PZ Myers: The Elvis Presley of atheism?
Several years ago, I watched the documentary, Let the Good Times Roll, a 1973 concert film featuring acts like Little Richard, The Coasters, Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley. It was one of those Rock & Roll revival shows that probably sounds lame to modern audiences, but I was somewhat surprised. In front of an audience consisting of a bunch of long-haired, pot-smokin’ hippie types, Little Richard nearly incited a riot, and Chuck Berry joined Bo Diddley on stage for an extended jam.
What made the film so interesting, however, was the way the editors spliced archival footage into the movie. There were a lot of clips of preachers, politicians, parents and otherwise “concerned citizens” ranting about the evils of rock music; in 1956, it appears there wasn’t an evil under the sun that couldn’t be blamed on Rock & Roll. Chief among the Evils of Rock Music was that it led to *gasp!* integration. According to the authorities back then, black people sharing the same dance floor as white youths would ultimately lead to the downfall of civilization.
A lot has changed since then. Sure, there’s a fringe element who still rails against rock, but the sad fact is, what kids are listening to these days is pretty tame. Face it: since GG Allin and El Duce died, parents can sleep a little safer at night.
The internet can take part of the blame for the decline of Rock & Roll’s influence on today’s youth. What with goatse.cz, Tubgirl, and 2 Girls 1 Cup hiding behind hyperlinks, it seems almost quaint that the anti-rock establishment’s last hurrah placed a Prince song at the top of their “Filthy Fifteen” list.
There is another notorious Minnesotan arousing the ire of concerned parents these days: PZ Myers. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that Professor Myers was some sort of serial killer on the loose, preying on unbaptized children and stealing socks from the dryers of God-fearing Americans.
PZ Myers: Shown in Expelled only from the waist up
The Information Age must be frightening to parents who wish to keep their children insulated from the scary outside world. All a child has to do is type the word “atheism” into a search engine, and they’ll find millions of pages dealing with the subject. For young people who subscribe to the stereotype of the atheist as the unhappy, god-hating local crank who tries to get nativity scenes removed from people’s lawns, the internet probably does a lot to shatter some myths about atheism.
To counteract all this information, some religionists have taken to Defending the Faith by shooting the messenger, so to speak. Why bother refuting atheism or providing evidence for Intelligent Design when it’s so easy to attack a biology professor in Minnesota?
I’ve been a semi-regular reader of Pharyngula for several years. Lately I’ve discovered that the reactions to PZ Myers are just as entertaining as the man himself.
The name “PZ Myers” is to religionists much like Red Kryptonite is to Superman; there’s no telling how they will react upon hearing those words. Even though Myers defended Robert Marks in the Baylor/Evolutionary Informatics Lab flap, according to The Discovery Institute’s Bruce Chapman, Myers “is the most vociferous advocate of expelling Darwin critics from academia.”
This sort of we’ve-always-been-at-war-with-Eastasia rhetoric is common when dealing with PZ’s critics, and often comes up even when Professor Myers isn’t the topic of discussion. On a Christianity Today article about atheist summer camps, a commenter chimes in with:
Preaching is what atheists do - at least many of the louder ones. Have you ever been to pz myers blog? Have you ever read Dennent [sic] or Dawkins? These guys are more evangelistic than the most ardent evangelical.
That’s funny… the last time I checked, PZ works for a living and doesn’t have to solicit donations like other evangelical missions. The day an atheist knocks on my door and tries to convert me using bullshit arguments is the day that I will concede that atheists are “evangelical”.
After having his ears thoroughly boxed by PZ over his “Where are the giant mammaried mosquitos?” article, Timothy Birdnow has since been reduced to a blubbering moron when it comes to dealing with Myers:
Of course, the pious P.Z. is piously atheistic, and has the usual child-like understanding of history that is the hallmark of atheists and liberals in general, so he ends his blogpiece by calling for an end of the “superstition“ of religion.
Someone get that man a thesaurus! Pardon me for using the F-word, but I’m amazed at how often religionist anti-atheist rhetoric is framed in religious terms. “Evangelical”, “pious”… these are words with positive connotations in the world of religion, yet they’re thrown around as epithets by religionists. I honestly don’t get it.
