My brief moment of fame

Very nice nevertheless. Of course you need to act humble for the sake of Prairie Home Companion fans. It's a really good plug too (too bad no links yet in books).

I am mentioned briefly but flatteringly in Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion

I think I just heard some keyboards melt over at UncommonlyDense.

Adam of Daylight Atheism was quoted too, I guess Dawkins reads blogs. It's still something of an honor, you seem to be getting quite a few of them lately. Congrats!

I oughta pick it up. Ebon Muse and you are mentioned... maybe I'm mentioned too!

"Occasional Pharyngula commentor Siamang constantly provides an elegant yet ceaselessly witty counter-argument to the fluffy-headed foolishness of the current religious brouhaha. His insight is only exceeded by his charm and bravado.".... Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 732.

I don't see why they can't put the url in the book. After al we're encouraged to put it in dissertations if that's the source for some information.

However what happens in 100 years time? What if I want to find out about this PZ Myers person? I'll know about his published work, but I suspect his blog will have vanished into the ether.

Having said that, Darwin talks about a lot of people he corresponded with in the origin of species who's work is all but lost.

WOOHOO!!!

My copy is not shipping from Amazon until October 3. Arrrr!

The urls are in the footnotes.

Siamang, if only he'd kept typing for a few hundred more pages, I'm sure he would have gotten around to you.

The problem I have with the "Brer Rabbit" hypothesis is it seems to ignore the fact that anyone who has suffered through a creationist lecture must have noticed -- that creationists generally include a slide or two of Dawkins quotes in their presentations. Why do they do this? Because they find the association of atheism with evolution to be useful for their purposes. Even if you believe that Ruse is some sort of creationist secret agent trying to silence Dawkins (which I don't), it is hard to explain away the actions of the creationists themselves.

...it is hard to explain away the actions of the creationists themselves.

It's hard to explain - here or away - any actions of creationists at all. They're basically irrational, so any rational attempt to understand their activities will only succeed to a very shallow degree.

Also, the peasants are revolting, and other lame puns.

That's like being mentioned by the Pope! The atheist pope anyway. ;-)

In this insistance, thankfully, no riots.

Dan Dennet refers to the fig-Newton of IT as an "American propagandist". Excellent!

However what happens in 100 years time? What if I want to find out about this PZ Myers person? I'll know about his published work, but I suspect his blog will have vanished into the ether.

Never fear! I'm transcribing every word written here onto grains of rice. I've got a table full of grains right here, meticulously ordererd by date, and ... ah. ... ah.... AHHH CHOOOO!!!!!!

Oh shit.

that creationists generally include a slide or two of Dawkins quotes in their presentations. Why do they do this?

Dawkins' magick spells can not be resisted.

If I say what I think I will just get disemvoweled, I know...

This is a bit tangential, but does anyone know why Dawkins' new book came out a month ahead of schedule? I had been anxiously awaiting the December release when I got a phone call from a friend who had just bought a few copies (and quickly purchased my own). Sure, I was happy to get the book, but what happened? And do you think this has any effect on the book's release buzz? The press and public was presumably ready for a big October release, instead I found the book hiding underneath a table at Barnes and Noble.

Oh, to bring this back, the first thing my friend said to me when he called was "How great is it that PZ Myers is mentioned in The God Delusion?" (I concurred.)

Oh, sure, I meet the man, tell him he was a driving force in my deconversion to atheism, and do I get a mention? Heck no!

I swear, if I hadn't already put the pre-ordered book on hold from the library, I'd never read it!

OK, fine, so maybe I will.

I got my copy a few months ago, and it said it was for a mid-september release -- they also had embargoed it so I couldn't say much until now.

Dawkins on CBC Newsworld for two hours on Wednesday, repeated Sunday:
http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/evil.html

Pretty durned cool.

It's not at all unusual for an "October release" book to be found in bookstores in the latter days of September. Some publishers would like to enforce release dates more strictly, but unless it's a guaranteed blockbuster (like one of the Harry Potter books), bookstores are inclined to start slipping copies out onto shelves once the official date is within a couple of weeks and the books are already stacked up in the back room. A bookstore manager I know says there's no penalty for jumping the gun a bit on mid-list books; enforcers worry only about the embargoes on the high-profile cases.

I don't know if his experience is common throughout the book retailing business. He works at an independent bookstore, not a chain.

By the way, folks, if you hunger for your own moment of fame, you can now conveniently mock up a newspaper story about your greatness. It's the Newspaper Clipping Generator, to which I link here, along with my own self-indulgent example.

I just got my copy today. Whoo-hoo! I should be studying.

