Just in case you had any doubts about how the Intelligent Design creationists would react to the denial of Gonzalez’s tenure, here’s how Uncommon Descent illustrated it:
I like the little sign above his head: he’s being burned at the stake because he “believes in God”! I assure you that the fact that someone goes to church does not play any role in tenure decisions, nor does the penalty for failure to get tenure involve immolation, or even singeing. The reality is that Guillermo Gonzalez is being politely shown the door because he “believes in pernicious pseudoscience,” and more pragmatically, because he didn’t bring in enough grant money.
Wow, these people really do live in the Middle Ages, don’t they? Couldn’t they at least come up to the Age of Enlightenment? Then again I realize that living in the 21st century may be a bit more than they can handle.
I wonder what roasted IDiot tastes like?
Chicken?
OEJ
Is this what it seems to be? Religious fanatics depicting one of them being burned at the stake by secular scientists and professors? Can’t they grasp the colossal irony in that?
Is this what it seems to be? Religious fanatics depicting one of them being burned at the stake by secular scientists and professors? Can’t they grasp the colossal irony in that?
No, sour grapes.
Better stand back though – even if they feel a little singed, they begin releasing a lot of hot air.
It practically cooks itself.
I see Dawkins. Is that PZ bottom right?
Wow! When it comes to claiming martyrdom, they sure don’t waste any time!
I scarcely had enough time to fetch some marshmallows!
And who’s that on the left? Sting?
Y’all owe a huge thanks to the DI.
Anyone who looks at the DIs latest addition to their pack of lies, knows that showing Gonzalez to the door was the right thing. What university wants to risk someone who voluntarily associates with such utter, trashy, dishonest lowlifes who pretend to do science while turning out pseudoscience that is decidedly inferior by even crackpot standards.
PS: I sincerely hope that wherever Gonzalez applies next, someone sends the employers a copy of that cartoon. Guys making himself toxic by the day.
Yes, of course, because it is the IDists who are the rationalist moderates here. Need we be reminded of Dembski’s fantasy of disbanding biology departments because they don’t praise God? Seems the only way they can cast themselves as ‘the good guys’ is to create ludicrously inaccurate pictures illustrating their own victimization.
Chicken?
Definitely not. Common descent is an evil atheist lie, there is no way humans would even taste like chimpanzees not to mention lowly birds.
I guess since Jesus was a man, and Jesus tastes like a cracker, all humans must taste like crackers. So burnt crackers? Or am I missing something?
If they were that self-aware, they wouldn’t be creationist goons.
I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it for myself. Have they dropped all pretense that “it’s about science, not religion”?
For this week, I mean.
I’m disappointed. Really the picture should be of a crucifixion with Dawkins and PZ hammering in the nails of godless damnation.
i guess they’re not good with metaphors.
also, pork. they would taste like pork.
Clearly, IDiots taste like unbuttered, unsalted popcorn. Lotta hot air, not so much substance, kinda hard to choke it down.
MPW:
Funnily enough, Behe admitted that ID was basically religion in the profile he wrote Time Magazine of Richard Dawkins.
also, pork. they would taste like pork.
I think the proper cannibal name is “long pig”
*cracks up* Dude, I get harassed at school for not believing in God. I’d make one of those snazzy illustrations for myself (except mine wouldn’t look like crap) but, alas, I have better things to do.
Why does the one guy have a book on a stick? I mean, I have a couple of Darwin books, and they are not on sticks.
here’s how Uncommon Descent illustrated it:
what, no farting?
Why would anyone in their right mind become a DI fellow?
Seems to me that would be like waving a giant red flag in front of your colleagues and screaming: look, I’m a nut and my judgment is impaired!
Seems to me that would be like waving a giant red flag in front of your colleagues and screaming: look, I’m a nut and my judgment is impaired!
you’re not seeing the big picture:
what happens is that you realize your colleagues ALREADY think your judgment is impaired, and you know you’re going down in flames, so then you use the flames to make an artificial martyr of yourself, and then folks like Ahmanson and the DI will gladly welcome you aboard.
puts bread on the table, and it sure worked for Dembski.
Gonzales’ problems started LONG before the DI got involved; he’s just using them to start his new “career” in street theater.
