Wednesday, June 04, 2008


MSNBC blog blogs about PZ Myers. One of the commentators (Paul Lurquin) rips PZ Myers a new one (on page two of the comments).
You mention that PZ Myers is a well known evolutionary biologist. This is incorrect. In fact, Myers has not published any peer-reviewed work in over 10 years. He teaches at the very small branch campus of the University of Minnesota-Morris, which offers no graduate degrees in biology.

However, Myers is well known for his constant ravings against religion. This is what his so-called science blog "Pharyngula" is mostly about. While I share Myers' views about science and religion, I have nothing but contempt for his ruthless self-promotion and the vulgarity of some of his comments (and even more so, those of his storm troopers).

Let us not forget that Myers was paid to appear in "Excell." In my view, Myers is not an active scientist and he does not represent science in any way shape or form.
He said it. Not me.

The false dichotomy of the atheists who have hijacked Darwin also appears in this blog entry.
"I personally feel that religion itself is a lie and a danger," he said. In his view, even those who hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being "wishy-washy" in one way or another.

One questioner asked Myers whether that meant Brown University biologist Ken Miller, who has often said his passionate defense of evolution doesn't conflict with his religious beliefs, was being a wishy-washy scientist?

"No," Myers answered wryly, "I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic."
Translation: If you believe evolution, you cannot possibly remain truly religious.

What a total load of horse crap. It's obvious that this is what Dr. Myers wants to believe, but that doesn't make it true. The Catholic Church has no problem accepting evolution as true. It does object to talk about the evolution of the soul, and it holds very strongly that Adam and Eve were actual individuals (i.e., it objects to polygenism [which I'll go into at some other time, and which can I believe be put into a proper scientific framework]), but other than that what's the fuss?

No comments: