The IRA, after a hundred years of strife, has announced it’s laying down arms and wants to work toward its goals using non-violent means (as Kathleen has noted over on her website.)
So let’s say we flash forward ten years, and Al Qeada is still strong, in business, and a major terrorist force. Iraq is still a fragmented mess. And suddenly Al Qeada announces that it wants to lay down arms and work toward a peaceful unification of Iraq and the Muslim world.
Do we accept that? Do we start working with them?
PAD
• 
The rise of militant Islamis is usually not about different sects fighting with each other over resources. With the exception of Lebanon and to a certain degree Israel and Europe, it did not emerge in minority sects, but in the large sunni muslim (or Shia in Iran) majority. Radical Islamism is about muslims looking for a solution in their old time religion for the failings of the Muslim world in the present. It is a response to a sense of failure and disappointment with two facts: (a) the weakness of the muslim world in relation to the non-muslim; (b) the failure of western ideas to improve the situation of people in the Muslim world, which is then also perceived as having a corrupting influence on Muslim society. (They use a term which refers to the immoral situation of the Arabs before the conversion to Islam, which I think is Jahalia). Both problems are seen as interconnected. They are violent instead of being non-violent because violence has prestige. The preceive themselves as non violent in the sense that they were peaceful until they felt it necessary to respond to the attack against them by the non-muslims or by the heretic muslims.
One last word in defence of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was created to deal with christians who deviated from the Catholic doctrine (heretics), not people who were non Christians. It did not persecute Jews and Muslims in Spain, but Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity but kept practicing their old religions in secret.
Bill, not to be an ášš, but you do realize that you argue against using Christian history against modern Christians, then use muslim history to criticize modern Islamics?
I did a bad job of conveying my thoughts–for one thing, erase the word “if” at the beginning of my post and it makes slightly more sense. But the point I was making was that it was wrong to judge modern Christianity by what happend in 1503 and if one DID use such a standard, Islam would come off poorly as well.
My other comment on Islam’s violent past was because of a comment that violence was not tolerated. Untrue–Mohammed used it to his advantage. I’m not saying he was wrong, but history is what it is.
The point about the Crusades is because there’s this modern view that Christianity is somehow free from the evils that plague men, and that’s just patently false.
What modern view is that? Every college history course I ever took was actively hostile to religion. I could rattle off a list of recent movies that have evil Christian characters. Meanwhile, they change Tom Clancy movies so that the villians go from Islamic terrorists to neo-nazi types.
We Americans tend to find the idea of holding people responsible for the actions of their ancestors to be silly, but to others, things like the Crusades are still something that Christians as a group were responsible for. In fact, whether it’s Ireland, Bosnia, Darfur, or Rowanda, many of the disputes in these parts of the world have their roots in events that are hundreds of years old
You’re absolutely right about that but you know, the problem with blaming children for the sins of their great great grandfathers isn’t that it is unamerican–it’s just stupid, superstitious and evil. I know we need to be sensitive to the ways of others but there are some things that one should be willing to take a stand on. If we allow people to be judged by the actions of the long dead we will never get anywhere (and, in point of fact, those countries that are obsessed with the slights of the past seldom DO get anywhere).
Anyways, nutjobs such as Pat Robertson would qualify, don’t you think?
Not as someone who “destroys infidels”. He IS a nutjob though. If, however, he is the worst that Christianity has to offer then the religion is in GREAT shape.
Basically, the Christian decided one day that they were tired of raping and pillaging their fellow Europeans and decided to rape and pillage in the Middle East.
Yeah, that’s the “modern view of Christianity” that I was thinking of.
I said :while Christians these days are seldom more aggressive than knocking on your door with stupid pamphlets or, at worst, trying to make their morality into law by democratic means, there is still a substantial streak of the conquest memtality in far too many Muslims. A minority, to be sure, but one that still has enough numbers to do damage.
Tim replied I think those people killed or maimed by Eric Robert Rudolph would take issue with your statement that the last sentence applies only to Muslims.
Whoa,whoa whoa, how do you get that from what I said? In no way shape or form did I suggest that ONLY muslims are capable of violence. Obviously, if I am ever mugged, beaten or murdered, the odds are great that it will be a “christian” who does it.
You will note the use of the word “seldom”. Yes, there are crazed Christians and extremist Jews and Mormons who give coffee enemes to schoolkids but there are entire GOVERNMENTS of Islamic extremists who are cutting a bloody swath through the “unbelievers” in Africa. My take–and anyone can feel free to tell me where I’m going wrong–is that today, in this world, as we speak, most of the worst atrocities are in part due to Muslim extremism, not Christian, Judaic, Buddhist or Atheist. That doesn’t mean that there is something inherently bad about Islam. That doesn’t mean that other religions haven’t held the mantle in years past. But trying to equate, as some have, idiot TV preachers with people who have the blood of thousands on their hands…well, it just doesn’t work for me.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — it’s what was once the Inquistion.
And they don’t torture or kill people. So obviously Christianity has evolved. Compare and contrast to the treatment of heretics in Islam–you can contact Salaman Rushdie at 1313 Ontherun Blvd, Somewhere USA.
“Meanwhile, they change Tom Clancy movies so that the villians go from Islamic terrorists to neo-nazi types.”
Which is strange in itself since the villians were changed (and the movie filmed) before 9-11 happened. Don’t get me started on Clancy books-to-film. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Jonathan (the other one) —
I haven’t denied your point when you referenced the quote — I simply pointed out that it couldn’t possibly be what Jim was referring to, since it was posted AFTER he did. Unless you’re claiming he’s prescient, that can’t be evidence in favor of his statement at the time of his statement.
You’re more than welcome to keep belaboring this point if you like, but boy, I wish someone would actually address the substance of what I’d said in that post.
Bill:
while Christians these days are seldom more aggressive than knocking on your door with stupid pamphlets or, at worst, trying to make their morality into law by democratic means, there is still a substantial streak of the conquest memtality in far too many Muslims. A minority, to be sure, but one that still has enough numbers to do damage.
Me:
I think those people killed or maimed by Eric Robert Rudolph would take issue with your statement that the last sentence applies only to Muslims.
Bill:
Whoa,whoa whoa, how do you get that from what I said? In no way shape or form did I suggest that ONLY muslims are capable of violence. Obviously, if I am ever mugged, beaten or murdered, the odds are great that it will be a “christian” who does it.
Poor phrasing on my part; apologies.
However, my point is that “seldom” is really too general a word to use when your argument is tarring the Islamic world with a very broad brush. (I know, that’s not your intent — but it’s how it’s reading and very difficult to interpret any other way.) It’s awfully hard to say that “their extremists are worse than ‘our’ extremists” when a Christian extremist can be just as much the indiscriminate killer without the slightest bit of remorse.
