Another edition of “As others see us”

To my surprise, I opened this week’s edition of the university newspaper, and there was an article about me (it’s near the end, on page 18). It’s complimentary, if you think words like “scathing” and “godless” are high compliments, as I do, and it’s also good to see what some of the students think. However! Yes, I say, However!

Those who know the mild-mannered Myers must surely
wonder where the fire comes
from in his blog. He is perhaps
best summarized as a writer
who demands an empiricist
understanding of truth, disdains
misrepresentation of his views,
and insists on a fair shake for
atheists. There is also an element of thrill to his writing,
the thrill of really nailing some
idiot.

Aaaaigh. “Mild-mannered?” I also did a phone interview yesterday with Jason Rennie for his podcast (it’ll air in about a month), and he said afterwards that I sound much different one-on-one than I do on the web. I have got to do something about this horrible image problem — it’s the Wizard of Oz effect. On the web, I’m this giant disembodied head with a stentorian voice, with flames erupting everywhere … and then these people keep insisting on pulling back the curtain and exposing the ordinary, dithering old man with soft-voiced professorial airs.

<sigh>

We are who we are, I guess. It’s just that I wanna be a pirate when I grow up, and my career track seems to be leading me towards the kindly ol’ granpa job, instead.

The soulless atheists exist at VT!

Has anyone heard from Dinesh D’Souza lately? He ought to be offering a humble apology now that the atheists he thought were invisible are turning up on the faculty and in the student body.

Oh, wait … he admits that there were “undoubtedly atheists among the mourners”, but considers his point that atheists have nothing to offer “unrefuted”. So I guess the unbelievers are there, they’re just heartless robots. Thanks, Dinesh! You’re a peach!

Creationists drown puppies!

In addition to being a contemptible ghoul who uses a tragedy to attack an unrelated concept, evolutionary biology (we are all on the same page, right? The evidence so far is that the Virginia Tech killer was a mentally ill young man with a confused Christ complex, not a ruthless atheist proponent of evolution who was following the advice of Charles Darwin’s ghost), this “full time creation evangelist” Grady McMurtry makes a revealing admission:

Therefore, he [McMurtry] asserts, people should not be surprised when mass shootings occur, such as the one on the Blacksburg university campus on Monday. “And at Virginia Tech, what do we have?” he asks rhetorically. “We have a person who, unfortunately, thought that humans had no more value than cats and dogs — and unfortunately, I think, probably felt the same way about themselves.”

The creationist continues explaining his premise. “And so what happens? If we are nothing but thinking animals, [and] if you have excess people, then you can just put them in a bag, throw them in the river the way you would too many kittens or too many puppies.”

What was that last line? Being an evolutionist means you’re as casual about human deaths as creationists are about killing kittens and puppies?

CREATIONISTS DROWN PUPPIES!!?!

Puppies?

i-349be7f16e53f4f7d1aaf5f98a0386e3-puppy.jpg

And kittens?

i-2dbc741f48408d723c7d6947001455ad-kitten.jpg

I dare not contemplate what they would do to the cute little ducklings. And think of the bunnies! Dear god, don’t let the creationists near the adorable baby bunnies!

i-861b8a78eed7e56134522595058d0615-bunny.jpg

I have to go lie down, I’m so distraught.

Uh-oh…poor science alert!

There is considerable interest in a recent paper in PNAS that purports to have found some rather substantial homologies in the proteins that make up the bacterial flagellum. That would be extremely interesting if it were true, but it looks like there are massive methodological problems in the work. Matzke has put up a preliminary criticism; the gang at PT are working on a much more detailed analysis, and if half of what I’m hearing about the paper is true … well, it’s going to be rather thoroughly sunk.

If you are arguing against ID’s favorite example, the flagellum, do not use the data in this paper. It’s about to go kablooieee. Sorry, everyone, but that self-correcting stuff is the way science is supposed to work (and letting error-filled papers make it to press is not supposed to happen, but it does all too often anyway.)

Nick has posted more info — it’s still not the complete argument, but the problem in the author’s interpretation is rather stark.