Comments on: PZ Myers vs. Unscientific America: Part I

By: Militant Atheism « The Skeptic Blacksheep

Militant Atheism « The Skeptic Blacksheep — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:39:30 +0000

[...] I’ve noticed that the term “militant atheist” is being used more frequently lately, particularly after reading through the threads about the review of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future at Pharyngula and at The Intersection. [...]

By: Are the So-called New Atheists Turning People Off to Science? | Science Media

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:16:16 +0000

[...] you the play-by-play, but you can read it yourself. (Here is Myers’ side; and here’s Mooney and [...]

By: Are the So-called New Atheists Turning People Off to Science? | Science

Are the So-called New Atheists Turning People Off to Science? | Science — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:05:48 +0000

[...] you the play-by-play, but you can read it yourself. (Here is Myers’ side; and here’s Mooney and [...]

By: Are the So-called New Atheists Turning People Off to Science? | The Faster Times

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:37:50 +0000

[...] you the play-by-play, but you can read it yourself. (Here is Myers’ side; and here’s Mooney and [...]

By: Ian Musgrave

Ian Musgrave — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:10:14 +0000

Chris and Sheril write: in regard of their presentation of the Pluto affair” The results of science should never be subject to popular vote.”

Then what were Chris and Sheril thinking of when they wrote: “The International Astronomical Union (IAU)… opted to poke the public with a sharp stick”, “Didn’t the scientists involved foresee such an outcry from the public? Did they simply not care?”

And the IAU did care, they had numerous journalists briefed on the issue, detailed press releases with press- friendly images, web sites, video broadcasts, video interviews on the internet, alll leading up to the massive coverage of the final vote. The final vote took place with simple general-public friendly illustrations to show how everything fitted together. And there was a big lead up to this, the high profile discoveries of Sedna and Eris (“Xena”, the “10th planet”) kept the “is Pluto a planet” debate in focus, there were websites about the planet issue linked to these high profile discoveries, and articles in such obscure publications as “The New York Times” (that was humor, by the way) about the planet issue all leading up to the IAU meeting.

Given the amount of public outreach that was devoted to this issue, in both traditional and non-traditional media, by both the IAU and concerned astronomers themselves what more could possibly be done?

You can read a fuller history of the the Pluto Affair at this post on my blog

By: Knockgoats

Knockgoats — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:30:11 +0000

“When Sagan was most prominently under fire, it was because he was taking political stands relating to science–standing up for arms control, opposing “Star Wars,” etc. And in these actions, he sought to form broad coalitions, including the religious. He was standing up for causes that everyone, every kind of person, could get behind. Dawkins, on the other hand, is standing up for a particularly uncompromising form of atheism. Again, that’s his right. But it’s vastly different from a cause like nuclear disarmament.”

Dawkins was an early, prominent and articulate opponent of the invasion of Iraq, alongside, to name but one, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He has also worked together with religious leaders in opposing attempts to sneak creationism into British schools. Perhaps you should have made some effort to find out about these very public activities before publishing your snotty criticisms.

By: Woody Tanaka

Woody Tanaka — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:17:56 +0000

Errr.., should have read “none has shown that the application…”

By: Woody Tanaka

Woody Tanaka — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:16:19 +0000

Andrew McCarthy

“Woody Tanaka, I don’t think it’s much to the credit of Dawkinsism that the best it can come up with against religion is an analogy to Star Wars fans.”

And I don’t think it’s much to the credit of Christian theology that there is little more of actual substance to it, in any rational sense, than there is in the collective fiction of fans of a thirty-year old B movie.

“But, they did seem awfully impressed with his jr. high level knowledge of theology, history and other topics in TGD.”

And interesting to me that of all the people who believe that Dawkins supposedly has such limited education on gibberish such as theology, and who decry his book on the grounds that Dawkins in no expert in such gibberish, has shown that the application of such arcane nonsense establishes the falsity of his argument.

“As I’ve been saying, the new atheism is shallow as well as bigoted.”

LOL… as compared to what? Old theism? New theism? Any theism? LOL.

By: PZ Myers vs. Unscientific America: Part III | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:26:42 +0000

[...] just arrived, we previously laid out the course our response would take here, and began to respond here and here. This is the fourth and final [...]

By: tomh

tomh — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:15:13 +0000

@ #242 “Scientists know not to spout off about things that they know nothing about”

And yet here you are, spouting off about religion.