Not shipping until Oct. 3? What up?

It's hard to explain - here or away - any actions of creationists at all. They're basically irrational, so any rational attempt to understand their activities will only succeed to a very shallow degree.

Cute. But as insane as they are, they do seem to understand effective propaganda, or we wouldn't need to worry about them.

Dawkins reminds me a lot of the total pacifists who argue against the Iraq war not by arguing about why that war was particularly unjustified, but by arguing that all wars are unjustified. Much like Dawkins, such people do have a point, but the reality is it is just too easy for the other side to quote their absolute positions to say "look, if you don't agree with us this is the sort of stuff you have to believe"

Well, I'll try to be nice. With pretty sugar icing on top...lest I be disemvoweled.
Mr Dawkins excells at calling on the irrationality of all those who do not bow to his ideas. Other atheists who insist that science will never prove or disprove the existence of god...well, we must have some kind of neural disease or something.
Maybe, if we just all squeezed our eyes and tried super hard to be RATIONAL... world peace will just spill over the brim. What a waste of time, to try to deal with it right away. Intelligence, nothing but for the sake of intelligence itself, must go first... and all the rest will just follow, effortlessly.
Ain't that so?

Jonathan: But then, after all, propaganda isn't exactly a rational field of pure logic. Seems like the insane would feel right at home there, and do.

I plan on reading the book. I've always been a big opponent of the Cult of the Fence Rail, on several grounds.

Maybe I can buy the book in a very conspicuous manner next time Ted Haggard, his facial tics and his Dr. Evil-esque vocal contortions invade my campus bookstore.

Even if you believe that Ruse is some sort of creationist secret agent trying to silence Dawkins (which I don't)

Leave the strawmen for the stupid people. Oh, wait ...

it is hard to explain away the actions of the creationists themselves

That's kind of funny, since Dawkins just explained it. "Look! Creationists put Dawkins on their slides! He really must be bad for us!" say the dimwits.

GWW:

Dawkins' magick spells can not be resisted.

I'm sorry, Sir, but I think you'll find that you're wrong. Jesus saves, you see, so his fanboys get an extra +10 on the relevant saving throws, including everything in Dawkins' arsenal, so they might indeed make it.

Martin

The Dungeon Master is dead.

Dawkins reminds me a lot of the total pacifists who argue against the Iraq war not by arguing about why that war was particularly unjustified, but by arguing that all wars are unjustified. Much like Dawkins, such people do have a point, but the reality is it is just too easy for the other side to quote their absolute positions to say "look, if you don't agree with us this is the sort of stuff you have to believe"

So the pacifists should do what? Lie about what they believe? Commit suicide? If there were no pacifists, would the other side fold up due to lack of arguments?

On the one hand we have bright people like Dawkins, and on the other hand we have cowardly dimwits like Badger. Who are we better off for?

Added to my Amazon cart! Even though allitterations like "thoroughly they've thought it through" tend to scare me away ;)

Dwkns s qt mnr sprm!

I have been reading all the posts about creationists for several days now, but until yesterday I was thinking "those americans guys are crazy, I'm glad we don't have them in Europe". But yesterday evening I saw a documentary on TV about them : the Discovery Institute, Ken Ham, the museum... and their progression in Europe. It was terrifying. I have never imagined I could see someone explaining that Earth was older than the stars and that dinosaurs were vegetarian and coexisted with Adam and Eve. The worst thing is that some Europeans politics start to ask for a debate with these kind of people. Completly incredible and very frightening.

Even if you believe that Ruse is some sort of creationist secret agent trying to silence Dawkins (which I don't)
Leave the strawmen for the stupid people. Oh, wait ...

There's someone presenting a straw man here but I don't think it's me. Dawkins is only giving two possible motivations for people who question the constructiveness of his methods 1) the Dennett/PZ "Brer Rabbit" hypothesis claiming that critics are simply creationists using reverse psychology to attack a powerful foe and 2) Troubled theists trying to hold onto their faith by invoking NOMA to avoid asking themselves hard questions.

I don't fall into either category, and neither does Eugenie Scott or any number of defenders of evolution who happen to be atheists as well.

So the pacifists should do what? Lie about what they believe? Commit suicide?

They could, or they could simply focus their attacks on the problem at hand: the Iraq war. It is a curious notion of absolutists that compromise is often characterized as "lying", "cowardice", "being Neville Chamberlain", etc. And yet at every level of organization, from university departments to nations, compromise among members with different viewpoints to achieve common goals seems to be the rule. In many ways, absolutists are the real cowards because it is unlikely that they will get into positions of power and can instead just spend their lives whining about the people in control.

