Carpe Datum

Stupid Creationist Tricks

I've been reading Pharyngula for a while now, switching to an every day kind of bookmark once he pointed me to the genius website where I found "and then it dawned on me." If my hobby-horse is media bias, his is intelligent design, and few do a better job of arguing against it. His fancy-shmancy web site even allows you to read it in pirate mode:

Gregg Easterbrook is a scientific lightweight with a long, long history o' goofy ideas; an apologist fer religion and Intelligent Design creationism, and a shill fer th' Discovery Institute. Yaaarrrrr! The ornery cuss apparently has written well-regarded columns on football, but when it comes t' science, his credibility is on th' negative side o' th' number line. One o' th' characteristics o' th' incompetent, though, is that they dern't recognize their own failin's, so once again Easterbrook sallies forth, this time against Richard Dawkins. It's th' nut against th' nutcracker; th' outcome is foreordained. [...]

It is inappropriate t' use th' adjective "arrogant" fer someone who is expressin' his well-informed and readily supported opinion. I'd reserve "arrogant" fer those criminal theologians who willfully claim expertise in biology, ne'er havin' studied th' subject in their lives, and use that false validation t' fill their congregation's heads with lies. Arrrr, and a bucket o' chum!

Easterbrook makes another argument I've heard so often…that atheists who express their ideas strongly are bad fer popularizin' evolution, and dinna spare the whip, pass the grog! This is most frequently stated by creationist sympathizers and apologists fer religion, and 'tis surprisin' that so many people fall fer it, and dinna spare the whip! When creationists say, "The ornery cuss's oppressin' me! That mean ol' Dawkins is so bad fer yer cause, why dern't ye get more good friendly Christians t' speak fer ye?", I'm thinkin' we need t' clone th' lubber. [...]

What about th' idea that people will be turned off by contempt fer their religious beliefs? Arrrr! There's a germ o' truth t' that, but at th' same time, let this atheist let ye in on a little secret, not well appreciated by th' public: they'll turn on anyone who doesn't believe in any gods, contemptuously or not, I'll warrant ye. Try it. Tell someone that ye dern't believe Jesus were bein' th' son o' God, even in th' most non-judgmental, even tone o' voice, and a majority will treat ye as either a pariah or a potential convert. That's reality. What Easterbrook is askin' fer is that atheists be shooed back into th' closet, that we should pander t' his bigotry.

It's not goin' t' happen, and a bottle of rum, avast! About half o' all scientists are atheists or agnostics (and even that is an underestimate; most o' th' remainin', while believin' in a god, are typically not very dogmatic about it and are best described as deists and unitarians and nominal members o' other churches). While we may be an insignificant minority in most o' public life, in th' sciences we are, if not overwhelmingly dominant, a very substantial component o' th' profession. We should not try t' sugarcoat that fact, and I think it is actually an obligation fer freethinkin' scientists t' make their ideas public. There's a simple message we have t' get across t' th' Easterbrooks o' this country:

Get used t' it.

We are respectable supporters o' evidence-based science. That we carry that philosophy o'er into our personal beliefs is entirely reasonable and righteous, and far more justifiable than any attempt t' insert faith and superstition into our profession, pass the grog! Even those many people o' faith who work in th' sciences will tell ye exactly th' same thin': religion does not belong in th' lab. Aarrr! Even honest, sincerely held faith has no place in science, and that appallingly bad huckster theology o' th' televangelists and faith healers and creationists and gantryesque frauds, avast? Get thee behind me, and a bottle of rum, and a bucket o' chum! If Easterbrook really wants t' correct th' arrogance and dishonesty endemic t' th' creation-evolution wars, he has picked th' wrong target. I could list a dozen names fer that scurvey dog, all who declare their authority derives from God, who are far more influential and politically active than Richard Dawkins, and all o' whom have a platform based entirely on outright ignorance, stupidity, insanity, or wickedness…and always, arrogance.

If that gave you a headache and you want to read the whole post in plain English, try here.