Tuesday, December 31, 2013

PZ Myers is still an idiot

In his patented, tiny-balled-fists manner of whining, Myers is upset that some atheists have something nice to say about the new pope. He is fuming at the typical mild complement paid to Francis, which is some combination of these observations: Francis appears to be less conservative,  to show more interest in the downtrodden, to be more inclusive, to be less harsh, to be less dogmatic, and to have shed many of the ornate trappings of his office.

That will not do for the no-shades-of-gray lidless-eyed Myers. You are either with Myers or you are very wrong. Myers writes:

I’ll believe people who tell me that Pope Francis is different when I see him demonstrating that he actually understands the import of evolution, that there was no guiding influence, that humans are a product of chance and natural selection, and that we aren’t any more special to the universe than a sea slug. And the only thing that would demonstrate that is an open repudiation of all of Catholic doctrine, which I don’t quite see the Pope doing.
Imagine the nearly unthinkable stupidity of such a statement. Forget about all the distinctives casual observers, including atheists, are noting in Francis's papacy. To Myers those do not constitute a real difference. Francis must capitulate totally on the question of evolution (and everything else) before he is at all different from his predecessors. It is really no different from Myers saying: I'll believe the pope is different when he acknowledges that he is not a theist.

  • I'll believe you are a different kind of Republican when you are a Democrat.
  • I'll believe you are a different kind of American when when you renounce your citizenship.


I'll say this: Myers is a different kind of scientist.


  1. Huh? What about The Internet Atheist Facts O' Fun #18? My understanding of that one is that you were saying that religion and science are compatible. But now it would seem you are saying that they are not because if Pope Francis accepts evolution fully (instead of cafeteria evolution), then he wouldn't be religious. I'm quite confused. Unless, of course, you yourself do not accept evolution fully.

  2. I have no idea what you are talking about. The RCC, as I understand it, deems theistic evolution acceptable. As far as predictions are concerned, theistic evolution makes the same predictions as non-theistic evolution. They are indistinguishable at the level of experiment, ergo the same science. Myers, ever the idiot, wants the pope to renounce theistic evolution before he will award him his insignificant and wholly undesired seal of approval.