In learning about Central Valley Cafe Scientifique, we stumbled upon a startling incident that may or may not reflect on the scientific climate in the Valley.
The cafe’s next speaker, Fresno State professor Dr. Ryan Earley, found his car tire punctured this week and with a nasty note on his windshield saying: “Fuck you Darwinist. Take your car to heaven.”
(Editors’ Note: Please excuse the profanity, but we thought it was a necessary evil in this case.)
Earley, who displays a bumper sticker of a Darwin fish chasing a Jesus fish on his car, says its not the first time he’s received this sort of reaction to the sticker he meant lightheartedly. “I’ve gotten a bunch of notes on my car, especially when I lived in Georgia and Kentucky.” This is the second note he’s received in less than two years working in Fresno. A similar, but less profane note was left on his car while he was shopping at Borders, he says.
Earley, an expert on behavioral ecology, appears to be shrugging the incident off. He didn’t report it to authorities, but simply took it to the dealership since his car was still under warranty. (We heard about it in passing from another Fresno State professor, while learning more about Cafe Scientifique and other science projects). Earley says he found the incident humorous, only in that it reflects what he thinks is a larger issue of science illiteracy and a misunderstanding that religion and science are at odds.
“Honestly, my whole take on the issue is: It’s not just the Central Valley, it’s everywhere.”
Earley says, “If you went to Europe, you’d never ever see this sort of thing…Certainly, it’s symptomatic of a greater problem. The biggest problem is education. People are not educated to be open-minded and to think and to be able to recognize that when something is opposing your beliefs–[that] that’s not necessarily a bad thing.”
May 22, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Amazing how ‘forgiving’ and ‘loving’ the creationists tend to be far too frequently.
May 22, 2008 at 6:09 pm
They shouldn’t have to be educated to be open-minded. Oh well, I guess you can’t expect too much.
May 22, 2008 at 6:43 pm
[...] people practice their own special brand of Christian tolerance. In learning about Central Valley Cafe Scientifique, we stumbled upon a startling incident that may [...]
May 22, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I don’t think that sort of thing is laughable. People with that same mentality are the ones who bomb abortion clinics. When people commit crimes like that, it’s important to recognize it for what it is: a hate crime. They are obviously cowards or they would have confronted the good Doctor. While I can see why Dr. Earley might not want to report this to the authorities (who may more than likely sympathize with the vandal), allowing this to go unchallenged emboldens the Christian zealots and only makes them more dangerous.
May 22, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I have a pirate fish emblem on my car, but have had no vandalism (so far). My son’s car has a darwin fish, and there’s been no vandalism against it in over 15 years. I wear a pirate fish patch on some of my t-shirts, a “Yo, God” god detector on others, and a Dawkinsian “A” on still others.
The closest I’ve come to a confrontation was few years ago when a stranger spotted the darwin fish and asked me, “What if there is a God?”
I asked him, “Who said there isn’t?”
Then the light changed and he drove on with no further comment.
May 22, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Promote ignorance, and this is what you get.
School budgets cut, the worthless “No child left behind” policy, and funding cut for daring to teach anything but abstinence only is coming back to bite on the ass.
May 22, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Jesus evidently already told some Christian father to pry the darwin fish off my car and scratch “fag” into my tailgate . . . in front of his children. Fortunately he did this while a sheriff was cruising by, nailing him in the act as I walked back to my car from the creek trail. They asked if I wanted to press charges and I asked the perp what Jesus would have done. His answer? A hearty “F^*k you”. Charges were pressed. Damages were paid. Nobody’s mind was changed.
May 22, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Don’t let the lower life forms discourage you …
Alan
May 23, 2008 at 1:37 am
Why not! Jesus walked on the water whilst there were people fishing.
May 23, 2008 at 1:46 am
People with that same mentality are the ones who bomb abortion clinics.
I never thought of it that way: Darwinfish mutilation as a gateway crime to murder. Sad, but probably true.
May 23, 2008 at 2:13 am
Until people stop treating the issue like “Us vs. Them”, nothing will change. People who hold Christians with disdain because of their religious beliefs are no different than Christians who consider atheists and agnostics with the same malice. The truth is, people are so petty, and so fragile, that they reduce their world view to a singularity. Anything that is not on their single point becomes the enemy, not so much because the other options are inherently wrong, but because considering that they might be right would tear us apart. It doesn’t matter whether it’s God or politics or guns — people can’t bear the thought that they may have made “the wrong choice”, so they lash out or condemn those of differing opinions.
For the science folks: Given the theoretical possibility of multiple dimensions, and the fact that in the infinite, even the most unlikely events may occur, why not a circumstance in which there is a God?
