Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This time from Pastor Neal Ganzel from this unfortunate Presbyterian church (unfortunate because they surely deserve a better educated minister than the one they have). I'm moving this comment up from a much earlier thread so it doesn't get lost. Ganzel wrote:
When exactly did the word "evolution" come to MEAN "science"? It is a fact that the Florida's Sunshine State Standards for education now treat "evolution" as meaning "science." If you study science in k-12, you are studying "evolution." If you graduate from High School and believe you want to be a scientist, that will mean you want to be an neo-darwinian evolutionist.
Utter nonsense. Florida has finally decided to add one of the half dozen most well established theories in science as being exactly what it is. Evolution is one theory in science, it is not science itself nor does anyone treat it as such.
So if a student or teacher or parent rejects the current "assured findings" of the science associated wih the evolutionary viewpoint (not to mention the metaphysical/moral/sociological/psychological/etc. implications regularly and passionately drawn and taught from this viewpoint) he or she will now be be running afoul of the clearly stated intentions of State Government.
Yes, just like if they reject the reality of the holocaust they will be "running afoul" of what is taught in the curriculum. And just like if they reject the germ theory of disease they will be "running afoul" of what is taught in the curriculum. Those ideas, like evolution, are part of the curriculum because they are supported by the evidence.
So the teacher will be required to teach both macro and micro evolution in order to be employed as a "science" teacher; the student will have to describe science in only evolutionary terms in order to pass "science" tests.
Yes, just like the teachers have long been required to teach big bang cosmology, the germ theory of disease, the kinetic theory of gasses, heliocentricity and many other well supported theories, and just like students have to show on the tests that they understand those concepts in scientific terms even if their religion happens to conflict with them. I notice that you only seem to object to the ones that you don't happen to like, not to the same reality about those theories that don't conflict with your religious views.
Importantly, the parent will be required to pay taxes into a system which dogmatically catechizes all children under its governmental influence in only macro and micro evolutionary dogma, and which also advances in its life sciences curricula the various implications of this viewpoint touching every part of the both the human condition and its academy.
Funny, you don't seem to be bothered by geocentrist parents paying taxes into a system that "dogmatically catechizes all children under its governmental influence" in only "heliocentric dogma." You might wanna check with some of your fellow Christians, who are just as convinced (and just as wrong) that heliocentricity is a hoax perpetrated on Christianity as you that evolution is. You don't seem to be bothered that parents who reject the reality of the holocaust are required to pay taxes into a system that "dogmatically catechizes" kids into believing that the holocaust happened. Or that disease is caused by microorganisms.
The schools teach hundreds of ideas as being true and you don't complain about them "dogmatically catechizing" about those ideas; you only portray it that way when it's an idea you don't personally believe in. So your argument really collapses down to "I think evolution is wrong and shouldn't be taught." But you don't advance a single argument in your ignorant screed for why that might be the case.
I predict that the evolutionary establishment will get the textbooks, curriculum, grant monies, tenured professorships, endowed chairs, and withall the state coersion they evidently so desparately need for the success of their enterprise, i.e. their academic establishment. But they will also provoke a reaction in the State and Federal courts which will quickly slap their avaricious hands.
You think the courts are going to stop the state of Florida from teaching one of the most basic and well accepted scientific theories in science class because it might offend the religious beliefs of the ignorant? Yeah, good luck with that. That argument has never gotten past a motion to dismiss in any court in this country and it's not gonna start working now.
It will now be time for the evolutionary establshment to be legally beaten back from forcing their viewpoint (dare say "religion"?)upon everyone. Someone will secure for dissenting teachers, parents and students the rights of conscience and freedom of religion which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Such an idiotic argument. If it was true that teaching evolution in public schools violates your freedom of religion because you disagree with it, then anything taught in any school that was in conflict with any parental belief would have to violate the constitution. What would be left to teach? Even the fact that the earth is a sphere is disputed by some religious groups. Even the germ theory of disease, the basis of most of modern medicine, could not be taught. There is virtually nothing that could be taught in schools by this silly standard. Freedom of religion does not mean no one ever gets to tell you you're wrong.
Comments
At the request of a friend, I attended a PCA church a few times. I strongly do not recommend anyone else doing it.
Posted by: Royale | March 4, 2008 9:38 AM
Posted by: llDayo | March 4, 2008 9:42 AM
Funny, you don't seem to be bothered by geocentrist parents paying taxes into a system that "dogmatically catechizes all children under its governmental influence" in only "heliocentric dogma." ...
Actually, he and his parishoners might well be "bothered" by all of the things you mention -- just like a certain other science-denialist (and Holocaust-denialist) we all know so well.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 9:48 AM
That, and a neo-Newtonian gravitationalist, a neo-Pasteurian germist, a neo-Maxwellian electromagnetist, etc., etc...
Posted by: DaveL | March 4, 2008 10:12 AM
Yes, important to note that this is a PCA as opposed to PCUSA. Very different, though I have met some PCUSA types who would probably be more comfortable at PCA.
Posted by: Eric | March 4, 2008 10:13 AM
Yet more projection from the evangelist crowd. Someone needs to explain to him that, just because he wants to use the schools to force his viewpoint down the throats of children, doesn't mean that everything taught in school is similar propaganda.
Posted by: Julian | March 4, 2008 10:22 AM
How old was the thread in which Ganzel commented? It's starting to look like some creationist trolls are Googling for evolutionist sites, pasting their talking-points and running without even looking to see how recent the thread is, and -- in all likelihood -- not coming back to flesh out their arguments or respond to ours.
I guess they're just desperate to keep the "controversy" alive...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 10:28 AM
That's already out in some states. "Too dangerous" my ass. They're f-ing nerf balls.
Posted by: FishyFred | March 4, 2008 10:35 AM
False Premises?
"When exactly did the word "evolution" come to MEAN "science"?"
Check.
Is=Ought Fallacy?
"(not to mention the metaphysical/moral/sociological/psychological/etc. implications regularly and passionately drawn and taught from this viewpoint)"
Check.
Paranoia?
"he or she will now be be running afoul of the clearly stated intentions of State Government."
Check.
Scare quotes?
""science" teacher"
Check.
Gross misunderstanding of the role of the courts and/or the facts that would come to bear in such a case?
"But they will also provoke a reaction in the State and Federal courts which will quickly slap their avaricious hands."
Check.
BINGO! I've got a full row across on my creationist nonsense bingo card!
Projection?
"forcing their viewpoint (dare say "religion"?)upon everyone."
Check.
Posted by: Jason Failes | March 4, 2008 11:14 AM
"What about dodgeball?"
Sorry, I don't think that the Quakers would go along with that.
Posted by: NJ Osprey | March 4, 2008 11:17 AM
Ildayo wrote:
Sorry. Some parents object to Newtonian physics. So that's gone, too.
Posted by: Dan | March 4, 2008 11:21 AM
Without dodgeball, there is no hope.
Posted by: llDayo | March 4, 2008 11:26 AM
Just to emphasize the difference between PCA (relatively small) and PCUSA (larger) - PCUSA has passed resolutions stating that they find no conflict with evolution. Statements of the PCUSA and other mainline churches can be found on the NCSE web site.
Posted by: vhutchison | March 4, 2008 11:29 AM
"they evidently so desparately need"
Can't take someone seriously if they can't spell. That's my stance.
"That's already out in some states. "Too dangerous" my ass. They're f-ing nerf balls."
Nerf balls? How old are you? Back in MY day we played with those red balls and they definitely left a mark.
I loved dodgeball.
Posted by: Andrea | March 4, 2008 11:35 AM
When exactly did the word "evolution" come to MEAN "science"?
Does he think it isn't science or something? What the heck is that guy saying? I'll bet he thinks it isn't scientific. He probably thinks it's religious.
Posted by: 386sx | March 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Even if there were a shred of merit to the "evolution as religion" argument, the religious bigotry of this jackass would still be glaring.
"Don't teach their religion, teach MY religion."
I'd bet the good pastor would not be so enthusiastic about various African or Hindu creation myths being taught instead of Christian creation myths.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | March 4, 2008 12:35 PM
As someone who spent the bulk of his elementary school days with the word "Voit" tattooed across the side of his face from dodgeball bullies, I object. Plus, no one called it dodgeball in those days; it was "smear the queer."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 4, 2008 12:37 PM
I am trying to think what would be the case in 100 or 200 years when (hopefully) science will have pushed God and his/her religious organizations into a corner.
