Caught a showing of “Inherit the Wind” on cable. It is both amazing, and amazingly depressing, how timely the subject matter of that film and play is. As Spencer Tracy speaks passionately of a time when narrow-minded religious dogma will actually cause progress to be reversed, one considers that people in power are opposed to everything from stem cell research to a woman’s right to choose to global warming to…yes…Darwin’s theory.
Meantime creationists are trying to sneak Genesis back into the schoolroom through the notion of Intelligent Design, trying to position it as being as equally valid as Darwin, when of course all they’re really trying to do is put the Bible back in the classroom.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, progress is an illusion…and human progress doubly so.
PAD
(PS–Uh, guys…please don’t start telling me that the Scopes Monkey Trial was a set up by the ACLU and that local businessmen put Scopes up to it and that he probably didn’t even actually teach evolution. I know all that. None of it detracts from the fact that “Inherit the Wind” is a brilliant drama in its own right with a lot to say to modern thinking…or lack thereof.)
• 
The thing I often wonder … what if the religious right had everything they wanted? If Roe v. Wade is overturned, if Hollywood turned out nothing above a PG-13 level product, if the Ten Commandments were in every public area and religion was okay in school … what would they do then?
I think, as Christians, they just pick the wrong battles. They love “right to life” but seem to lose interested in the living. How many of those same people fighting for the unborn are helping the thousands of young children in American that are living on the street, poor and hungry?
If you truly follow Jesus’ teachings, you wouldn’t be driving your Escalade to a book-banning meeting, would you? Isn’t it “the meek shall inherit the earth?”
Just a few thoughts.
PS – PAD, you must surely have some comment about GW picking Harriet? I mean, how low can we sink?
I mean, how low can we sink?
Well, politicians keep trying to dig us straight to Hëll, but somehow they haven’t dug deep enough yet. 🙂
Ugh, stem cells. Many of Duhbya – excuse me, President Duhbya -‘s fellow Republicans even support the research. Leftover embreyos from in-vitro fertilization – they either can be used for research, which could potentially help millions of afflicted people; or they will be THROWN IN THE TRASH. WHICH is “pro-life”, now ?
BTW, PAD, the “Inherit the Wind” review reminds me – is there no “Serenity” review – saw it again today, SO good – because you are now, through your Spike work, in a working relationship with Mutant Enemy; or just because you don’t have the time, with all of your many (many) projects?
I just watched a fun movie “What the !@#$ do we know”. Had some fun comments on God.
What pìššëš me off about people deeply into religion in any aspect is when it gets shoveled at me. People have different views of the world I enjoy hearing about it, but dont sell me your reality.
It’s not even stupidity or ignorance that impedes progress. It’s fear. It’s abject, universal, irrational fear. It’s fear of anything that doesn’t fall into one’s worldset. It’s fear of anything that might contradict a “cherished” idea. It’s the fear that unless everyone believes what you believe, it will stop existing.
The last I heard, most people are opposed to global warming.
I haven’t taken a poll, so I can’t determine “most people,” but it’s kind of hard to be opposed to something that supposedly doesn’t exist. But there are certainly people who are stridenly opposed to trying to reverse it.
PAD
This is something that has me worried at a profound level. There are museums opening up in the South that show dinosaurs living in the Garden of Eden. It’s bright and colorful, and easy to understand, even if the velociraptors with their three dozen razor-sharp teeth are depicted eating plants along with the brachiosaurs. Intelligent design is an easy pill to swallow as well (“All we’re really saying is that SOMEONE must have been behind the universe’s creation”). These are the first steps to a massive running-jump backwards. What we have here are people who want to abolish science in any form, replacing physics textbooks with annotated copies of the Bible.
I understand that many of us need to believe in some God – frankly, I’m one of them. I do believe that God had a hand in the creation of the universe. But I also believe that God used the scientific method. From the Big Bang to stellar formation to evolution to bring about life on all the myriad worlds, I have been able to convince myself that there was always a higher intelligence directing it all. What I don’t believe is the literal interperetation of Genesis (or nearly any book/story from the Bible for that matter, but that’s another post altogether), that the entirety of the Earth, life and all, took only six days to finish. Although, I will state that I have no idea what the equivalent of one “Divine Day” is. Who knows? Maybe to God, it did take six days – maybe to God, one day is a couple of billion years.
But what I will oppose, at every level I can, is the replacement of scientific pursuit with religious dogma that leaves no room for questions or explorations. With any luck, there will be enough of us who feel this way to keep such a thing from happening.
I think I agree with you some, Adam.
God controls time. I remember reading a verse where the Isrealites asked for more time during a battle so He let the day be twice as long. Can’t find the verse now. I believe in Evolution and I believe in Creationism. Why must they be separate? During those six days of creation, God made those days as long as he needed them to be. If He needed a billion years for day four.. who’s going to stop him? Even if we didn’t spring from Cro-Magnum or Homo Erectus.. etc.. maybe that was God just practicing.