For the God folks: Why can’t Evolution be a consequence of Creation, instead of its nemesis?
For those of you clever enough to realize that there’s too much information to ever know, and too many realms of that information completely untouched by human conscience, hopefully you’ll recognize that being a science person or a God person isn’t the answer. Be a person first, and believe what you will.
May 23, 2008 at 2:33 am
Sorry to hear about the note found on Dr. Ryan Earley’s car. More than likely the vile note didn’t come from a true Christian. The conduct displayed in that note was not Christian. The term “Darwinist” is usually a term used for “atheist” or “atheistic belief”.
I’m not sure if Dr. Ryan Earley is an atheist, but the one who wrote had a particular saying, “take your car to heaven” normally one would say in that sort of tone, “take your car to the lake of fire” In other words, “hell”…He wouldn’t be wishing you to go to heaven if he hated ya…So it appears whoever that was, wasn’t a serious creationist, nor was he a true Christian as the fruits of that note bare that out.
May 23, 2008 at 8:19 am
“People who hold Christians with disdain because of their religious beliefs are no different than Christians who consider atheists and agnostics with the same malice.”
Except that I have never heard of an atheist/agnostic vandalizing the property of a christian or threatening them with bodily harm. The other way around seems to be pretty common.
In general, it seems that the christian population in the States is just a lot more hateful than the atheist population. Why is that?
May 23, 2008 at 8:36 am
My observations of organized religion has caused me to conclude that it does much more harm than good.
Even though it does a lot of good sometimes, I’m not sure if it’s worth it. Let’s get rid of it.
Best,
Lisa
May 23, 2008 at 9:43 am
Justin’s comment earlier
“The truth is, people are so petty, and so fragile, that they reduce their world view to a singularity. Anything that is not on their single point becomes the enemy, not so much because the other options are inherently wrong, but because considering that they might be right would tear us apart…
…For the science folks: Given the theoretical possibility of multiple dimensions, and the fact that in the infinite, even the most unlikely events may occur, why not a circumstance in which there is a God?
For the God folks: Why can’t Evolution be a consequence of Creation, instead of its nemesis?”
mirrors my own thinking on this issue. In any issue where there are two extremes of opinion, often the best and most sensible view is a combination of both.
Trouble is, both Religious and Scientific Fundamentalists (for both exist in my opinion – fundamentalism is a state of mind not only related to religious matters) remain entirely convinced that their view is right and the other wrong. Consensus and rational discussion are almost impossible in these circumstances.
May 23, 2008 at 11:30 am
Michael (#12), what is a “true Christian”? I’m sure the guy who slashed the tires and left the note on Dr. Early’s car considers himself a “true Christian”, perhaps even a warrior for Christ, fighting for the Good Cause.
Seems that many Christians think their particular set of Christian beliefs is the only “true” way. When it gets really bad, they start killing each other. That’s been going on since the beginning of Christianity. And some of the “true Christians” today see no problem with murdering doctors who provide abortion services.
BTW, Landover Baptist seems to think they have a copyright on the phrase “True Christian”.
May 23, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Do you consider Muslims who kill the in name of Allah to be “true” Muslims? Do they represent all Muslims? I’m guessing you do not.
It seems to me that they’re a small, albeit vocal, minority. Similarly, this guy (or girl) who vandalized the professor’s car is a jerk first, and may or may not have been a Christian second. Everyone above has jumped to the conclusion that the perp was a Christian to begin with (and a male), which probably reveals more about our prejudices than his (or hers). There’s nothing to suggest that the perp was a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a disgruntled student, or anything else.
But even if we assume that the prep professed to be a Christian, does that mean that he speaks for all Christians? Does that mean he is a good Christian? Or is it simply more evidence that all groups have fundamentalist fringe groups who are incapable of playing nicely with others?
May 23, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Do you consider Muslims who kill the in name of Allah to be “true” Muslims? Do they represent all Muslims? I’m guessing you do not.
And you’d be correct. But that’s beside the point. It’s what I consider to be a “true” anything, it’s what the believer considers him/herself to be. Michael says the perp wasn’t a “true” xian. I hear that kind of self-defense from a lot of xians when one of them goes off the deep end. It’s called “refencing”; it’s saying “he (or she) isn’t like the rest of us – we don’t do such things. He can’t be a ‘true’ xian” And, no doubt, the person who did it is saying, “Only a true believer would take the step I did.”
May 23, 2008 at 1:20 pm
So since you rejected my comment, I guess that means that you do not, in fact, have a copy of the police report – if one existed in the first place.
