Good points. Another aspect of this use or disuse of science by the left is the hunt for the gay gene. Have you noticed how scientific research allegedly turns up a gene for this or that it is hailed as a means of correcting what is perceived as a undesirable behavior/conditions such as a gene predisposing obesity. However, whenever gay gene research is touted the science is then used to confirm the condition/behavior. Has anyone else noticed this?. I firmly believe that we wiil soon be hearing about "scientific research" which discovers a gene that causes/predisposes sexual behavior with children. It all sooooo natural, don't you know?
There is a base common denominator that should be the topic of address.
Specific examples, such as the creation vs evolution debate, will always cloud the issue, the end result being the maintenance of status quo.
That common denominator is LIBERTY.
Matters not what type of speech is being restricted or what idea is being quenched, what matters is the quenching itself.
That is the crime.
The exact same mechanism is at work regarding the spoutings of radio announcers and "shock jocks".
Or proponents of the US Constitution, for that matter.
It is LIBERTY that is under fire.
.
Doc, two books I recommend are "What Darwin Didn't Know" and "Billions of Missing Links", both by Geoffrey Simmons M.D.
I have not bothered to explore what the idea of intelligent design is. I would have assumed that evolution was intelligent design. Apparently not. No matter, I'm not going back to school under any circumstances.
The left are all for science -- but only so long as they control the debate. Under the left's censorship, free inquiry and open debate is squelched in favor of politically correct group-think. Which is another way of saying the left are both anti-science and anti-free speech.
The Global Warming hoax is instructive. By declaring that "the debate is over," the left has provided empirical evidence -- scientific proof, one might say -- that they are not for science at all, only a political agenda. I get the sense more people are figuring this out.
God's hand in evolution, creation are a matter of metaphysics not science. It is only because we have taken the metaphysical out of our list of acceptable intellectual pursuits by claiming scientific knowledge answers all that we are in this fix. Some things are un answerable by science and indeed are more important than science. Whether you believe in God or not, there must be a different language to deal with these larger issues.
I'm with james wilson.
Many people, including scientists, have reconciled science with the spiritual. When I first heard of Intelligent design, I thought this what was being spoken about.
Religion, imho, is a reflection of a culture. However, it is slow to change because it is institutionalized and generally run by those who are on in years. Religions also were used to explaining how the universe worked. Although that isn't really it roll. Religion is meant to answer why (as in why am I here) and not so much how (as in how do I stay on the ground). But historically it tried to answer both.
So when our understanding of the Universe changes, it takes a while for religious institutions to absorb that new understanding. It also has trouble letting go of the "how" part, more so in the past than today.
Galileo was an example of this. He was suppressed by Rome. But 40 years ago when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, the Church didn't burn anyone and Christianity survived. I believe in evolution and God. In fact I learned evolution at my Catholic high school.
However, the Left has decided that it will not let this happen. At least not let it be perceived to happen.
Intelligent Design often reminds me when the Left owned the media completely. Whenever the disliked the opposing view, they would find the biggest idiots or freaks out of the crowd to represent the opposing viewpoint. Or simply bring in someone who is not equipped to represent the opposing view.
The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck is such an example. She is often touted at the show's conservative. But she's simply not equipped to handle the political debates that arise.
Intelligent design is at the other end of the spectrum from where I & many others see Science and Religion coexisting. Intelligent Design is like the Elizabeth Hasselbeck of reconciling Science with Religion. An easy target in terms of ridiculing.
The media's treatment of ID is an opportunistic attempt to take a new moment in history where institutionalized religion needs to adjust to new understandings of how the universe works and ridicule it. Potentially in hopes of additionally forcing religions to circle the wagons and box themselves into a difficult position. Hoping to prevent religions from adapting. Or at least giving the perception that religion can't adapt.
What hurts science is when the intellectuals practicing it come to believe they are so much smarter than everyone else that they were born to rule us with their ideas.
The commonly accepted proposition that legislation should conform to the opinions of science is doubly corrupting. It corrupts the founding principle of this nation, individual liberty (superior to all political systems since concocted by the intellectuals) in favor of authoritarian tyranny. It further corrupts science itself, as it tempts the politically active scientist to massage his numbers in order to find the hare he is hunting. We see that all the time.