Abortion.. yeah, I think its murder. But, why is my opinion more valid than yours? I’m Pro-Choice because I shouldn’t have to be the one to make that decision. If its a sin, than lets let God handle it. I think our focus would be better spent in preventing the pregnancy to happen in the first place. At my job, they do a lot of preventative maintenence on the equipment we use.. it saves us money later. The same holds true to people, catch the problems before they become problems.
I got more, but I am about to head out to church,
Eric
I want to know why you post this thing, when I just spent the morning reading Connie Willis’ novella “Inside Job.” Which, in case you’re curious is about two sceptics who discover a medium who can channel H.L. Mencken… for real.
Good fun story, highly recommended.
What bugs me the most about all this controversy is how so many of the religious who end up in the spotlight are so…fanatical. Contrary to what all of them seem to believe, it is not our place to judge.
I am a Christian, but I find it hard to comprehend the fact that others in power call themselves the same and then portray that faith in such a bigoted, closed-minded way. (I doubt closed-minded is an acceptable phrase to use, but you all know what I mean.)
Perhaps we are stepping backward. Maybe, though, if we get back far enough, we can pinpoint the place where we lost our path and start off right again.
PAD –
I haven’t taken a poll, so I can’t determine “most people,” but it’s kind of hard to be opposed to something that supposedly doesn’t exist. But there are certainly people who are stridenly opposed to trying to reverse it.
It’s interesting, but from what I’ve read over the last few months, it seems like most people DO think global warming is occuring.
It’s just more of a matter of how much is the human race contributing.
It also seems like more and more people want to do something to stop/reverse the human contribution.
Eric Recla –
If its a sin, than lets let God handle it.
If only more thought this way.
I always liked George Burns’ line in “Oh God” about the relativity of days:
“You gotta remember, my days aren’t the same as yours. When I woke up this morning, Sigmund Freud was in medical school.”
PAD
I think this is an example of the old knowledge vs. faith problem. Knowledge is limitless, but faith has boundaries.
How many people would choose to live in a wall-less location? Capricious weather conditions would make that impractical and potentially dangerous.
How many people would like to live in a nation without laws? Rampant crime would make that EXTREMELY dangerous.
I personally believe that the Creationists advocates are trying to live within comfortable boundaries that don’t make them feel stupid and powerless. Without this restructured belief system, they’d probably feel as naked and vulnerable as they would if they lived in the above conditions without clothing! Isn’t that what they would have said happened when Adam and Eve ate the Fruit of Knowledge? They were AWARE of their vulnerability?
Excellent movie choice, Peter! A film about small-town folks and how one man who could see beyond the town’s borders, both physical AND intellectual, was persecuted for it! Timeless indeed!
Peter, It opened Friday in limited release a movie you might be interested in:
George Clooney’s
GOODBYE AND GOOD LUCK
About the confrontation between Edward R. Murrow and a Senator Joseph McCarthy.
George Clooney, son of a “newsman” now it would be a “news reporter”, is the power behind it, tho the starring role is for David Straitham as “Edward R. Murrow”. Clooney took the role as “Fred Friendly” one of the behind the scenes types at CBS (tho he is legendary in his own right).
Posted by David S. at October 9, 2005 12:39 PM
I think this is an example of the old knowledge vs. faith problem. Knowledge is limitless, but faith has boundaries.
How many people would choose to live in a wall-less location? Capricious weather conditions would make that impractical and potentially dangerous.
How many people would like to live in a nation without laws? Rampant crime would make that EXTREMELY dangerous.
I personally believe that the Creationists advocates are trying to live within comfortable boundaries that don’t make them feel stupid and powerless. Without this restructured belief system, they’d probably feel as naked and vulnerable as they would if they lived in the above conditions without clothing! Isn’t that what they would have said happened when Adam and Eve ate the Fruit of Knowledge? They were AWARE of their vulnerability?
Actually, I would think the reverse opinion has been more popular that Faith is infinite while Knowledge is limited–which is why knowledge-seeker seek … knowledge, while believers are satisfied with Faith is everything and thus are content.
Also many would prefer and have preferred to live without walls since they have the FREEDOM to move as opposed to being walled into one locale despite the SECURITY it seems to provide.
We already live in a nation of many laws and crime is still widespread–worse are acts that many consider immoral or unethical but you are lawful. “My client has the contract signed, dated and notarized, making a fair trade, Manhattan island for 24 dollars in beads.”
It wasn’t merely the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad. It depends on the meaning of “knowledge”. One meaning is “judgement” as in I may not be an art expert but I “know” what I like aka I “know” pørņ when I see it. You’re making a judgement call. They already “knew” God’s ruling on eating from the one Tree in the middle of the garden of Eden, but they chose differently for themselves–which is what the serpent told Eve, that they would be just like God “knowing” or judging good or bad on their own independent of God.
Then again, I it’s sometimes a false debate. People have the same ideas, different labels: “God” / “Universe.
People feel small and vulnerable in the presence or at least in the concept of God or the Universe itself. We can’t ever completely know the “mind of God” or the “nature of the Universe”, but we keep searching.
And then again (if I haven’t worn out that phrase) sometimes God is blamed for things that may happen simply at random–by some supporters and some critics alike.
