The transcript of last night’s Anderson Cooper segment is available. My assessment: it was a pro-religion/pro-creationism show that gave undue reverence to nonsense. Tom Foreman, one of the reporters, was a pandering fool. Anderson Cooper was an obliging tool. Most of the interviewees were conventionally clueless. I’ve put a few choice bits below the fold.
If I see Francis Collins’ pious, simpering facade one more time, I’m going to get really pissed off. Can someone please give that man a Templeton Prize and let him retire to the Cascades, where he can stare at waterfalls to his heart’s content? CNN has an article on “Why this scientist believes in God”, and it’s just more vapid crap distilled from his vapid book.
But OK, let’s take him at his word. He claims to be presenting reasons to believe … what are they? Do they meet any kind of scientific standard?
As soon as Richard Dawkins opens his mouth, I started laughing…and when Ted Haggard starts singing, well, I lost it. You must watch this video!
It’s not nice to annoy a fellow atheist, but once again we’ve got someone bound and determined to promote himself by dividing atheists into artificial camps and slamming the side with which he doesn’t identify. Greg Epstein, a “humanist chaplain” (whatever the hell that contradictory concatenation means), decided to disavow those horrible people like Dawkins and Harris as “fundamentalist atheists”. Outrage
ensued.
Ho-hum.
Whenever I see someone jabbering about “fundamentalist atheists”, a combination of terms that makes no sense at all and immediately reveals the speaker’s ignorance of both fundamentalism and atheism, I just write them off out of hand. It means we’re dealing with a moron. Maybe Greg Epstein has some great ideas and goals, but pffft, screw him, he’s not worth listening to. Moron.
However, the Friendly Atheist does ask a good question. We clearly have a division, with some of us being more <ahem> vigorous and uncompromising in our striving towards a consistently godless ideal, and others being a bit more laissez faire. What are we going to call those obnoxious loud-mouthed atheists who won’t sit quietly in the corner?
I have a word.
It’s “uppity.”
You can just call us those damned uppity atheists. Really, I won’t mind. I also won’t dismiss you as a moron, Uncle.
It’s Thursday, 5 April, and you know what that means: today is the day of the Mutant Variety Show here in Morris! At 7:00 this evening, in the HFA recital hall, all of the local mutants will be exhibiting their bizarre phenotypes to the public. I’m very much looking forward to it, and anyone else in the region should swing on by.
Note: I am expecting mutants. I insist on mutants. If there are insufficient mutants to satisfy me* … well, I have an Illudium Q32 Explosive Space Modulator, and I’m not afraid to use it.
*Or at least a theremin.**
**I might settle for a kazoo. But that’s rock-bottom. No more compromises.
The poor fellow has an irresistible quote-mining reflex, unable to leave even the most innocuous statements alone. After his deplorable puppy-killing slander, he’s trying to slime Darwin again, and coming out looking like a pathetic wanker himself.
The Discovery Institute has challenged SMU profs
to debate at the “Darwin vs Design” event in Dallas. No takers so far; I’m not surprised, any scientist who participated would be increasing the DI’s reputation immensely simply by sharing a meeting room with one of those clowns.
But the DI is in the mood for a debate, eh … so how about with Peter Irons, noted constitutional lawyer, Harvard Law School grad, Supreme Court bar member, and author of a forthcoming book, God on Trial(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which includes a chapter on the Dover case? He’s going to be in the Seattle area at the end of May, is willing to arrange a neutral venue, and has specifically offered to meet Casey Luskin, pipsqueak, University of San Diego School of Law, passed the California bar exam, incompetent poltroon, in public debate.
I have been personally informed by Mr Irons that the DI has refused his offer.
Many scientists have a policy of refusing to grant creationists any credibility by sharing a podium with them (we will happily discuss science in the public arena, though … it’s just a waste of time to try to inform and educate with a kook lying and obfuscating next to you), so I can understand why the SMU professors aren’t going to bother with them. The DI is the party asking for a debate, though; Irons has even offered to come to them and make it all as easy as possible for Luskin to get up and argue with him. So why do they chicken out now?