Dembski was exactly the same story, IMO.
now what’s REALLY sickening is when you have a case that IS exactly like you describe it; like Jonathan Wells, for example.
that guy was waving a red flag the moment he started as a grad student at Berkeley.
of course, that’s a different story than if he was trying to get tenure, as nobody in their right minds would have even given him the time of day if he wanted to be any kind of professor at a university, let alone think about gaining tenure.
What does Darwin have to do with astronomy? Wow those guys are really kooky.
CalGeorge: The answer for many, I think, is hubris. Michael Behe is reasonably competent when it comes to his field (biochemistry). He’s one of thousands of tenured academics in his field in North America and has published his share of papers in peer-reviewed journals, etc.
But he isn’t a science superstar, nor is he likely to become one. Other scientists dominate his chosen research field. The prospect, however, of being a towering figure in the history of science for articulating and defending the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’ mayhap takes the sting out of the fact that most of his colleagues regard him as an embarassment at the present.
William Dembski is even more overtly self-promoting in this vein. The ‘Newton of information theory’ is motivated by more than sympathy with William Paley and faith in the God of the Bible. He clearly sees himself as a visionary whose notions of a ‘specified complexity’ and an ‘explanatory filter’ connect the worlds of religion and science via mathematics.
Most scientists cam appreciate and sympathize with Bill and Mike here. Most of us long to make that sort of paradigm-shaking claim, the sort of contribution that will get us in the textbooks. ven if we are not competitive alpha males after the mode of a Craig Venter, we are pretty concerned with priority and all that goes with it.
Why do Dembski and Behe and others become DI fellows? In a perverse way, I think some of them wish to become science superstars of the first water. They are motivated by that deadliest of sins, pride. And, like most such things, pride is not so much a product of believing in God, but from desiring, at a deep level, to be God.
And this, I think, is a betrayal of science as well as the God they claim to honor. When I think of Darwin, or Sagan, or Feynman, I have no doubt they took pride in their accomplishments—but I also sense a deep sense of humility as to their personal limitations and what science can accomplish in the face of awesome, wondrous, endlessly-inspiring nature. That lack of humility, that hubris, almost defines this type of creationist.
And this, I think, is a betrayal of science as well as the God they claim to honor.
You think because they claim to honor a god and you claim to honor a god, they have to claim to honor your god. Boy, talk about hubris.
All the different gods throughout all of history with all their different names and all of their different “poof” powers and all of them are all the same humble god of Mr. #24.
I see they’ve dropped any remaining pretense of ID being about something other than “God versus Darwin.”
Does anyone recognise the four people at the bottom?
I’d have thought perhaps one was Dawkins, but I can’t tell which
Wow, 386x, you took #24’s comment and ran like a child with a red crayon in a room with nothing but white walls. Or something that illustrates that better.
Maybe #24 has a god, maybe not, but his comment could be taken either way. Calling out the hypocrisy of the actions/motivations of the DI guys with the values of their chosen god is not the same as endorsing said values, or their god, or any god. It’s just calling out hypocrisy. You suck at reading.
Even IF #24 believes in some god, there’s still some insights to be had in his comment before you go bashing him on an assumption.
Butthole.
Giordano Bruno is rotating in his grave now. Or at least being mildly annoyed. After all, it isn’t like this illustration is made by some REAL scientist.
Somebody please provide the data to correct me if I err, but by my count, this would be the absolute first denial of tenure to anyone affiliated with ID if it sticks.
Think about it. Behe has tenure. Kenyon not only had tenure, now he’s emeritus. Phillip Johnson the criminal procedure lawyer at Berkeley — emeritus, no problem with tenure. Beckwith, tenure at Baylor.
So one guy doesn’t make it — where is the trend?
Oh, it most certainly will be about the science when they think something’s going in their favour. It’s only when “creation scientists” fare poorly that it must be due to religious persecution. Now all they need is to redefine “science”, in the manner of Brownback, to only permit fundamentalist Christian creationism, while any opposing viewpoints are defined as “religious persecution”. That may sound ridiculous, but hardly more so than all the nonsensical objections to “macroevolution” that the armchair baraminologists have been parroting here lately.
