I was so pleased last year to be named the Discovery Institute’s “Censor of the Year” for 2013, recognizing my activities in deep-sixing the teaching of intelligent design at Ball State University. And I hoped I could make it two in a row; after all, we did get the principal of Lebanon High School to stop praying at graduation. But, it seems, the Discovery Institute likes to construe “censorship” as “censorship of teaching creationism.” And so, the recipient of the 2014 Censor of the Year award is. . . . . Neil deGrasse Tyson!
But why on earth Tyson? After all, he doesn’t engage in overt anti-creationist activities, and keeps a low profile about his unbelief. His gig is promoting science, and he’s good at it.
Well, the Discovery Institute appears to equate “promoting science” with “censoring creationism,” for here’s their award statement:
Neil deGrasse Tyson, of course, stands out this year for his command of the aptly named Ship of the Imagination, which he piloted through 13 episodes of the revived Carl Sagan science series, Cosmos. As we documented here at ENV and in a book, The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos: Fact and Fiction in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Landmark Science Series, Cosmos represented a highly imaginative rewrite of the history of science. It was designed to convey an impression that faith was always an obstacle to scientific discovery, that all legitimate scientific controversies are in the past, that skeptics of scientific orthodoxy today are fools or worse.
Censorship can involve implied or explicit threats — that’s Jerry Coyne’s style, not Dr. Tyson’s. [JAC: Yay!!! I get a mention!] The charming, avuncular, facile Neil Tyson is effective, far more so than other nominees this year, because he is so very likable. As a censor, he works with an airbrush. Clearly produced with an audience of impressionable young people in mind, and no doubt on its way to becoming a staple in school science classrooms, Cosmos tells a seductive story that leaves out complications and controversies around science, and casts materialism as the obvious inference from the scientific data.
Tyson stands out, too, for his commanding cultural authority at the moment. He’s a star! What other television series can you think of that opened with an endorsement by the President of the United States?
. . . Tyson broadcast his photoshopped narrative of science to millions. That alone wins him our nod as 2015 Censor of the Year. He also stands out, though, for further dubious achievements. As others have documented, lead by Sean Davis at The Federalist, Neil Tyson is a fabulist. He’s been caught multiple times bending and stretching the truth in a variety of contexts.
Despite his confirmed slipperiness, his prestige as the popular face of science in America remains undimmed. He’ll go on to tell his distorted story again, and again, and again, you can be sure. Behold, our Censor of Year!
The “fabulist” stuff turns largely on a date that Tyson mixed up and a quote he attributed to George W. Bush, which Bush indeed did say, but not at the time that Tyson described. Tyson in fact clarified that issue in a Facebook post. Have a look, and see if you think he’s a “fabulist.” And even if he were (and he’s not), fabulism is not “censorship.” What the Discovery Institute objects to is Tyson’s presentation of evolution, which left out the “controversies” about science (i.e., intelligent design creationism), and his reliance on “materialism” (i.e., he neglected God the Intelligent Designer). And he’s popular, too! That must really burn the Discovery Institute’s onions! None of those clowns will ever be as popular or as admired as Tyson! They’re a captious and dour lot, absent any charisma: can you imagine Bill Dembski hosting a television show?
Well, I’m sorry not to have won this year, but you have to hand it to Tyson: he’s in good company!
I understand there’s talk of a season 2 for COSMOS. So, Jerry, if you wanna get the 2015 nod, better ramp it up. Maybe the new book will be sufficient? Looking forward to it.
Wowwee Wow wow wow. That would be good news.
Consider yourself rebuked:
I feel like I am missing something. Could you please explain the punchline?
Although Neil was saying ‘maybe do things different/better’ – Richard is being tongue-in-cheek and taking it as a compliment.
British dry sense of humour 😛
pssst… re-check out Da Roolz. there’s instructions there about how not to accidentally embed videos/pics from Youtube/Amazon, etc. I think Jerry’s last plea re: this was… Monday.