That is of course assuming that religious freaks would not have destroyed the world by then and that they won't have won the evolution/creationism battle and bring science to a standstill! "Mob rules" you know...
Posted by: stavros | March 4, 2008 12:39 PM
I remember reading an article in Newsweek this Summer about global warming. It had come to the conclusion that it was a fact and human induced. It cited all the people out there who did not believe that and vilified them. So much so that one of their own at Newsweek wrote and article the next month criticizing his editor for being so one sided.
In the first article the author wondered if 20 years from now he would have to eat his words like the Magazine did many years before when it said another Ice Age was coming or something like that. In other words, they had been wrong. The point of the second article was that there were legimate people with legitimate questions about whether global warming was a fact. He was saying they needed to be heard so people could make up their own minds.
With that said, I wanted to read more about this whole subject because I was tired of listening to Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives about how it was a hoax. I had based my opinion for years on what the Conservative pundits were saying. So I went to a college and asked a guy who had studied it to recommend something. I wanted both sides. He gave me something and I read part of it and still have not really made up my mind.
My point is that there are people out there with some serious problems with certain aspects of evolution. If I was a parent I would want my child getting both sides. Even if it is presented as, "This is what most experts would say and the others are in the minority or how ever you want to put it." If for no other reason I would want my child to be able to debunk the other side and if they do not understand the argument they cannot.
I would liken it to teaching about Government. I taught democracy vs. dictatorship years ago. I presented both sides. I presented democracy as the better option because: 1. This is true 2. This is what the cirriculum stated 3. It is what I believed. The students were told when I believed something personally and that they did not have to. But to not teach about dictatorship and those who think it is a good idea and why is criminal. Why? because we are not equipping the next generation to defend their ideas.
I disagree with much of what Karl Marx stood for and wrote. I still read him. I want to learn why he felt the way he did. Where did his ideas come from? It is when we contrast him with men like Jefferson, Locke, and others that we see how great they were.
It seems to me that to not state that some Scientists have a problem with some aspects of Evolution is not good education. Ed why do you bother learning the Bible, case law, and read World Net Daily? You want to be informed about what your opponents are saying. Why deprive students of the same? I would for sure teach about people who say that the Holocaust did not exist. Why? Because if we do not know that there are people out there who still think the way Hitler did we will fall asleep.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 12:48 PM
"It seems to me that to not state that some Scientists have a problem with some aspects of Evolution is not good education. "
The thing is, every "some scientists" (why the capitalisation?) have problems with every single scientific theory known to man. Some scientists don't accept quantum mechanics. Some don't accept relativity. Some don't even believe in heliocentrism. Why single out evolution?
The difference between anthrophogenic climate change and evolution is that the evidence for evolution is exponentially more solid and widespread, and has been for over a century. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change has only really become conclusive in the last decade, and there's still a small amount of room for uncertainty. For evolution to turn out to be wrong (in the general sense, rather than specific aspects) would involve overturning mountains of evidence that point to common descent with natural selection as a primary mechanism, and coming up with an entirely new explanation that fits the data better. Nobody has come close to doing that, which is why we don't need to hedge it when we teach science to schoolkids.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 4, 2008 1:02 PM
My point is that there are people out there with some serious problems with certain aspects of evolution.
Who, exactly, are those people, and what, exactly, are their problems? Given the total lack of any peer-reviewed papers or other serious scientific work disproving evolution, or supporting any alternative hypothesis, I'd venture to say these "problems" are irrelevant to the objective reality as honest people, theist and atheist alike, observe it.
If I was a parent I would want my child getting both sides.
That only makes sense in cases where there's more than one side. That's not the case in evolution: there is one -- count it, one -- valid and tested theory explaining the observed diversity of life on Earth; no other hypothesis is supported by the evidence; and all of the objections to the prevailing theory have repeatedly been shown to be based on ignorance at best, shameless dishonesty and bigotry at worst. That's the truth, and I want children to be taught the truth.
I would liken it to teaching about Government...
That's an extermely bad analogy: scientific theories are based on unchanging physical laws, the most complicated of which are childishly simple when compared to human political interaction -- which involves extremely complex and everchanging interactions of people, groups, needs, means, priorities, and environments. In political/historical controversies, there's plenty of room for opinions and discussions because there are many different points from which different people have viewed the same events. In science, the Earth is round, the sky is blue, and E=mc^2, regardless of your background or beliefs.
It seems to me that to not state that some Scientists have a problem with some aspects of Evolution is not good education.
No, pretending there's a "controversy" when there clearly is none, is "not good education." More specifically, it's a flat-out lie. Who are these "some scientists?" And where are the peer-reviewed papers they wrote to disprove evolution? Again, your failure to name names proves your case is based on empty assertions and uninformed, lazily-repeated opinions.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 1:09 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
Believe it or not, this stance is even more controversial -- and more likely to upset the IDCreationists -- than teaching evolution alone. Why? Because you allowed that the side with the overwhelming support would be presented as the better option, and the other side would be "debunked."
Scientists would have no problem with that. It's an excellent idea.
In fact, a number of public school teachers do it that way -- and sometimes catch flack for it. They are directly and specifically bringing the subject of religious creationism into the classroom, and saying why it's wrong. Why your church is wrong; why your parents are wrong. And leading kids to the conclusion. From the parents' point of view, it's a lot less upsetting if the teacher just says "I won't address that" instead of shredding their arguments.
Debunking? No way. ID Creationists want both sides presented like a live controversy, with scientists on both sides, so you make up your own mind. But ID isn't like global warming. It's a "theory" with no positive content -- no method, no predictions, no mechanism. Global warming deniers still retain some scientific credibility, because they're approaching the topic in a legitimate way. They're not rejecting a major unifying tenet of all biology. And the issue doesn't have "religion" all over it.
Posted by: Sastra | March 4, 2008 1:10 PM
I've seen and heard this comment in varying forms. I don't know why, but for some reason, this question finally popped into my head: What other side? What is the proposed alternative to evolution? Both sides of the global warming dispute use scientific data to back their claims. Even geocentrists and young earthers use (seriously flawed) science to support their stances. But what's the scientific alternative to evolution? Would presenting both sides really be "Here's this mountain of evidence that most scientists agree supports the theory of evolution. The rest think some supernatural sky fairy made everything, and just put all that evidence there to fuck with us."?
Posted by: Jason I. | March 4, 2008 1:13 PM
"If I was a parent I would want my child getting both sides."
The 'other side' should be taught in the way intellectual history is taught. Flogeston, alchemy, bleeding people with leeches, geocentric orbits, and literal Genesis theories all belong in public schools, just in their proper places.
Posted by: Royale | March 4, 2008 1:28 PM
If there were a history or social studies class teaching the about the conflict, I'd have no problem with that. That would be an appropriate context for this dispute. However, in a science classroom they should teach science and there is no scientific alternative to evolution to be taught. Creationism, creation science, and ID cannot be tested via the scientific method and are therefore not science.
The fact that a few quacks managed to get PhD at the end of their name and still doubt evolution does not qualify as a significant scientific dispute. There are researchers looking into supposed psychic phenomena. But we do not include ESP and precognition into psychology/neurology courses. Nor do we include Big Foot and Nessie in biology just because a couple of doctors believe in them.
Newtonian, relativistic and string theories of gravity would be an example of a legitimate scientific debate. The existence or properties of dark matter is a legitimate scientific debate. Debate does exist in science. But this isn't it.
Science demands proof. No proof outside of evolution has withstood five minutes of scrutiny. If you want to push for creationism in history class, feel free. But the science classroom is not an appropriate venue for social studies.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 1:31 PM
Must be a regional thing. "Smear the queer" was an alternate description for what was usually known around upstate New York as "kill the carrier." Someone throws you a football and you run until the rest of the group tackles you to the ground. Repeat with a different carrier. I never liked that game particularly having broke my collarbone playing it once.
Ahh, the halcyon days before litigious parents......
