Evolution Opponent Running Unopposed For National School Board Association
Evolution Opponent Running Unopposed For National School Board Association
In 2005, the Kansas Board of Education received national ridicule when it rewrote public school standards to cast doubt on the mainstream evolution theories of Charles Darwin.
One of the board members who voted to teach intelligent design was Kenneth Willard, a conservative who is now the only member running as president-elect for the National Association of State Boards of Education. NASBE is a nonprofit organization of state school boards that “works to strengthen state leadership in educational policymaking.”
Willard was one of the Kansas board’s most vocal proponents of intelligent design:
“Any introduction of any criticism of evolution or the consideration of it is a challenge to the blind faith in evolution that some people want to hold.” [PBS, 11/11/05]
“I’m very pleased to be maybe on the front edge of trying to bring some intellectual honesty and integrity to the science classroom rather than asking students to check their questions at the door because it is a challenge to the sanctity of evolution.” [New York Times, 11/9/05]
“What we’re dealing with here…is a high degree of fear of change.” [Washington Post, 11/9/05]
But Willard’s positions remove intellectual honesty from the classroom. As the New York Times notes, there is “no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Courts have repeatedly ruled that creationism and intelligent design are religious doctrines, not scientific theories.” Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that teaching science without evolution was akin to teaching “American history without Lincoln.”
A new Board of Education in Kansas recently approved new evolution-friendly policies, but now scientists fear that if Willard is elected to NASBE, “challenges to the teaching of evolution would move to the national board.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Repeat after me, “Creationism and intelligent design are religious doctrines, not scientific theories.” Science should be taught in school, not religious doctrine.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:42 amShouldn’t take long for the NSBA to become a laughingstock with this cow’s twat at the helm.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:57 amConservatives have made America’s schools the worst in the world.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:02 amWhat I find even more disquieting is that this is an individual who is either
1) sufficiently arrogant as to advocate teaching his personal religious beliefs in public schools,
2) sufficiently blinded by his religious faith as to not see the obvious disconnect of his position from constitutional law (and reasoned discourse),
3) sufficiently disingenuous as a loyal member of the Republican Party as to advocte extremist idealogies from a position of leadership or
4) another of the treasonous group who have taken control of our government for the purpose of eviscerating our Constitution and our form of government in order to impose their narrow and extremist idealogies upon the rest of the nation.
Regardless of the underlying cause, his advocation of extremist idealogies should instantly disqualify him from any public leadership position. The fact that he is unopposed is even worse. It tells us that current NASBE Board Members are either,
1) complicit with the worst behaviors of the Bush administration,
2) incredibly naive and gullible or,
3) just don’t care.
Bottom line: the entire NASBE is unqualified.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:04 amSharia Law will be next for us dumb Americans.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:16 amRunning unopposed?
I hereby nominate…um… You!
Yes, You! Stand up. You’ll be the greatest office-holding advocate for the education of our children in 6 years. C’mon, what are you waiting for?
May 19th, 2007 at 9:25 amIf Sharia Law prevails in America, LandSurveyor, you can thank Bush and his neocon “advisors” who have long since bailed on this disaster of their making. Now insead of “advising” the Bush White House, they are doing things like destroying the World Bank.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:26 amONE word dispells ALL this stupidity. “Fossil”…
next…
May 19th, 2007 at 9:26 amAboveTheClouds
I think that was what LandSurveyor meant.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:38 amThis man is the type that undresses in the closet ,and then piddles with himself as his 7 year-old daughter/son undress,not knowing Daddy’s in the closet! !
May 19th, 2007 at 9:38 amRB-Chicago
I have another one. Virus.
Virus’ evolve at a stunning rate, thus sharply limiting what we can do about them. Its why AIDS and the common cold haven’t been cured yet.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:40 amRB,
May 19th, 2007 at 9:41 amYou have obviously never tangled with a CRETINIST, er I mean Creationist. They will give you your “fossil” and will raise you “We want you to produce the fossil of the ape turning into man fossil.” They have no ability to connect the dots. The picture that WE draw has to ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY perfect, while they paint their own Jebsus pictures in their own heads, each one’s different from the other.
I have slayed one of these Cretinists by taking the Sperm and Eggs are NOT alive as per the definition of life. (Must be able to reproduce) and since sperm and egg DO NOT reproduce themselves (they are 23 chromosomesd cells that CANNOT reproduce, they are created from 46 chromosed sperm and egg creating cells) they are therefore NON-living. cells. Ergo, Life comes from NON-Life. SIMPLE It is REALLY fun to watch their head spin.
They are one persistent lot.
This is how the neo-con, ultra-conservative, fundamentalist religious, nut jobs get into power. They just keep coming at us with their loud-mouthed, long-winded, bullying agenda, waiting for us to give in and give up.
That’s how they always win. Decent people get tired of their indecency. Who wants to be around it?
But giving in and allowing them into power has led us to where we are now. At the brink of losing our democracy.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:43 amKenneth Willard, a conservative who is now the only member running as president-elect for the National Association of State Boards of Education.
Good. I hope the Bush Administration and the Republican Party are TIED to this Anti-Science Platform with as much publicity as possible.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:43 amNews Flash….you’re not in Kansas anymore. The state’s been hijacked to another state: Denial, USA. Kansans should get up off their couches and resent being a national laughing stock. We can hope.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:06 amMr Willard:
1) Do antibiotic resistance strains of bacteria exist?
2) Are any of these strains of the same species which formerly were destroyed by these same antibiotics?
3) What changed? Why and how?
Sorry no phoning a friend. Your on your own here. Falwell’s tied up in Hell blaming the ACLU, liberals, homosexuals, etc.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:07 amKansas? I guess Dorothy wasn’t the only turnip the tornados whisked off to the Land of Oz.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:18 amAll right, what can we do about it? Are there any steps to be taken so that this be derailed?
May 19th, 2007 at 10:27 amONE word dispells ALL this stupidity. “Fossilâ€â€¦
next…
Comment by RB-Chicago
I have another one. Virus.
Virus’ evolve at a stunning rate, thus sharply limiting what we can do about them. Its why AIDS and the common cold haven’t been cured yet.
Comment by Bruce Gorton
No offense, guys, but you’ve obviously never debated the issue with a dyed-in-the-wool evolution denier. The ID forces have provided simple refutations to both of these and more.
Fossils are the easiest, because of The Flood. The Flood destroyed everything not on the Ark, which is why we no longer have dinosaurs. Noah, apparently, didn’t care for them. The sedimentation in fossil areas? the fact that there are places on Earth where you can easily see that the simple stuff is on the bottom and that each layer above it becomes progressively more complex? The Flood. Asked and answered, moving on now.
Viruses? IDoids will concede something they call “micro-evolution”. Little changes within species occur, but not changes that eventually result in an entirely new species.
If you think “debating” Iraq with a troll is a pointless exercise, you should try this one.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:33 amI’ve been reading articles by essayists in the mid to late 1800’s when religion was on the decline in the US and England, while freethought, skepticism, science and unbelief were on the rise. This is 2007. How did we regress into another Dark Ages where reason and thought are dismissed for such unsound principals?
The “ID” movement can be discredited in a single example of non-intelligent design in our world – and yet there are hundreds of such examples from the potentially fatal appendix and wisdom teeth to male breasts to the backward human eye to pseudogenes to unnecessary suffering and so on.
ID is not science. It’s pseudo-science.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:33 amCreationism? Great, I vote for teaching the Zoroastrian revealed truth of creation, the great six divine sparks. Since Zoroastrianism is the earliest religion based on revealed scripture, it obviously should get the most attention in the science curriculum. However, I could also make a case for Mormonism, since it’s the only religion that was revealed here in the U.S. This is fun.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:35 amThanks for the input guys.. especially gunmitch (no offense Bruce)…
Maybe George Carlin had it right at the start when he proposed a 100ft. wall around say a couple of states where the population is small – put all the lunatics (as in the original article) and their blind followers inside – put a 18 inch gap in the wall every 50 miles or so and open it up every 6 months…
Then you just sit back and let the lunatics fight over getting out! HA! Of course you post armed guards OUTSIDE the wall to make sure no one that gets out is allowed to go more than 10 feet from the wall…..
I propose that ONE of the states be …..you pick.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am“Conservatives have made America’s schools the worst in the world.
Comment by Perry Logan — May 19, 2007 @ 9:02 am”
I work at a public Career Academy teaching 11th and 12th grade students Architecture. We’re at the end of our school year and enrollment for next year is down school wide (students choose to come from their core high schools). So I asked the students why.
In a nation that has been goverened by the Moral Majority, their answers all reflect that conservative Christian belief that children should be seen and not heard.
One act would change the entire system. That word act is RESPECT. Every criticism my students gave for the school came from the lack of respect they were given by school policies and a couple of teachers. From hypocrisy to abuses of power to condescention, the reason so many students hate high school and do the bare minimum to get by is that they are given a heavy dose of Christian “parenting”.
I am meeting with my Administrators to pass along these insights. My right-wing Christian Administrators who are a major part of the problem as they are the ones who believe in degrading children… They are only interested because their rear-ends are on the line if the school cannot maintain numbers (never mind that those who came this year might have actually learned something useful)… Should be interesting.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:45 am“C’mon, what are you waiting for?
Comment by blackie — May 19, 2007 @ 9:25 am”
A move to Kansas… I don’t live there. Nor would I. Georgia is bad enough.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am“The Flood. Asked and answered, moving on now.”
Except that a flood wouldn’t have sorted out all those creatures into neat strata. They can try it themselves the next time a tornado blows through Kansas and rips up a bunch of houses, trees, churches and cows. The result won’t be neat little piles of crucifixes on the right, cow entrails on the left and orderly rows of lumber ready for the rebuild…
“If you think “debating†Iraq with a troll is a pointless exercise, you should try this one.
Comment by gummitch — May 19, 2007 @ 10:33 am”
I agree that we can’t change the minds of the extremists – but we can influence those in the rest of the population by pointing out the holes in the extremist’s argument. Our silence is death to our progress. It’s the only reason why I “debate” these “people” :D.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am“I propose that ONE of the states be …..you pick.
Comment by RB-Chicago — May 19, 2007 @ 10:42 am”
Texas. It’s already like that without the fence :)
May 19th, 2007 at 10:59 amFor the record, NASBE is the right-wing shadow organization similar to so many other right-wing shadow organization that have cropped up in recent years. The goal of these shadow organizations is to muddy the waters between legitimate professional associations and foundations and similarly sounding organizations created merely to trumpet right-wing idealogy. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) is the legitimate voice of school boards and not to be confused with NASBE. Willard’s ascension to head NASBE can be filed under the heading of birds of a feather.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:59 amIt’s only a matter of time before the satirical headline in The Onion, “Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory”
May 19th, 2007 at 11:13 ambecomes a reality (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512).
Well, gummitch is right. The ID advocates aren’t nearly as unsophisticated as the Creationists. Indeed, the IDers rarely mention God or the Bible. However, the Dover PA case clearly indentified ID as religious in nature. The trick then is to disentangle the two and insist that, if ID exists, it’s effect is similar to the Ether that Einstein worked with when writing about relativity.