— Ken from Chicago
I was lucky enough to see Inherit the Wind on Broadway with the brilliant George C Scott in the lead with umm I think it was Charles Durning in the other lead (the big fat white haired actor) 🙂 Besides the play/movie/book just being brilliant….I sat there in awe that things like this actually go on. And I consider myself a moderate republican…and things like this make me want to pick up a gun and shoot these morons for being so close-minded.
There isn’t anyone nowadays who wants to have any sort of open-minded discussion. No one is open to any new ideas. Everyone from cousin-marrying redneck to pot-smoking-hippie comes to the table with her or her own ideas and agenda and believe that either they are right for believing what exists is whats good, or for believing change is good. Before i get completely off topic…Inherit the Wind made me realize and see that everyone is wrong. No one is ever right. The people that want things to stay the same are never right, nor are the people who want change for changes sake. The answer always lies down the middle, not to compromise to suit everyone and give everyone a little bit of something, but because SLOW progress is good, if there is just cause behind it. And people can adapt to change…but it takes them time.
Mike
(And as an aside…I dont believe global warming, as it is explained, justified, and blamed, exists) 🙂
I personally believe that the Creationists advocates are trying to live within comfortable boundaries that don’t make them feel stupid and powerless. Without this restructured belief system, they’d probably feel as naked and vulnerable as they would if they lived in the above conditions without clothing! Isn’t that what they would have said happened when Adam and Eve ate the Fruit of Knowledge? They were AWARE of their vulnerability?
Well, actually, that was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil – apparently, being nekkid is supposed to be evil in and of itself. God’s big panic at that point was that his pet humans would eat of the Tree of Life, become immortal, and realize that they were being kept as pets. (Now there’s an interesting story hook for somebody out there…)
Of course, some of us deal with this “exposure” problem by trying to learn as much of the knowledge as we can. Once you grasp the knowledge, that metaphorical “area” is mastered, and no longer threatens you. If you’re content to huddle next to the campfire of faith, and turn your back on the vast spread of knowledge beyond, you will never truly know anything. Of course, to pursue the metaphor further, the fire can certainly illuminate part of the area – provided you have the courage to turn around and look into the darkness, and investigate it for yourself…
Hmmm…I suppose global warming is progress. Or at least a progression from the “global cooling” environmentalists were trying to sell us on a generation ago.
As for “a woman’s right to choose” being progress, I dunno. Let’s consider what we have right now:
1) Feticide laws that esentially consider all fetuses to be unborn up until the point they killed by someone other than an abortion doctor, at which point they are retroactively granted life and treated as though they were, say, a 6-year old.
2) Societal mores that dictate that the mother of a fetus not drink or do drugs while pregnant because such actions would harm the fetus, even though it is (according to pro-choicers) not actually alive, and by definition, cannot be harmed.
Confused? Me too. It’s easy to say catchy slogans like “a woman’s right to choose”, but I’m not sure how one can hold a pro-choice attitude without vehemently opposing the two, which I suspect they do not.
-Dave OConnell
Read “The Case for a Creator” and tell me that ID is anti-science. It isn’t. Science – finding naturalist solutions to naturalistic problems – points to a creator, IMO.
Robbnn, a Creator is, by definition, super-natural, and thus falls into the purview of philosophy and theology, not science. The existence of a Creator cannot be proven nor disproven – it must be believed or disbelieved without hard evidence.
ID is no more science than the Jedi Order, or Dianetics. Just because you co-opt the language of scientific thought, does not mean you have met its rigors. (Not you personally, of course – English has no good objective case. I’ve seen that misunderstood here before…)
ID stands for Intentional Deception.
The neo-conmen are intentionally deceiving people with words that have no true meaning. Sort of like how admen use words in their advertising: create the perception that something is real or possible, then sell that to a receptive audience.
The neo-nonmen have been screaming for decades about the intellectual elite, so much so that the common man has started believing that the smart people are the cause of all of the problems that the common man suffers. Therefore, scientists have caused all the common man’s problems and the scientific community must needs be discredited. Intelligent Design is a means to achieve this.
ID is being sold to the common man and the common man is willing to feast at that trough. A populace that watches such shows as NASCAR Racing, professional wrestling, and so many versions of Law & Order to the extent that they are the highest rated shows on television and cable is not capable of discerning the difference between a gourmet meal and swill.
Intelligent Design is really Intentional Deception.
ID is not, by the current limiting definition of science, science, but science DOES point to a Creator. It is a look at the conclusion of evidence, not the evidence itself.
ID is not, by the current limiting definition of science…
Well, that’s the point. ID proponents wants to change the definition of science so they force their view on religion onto everyone.
Sorry, guy, but you’re dead wrong. ID is not science because there’s no evidence for it AND DOESN’T HAVE A WAY TO GET EVIDENCE FOR IT.
And if you don’t have a way to get evidence for it, you’re not doing science in any way, shape or form.
Ðámņ, Dave, that’s weak.
“Hmmm…I suppose global warming is progress. Or at least a progression from the “global cooling” environmentalists were trying to sell us on a generation ago.”