Speaking as one comfortably outside of both faiths (read: any), I think both of them have done a fair bit of good over the centuries, and have also been used for truly massive amounts of evil. On balance, personally, I think humanity would be a lot better off without any sort of organized religion — but I also recognize that it’s unlikely to head in that direction in … well, maybe ever. So I carry on.
My take–and anyone can feel free to tell me where I’m going wrong–is that today, in this world, as we speak, most of the worst atrocities are in part due to Muslim extremism, not Christian, Judaic, Buddhist or Atheist. That doesn’t mean that there is something inherently bad about Islam. That doesn’t mean that other religions haven’t held the mantle in years past. But trying to equate, as some have, idiot TV preachers with people who have the blood of thousands on their hands…well, it just doesn’t work for me.
I think you’re too close to the subject, then.
Pat Robertson, let’s not forget, waxes nigh-orgasmic about how much he wished someone would plant a small nuke at Foggy Bottom. That’s not only evil, it’s bordering on incitement to treason. Maybe he doesn’t have the blood of thousands on his hands — but he has openly wished for something that would cause that, and at least to my knowledge has never recanted the statement.
(Has Pat Robertson killed infidels? No — but he’s also never had the means, and I for one am not confident enough of him to say that he’d refrain from using them if he had them.)
You’re probably right that at this very moment, more of the worst atrocities are being committed by Islamic extremists and not those of some other faith. So far as I can tell, though, that’s mostly because they happen to be at the front of the line at the moment. I don’t think it’s especially constructive to single them out, at least not if (as I think it might) it leads us to turn a blind eye away from other atrocities at the same time. I, for one, still think it’s worryingly possible that twenty years from now, other countries will be discussing American atrocities exactly the same way we are now, and have at least as much of a moral reason to do so.
TWL
First, to Jerome Maida:
Who is ‘we’, white man?
“We” is “the people in this country [who] DO overwhelmingly want peace for us and for others.” I thought that was quite clear.
Given your “it’s our fault the terrorists hate us” point of view, then you’re right.
Apparently you didn’t notice nine posts earlier when Peter David said “what bothers me are people who fabricate positions for me and then put it in quotes to imply that I actually said it, when all it is is nonsense.” (Yes, ElCoyote, I put his words in quotes, because he actually said them!) I never said it’s our fault that the terrorists hate us. You beamed that out of thin air and then used this point of view you made up for me to attack my position as idiotic and uneducated. There are words for that. Eric Cartman calls shenanigans. Tim Lynch calls straw man. I call bûllšhìŧ.
The war against terrorists is not one we chose. It was forced on us. And after September 11 we looked around and saw Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan taking credit for the attacks, we saw Pakistan continuing to shelter terrorists such as those who were behind the first attack on the World Trade Center, we saw North Korea continuing work on its nuclear program and threatening its neighbors, we saw Syria openly sponsoring terrorist organizations, we saw that most of the funding for terrorist cells comes from Arab royal families such as those in Saudi Arabia, so we declared that we were going to fight the terrorists and do everything in our power to stop them…
And then we buddied up with Pakistan, threw an underwhelming force at Afghanistan and turned our full attention to Iraq, far from the center of the world of terrorism, later more or less begging Saudi Arabia to step up oil production to help us out, allies that they are against terrorists). I don’t feel a strong need to recite chapter and verse the lies of the current administration. I do feel a strong need to explain that I want our government, and the other governments of the world, to do everything in their power to stop terrorism (idiotic and uneducated as that point of view may be, Jerome). Instead, our leaders talked big about stopping terrorism and then greatly ignored its causes, its sources, and its leaders to commit everything we have to Iraq.
Terrorism is a real threat, and the desire for peace involves eliminating threats to the peace, which includes terrorism. Iraq is not the source of that terrorism. Invading Iraq has not hampered terrorism. Invading Iraq has not made us safer. Invading Iraq was not something done to protect the peace. It wasn’t a strategic move. It wasn’t done for the greater good. It was a purely militaristic move against the wrong enemy at the wrong time, and we will be paying the price for it for decades. Thousands of people die, the entire country is still largely anarchic, and the people leading this nation flatly insist that things are improving every day and everything is going great and anyone who disagrees is supporting terror.
Bottom line: Bush wanted war with Iraq long before September 11. The attacks just gave him an excuse. It’s been all about war since the beginning. It was never about keeping us safe or stopping terrorism or any of the hundred other things they’ve said.
You say, “People with your point of view are not represented in our government to any measurable degree.” I agree. And that’s a shame for every one of us.
As for Luigi Novi… No, Al Qeada clearly doesn’t want peace with us. I don’t think we want peace with them either. If Al Qeada made peace overtures, I don’t think the Bush administration would accept them, except under terms that would be flatly unacceptable. We did the same thing with Iraq, which didn’t have the power to do anything more to threaten us than make faces at us and play cheerleader to Al Qeada, and then bombed the hëll out of them. I ask, Why Iraq, rather than any one of a dozen other nations that are more of a source of terrorism? I have yet to hear an adequate, or even rational, explanation for this. I don’t believe one exists.
Support the cause, hate the approach. Support the troops, hate the war. Support the government, hate the leaders. If only more people could see that these kinds of distinction are valid, more people would express their opinions about what’s going on without having to worry about being branded as supporting terrorists just because they didn’t fall lock in step with every word the government has said.
Tim,
As big an idiot as Pat Robertson is–and he’s a BIG IDIOT, let nobody be mistaken on that–the “Nuke the state Department” comment was a typically stupid attempt at humor, like when Nina Totenberg wished that Jesse Helms or one of his grandkids would contract AIDS. “nuke” and “nuclear” has lost all meaning–I just read one commentary how Abortion Rights are “under nuclear attack”. Dumb comment but I won’t try to pretend that the writer (Marjorie Cohn) actually believes that radioactive fallout will be drifting down over NOW headquarters.
Robertson has done lots of idiotic things. He has been a bad influence on the Republican Party and the country in general. But…there’s no “maybe” in the “maybe he doesn’t have the blood of thousands on his hands” and I just wish all of us could reserve the labels for the many who have earned it. Robertson has earned the label of fool but putting him anywhere near the same level of mass murderers is like those conservatives who want to believe that Micahel Moore secretly wants to have all conservatives sent to consentration camps.
You’re probably right that at this very moment, more of the worst atrocities are being committed by Islamic extremists and not those of some other faith. So far as I can tell, though, that’s mostly because they happen to be at the front of the line at the moment. I don’t think it’s especially constructive to single them out, at least not if (as I think it might) it leads us to turn a blind eye away from other atrocities at the same time.
Ok, I know you aren’t actually saying that it’s wrong for us to be singling out those committing atrocities…I’m assuming you are saying that it is wrong to single out the fact that Islam may be a factor. But if we ignore that we might not be able to actually attack the root of the problem.
I don’t know if what is needed is a Muslim Ghandi. I would suggest maybe another Ataturk or two.