Part of the problem is the arrogance with which scientists write. And unbelievable’s list of “unintelligent” design examples really doesn’t prove anything other than our own ignorance. Absence of explanation is not proof that there is no explanation.
The over-arching theory of evolution is a certainty. The exact mechanics of evolution and the various factors at work is a topic of greater debate. That the Creationists want a world created ex nihilo does not help their case unless they are willing to place this point of nothingness at the beginning of the Big Bang.
Of course, it’s the Biblical literalist’s desperate need for proof that drives this. And this is the principle heresy at work here. These Fundamentalists have no faith and so keep looking for hard evidence for something that has never involved hard evidence. These are people with a decidely dim view of human nature who suspect all manner of depravity will happen should God be removed from the equation.
However, I don’t see Science as being much better. The brutality of eugenics, the carelessness over radiation and chemicals, the certainy with which the scientific establishment cling to an orthodoxy until the violent paradigm shift occurs, has more than a passing resemblence to the follies of the Church. The Yale experiments of Prof Milgram revealed that Science has become a new religion and the people in white lab coats the new priests. And the same old crimes are committed in the name of Truth and Salvation.
BTW, the NSBA doesn’t sound like a very powerful organization. Indeed, it sounds like it ought to be replaced by something more useful anyway. It’s an NGO. And is one of those things often targeted by the Far Right and the Far Left to legitimize their agendas. I think government needs to do a better job of involving citizens than leaving it up to these advocacy groups which may or may not serve the public interest.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am“We’re not in Kansas any more Toto”. But what is scary is that if the Bush administration has its way, the whole country will be like Kansas.
I really wish we had some kind of representative voting in our country. There is no reason why Kansas should have two Senators and California have two Senators. The Western and Eastern States pretty much support this country, but they do not have representation reflecting that fact.
Actually, I would like to see us have a government more like England. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to call a “no confidence” vote on our President and Vice President. That would put the power back into the hands of “we the people” where the founding fathers intended it to be.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:17 amThanks for pointing that out, MusicMan. That is, the difference between NABE and NASBE. Can we assume that the insertion of “State” is akin to all State’s Rights movements, which have almost always a bigoted aspect going back to the fights over slavery?
May 19th, 2007 at 11:20 amTexas. It’s already like that without the fence :)
Comment by unbelievable
Hey! Austin is not bad. Travis county went 70% kerry in 2004.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:23 amIts the rest of the State thats showing the results of inbreeding.=D
So the NASBE is something like the
May 19th, 2007 at 11:36 amKristian Kandlemakers Koalition, which as everyone knows, represents the god fearing waxworkers of Kansas.
“Part of the problem is the arrogance with which scientists write. And unbelievable’s list of “unintelligent†design examples really doesn’t prove anything other than our own ignorance. Absence of explanation is not proof that there is no explanation.”
You label things as arrogant because you aren’t bright enough to understand them. They aren’t arrogant. They are just factual.
My examples are irrefutable. We have a non-functioning organ (appendix) that could for unknown reasons freak out and make people gravely ill. There’s ZERO intelligence in such an organ, and therefore debunks ID itself.
It’s basic common sense. If you call that arrogance, you need to invest in a dictionary.
For being a “patheist” you’re way too quick to defend religion.
Lies have been written about Einstein’s beliefs. He did not believe in your god (you iknow, denying god is another big religious no no).
“The over-arching theory of evolution is a certainty. The exact mechanics of evolution and the various factors at work is a topic of greater debate.”
Not really.
“That the Creationists want a world created ex nihilo does not help their case unless they are willing to place this point of nothingness at the beginning of the Big Bang.”
The Big Bang isn’t ex nihilo either. We know that ex nihilo (out of nothing) would violate the laws of physics and is therefore unrealistic, if not impossible.
“These Fundamentalists have no faith and so keep looking for hard evidence for something that has never involved hard evidence. These are people with a decidely dim view of human nature who suspect all manner of depravity will happen should God be removed from the equation.”
That’s not true either. Not ALL depravity will be removed. I told you – that 0.2% of people in prison are atheists. But, it will be reduced. Monotheism is responsible for so much violence and visciousness in this world that it’s mere logic to acknowledge that it’s disappearance will be an improvement.
“However, I don’t see Science as being much better. The brutality of eugenics, the carelessness over radiation and chemicals, the certainy with which the scientific establishment cling to an orthodoxy until the violent paradigm shift occurs, has more than a passing resemblence to the follies of the Church. etc.”
Science is indifferent. To suggest that Science is responsible for Eugenics is absurd. It is those with an immoral agenda that manipulate science to their ends. You’re blaming the wrong part.
“I think government needs to do a better job of involving citizens than leaving it up to these advocacy groups which may or may not serve the public interest.
Comment by david — May 19, 2007 @ 11:16 am”
Again, david, so quick to blame others instead of taking accountability.
How about YOU do a better job of involving yourself in the government rather than leaving it up to politicians? Hmmm?
May 19th, 2007 at 11:41 am“Hey! Austin is not bad. Travis county went 70% kerry in 2004.
Its the rest of the State thats showing the results of inbreeding.=D
Comment by Wayne — May 19, 2007 @ 11:23 am”
Few things ever are all bad. Even Tex-ass has its exception :)
I really don’t advocate a wall. I’d prefer to find a compromise – but it seems to be impossible when the far-right wants every issue to be all or nothing in their favor…
May 19th, 2007 at 12:01 pmIf you think “debating†Iraq with a troll is a pointless exercise, you should try this one.
Comment by gummitch
You are not kidding, my friend. Ugh…
May 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmIf the people in the NSBA know what this Willard guy is all about, why isn’t someone running against him? That’s just plain stupid.
May 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pmAgain, unbelievable, you seem to be the one engaging in absolute certainties rather than dispassionate inquiry.
The vermiform appendix may or may not have a use in our present state. It seems to be of great use in the immune system. If it’s a vestigial organ, that merely implies it had greater use at an earlier time. This is not irrefutable evidence of anything.
And, as to the Big Bang, ask a physical cosmologist to explain what happened before the Big Bang or what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang. There’s usually no answer to the former and, as to the latter, it’s mostly educated guesswork.
And that’s what I mean when I call mainstream science arrogant. Science does have its priesthood and its orthodoxies and its blind spots. Science is not indifferent. It is not something that stands outside of us. Science only exists through our observations and interpretations. Alas, various professors cling to their outmoded theories and hypotheses the same way that Biblical literalists cling to their Garden of Eden.
Did you understand my reference to Ether and Einstein? Or do you just feign learning? Einstein said he believed in the same God as Spinoza. So do I. Spinoza’s God has long been discarded by Jewish & Christian theologians as either a form of Pantheism or Atheism. But I think that opinion is mere sour grapes.
Even science requires a certain amount of faith. And sometimes that faith becomes fanatical. You know, unbelievable, the Willards of this world would be much easier to marginalize if people like you weren’t trying to foist your ideology onto everyone else. Declaring that you deal only in “facts” and that you are the Messenger of the Goddess Science is just nonsense. The story of Faust perfectly captures the ambiguity of knowledge without faith, of indifferent science without humanity.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThe Bible does not attempt to teach Science. There are truths taught, but scientific explanations are not its purpose. Imagine trying to teach general relativity to a caveman. There would be some form of communication and painted drawings would be left on cave walls illustrating the process.
Then fast-forward eons into the future, and imagine that there were people who believed that the cave paintings were the *exact* scientific explanation for general relativity, and it was a matter of faith that one believed it.
In order to have a faith in God, one had to throw away what present-day science said, in favor of the cave-paintings. That’s what would demonstrate to others that you were a true believer.
You would think men would have evolved past this type of foolishness.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pmunbelievable said:
“My examples are irrefutable. We have a non-functioning organ (appendix) that could for unknown reasons freak out and make people gravely ill. There’s ZERO intelligence in such an organ, and therefore debunks ID itself.”
We actually do understand what happens to cause appendicitis. That is not a mystery. Yes, we have a non-functioning organ (brain) that could for unknown reasons freak out and make people gravely ill, but it doesn’t confirm or debunk anything.
I would suggest that that word “irrefutable” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pmWell, all that stuff is too deep for me. All I know is that I pray to Anu, Enki and Enlil less they come back and force me to work the Gold mines again. We know that Lord Enki made man through a genetic mixture of Anunnaki and Homo Erectus. These facts are “irrefutable”. All of these facts can be found in your Sumerian History books.
May 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pmIf you believe in the FALSE premise that things in nature are too complex to evolve and need an “intelligent designer”, then you are IMPLYING that there are an infinite number of “intelligent designers”.
If we are so complex that we must have an “intelligent designer”, then our “intelligent designer” has to be even more complex than us by definition, therefore that “intelligent designer” is too complex to evolve also, so our “intelligent designer” also requires an “intelligent designer”, and that “intelligent designer” also requires an “intelligent designer”, and that “intelligent designer” also requires an “intelligent designer”, and so on.
Therefore if you are believe in “only one god”, then you SHOULD NOT believe in “intelligent design”, because they are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!
May 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm#40, right there!
May 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pmI worship Crom, gloomy god of the Cimmerians, who breathes into each person the strength to slay their enemies and the courage to die in battle with ones boots on.
He disdains calling on him in time of crisis as a sign of weakness, to be scorned.
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve!
My goal is to find a cure for irony and make a fool outta god
May 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pmDavid,
There are several misconceptions in your post.
First, you claimed, “mainstream science [is] arrogant. Science does have its priesthood and its orthodoxies and its blind spots. Science is not indifferent. It is not something that stands outside of us. Science only exists through our observations and interpretations. Alas, various professors cling to their outmoded theories and hypotheses the same way that Biblical literalists cling to their Garden of Eden.”
You fail to distinguish between the institution of science and the particular conduct of scientists. (This is a common error.) Yes, some scientists are arrogant, have their orthodoxies, and their blind spots. These are, of course, human defects. But the institution of science logically cannot be reduced to the defects of individuals. Yes, science exists only through observations and interpretations, but the key point is that science is self-correcting because it is an institution, more than simply the sum of the natures and activities of the individuals who comprise it. The weaknesses of individuals are excluded by this self-correcting process involving theories, experiments, evaluations of experiments, and revisions of theories in their light. Ultimately the theories stand or fall, and the individuals are irrelevant.
Second, you contend that “even science requires a certain amount of faith. And sometimes that faith becomes fanatical….”
The main error here is that the “faith” that science requires is logically quite different from the faith that religions require. Scientific faith, so to speak, is the commitment to the foundational belief that the universe is orderly and capable of being understood by human reason. Certainly the institution of science cannot function without this commitment. Religious faith involves an immensely large number of further commitments (too may to discuss in a brief post). If we compare scientific and religious faith, we find less faith–i.e., fewer commitments–in the former than in the latter. Akin to Occam’s Razor, one can postulate a “principle of minimal faith,” i.e., since some commitments are unavoidable (there cannot be zero commitments whether in science, religion, math, law, medicine, etc.), we are entitled to make them and cannot proceed without them, but it is always wrong to make a larger number of them than is necessary. This means that religionists score no points against science when they claim that science requires faith too.
