Can’t get enough ripping into the nonsense De Dora and Pigliucci are peddling? Then go read Ophelia Benson (always good advice) and Jerry Coyne. Coyne points out that if De Dora’s way of thinking were correct, than Darwin’s Origin would be banned from the science classroom. He also brings up this enlightening response to a question by De Dora:

Deen: “Are you saying that it’s OK to teach people that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but it’s wrong to teach them that the earth isn’t 6000 years old?”

De Dora: Yes. One imparts scientific knowledge. The other denies a religious idea. One is constitutional; the other is not. There is no reason for a high school biology teacher to get into denying specific religious ideas in a high school biology class.

Oh, right. That’s philosophical subtlety: pretend your students are morons who can’t see that those are two equivalent claims. We’re also supposed to pretend that the facts we teach have no implications or meaning: here, please, memorize this data for regurgitation on the tests. Don’t worry about what it all means, don’t look for integrating themes and explanations, don’t let your preconceptions be challenged. We aren’t allowed to do that in science.

That isn’t philosophy. That’s a philosophical abomination.

And some people wonder why I get so aggressive in my condemnations…

I’m in trouble now — I have drawn the ire of Massimo Pigliucci. I’d be chagrined if it weren’t such an ineffectual criticism that is mainly Pigliucci doing a little foot-shooting. I’ve also annoyed Ronald Lindsay of the CFI (as well as several other people associated with CFI), but his criticism is even feebler. Somehow, CFI has the idea that ferocious criticism of CFI staff is to be discouraged — because we are generally on the same side, we’re apparently supposed to be in solidarity on everything.

That’s not going to happen. I support the CFI; I criticize the CFI. I also support the NCSE; and I criticize the NCSE. If you’re on the side of science, reason, skepticism, etc., all the good stuff I value, that doesn’t mean you can expect me to complacently go along with everything you say (and vice versa, of course). The whole idea that advocates for critical thinking get an extra-special free pass from criticism with hearts and unicorns on it, just because we share common goals, is the antithesis of critical thought. Am I going to continue to be mean and cruel and judgmental against even my own allies? Hell, yes.

There’s a cliche that I hear all the time, and that I despise because it is so trite — organizing atheists is like herding cats. I die a little inside every time I hear it because it is so old, but also because it is inaccurate. Everyone seems to picture masses of willful domestic cats wanting to scurry off to play with yarn or chase down mice; it’s just not right. Organizing atheists is like herding lions, or at least ideally it should be. What we want is a community of fiercely independent, roaring, wrestling, arguing, fighting freethinkers; cross them, and you will get rhetorically mauled, and our battles are not about polite batting about with little kitty paws at issues, but should involve claws and fangs and uncompromising forcefulness. Everyone who is complaining that the harshness of the debate degrades the discourse, get stuffed; I think the call to weaken the vigor of the disagreement is the real degradation here.

But back to Pigliucci. I am deeply underwhelmed. His entire complaint is about goddamned tone; he even advises me to look up rational thoughtful discourse in the dictionary, as if I should be swayed by bloodless definitions. He also trots out dictionary definitions of some of the insulting terms I used, as I was unaware of their meaning, or needed some reminder that they were perhaps a bit excessive. Nope. I knew what they meant and meant what I said. De Dora was foolish, stupid, lacking in strength of character, and indulging in masturbatory sloppiness while contributing to the cause of the enemies of reason. I’m not backing down because Pigliucci has a dictionary.

What this is actually about is that De Dora is a personal friend of Pigliucci’s, a contributor to his blog, and he is part of the administration at CFI. We apparently are supposed to be nice to such connected people. Sorry, but you don’t get to be stupid because you have friends in high places. Pigliucci seems to understand this, because he feels free to insult me (or perhaps my friends aren’t quite high enough), and it undermines his whole argument; it is silly to make a high-minded complaint that I used insulting words against a friend while using plenty of insults against me…which is fine, by the way, it just means that his principled argument about tone and form is a load of horsepuckey.

So forget the whole complaint about tone. Let’s deal with the substance. This is where we differ, and where I think De Dora is an idiot. This is all about a dunderheaded creationist complaining about a textbook that called his superstition a “myth”. Here’s the full quote from the book, Tobin and Dusheck’s Asking About Life^{(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)}:

In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana passed identical bills calling for “equal time” for teaching evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god in six days. But a court ruled that the “equal-time” bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state.