Maybe Pat Robertson hasn’t personally slaughtered anyone, but he had invested in a silver mine in Africa where human rights abuses were documented.
Pat’s lost a lot of his fun for me. I used to loved listening to him in the 90s talk about how Y2K was the coming apocalypse and then in his next segment, start giving out long-term financial advice. As if that mattered if he truly thought the world was coming to an end in a few years.
As for Hannity, giving people blind quotes and then trying to trap them into a response is SOP for him. I’ve seen on Hannity and Sock Puppet pull similar things, like pull a quote from Kerry about Iraq and try to make the guest think it was from Bush so that they’d condemn it.
I guess that’s easier that actually talking about ideas.
Maybe Pat Robertson hasn’t personally slaughtered anyone, but he had invested in a silver mine in Africa where human rights abuses were documented.
Pat’s lost a lot of his fun for me. I used to loved listening to him in the 90s talk about how Y2K was the coming apocalypse and then in his next segment, start giving out long-term financial advice. As if that mattered if he truly thought the world was coming to an end in a few years.
As for Hannity, giving people blind quotes and then trying to trap them into a response is SOP for him. I’ve seen on Hannity and Sock Puppet pull similar things, like pull a quote from Kerry about Iraq and try to make the guest think it was from Bush so that they’d condemn it.
I guess that’s easier that actually talking about ideas.
Sorry about the double post. Typekey was being goofy again.
Luigi Novi,
Thanks for your reply. While I don’t interpret the incident in question the same way you do, I can see how you would. Thanks.
Tim Lynch,
“And Jerome, while Craig can be a little extreme”
No.No. No. Using the term “master race” is more than a ‘little extreme’. Please, Tim. If I or anyone posted that the increasing frequency of, say, interracial relationships was producing a “mongrel race”, as was stated so frequently in the ’60s, I don’t think you or anyone else would consider that a “little extreme”.
They would call it what it is – nasty, ugly, bigoted sludge.
But the target is Christians, whom it is clear from many of the postings here that many here truly despise. Not disagree with. Despise.
Because, again, using Nazi terminology to paint any group with that outrageous of a broad brush goes beyond the pale.
Seriously, Tim, while I disagree with you quite often, at least you usually – even in your moments of extreme anger – present a rational argument. You may be angry at times, but I have never found you to be hateful.
But when people say things like “Al-quaida would be as bad as Bush” (which someone else did, and which I have yet to see you or anyone except Luigi rebuke) and inject “master race” into the discussion, then not only do I find it impossible to take such people seriously, but I find such ugly hyperbole beneath contempt and feel perfectly justified in dismissing such outrageous arguments.
I have seen and heard a lot of ugliness lately, and I’m sick of it. One of the nicest people I’ve ever known surprised the hëll out of me by using the term “ragheads” in describing Arabs. I find that offensive, as well as disappointing. One of my better friends is Iranian. She’s absolutely one of the best people I know and now I have to wonder, if certain worlds collided, what the reaction would be. It is not uncommon, when back in my hometowm, to hear the N-word.
And I’m sick of it. Sick of it to death. The problem is many here, who freely understand why I would be upset with the previous two examples, of people who refuse to open their minds and see people as people, are quite silent when somone continuously bashes a group they DON’T LIKE, in this case Christians.
So instead of wasting my time and energy engaging someone who clearly doesn’t care whether I do so or not, I will dismiss those who I feel add nothing but anger to the conversation and will choose to speak with those who actually have something to add to the discourse.
I consider you to be one of them, despite your occasional cheap shots at me. If you can understand what I’m saying, great. If not, well that’s swell too.
Bigotry is ugly no matter who it’s directed against.
Bill,
Robertson has done lots of idiotic things. He has been a bad influence on the Republican Party and the country in general. But…there’s no “maybe” in the “maybe he doesn’t have the blood of thousands on his hands” and I just wish all of us could reserve the labels for the many who have earned it.
The “maybe” wasn’t meant to show I was uncertain about it — it just seemed the best way to start the sentence, a la “Okay, so maybe I don’t have statues devoted to me but I’m still a decent guy.”
I will express mild skepticism, though, at dismissing the “nuke” comment as only a poor attempt at humor. It certainly was that, but I really wonder sometimes whether it was only that.
Ok, I know you aren’t actually saying that it’s wrong for us to be singling out those committing atrocities…I’m assuming you are saying that it is wrong to single out the fact that Islam may be a factor. But if we ignore that we might not be able to actually attack the root of the problem.
I’m not saying ignore it — I’m saying give it the focus it deserves and no more. No disrespect intended to anyone here, but as far as my own personal safety is concerned I’m a lot more concerned with the way-out-there fanatics within Christianity than those within Islam.
I don’t know if what is needed is a Muslim Ghandi. I would suggest maybe another Ataturk or two.
Not a bad idea — and besides, he had an entire menagerie all called Abdul. 🙂 [A non-no-prize to anyone who gets THAT reference…]
TWL
Yes, Jerome, bigotry is ugly no matter who it’s directed towards — but I don’t find Craig to be a bigot. And while it may break your heart to hear this, you’re not the grand arbiter of who gets to be ignored and who doesn’t.
Give me evidence of someone here “despising” Christians. Not “it’s clear from the posts.” Not more attempts to play the “Christians are poor put-upon victims even though they control the friggin’ country” card. Evidence. Ev-I-Dence.
[And I love the condescension inherent in the “if you can understand what I’m saying” phrase, as if understanding what you’re saying automatically means agreeing with it. Isn’t that what you usually accuse us wacky liberals of doing?]
And so far as rebuking the al-Qaeda/Bush comparison … sorry to keep you waiting. I don’t think Bush is as bad as al-Qaeda — but that doesn’t mean my opposition to Bush, his cronies, and his policies is lessened in any way. I think that American culture is balanced on a knife-edge at the moment, and Bush is part of parcel of the group determined to force us down a very frightening path. Clearly you disagree. Fine. There it is.
As far as “outrageous arguments” that you like to dismiss offhand, though — how about Ann Coulter suggesting that the NYT be blown up? How about Pat Robertson’s “Foggy Bottom” quote? How about Limbaugh’s frequent “feminazi” rhetoric, which is a hëll of a lot more Nazi-invoking than Craig’s phrase was? Going to rebuke any of them?
I can wait.
Oh, and by the way — lots of Christians I know find Bush a far greater affront to their faith than anyone speaking out against him. Just a data point.
TWL
“Until some of you finally understand that Al Qeada truly is worse and more evil President Bush ever was or will be, the cause of peace will be delayed or even prevented.”
I think we understand that.
Ok. I admit I wrote the post when I was tired and I was very reactionary. But I really do wonder at times if some who post on this site agree with you on this. I hope you are right.
Iowa Jim
A common mistake people make is to lump all “Christians” or “Moslems” into a common lump and assume that everyone in that lump believes in the exact same things. If history has shown us anything, is that both religions have split numerous times into a variety of factions and continue to do so in the modern era.
