apparently uncurable and is probably what gets him banned from most websites.

Wolfhound said:

John Kwok said: (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

Jimminy Christmas, you really can't help yourself, can you?

Oh yes I can, moron. If you want to bring up the Leica camera "demand" I made of Myers again - even after I told him privately and also publicly here that it was a stunt I did just to irritate him - then methinks you owe me a brand new Leica M7 rangefinder camera. When the GNUs here stop mentioning it, then I'll stop making similar demands of the GNUs to have them buy me one.

Yes, Malchus, IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. Moreover, a few friends who had discovered by accident, my "exchange" with Myers over at Pharyngula, realized I was joking. Again, I did this to provoke PZ Myers and it succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

Science Avenger said:

Dale Husband said: ... when are the atheist fanatics going to clean up their own obsessive acts against ANYONE and ANYTHING religious?

Dale, as one who somewhat straddles the fence on this issue (being a big fan of both Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins, as well as a varied strategy of persuasion on religious issues), I assure you that you guys persuade no one with such general, unsupported claims. It only makes you sound like you have a personal problem with outspoken atheists, especially since you are doing exactly what you criticize them for. It comes across as histrionics. If you have an issue with a particular atheist, take it up directly-particularly with him/her, specifically and with evidence, and then you might be persuasive. General vague attacks are only going to get you dismissed without a fair hearing by your targert audience. Just sayin.

Science Avenger said:

Dale Husband said: ... when are the atheist fanatics going to clean up their own obsessive acts against ANYONE and ANYTHING religious?

Dale, as one who somewhat straddles the fence on this issue (being a big fan of both Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins, as well as a varied strategy of persuasion on religious issues), I assure you that you guys persuade no one with such general, unsupported claims. It only makes you sound like you have a personal problem with outspoken atheists, especially since you are doing exactly what you criticize them for. It comes across as histrionics. If you have an issue with a particular atheist, take it up directly-particularly with him/her, specifically and with evidence, and then you might be persuasive. General vague attacks are only going to get you dismissed without a fair hearing by your targert audience. Just sayin.

Sorry Kwok, but I don't have any time to argue with crazy people right now. Go seek the help you need, your intellect could be a valuable asset in our battle for an appreciation of good science, but not while you're doing this Larry Fafarman imitation. No one cares what you think any more.

John Kwok said: Yes, Malchus, IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. Moreover, a few friends who had discovered by accident, my "exchange" with Myers over at Pharyngula, realized I was joking. Again, I did this to provoke PZ Myers and it succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

Dale Husband said: Just scroll up and read where I did get specific in my criticism of atheist bigotry: Dale Husband replied to comment from Flint | April 25, 2011 10:56 PM

Science Avenger said: Sorry Kwok, but I don't have any time to argue with crazy people right now. Go seek the help you need, your intellect could be a valuable asset in our battle for an appreciation of good science, but not while you're doing this Larry Fafarman imitation. No one cares what you think any more.

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said: Yes, Malchus, IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. Moreover, a few friends who had discovered by accident, my "exchange" with Myers over at Pharyngula, realized I was joking. Again, I did this to provoke PZ Myers and it succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

I would prefer to have not had that sort of success. Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? Seriously, don't ever do that again.

Science Avenger said:

Dale Husband said: Just scroll up and read where I did get specific in my criticism of atheist bigotry: Dale Husband replied to comment from Flint | April 25, 2011 10:56 PM

I don't think the opinion that believing in things without evidence is evil (or what was more likely meant, the notion that believing things on which one bases one's life decisions is evil), is remotely deserving of the label "bigotry". The position may be wrong, but it is certainly not obviously so (many easy supporting examples of evil made possible by such should leap immediately to mind), nor is it necessarily based on rank ignorance as bigotry tends to be. IMO your labelling of it as such is exactly the sort of histrionics to which I referred. But remember my point is really about the persuasive value of your argument, not its truth content. Your argument might be right, but it doesn't matter, because no one in your target audience is listening any more once they see a phrase like "atheist fundamentalist" or "atheist bigot". Atheists are one of the most villified and misrepresented groups in our culture, and we have observed that the vast majority of people labelling us as such are ignorant and unworthy of our attention. By using the same language, you run the risk of being lumped into that same group, and dismissed out of hand, and I'd argue that it in fact happens all the time. That's why IMO despite all the hand-wringing from the Mooney's, Matzke's, and Ruses of the world, they've persuaded no one on the atheist side, or at least no one prominent. Follow your own advice: to persuade, you must have some sensitivity to the world-view of your audience, and that certainly includes the belief that they are neither bigots nor fundamentalists. If you don't, I'd argue that I am FAR more likely to persaude a Christian that he is wrong by calling his beliefs stupid and ignorant.