You’re looking at what caught the fancy of the press back then and not what the serious scientist were saying. Most serious scientists did feel that a cooling was going to happen, like the ice age, but they weren’t doing the doom and gloom stuff that magazines like Time were making covers out of.
They were also still working at figuring out what could create this cooling. The answer that they’ve worked out, strangely, a warming trend. If enough of the arctic and Antarctic ice melts into the sea it will affect things like the warm water currents and move them away from land masses. Warmer air will also create warmer surface water and create additional changes in current’s flow. For places like The United Kingdom this would mean an almost twenty to thirty degree drop in temperature in less then four months. Think that might screw with their lives a bit?
Other areas would also have a similar problem. As ocean surfaces change they would then affect the air that affected them. Weather patterns would be shifted so that some areas’ normal weather would grow stronger and more extreme while other areas’ weather will flip to something foreign to their normal cycles and environment.
Most of the hard science from the 70’s was still being banged out and tested. It hasn’t really changed as much as it’s been fleshed out and studied a bit more.
Oh, and for the “it’s just a theory” crowd….
Up until about two or so years back we only had a theory about a nice little thing called Black Holes. We had never seen one and had no first hand proof of them for the longest time. It was a theory that was proven with mathematics and scientific study followed by new science and more study on the subject and the original theories. When about two years ago, after decades of this theory being touted and used as accepted fact, we finally got first hand proof of their existence and it was almost 100% what the scientists said for all those years.
You know… The same scientists that conservatives tout and believe in until the day they say something that the conservatives don’t like or want to hear. Then they become morons that don’t know anything or people just trying to push a political agenda to get more cash and attention
“As for “a woman’s right to choose” being progress, I dunno. Let’s consider what we have right now:
1) Feticide laws that esentially consider all fetuses to be unborn up until the point they killed by someone other than an abortion doctor, at which point they are retroactively granted life and treated as though they were, say, a 6-year old.
2) Societal mores that dictate that the mother of a fetus not drink or do drugs while pregnant because such actions would harm the fetus, even though it is (according to pro-choicers) not actually alive, and by definition, cannot be harmed.
Confused? Me too. It’s easy to say catchy slogans like “a woman’s right to choose”, but I’m not sure how one can hold a pro-choice attitude without vehemently opposing the two, which I suspect they do not.”
See, this is a favorite of mine to poke holes in. Why do so many conservative/anti-choice people seem to want to go brain dead on purpose here? There is this really fun thing called “intent” involved with so many laws in the U.S. that conservatives love. How is it that so many of them can’t remember what that is or how it’s used when it comes to this issue?
If it is the mother’s intent to carry the pregnancy to term and have a baby then you treat the fetus, from day one, as the baby that the mother intends it to be. See, there’s no conflict or confusion in that concept at all.
Plus, you’re ignoring what went on when they were trying to pass some of those laws back during the debates centered around Lacy Peterson and her baby. The major objection that many Democrats had, massively distorted by the Fox News crew and others, was that the wording was very much in the tone of the pro-life/anti-choice crowd in describing basically anything as legally a human life and defining it in ways that went beyond the needs of the law required. It was almost so bad as to be one step removed from the Roman Catholic’s view that birth control is wrong (i.e. a sin) because it destroys “man’s seed” that is life. Democrats and moderate conservatives were very clear in wanting the law to take intent into account.
Again, just to beat the point to death, pro-choice people were all for those laws. Pro-choice people just wanted the laws to be written with some level of common sense and consideration for intent. Seems some conservative can’t figure that and get themselves all confused when they try and think about it.
Like you it seems.
Here’s a great concept.
Why not teach math, science and history in school. We teach all those fun things to the kids when they go to the community school and they get the training and education that they need to compete in the workplace and the world.
You want your kids to get an education in faith? Start sending them to church (those places with dropping attendance) and teaching them about it at home.
It can then be up to the family and the child growing into adulthood to decide if they believe in science or that they believe that God created everything by snapping his fingers and that, despite that pesky science stuff, the universe revolves around a stationary Earth.
Oh, and then they can decide if their children will be taught other languages or taught about the space program. How are they connected? The Tower of Babel was destroyed by God because man was building it so high that they were running the risk of touching Heaven. I’m sure the shuttle has gone higher and I seemed to have missed the news of it (or the Lunar Lander) passing through the Pearly Gates on the way to outer space. And God (short version of verse) scrambled the tongues of man when he scattered them to the far corners of the Earth so that they could not join and do something like that again. Seems to me that teaching your kids a foreign language might be seen by some as contrary to God’s wishes.
Seems to me that teaching your kids a foreign language might be seen by some as contrary to God’s wishes.
I asked a pastor at a previous church this once. She was unable to answer.
BTW, I love the space shuttle analogy. I’m filing this away for future use.
I’ve been thinking that, on the first day of the school discussion of where we came from, the teacher could talk about the Creation as told in GENESIS. Then, the creation stories from Greek and Roman mythology, Norse mythology, Mayan, Incan, and Aztec beliefs, Asian cultures, African cultures, etc., could all be told for anyone who wanted to chose one. And, then, the teaching of evolution could start.