This whole situations reminds me of the professor at Claremont College who vandalized her own car to garner attention.
May 23, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hi there Jinxmchue01,
I replied to your question requesting a police report via email, saying that there was no police report because (as I wrote in this post) he didn’t report it to the authorities.
I understand your skepticism, and maybe others, esp. given incidents at Claremont that you speak of. It’s a valid question, and one we considered.
However, in our opinion, this is unlikely to be fabricated because Earley didn’t seek attention at all. We learned about it through one of his colleagues.
May 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Catman, forgive me, but I don’t see anything resembling a coherent thought in your post.
May 23, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“So since you rejected my comment, I guess that means that you do not, in fact, have a copy of the police report – if one existed in the first place.”
What? You can’t take it on faith alone? You need evidence? That’s a slippery slope you are beginning to tread, careful now.
May 23, 2008 at 6:06 pm
the answer to the question is no. that’s because jesus was not a jesus-freak. at the time he lived, people had no scientific answers to how things are, but intelligent people of the time (and for the sake of argument, we’ll say jesus was one of them)were open to someone supplying answers of any sort. lacking answers, they substituted a belief in a god as the only thing that made sense to them at the time and from that all hell broke lose, giving us the religious mess we have today and its snowballing impact on human events around the world.
May 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Jesus would *NOT* slash someone’s tires. Nor would He swear. In fact, swearing/cursing is explicitly forbidden in the Bible, as is violence against other people. Nowhere does Jesus advocate the subversing of non-believers, or even of people who are outright enemies. We are instructed to pray for and love those who are in opposition to us.
I strongly disagree with Darwinism, but personally attacking those who hold it is inexcusable. Both sides of the issue seriously need to settle down and stop throwing stones at each other.
May 23, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Oh that’s nothing, here in Lawrence, KS a couple years ago the University of Kansas made a professor teach a class on creationism. An email was uncovered where the professor said, ‘I’m going to describe it has a mythology course, that will be a big slap in their face.’ And then he was attacked and beaten on his way home after this was found out. Now there are these bumper stickers all over the place here that say, “Kansas – has bigoted as you think”. Sigh. I’m sorry world, not all Kansans are super rednecks, I promise.
May 23, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I had it worse; the bastards didn’t slash my tires, but they did break my mirrors and head- and tail-lights.
May 23, 2008 at 8:08 pm
“People are not educated to be open-minded and to think and to be able to recognize that when something is opposing your beliefs–[that] that’s not necessarily a bad thing.””
You can’t be educated to be openminded.
May 23, 2008 at 8:41 pm
And, beyond all this — people who accept the scientific, religious, political, artistic, etc. “truths” of their own era as the definitive and final interpretation of reality are foolish.
The people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe KNEW that they were right. Someday, it wouldn’t be shocking if it were observed that our current understanding of the universe is completely misguided. So many of the things that govern our existence are — or have been — unobservable. DNA? A new conceit and discovery. Subatomic particles? Further new discoveries. We, collectively, are perpetually questing to learn more and to cultivate an accurate understanding of various phenomena, and for those who claim to have “figured it out”, in the future, your ideas and explanations will be as unrefined and laughable as those of the flat-earthers and the geocentrists. Don’t forget that when you’re self-righteously attacking alternate points of view.
————————-
As for the presumption that it is only Christians who commit acts of vandalism or other interpersonal transgressions, I would suggest that it’s not really a consequence of atheists/agnostics being inherently less violent and Christians being the barbarian counterpart, but rather that, as a consequence of social, numerical dominance, there is an underlying sense of entitlement that can lead a group of people to act out against the minority because, subconsciously, they consider themselves to be justified by majority status. Catholics in the Inquisition. Whites in America. Just a thought.
May 23, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Justin,
You forgot communist leaders and dictators who persecute Christians and others, confiscate their possessions, torture and murder.
Amanda said, “I strongly disagree with Darwinism, but personally attacking those who hold it is inexcusable. Both sides of the issue seriously need to settle down and stop throwing stones at each other.”
While I agree with her argument that Christians are commanded not to repay evil for evil and are commanded to do good to all men (not the words she used, but the intent). However, it is not possible for both sides to “settle down” because this is a war.
Those on the side of Christ, who understand that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given Him, do not enter into the promiscuous violence. Those who profess to be on the side of Christ but feel threatened because they do not understand Christ has already conquered, think they have an obligation to fight God’s war for Him. But they are renegades and they fight without orders.
Those who are not on the side of Christ will fight, in deeds and in words, until their dying breathe because that is the aim of their lives – to defeat the One who has conquered.