Finally, you claimed, “The story of Faust perfectly captures the ambiguity of knowledge without faith, of indifferent science without humanity.” This is mistaken. Scientific knowledge is not “ambiguous without faith.” It exists and has its objective content, whatever it might be, about the universe; this content is entirely unambiguous (assuming you mean what “ambiguous” standardly means). It is, of course, imperfect, but that is a different matter. As for “humanity,” assuming you mean some concern for human values or concerns, as I said above, science must be understood in institutional terms. The institution of science is non-human in that its methodology excludes all human values, preferences, needs, desires, fears, and the like and formulate only explanatory principles which are true. Science has been so successful precisely because of this capacity to exclude distorting human motives. Choose any scientific theory you wish; it is accepted by scientists because it passes the tests of scientific adequacy, not because of any human considerations.
There are many introductory texts in the philosophy of science which explain these points further if you wish to pursue the matter.
May 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pmJust because the theocons haven’t had any new ideas for several millennia doesn’t mean that evolution isn’t occurring.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:04 pmI wonder how Mr. Willard would feel if he attended an astronomy class in which equal time was given to the idea that the sun travels around the earth. This notion, of course, was proposed by literal interpreters of the Bible, during Galileo’s time.
david
Your argument’s weakest point is that just because we don’t know everything we must dismiss what small knowledge we have gained as worthless, and instead wholeheartedly accept a theory which seemingly ties up all loose ends.
Scientific knowledge itself is under constant revision as people learn more and discover more. Reason is a state of constant revision, as it requires humans to confront issues upon which they are certain, only to sometimes come out with a differing point of view.
I am sure you are going to try and claim the 20th century was a bad one for human behavior, in complete oposition to a pre-1900 history full of genocide, torture, book burnings, slavery, child abuse, rape, incest, drugs and tyranny. While you might strive to look back at a golden age which never existed, the rest of us will strive to move forward using methods and ideas which have actually improved things.
A friend of mine once tried to tell me that 40 years ago, things were better. I then pointed out that 40 years ago, was Apartheid.
And before Apartheid you had the colonial Brits. Before them, you had witch burnings. You go back in time, remove your rose tinted glasses, and read what life was like, we are better off for religion, and the impulses it encourages, being weakened.
It was the rise of the age of reason, the fall of the Church’s domination of all thought, that brought us to where we are today. Yes, we have produced deadlier weapons, we have also produced cures, farming techniques and better means of communication. The age which saw Hiroshima saw penicillin.
Yes, there were terrible things done with science to justify them. Good things have been done too, people have been healed, people have been fed, and infant mortality has dropped. We talk about high crime rates, crimes are being reported. We forget how recent in human history actually recording crime rates really is, and how much easier it is now, then any time before to figure out just what the crime rate is.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:30 pmThanks for your post Prof. Colby.
I would, however, question whether there is such a thing as a formal institution of science. There is not. There are scientists working as individuals for academic, business, and military enterprises. But these individuals do not work for any one “institution”. I do know “marriage is an institution”, and I’d say that science bears a striking resemblance to that bizarre pairing business.
I often hear this “self-correcting” business. Unfortunately, it often means that hundreds or thousands have died while this “correcting” business is going on. And one sees contrasting opinions as, say, that of Oppenheimer vs. Teller that would seem irreconcilable. The liberal vs. the conservative. And then there’s that element of resistance to “correcting” where science goes all out to prevent any change to the status quo. Sometimes this involves individual vanity, but often it involves the commercial interests of some group, such as tobacco, oil, the military, or big pharma. It’s amazing how many scientists will happily fudge facts & figures to show a positive rather than a negative to their higher ups. And as there if often no money spent on disproving the results, there is no “correcting”, whether by self or other.
I was very happy to see that you understood what I meant by science requiring Faith. I find some do not. However, I would disagree with you about religion. Your use of the word Faith here is naive. Individual points of a Credo are not necessary if one has Faith. And here, as with science, it has to do with having an overarching belief that Life has Meaning. That Life can be understood transcendentally. And, in fact, scientists need this same Faith as their hypotheses are often riddled with error. We respect Galileo, but his theory of the solar system did not predict the position of the planets any better than what proceeded it. The sun is not at the centre of a circle but at one foci of an ellipse.
Finally, you said
This is really a most disturbing post. I would contend that all science is meaningless without humanity. Afterall, it exists and will exist whether we are here to see it or not. But some economist, the dismal science, that draws a curve stating that exterminating a few million humans would improve the welfare of the rest cannot be allowed to carry out this program. Indeed, there are qualitative and emotional aspects to all science. It is not non-human. And many a scientific “fact” has been embraced by the scientific community for base human reasons of fear, pride, greed, and hate. This has become even worse in the past 25 years as the US Patent Office has turned into a rubber-stamping office. Science has become very proprietary and secretive, which makes this “institution” seem more and more like the Vatican of Torquemada than the home of freethinking imagined by Aristotle, Bacon, or Newton.
Of course, my principle objection in this thread was to the prejudice that Science was Good and Religion was Bad. This is not true. Science can be just as willful and blind as Religion, and Religion can be just as informative and beneficial as Science. The problem comes with trying to judge the one by the other’s criteria. And the hubris of both is in thinking that either is non-human. That’s simply idolotry. Both are human constructs. And whatever a religion might say about God, God remains a mystery. See Job 38. And science that affects humanity is political and not indifferent or non-human. One might wish to think the authors of The Bell Curve were merely bad scientists, but they behaved as scientists and they had their supporters. And it’s not so obvious what is bad science without having faith in what humanity is all about.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:35 pmBruce Gorton, where did I say there was a Golden Age? Indeed, I see you as idolizing Progress, as if there were such a thing. This is not so. It’s this kind of wooly-headed thinking that reasons that Iraq is better off under US occupation than under Saddam when any review of the stats would prove otherwise. You’re in love with abstraction: Progress, Science, Freedom, and Democracy. These have no meaning without concrete examples. They are just as much religion as worshipping Jehovah. And I spit on this “It’s not perfect but with a few adjustments it’ll be” attitude. It’s a fantasy. It’s no different than promising Heaven in the Sky. There will be no Paradise in Heaven and no Earthly Paradise either.
My objection is not about dismissing what little knowledge we’ve gained. It’s with the smugness with which it is presented as Truth and taken up by those who see tactical advantage to disenfranchise others by it. Imperialism is basically scientific. Rome was the creation of Engineers. As was the British and American Empires. It is the barbarism of Science that you try to gloss over with the follies of Religion. But you can’t bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age without first asking who is the civilized person here: the Iraqi or the American.
I have nothing but contempt for these arrogant Americans and their White Man’s Burden.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:51 pm“Again, unbelievable, you seem to be the one engaging in absolute certainties rather than dispassionate inquiry.”
Not at all david. If the sky is routinely blue, then saying that its blueness is a fact doesn’t make one close-minded. Some things are known and do not need their veracity debated further. Evolution is another one of those facts. Just because you cannot accept it, doesn’t mean it’s still open for discussion because it’s not been verified.
“The vermiform appendix may or may not have a use in our present state. It seems to be of great use in the immune system. If it’s a vestigial organ, that merely implies it had greater use at an earlier time. This is not irrefutable evidence of anything.”
In other words, it has no intelligence. Just as your coccyx, backward eye, pseudogenes and male breasts have no intelligence. Your non-functional breasts are vestigal from that fact that all human life starts out female (your mother’s egg always contains the X chromosome). ZERO proof of design by anything other than natural selection.
The evidence against Intelligent Design proves it does not exist.
“And, as to the Big Bang, ask a physical cosmologist to explain what happened before the Big Bang or what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang. There’s usually no answer to the former and, as to the latter, it’s mostly educated guesswork.”
That’s utter crap. Read anything by Physicist Victor Stenger. Also, “Atheist Universe” by David Mills does an excellent job of addressing this very question.
It’s the law of mass-energy conservation. Mass and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I repeat – cannot be CREATED nor destroyed. Mass-energy has always existed and will always exist. It is infinite – and it is the foundation for our universe. No, we don’t, nor may we ever know what it was before the moment of singualrity that occured at the time of the Big Bang, but we do know – unequivically that it WAS mass-energy, and not a Creator, because the first follows the laws of physics and they second does not. It’s not arrogance as you maintain, but logical knowledge. People know these things because they’ve been studied and because they follow logical paths that are the few absolutes in our universe.
“And that’s what I mean when I call mainstream science arrogant. Science does have its priesthood and its orthodoxies and its blind spots.”
You can’t debate the issues so you constantly resort to ad hominems. And you like to project the problems with your religion on to others without merit.
You NEVER give examples of your opinions. You just state your opinions as if they are facts. They aren’t even based in knowledge. You just have some passing awareness of thse things and try to pass it off as an understanding of all Sciences. But to those of us who actually know anything because we have studied it in detail, you call us arrogant. Boy if that isn’t arrogant itself, then my dictionary is wrong… LOL
“Science is not indifferent.”
Yes, it is indifferent. It is indifferent because it is a method and not a philosophy. It is indifferent because it is simply a means to knowledge rather than an opinion about knowledge. Science MUST be indifferent, because the thing in which it measures (the universe) is indifferent.
“It is not something that stands outside of us. Science only exists through our observations and interpretations.”
You have that backwards, our observations and interpretations exist thorugh Science – making it a vehicle and not an ideology as you are trying desprately to espouse.
“Alas, various professors cling to their outmoded theories and hypotheses the same way that Biblical literalists cling to their Garden of Eden.”
That’s not true. There are some who become attached to their work and have a hard time accepting its failure or replacement, but those are the minority, not the rule as exists in your very close-minded religion. No where in the bible does intelligence and thought ever get praised. In Science, intelligent and thought are the means.
“Did you understand my reference to Ether and Einstein? Or do you just feign learning?”
Yes. And I disagree with it because Einstein said the following:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.†~ Albert Einstein
“Einstein said he believed in the same God as Spinoza. So do I.”
Spinoza? Talk about being attached to obsolete philosophy and not being able to progress. Spinoza lived in the 1600’s. This is 2007. LOL.
Cognita tute david.
“Spinoza’s God has long been discarded by Jewish & Christian theologians as either a form of Pantheism or Atheism. But I think that opinion is mere sour grapes.”
Every religion dismisses every believer of some other god as an atheist. Don’t take it personally.
“Even science requires a certain amount of faith.”
Nope. That’s the beauty of Science. Faith not included or required.
“And sometimes that faith becomes fanatical.”
Very rarely. Because if it did you would be giving me proof.
“You know, unbelievable, the Willards of this world would be much easier to marginalize if people like you weren’t trying to foist your ideology onto everyone else.”
I’m not. I’m debunking his ideology. The fact that you cannot differentiate shows that it is you david who is fanatical and unable to accept criticism of your faith.
“Declaring that you are the Messenger of the Goddess Science is just nonsense.”