All of which would be fine, Kim, if the course was comparative literature or the development of society. The problem is…it’s science class.
PAD
Folks should really look at the Dover, PA trial. Interesting stuff coming out about intelligent design and its backers. For example, there are early drafts of the intelliegent design textbook, OF PANDAS AND MEN. Only, instead of the term “intelligent design”, the authors consistently used “creationism” (all they did was a search and replace edit).
You know… The same scientists that conservatives tout and believe in until the day they say something that the conservatives don’t like or want to hear. Then they become morons that don’t know anything or people just trying to push a political agenda to get more cash and attention
Well, to be fair, the anti-science crap comes from both the left and right, just on different issues. It’s the extreme left that has crippled animal testing in England and probably lead to unnecessary starvation in the developing world due to their hysteria over genetically modified lifeforms. Liberal Canada bans not only human cloning but the insertion of inheritable genes as well as paying egg or sperm doners. The reasons given for this seem to be more kooky far left humbug than right wing religious quackery.
An avian flu on the lot of them.
Tang,
1. A bloody knife is on the floor.
2. A body has a bloody wound in it.
3. The knife has finger prints on it.
4. The prints belong to David Hyde White.
5. DHW had a primal hatred for the dead guy.
Now, compartmentalize all those facts. Make a “classroom” around each one. Never examine them together.
Or, instead, bring the dispirit facts together and have a look for truth and you’ll likely send DHW to jail for awhile.
My beef with those people saying ID is a farce or “there’s no evidence for it” is that they probably don’t know what ID actually is. They look at young Earth theorists, and creationist claims of dubious merit and think “ah ha! That’s ID!” Except it isn’t.
In our society, we’ve tried to replace Truth with Facts, as if they are interchangable. ID takes its conclusions from science by decompartmentalizing the findings and discovering that when that line over there is aligned with this shape over here, and that color up there, then by-golly a picture forms.
Do ID’ists believe in Evolution? Some of it, but not all. They look at the Cambrian Explosion and Consciousness and say, um, nope, evolution doesn’t work here. They may or may not agree that “junk DNA” is actually junk. Some may have spurious ideas, some do not.
The evidence of cosmology falls hard in the creator camp. So do physics and biology.
Some things WILL defy natural explanation because they have a supernatural component. The beginning of life, and matter, and consciousness, for example. ID can’t identify the how of that anymore than you can.
Kim Metzger:
You forgot Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
http://www.venganza.org/ (for anyone who hasn’t heard of it yet)
My beef with those people saying ID is a farce or “there’s no evidence for it” is that they probably don’t know what ID actually is.
I doubt that. If there was evidence for it, there would be a fair amount of literature and research in the scientific literature.
Problem is…there isn’t.
They look at young Earth theorists, and creationist claims of dubious merit and think “ah ha! That’s ID!” Except it isn’t.
Well, when the folks behind ID and the folks who wrote the main ID textbook do simple search and replaces of “creationism” with “intelligent design”, it’s really, really, really hard to say that ID isn’t creationism.
In our society, we’ve tried to replace Truth with Facts
No, the problem is that some folks are confusing Truth with facts. Not the same. Science and religion do not perform the same function in the world…and the problem comes with people trying to make them perform the same function. They AREN’T interchangeable, and what ID is trying to do is to treat them as interchangeable.
Do ID’ists believe in Evolution? Some of it, but not all. They look at the Cambrian Explosion and Consciousness and say, um, nope, evolution doesn’t work here. They may or may not agree that “junk DNA” is actually junk. Some may have spurious ideas, some do not.
Sorry, but folks who mix talk about Cambrian “explosion” (which it wasn’t) are kinda fact-challenged themselves (and, in fact, the pre Cambrian fossils are pretty much a textbook example of evolutionary theory). Not sure if they have any business talking about facts and truth when they’re so shaky on facts.
And saying that biology points to a creator is simply oiverstating the case. Many of the majot examples that ID proponents point to as examples of design actually have evolutionary explanations developed for them.
Sorry, but ID doesn’t qualify as science. It doesn’t have evidence. It doesn’t have testable hypotheses or mechanisms. ANd it doesn’t suggest new research programs to pursue. Saying that some things “WILL design natural explanation” is assuming your conclusions ahead of time.
By the way….are folks aware that some ID proponents will state that ID doesn’t have testable hypotheses yet?
Some things WILL defy natural explanation because they have a supernatural component.
seems like a bit of an assumption there.
you know what you do when you make an assumption, don’t you? that’s right, you make an ášš out of u and mption.
but seriously, your argument relies upon the existence of supernatural forces. many do not believe in the supernatural. myself for one.
i acknowledge that our understanding of reality is incomplete. there are aspects of nature that we cannot currently explain, or possibly even comprehend. that doesn’t make those things supernatural.
your argument relies upon an unproven (and perhaps unproveable) condition, the existence of the supernatural. as such, your logic is far from airtight.
“1. A bloody knife is on the floor.