Dale Husband said: ...fundamentalist is a specific term that can be properly applied only to certain Protestant Christians. Not Catholics, not Muslims, nor anyone else.

Just Bob said:

Dale Husband said: ...fundamentalist is a specific term that can be properly applied only to certain Protestant Christians. Not Catholics, not Muslims, nor anyone else.

Umm, I've frequently heard the term "fundamentalist" applied to certain Muslims--ones who adhere to a sixth century interpretation of Islam and reject modernity in general. Do you maintain that that's an improper usage?

I have also known Catholics who have bought into the whole YEC thing. They consider themselves Catholic and attend Mass and confession--but they can't "believe in evolution" or an old Earth. Would not "fundamentalist" apply to them?

When I speak of “bigotry”, I use the generic dictionary meaning of “being intolerant of ideas or opinions different from your own.” It does not have to be like racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia. Calling someone “evil” just because of their beliefs, when they may have done nothing to merit condemnation otherwise, is indeed intolerance and thus a form of bigotry...And in fact, I agree with you that many Christians ARE stupid and ignorant (FL, IBIG and Robert Byers being examples) and I would gladly join with you in slamming them.

you are commended for not hurling insults at me like others have done. So I don’t consider you a bigot.

Flint said:

When I speak of “bigotry”, I use the generic dictionary meaning of “being intolerant of ideas or opinions different from your own.” It does not have to be like racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia. Calling someone “evil” just because of their beliefs, when they may have done nothing to merit condemnation otherwise, is indeed intolerance and thus a form of bigotry...And in fact, I agree with you that many Christians ARE stupid and ignorant (FL, IBIG and Robert Byers being examples) and I would gladly join with you in slamming them.

Hard to disentangle the semantics here. So calling such people "evil" is bigotry, but calling them stupid and ignorant is not. That's a delicate distinction at best.

you are commended for not hurling insults at me like others have done. So I don’t consider you a bigot.

Aha, a hint. A "bigot" is somone who insults Dale Husband. Straightforward, but kinda subjective. But what concerned me was a bit different. I wrote that in my reading here and elsewhere, the atheists do not SHOOT FIRST. When accosted by a religious zealot, sure, they dismiss fervent belief in the imaginary rather curtly and without much respect. Sometimes they wax philosophical about the net benefits of such belief, and the circumstances under which "believing what you know ain't so" might be beneficial, if any. But without the religious provocation, I've never seen these atheists changing the topic of the thread, or distorting it rather badly, IN ORDER to preach the essential rightness of their beliefs. Unlike religious believers, atheists do not hijack threads to preach. And on the net, at least, this is important. Who can count the number of threads basically destroyed when religious preaching starts? Who can find even ONE thread destroyed by atheist subject-changing (as opposed to aggressive response to protestations of religious faith)?

Dale Husband said: I must note that there is one religious group I totally reject and shun as much as possible: the Mormons.

It seems we rediscover the same theories over and over. A course I took eons ago in Goebbels Theory of Mass Communication (propaganda) understood the issue of predilection. People exclude almost immediately that information in conflict with what they already believe. They change their minds only when the new information can be reconciled with the old information-sometimes an impossible task. If scientists think they have been excluded from this very human tendency, they are deluding themselves. How many scientific theories live long after they have been disproved or at least been the source of endless debate well after we have moved on in research?

It seems to me that those scientists who utterly exclude the possibility of an intelligent creation force are as silly as the people who deny evolution as a tool of such a force. I certainly think the belief in a cultural God is ridiculous and mythical but that does not preclude a solitary force instigating creation and guiding the universe in some way.

Carolyn Griffen said: It seems we rediscover the same theories over and over. A course I took eons ago in Goebbels Theory of Mass Communication (propaganda) understood the issue of predilection. People exclude almost immediately that information in conflict with what they already believe. They change their minds only when the new information can be reconciled with the old information-sometimes an impossible task. If scientists think they have been excluded from this very human tendency, they are deluding themselves. How many scientific theories live long after they have been disproved or at least been the source of endless debate well after we have moved on in research? It seems to me that those scientists who utterly exclude the possibility of an intelligent creation force are as silly as the people who deny evolution as a tool of such a force. I certainly think the belief in a cultural God is ridiculous and mythical but that does not preclude a solitary force instigating creation and guiding the universe in some way.