I notived recently that more and more liberally aligned Christian groups have gotten active in talking about religion and spiritually. Of course, the conversative Christians have immediately begun attacking them as not being being “true” Christians because the liberal groups would rather talk about feeding the poor instead of gay marriage.
i find it very interesting that whenever someone on the conservative side of the argument accuses someone on the liberal side of using hateful rhetoric, or an extreme position, the current method of “debate” is not to argue the merits of the position, but instead to trot out similar extreme positions from conservative pundits/politicians/etc. and visa versa. i see it all the time from the likes of sean hannity and michael moore.
“oh yeah, well your side is WORSE” has replaced reasoned debate of the issues. any position, even extreme ones, can be debated on merits, or lack thereof. but if i say someone is going too far in comparing bush to a nazi, replying by saying “oh yeah? well what about pat robertson?!” is not engaging in intelligent debate. this is part of the reason why political discussion in this country has become so polarized – we don’t deal with the subjects as they are presented, we always try and deflect any criticism into an attack on the “other side”. as if showing that the opponent is bad somehow proves that my side is good – it doesn’t. all it does is leave both sides free to lob incendiary statements at each other, then when called on it, use it as an opportunity to accuse them and start the name calling.
sure makes it hard to have an honest debate about ideas, in my opinion…
Bob, your point is well taken — but when someone claims to be against the hateful rhetoric but frequently quotes people who use it themselves, I don’t think it’s a particularly unreasonable stance to point out the hypocrisy. I hardly think my response can be summed up as “oh yeah? well what about pat robertson?” It’s pointing out that if Jerome wants to decry people who haven’t rebuked extreme positions taken by their “side”, he should start in the mirror.
[And if you think that particular debate approach is limited to the liberal side, all I can say is that you haven’t been here very long.]
If you think there’s a specific position whose merits have not been argued, please speak up.
TWL
bob woodington:
“i find it very interesting that whenever someone on the conservative side of the argument accuses someone on the liberal side of using hateful rhetoric, or an extreme position, the current method of “debate” is not to argue the merits of the position, but instead to trot out similar extreme positions from conservative pundits/politicians/etc. and visa versa. i see it all the time from the likes of sean hannity and michael moore.”
Total agreement here. I might lean more consertive on many issues, but this is exactly why I don’t care for the “debates” on Hannity and Colmes. Both sides, although I will say I think that Alan Colmes is worse about it, use the “but your side is worse” arguement too much.
Hmmm, “but your side is worse…”
Is that the adult version of “I’m rubber, you’re glue….”
“It’s pointing out that if Jerome wants to decry people who haven’t rebuked extreme positions taken by their “side”, he should start in the mirror.”
why? if i want to say that “marvel zombies” are overly antagonistic, why should i have to first acknowledge/explain how antagonistic “dc zombies” are? how do you even know that i am a dc fan? perhaps i prefer independents? instead, why not debate whether or not marvel fans are antagonistic? even if dc fans ARE just as bad, that doesn’t excuse the actions of marvel fans. and inexcusable actions should be called out, regardless of whose side you’re on.
the problem becomes this: if every time someone questions the actions of someone on your side, the only response is, “look in the mirror!”, and both sides take this approach, then noones actions are ever truly questioned/debated.
“[And if you think that particular debate approach is limited to the liberal side, all I can say is that you haven’t been here very long.]”
and i really do not intend to pick on you here, but this is EXACTLY what i’m talking about. did you read my post? i tried to make it very clear that this was something that BOTH sides of the argument are guilty of. i only started with the liberal side first because it was the most recent example, and, well, to make the example clear i only had two choices. and i immediately said “visa versa”. but you made an assumption based upon how you read my post – that i thought the approach was limited to the “liberal” side. in a typical discussion, this would lead to me crying out “you’re assuming that i’m a conservative! all of you liberals are ready to attack anyone who questions you”, then you would follow with “it’s really the conservatives (like a, b, c) who are the ones doing this”, and it would go on ad infinitum.
and it’s not solely used in a political sense either – i’ve seen it used here and in other places in talking about everything from religion (“religion a is committing atrocities”, “oh yeah, well your religion has committed worse!”) to comics (“kyle raynor is not worthy”, “oh yeah, well hal jordan is worth less”)…the concept of debate used to be about who could best support his/her argument with a combination of facts and logic. now, it seems to be about who can get in the best “counter attack”, so instead of facts and logic we get duels.
again, if it seems like i’m directing this at you, well…i sort of am, but also at everyone else as well. it would be nice when someone attacks bush, for instance, if the response wasn’t “well the liberals want….”, and instead was an attempt at a reasonable assessment if the attack on bush has merit or not.
“If you think there’s a specific position whose merits have not been argued, please speak up.”
i have lurked here for quite awhile, so if it seems like i am jumping in here abruptly, i apologize. the problem i’d have on a thread like this is figuring out where to jump in – there have been so many “counter-attack” positions flying here that it would be nigh impossible to pick one to begin discussing without getting in the cross-fire of the back-and-forth.
besides, if i’m critical of a liberal, i will be painted as a ditto-headed conservative. if i’m critical of a conservative, i’ll be painted as a pinko liberal. if i try to maintain a moderate stance, the extreme ends of the debate will prompt me to pick one end over the other, leading to one of the first two problems. so i decided to simply “speak up” on the merits of debate, and see if that has any legs…
-b
Both sides, although I will say I think that Alan Colmes is worse about it, use the “but your side is worse” arguement too much.
See, on the other hand, whenever I’ve watched Hannity and Sock Puppet, I wonder if Colmes is even allowed to talk at all. I’ve seen a number of episodes where the sock puppet has sat there quietly while Hannity and the conservative guest gang up on the liberal guest.
As far as I can tell, Alan “sock puppet” Colmes’s main job on the show is to announce the commercial breaks..
Actually, I have a question for Tim about this response (to keep his remarks in some context, I’m including what he’s responding to):
“Ok, I know you aren’t actually saying that it’s wrong for us to be singling out those committing atrocities…I’m assuming you are saying that it is wrong to single out the fact that Islam may be a factor. But if we ignore that we might not be able to actually attack the root of the problem.
I’m not saying ignore it — I’m saying give it the focus it deserves and no more. No disrespect intended to anyone here, but as far as my own personal safety is concerned I’m a lot more concerned with the way-out-there fanatics within Christianity than those within Islam.”
With regards to the bold part, I have to ask what threats to your safety are there from Christian extremists that outweigh threats from extremists who follow other religions? Or are you including threats to your political freedoms, which are markedly different, if not incomparable, to threats to personal safety from terrorists? After reading that President Bush actually supports further discussion of Intelligent Design in public schools, I can understand feeling that there are certain fundamental things being threatened these days, like proven scientific theories (Why, George, why? Do you delight in making it that much harder to find something to be positive about in this term?), but is it really appropriate to make a leap from religious battles in political processes to suicide bombers?