That’s a blantant lie. Prove I ever said such an absurd thing (hint: I wouldn’t).
“The story of Faust perfectly captures the ambiguity of knowledge without faith, of indifferent science without humanity.
Comment by david — May 19, 2007 @ 2:16 pm”
You rely on a fictional play for evidence? Jesus Christ david, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Until you’ve been on my side of the fence, you cannot tell me what it is truly like. I’m far happier without faith in a bunch of nonsense than I ever was with it. I don’t need faith in things that doesn’t exist to be fulfilled. I have faith in people. And that has served me far better than Spinoza’s god will ever serve you.
May 19th, 2007 at 7:05 pm“We actually do understand what happens to cause appendicitis. That is not a mystery.”
Yet you didn’t both to elucidate…
“Yes, we have a non-functioning organ (brain) that could for unknown reasons freak out and make people gravely ill, but it doesn’t confirm or debunk anything.”
If you think the brain is non-functioning, then you are in no position to dicuss human physiology…
“I would suggest that that word “irrefutable†doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Comment by wmholt — May 19, 2007 @ 2:36 pm”
You’re refuting that you have an appendix? Pseudogenes? A coccyx?
Then it’s not me who has a problem with definitions…
May 19th, 2007 at 7:08 pmDavid- better to let others think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.
May 19th, 2007 at 7:12 pm“Therefore if you are believe in “only one godâ€, then you SHOULD NOT believe in “intelligent designâ€, because they are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!
Comment by criticalthinker — May 19, 2007 @ 3:44 pm”
Exactly! The premise of creation based on a need for “first cause” requires infinite creators – each more complex that its creation. Mass-energy has infinite existence, it just doesn’t change or expand, therefore making it not only realistic, but within the limits of Ockham’s Razor.
May 19th, 2007 at 7:12 pm“David- better to let others think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.
Comment by barrelhse — May 19, 2007 @ 7:12 pm”
LOL… david wants to be taken seriously among the Scientifically minded – I will give him that. He just hasn’t yet figured out how to do it.
Most of us here who reject gods have once been exposed to religion in our youths. It was by questioning our beliefs that we found them lacking. David doesn’t yet get the importance of that. If he hangs around here long enough, he just might. :)
A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.”
May 19th, 2007 at 7:28 pmdavid
Abstraction? America is currently the world’s largest, and most economically powerful nation. That is based on its founding principles of democracy, and the popular will of its people to see democracy and free argument.
This isn’t abstract its fact. You can go visit any Scandanavian country, and then visit a highly religious country like Nigeria, and look at the differences for yourself.
You argue not so much against science, as against rational thought which opposes imperialism due to the fact that imperialist thinking tends to ignore counter-arguments, whereas argument is a prime test of scientific and logical thought. If it doesn’t make a good argument, complete with evidence, it doesn’t get accepted.
Further, please clarify on this, because this is what I read into you saying that “It’s not perfect but with a few adjustments it’ll be†attitude. It’s a fantasy.
Either you are saying that things as they are, are shit, but you are not willing to do anything about it, in which case I see you as nothing but another whinger, or you are saying that we should take what we have, and destroy it and any good it might do us, rather then try to make the best of it and hopefully improve upon it.
You claim that I worship progress, and I do not. I accept that the future happens, whether you want it to or not tomorrow is going to be there and it is up to you as to how it turns out. I would rather tomorrow turn out better for me, and everyone else, then today did, whereas by the sounds of it you would rather it didn’t.
If you call wanting to make the world a better place, worshiping progress, if you call acknowledging that the world, from a human point of view, is a better place then in previous ages, if you call that worshipping progress I wonder if you believe that we should all be going back to banging rocks against each other’s skulls trying to make fire.
We have solid examples of the world being a better place: South Africa, no longer the nation of Apartheid and the time will come when that period ceases to define us. America? No longer racist to the point where someone getting lynched for being the wrong skin colour, is overlooked by the authorities. We now do something about priests who molest little kids.
Sure, bad times are upon America, because America voted for an idiot and that tends to bring about the greater ill, but that is not to say that a constant effort to improve things in real concrete ways (As opposed to scape goating gay people) won’t improve these times. In the 20th century there was a constant will to improve, and we did. In the dark ages there wasn’t a constant will to improve and there is a reason they are termed the dark ages.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pmBut you can’t bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age without first asking who is the civilized person here: the Iraqi or the American.
I have nothing but contempt for these arrogant Americans and their White Man’s Burden.
Neither. We aren’t civilised and who pretends the world is a tea party? Iraq was wrong, because America did not have a good reason for it, and did not have the political will or practical power to actually take control of it. It was not out of any mythical being saying it was wrong.
Go read up on the arguments against it, they were not “This goes against my religion” they were “There is not suffecient evidence in favour it to justify the war.” In short the counter argument to Iraq was logical. Meanwhile the guys who argued in favour, used fear, lies, and outright manipulation which are the very opposite to the scientific approach.
When you argue reasonably, it means you argue in order to find the truth, when you argue fallicously it means you argue in order to win.
Also, Democracy is a solid, well defined political system which entitles every person to a vote on how their government works, the only problem with it is that you cannot force it upon people because a system based on free choice cannot be forced it has to be chosen.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pmHahahaha. “Blind faith in Evolution”?!?!
No, its called a hundreds years of cold hard facts, douche bag. Intelligent Design is ‘blind faith’.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:19 pm“No, its called a hundreds years of cold hard facts, douche bag. Intelligent Design is ‘blind faith’.”
Evolution = 148 years old.
Documentation of Creation’s story = 3300+ years old.
~150 years !> ~3300 years
May 19th, 2007 at 11:05 pmA massive set of peer-reviewed, independently corroborated, self-correcting pieces of knowledge, in which every lesson documented therein can be duplicated consistently any number of times has infinitely more value to us as a species, to the entirety of humankind’s future in this universe, than any book of fables whose only argument for the fundamental truth of its contents is that it says so. The Bible, among many sets of religious documentation, insists that IT, and ONLY IT is the one, true path, and any who disobey what IT says shall suffer eternally for their arrogance. Any book that proposes that it is right because some intelligence, be it man or no, says so, should be seen immediately by all as being rubbish, even if it offers wise counsel.
To compare the symbiotic, ever-adjusting body of work in which literally millions, perhaps billions of people have contributed (to correct mistakes, or fill in new pieces of life’s puzzle) to a set of stories written by a handful of people thousands of years ago that is intended to forevermore be the one, unchanging universal truth insults the hard work that countless humans have contributed to enriching the body of knowledge we now call science, and gives a few ancient writers far more influence, bestows upon them vastly greater honors than those writers rightfully deserve.
Science is not a religion. One does not have faith in science. One uses science as a tool to understand the universe, nothing more, nothing less.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:42 pmDavid,
I came back to this thread too late tonight to reply at length to your own reply to me. There are far too many misunderstandings in your reply for me to be able to address them. I repeat my suggestion that you look at introductory books on the philosophy of science. Until you do, you won’t be able to understand exactly why your views on science are fundamentally misconceived, let alone for you be able to correct them. You’re attacking an illusion about science, instead of addressing my clarifications, in order to save your favored religious views from criticism. This makes you rather partisan and ideologically narrow (though perhaps well-intentioned, unlike many trolls here, such as Vaiant Venus and Jake).
For example, the formal or logical institution of science consists of the totality of scientific and logical methods, principles, techniques, practices, and theories that have been shaped and improved ever since science began in the ancient world. These are logically at an entirely different level than the level at which scientists work for institutions like the military. The military funds science and uses science, but science progresses only by its own institutional, internal dynamic of self-correction, which you’ve not adequately reckoned with. This logical institution cannot be compared with the practical institution of the Patent Office, the military, or academia. What Unbelievablr says in response to you is correct, in my view. The philosophical confusion you commit is the failure to distinguish between psychological, historical, cultural, and economic aspects of science on the one hand (sometimes called “the externals of science”) and the logical, conceptual, and methodological aspects of science on the other (sometimes called “the internals of science”). It is impossible for the logical institition of science to be hubristic or smug since all human motives are excluded from science at that level. You can no more call the institution of science smug than you can call the principle of non-contradiction in logic smug.
Another way to look at the distinction I proposed is this. We can distinguish between the logical institution of medicine and the practical institution of it. The logical one aims to gather facts about the workings of the human body and the impact of chemical and radiological substances on those workings, through medical experiments along with mathematical and statistical models. This level gives us the “truths” of medicine. By contrast, the practical institution of medicine consists of all the medical establishments in the world and all the research staffs and doctors who do medical research and perform medical procedures to treat the ailing public. The weaknesses and corruptions of the latter do not impugn the former.
I’ll check this thread tomorrow in case you read and reply to this post, since I’m willing to explain these matters further. I might even be able to provide some references, though you can find many by searching under philosophy of science at Amazon.com.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:51 pmthe fact of the matter is, they can mandate whatever they want, what actually gets taught in the classroom is an entirely different ballgame. all a science teach would have to do is say “there are also those who believe life was created by a higher force” one sentence, and you “taught creationism
May 20th, 2007 at 7:13 amScience is not something to “believe in.” Science is something sentient beings do. It holds nothing dogmatic and would forego any extant theory in the light of new evidence. By its very nature it continuously questions itself. This rigorous manner of inquiry is in fact called “the scientific method,” to wit (excerpted from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/):
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomenon
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict quantitatively the results of new observations
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments to validate or refute the predictions, modifying the hypothesis as appropriate based on those results
5. Repeat 2. – 4. forever, continuously refining our understanding of the phenomenon
By contrast, faith is entirely dogmatic. Faith by its very nature resists self-examination and is perhaps the most resistant of all human attributes to change. Faith is not observable, and it is not testable.
Whether the faith is “true” in a literal sense is irrelevant to the faithful. This leads to situations where seemingly sane and rational adults believe that a great big invisible man who lives up in the sky is watching their every move in order to decide whether to punish them with unspeakable torture or reward them with milk and honey for eternity after they’re dead, but these same people will not accept evolution, global warming, and the like in the here and now. It’s bizarre.
And it’s that kind of unbridled arrogance that causes conflict. When one is arrogant enough to believe that the great big invisible man who lives up in the sky is watching everything their own insignificant flea-speck ass is doing minute by minute — if they’re arrogant enough to believe that women were made from the rib of a man and therefore must be subservient to men — then they’re arrogant enough to force their beliefs on others through law or influence. This is but the latest example.
The good news is that the day of the zipperheads is past its zenith. As soon as this guy crosses the line there’ll be a huge dust-up, and he’ll be looking for a job at Regent University.
May 20th, 2007 at 8:29 amDarwinism isn’t the opposite of Intelligent Design. If schools are ordered to teach Intelligent Design to achieve educational balance, then they must also introduce students to the concept that God might not exist.
May 20th, 2007 at 9:54 amFirst, I find unbelievable as duplicitous as always. She wants to repeat the same fights of her youth over and over. And she really doesn’t see what is written. I am alarmed by her contempt for Goethe –but the Two Cultures divide seems to be as unhealthy as ever in the USA. And she still thinks I’m denying Evolution or defending some crazy Sunday School version of Christianity. This just makes me laugh at her arguments.