Carolyn Griffen said: It seems to me that those scientists who utterly exclude the possibility of an intelligent creation force are as silly as the people who deny evolution as a tool of such a force.

tomh said:

Dale Husband said: I must note that there is one religious group I totally reject and shun as much as possible: the Mormons.

Interesting. The very definition of bigotry. Which makes you a first-class bigot.

It is also true that those who are biased are the least able to see their own prejudice.

I might point out that we do know that someone was the precursor of Santa Klaus though not necessarily wearing a suit designed by a Conde Nast artist. Ones bias does determine what we are interested in investigating. Not necessarily a bad thing.

May I also note that the scientific method insists we abandon a theory when evidence exists contrary to the theory's assumption. When science becomes politicized as it has in modern society, it ceases to be science and becomes dogma ust as oppressive as religious dogma.

While Darwin propounded a theory that seems in conflict with Christian myth, I think modern science has progressed to the point where Darwin is another figure like Freud, a seminal thinker but kind of antiquated. ( Oh perish the thought). Whether we mention Darwin or not becomes completely irrelevant and no I don't think we should teach intelligent design.

I find such things as the stability of matrilineal mitochondrial DNA support the idea that we can all have a common ancestor ( or a small set of them). My personal belief is that science is a richer and more complete explanation of creation than is myth. However, that much maligned Christian myth is a much better moral compass than science. We need to reconcile them because we need them both.

Oh DS, if you really believe science and scientists are so pure, you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny. When research grants are given to prove the existence of a deity we would have hundreds if not thousands of scientists working on the proof. And if such a proof was found, would you believe it?

And, yes, I am a cynic.

Carolyn Griffen said: And if such a proof was found, would you believe it?

Carolyn Griffen said: It is also true that those who are biased are the least able to see their own prejudice.

tomh said:

Carolyn Griffen said: And if such a proof was found, would you believe it?

Perhaps you could explain what such a proof would look like, then one could decide whether it would be acceptable as a proof.

Carolyn Griffen said: It seems to me that those scientists who utterly exclude the possibility of an intelligent creation force are as silly as the people who deny evolution as a tool of such a force. I certainly think the belief in a cultural God is ridiculous and mythical but that does not preclude a solitary force instigating creation and guiding the universe in some way.

and not some other load of unevidenced nonsense?

Dale Husband said: When I speak of "bigotry", I use the generic dictionary meaning of "being intolerant of ideas or opinions different from your own."

Carolyn Griffen said: It seems to me that those scientists who utterly exclude the possibility of an intelligent creation force are as silly as the people who deny evolution as a tool of such a force.

Urgh, that should say:

"at least the former group has a ton of evidence for its view, whereas the latter group has none"

Carolyn Griffen said: When science becomes politicized as it has in modern society, it ceases to be science and becomes dogma [j]ust as oppressive as religious dogma.

Science Avenger said:

Dale Husband said: When I speak of "bigotry", I use the generic dictionary meaning of "being intolerant of ideas or opinions different from your own."

I don't find that very helpful because the word "intolerant" is too nebulous. Depending on who is speaking, it can mean anything from "criticizing" to "attempting to suppress views/groups through the force of law and/or terrorism". Further, there are some ideas we OUGHT to be highly critical and unyielding on, because they are either objectively incorrect (2+2=5) or violate basic human rights (racism, anti-Semitism, etc.). By your broad definition, one could be a completely rational bigot, and I reject that. It waters down a word that needs its power. Let's go back to your example. What if I alter the original, and instead of saying "believing in things without evidence is evil", I change it to "promoting as a virtue 'believing in things without evidence' is dangerous, because it makes a whole host of evils possible that wouldn't be otherwise, and as a consequence, those who promote such a view are, in an indirect way, promoting evil, and in some incarnations deserve to be called 'evil' themselves". Now clearly there is room for debate in there, but my point is 1) I don't see how one could call that view bigoted, and 2) there's ultimately not a dime's difference, except perhaps verbosity and extra details, between the two views. IOW, the original poster could have meant exactly what I did, but for limitations of posting time or just sheer laziness didn't bother to be as complete. And for that you called him a bigot.

