My sermon-skit was too clever by half and the point seems to have been missed by some — so maybe you’d prefer the simpler clarity of Revere’s Sunday Sermonette or the straight-ahead, full-throttle atheism of the latest Carnival of the Godless.
But be careful. Concentrated strident atheism might just repel you into changing your views on the Designated Hitter rule.
Now Matt Nisbet weighs in, and Mike Haubrich gives an amazing summary of not just what I said, but what I meant to say.
One thing I referred to I called the “science education extinction vortex”, and referred to this hastily drawn diagram:
My point was that we have all these forces working together to amplify a problem, and slapping some nice words on it to make people feel good about it all isn’t going to change things unless we actually commit to making substantive corrections to those institutionalized problems.
THE SCENE: A circular room cut deep into stone; magma pits bubble left and right, all is lit by roaring torches that cast dark, flickering shadows. In the center, the Cephalopod Throne.
THE CAST: PZ Myers broods on his throne, chin on fist. He glowers at a horde of SUPPLICANTS, bowing and scraping before him. Many are speaking at once, but all have the same concern.
SUPPLICANT: “O Lord PZ…”
SUPPLICANT: “…Great Lord PZ…”
SUPPLICANT: “…Lord PZ, do you ever…”
SUPPLICANT: “…ever worry…”
SUPPLICANT: “…worry that your puissant and uncompromising godlessness might…”
SUPPLICANT: “…might frighten…”
SUPPLICANT: “…drive away…”
SUPPLICANT: “…terrify…”
SUPPLICANT: “…terrify the religious moderates?”
SUPPLICANT: “O Lord?”
SUPPLICANT: “Perhaps you shouldn’t be so hard on the soft and unthreatening believers, who might also find goodness in science?”
SUPPLICANT: “Perhaps your atheism diminishes support for science education?”
I forgot to tell you all the most important gossip I heard at the Bell last night. I had a scant few minutes to talk to Jim Kakalios, who has gone all Hollywood on us, doing consulting work for the next big superhero blockbuster … Watchmen. Ooooh, all you geeks are saying, tell us more! I can’t. All I know is that Jim promises that it is excellent and true to the graphic novel. And as a fellow follower of the Code of the Thin Tweed Line, he cannot lie to a fellow academic. This will be something to look forward to.
I tried to pump him for more information, but Hollywood has locked him in with vicious threats — if he spills the beans, a tanned and toned starlet will show up at his door, pin him to a table with her pilates-firmed thighs, and carve out both his kidneys with her long glittery nails. He places his concerns for his kidneys above his loyalty to the the Thin Tweed Line, which is a little distressing.
Maybe I should pass Jim’s home phone number on to Harry Knowles.
My crank mail can be categorized into several categories. There are the short, barely literate splutterings of abuse; the weird rants and threats; the reiteration of long-dead creationist talking points (yeah, I get email where the writer thinks he’s trumped me by saying “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?”); and then there are the long, rambling lectures from deeply clueless individuals. I’m afraid this is one of the latter. I’ll understand if you fall asleep partway through.
By the way, the author actually sent this to me pre-formatted in Comic Sans. I’m also rather peeved that he’s sending me a letter addressed to Eugenie Scott.
Chris Mooney has his summary post up, in which he predictably and incorrectly declares victory for the forces of empty rhetoric, and Greg Laden correctly declares victory for the puppies and small children, which, of course, was our side.
No word from Matt Nisbet yet. He’s probably having a late breakfast of roast puppy, served by his army of child-slaves. (←framing.)
If you’ve been curious to know more about Carl Zimmer, he’s having a conversation with John Horgan on Bloggingheads.tv.
As expected, the Laden/Myers tag team utterly crushed the Nisbet/Mooney team. The decision was unanimous. Only a few crazy people might have found the framers at all persuasive. (It helps, too, that Nisbet/Mooney are on a plane flying away and won’t be able to get out their side of the story until later, and even when they do, my blog has more traffic than theirs. I win! Hey, maybe this framing stuff has some virtues.)
If you want an independent account, look in the comments. The whole shebang was taped, so I presume it will be online at some time in the near future. And hey, guess what? Your own decision based on the evidence will be far more important than any framing I try to do — so I’ll win on principle no matter what!
All right, homies, I hope some of you are planning to show for the big rumble at the Bell Museum tonight. I’ve arrived, and I’m flexing and stretching on the home turf, getting ready … in other words, I’m hanging out at the Espresso Royale stoking up on caffeine. Here’s the deal:
Speaking Science 2.0: New Directions in Science Communications
Friday, September 28, 2007
7:30 p.m.
Bell Museum Auditorium
$5 Suggested Donation
I just noticed the unfortunate typo up there in the announcement: they misspelled “wrong” as N-E-W.
We’ll hash that out this evening, I think.
Andrew Brown is so kind: he calls me one of America’s most notorious atheists in an opinion piece on the wretched Archbishop Chimoio. He also makes an interesting game theoretic argument that, in purely pragmatic terms, the Catholic Church in Africa is simply following a winning strategy that maximizes the differential fitness of their group. It’s probably true, except that I think a rational secular strategy would work best of all … if anyone were playing that side of the game.