Posted by: carlsonjok | March 4, 2008 1:52 PM
Ahhh, who would've thought it would get elevated from a playground game to part of the Republican party platform?
Posted by: Jason I. | March 4, 2008 1:55 PM
My version of "smear the queer" aligns with that of carlsonjok. I have, at great personal risk, played it with our church's youth group within the past few years. Of course there we have a more politically correct name: "slaughter ball."
I grew up in the city (Pittsburgh) and in high school we had a particularly virulent version of dodge ball: in and around the high school swimming pool--with "no rules" as the gym teacher would be off somewhere. This scenario still gives me the chills: some PCP-addled mutant gets the ball near you (on the pool deck) while you are in the pool treading water. He feigns a toss and you go under to protect yourself, only to realize that he didn't throw it, and is just waiting for the inevitable--and quite willing to toss it to the nearest strategically located fellow mutant if you try to get away by swiming under water... Arggh.
Posted by: heddle | March 4, 2008 2:02 PM
Same here in the south, carlsonjok. Dodgeball and "smear-the-queer" were two very different, uh, games? Ah, good old fashioned bigotry in the form of a chrildren's game.
Funny, I looked it up on wikipedia, and it redirects to "tag". Yeah, if "tag" means getting your face piledrived into the ground by 20 other kids. Good times.
Posted by: Deepsix | March 4, 2008 2:11 PM
Two points KoI:
First, is that you *can* present the other side to your children *outside of school*. There's no one stopping you from doing this. The only thing most people on this board are concerned with is that you recognize that ID is not science and because of that it should not be taught in science class. That's it.
Second, this is *high school* science class we are talking about, right? Even if there were a real controversy, High school science is not the place to teach it. That would be in college. High school is the place for fundamentals. Kids have to understand that before they get to more complex stuff. For example, we still teach high school kids Netonian physics knowing perfectly well that it doesn't accurately describe the universe. But, kids must understand that before they move on to relativity.
Having a class in college that presents both sides makes much more sense. The problem is, ID proponents don't seem to want a college course. I wonder why that is?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 4, 2008 2:13 PM
We played that (minus the PCP) when I was on the swim team and called it something like monster ball. Water polo with no rules, essentially, so you had to actually be IN the water at all times. It tests your lung power, and mine was substantial, to say the least. Closest I've ever come to blacking out.
Our on-the-ground alternative to dodge ball was bombardment. I think that one was standing against a wall and one was an in the gym free for all.
Posted by: Andrea | March 4, 2008 2:27 PM
"Having a class in college that presents both sides makes much more sense. The problem is, ID proponents don't seem to want a college course. I wonder why that is?"
Assuming that this is true that they do not want this I would have to say after much reading about this debate and the History of it that goes back Centuries that it is because they want to use to to prove there is a god and then go from there to contruct a world view that flows from that.
I would also assume that those who believe there is no God or that He has no interest in the workings of nature(deists) would want to use evolution to prove that there is no god or at least get that discussion taken out the classroom and then go from there to construct a world view that flows from that.
Now this is simplistic but despite some variations like Theistic Evolution the camps have been alive for a long time. The debate is more about what is Science and what methodology should be used. It essentially comes down to a debate among materialists and anti-materialists. Materialists are the vast majority of Scientists today so they have most of the say. If the anti-materialists make a come back they will have most of the say.
As honest as I can be(this can only be found when one is in the majority and has the upper hand) I think both should be taught. Are some Christians trying to disquise their intent with language and jargon? Yes and if they are doing that it is wrong. Christians have a Theology of one God and a philosophy of supernaturalism. Humanists seem to have a Theology of no god or I am not sure and a philosophy of naturalism or materialism.
Theology seems to be a social studies topic if treated fairly like comparative religions or things like that where there is secular value. To take the question of Does God Exist? and Who is God? that has been part of academic debate for years out is wrong to me. The materialism vs. non-materialist or supernaturalist is more complicated. It is more about who gets to define what Science is?
The shame is what one dude quoted in Time magazine in an artcile about this: when he stated more or less that it is a shame we are spending more time arguing about this than doing research that can help the world and are falling behind other countries. This is a legitimate argument and one that most dogmatic Christians overlook. Most of Science has no beef among Christians. It is Biology and Geology and most specifically evolution.
I go back and forth about what to do about this. Evolution is not just in a vacuum though. It influences the other disciplines just as much as ID or creationism would. One thing we cannot get away from it that whether we believe in God or not and what we believe about him does cloud our world view. Some would say that it is the lynch pin of our world view.
I depart from most Conservative Christians that seek to legislate morality to to assert their world view. But I do think world view is an important topic in education. If for no other reason than to prepare kids for the global nature of the world where they are going to have to deal with and understand other world views. In the cosmopolitian cities that is happening some but most other cultures come here and assimiliate. When we go there on their turf it is really different.
My gut tells me, and I might regret saying this, that the guys in Seattle are trying to do the same thing my boss at a mission agency was trying to do. He wanted state monies for our base. They would give it for secular purposes. We(I) were dealing with some former gang kids in our mission schools. He said that we could call it "Character Education" and try to get a grant. Wise or lying? He thought it was wise and that it was taking from the wicked to do God's work more or less. I was troubled.
More troubled when I was told we did not want kids like that that often. They were messing up the good kids. Since I was a little older I got a pass but in the end they thought I was messing up their kids by telling them the truth that in essence they were "virulently ignorant" and had no idea what they believed and why and would get slaughtered if questioned in the real world. I was asked to leave.
The Discovery Institute could be in the same vain. If we have to win by cheating I say lose. Even if the other side does it. With that said, I think there is some validity in pursuing this centuries old debate and how it affects the Public Schools. What I am not sure of and have thought about for months is how to go about it and not help promote the Religious Right cause.
I would be interested in how better to discuss this on a forum like this where legitimate debate can take place without fear that caving on Science standards will one day allow tyrants that hate gays to run the country. I see the agenda too and believe it not would fight it just as vigorously as you would. Even in its most mild moralistic nature. Why? Religion has killed more people than anything.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 3:28 PM
I object to Ed's obvious attempt to falsify his history! If he had truly been badgered by dodgeball bullies, the tattoo across his face would have been "TIOV"!
Posted by: Squiddhartha | March 4, 2008 4:15 PM
Well, to anyone else it would've been TIOV, but when Ed looks in a mirror, it would still say VOIT. Kind of like those weird vehicles with sirens that say ECNALUBMA on the front.
Posted by: Jason I. | March 4, 2008 4:18 PM
"But what's the scientific alternative to evolution? Would presenting both sides really be "Here's this mountain of evidence that most scientists agree supports the theory of evolution. The rest think some supernatural sky fairy made everything, and just put all that evidence there to fuck with us."?'
False dilema. Their are people who see problems with Darwin's thoery. A simple look at Wikidpedia shows this. Why do they have these problems? Many of them are Scientists. The argument of, "Their quacks so we will not give them the time of day" argument will not float in mainstream America. Right or wrong when this movie(Ben Stein) comes out and if it gets popular you guys are going to have a fight on your hands. These kids nowadays do not handle because I told you so real well even if you are obviously right. Things are a changin!
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 4:24 PM
Christians have a Theology of one God and a philosophy of supernaturalism. Humanists seem to have a Theology of no god or I am not sure and a philosophy of naturalism or materialism.
Wow, false dichotomies AND non-sequiturs! And you wonder why your ideas don't get taken seriously as "science?"
First, the "philosophies" you ascribe (wrongly and simplistically) to Christians and "humanists" have nothing to do with the methodologies we apply to various issues. Even a Christian with what you (vaguely) label a "supernaturalist" "philosophy" can still apply a "materialist" methodology to material issues, such as CSI, accounting, astronomy, or the behavior of living things. Your dichotomy is both false and hoplessly muddled.
Second, many Christians -- and Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Shintoists, Taoists, Voudounists, etc. -- accept evolution, without reservation, despite believing in God(s) and other supernatural beings or phemonena. See, in particular, explicit statements to this effect in the official doctrines of the Catholics and Lutherans, among others.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2008 4:27 PM
Thats simply because mainstream America is comprised of people who see scientist and think 'smart' without taking into consideration what that individual may be saying is removed from his field of understanding. Likewise they are unaware of the many scientists in that field who disagree with the very few who make names for themselves by being different. It's kinda like the news, it's news because it's so outside the norm.