For example, unbelievable speaks of the blue sky. This is not a fact but a perceptual phenomenon involving the combination of sunlight, atmosphere, and the retina. As a colour-blind person, I can tell you that the average person is shocked to learn that her senses are fallible and that what I see may not be what you see. The sky is a space of constantly shifting colours and only the dogmatic would say “It’s blue.”
Prof Colby quite rightly distinguishes between the externals and the internals of science. But the poet in me would say this is more a case of saying here’s the half-full glass and here’s the half-empty glass. The two are actually inseparable. And most scientists are unable to admit to the limitations of science and constantly impose value judgements and allow emotional responses to moral questions to cloud their ‘objective’ reasoning. (Perhaps there is a Scientific Smugness Constant?) unbelievable always wants proof, but she gave it herself when shen named Victor Stenger, who quarrels violently with his colleagues the way a Stalinist would with a Trotskyite.
Prof. Colby offers the medical profession as an example of his Theoretical/Practical divide. But, besides being colour-blind, I have a host of other medical problems and have dealt with many medical professionals over the years. I regret to say it is the arrogant, smug, and overly confident doctors who have always made things worse. And the tentative and puzzled doctors who have had the greatest success. And the latter who have been willing to admit that things were simply not known or ineffective.
Bruce Gorton, I enjoy your posts. But I do think you worship Progress with a capital P. And, like most scientists, you engage in historical revisionism. The philosophy of science is rather self-congratulatory, but the history of science presents it with a few more warts and rather gruesome skeletons in its closet.
To quote Little Orphan Annie, “Tomorrow is always a day away!” Any vision of the Future involves a value judgement. And that means a decision beyond the ken of science. I am not taken in by your quaint attribution of Apartheid’s fall to Science. Or the wishful-thinking that African-Americans are not victims of racism and lynchings in today’s America. (N.B.: Senator Obama now has the secret service protecting him after a torrent of racist comments and death threats.) The arguments for & against attacking Iraq involved moral issues beyond the ken of science. Facts & figures were invoked by both sides –though the facts of the WH were skewed and erroneous. Nevertheless, war, genocide, and national interests are not subjects of logic, reason, or science. They are emotional, moral, and ethical questions.
Finally, unbelievable’s contempt for Spinoza had me chuckling. It reminds me of a woman who read that Kenneth Branagh was doing a movie of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. She shouted rhetorically to the room, “Hamlet! Get with the Present, Mr Branagh. This is the 90s.” It also reminded me of Twain’s observation on his father. But I’m sure you know that one.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:57 am“Evolution = 148 years old.
Documentation of Creation’s story = 3300+ years old.
~150 years !> ~3300 years
Comment by Shwing — May 19, 2007 @ 11:05 pm”
Documentation that the Earth is flat = 5000+
3300
May 20th, 2007 at 11:04 amDavid,
You still fail to see the importance of the distinctions I’ve made. It’s one thing to argue that they are false distinctions, quite another to ignore them entirely or try to claim that they are inseparable. Of course they’re inseparable. Your strategy seems to be entirely the latter, alas. You consistently ignore the internal aspect of science and focus on the external, no doubt because this suits your ideological agenda, which is apparently never to allow that you might be wrong about the nature of science since this would undermine your dogmatic appeal to religious faith. Once again, and for the last time, please read some works on the philosophy of science.
By the way, it might interest you to note that I’m using posts like yours in a book on science and religion which I’m writing. Unfortunately, though, posts like yours serve as evidence of my contention that the general public has little understanding of science and even less desire to learn about it due to the damage that religious dogmatism does to one’s ability to think critically.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am“First, I find unbelievable as duplicitous as always. She wants to repeat the same fights of her youth over and over. And she really doesn’t see what is written.”
David, this is not an argument, much less an intellectual one. It’s an ad hominem attack based on invalid facts and your irrational opinions.
You’re free to either misrepresent me or flat out lie about me, but in return, others are free to see you as incapable of debate, so you resort to insults. As a result, you’ve lost your argument before it ever started.
If all you’re going to do is belittle people, instead of discuss the issue at hand on its merits, then youwill be reduced to a whack-a-troll in which no one takes you seriously. You are on the verge.
“I am alarmed by her contempt for Goethe –but the Two Cultures divide seems to be as unhealthy as ever in the USA.”
See, this is ridiculous. Unless I say that I hate Goethe, which I do not. Never met the man. And i happen to applaud his accomplishments. Just think you cannot use a fictional play as a logical defense. It has nothing to do with Goethe. It has to do with your fallacious debating style that considers editorial views and opinions to be valid facts – when they are not.
“And she still thinks I’m denying Evolution or defending some crazy Sunday School version of Christianity. This just makes me laugh at her arguments.”
You are suggesting that Evolution is still speculative and not a fact. And you defend Christianity. Christians defend Christianity, certainly not a single atheist or pantheist I’ve ever known, or read – because Christianity defies the very reason and thought that athiests and patheists (and agnostics) reject. You may say anything you want, but around here, you are weighed by your actions. Your actions say ‘Christian who is afraid to let go’.
Clearly you were offended when I laughed at you last week so now you’re trying to adopt the smae strategy. Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks.
“For example, unbelievable speaks of the blue sky. This is not a fact but a perceptual phenomenon involving the combination of sunlight, atmosphere, and the retina. As a colour-blind person, I can tell you that the average person is shocked to learn that her senses are fallible and that what I see may not be what you see. The sky is a space of constantly shifting colours and only the dogmatic would say “It’s blue.—
I understand the process by which we see color. The fact that our eyes are absorbing BLUE wavelengths makes it a fact that the sky is blue from the human perspective (we don’t attempt to speak from every conceivebale perspective because that would be too tedious, and really, pointless since we are the only animals who have the consciousness to care what color it is). To say otherwise makes you unable to connect to the reality in which we live, and really explains why you keep arguing from ignorance. Ignorance is your Zen Buddhistic process here. Fine – you can be ignorant and say that YOU don’t know what color the sky is, debate it ad nauseum, and feel all smug. The rest of us who would like to move past the factual blueness of the sky, will pass…
“unbelievable always wants proof, but she gave it herself when shen named Victor Stenger, who quarrels violently with his colleagues the way a Stalinist would with a Trotskyite.”
Yes, I want proof. Faith is a cop-out, because it’s saying that a thing cannot be taken on its own merits.
The fact that you insulted Stenger shows that he must be right, for if he were wrong – you would have attacked his arguments.
“Prof. Colby offers the medical profession as an example of his Theoretical/Practical divide. But, besides being colour-blind, I have a host of other medical problems and have dealt with many medical professionals over the years.”
Now I get the source for your hostility against Science, and your need to project your rage upon us.
“Bruce Gorton, I enjoy your posts. But I do think you worship Progress with a capital P.”
And we all think you’re wrong about that.
“Finally, unbelievable’s contempt for Spinoza had me chuckling.”
The only one with contempt here is you. I just think Spinoza is an idealist. I am a realist.
“It reminds me of a woman who read that Kenneth Branagh was doing a movie of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. She shouted rhetorically to the room, “Hamlet! Get with the Present, Mr Branagh. This is the 90s.†Comment by david — May 20, 2007 @ 10:57 am”
I love Shakespeare’s works. I have seen dozens of them on stage. I just don’t base my life ideology on his plays. The fact that you cannot differentiate shows an utter lack of critical thinking skills.
You truly are the very thing you hate. I pity you.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:30 am“Documentation that the Earth is flat = 5000+
3300
Comment by unbelievable — May 20, 2007 @ 11:04 am”
The spam filter ate the rest of my post… Ugh.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am“By the way, it might interest you to note that I’m using posts like yours in a book on science and religion which I’m writing.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — May 20, 2007 @ 11:19 am”
Cool – let us know when you publish that. Perosnally, I prefer to read Science books written by University Professors as you guys tend to be the most modern writers on the subjects, and you’re always asking the tough questions a public school teacher of Science could never ask.
Sadly, David is a typical perspective of one who claims to know the truth by living in a closet out of which he never ventures…
I read an example, in “Atheist Universe” about one of the Scandinavia countries – Finland, I think, but maybe Norway – who has a “state religion” which is monitored and run by the government. As a result of the government running the church, the number of believers in their country have declined drastically overthe last century, and that only 2-3% of the population attends church regularly – making the religious heads want a separation of church and state… I thought that was interesting.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:48 amUnbelievable,
I’m afraid that David is simply incapable of genuine intellectual argument or is too impeded by his own emotions to engage in it. As you can see from my posts on this thread, I made several attempts to explain fundamental distinctions to him. They had no effect on his thinking about the differences between science and religion. I suspect that we simply have to lower our expectations about him.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:48 amAn excellent suggestion, Prof Colby. I’ll begin with Paul Feyerabend.
Do you think quoting from ThinkProgress would be very scientific? I mean, for all we know, I could be you. It raises a host of epistemological questions.
It’s interesting that you’ve already written the conclusion to your book. How objective of you! But I’d say you were the one being ideological and that a short walk across campus to the English Dept or Music Faculty would probably give you more disturbing reasons for why Science is mistrusted.
I see the modern scientist as a romantic figure like Don Quixote. His head is filled with nonsense and false impressions and yet he charges off at windmills and does notoriously crazy things.
I certainly agree that Global Warming is a fact. And I applaud the 99% of scientists who hold this view. What I find shameful is that none of these scientists own up to the fact that it was science that brought us to this state. Science in this instance is no better than the gun nut who claims, “Guns don’t kill; people kill.”
I do hope you begin your book with a discussion of what it means to work in a ‘non-human’ profession. That would set the proper tone for what follows.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:04 pmUnbelievable and Prof. Colby–hear, hear!
Something that I think very disingenuous is the false message that the ID crowd pushes successfully. You’re either with them (believe in ID and therefore believe in God) or you’re against them (”believe” in evolution by non random selection and are therefore anti God).
This is propaganda. Although evolution does facilitate the questioning of belief, there are plenty of of religious people who accept evolution as scientific fact supported by mountains of evidence (over fifty percent of Americans hold ToE to be true, despite the fact that 95 % of Americans also believe in God).
There’s a link below to a talk given by a religious scientist–a cell biologist who champions evolution. His name is Ken Miller, and he successfully defended evolution and debunked ID at the Dover, PA trial. His talk covers the court case.
It’s quite a long lecture, but fascinating and educational if you have the time to wach it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Regards.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pmDear me, Prof Colby. Such a rude and insulting post. You said,
I understood you prefectly. However, you weren’t making a distinction between science and religion, but between pure and applied science. Science and religion are two completely different fields. What is appalling is the groteque ignorance of scientists when stepping beyond the ken of their field to speak on theology and metaphysics. It is, as has been my point, no different than the Biblical literalists trying to impose screwball theories onto science. If I may make a pun, “Physicist, heal thyself.”