If there were no pacifists, would the other side fold up due to lack of arguments?

Perhaps not, but the hawks *love* to characterize their opponents as trippy hippy pacifists; they know that most people rightly or wrongly see such people as crackpots. It's the former military officers against the Iraq war that the hawks really fear.

[T]he biologist P. Z. Myers, whose Pharyngula blog can reliably be consulted for trenchant good sense.

Plus the occasional foray into pirate lingo.

(Nice mention!)

Bush's popularity has not stopped rising since May. Am I the only one here to point out the uncomfortable fact ?
If republicans (or like-minded democrats) stay in power, the problem with ID will continue. National security. Money. Oil. Foreign policy. Fascism. These are the issues in which we are trapped. It's way more than religion. Religion is the banner of choice. The spread of ID, the consequence. It does not hinge on intellectual debate. And meantime, many here seem to think it is all about some outbreak of irrationality fallen out of the sky. You congratulate yourselves for being so smart. How can you not prevail?
ID growing in Europe? No surprise at all. Nationalism is also on the rise. All you europeans that think "Oh, Europe is just intellectually superior to the US. It will never happen here" , think again. I belive that was preciseley the mistake here in the US. And it continues to be. To think this is just some outbreak of irrationality and stupidity.
Not a very sophisticated lecture of things, isn't it. Actually, just smug. SMUG!!!! The very plague of these frivolous, dark times.

Good points, Alexander - I'm still in awe of America's ability to believe things unquestionably, especially "It can't happen here." We have a good system of checks and balances here, and that keeps the pendulum swinging back and forth (as it should, I suppose) but profound changes have a way of occuring in the form of very small increments that slip over, under, or around the radar.

On the plus side:

1. The Bush rise in popularity is probably the result of a) the fact that his numbers couldn't have gone any lower, b) the subliminal effect of falling gas prices, and c) a small deserved bump for the simple act of being a little more honest. I don't see it as a public reinvestment of unqualified faith.

2. I saw an item this morning about the recent tendency of GOP gubanatorial candidates to try to appear more liberal. Whoa! The "L" word isn't ballot-box poison anymore? Maybe the pendulum is swinging back. A little. Finally. Not that Lefties should become complacent... no no no.

Or maybe I'm just indulging in magical thinking?

Dude. you're high. his approval ratings have been hovering around 37% for months.
Occassionally it bumps up to 40%

His disapproval ratings are even more solid holding at 60%.

Also it looks like the Democrats might, just might win enough seats in the senate to either
take control or in the very least stalemate it.

You fail to understand that the Christian Right is very organized and very committed to pushing their goals. However, 60% is solidly against it getting more power. Plus the Republicans seem to be doing a pretty good job of self destructing.

Our educational system is messed up. But it has little to do with ID or religion.

I'd say our education system is messed up because people who are ideologically committed to tearing it (and all government) down are sitting on school boards and legislatures across the nation. Not so coincidentally, they all seem to be far-right religioids who want ID in schools for the 'creamy Creationist center'.

Bush's popularity has not stopped rising since May. Am I the only one here to point out the uncomfortable fact ?

Wow, this Vargas moron is one stupid troll.

Negative review from the Prospect (UK).

I haven't had a chance to read the book but the review is pretty believable -- Dawkins is as subtle as a sledgehammer when it comes to religion.

It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works.

I'm reading Darwin's Cathedral right now, which is a much more interesting approach to the intersection of evolution and religion, whether or not you buy into its group-selectionist ideas.

"However, 60% is solidly against it getting more power. Plus the Republicans seem to be doing a pretty good job of self destructing."
Doesn't help much if the other side control the voting machines.

It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works.

Is Allen McNeill writing book reviews now?

Or the Superme Court. I suspect there will be alot of very close races and fair amount of recounts if they're too close. Republican controlled states also like to create a shortage of polling booths in precincts where the vote is solidly republican. Long lines discourage votes.

But look at that page number! Certainly an intelligently designed book...

Last thing I heard was 44 %... a good 10 points from May. But hey, please, don't let anything interrupt your smuggy trips

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

That's USA Today/Gallup. Usually higher than most and even higher than Fox's numbers.

By the way he's at where he was about a year ago. Nixon numbers.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

mijnheer: Hm! Good of CBC Newsworld to show it. Really illustrates how different our media is from the US. Can you imagine CNN showing it?

nat: May I ask which European country this documentary was broadcast in? I'm just curious where they are trying to make inroads.

Isn't it rather silly to complain to a gang of Bush-hatin' libruls who are definitely well into that 60% who loathe the man about the 40% who don't? I strongly recommend that Vargas visit a den of the Right and make his complaints there.