Crap, just realized “proven scientific theories” would be more appropriately phrased “generally-accepted, widely-held, able-to-withstand-true-scientific-analysis theories,” because I understand that Human Evolution technically hasn’t been proven in certain regards due to, you know, our inability to dig up the entire global fossil record to do so.
Jason,
With regards to the bold part, I have to ask what threats to your safety are there from Christian extremists that outweigh threats from extremists who follow other religions?
To answer the part I didn’t include, no, I’m not particularly referring to “threats to political freedoms” here, though I’d be lying if I thought that wasn’t part of my thought process at all.
In terms of physical threats: I teach physics and astronomy, including cosmology when I get a chance. My wife is an evolutionary biologist. Many hardcore fundamentalists see both of those as intrinsically evil, and I believe there are documented cases of some biologists getting death threats for teaching evolution.
Christian extremists tend to bomb things like Planned Parenthood centers, which I’m probably more likely to be in than something like the WTC or the Pentagon.
Lastly … as Bill alluded to before, it’s a question of numbers. If I’m living in a predominantly Christian community, there are undoubtedly more way-out-there fanatics near me who call themselves Christian than there are comparable ones who call themselves Muslim. It’s simply a matter of scale: if I were living someplace else, I’d almost assuredly think differently.
TWL
Micha: One last word in defence of the Inquisition. The Inquisition was created to deal with christians who deviated from the Catholic doctrine (heretics), not people who were non Christians. It did not persecute Jews and Muslims in Spain, but Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity but kept practicing their old religions in secret.
Luigi Novi: Which is still persecution. Why, after all, should anyone care how someone practices their religion, or which religion they practice in secret? Indeed, why do you think Jews converted to begin with? Could it have been that they feared how Jews were being treated? Detractors called converted Jews Marranos, a pejorative word that can also be translated “pigs”. The Inquisition started by targeting Conversos (Jews converted to Christianity) in Seville, and tribunals were established in quick succession at Cordova, Jaen, and Ciudad Real, followed by Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto-da-fes (ritual public penance or humiliation of condemned heretics and apostates) were held in Toledo alone, and there would eventually be over 464 auto-da-fes targeting Jews between 1481 and 1826. In total, more than 13,000 Conversos were tried from 1480-1492. The Inquisition against the Conversos culminated in the expulsion of all of the Jews from Spain in 1492.
And remember, the Inquisition was charged with suppressing heresy. Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a “theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, [heresy is an] opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative.” Heresy, therefore, doesn’t refer merely to Christians converted from Judaism.
Jerome, you’re welcome. But if you’re referring to the incident with the radio caller, I’d be curious to see how you’d interpret it, especially if you heard it yourself.
Ack. My response above (which begins with Luigi Novi:) should not be in bold.
Jason, you’ve just illustrated the basic confusion that the anti-science crowd creates over what is “just a theory.” 99% of what is taught in science class is “just a theory”, but they are theories that have withstood rigorous examination. Of course, the anti-science crowd doesn’t acknowledge that. They keep repeating the “just a theory” mantra because they know that that lay audiences put a different degree of certainty to the meaning of the word theory than scientists do.
The most frightening thing that I can think of, the thought that keeps me up at night more than Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake is that the 21st century is going to be dominated by the country that most advances in the fields of biology, medicine, pharmacology, communications, engineering. Just as this is becoming obvious even to the average kindergarten student, though, America has been taken over by the single most anti-science administration in the history of this country.
Bob,
I feel a bit as if I’m bashing my head against a wall here, but I’ll see if we can reach some common ground.
Me:
“It’s pointing out that if Jerome wants to decry people who haven’t rebuked extreme positions taken by their “side”, he should start in the mirror.”
Bob:
why? if i want to say that “marvel zombies” are overly antagonistic, why should i have to first acknowledge/explain how antagonistic “dc zombies” are? how do you even know that i am a dc fan?
Bad analogy. Jerome has self-identified as a Republican and a Bush supporter many, many times. It’s not, at present, the multipolar discussion you propose here.
even if dc fans ARE just as bad, that doesn’t excuse the actions of marvel fans. and inexcusable actions should be called out, regardless of whose side you’re on.
Um … did I in fact say or imply otherwise? You’ll note that I did respond to the rest of the post as well, Bob — it’s not nearly as “nyah-nyah-you’re-worse” as you seem to be reading.
the problem becomes this: if every time someone questions the actions of someone on your side, the only response is, “look in the mirror!”, and both sides take this approach, then noones actions are ever truly questioned/debated.
And right there is where we differ: the word “only.” I agree with you that such an approach is bad. I do not agree that I, or others, have used such an approach as our ONLY response to any given post all or even most of the time. (Occasionally, I wouldn’t be surprised; I’m human, as I assume everyone else here is.)
I think you’ve got a bit of a blind spot here: when you see someone use a technique you don’t like, you’re immediately assuming that’s all they’re doing, when the facts of the case show otherwise.
Me:
“[And if you think that particular debate approach is limited to the liberal side, all I can say is that you haven’t been here very long.]”
Bob:
and i really do not intend to pick on you here, but this is EXACTLY what i’m talking about. did you read my post?
Yes, I did. You started out with a clear “liberals do this in response to being challenged”, and all your examples were used to support that assertion. A hasty “and vice versa” without any examples does not an equal-opportunity criticism make, Bob.
i have lurked here for quite awhile, so if it seems like i am jumping in here abruptly, i apologize. the problem i’d have on a thread like this is figuring out where to jump in – there have been so many “counter-attack” positions flying here that it would be nigh impossible to pick one to begin discussing without getting in the cross-fire of the back-and-forth.
You’re gonna have to start somewhere, kiddo. 🙂 We all did, once upon a time.
I hope my previous post (to Jason) satisfies your criteria for being an actual discussion rather than a discussion about the discussion. If not … well, I tried.
TWL
“the single most anti-science administration in the history of this country.”
that’s a pretty bold statement – more anti-science than benjamin harrison’s? or grover cleveland’s? are you basing that on comparison of presidential administrations, or simply hyperbole because you don’t like bush?
and i wouldn’t worry about the 21st century – we’re only 5 years into it…
-b
Tim: I did not realize your personal situation with regards to the issue and your focusing more on the “trouble where you live” versus “total global problem” perspectives. While I would argue there’s still a big-picture difference between the more infrequent terrorist acts of pro-life extremists versus a too-frequent global terrorist campaign, both groups are pretty much the worst of the worst, no matter what scale we’re talking about. And thank you to you and your wife for teaching what you teach; as Den points out, it’s scary how much true scientific education and progress is under attack these days (Den: I hope the sarcasm in my little correction was evident. Like I mentioned way above in a previous post in talking about scientific paradigms, I know how insidious the argument about not being able to prove a theory 100% versus 99.9% truly is).
that’s a pretty bold statement – more anti-science than benjamin harrison’s? or grover cleveland’s? are you basing that on comparison of presidential administrations, or simply hyperbole because you don’t like bush?