2. A body has a bloody wound in it.
3. The knife has finger prints on it.
4. The prints belong to David Hyde White.
5. DHW had a primal hatred for the dead guy.”
Now, prove that David Hyde White exists in the first place. Keep in mind that there is a possibility that the dead man may, in fact, have been carrying the knife downstairs, and fallen upon it. Meanwhile, the only evidence you have for Mr. Hyde White’s existence is the fact that you have hypothesized him in order to explain what seems, to you, to be a murder.
Meanwhile, experienced forensic scientists are telling you that this was actually an accidental death, and that David Hyde White doesn’t show up in any databases at all, except some six-thousand-year-old religious texts.
Which hypothesis seems the more probable?
Robbnn: Read “The Case for a Creator” and tell me that ID is anti-science. It isn’t. Science – finding naturalist solutions to naturalistic problems – points to a creator, IMO.
Luigi Novi: No it doesn’t. Real science requires solid evidence, which must be viewed through the Scientific Method and the Peer Review Process. Nothing that creationists point to as “evidence” has ever survived either of those two things. All of creationism’s arguments are based on Straw Men, distortion, lies, Arguments from Incredulity, and other fallacies. The Case for a Creator is no different, employing the usually creationist myths and lies about evolution, including the fallacy of Haeckel’s drawings, the “everything has a cause” argument, Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity argument (which is just an updated version of William Paley’s Watchmaker argument, and which was debunked in Richard Dawkins’ book The Blind Watchmaker), etc.
One of the greatest banes of the creationist movement is its lack of newness. It just recycles the same old arguments over and over and over, long after they’ve been debunked, without any responses given to the debunkings. Every now and then someone will come up with a book or something that will make it seem like creationists have something “new” to say, but it always turns out to be the same tired, long-dismantled canards. At http://www.nitcentral a couple of years ago, a fellow poster asserted to me that he was not ignorant of science or the debate, so I humored him by encouraging him to tell me what insight or info he had into the E v. C debate. Putting aside his poorly written posts, his deliberate misquoting of my statements, his attempts to assert that he didn’t remember a previous exchange that I would point out as dámņìņg to something new he said, and his overall intellectual poverty, NOTHING he said was new. He parroted the exact same creationist literature that I’ve read many times before from different sources. When I confronted him with how the Scientific Method worked, he had nothing to say. When I brought up the Peer Review Process, he didn’t know what that was, or claimed that it was “[my] stupid qualification”, not his, and later even tried to pass off a study as a Peer Review-one, even though that study, while submitted to a journal for PR, was rejected by because it was completely unscientific.
Now you’re trying to tell me to read this book, as if there’s anything in it that hasn’t already by debunked by evolutionists. You’d think creationists would adapt to the debunkings, at least by refuting them or explaining why the counterarguments don’t work, but then again, that sort of adaptation might be seen as……………………….evolution?
Robbnn: ID is not, by the current limiting definition of science, science, but science DOES point to a Creator. It is a look at the conclusion of evidence, not the evidence itself.
Luigi Novi: LOL!!!!!!! So now we’re NOT supposed to look at the evidence, but just what you and other creationists decide it means?
Sorry, but no thanks. You obviously have no clue what science really is, given that idiotic statement, so pardon me for not taking you seriously when you tell me what science “points to”. Religion “points” to a creator. Not science.
LOL. 🙂
Robbnn: My beef with those people saying ID is a farce or “there’s no evidence for it” is that they probably don’t know what ID actually is. They look at young Earth theorists, and creationist claims of dubious merit and think “ah ha! That’s ID!”
Luigi Novi: Nope. Untrue. I know what ID is, and it has nothing to do with Young Earth Creationists, at least not specifically.
Robbnn: Do ID’ists believe in Evolution? Some of it, but not all. They look at the Cambrian Explosion and Consciousness and say, um, nope, evolution doesn’t work here.
Luigi Novi: And they are wrong, because they confuse the current lack of an explanation for something (consciousness) with the notion that a prevailing paradigm doesn’t work. The idea that evolution “doesn’t work” because we don’t know what causes consciousness is a non-sequitur. It’s like saying that astronomy “doesn’t work” because we don’t know the exact nature of dark matter, or that the viral theory of infection “doesn’t work” because we don’t know where exactly the AIDS virus came from.
Robbnn: The evidence of cosmology falls hard in the creator camp. So do physics and biology.
Luigi Novi: No they do not. Merely saying that they do, as creationists enjoy doing, does not make it so. If what you’re saying is true, then why don’t creationists submit their date for Peer Review?
“Abortion.. yeah, I think its murder. But, why is my opinion more valid than yours? I’m Pro-Choice because I shouldn’t have to be the one to make that decision. If its a sin, than lets let God handle it.”
Everytime I see or hear a comment like this, it makes me spit my coffee. I can understand the viewpoint of people who don’t believe a life begins as conception, so therefore don’t believe abortion is murder. However, when someone says they believe it IS murder, but that it should be legal? I’m assuming then that you believe all murder should be legal? Theft too? Rape? Torture? Let God sort it out?
If what you’re saying is true, then why don’t creationists submit their date for Peer Review?
