Home » Intelligent Design » No More Establishment Clause for PZ Myers

No More Establishment Clause for PZ Myers

Myers whines about Witt’s rhetoric comparing evolution, Castro, and popularism. Meanwhile, Myers is perfectly happy to defend evolution via judicial fiat. When a scientist needs to play the constitution card to censor criticism of his pet theory you can rest assured the theory is one that’s in crisis.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

16 Responses to No More Establishment Clause for PZ Myers

  1. Hey, PZ Myers was using his most advanced vocabulary and everything. Ever heard of “screed”?

    DaveScott, you often bring out the best points. I really found a lot of truth in Jonathan Witt’s article. PZ Myers’ reaction is only evidence of its varacity.

  2. PZ is an icon of hypocrisy:
    -He blasts ID proponents for not understanding biology, yet he himself does not understand the ID concept of complex specified information (otherwise he wouldn’t post rants like this one)
    -He quotes ID proponents that make metaphysical statements in order to discredit them, yet on his very own blog Myers makes a habit of proselytizing his atheism.
    -He complains that UD screens posts, yet DaveScot’s and others’s comments on PT are often deleted.
    -PZ doesn’t respond to the substance of dissenting comments. Instead, he over-stereotypes his opponents point and then, with his classic unrighteous indignation, he lambastes his adversary with childlike name-calling.
    etc.
    etc.

    I could go on…

  3. “He quotes ID proponents that make metaphysical statements in order to discredit them, yet on his very own blog Myers makes a habit of proselytizing his atheism.”

    I always thought that Myers is an atheist or agnostic. Then I read this. What do you all think of his claim to be a Christian?

  4. 5

    crandaddy: PvM = Pim van Meurs. Not PZ Myers. I used to be confused about that as well, but then someone referred to PvM as Pim van Meurs. That was that.

    Since this is your first comment, the moderation queue caught it, and I was unable to see it when I replied to Qualiatative. I just want you to know I didn’t intentionally ignore you. Welcome to Uncommon Descent, by the way!–Crandaddy

  5. crandaddy,

    You linked to a comment made by PvM, not PZ.

  6. Oops. Thanks for the correction, Qualiatative.

  7. Qualitative, your post on Myers seems to refer to IC not specified complexity (CSI). Myers clearly does not get IC, however.

  8. bFast,

    If irreducibly complex (IC) structures don’t exhibit complex specified information (CSI), no design inference is made.

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

  9. Qualitative, You are right. However your link has Myers discussing IC, and doing a poor job of it. He speaks of gene A > B > C becoming gene A > B > B’ > C. This is all well and nice, but IC says that any gene removed leaves the machine incapable of doing the task, usually incapable of doing any task. Therefore A > B > C doesn’t work. Myers’ example of IC isn’t merely an example so small that it doesn’t meet UPB (which is fine enough, small models are often useful), but it also is a model that doesn’t get IC.

    I went over the article Qualiatative referenced a->b->c blah blah blah some time ago and arrived at the same conclusion Q did. It does indeed serve to illustrate how an irreducible system can be produced in a stepwise fashion through substitution and redundancy. It fails because it is not complex. This is illustrative of the mindset of Darwinists. Demonstrate simplicity and extrapolate to complexity. This is the stuff of science fiction – like imagining that because a cannon can launch a shell a few miles a sufficiently large cannon can shoot a manned shell to another planet. It might. And it might not. Imagining it isn’t the same as demonstrating it. No one has ever demonstrated that random mutation plus natural selection can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans. Until it is demonstrated it is science fiction, not science fact. -ds

  10. 11

    I posted this on Panda’s:
    “Having now read both Dr. Witt’s article and Dr. Meyer’s rebuttal, it sounds to me like Dr. Witt’s article is factual and makes sense. The comparrisons he makes to Cuba newspapers seems to be appropriate in light of the supression of dissent in Ohio. But it sounds like Dr. Meyers is splitting hairs and whistling in the dark. Her primary argument is that there is something wrong with Dr. Witt himself, which there isn’t, of course. And she does no better than make unconvincing, beside-the-point comments on Dr. Witt’s assertions.

    I was surprised, too, by the vitriol, the attacks on religious faith and the rather infantile word games of the majority of comments on this site. Such comments do not reflect well on the quality of the intellectual accumen here.”

    Amazing. PZ’s main point: “Don’t read Dr. Witt for yourself; trust me to distort it for you.”

    (Formerly Red Reader)

  11. HAH! You called M.Z. Peyers a “she”.

  12. a “her” to be specific.

  13. Hail, hypocrite! After implying, inferring, postulating, and announcing that Mr. Witt is misrepresenting people, facts, and events, PZ Myers does exactly that in the most sinister and despicable way…..

    Witt: “After that the real work begins. I’m talking about all those uncooperative fossils, the great quarries in Canada and China that show how most of the major groups of animals appeared in a geologically brief period of time during the Cambrian explosion, contradicting Darwin’s gradually branching tree of life. Those fossils can’t just be left sitting around. They too will have to be gotten rid of.”

    Myers: “Jonathan Witt is nuts. Read the science journals, read the textbooks, read great volumes like Valentine’s On the Origin of Phyla(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)—he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Biologists embrace the Cambrian. There is a wealth of wonderful information there, extensively discussed and written about, and we simply love this stuff.

    Get rid of the Cambrian fossils? That statement alone is enough to qualify the man as certifiable.”

    Myers takes what is clearly an ironic aside intended to illuminate a paradox and intentionally misrepresents it in it’s literal sense. This allows Myers to viciously attack Witt’s character.

    If ID is such a lightweight opponent, why then must it’s detractors sacrifice their dignity to employ the tactics and attitudes of snot-nosed, stone-throwing children?

    Those comfortable within their own skins blithely ignore that which is clearly beneath them.

  14. 15
    GlennJ - Houston

    “He” and “him” not “she” and “her”.
    Sorry, I have always gotten P.Z. confused with Eugenie Scott.

    You’re not alone. Most people do. -ds

  15. Black Hole Sun,

    I love that song!!!

Leave a Reply