Then of course, there is the arrogance of a class that considers itself our rulers--whose main accomplishment is to use government force to provide jobs for himself, his family, and his friends--a new aristocracy, as hateful as the old one the founders revolted from.
Note also that some science and math classes, even at the university level, are effectively being turned into "social studies" classes.
"National Socialism [Nazism], however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific searches."- Martin Bormann
LIES, THUGGERY AND SCIENCE DON'T MIX
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/
017617.php
Science just isn't compatible with their nature, or agenda.
"National Socialism [Nazism], however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific searches."- Martin Bormann
Are these the same with the Nazis who thought eugenics was real science?
"INTELLIGENT DESIGN" (ID) VS MACROEVOLUTION (ME)
ID says "There had to be a creator so that should be evident in the complexity of living things, and because we find comnplexity there must be a Creator who designed it that way."
The ME generation, on the other hand, says "There is no G-d so life had to arise spontaneously from a mud puddle [or whatever], and since we can assume that it did that proves there is no G-d."
They both reason in circles from unproveable assertions. They both start with a premise, pick the data that seems to support it, and the resulting "science" of both rests on the respective "faith" of their adherents.
Neither is actually a theory, strictly speaking.
Of course while ID never will be because the existence of G-d isn't amenable to scientific proof, ME might possible one day come to that point because it postulates physical processes that are theoretically amenable to analysis. But it is extremely dishonest for ME to pretend that because it might one day be proven, when it isn't even close and in fact may yet turn out to actually be proven impossible, though for a different reason than for ID.
Still, they are both useful perspectives. ID catalogs complexity that ME should quantitatively explain. Unfortunately, ME is currently unable to do that to any degree whatever. That's a serious drawback for them, and I think the proper criticism of them should be to aggressively hold their feet to the fire on that shortcoming.
Sorry, end of second to last paragarph of my
| 05.13.07 - 4:08 am |
was unclear. I should have been:
"But it is extremely dishonest for ME to pretend that because it might one day be proven, when it isn't. It's not even close and in fact may yet turn out to actually be proven impossible, though for a different reason than for ID."
I hope that makes it more readable.
"But it is extremely dishonest for ME to pretend that because it might one day be proven, that it already is.. It's not even close and in fact may yet turn out to actually be proven impossible, though for a different reason than for ID."
Hey, it's 4:10AM. my am tired. And after all the rewrites and proofing I've done, I thought I finally had it the way I wanted it.
But this topic is important. and needs to be seen in the proper light. Just because both sides are fighting doesn't mean we have to side with either of them. If they are both wrong and there is another and more correct way they could be going, we are not helping matters by chosing between either of the two wrong ways.
Oh, and then there is
Mission Accomplished
by Varifrank
Which the Doc headlined a few days back.
And
SEEING THE UNSEEN Part 1
by Bill Whittle
All of them talk about the fact that very few people bother to think, haven't been taught to think, and usually don't go out and find the facts before expressing themselves even if they might otherwise be able to think.
I think the whole man made global warming hysteria is a direct result of self induced claustrophobia in the arena of ideas.
These people have successfully killed off any sense of wonder and deep philisophical mystery about consciousness and even existence itself. As if finding yourself on a planet size rock whirling without end around the fireball of a star is a perfectly explainable phenomenon.
They have successfully whittled the unfathomable universe down to one "manageable" planet as God. A self centered God as a matter of fact that convieniently doesnt give a damn about how they treat their fellow human beings. Just how they treat IT.
There is this parallel with Global Warming and Evolution. What is it about stealing second base? If you believe the globe has warmed, then you must buy the assumption that this warming is caused by people. If you believe in micro-evolution, then you must believe in macro-evolution.
I'm really surprised so many people still think Darwin's theory is fact. The fossil record doesn't back up Darwin, see the Cambrian explosion. Nor can Darwin account for the irreducible complextity of the cell.
ID fits the facts. I'd need a lot more blind faith to believe "The Origin of Species" than I do The Bible.