Religions do a lot of good in the world, but as long as it allows for people to believe anything without clear evidence, then nothing gets resolved and all sorts of evil dogmas may be allowed, resulting in evil actions later. Faith without reason is too dangerous to go unexamined.

Science Avenger said:

Carolyn Griffen said: When science becomes politicized as it has in modern society, it ceases to be science and becomes dogma [j]ust as oppressive as religious dogma.

Only when it is religious dogmatists doing the politicizing. Science doesn't cease to be science because ignorant twits politicize it.

Science Avenger said: Urgh, that should say: "at least the former group has a ton of evidence for its view, whereas the latter group has none"

Carolyn Griffen said: Oh DS, if you really believe science and scientists are so pure, you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny. When research grants are given to prove the existence of a deity we would have hundreds if not thousands of scientists working on the proof. And if such a proof was found, would you believe it? And, yes, I am a cynic.

Personally, I don't have any trouble at all believing in an 'intelligent creative force' -- because I am one. I'm intelligent, and I create lots of things; stories, art, music, etc; so I'm comfortable with the idea that I, myself, am one example of the class of 'intelligent creative force's. As well, I recognize that quite a few other human beings are 'intelligent creative force's. As for 'intelligent creative force's that aren't members of the species Homo sapiens... well, that's a horse of a different gear ratio. Got any specific candidates in mind, CG?

Carolyn Griffen said: It seems to me that those scientists who utterly exclude the possibility of an intelligent creation force are as silly as the people who deny evolution as a tool of such a force. I certainly think the belief in a cultural God is ridiculous and mythical but that does not preclude a solitary force instigating creation and guiding the universe in some way.

I've merely suggested that science investigates what it is paid to investigate. That seems to have upset some of you. Since I certainly have no axe to grind and I am not personally a deist, I find the reaction a trifle strange.

I also find it odd that the substantive comments I've made are ignored while you all jump to the conlcusion that I support creationism. I do not. But, I do think it's important to recognize that science in this country is not above criticism. I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean it's house before attacking a few supersitious people who find comfort in a personal savior.

carolyn Griffen said: But, I do think it's important to recognize that science in this country is not above criticism. I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean it's house before attacking a few supersitious people who find comfort in a personal savior.

carolyn Griffen said: I've merely suggested that science investigates what it is paid to investigate. That seems to have upset some of you. Since I certainly have no axe to grind and I am not personally a deist, I find the reaction a trifle strange. I also find it odd that the substantive comments I've made are ignored while you all jump to the conlcusion that I support creationism. I do not. But, I do think it's important to recognize that science in this country is not above criticism. I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean it's house before attacking a few supersitious people who find comfort in a personal savior.

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said:

Malchus said: So the emails you sent to Myers colleagues asking them to put pressure on Myers to send you a camera were also part of the "joke"? It looks far more like you simply did something publicly humiliating and tried to backtrack. And why should ANYONE send you a camera at all? Why should anyone pay attention to these odd request? Why do you even make them? Don't you realize how foolish it makes you look?

John Kwok said:

Malchus said: No. And that is the point that several people have made: he can't. The compulsive behavior he shows here is apparently uncurable and is probably what gets him banned from most websites.

Wolfhound said:

John Kwok said: (Just do me a favor and don't harass the owner whom I have known for years. He kindly opted to post some of my photographs at his online photo gallery there a few years ago.)

Jimminy Christmas, you really can't help yourself, can you?

Oh yes I can, moron. If you want to bring up the Leica camera "demand" I made of Myers again - even after I told him privately and also publicly here that it was a stunt I did just to irritate him - then methinks you owe me a brand new Leica M7 rangefinder camera. When the GNUs here stop mentioning it, then I'll stop making similar demands of the GNUs to have them buy me one.