As if the forces of reason have never had a fight with the forces of unreason and superstition. Won't change a thing.
Posted by: JimC | March 4, 2008 4:32 PM
KoI,
Others here can correct me if some of my details are wrong, but science itself makes no claims about whether or not there is a god. Science, simply stated, is searching for the best solution to a problem. Unfortunately, resorting to a supernatural explanation is not the optimal way to find a resolution to a problem, since the supernatural explanation is easily produced. Even though the DI tries to produce nuanced explanations, all of them so far boil down to "Godidit". Using the flagella as an example, Behe's simple explanation was "Godidit", but he had no science to back it up. And of course, a few years down the road, real active scientists did enough research to put a large hole in that assertion.
I would say in general, the biggest problem with "Godidit" is that it in effect stops you from thinking about the problem any longer, and pushing the limits of our knowledge a little farther out. It is a way of saying "I don't want to do any more work to understand this", rather than saying "Hmm.., that is a neat problem, how much detail can I add to this model through experimentation to better understand how it works".
Posted by: BGT | March 4, 2008 4:43 PM
No, it's not.
That's the very essense of science--to look for explanations THAT WORK BETTER. If there's not one, then you're not engaging in science.
Guess what. ALL theories have problems. They ALL have holes. But they don't get replaced until there's a better explanation.
Posted by: gwangung | March 4, 2008 4:44 PM
No, we don't. For one, we understand that you can't prove a negative, so using evolution to "prove that there is no god" simply doesn't make sense. For two, many of us support the separation of church and state (it's very beneficial to us) and oppose religious indoctrination in class--including areligious indoctrination (if that's a word).
Maybe, but I doubt it. As you point out later in your post, "Most of Science has no beef among Christians. It is Biology and Geology and most specifically evolution." So it can't be that they dislike science in specific. Dismantling all of science would be simply ludicrous--look at everything it's done for us! Hell, we are having this discussion from completely different areas of the country via the miracle of science!
It is more as you said: people accept science up until it comes to a conclusion that contradicts their preconceived fantasies. So maybe you should ask yourself this: why are you content to accept the answers science gives you on every subject except evolution?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Remember a while back when people were trying to tell you the difference between philosophical materialism and practical materialism? There are many, many scientists out there who are religious and hence are not philosophical materialists. However, allowing the supernatural into science renders it completely useless. Science must start with the assumption that the laws of the universe are not subject to being changed on a whim by gods or fairies or anything else--otherwise, all its results become suspect. This is practical materialism, and without it science simply doesn't work.
Teach what? Theism versus materialism? Fine, but put it in a comparative religion course or something. It has nothing to do with science.
Again, if you want to try teaching children about religion, go ahead. I don't know anyone who would stop you--I myself took numerous courses in college about varying religions, despite being an atheist. However, we are adamantly opposed to teaching that one religion is correct, which is what IDists and creationists want.
And science is already well-defined. Why on earth would you want to change it?
Posted by: Skemono | March 4, 2008 4:46 PM
We had a version of dodgeball on the playground for those times when all the balls were in use for 4-square. We used dirt clods. If you're unfamiliar with the dirt clod, it's what happens when dirt gets dried out and cracks to about an inch deep. A kid can pull these up and have a fairly solid chunk of earth, a little bigger than a fist, perfect for winging at your target.
For the most part these dirt clods would disintegrate when the hit something solid, like a person. But every once in a while you get one that contained a rock. Lets just say my ability to judge trajectories and my reaction time remains unusually well honed to this day.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 4:47 PM
In my Suburb of Los Angeles, Dodgeball was called "Socko", and "smear the queer" was a completely different game it was pretty much like the earlier poster described in his Upstate New York version. We also had a painful and humiliating game called "butts up" anyone partake in or hear of that one?
My daughter is currently in 5th grade and they have NO recess in which they can play anything. I find it appalling, my best years of playing games such as dodgeball and "smear the queer" where in 5th and 6th grade it seems to be a shame that as parents we don't allow our children time to "play" like we did. There is a good deal of social learning from play that is being missed and I think it is more vital socially than my daughter being forced to learn about a half-baked theory that doesn't belong in science.
Posted by: JoH | March 4, 2008 4:48 PM
That, and the fact that even they know they have no scientific case to make so there's no point in even trying to convince the scientific community or those about to enter that community. It's the same reason they publish nothing...because they have nothing to publish. They have no theory from which to draw testable hypotheses and so can do no tests. They've even started their own journals, but those tend to die out for lack of anything to say except for repeating the same old Creationist arguments for the unpteenth time.
Can't they use every single science to do that? They are all just as 'materialistic' as evolution is.
The facts aren't decided by voting. If someone can come up with a testable reliable non-material way of knowing about nature, let them put up or shut up.
The facts aren't decided by voting for them. And there is no "both". There is only one scientific theory as to the diversity of life. That's evolution. How absurd is it to teach both....do you want kids to learn that matter is made of atoms one day and then the next that it's NOT made of atoms? What a recipe for disaster. Better not to teach them at all.
A science as it stands currently can be practiced equally as well by the Christian as by the Humanist. Including evolution.
You can call a cupcake 'science', but that doesn't mean you can use it to find out about nature.
[METHODOLOGICAL] Materialism covers ALL sciences, not just evolution. Be consistant.
My disbelief in God no more illuminates my 'worldview' than does your disbelief in Thor or the Easter Bunny.
It helps nobody's "world view" (whatever that means) to teach nonsense as valid science just for the sake of exposing them to more "views".
ID serves no secular purpose. It is useless except as narrow sectarian doctrine. In fact, it damages science by putting everything it touches forever outside our understanding. It's worse than useless...its harmful.
Posted by: Dave S. | March 4, 2008 4:50 PM
"And science is already well-defined. Why on earth would you want to change it?"
For most of Science I have no such desire. When people use it(even on here) as a means of proving there is no go and then say well it does not give an opinion about it is just a dishonest as you guys are accusing the ID people of being.
I hate to go here again but Priya and the whole gay rights thing is an example. I stated months ago that there is a part of the homosexual agenda that seeks to limit free speech. People went nuts and denied it. When she spouted off exactly what I was talking about people shut up. Maybe some do not know it was out there and many did argue vigorously against her. But it came out when pushed.
I am sure if pushed(just like the Colonel in "A Few Good Men") that many of the ID people would say when asked if this is being used to get certain aspects of religion back into Public Schools: God damn right I am! You all see it and I acknowledge it looks fishy to me without knowing them or reading them that much. When it is turned around and a "neutral" scientist gets pissed it comes out. God does not exist and I am using my Science background to tell you why. It is dishonest.
Now I am sure that people will deny, deny, deny. Sooner or later it will come out if pressed. It already has. I hope it is a minority but my experience has been that it is not. It is a worldview that goes far beyond the Science classroom. This site is proof of it in that it cross sects many issues. I applaud Ed for doing it that way.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 5:01 PM
King of Ireland, how would science work using methodological supernaturalism? I can't quite work that one out, but I'm sure you will enlighten me.
Posted by: MH | March 4, 2008 5:09 PM
Then your beef is with PEOPLE, not science.
Trying to blame science and its methods for what people do IS dishonest.
Posted by: gwangung | March 4, 2008 5:17 PM
Those atheist scientists who use science as an argument against the existence of God do NOT say that evolution (or the theory of relativity or the laws of thermodynamics) "proves" there's no God. It does no such thing. What they say is that if you follow the findings of modern science all the way down, there is no indication that complex things like minds and intelligence came before simple matter and energy -- or exist apart from it. Treated as a science hypothesis, God falls short.
Which it does. So science-friendly religious apologists generally spend a lot of their time explaining why one should not follow science "all the way down" when you come to deciding whether God exists or not. That's a different magisteria. God should not be treated like a science hypothesis, but like ... well, something else. Hope or love or a special relationship or something.
And neither they -- nor the atheist scientists -- want the topic of God discussed and debated in science classes in public schools. Separation of church and state means the schools must be secular -- neutral between views. Neither Christian nor atheist.