Is it because a debate on subjects of substance, directly addressing their socio-political goals rather than providing cover for their pretense of being a scientific organization, would not actually help their fading image? Or perhaps it is because no one at the DI actually has any confidence in Casey Luskin?
Peter Irons has sent along his own account of the DI’s evasions, which I’ve put below the fold.
On The Infidel Guy, Abby of ERV goes up against a ranting crackpot, Leonard Horowitz, who thinks AIDS is the product of a secret conspiracy. She handles herself very well. It’s painful to listen to—Horowitz is a master of the bellowing Gumby style of discourse, and he believes in some very looney things. He’s also smart enough, though, that he knows some of his stuff is going to go over as immensely kooky to an informed audience, and he gets evasive at several points.
Some highlights occur when he’s called “Mr Horowitz”, and he goes on an indignant tirade about his credentials. Another is when he ducks and dodges on the issue of evolution, and tries to claim that the “brand new science of genetics and electrogenetics” (electrogenetics?) is going to require major changes of our understanding of evolution. Unfortunately, he doesn’t get into his really fun stuff:
Among the world’s foremost authorities on the subject of bioterrorism, vaccination risks, and public health, Dr. Horowitz’s expert diagnosis here dovetails perfectly with Bible prophecies. Pay special attention to his disclosures regarding the infamous “Mark of the Beast.” Dr. Horowitz reveals sacred Bible codes that give expanded meaning to the infamous “666” prophecy (Rev: 13:18) while implicating widely trusted vaccinations, medical biochips, politicians, and institutions that have advanced some of the most horrific population-controlling ploys ever conceived. Anthrax, smallpox, and vaccinations are all part of the same deadly swindle.
Kudos to Abby for being able to deal with such a fraud and kook, and being far smarter than Horowitz, but Reggie Finley needs to get better guests than a quack like that.
Tonight on Anderson Cooper (CNN, 10pm ET), we’re apparently going to get a preview of Ken Ham’s shiny new pseudo-scientific creation “science” “museum”. Tune in for a good laugh!
(via DefCon Blog)
Gaaaah! I managed to watch it for 20 minutes before giving up on it. It was one big load of religious tripe, with all the emphasis given to glowing candles, bible verses, and fawning credulity over creationists, religionists, anyone who believes. They showed Ken Ham preaching lying, lots of shots of creepy animatronic dinosaurs, and countered it all with about 15 seconds of Michael Novacek of the AMNH pointing out that there was no evidence for any of it. They had someone from the Family Research Council and Americans for Separation of Church and State in a dueling heads argument — the FRC bot was hammering on ‘teach the controversy’, even if it is wrong; in the only effective skeptical moment, the fellow from ASCS grilled her on her personal beliefs about the age of the earth, and she ran away from the question. Anderson Cooper was useless, interested only in perpetuating the argument by giving the drone lots of slack.
I gave up when they built up to the “big scientist answers it all” moment, and it was … Francis Collins. Dear god, I’ve decided that man is an idiot.
This is terribly petty of me, but it’s something that always makes me laugh: watching someone in a pickup truck try to parallel park in downtown Morris. You have to understand that traffic is low, there’s always lots of open parking spots, so it’s a skill that doesn’t get exercised much out here. When someone tries it, hilarity ensues. It does snarl up the traffic something fierce — why, there were maybe four or five cars backed up, waiting for this fellow to quit jockeying back and forth and in and out of the lane — and the expressions of frustration in the driver and onlookers are something to see.
Having spent a few years commuting in an urban environment, you learn to slide into a narrow parking space fairly efficiently; also, this was in Philadelphia, where many practice either the ping-pong method (bouncing off the bumpers of the cars in front and back of you until you settle against the curb) or the hell-with-it method, where you just stop in the traffic lane and double-park while running your errands. Little towns are a little different.