And to put it in perspective, that was a small part of a two page section of the text that summarizes the legal history of efforts to keep creationism out of the public schools. It is not a book that condemns Christianity, carries on a crusade to abolish religion, or calls believers delusional; it is moderate, entirely polite in tone (praise Jesus! It meets the most important criterion of the faitheists!), and plainly describes an entirely relevant legal and social issue for biologists in non-judgmental terms. It does use the accurate, factual term “myth” for what creationists are peddling, and that’s as harsh as it gets. It is exactly what the less rude proponents of evolution teaching should want.

But no. All it takes is one indignant creationist (One! Who doesn’t even get any headway with the local schoolboard!) to complain, and what kind of support does a reasonable and polite statement in a textbook get from the intellectual cowards — a phrase I use in complete awareness of the meaning of each word, thank you very much — who want to run away from any conflict? De Dora whines, ‘well, he has a point’. Pigliucci makes a worthless complaint about knowing our epistemological boundaries, implying that the statement of fact in Tobin and Dusheck is a violation of the separation of church and state. On one side, a creationist who is offended that a science textbook is not sufficiently deferential towards his superstition; on the other, science, which refutes his claims at every step, and a textbook which lists court cases and says that creationism is a myth. In the middle, De Dora and Pigliucci, siding with the creationist.

If a science teacher can’t even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000, because philosophers will complain about epistomological boundaries, we’re doomed. If the effect of biology on society can’t even be mentioned in a textbook, then the relevance of the science is being sacrificed on the altar of religious submission. Getting enmired in these pointless philosophical “subtleties” when the facts are staring you in the face is a recipe for the further gutting of science education in this country.

We don’t need to teach atheism in the science classroom — and I’ve said often enough that I don’t, and don’t endorse such activities — but we do need to be forthright about the conclusions of science. We cannot give religion so much unwarranted privilege that it is treated as a special category, in which the pronouncements of faith may not be contradicted at all, in even the mildest, politest manner, by a science teacher…but this is precisely what De Dora and Pigliucci are advocating when they rush to support a young-earth creationist who objects to any discussion of the social context of evolutionary biology. I guarantee you that Kurt Zimmerman was not exercising subtle thinking and thoughtfully contemplating the inappropriateness of a specific epistomological issue in his kid’s textbook. He was being an ignorant ass, nothing more.

I’m afraid Michael De Dora is not fighting the same battles I am. I read a number of his articles, and his biggest concern seems to be running away from any confrontation, making excuses for the other side, and suggesting that the people in the front lines who are smacking around our opponents are making way too much noise. He’s not on my side at all, but seems to be helping the other guys far more. And suggesting that I shouldn’t treat him as a nuisance and a collaborator with nonsense because he’s somebody’s friend is not going to hold me back at all.

Kurt Zimmerman is pissed off. He’s not a very bright guy, and he doesn’t know much about biology or history, and he’s extremely annoyed that not only is the local school teaching his kids stuff he didn’t know, but they’re actually telling them that his sources of information are wrong. You see, the only level of education we’re allowed to raise children to is the Kurt Zimmerman level…which is a little scary. I was kind of hoping that sending my kids off to school would produce progeny who are smarter than me, and now I learn that they’re only supposed to produce kids who are dumber than Kurt Zimmerman? How dismaying.

Anyway, Zimmerman is upset because he found a biology textbook that defines creationism as “the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god in 7 days”. This is mostly factually correct (one might quibble that the bible actually says their god created the earth in six days, and doesn’t really say much about the universe as a whole…but really, when you’re dealing with that degree of lunacy, 7 is the same as 6 is the same as canned beans), but seeing “myth” in the same sentence as “bible” has made Mr Zimmerman quite unhinged.

Zimmerman asked in December that the school immediately quit using the book “Asking About Life” in his son’s class and all classes.

He said it could “mislead, belittle and discourage students in believing in creationism and pointedly calls the Bible a myth.”

It’s not misleading at all, it doesn’t belittle students except in the sense that students who believe something that is wrong will be faced with a direct statement that they are wrong, and I should hope schools would discourage people from believing in stupid and fallacious mush! It also doesn’t go as far as I’d like or that Zimmerman thinks it does: it does not call the bible a myth. It says that it contains a myth, which it does. It would be nice if we did have a high school biology book that called all of Christianity and Judaism a collection of myths, but we don’t. Yet.

But Zimmerman has accomplished one triumph: he has won himself a brief spot on Fox News. The really astonishing thing about this clip is that the two Fox interviewers, Barbie and Dullard, actually come off as dumber than he is.

The good news, though, is that the local school board has decided not to decide anything about the book for 30 days. That’s committee-speak for “let’s wait for the noise and notoriety of Mr Zipperhead to die down a bit, so we can ignore the whole stupid proposal”.

Oh, this is interesting: a commenter looked up the book on Google Books and got the actual, full quote from the book.