It comes as a shock to Christians that PZ Myers has a daughter, Skatje. Perhaps there’s an old wives’ tale that claims atheism leads to sterility, because some god-botherers just can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that Myers raised a child. Perhaps the last person on earth who should be discussing fatherhood, the disturbingly misogynist Coach Buzzcut lookalike, Vox Day, put Myers’ parenting skills to question because Skatje had written an article advocating the repeal of laws against bestiality. Never mind that she plainly stated in the first two sentences of her article that she was not in any way interested in having sex with animals, the anti-PZ crowd jumped on the post like William Dembski on someone else’s intellectual property. Only a few days into the new year, Salvador Cordova earned the coveted Asshole of the Year award by writing a post so foul and contemptible that it eventually managed to trigger a rare public display of shame by Cordova.
Salvador Cordova removed the offending article after being prodded by the Number One Concerned Parent in the State of Kansas, “For the Kids“. This is surprising, considering it was FtK’s baiting that initially inspired Skatje Myers’ Zoophilia post.
There are very few bloggers who can bring the anti-PZ hysteria like FtK. Virtually any defense of atheism is met with “Oh yeah? Well, PZ Myers…” by the self-proclaimed “Reasonable Kansan”. Her blog is a treasure trove of PZ-on-the-Brain. The mere sight of him renders her speechless (for which we are grateful, even though the effects are only temporary), and when she manages to string together a complete sentence, stand back, people, you might get hurt:
If I had only to go by the attitudes and the hatred displayed by the majority (not all) of the atheists at AtBC and the horrendous tactics and hate filled rants of atheist bloggers like PZ Myers, then yes, I’d believe that atheists are less than honorable and, in fact, quite hateful and despicable individuals.
Keep in mind that FtK’s “atheists are mean” shtick is often contrasted by her cheerleading on behalf of people like Salvador Cordova and Vox Day.
It could be that FtK is nursing a broken heart. In a piece that deserves to be read in its entirety, she writes:
I once tried emailing PZ and reasoning with him, but he said something negative and told me he wouldn’t respond to any further emails from me.
If FtK’s blog isn’t testament enough, here are 200+ pages of evidence that the so-called “Reasonable Kansan” couldn’t reason her way out of wet paper sack. PZ was only saving the both of them a lot of pain and misery by brushing off her clumsy attempt to “reason” with him. This is someone who genuinely thinks that Walt Brown’s hydroplate “theory” is somehow valid. Furthermore, she seriously believes Expelled is going to pose some thorny problems for scientists (a.k.a. “OMG! DARWINISTS!” in the FtK lexicon). Weighing in on the recent controversy, she greets the prospect of DI flacks debating Myers, Dawkins and other “Darwinists” at Expelled screenings with glee:
Oh, Dear God, please let this come to fruition, and let there be plenty of press and cameras surrounding the scene. Amen.
FtK can be forgiven if she’s forgotten how Myers’ last debate with a DI Fellow went; after all, Uncommon Descent shitcanned the discussion of the debate’s aftermath.
Whether or not the recent controversy will translate into free publicity for Expelled remains to be seen. I find it strange that a documentary allegedly promoting academic freedom tried to prevent a real-life academic from seeing the film. The publishers of The Design of Life have gone on record stating that they have no intention of offering review copies of the book to people qualified to give it a negative review, yet William Dembski brags about the positive reviews. And so it goes with Expelled; the film’s boosters seem terrified that someone who can offer a qualified analysis of the movie’s content might - of all things - see the film.
Denyse O’Leary weighs in on the Myers/Expelled scandal with her usual nonsense, claiming Myers should at least be allowed to see half of the movie, because he only read half of her book, The Spiritual Brain.
Anyone who has read more than one of Denyse O’Leary’s blog posts will have to admit that Myers exercised a lot of patience by making it halfway through her book. How much poorly-written nonsense must one read before coming to the conclusion that it’s nothing but poorly-written nonsense? Do you need to actually drink the milk before deciding it’s gone sour?
The religionists’ level of disconnect when dealing with PZ Myers is amazing. Take a peek in his dungeon and see for yourself some of the absolutely nutty behavior of his detractors. He has inspired not one, but two (now-defunct) blogs supposedly dedicated to “exposing” him.
This is something that the Crusaders can’t seem to understand: arguing against PZ Myers is not an argument against atheism. Nor is it an argument for Intelligent Design. If it suddenly turned out that Myers was an alcoholic wife-beater, it would have absolutely zero effect on atheism. Sure, creationists and fundamentalists would revel in schadenfreude and tell their children, “See! That’s what happens when you become an atheist!”, but there would be no discernible negative consequences to the “cause” of atheism.