Yes, Malchus, IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. Moreover, a few friends who had discovered by accident, my "exchange" with Myers over at Pharyngula, realized I was joking. Again, I did this to provoke PZ Myers and it succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

I was fed up with getting ridiculed by Myers regarding his harassment of me at Facebook so I thought that this would be the best means of getting even with him. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have done this, but I opted to. If anyone is "obsessed" about this still it is Myers since he has refused to allow me to post anything - especially if it was flattering toward him (most of the time) - here at Panda's Thumb on those rare occasions when he does have a blog entry.

carolyn Griffen said: I've merely suggested that science investigates what it is paid to investigate. That seems to have upset some of you. Since I certainly have no axe to grind and I am not personally a deist, I find the reaction a trifle strange. I also find it odd that the substantive comments I've made are ignored while you all jump to the conlcusion that I support creationism. I do not. But, I do think it's important to recognize that science in this country is not above criticism. I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean it's house before attacking a few supersitious people who find comfort in a personal savior.

carolyn Griffen said: I've merely suggested that science investigates what it is paid to investigate. That seems to have upset some of you. Since I certainly have no axe to grind and I am not personally a deist, I find the reaction a trifle strange. I also find it odd that the substantive comments I've made are ignored while you all jump to the conlcusion that I support creationism. I do not. But, I do think it's important to recognize that science in this country is not above criticism. I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean it's house before attacking a few supersitious people who find comfort in a personal savior.

DS said:

carolyn Griffen said: I've merely suggested that science investigates what it is paid to investigate. That seems to have upset some of you. Since I certainly have no axe to grind and I am not personally a deist, I find the reaction a trifle strange. I also find it odd that the substantive comments I've made are ignored while you all jump to the conlcusion that I support creationism. I do not. But, I do think it's important to recognize that science in this country is not above criticism. I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean it's house before attacking a few supersitious people who find comfort in a personal savior.

Science is not paid to investigate the supernatural. If you disagree, you are perfectly free to do so yourself. The question is whether you deny the evidence for and the reality of evolution. After all, you are the one who demanded that beliefs be based on evidence. As for cleaning the house of science, you are perfectly free to do that as well. Most of us realize that science is a human endeavor and as such will never be perfect. I find it more productive to focus on those who deny reality and demand that others do the same. Now that is a house that needs a lot of cleaning.

John Kwok said:

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said: Yes, Malchus, IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. Moreover, a few friends who had discovered by accident, my "exchange" with Myers over at Pharyngula, realized I was joking. Again, I did this to provoke PZ Myers and it succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

I would prefer to have not had that sort of success. Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? Seriously, don't ever do that again.

I wouldn't even dare think of it. But Myers's reputation has suffered somewhat since then, not least because of his bizarre behavior toward me here at PT. Contrary to Science Avenger's rant, there are still a lot of people who regard me as credible.

carolyn Griffen said: I've merely suggested that science investigates what it is paid to investigate. That seems to have upset some of you.

Since I certainly have no axe to grind and I am not personally a deist, I find the reaction a trifle strange.

I also find it odd that the substantive comments I've made are ignored while you all jump to the conlcusion that I support creationism. I do not. But, I do think it's important to recognize that science in this country is not above criticism.

I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean it's house before attacking a few supersitious people who find comfort in a personal savior.

Malchus said: And quite frankly, the problem is not the politicization in the scientific community; it's the blatant misuse of science for political ends by non-scientists. Blame religion, if you must (I frequently do).

No human activity whatsoever is above criticism. "Science is not above criticism" is therefore stipulated and agreed. That is not to say that any and all criticism is justifiable.

"Science investigates what it is paid to investigate." That's a bit more tricky. On the surface, it arises simply from the obvious fact that research requires funding. But it also suggests that scientists do as they're told by financiers. That suggestion is unwarranted, in general.

History suggests that scientists test evidence, and report on it honestly, and that most of their reports are negative, no matter who's funding. This is because science is validated by the peer review process, not by the source of the funds. To the scientists, it's their colleagues whom they have to convince, not their sponsors. Misreporting data, fudging, bad technique, faulty reasoning, downright lies - they'll get exposed sooner or later, and when found will be devastating, as Andrew Wakefield discovered.

Now, it's true that some research doesn't get funded. The scientists themselves kick up the most fuss about this. If they were mere tools of their own funding bodies, as implied, they would not be doing that.

"When research grants are given to prove the existence of a deity we would have hundreds if not thousands of scientists working on the proof."

Now, that's just wrong, in two different ways. Research grants to test evidence for a deity would be immediately forthcoming if there were any test that could be applied. There'd be a ton of money. Religious bodies would be falling over themselves. The reason the grants are not bountifully flowing is that there is no test that can be proposed. If you can propose such a test, the field is wide-open. But remember, the test must actually be a test.

But there's another, deeper, reason why I think you aren't operating from a scientific understanding. It's this word "proof". Science is not mathematics (it just uses the latter) and it does not deal in proof. It deals in evidence, which it amasses, repeatedly tests in every possible way and from which it draws conclusions. As soon as we start talking about "proof" of something, we have stepped away from what science can do.