Sam Harris looked at the idea of God and the theory of evolution and said that whether they fit together depends on whether you are looking for "consistent with" or "indicative of." The existence of God -- and the truth of Christianity -- is consistent with evolution having happened. And vice versa. But neither one indicates or leads to the other.
Posted by: Sastra | March 4, 2008 5:32 PM
Take this statement from Pope Benedict as an example of why no conflict need exist.
King, I think your head may be drifting assways again. Of course science take no stance on the existence of god. God is a concept beyond the testable. The objection to evolution is that it contradicts a specific part of the bible and many who put their faith in that book therefore feel like it's attacking them. But it's simply a declaration of reality.
The basics of the scientific method have existed for a thousand years. It's fairly well defined. One of the fundamentals is to create a testable hypothesis. If your hypothesis cannot be shown false through testing it is not science, it's a big game of "wouldn't this be neat." This applies materialists and non-materialists, science doesn't care. If you want to do science you must follow the scientific method. I hope you can understand why.
This is what separates evolution from the creator-based ideas. It is the only idea that has done this. How can one test against an undefined creator?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 5:38 PM
'Trying to blame science and its methods for what people do IS dishonest"
Trying to blame God and the Bible for what some people do with it is dishonest too but it does not stop a bunch of people on here from doing it?
" King of Ireland, how would science work using methodological supernaturalism? I can't quite work that one out, but I'm sure you will enlighten me.'
Let me give an example of what I am talking about. When my son was about 2 I wondered if he knew I was his Father when he had other males around him more than me. One day I pulled up and he saw me and came running to me. He knew. I cannot scientifically test or prove it. It is subjective what I am saying but he knew. Now I was an atheist at the time and this really made me wonder why this was.
Years later as I thought about this inate sense that we must be born with it made more sense to me when I began to study the Bible and believe in God. Can I explain it? No. But I can question where it comes from. This is not an isolated instance where I have observed this. Many circumstances were different and all kinds of variables. I am sure you could even study it some scientifically if you wanted. But I look more to where this inate sense comes from. The one that makes people go looking for Mom or Dad later in life even though they have never seen them and it makes no sense.
It seems to me to be God given. If this is true I think it could and should be studied and see if patterns exist or what different variables tell us. But only to a point because at some point it becomes subjective and we have to make a decision. Is this Science? No. Is it legitimate inquiry and helpful to human endeavors? Yes.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 5:43 PM
You may not be concerned with Stein's or any other contrarian's being "right or wrong", but that is, in fact, what actually matters.
Posted by: Alexandra | March 4, 2008 5:47 PM
In addition to what gwangung said, I now have to ask: if you are so upset that some scientists are using the results of science to argue there is no god (and I do not deny that there are, but I would point out that science itself has nothing to say on that matter and--again--it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something), why do you think the correct response would be to redefine science to say that there is a god? Why do you consider it wrong to use science to push one theological idea onto other people, but think it's perfectly fine to radically alter the very idea of what science is to push your theological ideas onto people?
Also, when you say "For most of Science I have no such desire", you're again displaying your hypocrisy on this matter. Science is a method of learning about the world. There is no one science that is used to learn about electronics and another that is used to learn about animals. Saying you only want to redefine science in the case of evolution makes no sense at all--the entirety of science relies on the same methodical materialism that you object to when it supports the theory of evolution, but are apparently perfectly fine with when it comes to everything else. How does that work? Does god interfere with the natural workings of the universe or does he not?
Posted by: Skemono | March 4, 2008 5:51 PM
'You may not be concerned with Stein's or any other contrarian's being "right or wrong", but that is, in fact, what actually matters."
Never said that. Was making a point that to sit in an ivory tower and say, "I am an expert you must listen" while the train of post modern though comes by and takes the next generation away is not wise. I seriously think it will hurt the 99.9% of Science that relgious people have no problem with anyway. I am saying this will hurt your own cause, most of which I agree with by the way.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 5:56 PM
'Does god interfere with the natural workings of the universe or does he not?'
I believe He does. I am not sure how to go about trying to explain exactly how that works. Like I have said, to just say, "The Bible says so" and stay in my ivory tower is not working for my side either in the post modern world. If we had a point by point discussion of the Bible and the history and all that goes into proving it is true that would be one thing. It does not work in societies where there is no concept of God. Slowly but surely American is becoming one of those societies. I am totally confident that what I believe is true. The avenues in society to share that are changing.
I guess I would say this: (I may change my mind as I read more and learn all these terms) can one prove through the five senses that God exists for sure. No one cannot. Can one look at nature and see complexity, order, and beauty and wonder where it comes from and seek answers in religion or holy books or outerspace? Yes for sure I think. It seems like Modern Science says if you cannot prove it and test it forget it. What about the person who think they heard the voice of God? Is this testable? Can you prove it false? No you cannot but you say to me you cannot prove it true. Then how can we say that we know?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 6:08 PM
Now I'm thoroughly confused. Are you using an example of something you admit is not science to illustrate why another non-scientific idea should be taught in science class? Can you please clarify your objective in this discussion?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2008 6:12 PM
So, in response to what you consider evil, you return evil? And to people who are not displaying that evil behavior?
That's dishonest and hypocritical behavior.
Posted by: gwangung | March 4, 2008 6:20 PM
That's dishonest and hypocritical behavior.
I was being sarcastic. Sorry I am weary of this for today and need to let this rest.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 6:25 PM
I asked: "King of Ireland, how would science work using methodological supernaturalism? I can't quite work that one out, but I'm sure you will enlighten me."
King of Ireland replied: "It seems to me to be God given. If this is true I think it could and should be studied and see if patterns exist or what different variables tell us. But only to a point because at some point it becomes subjective and we have to make a decision. Is this Science? No. Is it legitimate inquiry and helpful to human endeavors? Yes."
So basically, no, methodological supernaturalism is not science. So why do you want science altered?
I think this is relevant: Should Science Pursue Methodological Supernaturalism? You should read it.
Posted by: MH | March 4, 2008 6:41 PM
No, modern science says that if you cannot prove it and test it, then it's not science. It never says that things that are not science don't exist. In fact, if you include mathematics into science (itself a questionable act for some people), then Godel's Theorem proves that any logical system is by necessity incomplete.
That is, science itself provides a testable proof that science can never be a complete description of the world.
No it's not. It's also not science. And that's fine - science doesn't have to describe everything.
Why do you want to change science to include that which isn't science? Scientists are fine with the idea that not everything is describable by science (no scientist has ever argued that the English Literature department should be absorbed into the sciences, for example), so why aren't you happy with this?
Posted by: Alex | March 4, 2008 6:45 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
And virtually all of them object to evolution because of their religious views. If they actually had valid arguments to make, they would be taken seriously, but they don't. They recycle the same old debunked arguments full of ridiculous probability arguments. What difference does it make that scientists like Behe and Axe say they disagree with evolution? They haven't produced a single piece of research that supports their argument. In fact, both of them have produced scientific research that, despite their highly dishonest claims about the results, actually supports evolution and not ID (I've explained this in great detail in regard to Axe's work on perturbation rates in enzymes and Behe and Snoke's paper on binding site evolution - both papers strongly support evolution despite the absurd claims of the authors).
But who makes that argument? I have written tens of thousands of words explicitly debunking their claims in great detail, and in a manner that a layman can understand. My colleagues have written articles and books by the dozens doing the same thing to every single claim made by the ID movement. You're attacking a straw man here.
You say that as though the question of whether the claims in the movie are right or wrong just don't matter. Do you really not care that it will be based on lies and distortions? I have already published a thorough and detailed debunking of the claims in the movie about Richard Sternberg, a debunking that the ID crowd has never bothered to reply to. The Sternberg martyrdom claims are absolutely false and based on lies. Is that okay with you? We've always had a fight on our hands, and the other side has always used lies and distortions. Rational people can still examine the evidence and know who's got the stronger arguments.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 4, 2008 7:23 PM
I think dodgeball is what we called murderball. Truth in advertising and all that.