To augment, remove the “http://” before sending, to avoid the problem.
I think darrelle was asking what the relevance of this clip is to the thread, other than simply having NdGT in it.
My motive for the video was Jerry saying “I ‘failed’ to win’ (paraphrasing) – hence he was “rebuked”. But that is not an insult.
From what I can see Prof ceiling cat has a similar dry sense of humour too, and this is was posted in fun.
(Also to counter another trope ‘atheists can’t laugh at themselves’)
There is an ongoing criticism of Dawkins. They claim he is too strident or too aggressive or unsympathetic to the others point of view, that he thinks that people with religious belief are stupid. This criticism is held by quite a broad range of fairly high placed intellectuals, including Massimo Pigliucci and another Philosopher you probably haven’t heard of Aaron James, who wrote a book ‘Assholes: A theory” in which he cast Richard as an asshole for those reasons.
Some science types think the same thing.
I don’t and never have.
Tyson made out as though he picked up that tone from Dawkins just then, but I think he was echoing a more general sentiment.
“You’re too strident” usually just means, “You make me think uncomfortable thoughts.” Or, worse, “I think you might make other people think things they might think are uncomfortable.”
The proper response, of course, is some variation on, “I should jolly well hope so!”
b&
Brings to mind Greta Christina’s book (and excellent talk available on YouTube video) called “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?” Strident would be a sign of (frustration turned to) anger, wouldn’t it?
That would be a component too. There are indeed valid reasons to be such.
I have gone off Christina for a few reasons but I think that one you mention is very good, I’ll have another look.
Some Atheists are just tired of siting quietly while the religious damn fools say their garbage ruining minds in the process.
I just watched Christina’s talk. It was very good.
Glad you enjoyed it. I was still pretty new to atheism, when I found it, and I must have watched it three times in a row, just because it felt so good to give voice and words to the righteous indignation and anger I felt. I don’t I realized how angry I was, until that video helped me vent it. It probably also inspired and propelled me into being an anti-theist. And, then, I found Jerry’s website, when I can. This site covers it all.
No worries. If you are still relatively new to atheism I say, welcome to atheism and active atheism, from someone who has been an atheist for a very long time.
It is the place to be.
This is a very good site, for its content and the quality of comments.
You’ll find a bit of humor here and that can help. The anger, as her talk expressed is quite valid but as you say there are ways to vent.
Here’s to a reasonable rational future.
🙂
Yes — that’s exactly why I should jolly well hope what people like Richard are saying is making other people uncomfortable. It’s outrageous that so many people brainwash their children into thinking nonsense is true, and they damned well should feel uncomfortable at the thought that that’s what they’re doing.
b&
It is outrageous, on so many levels.
That’s pretty much my assessment also.
And, in this push for tolerance and accommodation people seem to forget that there are real grievances. There are reasons for atheists to be angry. I don’t get it, all the evidence points to negative impacts by religion and still, while you can criticize, if you don’t also kow tow, you’re being unfair or something.
Dawkins is a little like that but it is partly mannerism too.
He did say though, that if people didn’t believe in evolution they were either ignorant, stupid or insane, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I did, in my circles years ago, say that about people who believe in god.
Dawkins hasn’t said that but he is treated as though he did. So he should.
I vote we bump that “ignorant, stupid or insane” up to all superstitious belief.
And finally, as far as being tolerant, paraphrasing Hitchens, do not forget that when the church ‘could’ it murdered and tortured and brutalized with gay abandon, the only reason they don’t do that now is because they can’t.
Don’t forget!
As evidence we only need to look where the religious ‘can’ to see what they ‘do’
Stridency is barley enough.
Even given that we still have philosophers like Massimo Pigliucci and this alleged philosopher Arron James criticizing Dawkins and maybe Jerry, for an unsophisticated understanding of, the so called sophisticated aspects of religious thought and philosophy.
How much sophistication do you need to validate torture?
I better stop.
