Pharyngula (blog)

In particular Myers frequently offers specific criticisms of creationism, including intelligent design as well as the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and other groups that promote pseudoscientific ideas. For example, in February and March 2007, he focused many of his posts on creationist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, who had recently joined the Discovery Institute. In addition to Myers's criticisms of Egnor's arguments on evolution and Intelligent Design, Myers criticized the Discovery Institute's reliance on someone whose expertise wasn't relevant to evolution.[17]

In early April 2007, Myers participated in an April Fool's Day joke arranged by The Panda's Thumb which manufactured a website spoofing the Discovery Institute's page on which "Egnor" admitted that his association with the Discovery Institute was itself an April Fool's joke. This elaborate prank succeeded in fooling many of his readers, while others succeeded in spotting jokes in the design of the false Discovery Institute page and concluded that this admission was itself the prank.[18] He made a point the following day that he perceived it as getting exceedingly difficult to believe some creationists were for real (cf. Poe's Law) and highlighted a quote by Stephen Meyer.[19][20]

In June 2005, Myers criticized a cartoon by biblical literalist Jim Pinkoski which claimed that the biblical line, "There were giants in the earth in those days," (Genesis 6:4) was literally intended to convey that early humans were much taller than their modern counterparts. Pinkoski placed Adam at 15 feet (4.6 m) tall and Noah at 12 feet (3.7 m) tall. What Myers found most interesting about this cartoon, however, was the note on it which read, literally, "NOTE: If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS ??".

Myers argued that the existence of pygmies and dwarfs now is a non sequitur when it comes to whether humans were 15 feet (4.6 m) tall 6,000 years ago. If Pinkoski's claims were valid, humans would perhaps continue to decrease in height and approach that small size at some time in the future, but this does not mean those small humans would exist now (barring the use of time travel, a claim Pinkoski never makes). Myers went on to mock the irrelevance of this argument with parodies such as:

• Ever wonder how the hell a moron like George W. Bush got elected? "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??".
• How can people be so gullible to believe the nonsense peddled by the Discovery Institute? "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??".

The phrase has since been picked up by various bloggers to ridicule creationist arguments, and is also popular with commenters at The Panda's Thumb. The phrase is generally capitalized and bolded to match how it originally appeared in Pinkoski's cartoon.[21]

Myers has voiced the position that many of the responses to Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion are what he calls "Courtier's Replies". Replying to critics who felt that Dawkins ignored sophisticated versions of modern theology, Myers compared them to courtiers fawning on the legendary emperor who had no clothes:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. (...) Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.[22]

In other words, critics complain about Dawkins not studying aspects of theology that are irrelevant to whether or not God exists in the same way as scholarly writings about imperial fashion are irrelevant when the emperor is naked. Dawkins himself quoted the Courtier's Reply in a debate with Alister McGrath.[23] He also referenced the Courtier's Reply in the preface to The God Delusion's 2007 paperback edition.[24]

Another recurring trope has been Myers's reaction to the label "fundamentalist atheist", bestowed by some upon him, Dawkins and others who espouse similar views.[24][25][26] Myers writes,

The "new atheism" (I don't like that phrase, either) is about taking a core set of principles that have proven themselves powerful and useful in the scientific world — you've probably noticed that many of these uppity atheists are coming out of a scientific background — and insisting that they also apply to everything else people do. These principles are a reliance on natural causes and demanding explanations in terms of the real world, with a documentary chain of evidence, that anyone can examine. The virtues are critical thinking, flexibility, openness, verification, and evidence. The sins are dogma, faith, tradition, revelation, superstition, and the supernatural. There is no holy writ, and a central idea is that everything must be open to rational, evidence-based criticism — it's the opposite of fundamentalism.[27]

Eventually, Myers summarized his stance by invoking "Blake's Law", named for Pharyngula commentator Blake Stacey.[28] As formulated by Stacey in 2007, based in concept on Godwin's Law: "In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one."[29]

Myers has made frequent use of the phrase "deep rifts" to satirize perceptions that atheism could experience a religious schism over disagreements on marketing atheism or the role of science and religion. Myers does not deny there are some differences of opinion between prominent atheists, but contends this is a good thing and is attributed to the freethinking nature of atheism.[30]