Posted by: Graculus | March 4, 2008 8:12 PM
'And virtually all of them object to evolution because of their religious views"
Does not mean they are wrong but good point. I worked for an mission organization that was 80% women. The guy who headed wrote a book about why women should be allowed to be pastors or whatever. Never read it. Why? Have to consider teh source and why he would right it. Read another one by a guy who left the organization and had some problems with it. He said the same thing from what I heard. I agreed with most it. Why did I read one and not the other? Based on who wrote it and why? Point conceded.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 8:24 PM
"You say that as though the question of whether the claims in the movie are right or wrong just don't matter. Do you really not care that it will be based on lies and distortions? I have already published a thorough and detailed debunking of the claims in the movie about Richard Sternberg, a debunking that the ID crowd has never bothered to reply to. The Sternberg martyrdom claims are absolutely false and based on lies. Is that okay with you? We've always had a fight on our hands, and the other side has always used lies and distortions. Rational people can still examine the evidence and know who's got the stronger arguments."
Ed this was not my point. My point was one I have been making for a while on here: It is not so much what you say but how you say it that can turn away people who would normally agree with you.
When I first saw you on CSPAN I was pissed. I thought to myself, "This guy needs to be stopped" At the time I was so pissed at the Relgious Right and had just been asked to leave a place because I was pointing out so many of the things you talk about on here. If anyone was willing to give you a chance and listen(from the God crowd) it was me. I was still pissed when I heard how it came off.
Now with that said, I have grown to respect that you are fair and balanced in most if not all you promote. You are an expert in this area and have done your homework. I have actually learned a great deal from you about things I actually do have some education in like Government and History.
I guess is what I am saying is that the bulk of your message is important: The Religious Right should not be running the schools. Especially the Science class. Pastors should not be writing books about abolishing classes that they could not pass. Great point that actually changed my life by the veracity of the statement. Pastors should not be writing History books that try and say that this was a Christian nation in the sense of Evangelical. They should not really be running for President. Pastors should be pastors. If they want to take on the culture in an academic setting then they need to learn of what they speak.
I agree. But I think you take this too far at times and push away people who would back you up. If these dudes are being hypocrites with this ID thing I will call them on it. I think they probably are like I wrote looking at it from the surface with limited knowledge of the terms. I think they may be doing the right thing the wrong way in the wrong venue.
My beef with evolution is that the vast majority take it as evidence that God does not exist. You guys tell me that is not true that Science does not say one or the other. Since you are Deist not atheist I will give you the benefit of the doubt. This is a complex issue that has been debated many ways for many centuries. I think you add a positive discourse even though I disagree with you sometimes. Hell, I disagree with myself sometimes.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 8:42 PM
Abby,
When I was much younger, my good friend and I thought it would be a good idea to throw dirt clods at passing cars. The police later convinced us it wasn't as much fun as we thought it would be. Luckily, I was only about 8, so they couldn't take me to jail. I didn't throw dirt clods at passing cars after that.
I found it was more fun to throw slush balls at my brother.
Posted by: Deepsix | March 4, 2008 8:52 PM
I have a suggestion for those who want to teach the "controversy." After a thorough explanation of evolution (this should take a few weeks to do), a teacher should then say that he was presenting someone who disagrees with it and then introduce a Muslim or Hindu scholar.
At my high school the seniors and freshmen had gym at the same time. For most of the classtime the freshmen would line up on one side and then the senior jocks would line up on the other side and hurl footballs at the freshmen. I guess we were supposed to catch them. They came at us at about a million miles per second. I never saw anyone actually catch a football with his hands. Duck and scream was the only tactic we learned. I literally ran whenever anyone said "Smear the queer." We also had swim class in the nude which I found to be not unpleasant.
As for KoI: please find a community college near you with ESL classes. You will benefit greatly. Your poor grammar makes your tedious posts even more difficult to read.
Posted by: wrpd | March 4, 2008 9:08 PM
As I was reading today about yet another Godbot claiming that their religion should be taught along side evolution in science classes, and that since evolution couldn't explain gravity, it was just a belief, it suddenly occurred to me that the problem was that the guy actually did think of evolution as a religion.
A religion must be able to explain everything, or no one is going to believe it. Most religions are of course do this very poorly; "God moves in mysterious ways","free will", etc, but they still try.
I think that the idea that evolution is only concerned with biology is something that many creationist simply can't get their heads around.
Also, if evolution is a religious belief, other religious beliefs should get equal time.
Posted by: Malcolm | March 4, 2008 9:13 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
Like most people, your problem is with atheism, not with evolution. But bear in mind that the inferences one might draw from a scientific theory are not part of the theory itself. Scientific theories simply say nothing about god(s). Look at the big bang. William Lane Craig argues that big bang cosmology provides support for theism; Quentin Smith argues that big bang cosmology provides support for atheism. So is big bang cosmology theistic or atheistic? The answer is neither. Big bang cosmology, like every scientific theory, simply provides the best explanation for a given set of data. Both of those men are making inferences, but those inferences are not a part of the theory itself. Evolution is true. It is the only rational explanation for a huge range of data. It is true regardless of whether it conflicts with someone's religion or not. But one can accept evolution and be a theist, or accept evolution and be an atheist. Or a Buddhist. Or a Jew. Or a Muslim. Evolution, like all scientific theories, simply says nothing about those issues. It is a discrete explanation for a specific set of data and nothing more. It's not a worldview, it's not an ideology, it's a theory.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 4, 2008 9:18 PM
Are you saying that you don't believe in evolution, the basis of modern biology, because some people site it as evidence against your religious beliefs?
If so, it's hardly a convincing argument. If not, what are you trying to say?
Posted by: Malcolm | March 4, 2008 9:27 PM
That's "cite" not "site"
Posted by: Malcolm | March 4, 2008 9:28 PM
I'm sorry but the above comment is pathetic. I mean really pathetic. What you are saying is that if a man is not religious(superstitious) than you find his opinion to be of no value. I'm sorry but that is EXACTLY the problem with so many things in this nation.
Posted by: JimC | March 4, 2008 9:42 PM
I have read the bending and twisting to make this seem so but none of it seems remotely convincing and creates alot of problems in the process. But your correct you can believe it anyway.
Posted by: JimC | March 4, 2008 9:46 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
What on earth are you talking about here? Ed has responded to your posts with a remarkable degree of patience and restraint.
And i say "restraint" because when someone admits to being largely ignorant of a scientific theory and then claims to reject it, what kind of response would you expect? That person would be mocked. And it would be justified. And yet, so far, Ed hasn't mocked you.
Questioning the science of evolution today is just as ridiculous as questioning the evidence that our Sun is a star. There is no controversy within the scientific community about either theory. The only reason evolution is rejected outside the scientific community is because of it's perceived clash with religion.
Funny, that your "beef" with evolution isn't weather or not you beleive it to be true. But rather, that you don't like the implications some people infer from it. Honestly, does this sound like an intellectually respectable position to take?
And for crying out loud, have you never heard of the Catholic Church? The very idea that evolution and Christianity are irreconcilable is utterly demolished by the very obvious existence of millions of Catholics who have no trouble doing so.
And even if evolution did absolutely infer the non-existence of God, one would still have to provide scientific reasons for rejecting it. Simply declaring that one rejects a scientific theory because they don't like the implications it may have for their personal religious beliefs is an act of intellectual cowardice.
Posted by: Caliban | March 4, 2008 10:06 PM
Well kinda, acceptance doesn't equal reconciliation. One needn't look far into these 'reconciliations' to see obvious and odius thinking.
That being said, as above, people can believe all manner of woo woo and as long as they support good science have at it.
Posted by: JimC | March 4, 2008 10:31 PM
Who? Where?
Polls in 1997 showed that at least 4/5 of all Americans who believe in evolution believe that God exists. That number changes somewhat: polls in 2006 showed that at least 2/3 of Americans who believe in evolution believe that God exists.
But consistently, the majority of people who believe in evolution also believe in God.
So quit it with the bullshit number-cooking, and quit claiming (as you did in the last thread) that there's a "Science side" and a "Christian side".
Most Americans who embrace science also embrace Christianity. Here, the "science side" is the "Christian side". I don't know if that's just a cute handle or if you're actually located in Ireland, but the numbers are similar there.
Posted by: Grammer RWA | March 4, 2008 11:30 PM
The hell is wrong with the html parsing on this site?
Here's the raw link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 4, 2008 11:31 PM
My beef with evolution is that the vast majority take it as evidence that God does not exist.