May 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pmComment by david — May 20, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
I certainly agree that Global Warming is a fact. And I applaud the 99% of scientists who hold this view. What I find shameful is that none of these scientists own up to the fact that it was science that brought us to this state. Science in this instance is no better than the gun nut who claims, “Guns don’t kill; people kill.â€
Yet you are happy to use science and the result of scientific/technological research to communicate your dislike of science with us, here. Isn’t that a bit of a paradox?
Regards.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:20 pmRepeat after me ” Evolution is a Theory !!!” Look into MICRO-evolution versus MACRO-evolution. you’ll find there is not much “science” (observable and repeatable). Which, makes it pretty much a “failth”. So,…which should be taught in schools, evolution -in the beginning “dirt – (the big bang theory)” or Creation – In the beginning “God”?
The geological column that we were taught in school does not exist. There are no transitional fossils between species that have been found. And, even Darwin was reported to be disappointed with the lack of finding any transitional fossils.
I guess a conversion to a religious belief in creation might be a big jump for you but at least you should see evolution as requiring just as much faith and stop treating it as fact.
Good luck,
May 20th, 2007 at 12:24 pmRich
“I suspect that we simply have to lower our expectations about him.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — May 20, 2007 @ 11:48 am”
I find all of your posts to david to be reasonable, rational, and logical – as do I Bruce’s. I don’t know why david doesn’t. Perhaps it’s simply the reality that some people just don’t have the mental faculties to ‘get it’. And I wonder if we partly have society to blame for so much mental decay – since evolution never would have allowed his, or those like his, ancestors to reproduce… :D
May 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pmTo CovalentBonder – There are no “mountains of evidence”. However, I would be open to new evidence – Please give TWO clear, observable, repeatable pieces of evidence that support evolution.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:32 pmThanks,
Rich
“I mean, for all we know, I could be you. It raises a host of epistemological questions.”
Not even a half-wit would believe that. You’re no way intelligent or reasonable enough to be confused with Prof Colby.
“It’s interesting that you’ve already written the conclusion to your book.”
Perhaps he’s written it and is simply ADDED you as further evidence…
“more disturbing reasons for why Science is mistrusted.”
Your personal agenda becomes more transparent each time you post…
I certainly agree that Global Warming is a fact. And I applaud the 99% of scientists who hold this view. What I find shameful is that none of these scientists own up to the fact that it was science that brought us to this state. Science in this instance is no better than the gun nut who claims, “Guns don’t kill; people kill.—
You can’t even give Science its due. Backhanded compliments are the best you can do… Come on David, Science as been ignored or oppressed – you can’t blame Science for that! Blame Big Business, and the MSM and politicians that Big Business owns.
“I do hope you begin your book with a discussion of what it means to work in a ‘non-human’ profession. That would set the proper tone for what follows.
Comment by david — May 20, 2007 @ 12:04 pm”
Philosophy is a HUMANITIES subject. Sheesh david, really, get a hobby…
May 20th, 2007 at 12:39 pmComment by look closely — May 20, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Repeat after me †Evolution is a Theory !!!†Look into MICRO-evolution versus MACRO-evolution. you’ll find there is not much “science†(observable and repeatable). Which, makes it pretty much a “failthâ€. So,…which should be taught in schools, evolution -in the beginning “dirt – (the big bang theory)†or Creation – In the beginning “Godâ€?
There is much we don’t yet understand (yet being the operative word). But it is not impossible that we will soon have the Theory of Everything. It might even be in our lifetime.
Rich, you are right. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. In science theory means the best explanation for the observations we have made/results of scientific tests we have carried out/are constantly observing and retesting. A theory is falsifiable, at some point someone might come forth with empirical evidence that a theory is wrong in places or as a whole. At which time we either update and amend the theory (as we did ith Newton’s gravity after Einstein gave us relativity), or start over.
ID can never be science because it is not falsifiable–saying God did it cannot be tested. It cannot be proven or unproven. But when bad things like tsunamis happen, isn’t it better that we understand that this was a result of plate tectonics rather than assuming (without a shed of evidence) that God punished those poor people because He felt like it?
Regards.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:42 pm“Regards.
Comment by CovalentBonder — May 20, 2007 @ 12:08 pm”
Thanks… I do happen to be one of those, however, who is an Atheist as a result of seeing that Science makes religious doctrine obsolete. But for the number of years, while I was religious (Catholic), I accepted evolution as a fact inspite of the fact that my father was vehemently anti-Evolution. I just think that to be religious and accept evolution, you have to discard 60% of the bible. Once you get that far, it’s not much of a stretch to toss out the remaining 40%… Which is what I think the Fundamenalists actually fear, and are fighting.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:47 pm“Repeat after me †Evolution is a Theory !!!—
You debunked yourself right there by not understanding that ‘Scientific Theory’ is not speculation.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
” Look into MICRO-evolution versus MACRO-evolution. you’ll find there is not much “science†(observable and repeatable). Which, makes it pretty much a “failthâ€.”
There’s decades of irrefutable proof. You just have to be looking in the right places to find it (i.e. NOT the bible)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
“So,…which should be taught in schools, evolution -in the beginning “dirt – (the big bang theory)†or Creation – In the beginning “Godâ€?”
Evolution. The Big Bang is not about ‘dirt’, however, the bible clearly states that your jealous and violent god made ‘adam’ from dirt…
“The geological column that we were taught in school does not exist.”
Lie. I’ve seen it in several places. So can you. Go to the Grand Canyon and hike down.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/Column/GeoCol.Html
“There are no transitional fossils between species that have been found.”
Lie. Not only have they been found, but they are finding more and more in the last few years. There is a complete fossil record from horse to its ancestor that you can observe yourself.
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
“And, even Darwin was reported to be disappointed with the lack of finding any transitional fossils.”
Do you have any evidence or just more lies?
“I guess a conversion to a religious belief in creation might be a big jump for you but at least you should see evolution as requiring just as much faith and stop treating it as fact.”
It requires ZERO faith because it is facts that are then explained through teh ‘tehory’ part. A theory is simply the explanation for the story that the FACTS themselves tell.
“Good luck,
Rich
Comment by look closely — May 20, 2007 @ 12:24 pm”
Don’t need luck, we have facts on our side.
May 20th, 2007 at 1:00 pmTo CovalentBonder – There are no “mountains of evidenceâ€. However, I would be open to new evidence – Please give TWO clear, observable, repeatable pieces of evidence that support evolution.
Thanks,
Rich
Comment by look closely — May 20, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Human evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
Transitional Fossil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
Reducible complexity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU
More reducible complexity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
Regards.
May 20th, 2007 at 1:04 pm“Please give TWO clear, observable, repeatable pieces of evidence that support evolution.
Comment by look closely — May 20, 2007 @ 12:32 pm”
There’s the link I posted above to the 55 million years of horse evolution via fossils.
There are viruses and bateria that have evolved reistence to anti-biotics in our life times, because they live such brief lives.
And, as I said, you can view the geologic column yourself at the Grand Canyon:
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grandcanyon/grandcan.htm
That’s three.
May 20th, 2007 at 1:08 pmComment by unbelievable — May 20, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Thanks… I do happen to be one of those, however, who is an Atheist as a result of seeing that Science makes religious doctrine obsolete. But for the number of years, while I was religious (Catholic), I accepted evolution as a fact inspite of the fact that my father was vehemently anti-Evolution. I just think that to be religious and accept evolution, you have to discard 60% of the bible. Once you get that far, it’s not much of a stretch to toss out the remaining 40%… Which is what I think the Fundamenalists actually fear, and are fighting.
OT: Unbelievable–You might enjoy the good people and debates over at richarddawkins.net/home.
Regards.
May 20th, 2007 at 1:20 pmOT: Unbelievable–You might enjoy the good people and debates over at richarddawkins.net/home.
Regards.
Comment by CovalentBonder — May 20, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Eep, I hit send before finishing my message!
Meant to add a :-)
Regards.
May 20th, 2007 at 1:24 pmDavid,
I don’t mean to be rude and insulting. The fact remains, however, that you never addressed my distinctions. Addressing them would undermine your claims against “science,” for in reality your claims are claims against some particular scientists, not against the institution of science. (If you want to call this “pure science,” I have no objection as long as pure science refers to the objective, self-correcting process by which scientists test and revise their theories in such a matter that all personal qualities of the individuals involved are systematically excluded. Can you agree that much?) These distiinctions should have enabled you to see why science is self-correcting and religion cannot be. Your latest post misinterprets what the subject of our disagreement–whether faith is present in science and religion and if, so, what it means for any alleged difference between science and religion. You repeatedly address the qualities of individuals and refuse to address the question of whether or not the institution of science is self-correcting. I have to wonder why this latter question is so unwelcome to you, and I can only assume that it is intellectually or emotionally threatening or that, perhaps, you just don’t understand the meaning of these distinctions. To be charitable to you, I recommended that you read some philosophy of science (and even Feyerabend will do).
As for my book, I am including some of your posts as evidence of the general public’s inability to understand these distinction and to reason critically about the issues. I get no pleasure from this sad state of affairs.
May 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm“OT: Unbelievable–You might enjoy the good people and debates over at richarddawkins.net/home.
Comment by CovalentBonder — May 20, 2007 @ 1:20 pm”
Thanks… I’m a fan of his. Didn’t know he had a website – thanks!
When you guys can kick the fruitcakes out of your religion, we Atheists will be able to focus on more Science : )
May 20th, 2007 at 2:53 pm“evidence of the general public’s inability to understand these distinction and to reason critically about the issues.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — May 20, 2007 @ 2:39 pm”
Welcome to the public education system…
Two years in the system and I can tell you that it’s appalling at best. I’m sure you see the ramifications of that, as I hear college students are showing signs of their weak foundations.
If I suggest my students read a book, they act as if I told them to set themselves on fire. Collectively, they HATE to read… Makes me sad and sick at the same time. It’s why I think your book will be welcomed information in one place. Keep us posted.
May 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pmThanks… I’m a fan of his. Didn’t know he had a website – thanks!
Comment by unbelievable — May 20, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
You’re welcome, Unbelievable – be sure to check out the fora.
When you guys can kick the fruitcakes out of your religion, we Atheists will be able to focus on more Science : )
For the record I’m non religious myself, too. I just have friends/family members who are religious and understand that evolution is true ;-)
Regards.
May 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pmAgain, I am more than amused by the hysteria generated by Pure Science and Christian fundamentalism. The two, being both divorced from reality, deserve each other.
Prof Colby said:
I am not confused. I do not see that there is a distinction. We live in a finite world and so all our perceptions are limited and constrained by our particular existence. (You even concede in post #65 that external and internal science are inseparable.) I would, of course, contend that, unless you’re an AI being, it is impossible to exclude all human motives from science. And, because human observation is imperfect, it becomes necessary to revise or even replace the so-called axioms of the logical institution. And I can call the Law of Non-contradiction smug because it is an non-provable assertion. Any poet could tell you we live in a world of Both/And and not Either/Or. Or, since I’m being pegged as a Christian when I’m not , I’ll use the humorous line “Yes, of course God can indeed construct a stone that He cannot lift—and what’s more, He can lift it!”