Would it make you feel better if I just said, “single most anti-science administration in my lifetime”? Either way, this administration is very hostile to science in particular and scholarship in general.
and i wouldn’t worry about the 21st century – we’re only 5 years into it…
Worry. Tomorrow’s scientists are today’s grade school students. And with science education under constant assault, you can bet we will be having a serious brain-deficit over the next 20 years. Already our educational standards lag behind those of many third-world nations and it’s getting worse. The current administration did not start this downward spiral, but they are doing their best to hurry it along.
Actually, Bob, National Geographic ran an article about stem cell research last month as a cover story. In it they reported about the flight of researchers in stem cell and related fields to other countries that are being more progressive. The U.S. still maintains a slight edge as the orginator of the field, but if current policies stand, within a few years countries like Singapore and the UK will have a decided advantage moving forward in the development of related medical treatments. As for the “debate” over Intelligent Design versus Evolution, it’s not just an attempt to keep new science suppressed; it’s an effort to promote bad junk science (if you can even call a thinly-veiled version of Creationism “science” at all) as a valid scientific theory, even though it doesn’t stand up to the rigorous scientific process that’s at the heart of modern science education. How are we going to be a global leader in the science of tomorrow if we chase away the best talent in the world in developing fields and teach our future scientists the wrong things today?
Kill them all and let God sort them out. Hëll no you do not work with those bášŧárdš. Here’s an idea give them a country where they can all gather and pray to Allah! Just when we get them all in the same place Nuke the suckers….
sorry to be causing head pains, tim, that was not my intention. and since i know i’m beating a dead horse hear, i’ll only give it one or two more thumps and move on…:)
tim:
“Bad analogy. Jerome has self-identified as a Republican and a Bush supporter many, many times. It’s not, at present, the multipolar discussion you propose here.”
i still think the analogy is apt. even if i am a diehard dc fan, that doesn’t mean i have to explain the actions of all other dc fans before being allowed to be critical marvel fans. nor does my dc fandom mean that my criticisms are invalid.
tim:
“Um … did I in fact say or imply otherwise? You’ll note that I did respond to the rest of the post as well, Bob — it’s not nearly as “nyah-nyah-you’re-worse” as you seem to be reading.”
again, i was speaking in generalities, not trying to specifically attack you. but it is also true that when those “nyah-nyah-you’re-worse” lines are included, often the rest of the post is ignored – they tend to be inflammatory.
tim:
“I think you’ve got a bit of a blind spot here: when you see someone use a technique you don’t like, you’re immediately assuming that’s all they’re doing, when the facts of the case show otherwise.”
this is a fair criticism, since it is similar to what i’m complaining about. but in my defense, this thread started as a intriguing discussion on if and how we should deal with terrorists, and has quickly morphed into yet another “liberals vs. conservatives” and “christians vs. non-christians” thread, mostly because of the type of thing contributing to my blind spot. but as i said, this will be my last diatribe on the subject, so i appreciate the indulgence…:)
tim:
“Yes, I did. You started out with a clear “liberals do this in response to being challenged”, and all your examples were used to support that assertion. A hasty “and vice versa” without any examples does not an equal-opportunity criticism make, Bob.”
*sigh*. i was trying to make a point, not highlight liberals. if i reworded my post the opposite way to read “conservatives do this in response to being challenged, and visa versa”, would that be better? my entire point was that both extremes use this method – in fact, not all my examples were pro-conservative – i highlighted sean hannity (one of the worst offenders with this) when giving examples. i have a bad tendency to be extremely long-winded when posting, so sometimes try to make my examples as simple as possible. but we are so accustomed to people taking sides that when we see only one side being highlighted, the immediate assumption is that it’s an attack from the other side…
tim:
“You’re gonna have to start somewhere, kiddo. 🙂 We all did, once upon a time.”
yes, well, i guess it’s too late now to hide under a lurking rock – i suspect i’m all in now…:)
tim:
“I hope my previous post (to Jason) satisfies your criteria for being an actual discussion rather than a discussion about the discussion. If not … well, I tried.”
not that my blessing really means anything, except to me, but yes, i thought it was a great response. not that i necessarily agree with your answers, mind you, but that’s a discussion for another post. 😉
-b
jason:
well, that’s two different issues. the second issue, dealing with trying to force “intelligent design” into biology curriculum, is right now a solely local issue – being handled by state and local governments. if there is any sort of federal law that the administration is pushing related to this i am unaware of it. bush may believe in intelligent design, but as an administration i don’t know of anything that he is specifically doing to promote it, so that criticism is unfair. (feel free to correct me if there is some sort of legislation or doe action being taken)
the stem cell issue is not entirely a scientific issue – there are moral issues involved, because we are dealing with unborn children. i do not intend for this to devolve into a “when life begins/abortion” debate – i only mention it because there are moral issues involved. therefore, being opposed to fetal stem cell research does not necessarily make you anti-science. it is actually the same type of moral issue that has resulted in making human cloning illegal in the u.s. (something that far fewer people are upset about) – and the science for that is going overseas as well. the saddest thing is that BOTH sides of the stem cell debate are ignoring a potentially HUGE source of fetal stem cells that would have NONE of the moral implications – umbilical cords. when we had our children, we tried to find someplace to donate the umbilical cords – which contain stem cells – but you cannot donate umbilical cords without paying for their storage – which costs more than a thousand dollars. regardless, the stem cell debate isn’t really about science, or anti-science, it’s really about abortion, which explains it’s politicizing…
-b
Hey, here’s a change of pace…watch me as I defend Bush (watch close, this won’t happen often).
From the AP report I’ve read, Bush didn’t say “boo” about intelligent design, or what his personal stance is on the creation of all things. He, rather cleverly I might add, avoided answering a direct question by rephrasing the question to “you’re asking me.” So he changed the question to “do you support the teaching of alternative ideas,” or something like that, and he answered that question in the affirmative. If he said more than that, AP left out those quotes, but was quick to state that Bush supported teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Which is not really what he said.