And then we have: "modern science has progressed to the point where Darwin is another figure like Freud, a seminal thinker but kind of antiquated. ( Oh perish the thought)"

Well, of course Darwin is kind of antiquated. That thought is true. Nobody thinks it should perish. Why the sarcasm?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but that remark speaks to me of ill-will. It's a fact that Darwin's work, while sound, is over a century and a half old now. Why should that fact engage your apparent contempt? What is it about Darwin's work - or possibly Darwin's name - that gets your snark generator going?

"I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean it’s (sic) house"

Public distrust of science has been greatly exaggerated by special interest groups that conventionally use propaganda (by which I mean politically motivated persuasive material that has no necessary relationship to truth) to pursue agendas that are incidentally anti-science.

I say "incidentally", because these groups are usually not against science generally so much as in favour of some idea or goal that the scientific evidence does not support. "There is no anthropogenic climate change", for instance, or "God created the species separately", or "vaccines cause autism".

That said, I think the level of public trust in science and scientists is actually good. They usually rate above "clergy" in trusted professions surveys, anyway.

After having read the rest of the posts, I can find no other "substantive comments" to respond to. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that science operates on evidence, and there is none for the proposition of a "creative force" of any kind. That does not mean that science rules it out, only that science is silent.

As for whether you support creationism, I am glad to have your explicit disclaimer. I should explain that it often happens here that we meet a new poster who has some "concerns" and "questions" about evolution or science generally, and who disclaims any dog in the fight, but who turns out to be dissembling creationism or ideas even more bizarre and irrational. A generally dismissive or sneering attitude towards science or scientists is also likely to get hackles to rise here. This is not surprising, since many posters and the owners are working scientists, and such expressions are insults to their profession.

If the designer hypothesis is at this stage of development, they certainly have a long way to go. If they were behaving like scientists, as they like to claim, they would be attempting to convert their hypothesis into something scientifically measurable instead of playing word games to stretch science to include their sectarian religion and things that have no correlates in the physical world. In science there are straight-forward and well-developed techniques for building detectors of various sorts. These techniques make use of physical theory and known physical relationships that allow conversion of one kind of physical phenomenon to another. They also make use of well-understood correlations that interconnect various kinds of physical data. However, scientists don’t know how to connect natural phenomena to supernatural phenomena. No one, to my knowledge, has done such a thing. Perhaps if the ID/Creationists could give the scientific community the design specifications for a god detector, we could start taking them more seriously. If they could make one, detect their sectarian god, have other scientists around the world build their own detectors, repeat their experiments, verify their data and come to the same conclusion, at least one of the ID/Creationists would be in line for a Nobel. In keeping with good scientific practice, their detector will have to have specifications on things such as the following. 1. Sensitivity: It must be able to pick up the sectarian signal being sought. 2. Selectivity: It must be tunable to the specific characteristics of the sectarian god. 3. Signal-to-noise ratio: It must be able to distinguish a god signal from any ungodly noise. 4. Resolution: It must be able to select, with no overlap, the specified sectarian characteristics from the characteristics of all the other gods that humans think may exist. 5. Dynamic range: It must be able to cover the entire range of characteristics of gods in order confirm or eliminate the existence of all those other gods. 6. Repeatability and reproducibility: It must be able to reproduce results repeatedly and consistently at any laboratory and under the control of any scientist of any religion. As with any detector, each of these requirements must specify what characteristics are being measured, how they are measured, what kind of signal is expected, what phenomena are being used to convert the characteristic being measured to the signal that appears in the detector, and what size signal constitutes detection of the characteristic being sought. The individuals doing these measurements will have to agree on the theory (theology) that determines the characteristics of gods that are being sought (or eliminated), and they will have to agree on how these characteristics convert to natural phenomena that can be used for a signal; otherwise there will be extensive debate (wars?) on just what was detected. Ultimately there will have to be some hard numbers associated with each of these detector characteristics, so these will have to be hashed out as well. If ID is a science, they should be able to do this. They should show us how it is done, and they need to start soon. Nobel Prizes are not given posthumously.

carolyn Griffen said: I've merely suggested that science investigates what it is paid to investigate.

Since I certainly have no axe to grind...

I also find it odd that the substantive comments I've made are ignored...

...while you all jump to the conlcusion that I support creationism. I do not.