In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkansas, Tennessee and
Louisiana passed identical bills calling for “equal time” for teaching
evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was
created by the Judeo-Christian god in six days. But a court ruled that
the “equal-time” bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it
violated the separation of church and state.

That’s even biblically accurate. And it’s a very reasonable context in which to mention the topic of creationism.

After tweaking Paul Nelson on his six year delay in explaining Ontogenetic Depth, he has posted a reply. No, it’s not the long promised explanation. Instead, here’s what he’s got:

• PZ Myers’ criticisms don’t count and were all wrong!

• But, well, he now realizes Ontogenetic Depth is a “a poorly expressed and unusable idea.” (He’s quoting me there.)

• So he has invented Ontogenetic Depth 2.0!

• But he still hasn’t defined it.

• But he promises to write a whole series of posts explaining why I was wrong!

Jebus. I tend to avoid the ID blogs because I’m not interested in watching someone masturbate in public. Nelson hasn’t persuaded me at all that he has anything sensible to contribute. But sure, moving his hands more will accomplish the end he’s actually working towards.

Speaking of expert and professional wanking, would you believe Casey Luskin and Dembski are still obsessing over Dawkins’ old “weasel” program? The level of pitiful incompetence over there leaves me flabbergasted.

It’s Paul Nelson Day, the yearly event in which we make ludicrous pseudo-scientific claims and promise to back them up tomorrow, as celebrated last year.

Nelson, some of you may recall, is a creationist who made up this wacky claim of “Ontogenetic Depth”, saying he had a way of objectively measuring the complexity of the developmental process in organisms with a number that described the distance from egg to adult. Unfortunately, he forgot to tell us how one calculated this number, or how it actually accounted for the complexity of a network, or even how we’d get a number that was different for a sponge and a cat. But he did say he’d get back to us with the details tomorrow…six years ago.

We’ll keep waiting. We’ll also keep making accurate predictions. Last year I predicted that we’d still be waiting in 2010, and look! We are!

I’ve put on a turban, closed my eyes, and am waving my hands over a crystal ball, and predict…we’ll still be waiting in 2011. Check back next year and let’s see if I’m right!

I hope I didn’t catch something in the Antipodes. There seems to be something awful going around down there: Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, and now…Gary Ablett, Sr. He’s an Australian rules footballer with a few seedy drug-related incidents in his past — he’s also a world-class moron. He’s just written a long and mostly incoherent complaint about atheists for the Herald Sun, a cheesy tabloid in Australia.

Maybe it’s the football — they play without the heavy armor American footballers wear, so maybe he’s got brain damage. After all, Jason Ball wrote a nice rebuttal, and he’s Australian, too, so it’s obviously not a Southern Hemisphere epidemic.

Given that Jason has addressed most of the silly claims of this poor pious twit, I’ll just mention one thing that caught my eye: the recycled fatuity so common to creationists. Ablett makes an old argument against evolution.

Let’s take another example. Evolution teaches that matter plus energy (light or heat) plus time equals biogenesis, the cause of new life.

Yet our entire food industry relies on the fact that the evolutionary formula doesn’t work. For example, if you take a jar of peanut butter (matter), expose it to light and heat (energy) and add time you will never get new life (biogenesis) in that jar. And are we grateful about that! Why is new life impossible in a sealed jar? Because we are missing the most important aspect: information.

The very reason food is sealed is to keep information out, it’s only if and when the seal is broken that a contamination can occur because information has got inside the jar! We need to take this fact very seriously because in the food industry this experiment is conducted over a billion times a year collectively, and has been doing so for more than a hundred years, which proves that the absence of information renders life impossible.

Does that sound familiar? It should. It’s practically verbatim from this quaint exhibition of stupidity by Chuck Missler (also, not from Australia or New Zealand — he’s an Idahoan).

No scientist gives much credibility to the ancient Peanut Butter Earth hypothesis. We suspect that life arose in a chemically active watery environment, not a big brown glop of concentrated fats and proteins in a jar in the Archaean. We’re also not surprised that life doesn’t spontaneously arise everywhere anymore: conditions on Earth are very different from those in the abiotic/early biotic period, and what’s more, any new life that arose now, improbable as that is, would face a world populated by bacteria with 4 billion years of evolutionary refinement behind them. So it’s a very, very stupid argument.

The rest of Ablett’s arguments are just as inane, and are similarly ripped off almost literally from common creationist canards. There’s nothing original and nothing intelligent anywhere in it — it’s just sad how feeble these guys are getting.

Interestingly and entirely unsurprisingly, big chunks of Ablett’s article were plagiarized. It seems like most of their stuff can be traced back to a small population of ur-creationists in the 1960s, and there brains have been locked up solid ever since.