~jredline
And any real study of evolution will indicate that there is NO constant path of evolution. There are constant leaps which evolution as presently taught does not or cannot explain.
I just finished a book, "Quantum Evolution," that leaves more questions to life and evolution than answers. The fact is that Science knows very little about existence and there are but a number of theories postulated that all fail to demonstarate where consciousness comes.
Science is a methodolgy to prove or disprove theory and in many cases has no clue. When one considers quantum mechanics, zero point energy, etc we are still in the dark ages.
One of the things that bothers me is the desire to trust computer modeling. For one someone has to determine the variables, someone has to assign weights to the variables, someone has to determine what the results of these models are, et al. It is little wonder that computer models give the answers that those who use them want. Until econometric modeling can predict the past/future, a climate model can predict the past or future or any other computer model can accomplish an accurate portrayal of past/future events then we have nothing of scientific value. We have GIGO.
It is a fact that those who believe they know everything know nothing. This is the description of the Left who almost have become this country's Luddites.
Dennis, i think in one of Michael Chricton's speeches he points out that if computer models had been around at the beginning of the 20th century, we would have deduced that the world would be overwhelmed with horse sh*t. Given the predicted rise in the need for horses for transportation. Lol.
"Science is a methodolgy to prove or disprove . . . " -- Dennis
Actually, as my professors (the good ones, anyway, which were the majority) stressed, "Science can NEVER "prove" anything. It can only tell you, based on past experience (repeated experimentation) whether something is more likely than something else." [and this is a huge problem with Macro Evolution; there are NO experiments at all, let alone reproducible ones.]
The problem is that the "soft science" types want us to believe that scientific knowledge is more than just a measure of what is most likely. But they do us and Science disservice by pretending it is something that it is not.
Ytba, i agree science can only be about probabilities. Once you make science about certainties you automatically bias yourself on further research and exploration on a subject.
JUST THE FACTS
"ID fits the facts. I'd need a lot more blind faith to believe "The Origin of Species" than I do The Bible." -- jredline
Of course it takes more blind faith, but that doesn't make ID science either.
And ID doesn't "fit the facts." It "fits the a-priori assumptions,"as does ME, which though necessary is insufficient to make them "science." To be "science" ID (and ME) would have to make predictions that could be found true or false based on a given set of experiments designed to test those predictions. As far as I know ID can't do that at all and doesn't even try.
At least ME can in theory be scientifically tested. Since it postulates that life arose from non-life, experiments can be designed to try to reproduce that event. The problem for ME is that all the experiments it can do have been done, and it has failed them all. So at best that tells us they have proven nothing but that ME is in all likelyhood impossible. If you want to call it a theory, call it a failed theory.
The ME folks may object and say "But life exists so it MUST have happened even if we can't prove it." But then ID can (and does) use that same argument. And ID's case is actually made a bit stronger when we include ME's failure to produce life from non-life. But that still doesn't make ID "scientific."
Both are still ultimately based solely on their respective faiths, and as such are more properly philosophy. Although ME gives the illusion of being scientific because it deals with the experimental (you can't experiment with G-d), that is just an illusion, for the very reason that just because experiments might some day be done to confirm it doesn't alter the fact that no one knows what those are.
Still, the fact that the possibility remains open to future reversal of refutation resulting in confirmation means ME is still a legitimate line of inquiry (a very tenacious postulate). But to pretend that it is proven when it has so far only been refuted shows they are more interrested in the ideological than the scientific.
If I had to give the ME folks a name it wouldn't be "scientists," it would be "bio-alchemists."
"Ytba, i agree science can only be about probabilities. Once you make science about certainties you automatically bias yourself on further research and exploration on a subject." -- SteveH
Good observation, and it fits in very well with what the Doc says in her article. Nice "segway?"
"Dennis, . . . Michael Chricton . . . points out that . . . the world would be overwhelmed with horse sh*t. Given . . . the [expected future] need for horses for transportation. Lol." -- SteveH
Was it Chrichton who said that? I remember reading it somewhere, too. Very funny.