We’d all feel comfortable using, “ignorant, stupid, or insane,” for those who reject the Theory of Gravity or the Microbial Theory of Infectious Disease or Atomic Theory. Applying that to the foundational theory of biology is equally valid.
And as to mannerism…Sagan’s words were no different from Richard’s; the main difference is that Richard speaks as if he’s just drunk a pot of tea, whereas Carl spoke as if he’d just smoked a bowl of pot.
b&
Pot was once called tea.
1946, Mezz Mezzrow and Bernard Wolfe, Really the Blues, Payback Press 1999, page 74: Tea puts a musician in a real masterly sphere, and that’s why so many jazzmen have used it.
[Wiktionary]
/@
Shows how much out of touch I am with that part of the culture….
b&
Shouldn’t there be some sort of pun, here, though? My brain can’t pull it together, but it has to do with the color black, as in black tea, pot calling kettle… Bet I’ve spoiled it now, though.
You mean, like the pot calling the tea ooh long?
b&
Sure, I’ll take it — with lemon and honey, Honey.
Was over 20 years ago that I last heard it.
It’s not clear from the Google Books précis, but I wonder if James indicts people who prefer to communicate simply and straightforwardly as assholes. Seems to me that’s what gets Dawkins tarred as one.
I hate the inefficient and deferential tap-dancing we’re expected to do all the time, not just when arguing about the nature of reality, but also in more quotidian matters.
I didn’t actually read his book but listened to him interviewed as a guest on Massimo Pigliucci’s show.
The complaint he had against Dawkins was, roughly, that Dakins book, ‘The God Delusion’ used Dawkins position as an ‘authority’ rather than making proper philosophical arguments and without proper acknowledgment of the ‘full rich history of religious philosophy and religious arguments and sentiment.
That he possessed an overly assertive atheism, and that he argued with a lot of arrogance and contempt for the arguments for the existence of god, giving then shoddy treatment. (as mentioned above)
That he played on his perceived expertise as a scientist to pronounce on those philosophical matters and doing a bad job.
That he proceeded with an unwarranted sense of entitlement, a smugness, an over confidence in his own intellectual prowess.
I think this guy, James, didn’t look properly at Dawkins overall work, or the market the book was released into, and that he, James is not an atheist and that the work on religion by ‘good’ thinkers needed more respect or something.
I my opinion, while Dawkins is not a ‘philosopher’ he had every right to lay out the arguments as he did, and not be bogged down in piles of philosophical religious waffle.
If you like podcasts, it was called Rationally Speaking. It is pretty good at times. It has Massimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef, who is good.
“I hate the inefficient and deferential tap-dancing we’re expected to do all the time, not just when arguing about the nature of reality, but also in more quotidian matters.”
If for no other reason than that it wastes huge amounts of time!
Indeed.
Mr. deGrasse Tyson, could be better positioned to lecture someone on the need to be congenial, patient, etc.
These people need to find a new name for their award as Censor does not seem to apply. Why not just call it their – Does not like religion award. Anyway, they are a first class example of the conflict between science and faith.
Yes the Censor should also take a census, dammit!
Isn’t there supposed to be pungent smoke involved, as well?
b&
But not from a joint!
YEZ. BUT NOT FRUM JOINT. WUZ IN JOINT. C BELOW 4 CLARIFICASHUN.
Sent from my iPhone
I dunno but I say this censor should make a Jesus figure schlep his ass across the country just like the bible incorrectly reports. I nominate everyone as the DI.
Are you kidding? The only thing the DI crowd is qualified to schlep are their asses to the salad bar — and, even then, the odds aren’t necessarily in their favor that they’ll be able to outwit anything at their destination….
b&
I FINKZ DIS MITE QUALIFY AS KAT CENSR OV ALL TIEM. 12TH SENTURY PURRSIA… AT TEH METRO MUSEUM, Room 453. HAS WALK AROUND TEH JOINT IF U WANTS.