Good grief, PZ. Everyone here can pick on Bush all the time, but me??? why are you angry at me this time???
Maybe because you have a wrong set of priorities. Such as attack religion first, then worry about the sociological "details"

"the biologist P. Z. Myers, whose Pharyngula blog can reliably be consulted for trenchant good sense."

Um, "great minds think atheist"? Yes, seems like Dawkins.

Andrew Brown says

It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works...

Andrew Brown also says

Dawkins gets miffed when this is called "19th-century" atheism, since, as he says, the period of their first discovery does not affect the truth of these propositions. But to call it "19th-century" is to draw attention to the important truth added in the 20th century: that religious belief persists in the face of these facts and arguments.
.
This persistence is what any scientific attack on religion must explain--and this one doesn't.

The same would apply to astrology, homeopathy and many other wacky beliefs.

You should be proud PZ. I can't wait for my copy.

'Um, "great minds think atheist"? Yes, seems like Dawkins.'

That is a stupid comment. I mean really, really stupid. PZ does have alot of good sense on this blog. Shame you can't see that and only see something else.

Errr...GH, I think you are a bit confused dude. Larsson loves PZ and Dawkins.

Here then, is some much-needed historical perspective to put Bush's standing in context:

* According to Gallup, on the eve of President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, he was suffering the worst job-approval ratings of his presidency -- 58 percent.

* In 1968, when the war in Vietnam was claiming hundreds of U.S. casualties each week, President Lyndon Johnson was considered so unpopular that he didn't even run for re-election. Johnson's average Gallup approval rating for that year was 43 percent.

* When Reagan's second term was rocked by the Iran-Contra scandal, his ratings plummeted, all the way down to 43 percent.

* This year, according to the Gallup numbers, Bush has averaged an approval rating of 37 percent.

Just some perspective courtesy of Atrios and Mediamatters

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

Wht th frg ds Dwkns phlsphcl rmblng hv t d wth SCNC.

ll h s dng s PLGTCS fr thsm.

All you do is babble. Atheism has nothing to apologize for.

Wht th frg ds Dwkns phlsphcl rmblng hv t d wth SCNC.
ll h s dng s PLGTCS fr thsm.

'Emanuel'! How ABOUT a big hug!

Your correct Vargas, I totally misread that comment.

I apologize.

FWIW: Of course results will vary from poll to poll, and yes Gallup is high, but what about the trend? A simple average of Bush approval numbers from approximately 5/1 through today show the current approval% to be 39.7 - an increase of 5.7 points. (I didn't include polls that offered fewer than three data points over the date range.)

If we toss out the high and low deltas (Gallup: 44% +13; Fox: 40%, +2) we get 39.0 and +5.1. Disapproval numbers have fallen similarly, from around 60% down to the low-mid 50's. So, I don't think Mr. Vargas was too far off the mark there.

Thanks for the perspective, Steve_C. Nixon numbers, yup. I remember the day Nixon resigned. Ah, the good old days, when accountability still existed.

But you cannot call Bush a "popular" president. And he's not getting a huge bounce. For whatever reasons his numbers have creeped up to where they were a year ago.

Oh and for a "war time" president, the numbers are atrocious.

Steve, you'll get no argument from me on any of those points!

Will the numbers continue to creep up? Maybe. Does it matter? I don't know, but there's an important election coming up, so yeah, maybe.

Now, for MY brief moment of fame. Well, y'see it was... Ok, actually, I haven't had one. Dang!

Dawkins or no Dawkins, you've got good thing going here, PZ. Pharyngula, a lamp unto my feet. ;-)

another *great* site for poll numbers is Pollkatz:
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/
Go to "Approval", halfway down the left side of the home page to get all the major poll results in one graph. many other intersting tidbits as well...

Andrew Brown says:

It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works...

Oh yeah? Well, Steven Pinker says:

'At last, Richard Dawkins, one of the best non-fiction writers alive today, has assembled his thoughts on religion into a characteristically elegant book.'

So there. Oh and Brian Eno says:

'I see this as a book for a new millennium, one in which we may be released from lives dominated by the supernatural.'

Brian Eno. Man, I love 'Here Come The Warm Jets'.

"Larsson loves PZ and Dawkins."

Not quite, you have probably not paid attention. I don't agree with either on all topics. But I like their style, and they both provide me stimuli on intellectual and biological topics.

And GH wasn't confused, my quip could be read both ways. Not enough context, which was my fault.

PZ, you are also mentioned in the footnote on the page 319.