If liked that, then you'll probably enjoy this
"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period,' just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." -- Mark Twain, "Life On The Mississippi"
http://www.online-literature.com...mississippi/18/
Another link in case that one goes down.
http://classiclit.about.com/libr...sissippi- 17.htm
Thanks for those Links, Oh Bloody Hell. I hadn't seen those last two.
OBH
Correction
I did see that one from "eject ..." and I knew about what the other is discussing, but didn't have that specific link on it.
Thanks again.
Liberty is great! As long as constrains concentrations of power.
Any decent Supreme Creator would exist outside the constraints of space and time, which is exactly the area human science has a bit of trouble with.
And would it be dogmatic to demand that the entire global warming crowd (pro and con) be locked into a room together with all their research, but out of contact with all politicians and corporate sponsors, and not allowed out until they came up with real answers and globally cost effective solutions?
Oh crap. Replace:
Any decent Supreme Creator would exist outside the constraints of space and time, which is exactly the area human science has a bit of trouble with.
With:
"Any decent Supreme Creator would exist outside the LIMITS of space and time, which is exactly the area human science has a bit of trouble with."
AF
I support locking the pro global warming crowd away, with no outside contact, but we get to look in with one-way mirrors and eavesdrop by having their discussions broadcast around the world.
And they shouldn't complain. They say the science is already done, so they don't need any more input. How could they object?
Oh, yeah, and mess with their climate control so it gets hot when they turn it up and cold when they turn it down, except sometimes at random it works right. I like the idea.
Sounds dogmatic to me.
I'd be all for mandated solutions even if humans had absolutely nothing to do with it, as long as they were economically feasible and the threats were proven unequivocally real and dangerous.
On the other hand, if it’s all mankind’s fault and no amount of cash could fix things then your solution might work.
I'll be out gardening in a yard that never saw a 100 degree day until four years ago, - and then every year since. My solution is more mulch!!
I'll be out gardening in a yard that never saw a 100 degree day until four years ago,
That reminds me of the story of two moths sitting in a sequoia tree. One moth looks at the other and says "You know this thing is alive?" The other moth says "No way...I been here two weeks and aint seen it do nothin."
Meanwhile, no one who advocates intelligent design theory or creationism has ever advocated (that I am aware) that evolution theory be struck from the curriculum and not be allowed in public discourse or debate. All they ask is that their ideas be included in the debate.
What never gets discussed is the imposition of a particular "creation myth" on a diverse population.
Should the Indian and Asian kid be taught the Evangelical view of creation? Because they have a more powerful lobby?
You right-wing kooks will never understand anything about a civil society. Diversity terrifies you. Intolerance defines you. It is all fear, manipulation and lies.
One by one, they fall. Rumsfeld. Delay. Wolfowitz, Gonzales. Etc.
One thing you can say about the religious right is that their desire to teach "intelligent design" (a theory I do not think has sufficient evidence to be included in children's science textbooks) basically represents a rather desperate desire to have their religious views respected in a system that has deliberately and with malice aforethought been excluding them for years. even as other "religions" views are substituted.
I am sure many Islamic terrorists would make a similar case, that their actions are ones of desperation against the infidel tyrant America.
You cannot have it both ways. Religious believers have to take some responsibility for their own behaviour without the qualification of how badly treated they feel they are by “secularism” or the “left”, that includes ID proponents and the lack of either honesty or integrity they showed in attempting to foist in into science classrooms.
You rant about how badly religious believers are treated by a liberal establishment while going, to what seems to me, to be incredible length to soft peddle and whitewash the behaviour of outright fraud and deception displayed by religious conservatives on the issue of ID and evolution.
http://iac-phycis2.blogspot.com/
Introductory Astronomy, Cosmology, Physics
http://iac-phycis1.blogspot.com/
http://iac-phycis.blogspot.com/
Visit this Blog te LeaRN More , cool info and very helpfull, I Realy Enjoyed Reading this Blog, I hope u Enjoj To
http://iac-phycis2.blogspot.com/
and 100% Free Dating Site at:
http://www.You4Dating.com
Commenting by HaloScan.com
