Saturday, 19 February 2011
Today I did something kind of unusual. I was invited to a discussion group featuring PZ Myers. If you don’t know, he’s the author of this ridiculously popular blog – a blog so popular that all he has to post is “I have a tummy ache” and he gets about 80 comments. Like most people in the world of science, I feel compelled to visit this blog once a week or so (though I’ve never commented there). What I enjoy most about the blog is not so much what Myers has to say, but the fact that, since he’s so popular, his site has become a sort of nexus for all things in the world of state/church issues, the stupidity of religion, and new findings in evolution and science in general. It seems that every day he posts something new that someone sent him and I click on it and find out something fascinating/humorous about the world.
Anyway, he is in town this weekend, and he agreed to a discussion group this evening. Members of Minnesota Atheists, CASH, Humanists of Minnesota, even some Jewish organization which strives to keep the hocus-pocus out while leaving in the traditions (I wish the Witnesses would do that: leave out the Jehovah shit, while still maintaining a 3-day festival every summer). I was invited because, well, I’m the editor of the Minnesota Atheists’ newsletter.
There were about 30 people there, and we went around the room giving our thoughts on Myers’ two recent blog posts: Why he hates dictionary atheists, and Why aren’t women more involved in freethought organizations.
When it came to be my turn, I introduced myself by saying that, as an English major, I LOVE the dictionary. I noted that Myers’ argument that citing the dictionary definition of “atheism” as a tautology is silly because really every definition in the dictionary forms a tautology. I said that a better topic instead of “Why I hate dictionary atheists” would be “Why dictionary atheism is not enough.” I also said that while a person can make many generalizations about me when I say I’m an atheist (e.g., I’m a Democrat, I am for same-sex marriage, I think religion is silly), I would rather that they assume nothing but the dictionary definition, and then get to know me from there. I compared it to calling myself a man: there are many assumptions a person can make when I say I’m a man (e.g., I have a deep voice, have facial hair, enjoy sex with women, enjoy sports, cars, am a father), but I would prefer people not assume these things and instead get to know me.
Anyway, I won’t bore you with the rest of what happened, which actually was quite stimulating (intellectually), but somehow won’t be as interesting if I talk about it here.
Instead, I will just say, first, that I had never heard of the Bechdel Test tonight. As a film buff, I am ashamed for not knowing this sooner. But now that I know it, I suspect it will ruin many films for me. And, second, I had a chance to meet anthropologist Greg Laden. We discussed the island nation of Kiribati, which, yes, I had heard of before tonight (since I pride myself in knowing every nation in the world), but gained new insights tonight. Anyway, he also has a blog – though it’s not up in the same stratosphere of fame as Myers’ – and I think I’m addicted to it now. GO HERE to read it.
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Today I hiked up to Roseville library to listen to PZ Myers’ presentation on Evolution. The bulk of his presentation was taken up by an extended comparison and contrasting of natural selection and poker.
He requested four volunteers from the audience, and I raised my hand figuring, hey, how often to I get to play poker with the 2009 Humanist of the Year? To my delight, he called on me, so I got to go up to the front. Myers dealt me, and three others (including my friend Syd, who also was selected) our five cards. As he did so, he explained this was akin to the shuffling of genes during the propagation of each successive generation. He then had us look at our hands and we compared hands to see who had the winning hand. With a pair of sevens, I turned out to be the winner. Myers explained that my hand was in no way that stellar, but it was better than the rest, and with poker, as in life, that is what matters.
His example was carried further by altering the rules so that, suddenly, sixes were wild – but only if you stood on his right (i.e., “a different environment”) Syd, and the woman standing in between us, both went over to that side of the stage because that then gave them better hands. For example, Syd could now couple his six with his queen, giving him a pair of queens that now beat my hand.
Next, Myers had us exchange cards with each other. I looked at the cards the woman next to me was holding and she looked at mine. Myers quickly jumped on this and noted that in natural selection, all we can see it the back side of the cards: since that woman had five cards that looked like they were from the same deck as mine (same “species”), we could mate. But how our genes would shuffle would be up to chance. For instance, I couldn’t ‘select’ her eight in an effort to give my children three of a kind. Myers randomly grabbed two of her cards and two of mine and swapped them out. Then, suddenly, I didn’t have a pair. Does this mean my ‘kids’ are worse off than I was? Who knows…the environment has changed. For example, my kids might be less hairy than me and thus less suitable for the cold climate, but their hairlessness might make them more attractive to a mate one day.
Later, Myers pulled a royal flush out of his pocket and noted how he probably doesn’t want to “mate” (swap cards) with anyone, because all that can happen is that his genes will get “worse.” Indeed, he demonstrated this by swapping cards (“having sex”) with me. The audience roared with laughter when Myers noted having sex with himself would’ve been better for his hand than having sex with me.
When I sat back down, my friend Ryan leaned over and said, “Wow, you got to have sex with PZ Myers on stage.” I responded, “Yeah, but if he ever tries that again, I’m gonna make him buy me a drink first.”