May 24, 2008 at 1:21 am
@ cominus: I appreciate your clarification. By saying “settle down” I was not intending to advocate passivity. But since our struggle is not against flesh and blood, I was attempting to concisely state that hateful language and deeds are entirely uncalled for — especially from those who claim to be standing for righteousness.
May 24, 2008 at 2:36 am
Catman, forgive me, but I don’t see anything resembling a coherent thought in your post
DMD: It might have made a little more sense if I had written, “It’s not what I consider to be a “true” anything….
May 24, 2008 at 3:52 am
“For the God folks: Why can’t Evolution be a consequence of Creation, instead of its nemesis?”
mirrors my own thinking on this issue. In any issue where there are two extremes of opinion, often the best and most sensible view is a combination of both.”
NO NO NO NO NO — NOT ALLOWED. Putting Science on an equal footing with Religion is NOT fair. It’s not that science =1 and religion =10 and the sensible thing to be =5. What it is is science =the real world as we know it and religion =a bunch of crap we made up.
Science should not “give” to religion. Ever. Only the other way around.
May 24, 2008 at 8:57 am
Amanda: true. Hateful language and deeds are entirely uncalled for, especially for those who claim to follow Christ. However, it is to be expected from those who reject Him. That is our opportunity to repay evil with good.
Stompsfrog: re evolution be a consequence of creation. Sorry, there is no opportunity for the two sides to meet half way. The Bible gives a clear account of creation and evolution was designed in opposition to that.
The entire debate on evolution centers on faith in God, or mans’ opportunity to be his own god. Which is reflected in your argument that science should not give any ground to religion. Which is humorous, because if it were not for God, we would not have science.
May 24, 2008 at 11:11 am
Cominus,
Just so you know, the word on your website is spelled ‘cacophony’, NOT ‘cacofany’.
If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to be literate.
May 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Thanks, Betty.
Life is too serious to be taken seriously. The quotation is meant to be humorous and indicative of the fact that I don’t take myself too seriously. What I do take seriously are the things that God says and reveals to us in His word and creation.
You may also notice that I have a quote in the masthead from the great Obama Hussein. But if you read my site, you will be quickly aware that our views are violently opposed to each others’. Why do I do that.
Thank you for pointing out my error. Rest assured, I will not be rushing out to correct it.
May 24, 2008 at 5:10 pm
OK, Betty.
You got me!! Not the taking myself seriously part – but you triggered my obsessive compulsive part. Can’t leave my work knowing there is a flaw!
Changed to ‘cacophony’ as per your request!
May 24, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Cominus:
Sorry, I was focusing on the American experience as it related to the commission of crimes against Christians vs. atheists/agnostics.
stompsfrogs:
Firstly, you may not have noticed, but the objection you’re raising neglects the fact that that statement was directed at those who believe in Creation to the exclusion of Evolution, and not the other way around. My appeal is for reason and new, original thought on both sides instead of the same entrenched nonsense that typically gets lobbed back and forth.
Secondly, science is a catalog of observed traits and relationships. It is under constant revision and investigation, and it is but an attempt to explain the world in which we live. There are enormous gaps in scientific knowledge, in addition to the things we don’t even know that we don’t know. The notion that science is infallible is propagated by the fact that it is a self-defined and self-contained linguistic system and analytical model. If something that doesn’t fit the rules is found, the rules are adjusted to accommodate the new information. The biochemists and astrophysicists who are working today are scientists. Alchemists of the Middle Ages were scientists. People don’t live long enough to grasp that our understanding is only temporary. As I stated above, elements of our current scientific “truths” will eventually become the butt of jokes from more “advanced” (I apologize for the quotes, but I don’t know how to make italics) scientific cultures and periods. For goodness’ sake, we can’t even isolate the position of an electron, or observe it, without changing the system. So, while you may wish to consider science as an incontrovertible, all-encompassing explanation of the world, remember that it is but a different — and, perhaps more detailed — means of expressing things.
And to Betty:
It’s always a sign that things have become a bit childish when it turns to issues of spelling, punctuation and grammar. Misspelling a word does not make one illiterate, nor does it make one appear illiterate, unless viewed by someone with nothing else to say. Although it may be more aesthetically pleasing to see all the words spelled correctly, it doesn’t do you any harm to see an errant letter or two, and it doesn’t do the offender any good to have you point it out like someone tattling about an unshared toy.
May 24, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Justin:
I applaud your explanation about the precision of science. However, and this may be getting a bit picky, but I posit that science as a source of explanations is incontrovertible. Its conclusions from time to time may be questionable, but a source for answers, I do not believe it is. Just because it has reached an incorrect answer in hindsight or cannot answer every question is no reason to substite mythology in order to come up with just any old explanation.