The internet has made it much more difficult for parents to bring up mindless robots like the infamous VenomFangX. Although most reasonable people would view this as a Good Thing, to the authoritarian mindset, the prospect of a child who might abandon the religion of his or her ancestors is a scary thought. With such an abundance of information so readily available, today’s youth is able to rebel against the Powers That Be with an eloquence far beyond the days of, “Hey! I didn’t ask to be born!”
What parents must realize is that these kids aren’t jumping on some bandwagon, they’re making a choice based on reason (and to a person who thinks people used to live among dinosaurs, making choices based on reason must be a totally foreign concept). None of the adjectives used to describe the atheism of PZ Myers (evangelical, vehement, pious, militant, piously pious, etc) are in any way relevant to atheism in general; atheism is not some sort of collective with leaders and sleeper cells, it’s the absence of a belief in god(s). Nothing more, nothing less.
Attack PZ Myers all you want; I’m well aware that he is perfectly capable of defending himself and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t have any bearing on atheism. Like Rock and Roll, atheism is here to stay.
Preemptive strike: No, this doesn’t mean the Richard Dawkins is the Cliff Richard of atheism.
I’m running out of naming options for these increasingly sick people. I started out a month ago with Church Burners. Then I had to add Ebola Boys. Church Burning Ebola Boys. Now what - Church Burning Baby Butchering Ebola Boys? That’s too long. Too unwieldy. Any suggestions would be appreciated. (Source: 
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:57 am
All I can say is, Thank you. I’m still wiping tears. I haven’t laughed this hard, or been this delighted, since… well, since the fuckwits ejected PZ but missed Dawkins the other night!
Between that and now this post, this weekend has been sublime.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 am
I am always a little amused and a lot put off when xians refer to “venom spewing, hateful, angry” atheists in forums and comment sections of blogs. As in “I just came in here to have a reasonable discussion, I am shocked at the evil, venomous hatred spewed by the Darwinians, who obviously know that their precious ideology is on its last legs.” These posts invariably follow a ridiculous rant about how atheists are evil, “Darwinists” are knowingly and purposely hiding the evidence of gods existence to corrupt our society, yadda yadda yadda. When they are corrected, they behave like their perfectly rational and reasonable comment was answered by death threats.
I wonder sometimes if we are even reading the same thing.
I wonder sometimes if I wandered through the looking glass by accident.
Is the massive amount of projection inherent in the Fundie mindset something that CAN be dealt with? i.e. Dawkins as Atheist Pope, Darwin as Prophet, Atheism as religion, Science as opinion, etc.
Do they know that if they get their way America will be a third world country in two generations? A poor, barely literate, wholly delusional third world country run by a theocracy with access to the largest cache of weapons of mass destruction ever stockpiled in the history of the world, and a belief that Jeebus will only come back after we nuke the Infidels.
If I think about it for too long, I get scared for the future. Not “slightly apprehensive” but “OMFSM we’re all doomed! DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!1!!!eleven!!”
I WANT us to become a rational species, extending our lives and abilities, exploring our universe, and unlocking its secrets.
I am afraid that some nutjob who KNOWS that a magic sky fairy will reward him if he cleanses the world of its wickedness, will nuke us back to the stone age before we can.
It’s enough to make one consider investing in a bottle of single-malt and a series of lapdances. Strictly for immoral support, of course.
[whine] Re-reading this post, I realize I’m a downer today. Sorry. I’ll be snarky and irreverent next time. But today I just found out that a really nifty woman I work with, and who’s company I enjoy quite a lot (and who, parenthetically, is an ultra-mega-hottie) does not “believe” in evolution. I was surprised by this because she is smart and reasonable in every other respect. (Well, she likes Chobits and never heard of FLCL. But I try not to judge.) [/whine]
P.S. Can I be the Tony Clifton of atheism? Pwease?
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 am
You might note that FTK only prodded Sal to take down the post after she spent most of the day defending it.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Ftk is a douchebag, Sal is a douchebag, etc etc.
You are the Cliff Claven of atheism. I’ll be the Boudleaux Bryant of atheism.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
From thebluesite.com link:
“Myers is distorting what is an obvious sarcastic remark from Witt. Myers and others like him want to ignore the explosion as if it doesn’t exist, as if it doesn’t pose problems to the gradualistic model (I’m not sure of his personal view, but I wouldn’t doubt he disagrees with Gould and Eldridge in their view of the fossil record.)”