I also find the premise of your book very unscientific. (You don’t seem to be able to exclude the human motive.) And, although you have a groupie in unbelievable, I find your enterprise worthless –probably forced upon you by the publish or perish world of academia. Prof Colby said:
It seems to me disengenuous of you to begin with a contention and then seek out random quotes to prove it. This would seem to prove Steven Pinker’s assertion that the conscious mind is a spin doctor and not a critical thinker. What will you call your book? Begging the Question??? And I could easily be you. Names here are easily hijacked and the anonymity of handles makes it difficult to verify sources. How does on cite the authority of sk8trgrrl69?
I shall close with a comment directed at unbelievable. Earlier you said I must be a Christian because Only Christians defend Christianty. Where do you get crap like that? I have spent a wearying 20 odd posts defending Islam on another thread. Of course atheists and pantheists can defend others from irrational and derogatory attacks. Our quarrel began when you attacked Benedictine nuns who were protesting the war in Iraq. You seemed more interested in proselytizing your irreligion than engaging with the story. You reminded me of the Stalinists in Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia –more interested in total ideological control than in victory. You might consider reading Karen Armstrong for a more interesting overview of why religion matters. (Gore Vidal’s Creation is also a good read.)
P.S.: I shouldn’t leave without a parting shot at Bruce Gorton. America is NOT a democracy. It is a ‘representative’ democracy. Which is a polite way of saying that it’s a pretend democracy. How 300 million people can be said to be governing when all decisions are made by less than 600 in Washington, DC is something I really don’t know. It’s a fraud.
May 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pmProf Colby said, “To be charitable to you, I recommended that you read some philosophy of science (and even Feyerabend will do).”
My dear boy, I have read books on the philosophy of science. What you don’t seem to be able to understand is that your philosophy is being rejected. I have Eddington’s The Philosophy of Physical Science and Feyerabend’s Against Method in my study along with works by various other scientists and philosophers. And I have my doubts that you’ve read Feyerabend. But I wouldn’t want to doubt your anonymous credentials just based on one post.
The problem, as I see it, is one of language. unbelievable claims to love art and literature, but she then expresses disdain for “fiction” and bows down to “fact” in the sort of degrading sadism of Dickens’ Mr Gradgrind. Nothing depresses me more than to see literature taught in schools as a secondary resource: that is, the novel as springboard to discussions of racism or feminism or the morality of war. It is a very “scientific” approach to literature that merely delivers up every great work of art to the student’s desk as something dead and to be dissected. It’s very dehumanizing.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:22 pmDavid,
I’m sorry but, based on your posts here, I doubt whether you read much philosophy of science or, if you did, whether you understood much. You seem unable to grasp basic points about the nature of science. As for your thinking the law of non-contradiction can intelligibly be called “smug,” your thinking is confused. Smugness is a quality attributable only to human beings. Principles cannot be called smug. Once again you fail to understand the distinctions I’ve made. Of course, you can contend that you don’t see the distinctions, but there’s an immense difference between not seeing a distinction and not accepting it. Given the evidence of your posts, I think you can reasonably be criticized for the former. Of course we live in a finite world, and of course we, as imperfect beings, cannot exclude all personal motives from science. So what have I conceded by this? Nothing at all. The point, for the last time, is that the institution of science exhibits self-correction. This doesn’t mean that in practice every single error is identified and corrected. But it does mean that there is a logical difference between science and religion.
I note that you never actually address the substance of my arguments against you. Instead, you try to shift the terms of the debate by discussing poetry, the books in your study, the ignorance of scientists about theology and metaphysics, etc. Suppose you try to focus on the question of whether science is self-correcting. If it isn’t, as you seem to contend, then how is progress even possible in science? Is there no increase in cognitive content through increasingly falsifiable hypotheses? Is science a matter of “anything goes”? If you’ve actually read Feyerabend, as opposed to simply claiming that his book is in your study, you would know that he systematically distinguishes between Galileo’s personal motives and his scientific arguments. As for Eddington, he would be aghast at the kind of post-positivistic views of someone like Feyerabend.
I’d say that it’s impossible to find intellectual common ground with you, a precondition of worthwhile debate. So adieu.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:58 pmUnb, Prof, and Covalent,
David expresses the typical views of a fundamentalist right-wing Christian regarding science and evolution. I don’t care what his religious beliefs are. I’m just making an observation regarding his rehtoric. Fundamentalism is the true enemy of science. Intelligent, main stream denominationists have no problem finding truth in science and thier religious views.
It is those who believe in the inerrancy(sp?) of the Bible who present the greatest problems in this country. Their beliefs are helping to fuel a downward spiralling(sp?) society where ignorance will help the powerful few to gain more power against their very own interests.
Fundamentalists must be resisted in every religion. It matters not if the fundamentalist is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddahist.
Please read The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America to gain a very deep insight to the dangers of fundamentalism in this country. They openly speak of and seek a theocracy and no one among us will call them treasonist. However, I do! They are an enemy within; an enemy of the state.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:02 pm“For the record I’m non religious myself, too. I just have friends/family members who are religious and understand that evolution is true ;-)
Comment by CovalentBonder — May 20, 2007 @ 3:11 pm”
Thanks for the insight.
A nice thing about the internet is that there are so many more of us that you’d realize (not religious). Nice to know :)
May 20th, 2007 at 6:28 pmMy dear Prof Colby, I’m afraid I understand you perfectly well. I know what the distinction is you are trying to make. And I do not accept it. It is illusory. And it is this illusion that Science is self-correcting that I object to. It is not proof that I don’t understand you if I don’t agree with you and even find your distinction nonsensical. (And I have made that quite clear before. Perhaps you’d prefer I did a ‘close reading’ of one of your earlier posts.)
BTW, I can tell you flunked English Composition in high school since you otherwise would know that one can attribute smugness to the Law of Non-contradiction; it’s called ‘personification’. The Law is as ’self-satisfied’ as Science is ’self-correcting’. Science cannot be self-correcting as it does not exist as an entity apart from human consciousness. Collectives of humans can correct hypotheses, but they can as easily falsify them. And this progress/regress has happened.
I’m afraid I am not as confident of the Scientific Progress as you are. It seems to me to be a case of two steps forward and one step back. sometime two steps back. There is no One True Religion and there is no One True Science. What works is what works. And science must make do with logical inconsistences while searching for a better model. However, there will always be logical inconsistencies. And the models we do work with now are far more complex and prone to error than the simple scientific discoveries of the 18th & 19th Centuries.
I could have guessed you didn’t like poetry. It is this inability to see paraphrasing as a method of enquiry that dooms modern American science to a cabal of commerce and careerists. And I should take your book on Science & the Public and run it past an Episcopalian ThD, a Unitarian minister, and a Rabbi before declaring it “peer reviewed”; I can already tell you’ve allowed bias to cloud your judgement.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:37 pm“Again, I am more than amused by the hysteria generated by Pure Science and Christian fundamentalism. The two, being both divorced from reality, deserve each other.”
The only hysterical one around here is you david.
Science IS reality, which is why it’s the OPPOSITE from religion, which is fantasy.
“I am not confused. I do not see that there is a distinction. We live in a finite world and so all our perceptions are limited and constrained by our particular existence.”
You are only limited by your refusal to consider anything outside of your own fanatical point of view.
“I would, of course, contend that, unless you’re an AI being, it is impossible to exclude all human motives from science.”
But if the motive is to find the truth, and not to be “right” at any cost, then that human motive does not taintthe experiements.
You’ve not heard of double-blind trials? Where there is no ability for human motive to influence the outcomes. It’s why Science is honest and factual. Unlike religion that is nothing but human motive.
“And, because human observation is imperfect, it becomes necessary to revise or even replace the so-called axioms of the logical institution. And I can call the Law of Non-contradiction smug because it is an non-provable assertion.”
Revisions to theories are rare and minor that do not affect the basis of what the theories establish. It’s not as you claim – that theories are totally chucked – because in order for them to become theories they ahd to stand the test of time.
“Any poet could tell you we live in a world of Both/And and not Either/Or.”
Poet? What is your obesssion with fantasy writers as a basis for your personal ideology? That’s utterly infantile.
“Or, since I’m being pegged as a Christian when I’m not , I’ll use the humorous line “Yes, of course God can indeed construct a stone that He cannot lift—and what’s more, He can lift it!â€
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck… must be a duck.
“I also find the premise of your book very unscientific. (You don’t seem to be able to exclude the human motive.)”
Considering your comtempt for Science, you’re in no position to judge.
“And, although you have a groupie in unbelievable, I find your enterprise worthless –probably forced upon you by the publish or perish world of academia.”
Groupie? F*ck you. I’m a grown woman with thoughts of my own, who enjoys the thoughts of other intelligent people.
“It seems to me disengenuous of you to begin with a contention and then seek out random quotes to prove it. This would seem to prove Steven Pinker’s assertion that the conscious mind is a spin doctor and not a critical thinker. What will you call your book? Begging the Question??? And I could easily be you. Names here are easily hijacked and the anonymity of handles makes it difficult to verify sources. How does on cite the authority of sk8trgrrl69?”
No, you could NOT be Professor Colby. Not on his worst day.
“I shall close with a comment directed at unbelievable. Earlier you said I must be a Christian because Only Christians defend Christianty. Where do you get crap like that?”
Life experience. Get some and then you’ll understand… maybe… I’m not certain your tiny pea brain can handle the input.
“I have spent a wearying 20 odd posts defending Islam on another thread.”
No david, you defended your idea of god. The monotheistic god that is shared by the Judeo-Islamic-Christian branch of religion.
“Of course atheists and pantheists can defend others from irrational and derogatory attacks.”
Except that I simply quotes the bible and you FREAKED OUT. My post was both rational and factual. It was you who became unhinged and derogatory by insulting me instead of debating the issues. 90% of your posts are crazed, foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism based on wishful thinking and ZERO facts.
“Our quarrel began when you attacked Benedictine nuns who were protesting the war in Iraq.”
I didn’t attack them, I simply pointed out the misogynistic regard for women in the bible, which I verified with bible quotes, and from logic concluded that no Christian woman could be a role model because Christian oppressed women. But, logic offends you david, and that’s the point here. Either we all agree with you or you flip out and think you’re entitled to degrade us. Wrong.
“You seemed more interested in proselytizing your irreligion than engaging with the story.”
You really need to take a course on logic. That statement was ridiculous.
And if I want to preach Atheism, it is my right. In fact, just because you want me to stop, I’ll do it more. And will you defend my right as you defend the right of Christians to do the same? Of course not – you’re a hypocrite.
“You reminded me of the Stalinists in Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia –more interested in total ideological control than in victory. You might consider reading Karen Armstrong for a more interesting overview of why religion matters. (Gore Vidal’s Creation is also a good read.)”
Again, my goal is to get the Fundies to stop taking over our country. If you wanna absurdly link that to nonsense, then, really david, you should consider reading the brochure for an asylum that specializes in mental disorders. You’re deranged.