Well if god doesn't exist, then that's the way it is. Get over it. Go find some evidence that god exists or something. Good luck!
How about this: evolution is evidence that god exists. There you go, some completely unsupported BS evidence for your god. That's as good as the evidence gets (in fact it's a whole lot better than a lot of the other "evidence"!), so you might as well be happy with it.
Posted by: 386sx | March 5, 2008 4:30 AM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | March 5, 2008 7:58 AM
And secondly Science is not a guide to morality, science is a tool for understanding and predicting natural events. Religion is supposed to be a guide for morality. Comparing the two like that is not quite honest.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 5, 2008 8:03 AM
KoI:
There are people out there with some serious problems with the science of blood transfusions (we call them Jehovah's Witnesses). There are people out there with some serious problems with the germ theory of disease (we call them Christian Scientists). There are people out there with some serious problems with modern explanations of psychiatric disorders (we call these people Scientologists). There are (or were) people out there with some serious problems about comets (we called these people the Heaven's Gate cult). Do you propose that their views should also be taught in schools? Honestly, why should they not, by your logic?
There are people who see problems with the way we outlaw sex with children -- a simple look at the NAMBLA website shows this. Why should the opinions of those in favour of sex with kids or opposed to evolution be taken into account? Just because someone expresses disagreement doesn't mean they have a coherent reasonable argument.
Ed:
That's somewhat disingenuous, as evolution does indeed say quite a lot about literal interpretations of pre-scientific explanations of the development of life. In other words, while it may be possible to be some sort of Christian and believe in evolution, it is simply not possible to believe in the literal meaning of many foundational religious texts (in almost any religion -- Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) and believe in evolution without severe contradiction. The theory of evolution does rule out large classes of religious beliefs.
The overarching philosophical approach behind evolution, namely science, is a worldview, and one that rules out supernatural explanation. While evolution by itself may only contradict certain particular religious beliefs, accepting science as a way of understanding the world does indeed rule out any religion that holds that supernatural forces directly impact on the physical world. That's pretty much most of religion (unless one is the weakest of Deists).
Posted by: Tulse | March 5, 2008 9:51 AM
"In other words, while it may be possible to be some sort of Christian and believe in evolution, it is simply not possible to believe in the literal meaning of many foundational religious texts (in almost any religion -- Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) and believe in evolution without severe contradiction."
I would disagree with this. I think a person could understand evolution and accept that it is the best scientific explanation for the current evidence and then for religious reasons believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days, yadda yadda yadda.
They might not know how it happened or why the evidence points the other direction, but that's were faith comes in and that's why it would be a religious position and not a scientific one. They could have faith that one day evidence would be uncovered that would validate their belief, but understand that that is not the case today.
Note, I've never met such a person either online or in person, but that's not to say such a person could not exist. I've always held that it's easy to reconcile science and religious when you understand that science only explains evidence and religion explains Truth, which science by it's limitations cannot get at.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 5, 2008 11:25 AM
Right, or in other words, as I said above, hold "a severe contradiction". It is possible to believe in geology as a science and also believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, just as it is possible to believe that 1+1=2 and 2+2=spinach, but those two sets of beliefs are not consistent -- only one can be true.
...which is essentially denying that science is in fact correct in this matter, regardless of the current evidence and understanding. In other words, it denies the process of science itself.
Posted by: Tulse | March 5, 2008 12:01 PM
Just to emphasize the difference between PCA (relatively small) and PCUSA (larger) - PCUSA has passed resolutions stating that they find no conflict with evolution. Statements of the PCUSA and other mainline churches can be found on the NCSE web site.
But individual PCUSA churches can and do teach anti-evolutionism. For instance, the one in Tukwila, Washington.
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM
"Right, or in other words, as I said above, hold "a severe contradiction". It is possible to believe in geology as a science and also believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, just as it is possible to believe that 1+1=2 and 2+2=spinach, but those two sets of beliefs are not consistent -- only one can be true."
Believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old is only a severe contradiction to what we know *today*. Because science is always provisional, new evidence to the contrary could always come in tomorrow. Not likely, but possible. And because science only deals in evidence and not "The Truth", even if evidence never materializes that validates a young earth view, it still says nothing about the ultimate truthfulness or falseness of the actual age of the Earth. It *could* be 6000 years old, but all the evidence points to 4.5 billion years old.
"...which is essentially denying that science is in fact correct in this matter, regardless of the current evidence and understanding. In other words, it denies the process of science itself."
It's not denying that science is correct or saying the process is flawed. In fact, it's recognizing that based on what we know today the evidence says that, say, the Earth is old and the humans and apes share a common ancestor and that science is the best tool we have for learning about the world. It's saying that science is provisional and that science deals in evidence and not "Truth". And that it's not a contradiction if someone believes "The Truth" is whatever their literal reading of scripture is as long as they understand their position is purely based on faith.
The mechanism of Evolution is a bit trickier though. You might be able to believe say God created species separately and so common descent is the not ultimately True, but we see evolution happening in the lab and in the field every day, and I don't see how allele frequencies changing in a population over time conflicts with any religion. It'd be a bit like denying, I dunno, Pluto's orbit. We saw it move yesterday, we saw it move today, but dammit, I'm not gonna believe it's gonna make it all the way around the Sun! Just....why?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 5, 2008 1:02 PM
My beef with evolution is that the vast majority take it as evidence that God does not exist.
1) "Vast majority?" Of what group?
2) I notice that most of the people who say this sort of thing are not atheists, or evolutionists, but ignorant ministers, who do everythinhg they can to get their flock thinking "evolution says God doesn't exist, therefore it's wrong and evil." This is a classic case of short-sighted people creating the very enemy they claim to want to vanquish.
If that's really your beef, then your beef is with other Christians, not with teachers, scientists or atheists -- most of whom easily admit that evolution says NOTHING about anyone's God(s).
Have you ever considered hanging with a smarter church? There's plenty of mainstream churches who are happy to debunk this misunderstanding of evolution.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 5, 2008 1:17 PM
And it is not likely but possible that elephants live in your sock drawer, but if I asked you, you'd presumably say you don't believe they do based on the available evidence. And if anyone told you they have faith that evidence will eventually show that elephants currently do live in their sock drawer, you'd be well within your rights to suggest they up their Haldol dosage.
You are absolutely right that all knowledge in science is provisional, subject to change with further evidence (or even theoretical insight). But to claim that such quality gives faith an opening is absurd and disingenuous.
Posted by: Tulse | March 5, 2008 2:06 PM
Not really. It depends on how often and in which ways one imagines the supernatural occurs. If science is expected to be reliable, say, 99% of the time, it would make sense for the woo-believer to get down with science and accept its utility in most every functional sense.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | March 5, 2008 3:06 PM
"And if anyone told you they have faith that evidence will eventually show that elephants currently do live in their sock drawer, you'd be well within your rights to suggest they up their Haldol dosage."
Well, the difference is that no one's religious views are based on or necessitate this view. And even if they were then, as long as the person understands that this belief is not based on any evidence, they are holding it purely as a matter of faith, and aren't screaming to have it taught in public school, then that's fine. If that person wanted to argue about the current state of evidence, then yes, I'd suggest they up the dosage.
"You are absolutely right that all knowledge in science is provisional, subject to change with further evidence (or even theoretical insight). But to claim that such quality gives faith an opening is absurd and disingenuous."
It's not absurd. That's where faith has always lived, in the unknown. In fact, it can't live anywhere else. And that is why people point out it's bad theology to put your faith in things that can eventually be disproved. Like, for example, that we will never discover the evolution of the flagellum or that we won't ever discover life on other planets. Where, generally, people who place their faith somewhere science can never reach, like that god created the universe and the process of evolution knowing that it would eventually produce us, are on much safer ground.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 5, 2008 3:13 PM
How do you know? Scientologists believe that alien souls used to live in volcanos -- is that any less absurd? Or are you trying somehow to privilege religious views simply because they are religious?
So you literally refuse to distinguish between religious beliefs and clinical delusions?
That is one rather narrow view of theology, and to hold it is to argue that religion makes absolutely no truth claims about the physical world (including history), since such claims can eventually be disproved. Certainly no mainstream Christian religion would go so far as to say that the entire Bible makes absolutely no claims about actual events or the physical world.