DESCRIPSHUN: INCENSE BURNR, 1181–1182, SELJUQ JACFAR IBN MUHAMMAD IBN CALI, KHORASAN (EASTERN PURRSIA), PURRSIA, FINDZ IN KHORASAN (EASTERN PURRSIA), TAY-ABAD (KARIZ), PURRSIA, CAST BRONZE WIF OPENWORK DECORASHUN, H. 33 1/2 IN. (85.1 CM), L. 32 1/2 IN. (82.6 CM). TEH HEAD COMEZ OFF SO DAT TEH INCENSE CAN BE PLACD INSIDE, AN TEH ARABESQUE INTERLACE ON TEH BODY AN NECK HAS BEEN PIERCD 2 ALLOW TEH AROMA 2 ESCAPE.
Sent from my iPhone
Exactly!
BTTR! DATZ DE MST AWSUMBALZ CENSR OV ALL TIEM! MST AQIRE NAO! NAO! NAO! NAO!
B&
PS MUST FIL AWSUMBALZ CENSR WIT BONITO FLAKES!!!! AND EATZ DEM!!!!!!!! B&
Strident Atheist Award? Militant Atheist of the Year?
Anti-est anti-theist?
:)), if this is the name of the reward, Jerry would beat Tyson for sure!!
Allow me to paraphrase the DI’s description of NDGT’s censorious conduct: “He speech made our story less credible.”
er…His…
Remember boys and girls, confabulation is very, very bad unless you are doing it at the behest of an invisible friend, in which case we wouldn’t want to make baby jebus cry, would we.
One of the symptoms of psychosis is:
Sometimes people invent new words, or string words together in an unusual and confusing way.
Because of this muddled thinking, it may be difficult to follow what a person is saying, and hard to have an ordinary conversation with them.
The hell…how can it do anything but?
“We did this experiment and…MAGIC PIXIES!”
Oh, and condolences to PCC, there’s always next year. Get thee to thy censoring!
Don’t you hate it when people claim that material evidence of material processes points to materialism?
Agreed! The unavoidable “causal closure of the physical”, as repeatedly vindicated by cosmology and theoretical physics, is just so bloody inconvenient, isn’t it?
The Discovery Institute, home to masters of disinformation is calling a respected astrophysicist a fabulist.
He is a pretty fabulous guy.
First a secular jew, now a black man. Where is the Discovery Insitute based? Selma, Alabama?
+1
I had such high hopes for you!
Congrats on the (dis) honorable mention! I’ve read what info there is on Amazon about the Albatross. The Discotoots will have kittens when they see it (apologies to kitties). Here’s hoping for a win next year.
“The charming, avuncular, facile Neil Tyson is effective, far more so than other nominees this year, because he is so very likable.”
How dare an atheistic promoter of science be likable!
Those are backhanded compliments, a way of insulting his or undermining credentials because they imply the most relevant things about his message is his looks and amiability. Its like hearing a woman speaker’s business strategy presentation and, when asked about it afterwards, you say “she sure is hot!” That’s not a compliment, its an insult veiled as a compliment.
I know. There oughta be *standards* around stridency. What’s the world coming to, anyhow?!
There are plenty of things that NdGT could accurately be characterized as, but facile is not one of them.
Very good point. They probably meant he doesn’t go deep enough into scripture.
Well, you will have to be extra mean in the next round. Of course your new book is coming out, and I am sure it will garner lots of negative reviews from the religious crowd. Surely, that will be cheering.
“Clearly produced with an audience of impressionable young people in mind, and no doubt on its way to becoming a staple in school science classrooms . . . ”
Hey teakettle . . . you’re black!
How dare they have a science program becoming a staple in school science classrooms!
I know, the arrogance of those people with their objective facts!
How odious indeed that someone tries to “wedge” their way into mainstream education.
Jerry said, “But why on earth Tyson? After all, he doesn’t engage in overt anti-creationist activities, and keeps a low profile about his unbelief. His gig is promoting science, and he’s good at it.”