Further, it used to be said, erroneously, that Isaac Newton was the last person to know everything about science. I’ll go out on a limb to say that science and man’s knowledge about the universe in general has just about reached the point where mankind now knows so much, it knows what it does not know and we now just need patience, not mythology.
May 24, 2008 at 10:10 pm
StraightRecord –
Sorry if my belief in what you think is a myth is offensive to you. But I think it is foolhardy of man to think he is above God, just because he thinks he has so much learning (And – do you really believe we know the sum of all the things we do not know?). We don’t dominate by our knowledge the One who has dominion over all things.
“Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’?
“Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken.
“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death? Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this.
“What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! [Job 38:8-21 NIV - God has more to say. This is a small excerpt]
May 25, 2008 at 12:55 am
no offense taken. it’s your problem. if you base your knowledge on something that turns out not to exist, what do you have left? if some part of science turns out to be incorrect, we’ve just gained more knowledge in the process and learned even more about what we don’t yet know.
May 25, 2008 at 11:53 am
straightrecord –
Let’s just say you are right and my faith in God is unfounded. Now what? You believe in science. Why? What does that do for you? and how does science offer you any hope?
Especially in light if the fact that science is overrun by the theory of evolution and a major premise of evolution is the survival of the fittest, what will that do for you? You are getter older and less fit – will you then be your own god?
“I am not ashamed [of my faith in Christ Jesus], because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him for that day.” [2 Tim 1:12 NIV]
May 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Science is about what is, not about what we might prefer to be. But in any case, the 19th century doctrine called Social Darwinism was not a logical consequence of Darwinism. It was just the ruling class trying to justify the morality of it oppression.
May 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Uh, its oppression.
May 27, 2008 at 12:44 pm
It’s interesting how we’ve turned this into a battleground for our faith v. atheism debate. Still, there’s not a single piece of evidence to suggest that the perp was a Christian, or professed to be a Christian. I, for one, think the perp was a disgruntled student, who mentioned darwinism only because the Prof clearly held it as a belief (as evidenced by the fish on the car). When people get upset with another, they tend to lash out emotionally at the beliefs or immutable characteristics of others (e.g., race, faith, sexuality, etc).
The idea that some Christian, a complete stranger to the Prof, was walking along and, upon seeing the fish, became enranged and vandalized the car seems far-fetched.
May 30, 2008 at 12:45 pm
[...] the world are lovingly and peacefully fighting back against their oppressors. Whether it’s a slashed tire on the car of an educator who assailed them by gluing a Darwin fish to his bumper or the burning to death of [...]
June 11, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Whenever some idiot does something offensive like this (or worse), there seem to be two common responses:
a) those who oppose the religious or political group the idiot belongs to claim that the idiot is fully representative of this group, and his/her actions naturally follow from its beliefs. It should therefore be abolished, rejected, despised, etc. (in spite of any other members who have led exemplary altruistic lives).
b) members of the idiot’s group claim that his/her actions are not representative of their belief system at all, and the idiot is an isolated case of someone who misinterpreted their beliefs. (You know, those were only a few bad apples in Abu Ghraib.)
Both responses are overly simplistic. I wonder if it’s more helpful to ask something like: what is going on within the group that could have led this person to think that such actions were acceptable, when in fact the group officially believes they are not?
In this case, I’d suggest that the warlike “battle for truth” rhetoric of the creationist and ID movements creates an us-vs.-them mentality in which extreme actions seem justifiable. Also the mean-spirited ridicule directed towards evolutionary biologists contributes to thinking of them as unworthy of tolerance and compassion. Things like the “Expelled” website, which features a JibJab clip of four scientists dancing the can-can. I can imagine how someone could get the idea that if it’s ok to publicly humiliate someone by pasting their face into a video clip, it’s not too big of a stretch to rip things off their car bumper.
This is something everyone should think about, whatever your beliefs are. Because it’s totally naiive to think that hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and extremism are unique to only one ideology. Seriously, if the followers of the guy who said this sort of thing…
“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you… Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:27, 31)
…can end up committing hate crimes (not to mention crusades, massacres, etc.) and still think they are his loyal followers, it can happen to anyone. So I’m not going to discard religion because of the Darwin fish vandal, and I don’t reject the biological theory of evolution because of the eugenics movement. Anything can be twisted by someone’s sick personality, political ends, or whatever.
June 17, 2008 at 7:37 pm
oops, sorry about the excess italics at the end there. Perhaps I am HTML-illiterate (and Betty will therefore not take me seriously).