I actually don’t really have a problem with intelligent design. As I understand things, ID isn’t quite the same as Creationism. Strict Creationism says the Earth is at most 15,000 years old, and that it was created in 6 literal days (144 hours). ID more generically states that the order and complexity of life is too structured to have just happened by chance, that the only possible way a system as diverse and complex could have developed was if there was some intelligence guiding it. The way I look at it, where evolution stops, ID picks up. Evolution can tell you what species are doing, see traits between species as they evolve, but it can only go so far back. It can’t tell you why some species succeed and others don’t. It can just tell you what happened, not the why. ID attempts to explain the why.
den,
actually, yes, i would prefer that, because making baseless statements tend to make one wonder if the rest of your assertions are baseless as well.
besides, when talking “pro-science”, or “anti-science”, it is easier to quantify when you say “in my lifetime” as opposed to “the history of this country”, since our country didn’t really fund very much science until the 20th century. and much of the funding of the sciences in the 20th century was because of the cold war – federal funding of the physical sciences and space science has been mostly flat since the cold war ended, presidential administration notwithstanding.
now that we have your assertion to a more quantifiable level, do you have any evidence of that? or are you just talking about a few particular things that bush is not supporting?
i did some checking, and found that bush isn’t really “anti-science”, at least not if you look at the numbers – he has increased funding for science, research, development, etc. significantly over recent presidents. however, he has skewed a higher percentage of the funding towards science/research with a military application than clinton did (who had moved it to more of a 50/50 split of civilian/military spending). but that weight towards science with military applications is nothing new, really, at least in the last 60 years of federal funding of “science” (which is a very broad term – it includes so many disciplines that it makes it difficult to boil down to a simple phrase like “anti-science”, in my opinion). he has limited stem cell research, but he did complete a doubling of the budget of the NIH that began in the clinton administration. he has proposed manned missions to the moon and mars, which has greatly excited the astronomy/space community, but his other non-science activities do threaten the funding. at my initial glance, it seems like a mixed bag – not clearly worse than any other recent president, but i’d be more than happy to see any data you have suggesting otherwise…
-b
Bob,
First, in response to a different post — this particular member of the astronomy/space-science community is not especially excited by the Moon-Mars push Bush is shilling for without actually PROVIDING a shilling for. Nor are friends of mine who work at JPL. That’s some data — anecdotal to be sure, but certainly contradicting the generalization you were making.
I would also suggest that you not only look at Bush’s financial record vis-a-vis science (though that’s valid, with the caveat that inflationary pressures make it likely that EVERY president increases funding over the previous one), but at what he says and what he and his associates do. When scientific essays written at the EPA are expressly and explicitly rewritten by the political appointees who reside higher up the food chain, it shows a deep misunderstanding of and/or disrespect for the scientific process — and that ends-over-means approach is at least as damaging in the long run as a funding cut.
As to the only thing we really need to go back to in your response to me…
*sigh*. i was trying to make a point, not highlight liberals. if i reworded my post the opposite way to read “conservatives do this in response to being challenged, and visa versa”, would that be better?
No. If you want to get across the point that both extremes use the method, why not START your point by saying just that? “It seems that both sides do X — when liberals are accused by conservatives of Y they do Z, and when conservatives are …etc. etc. etc.” Very parallel and clearly even-handed; anyone who’d misread THAT isn’t doing much beyond injecting their own biases. Your initial post didn’t lend itself to that clear presentation.
TWL
As someone who loves teaching evolution more than pretty much any other subject, I have to roll my eyes at the Intelligent Design debate. On the one hand, I want to deny the creationists any victory however puny. On the other hand, at least with ID you will actually be teaching evolution, as opposed to ignoring it entirely, as some would have us do.
Since ID has more to do with the origin of life itself and not Darwinian evolution, it is somewhat limited in its harmfulness. At any rate, the only kids who ever give me any grief at all on evolution or geology are not the ones I expect to go into the hard sciences anyway. I’m not to worried about the future–however many scientists run off to practice stem cell research in Pago Pago will be more than offset by the 13 skidillion geniuses from India who come in every year. Now if we start keeping out immigrants, THEN I start to worry.
And maybe it’s just me being the pain in the ášš that I am but I’m actually looking forward to spending a few class periods teaching evolution and ending it with the straightest face possible–“Then again, maybe something designed it. Intelligently.” Because, frankly, there isn’t much else to say about it, no experiments, no evidence, nothing. Maybe I’ll give some time to ancient Budhist ideas about the Earth resting on the back of a giant turtle. It’ll be fun.
Funding means nothing. Look at results. We’ve got the continuation of a Shuttle program (not all Bush’s fault…he didn’t order a fleet of what was supposed to be a test vehicle) that’s 20 years beyond it’s productive life. We’ve got an adminstration call to go to the Moon (and Mars), when we can’t even get an unmanned sattelite to land safely (both a Mars and Earth science sattellite crashed horribly because of faults…if you count the dual Mars rovers as a single mission, we’re 1 for 3 in recent years). We’ve got the EPA hog-tied on major issues of science…things like the effects of global warming, pushing for better controls on pollutant emissions…because the administration doctors the science reports to not contradict the words coming out of Bush’s mouth. Then there’s No Child Left Behind…or as my in-law parents call it, No Idiot Left Behind. Which all but forces schools to focus more on the slower students, and since NCLB is yet another Federal mandate that didn’t come with Federal $, schools are forced to sacrifice the kids at the top of the grade curve. We aren’t allowing tomorrow’s scientists to develop, because we’re forced to spend what little resources we have on the kids that either don’t care to, or simply can’t, meet standards. Or we just cheat.
Sure, Bush increased spending on research for the existing stem cell lines, which is good. But when “I spent more on stuff we were already doing” is your greatest accomplishment when it comes to the science arena, you’ve got some issues.
Yeesh, Bill, you stole my post. That’s about the length of the ID discussion I can see in school. You could spend a week on evolution…ok, years…and sum up ID in 5 words.
With regards to the bold part, I have to ask what threats to your safety are there from Christian extremists that outweigh threats from extremists who follow other religions.
If you happen to be a woman, the threat posed to your body by some Christian extremists may seem pretty immediate. Or if you’re gay, for that matter.
I think the people in Africa dying of AIDS because Christian extremists pressure the US government to cut off funding to reproductive health programs have a pretty good beef, too.
Well Bob, as Tim as already noted, the moon/Mars initiative has, in fact, not excited the astronomy/space community because it’s all hot air. Like the way Bush does his AIDS in Africa initiatives and his “No Child Left Behind” program, it’s long on vague rhetoric, but short on real, tangible actions.
And no, I’m not impressed by his military-based research funding. There are more efficient ways to find cures for disease than waiting for an idea to trickle out of the Pentagon.
There is also more to science than just government funding. The moral tone of this administration has been overwhelmingly anti-science and pro-ignorance. Whether the issue is stem cell research, evolution, the environment, or ignoring the diagnosis of every doctor that has actually exmined a patient in favor of six seconds of carefully edited video tape, this administration has stood against the scientific community on virtually every issue.
And not isn’t hyperbole, okay?
From the AP report I’ve read, Bush didn’t say “boo” about intelligent design, or what his personal stance is on the creation of all things.
Actually, when asked about evolution, he said something to the effect of, “The jury is still out on exactly how God created the universe.”
Not biased at all.
Kill them all and let God sort them out.
“Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius!”