I do think it's important to recognize that science in this country is not above criticism.

I suggest it might be more productive to focus on why science is mistrusted by those other than the religionists and clean its house...

...before attacking a few supersitious people who find comfort in a personal savior.

Malchus said: You are credible in your defense of evolution and science against Creationism. On every other subject, no one seems to pay any attention to what you think. And Myers reputation seems to have gone only up since he banned you.

John Kwok said:

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said: Yes, Malchus, IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. Moreover, a few friends who had discovered by accident, my "exchange" with Myers over at Pharyngula, realized I was joking. Again, I did this to provoke PZ Myers and it succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

I would prefer to have not had that sort of success. Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? Seriously, don't ever do that again.

I wouldn't even dare think of it. But Myers's reputation has suffered somewhat since then, not least because of his bizarre behavior toward me here at PT. Contrary to Science Avenger's rant, there are still a lot of people who regard me as credible.

Dale Husband said:

Religions do a lot of good in the world, but as long as it allows for people to believe anything without clear evidence, then nothing gets resolved and all sorts of evil dogmas may be allowed, resulting in evil actions later. Faith without reason is too dangerous to go unexamined.

Can we agree on that?

Science Avenger said:

Dale Husband said:

Religions do a lot of good in the world, but as long as it allows for people to believe anything without clear evidence, then nothing gets resolved and all sorts of evil dogmas may be allowed, resulting in evil actions later. Faith without reason is too dangerous to go unexamined.

Can we agree on that?

Not only can we, but I'd argue that most, if not an overwhelmingly large majority, of the atheists that attract accomodationist wrath would agree in large part, if not in totality, especially if you leave off the first clause, which is really a seperate issue.

Carolyn Griffen said: It seems to me that those scientists who utterly exclude the possibility of an intelligent creation force ...

Stanton said: don't bother to understand that the majority of Americans mistrust and criticize science because: A) scientists use big words, B) science does not create magical cure-all silver bullets that solve everything instantaneously, C) science does not follow political party dogma, and, most importantly, D) science often disagrees with a literal reading of the English translation of the Holy Bible.

hoary puccoon said:

Stanton said: don't bother to understand that the majority of Americans mistrust and criticize science because: A) scientists use big words, B) science does not create magical cure-all silver bullets that solve everything instantaneously, C) science does not follow political party dogma, and, most importantly, D) science often disagrees with a literal reading of the English translation of the Holy Bible.

Do the majority of Americans mistrust science? If they do, it's in large part because the creationist bunko artists never stop their campaign of lies and slander. But my impression is, when the topic is really one they are concerned with personally-- their health, their jobs, their families-- Americans trust science a lot more than religion or government. Talk to an American farmer, and you're likely to hear, "I don't believe in evolution (and I've got to change my pesticide program because the bugs are developing resistance.)" Yeah, right. No evolution there.

I love sushi but don't always know the best items to pick. If you are trying to find calorie and nutritional information for sushi, the best website I have found is SushiFAQ.com. The calorie page is located at http://www.sushifaq.com/sushi-calories.htm

Go away little Sushi...

Paul Burnett said: (Quoting Mooney's article quoting University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: "...when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. ... We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers...) And thus we get Phillip Johnson - a lawyer, not a scientist - inventing intelligent design creationism, because it makes sense to him. I disagree with Mooney, who seems more obsessed with content than with form, who thinks that propaganda is more important than truth and that the advertising is more important than the product. We have a better chance of defeating the likes of the Duane Gishes and D. James Kennedys and Rousas Rushdoonys and the Dishonesty Institute and all the other Liars For Jesus(TM) by presenting facts, not by stooping to framing science in terms their crippled minds can deal with. Presenting their scientific illiteracy as scientific illiteracy has to be a better of combatting their ignorance.

Cons: Feels like a first-generation version of a new product line rather than a sequel to the iPod nano. Video, gaming, camera, speaker, and microphone features are amongst a laundry list of capabilities dropped from the new model, precluding it from being used as a complete or even substantial replacement for its three most recent predecessors, primarily by users with video needs. New glossy body colors are weaker than ones introduced in last two years. Multi-Touch screen has only one multi-touch gesture, lacking for others that might have made the device more interesting, while the lack of physical Home and track control buttons complicates the device’s ease of use; plenty of swiping is necessary. Use of clip, as well as connection and disconnection of accessories, can be a modest challenge while the device is being used.