The usual creationist reply to this question is that they will be shot down by the scientific establishment since, as we all know, they are reluctant to accept anything that will require them to “rewrite the textbooks”.
Which always gets a good chuckle out of me. Scientists LOVE to rewrite textbooks. It’s the only way you ever get to put your own name in one!!!
Is there a scientist alive who wouldn’t give half his fingers and both his thumbs to be able to write something like “Darwin thought he had it all figured out, until Sidney Applebaum proved him wrong. Praise me! Praise me!”
The idea that scientists know that evolution or any other scientific theory is wrong is right up there with the one about doctors knowing how to cure AIDS or cancer but not wanting to do so because they can make money off of treatment of the diseases (apparently you can’t charge for a cure in Crazy World).
Bill,
“Well, to be fair, the anti-science crap comes from both the left and right, just on different issues. It’s the extreme left that has crippled animal testing in England and probably lead to unnecessary starvation in the developing world due to their hysteria over genetically modified lifeforms.”
Fair enough. I was thinking more in terms of the U.S. here. Sure, there is some here too but not as bad as I’ve seen mess from the left elsewhere.
But fair point.
My beef with those people saying ID is a farce or “there’s no evidence for it” is that they probably don’t know what ID actually is.
My beef with people like you is that you prefer to be deaf, blind, and dumb to reality.
If you don’t think ID is creationism in (a poor) disguise, you’re obviously off in your own little world.
Luigi Novi: LOL!!!!!!! So now we’re NOT supposed to look at the evidence, but just what you and other creationists decide it means?
Sorry, but no thanks. You obviously have no clue what science really is, given that idiotic statement, so pardon me for not taking you seriously when you tell me what science “points to”. Religion “points” to a creator. Not science.
LOL. 🙂
Luigi,
You’re normally better than this. I never said don’t look at the evidence, I said ID draws conclusions from scientific evidence.
I am not the best person to put forth the case for ID. I’ve pointed you to a book that I think does an excellent job of it, though.
I am “deaf, dumb and blind to reality.” Yet, I’m willing to have a discussion, while you are only interested in slamming the poor, dumb, ignorant savage who believes the case for a creator is compelling.
I’m slammed because I “just say so” yet you have done no differently. “There is no evidence.” “It does not!” “You’re an idiot!”
The ID you’re all arguing against is a straw man. It is beyond my ability to demonstrate that in this small space (and with my limited knowledge) but feel free to feel superior looking down on a shadow of ID.
If, on the off chance you do decide to look into real ID, remember the scientific importance of not assuming your conclusions before looking at the arguments. Just a suggestion.
Robbnn:
The major difficulty with “Intelligent Design” is that it immediately brings up the question of “Who designed the designer?” And then the automatic next question is “Who designed the designer of the that designer?”
And if you are going to answer that question with the standard Creationist “the Designer always was” – then the counter argument (with the same amount of evidence) is “The universe always was”.
To accept “ID” (aka Creationism), it begs the question that one must accept that there was a “designer” – of which *absolutely no evidence has ever been given”.
And until one can show that piece of evidence, it’s nothing but the fundamentalist Christians attempting to get there interpretation of their holy book into schools masquerading as science.
And if you are going to teach creationism as science, you also must teach all of the thousands and thousands of other creation myths that have arisen over the course of history.
Because they all have the same amount of evidence and backing as your does – exactly zero.
Okay, it’s been said on this thread that proponants of ID want to change the definition of science so that ID can be included.
Personally, I think this is a phenominally bad idea, however, I’ll make a deal…
I’ll be willing to accept that the definition of science can be changed to include ID if they would be willing to accept the definition of marriage can be changed to include people who marry a same-sex partner.
Deal?
“Well, to be fair, the anti-science crap comes from both the left and right, just on different issues. It’s the extreme left that has crippled animal testing in England and probably lead to unnecessary starvation in the developing world due to their hysteria over genetically modified lifeforms. Liberal Canada bans not only human cloning but the insertion of inheritable genes as well as paying egg or sperm doners. The reasons given for this seem to be more kooky far left humbug than right wing religious quackery.”
Bill: That’s not anti-science, that’s anti- animal cruelty. I’m not going to take the side of PETA, as I find most of their positions to be completely nuts, but do not mischaracterize their position as anti-science. And your points about Canada come completely out of nowhere.
In the US, the outrage about human cloning comes primarily from the right on religious grounds. I, myself, find the whole idea to be rather creepy, but that’s me (and most definitely no on religious grounds).
Also, Canadian law doesn’t ban payment of donors. What they appear to be trying to do (from reading the law itself) is preventing an industry of sperm and egg donation. People cannot sell their eggs and sperm, and people cannot offer to buy eggs and sperm for the profit of the donor. Donors are allowed to be reimbursed for expenses (and I’d wager that is a rather grey area).
I’d say the downside to their act isn’t that they are trying to regulate these things, but that it lays the groundwork for a black market of the same due to over-regulation.