The original quote comes from the Albigensian Crusade, which set out to wipe out the Cathar heresy in France. It was spoken by Abbot Arnaud-Amaury during the siege of Béziers, in which 10,000 citizens were slaughtered in a search for less than 500 Cathars.
It’s not a very sound policy.
i only mention it because there are moral issues involved. therefore, being opposed to fetal stem cell research does not necessarily make you anti-science.
If one opposes stem-cell research on moral grounds, one should oppose in-vitro fertilization (the source of all these spare embeyos) on the same grounds. I have yet to hear any politicians express such opposition.
First, with regards to the Intelligent Design issue, FoxNews.com’s headline is “Bush Backs Intelligent Design” – and here’s the cut-and-paste from it:
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both ideas, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.
“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
I will agree that, no, he did not expressly say “Hëllš yeah, that Intelligent Design stuff is great learnin’ for the kids.” (Geez, I will admit I’m pìššëd and not overly objective when I’m the one making fun of President Bush’s way of speaking…), but his comments, no matter how phrased, were in the context of the issue of Intelligent Design being taught in schools. And the problem with Intelligent Design is that it attempts to explain not a scientific why, but the big macro Why. Science is about explaining the how’s, what’s and why’s within a system or intermixed group of systems; just because we haven’t figured out how to explain why certain characteristics and the species that have them survived in the evolutionary process doesn’t mean we get to start saying it must be due to an unseen intelligent force, despite no evidence to the contrary. And the result appearing to be an Intelligent Design doesn’t actually prove that it is. If I throw several toothpicks on the floor, and they all happen to fall into perfect geometric patterns, someone could come along and say that those shapes, since they are an Intelligent Design, must have been created using Intelligent Design, when in actuality they fell that way by pure chance. Look, I believe God is responsible for everything, which includes the processes science attempts to explain. The challenge of science is that we don’t get to say “well, it’s too hard or it’s taking too long or it’s not 100% proven, so we can just go back to saying that things go into this box, something magic happens in a nondenominational way, and out pops the result I can’t scientifically explain.”
Second, with the Stem Cell debate, it is relevant in that there are lots of scientific fields that involve morality. Every medical treatment available today at some point underwent human testing that involved some form of ethics and morality. Einstein was keenly aware of what his research into atomic reactions would lead to, and said as much at the first testing. The necessity of having a moral debate about an emerging science does not preclude us from making progress in that science. The scary part about stem cell research (and cloning, as you point out) is that the administration is not actively encouraging debate; it’s only reacting when forced and delaying our ability as a society to constructively debate the moral issue and reach some kind of conclusion.
If one opposes stem-cell research on moral grounds, one should oppose in-vitro fertilization (the source of all these spare embeyos) on the same grounds. I have yet to hear any politicians express such opposition.
That’s because in-vitro helps wealthy couples conceive a child. Stem cell research involves the part of in-vitro that most people don’t want to think about: what happens to the leftover embryos.
ID attempts to explain the why.
But it does not attempt to do so in a manner that can be tested. “God did it” is not a falsifiable hypothesis. It therefore isn’t science and has no place in a science classroom.
In science, if you don’t have enough evidence to draw a conclusion, you just say so. You don’t assume that it was magic.
The problem with teaching ID in a science class (as opposed to a philosophy or comparative religion class) is that it isn’t science. In order for an idea to be considered a scientific hypothesis, it has to be falsifiable. In other words, there has to be some test that you can subject it to in order to attempt to disprove it (note that real scientists never speak in terms of “proving” a theory. A theory is either disproven or it’s “supported by available evidence”).
“Life is too complicated, therefore, it must have been designed by some intelligence,” is a philosophical statement, not a scientific theory. What kind of test can you devise to disprove the existence of this intelligence*? Answer: none. Therefore, it’s not science.
*I’ll note the most ID proponents are careful not to claim that this intelligence is the Judeo-Christian God, unless of course, someone suggests that it could be Odin or Buddha.
If I throw several toothpicks on the floor, and they all happen to fall into perfect geometric patterns, someone could come along and say that those shapes, since they are an Intelligent Design, must have been created using Intelligent Design, when in actuality they fell that way by pure chance.
Your illustration cannot be farther from the truth. The people pushing ID have developed an extensive methodology to allow ID to be tested. Read Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design” or Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box.” Dembski in particular has done a lot of work to give a scientifically based system of evaluating whether or not design is present. You may disagree with his methods and conclusion, but it is grossly unfair to say those who believe in ID have not applied the rules of science to the process. They do not say design is true because the Bible says so, but because the evidence itself if looked at in any other situation would clearly point to design. So unless you by defnition insist a designer could not exist, they believe the evidence would insist that a designer was the only way it could happen.
The reality is, evolution has yet to give an explanation of how life first formed. The “gods of the gaps” for evolution is “time and chance.” Since we are here, it therefore must have happened. Yet the most basic sequencing of our DNA requires a complexity that has yet to be explained. My question is this: How did chemical molecules organize into the first living cell?
Here is the argument an intelligent design video I watched made on the issue:
They interviewed Dean Kenyon. He is (or at least was when the video was made) Professor of biology (emeritus) at San Francisco State University. Back in the 1960’s, he was a firm believer in chemical evolution. He co-authored the book Biochemical Predestination. In the book, he laid out his theory that life was biochemically predestined by the properties of attraction between its chemical parts (primarily the amino acids that form proteins). The book was widely accepted and was used as a textbook for 20 years.
But soon after the book was published, Kenyon began to doubt his own theory. He found he could not answer a challenge from a student: How could the first protein have been assembled without the help of genetic instructions?
In all living cells we can observe today chains of amino acids are not formed directly by forces of attraction between their parts. Instead, the DNA stores the assembly instructions. This posed a problem for Kenyon since any natural process could not explain the property of DNA having such information. The DNA chemical code is the most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the known universe. Even the
information in the DNA of the simplest cell would fill 100’s of pages of text.
The challenge comes down to two options: Where did the assembly instructions come from, or how did proteins form directly from amino acids without DNA in the primeval ocean and do so in a way that it could form a self replicating structure? The odds of it happening by chance
alone are astronomically high, and most experts (including most evolutionists) believe that there had to be some mechanism. The mechanism normally suggested is a form of natural selection. But this is a problem since by definition natural selection is not possible without self-replication, which would require DNA.
Based on this evidence, Dean Kenyon began to be open to the idea of intelligent design, and currently feels it is the best explanation for the evidence.
I understand the necessity to not rely on a “god of the gaps” to simply explain away anything we don’t understand. ID is not, in my opinion, simply punting and saying it is “god.” Instead, it is saying that based on the known laws of the universe that we can observe, ID is the best answer. This is not based on just one issue (such as my question about the origin of the first cell), but on a string of issues that consistently show design. If that then forces us to ask the bigger question, who is the designer, then it should. Science should not avoid that question if the evidence demands it be asked. In my opinion, it is not just demanding it, it requires it.
Iowa Jim