You just can’t get a more concentrated dosage of wrong than that.
Allowing myself to operate outside the sphere of reason here, if I came across the atheism/theism debate having never before been exposed to it, I would immediately side against the theists solely for their lack of humor.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
LOL! Great post.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Iggy poses an interesting question.
“Is the massive amount of projection inherent in the Fundie mindset something that CAN be dealt with? i.e. Dawkins as Atheist Pope, Darwin as Prophet, Atheism as religion, Science as opinion, etc.”
I found a plausible answer for you. Consider: the entire edifice of Christianity is like an inverted pyramid balanced on its apex. That point is not the divinity of Christ, per se, but his ability to absorb, spongelike and willingly, not only one’s original sin, but all the sin that one can manage for as long as one can manage it.
One is troubled by untoward thoughts and goes to his elder or pastor. One is commonly told to “Give it to the Lord. Let Him take it from you.”
One is desperate to meet an obligation and is fearful of failing. “Let go and let God! He knows your need and wants to meet it for you.”
One is beginning to question and doubt. The priests are concerned and the congregation is agitated. “Out! Foul demon! In the name of Jesus!”
In each case one is given permission and encouragement to NOT take personal responsibility and to rather allow the “ministry of the Church, and the Holy Ghost work their wondrous and mysterious ways. Just listen to the stirring testimonials of those who have been deeply blessed.”
I believe that given this kind of ethical license, a true believer would be just as likely to “allow his sins to be lifted” not only by the one true god, but by any sufficiently authoritative human. Especially those authority figures who either are or who are alleged to be a threat to dogma and cherished surrender.
I think that the art of projection might be facilitated by a willingness to place ones own darker proclivities onto the reputation of another in order to make the other appear unreliable, incredible. The deep irony lies in the fact that the proclivities so transfered instantly become the ones accusingly pointed out!
Pot, mirror, black.
Interestingly, I recall any number of occasions when I (in a previous life) gathered with the faithful that one of the most popular subjects was comparing “previous sinful states.” This was normally accomplished by describing some shocking behavior, how it was worsening, how Jesus “just took it all away,” how it had all been the devil’s work and how others so afflicted don’t know the evil inside them . . . (whew) and then quieter speculation on who in the congregation was having the same problems.
The enigma of projection. Could it be rooted in faith?
March 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Hey, Richard Dawkins is the John Lennon of Rock ‘n Roll!
Cliff Richard, - he is (was) another GFer.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Excellent post, made my night.
Can I be the George Costanza of atheism?
March 24th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Are you sure that you want to be the George Costanza of atheism, mattmc? The job also requires you to be the Art Vandelay of architecture.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Freakin’ priceless!
March 25th, 2008 at 10:28 am
LOL The whole article is great, but that picture?
Man, PZ looks totally hep in that gold lame’! Yeah baby!
March 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Since all the good titles will be taken soon, and being humble, I volunteer to be (a) Lucius Vorenus * of atheism. Let the slaughter ** begin!
* (http://www.hbo.com/rome)
** Intellectual, of course. I’m pacificist.
MicroZealous
March 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
[clavin]It’s a little known fact that they did a study between IDers and chimps. They found that the chimps were 32% slower, but they were better with public relations [\clavin]
You’re lucky I have a weakness for the Stripey Pantsed One.
I guess that’s better than being the Lou Costello of Atheism.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:05 am
That’s an interesting take on PZ. I like to think of him as today’s Mark Twain.
–from Letters from the Earth, which was not published til 1962 and you can see why.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:32 am
[…] mouth when PZ’s name is mentioned and project their authoritarian notions onto him: “PZ Myers, the Elvis Presley of atheism?” Posted in humor, people, religion. Tags: humor, people, religion, […]
April 13th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“The Elvis Presley of Atheism” Rocks!
Elvis’s absolutely beautiful gospel music is sublime.
Richard Dawkins is The King. Let’s form an Atheist Foreign legion and Crusade against ignorance!
After all we are all insane animals on this unfinished planet searching for answers to questions that are already answered by observation. Just look!
April 27th, 2008 at 4:51 am
I am originaly from Minnesota and P.Z is the best thing that has happened to that state in years. He is a hero of mine and I have nothing but the greatest of respect for him and I love his blog