Regarding #29, Scott Hatfield (OM) is pretty well known here as a theist, so that’s not really in question. If we were talking about religious creationists anywhere, in any time, in the abstract, 386sx might reasonably object to assumptions that their deities must all be of some particular sort. However, since we’re here discussing modern American creationists at the DI, that objection is silly. I’ll stand corrected when you show me, say, a Hindu DI fellow.
Whether they practice it is another matter, but at least in theory Christians are supposed to honour humility as a virtue. Occasionally you’ll see claims that science is wrong because it’s insufficiently humble to use your reason instead of taking God’s word (as interpreted by your helpful local demagogue) for everything.
In any case, it does seem pretty weird that our creationists claim to believe in this almighty God whose ways transcend human comprehension while, at the same time, considering this God’s great creation sufficiently simple that they can just make things up about it and obviously be right. They talk as if they have access to the mind of God while accusing scientists of being arrogant rebels against divine will.
Good points all around, wrg
Even IF #24 believes in some god, there’s still some insights to be had in his comment before you go bashing him on an assumption.
Thanks. I will read the comments again. Of all the gods throughout all of history with all of their various “poofing” abilities and all of their different names and personalities, all of them boil down to one humble god in one humble 21st century humble little religion of one humble #24. I like to call it the “privileged #24”. (As opposed to the famous “privileged planet” theory.)
Scott Hatfield is making a good point here. If you’re a relative nonentity in your field, what can you do if you’re ambitious to raise your profile? If the upper echelons are already crowded with people you don’t have the moxie to push past, then why not strike out in a bold new direction? (Or at least something that claims to be a bold new direction.) In the right pond, you too can appear to be a big frog, and it helps if you’re noisy, which is an IDist specialty.
I featured Dembski (along with Hynek, Gish, and Pons & Fleischmann) in my Science envy post last November about folks who splashed around till they found the pond of their dreams.
See, if the creationists would just donate millions and millions of dollars for university pseudoscience research, instead of building pseudoscience museums, maybe they’d have a chance of getting tenure for one of their ilk.
But then, as they know all too well, they’ve conditioned their sheep to mock all manner of intellectual study, so the museum stands more of a chance of influencing the great unwashed.
Zeno: What to do if one is going to be a relative unknown? Take a leaf from Democritus’ book – who said that he’d rather discover one cause (reason?) than be king of Persia.
Well, I don’t know about you, Keith, but I decided to start a blog. That “relative unknown” thing is working out, too, especially with my relatives.
Next they will have a cartoons of the evil athiest crusades or the atheist inquisition.
Regarding post #6 (the people at the bottom of the cartoon),
I believe the one holding the sign is yours truly. The one on the
lower right corner may be President Geoffroy
of ISU. But those who are more adept at spotting distorted
portrayals of honest scientists and scholars may need to correct me.
@natural cynic: (#18)
well, i say “pork” for a number of reasons.
not the least of which has to do with evolutionary relationships, and the fact that cannibals often report that humans do indeed taste like pork (thus the name “long pork” or “long pig”).
the other was the fact that it’s a very loaded metaphor, and the fact that pigs are ritually unclean according to the bible.
Well, they won’t be once I manage to teach them to chew their cud.
So far I don’t have much success to report, just a bunch of annoyed, non kosher pigs, who can’t see the value in becoming kosher.
Tell me again why most Christians can ignore parts of the Bible, like eating pork or stoning their children, but not the parts that disagree with Science.
“I wonder what roasted IDiot tastes like?
Chicken?”
PIG, actually.
Hence “long pig” in New Guinea cuisine ……
Interesting that the cartoon looks a lot like the Spanish Inquisition.
@JohnnieCanuck, FCD: (#42)
don’t be silly! christians ignore all of the bible. they just like to pretend that it says certain things, because it gives their prescribed dogma the air of authority. really, the bible bears very little relation to their set of beliefs, and any of it that does is simply accepted by the fallacy of positive instances — they ignore the majority of the text, but accept little tiny snippets here and there when it agrees with the ideas they already have.
the single most egregeous source of christian quotemining is the bible.
i’ve found this out from years of debating fundamentalists online. i now find it entertaining to argue against them using the bible. and ironic and frustrating when they ignore what the bible says.
Thanks for the clarification of the dramatis personae, Dr. Avalos. I’m still not sure what Bono’s doing in there, though.