‘t a parting shot at Bruce Gorton. America is NOT a democracy. It is a ‘representative’ democracy. Which is a polite way of saying that it’s a pretend democracy. How 300 million people can be said to be governing when all decisions are made by less than 600 in Washington, DC is something I really don’t know. It’s a fraud.
Comment by david — May 20, 2007 @ 3:45 pm”
Piss off david – you’re a bully and you hide behind your faux cloak of literary and philosophical nominclature without having teh slightest clue what any of ot actually means.
You’re offically a “whack-a-troll” now.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:48 pm“The problem, as I see it, is one of language.”
No, the problem is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and those of us here have seen through your pretense.
“unbelievable claims to love art and literature, but she then expresses disdain for “fiction†and bows down to “fact†in the sort of degrading sadism of Dickens’ Mr Gradgrind.”
Stop comparing me to some fictional prototype. I’m a real person who cannot be neatly catagorize into your ridiculous anthology of ‘characters’.
I never expressed a disdain for fiction. I expressed a disdain that you base your life upon it rather than reality (non-fiction), because it’s dangerous to the rest of us who are forced to inhabit this planet with you.
“Nothing depresses me more than to see literature taught in schools as a secondary resource: that is, the novel as springboard to discussions of racism or feminism or the morality of war.”
Dude – you are delusional. Literature is not real. It’s pretend people in pretend environments. How awful is your life to romanticize literature, rejecting reality and then hating those of us who not only find solace in the truth, but reject your demented views…
“It is a very “scientific†approach to literature that merely delivers up every great work of art to the student’s desk as something dead and to be dissected. It’s very dehumanizing.
Comment by david — May 20, 2007 @ 4:22 pm”
No it isn’t. It is what it is. Nothing more. And as long as you live in the world you wish existed rather than the one that does, it is you who is your own somber puppet master and not Science.
You’ve dehumanized yourself. As I said before, you hate reality therefore you ultimately hate yourself. Get professional help. You desperately need it.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:56 pm“They openly speak of and seek a theocracy and no one among us will call them treasonist. However, I do! They are an enemy within; an enemy of the state.
Comment by dixie blood — May 20, 2007 @ 6:02 pm”
The book has been added to my wishlist :)
You know I’m with you on this. And I feel the same way that you do that if we don’t stand up to them, no one else will. The liberal Christians aren’t standing up to them. And I get the feeling that 90% of them won’t. There are expections, but they are all in the Jesus Club for the most part and refuse to condemn anyone but us non-believers…
I like when people like david show up – they give us a plaform for debunking their arguments. :D
May 20th, 2007 at 7:05 pmdavid,
You need to seek help, advice, insight, knowledge and a way to escape the religious ignorance in which you were raised.
There’s a great big, wonderful world out here beyond the boundries of your ignorance of and hatred for science. I hope you can visit it some day soon!!
Let me thank you for helping keep alive a topic here that helps point out the silly, shallow thinking of the fundamentalists riech-wing christianistas regarding scientific methods, etc. Get’r'dun!!
May 20th, 2007 at 7:16 pmDavid,
I could equally accuse you of having flunked critical thinking in college. Personification is a fallacy when applied to non-persons like natural forces, animals or even abstract entities like concepts, principles, and rules. It’s called the fallacy of anthropomorphism or the pathetic fallacy. This matter has nothing to do with English composition. (You seem determined to introduce irrelevant concepts and claims to our dispute.)
As for whether or not science exhibits progress, would you deny that Einsteinian physics is an advance over Newtonian physics in that it provides a more adequate model for predicting and retrodicting natural phenomena? If you deny this, then what, if anything, makes Einsteinian physics preferable? Why is phlogiston no longer a plausible hypothesis? The ether? Why is a heliocentric model of the solar system explanatorily superior to a geocentric one? You’re free to accept or reject any distinction you want, but there’s a certain intellectual price you should expect to pay if you want to reject standard distinctions made by intellectual specialists, especially if you don’t even understand why these specialists have made these distinctions in the first place. This price is the vice of wantonness. You pick and choose your distinctions on the basis of your unchecked ideology. I try to follow a higher, more impartial standard.
As for peer review, my peers are fellow professional philosophers, not scientists, and religionists and theologians least of all. Only philosophers, trained in philosophical, conceptual, and logical analysis, are in a position to understand the distinctions, principles, and arguments that I make in my book. If someone doesn’t have the requisite training, he’s in no position to understand, let alone evaluate, such philosophical content. It’s nothing but arrogance to claim otherwise. (Even Kant, as devout as he was, recognized that all claims about divine morality must be submitted to the tribunal of secular human reason in order to curb human pretensions to claim knowledge where such knowledge is impossible to possess.) When you’ve had philosophical training, you’ll be in a position to judge whether I’ve allowed bias to cloud my judgment; in the meantime, I stand by my graduate training and many years of teaching a wide range of courses, including philosophy of religion, epistemology, Kant, and critical thinking.
Your citing poetry involves the fallacy of the red herring since poetry has nothing to do with the substance of my arguments against you. By the way, I do like poetry–so much for your attempt to reduce my considered philosophical views to subjective, logically irrelevant personal factors in order for you to dismiss them (the ad hominem fallacy and the fallacy of mind reading since you don’t know me and don’t know anything about my extra-philosophical interests). I would just remind you of the logical distinction between poetry and logical discourse. One is expressive, the other cognitive. But perhaps you reject this distinction too.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pmAh, dixie blood, how nice to see yet another bloodthirsty progressive calling for the extermination of people of faith. Yes, round up those dangerous ‘believers’.
Of course, you are quite ignorant and gullible if you think I’m a member of the Christian Right. I have no quarrel with Evolution, I do not see the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, I do not consider Jesus His only begotten son, and I am a socialist and have been a member of Canada’s social democratic party (NDP) for years. And I can heartily recommend the works of Canada’s Anglican minister Tom Harpur –he’s one on wine and another on Jesus as myth: The Pagan Christ.
But then there is very much an element of totalitarianism in all those who cannot see the peaceful coexistence of science and religion. One might try reading John Polkinghorne’s Has Science made religion redundant?
May 20th, 2007 at 7:28 pmDavid,
I see that you just referred to Polkinghorne’s book. Among other purposes, my own book refutes his claims. His basic weakness is his intellectual inability to address the vast conceptual and logical differences between science and religion, which I attribute to his lack of adequate philosophical training.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:32 pmDBT are important. But it all depends on whether the right question has been asked and how the results are interpreted. Big Pharma puts dozens of drugs on the market that have only a success rate of slightly more than 50% in DBTs. That is, they are nominally useless. There is no searching for Truth without the taint of human desire. I should point out that DBT have only a narrow application and can be invalidated by the discrovery of certain circumstances not factored in beforehand.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:55 pmWell, I trust you all enjoyed that post of Prof Colby:
Such a nice little closed system he’s created. How wonderfully democratic of him!
It is interesting that you have spent your greatest efforts trying to frame the terms of the debate. An open forum doesn’t work that way. As much as you’d like to say that only “trained philosophers” can quarrel with you, I think you’ll find that won’t cut it in a free and open debate.
Pathetic fallacy is a literary device. When last I checked I was typing the English language. If you are more comfortable with the equations of symbolic logic, I doubt anyone would understand. So you like poetry. Both you and unbelievable claim to be lovers of the arts and yet you don’t really seem to know anything but your own field and unbelievable talks of fiction and literature in ways that would make an English prof wince. Why don’t you transhumanists upload yourselves into a computer and have done with your meaningless lives.
May 20th, 2007 at 8:10 pmdavid,
It is Corporare America and NOT, I repeat NOT Science that has failed the grade when it comes to pharmaceuticals. You’re blaming the wrong thing as we keep pointing out an you keep refusing to consider while bashing Science for being narrow-minded. Ah the irony…
Here’s the real problem with useless and dangerous pharmaceuticals – Drug Companies are pressured by marketing, competition and profit margins to get drugs on the market that they don’t fully research, develop and test their products. That’s not the fault of Science, it’s the fault of human greed.
Stop blaming a method for human frailties. If anything has failed you, it isn’t Science.
Sheesh…
May 20th, 2007 at 8:27 pmDBT are important. But it all depends on whether the right question has been asked and how the results are interpreted.
Comment by david — May 20, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
This statement alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are missing an education regarding scientific methods, research, standards and concrete conclusions where proven and the search for more knowledge always.Do you like being stupid in public? Just asking…
May 20th, 2007 at 8:42 pmSharia Law will be next for us dumb Americans.
Comment by LandSurveyor — May 19, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Don’t worry, Bush sent the army to protect you from that.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:32 pm“Hey! Austin is not bad. Travis county went 70% kerry in 2004.
Its the rest of the State thats showing the results of inbreeding.=D
Comment by Wayne — May 19, 2007 @ 11:23 amâ€
Austin: slime capital of Texas
May 20th, 2007 at 11:48 pmGreat another lunatic bent on indoctrinating students instead of offering scientific discourse in a classroom.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:33 amunbelievable
Hey, david isn’t a bully, he is just basically intellectually dishonest. He couldn’t best my wish to improve the world, so he resorted to accusing me of worshipping progress, like there is actually anything wrong with wanting to make the world a better place.
He is incapable of grasping that science is a methadology – which includes self-correction and means of minimising bias-based error which have been learned over a long period.
Also, he accused me of being a scientist, which I find rather amusing. Though I am well read due to my real job I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
May 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pmlook closely:
Your statement that horse evolution is an example of microevolution at best is…well, it’s wrong. Assuming that you use Macroevolution in terms of evolution of one species to another (rather than the creationist usage which merely refers to “things they disagree with”) then this is a clear case of Macroevolution.
A distinction between two species can be demonstrated by an inability of the species to successfully breed (or by the demonstrable preference of a species not to breed in nature, though fertilisation could theoretically occur). This combined with morphological differences would clearly indicate speciation.
Now, this established, would it not be sensible to surmise that a modern horse, would be inable to breed successfully, in nature, with it’s DOG SIZED ancestor? And would this not suggest that speciation, and thus macroevolution has clearly occured?
Furthermore, your helpful observation that each of the individual changes could be attributed to Microevolution, while the overall effect is one of Macroevolution, succesfully debunks the common creationist dogma that Microevolution can not add up to Macroevolution.
Still, it’s true i suppose, God might have made it all up, who needs evidence anyway?
May 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pmlook closely:
Saying that the model of horse evolution presented over the years is wrong is very much oversimplified.
It is not wrong, it is completely correct, if you were to get pictures of fossils, put dates next to them, and note the progression as time went on, you would see a clear evolution.
The way in which the model is lacking is in it’s detail. In fact horse evolution occured down many separate branches, the majority of which died off. This is where the creationist site you sourced can be seen to be misleading. Statements such as “the three toed” and “the next creature” are most easily refuted by asking “which three toed?” or “which next creature?”
Different evolutionary branches evolve at different rates due to different external selective pressures caused by geographical isolation.
May 26th, 2007 at 3:44 pmWhile agreeably it is false for a model to postulate that all horses evolved along a certain pathway. It is equally false for a creationist to use this assumption to “disprove evolution”.