I teach biology at a university, so I think I’m somewhat qualified to jump into the fray. The others have explained the scientific method very well. My question is for the ID/creationist camp. Can you please explain to me WHY, if we are the products of such intelligent design, we have sinuses that drain from the top? Why do we have an appendix that serves no function (but is very useful to herbivores?)? Why does photorespiration occur at all? (That’s where plants fix O2 instead of CO2 during photosynthesis.) And why does our eye have the bizarre setup of the neurons being in front of the retina? That means that light has to pass thru the machinery of the eye in order or to reach the rods and cones. If the Designer is so danged intelligent, why do we have such obvious design flaws abounding in nature? I can list many more examples of poor engineering, but I’m interested in your explanation. To me, the theory of natural selection and nature working with what is available, not designing with an end-product in mind, makes these circumstances completely comprehensible. But if this is Intelligent Design at work, I think we need a better architect!
The Panda’s Thumb
I am “deaf, dumb and blind to reality.” Yet, I’m willing to have a discussion, while you are only interested in slamming the poor, dumb, ignorant savage who believes the case for a creator is compelling.
Well, your reading comprehension certainly isn’t up to par at the moment, since I made the above comment, not Luigi.
As for who wants to be the “poor, dumb, ignorant savage”, this is the position, the high moral ground, that ID supporters assume about those that don’t believe.
Oh, and that we’re going to hëll.
Robbnn: ID is not, by the current limiting definition of science, science, but science DOES point to a Creator. It is a look at the conclusion of evidence, not the evidence itself.
Luigi Novi: LOL!!!!!!! So now we’re NOT supposed to look at the evidence, but just what you and other creationists decide it means? Sorry, but no thanks. You obviously have no clue what science really is, given that idiotic statement, so pardon me for not taking you seriously when you tell me what science “points to”. Religion “points” to a creator. Not science.
Robbnn: Luigi, You’re normally better than this. I never said don’t look at the evidence, I said ID draws conclusions from scientific evidence.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say that you did. You said “It is a look at the conclusion of evidence, not the evidence itself.”, which is a nonsensical statement, since you cannot draw a conclusion from evidence without looking at it. That is the only statement of yours I responded to.
Robbnn: I am not the best person to put forth the case for ID. I’ve pointed you to a book that I think does an excellent job of it, though.
Luigi Novi: And as I’ve stated, that book merely repeats the long-debunked fallacies that creationists incestuously parrot from one another. Nothing in it is new. Creationists simply believe what they want to believe, not what an objective and unbiased look at the evidence truly shows, and books such as that merely provide a propagandistic excuse for them to continue doing so.
Robbnn: I’m slammed because I “just say so” yet you have done no differently.
Luigi Novi: No, your statements are being refuted because they’re based on falsehoods.
Robbnn: The ID you’re all arguing against is a straw man.
Luigi Novi: No it isn’t. I’ve read about creationism/ID from different sources in books, magazines, websites and on TV, and I’ve heard the arguments for it. I’ve read the statements by Michael Behe, the author of Darwin’s Black Box, and his Irreducible Complexity argument is bunk, which people like Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer have shown.
Robbnn: If, on the off chance you do decide to look into real ID, remember the scientific importance of not assuming your conclusions before looking at the arguments.
Luigi Novi: That is a lesson that the creationists need to learn. Not evolutionists. People did not begin accepting evolution until the evidence for it began to accumulate and be explained, and the evidence for it is so great that it is correctly called a fact in the scientific community, just as heliocentricity, plate tectonics, etc. By contrast, creationists like those in the ID movement argue their cause entirely on an a priori basis, and will not allow themselves to conclude anything other than their predisposed creationist belief, or revise their position, regardless of where the evidence leads them. The accusation, therefore, that evolutionists assume their conclusions before looking at the evidence is so hypocritically perverse, it is akin to O.J’s assertion that Nicole was responsible for her own death.
But if you’re one of those creationists actually interested in looking at the evidence, I would suggest you read Chapters 9 – 11 of Michael Shermer’s People Believe Weird Things, which focuses on the E v C debate. Pages 141 – 153 in Chapter 10 in particular contain answers to 25 Creationist Arguments. One of arguments addressed is the Irreducible Complexity Argument, which argues that we are too complex to have evolved. Shermer, taking his cue from Richard Dawkins, points out that complexity can evolve if it does so in small incremental steps.
The book is about skepticism, critical thinking, and the Scientific Method, and also contains much material about other pseudoscientific ideas, including UFOs, psychic abilities, past life experiences, Holocaust denial, the recovered memory movement, the Bell Curve, etc., and how these ideas can be viewed via the Scientific Method.
kawherp: I teach biology at a university, so I think I’m somewhat qualified to jump into the fray. The others have explained the scientific method very well. My question is for the ID/creationist camp. Can you please explain to me WHY, if we are the products of such intelligent design, we have sinuses that drain from the top? Why do we have an appendix that serves no function (but is very useful to herbivores?)? Why does photorespiration occur at all? (That’s where plants fix O2 instead of CO2 during photosynthesis.) And why does our eye have the bizarre setup of the neurons being in front of the retina?
Luigi Novi: Or why we get goosebumps…
Ack. Michael Shermer’s book is called Why Pepole Believe Weird Things. Accidentally left out the word “Why”.