I wonder whether this move by the Discovery Institute isn’t an apoplectic knee-jerk reaction to Tyson’s very recent announcement of his forthcoming late-night National Geographic TV talk show, “Star Talk” … the first TV talk show dedicated solely to science. Does the DI feel threatened by Tyson’s high-profile charismatic promotion of science?
Perhaps, but I think Tyson’s Cosmos is certainly sufficient to have caught the DI’s attention. Despite Tyson’s usual avoidance of engaging with religion directly, which has garnered many accusations of accommodationism, he was pretty damn direct at disembowling religion, repeatedly, in Cosmos. I was impressed, and a bit surprised. It seemed to be contrary to his oft stated previous stance regarding staying out of the science vs religion “debate” and just concentrating on science.
Yeah, I felt the same way.
Maybe he was touched by Sagan. There are billyuns and billyuns of reasons to criticize religion, especially regarding science.
Perhaps he would care to advise Obama on how to pronounce on matters Islamic.
I was very pleasantly surprised.
In that respect I would have backed Bill Nye… but the Discotute do have to pretend to be non-religious!
Whatever the reason it is amusing NdT got the award because he takes a lot of heat from atheists (myself included) who feel he should identify as atheist. Poor guy can’t please anyone.
You’ve gotta admit, NdGT has probably made a lot of kids start questioning and thus becoming censors themselves, so that’s always good.
And I suspect your book alone will make you worthy of the gong next year! Also, it’ll probably bring you lots more opportunities to fight the good fight. They’re clearly still thinking about you after all …
:)) ….
“But why on earth Tyson? ”
Was that a Freudian slip?
Of course, he probably meant “why between the stars?”
Booooooo!
Must try harder this year, Prof Ceiling Cat!
I’m not surprised that they attack a popular narrator (and specialist) in science. But I found it hilarious that the Disinformation Institute [thanks, Roan!] painted Tyson as fabulist, seeing how many find him so picky on details.
Again with the confabulation vs the actual facts. And now spiced with the humdrum “me Galileo, you Inquisition” stuff. There was, is, and will always be places where the scientific consensus is temporarily wrong and sooner or later individuals right in the face of that. But never with the scope of crackpots, here the Disinformation Institute.
Speaking of faith as never an obstacle, I’ve read the much on the Galileo affair, but this week I stumbled on the source. And that science was the main issue is as clear as that ISIS is mohammedanist, by their own words:
“The judgment sentences him: (1) To the abjuration, (2) to formal
imprisonment for life, (3) to recite the seven penitential psalms every week.
Ten cardinals were present; but, to their honor, be it said, three
refused to sign; and this blasphemous record of intolerance and bigoted folly
goes down the ages with the names of seven cardinals immortalized upon it.
This having been read, he next had to read word for word the abjuration which
had been drawn up for him, and then sign it.
The Abjuration Of Galileo
“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, of Florence, aged
seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling before your
Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals, General Inquisitors of the
universal Christian republic against heretical depravity, having before my
eyes the Holy Gospels, which I touch with my own hands, swear that I have
always believed, and now believe, and with the help of God will in future
believe, every article which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome
holds, teaches, and preaches. But because I have been enjoined by this Holy
Office altogether to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the sun is
the centre and immovable, and forbidden to hold, defend, or teach the said
false doctrine in any manner, and after it hath been signified to me that the
said doctrine is repugnant with the Holy Scripture, I have written and printed
a book, in which I treat of the same doctrine now condemned, and adduce
reasons with great force in support of the same, without giving any solution,
and therefore have been judged grievously suspected of heresy; that is to say,
that I held and believed that the sun is the centre of the universe and is
immovable, and that the earth is not the centre and is movable; willing,
therefore, to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of every Catholic
Christian, this vehement suspicion rightfully entertained toward me, with a
sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors
and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to Holy
Church; and I swear that I will never more in future say or assert anything
verbally, or in writing, which may give rise to a similar suspicion of me; but
if I shall know any heretic, or anyone suspected of heresy, that I will
denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the
place where I may be; I swear, moreover, and promise, that I will fulfil and
observe fully, all the penances which have been or shall be laid on me by this
Holy Office. But if it shall happen that I violate any of my said promises,
oaths, and protestations (which God avert!), I subject myself to all the pains
and punishments which have been decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons,
and other general and particular constitutions, against delinquents of this
description. So may God help me, and his Holy Gospels which I touch with my
own hands. I, the above-named Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised,
and bound myself as above, and in witness thereof with my own hand have
subscribed this present writing of my abjuration, which I have recited word
for word. At Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, June 22, 1633. I, Galileo
Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.””
[ http://history-world.org/Galileo,%20recantation_of.htm ; my bold]
That’s interesting, I had not seen it before.
So, It’s a bit like a Supreme court decision hey.
A majority opinion over 3 in the minority. Even including a dissenting opinion.
” swear that I have
always believed, and now believe, and with the help of God will in future
believe, every article which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome
holds, teaches, and preaches.”
Well that’s self-evidently untrue for starters…
Galileo was no (non-heretical) Christian. But he was also in mortal danger, so we can forgive him for not coming clean. I am not sure I can forgive the liars who forget this, like the DI.
I’m not blaming Galileo at all. I’d lie if I had a gun pointed at my head.
I just find it – curious, that the Inquisition (?) should have him say that he ‘had always believed’ when it must have been obvious that he hadn’t.
Might be related to the “you’re not really an atheist” trope.
🐾
I hate to drop a tu quoque on their party but their calling other people fabulists and censors is a bit rich on the gravy sauce.
Tyson also unleashed a heavy broadside against intelligent design at the Beyond Belief conference.
hxxp://goo.gl/B8kGck
(replace xx with tt)
I like the way Tyson sums up: Science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.
I’m intrigued to discover that one can be a “censor” by selecting the content of one’s own television series.
…I can imagine him providing the sound effects.
I saw Tyson a the Global Atheist convention and his presentation was very anti-creationist.
He showed a few (disturbing) pictures showing anything but a perfect or even good, creation.
He is a bit slippery on the question of the term atheist but he seems to me to be vocally anti creationist.
In the United States the word ‘atheist’ is almost synonymous to communist. The Cold War gave rise to the christian capitalist – godless communist dichotomy. For example: “In God we Trust” was added to the dollar bill in the 1950’s. Most American christians are surprised when they find out what Jesus actually said about rich people and money. That explains why Fox News doesn’t like pope Francis very much. The word atheist has a much more negative connotation than in western Europe. I’m not sure about eastern Europe.
And some Fox News christians find it particularly annoying when it’s pointed out that the Founding Fathers opposed the fusion between religion and state, between religion and citizenship.
Fox News xians don’t just find it annoying that the founding fathers were deists at best and did not want religion meddling in government. They refuse to believe it and try to rewrite history. Ever heard of David Barton?
Didn’t Chris Rodda write a book discrediting David Barton? I think Barton was involved in starting this whole current Crusader mentality thing, some 70 years ago, along with someone else, the real founder of this modern Crusader-like movement, and Chris wrote her book just within the past 10 years — but do correct me, if I’m wrong.
Big of you to let someone else win, Jerry.
😉
I’m thinking that we should have a complementary award. Call it ‘Censer of the Year’ and give it to whomever blows the best smoke.
There should be rule that the same person can’t win it every year or Reepact Oprah would still be winning long after he re-joins the cosmic whatever.
I love that: “Reepact Oprah”! ROTFL!!!
JAC/PCC, you might not be this years Censor of the Year, but I claim for you the title of Sensei of the Year, Three Years Running, as that’s about how long I think I’ve been following your website.
Congratulations, Sensei of the Year, third time in a row! (And, three out of three, since no one else has been named!)
So simply presenting an opposing viewpoint is considered censorship? Who knew? So what does that make the persons who want to give creationism “equal time” in the classroom? They’d be advocating censorship by their own definition.