But, in any case, the point was that just because scientific knowledge is always provisional does not mean that faith gets carte blanche, and that any belief goes. Indeed, it would seem from your comment above that faith shouldn't be making any claims of a potentially scientific nature (such as how species developed, or whether there are elephants in your sock drawer), precisely because those claims could be exposed as wrong. So I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're arguing.
Posted by: Tulse | March 5, 2008 3:39 PM
Just a quibble. Morality is informed by brain chemistry based on expected ("good" or "evil") outcomes (this is what the evidence says). Humans rationalise this as philosophy. Relgion is a philosophy that postulates a supernatural being.
Stoicism, Epicureanism and Cynicism are philosophies, they do not (necessarily) postulate god(s) but they do offer ideas of how humans should live (morality).
Christianity, later forms of Buddhism and other relgions offer (some) morality but need a god or gods to supervise thier charges. -DJ
Personally I think that needing a imaginary friend to control your impulses shows poor moral development.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 6, 2008 4:35 AM
A major feature of science is that science has a process for evaluating ideas. We call it peer review. It's not perfect, but it does exist.
This same process is used throughout science. Peer review has examined the evidence and determined:
1. Evolution is the best (and, indeed, only known possible) scientific explanation for life's diversity.
2. Atlantis is a myth.
3. Alien contact stories generally represent psychological issues, not actual contact.
4. Blood transfusions save lives.
There are people who object to all of these. There are *scientists* who object to all of these.
To argue that evolution, alone, somehow needs to have both sides taught is to say, "peer review is a fine process for every other subject in science, but with regards to the founding principle of biology, I say, throw out the rules, dump peer review and science in general and teach all the cranks!"
There is no reason to treat evolution any differently than any other science. There is no "both sides" to teach, anymore than "Atlantis/no Atlantis" has a both sides. The other side is distinctly anti-science in every aspect of it's existence. Oh, anti-evolutionists and pro-Atlanteans may try to co-opt the trappings of science, known as "putting on lab coats", but while they'll make a game of it, when it comes down to the hard work of science (objectivity, peer review, reproducibility), they not only fail, they flee in terror. They want the respect that comes with the lab coats, but they don't want to be made to earn them.
We don't need to teach that some scientists (*cough*) believe that little aliens live in our cells and make us remember when we were unhappy clams or whatever nonsense scientologists are pushing and we don't need to pretend there are serious objections to evolution, at least until there actually are some.
Even without science, I've never met a religion that could be literally interpreted simply from it's own source material. Judas dies twice in the New Testament! Literalism has a long history of being regarded as heresy in Christianity anyway, with only the modern fundamentalist movement making a virtue out of stupidity.
So, I agree with Ed, there's nothing in science per se that makes belief in religion any harder than the religion itself does.
You're assuming that belief in the literal statements of the texts is a feature of religion. It isn't necessarily so. St. Augustine rejected a literal Genesis in the fifth century, long before the selection of texts for "the" Bible was finalized (which-ever finalization you prefer!).
I'd have to disagree. The very definition of a miracle holds it against a backdrop of non-miraculous events. In a world where food falls out of the sky on a regular basis, it's just not a miracle anymore!
You can safely compartmentalize science as the "study of the backdrop and general scheme of events" without necessarily rejecting the possibility of miracles entirely.
There are, ironically, elephants in my sock drawer. I shall increase my Haldol dosage 100%. No, 200%! Maybe 300%!
Not the living, breathing, sort of elephant, of course, but I just had to mention it.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 6, 2008 9:23 AM
I completely agree (I thought that was the point I was making).
But that is precisely what certain religions do, and why they so vehemently reject scientific explanations for certain phenomena which they consider to be at the heart of such literal interpretations (such as the creation of the universe and the creation of species).
Not necessarily so, but it is the case for some (if not many) religions. In other words, contrary to the claim that was made, science really is incompatible with some religious beliefs -- the magisteria really do overlap, Gould notwithstanding. (I think it is arguable that belief in science rules out all but the weakest of Deisms, but that's another issue.)
I disagree. First off, the very notion of science presupposes methodological naturalism, that there are no miracles. You can't say "I believe in science, except for when it magic happens", since science presupposes that magic doesn't exist. And (secondly), there is good reason for that supposition, because without it, you can never know when a physical event arises due to purely physical causes, or when it happens by magic. How you do you know that antibiotics don't work by miracles? How can you rule out that nuclear fission doesn't happen because angels will it to be so? In other words, if miracles are possible, science isn't.
Posted by: Tulse | March 6, 2008 9:54 AM
I note that "the coming ice age" was never a mainstream scientific view, just something the press ran with because it scared people and sold magazines. Claiming "But you used to say it was getting colder!" as a criticism of global warming is childish naysaying on the part of the deniers.
There are legitimate questions about the extent of global warming, and whether humans are mostly or almost entirely responsible for it. There are no legitimate questions left about whether the globe is warming or whether we're responsible for it in some fashion.
It's funny, science is full of issues on which there are multiple sides and reasonable grounds for debate, and yet the big science debates the media serves us are, in fact, not on any of those subjects. While science struggles with the nature of dark matter and the fundamental nature of consciousness, the press continues to pretend there's real debate about evolution, global warming and homeopathy.
Where did everything go so wrong?
So? There are people out there with serious problems with the germ theory of disease. That doesn't mean they have legitimate problems with it and it doesn't mean we have to give time in school to, "But not all scientists believe in germs. Some insist that crystals, meditation, and prayer are better ways to cure disease than real medicine."
I ran into a PhD the other day who was arguing that cancer was GOOD FOR YOU. Yes, Cancer, the body's method of healing itself and cleansing toxins from your system! Nobody in all of history has died of cancer, you know. No, they die of not getting enough cancer fast enough. Toxins killed them because the cancer wasn't fast enough. That's why nobody has ever been cured by chemotherapy!
Utter nonsense, of course.
But, tell me, KoI, what distinguishes a legitimate objection from an illegitimate objection? To you, I mean. I know what distinguishes them to me, but I'm not clear at all why you think evolution deserves rebuttal time in science classes but the germ theory of disease doesn't.
Both sides for the germ theory of disease?
Both sides for blood transfusions?
Both sides for crystal healing and homeopathy?
Surely, surely, at least, history books should have room for the holocaust deniers. Hitler was really a nice guy, you know, who never ordered the death of a single Jew. Those concentration camps were more like luxury vacation get-a-ways. You want both sides to be taught, yes?
Well, that would be great, but it's not practical. Debunking all the cranks in any one subject would take up too much time and prevent the teaching of the basics in that subject. Do you realize just how many bad arguments against evolution there are?
Look at the following link. Don't try and read all of it, for goodness sakes. Just look at it.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Category:Creationist_claims
This is a listing of EvoWiki's rebutted creationist claims. There are 621 of them. 621. And it's not remotely complete. And that's just one set of objections to evolution from one set of cranks.
You want children to debunk "the" other side? There is no "the". There are a thousand other sides to any issue you might want to bring up. Should all the claims of every other side be brought up so kids can debunk them? We can ground the education system to a halt overnight!
Mind you, with a slight change, I could agree with you in kind. I think there should be classes in critical thinking. Too much of school is education by rote memorization. We do not encourage kids to think they way they ought to. I would like to see classes in high school, if not earlier, that begin with the scientific method and then try applying it to various real-world situations. I would like to see this class perform activities like dissecting commercials for logical fallacies, dealing with some of the more pernicious pseudoscience, and holding debates between students on random topics.
The current, pathetic state of scientific awareness in this country is our fault. It's time we started doing something about it. Critical thinking classes could be an important part of waking kids up. Every idiot elected to Washington is a symptom of the same problem, people just don't think; they react to emotional appeals.
Democracy only works where the public is educated. Dictatorships are only bad where the person in power seeks to exercise that power for his own sake rather than for the sake of the people.
Neither form of government seems to be working remarkably well right now.
Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I have to agree with this.
It seems to me that to pretend that cranks with objects to evolution constitute problems with evolution is lying to students. Lying cannot be good education.
People, yes. So? As has been said repeatedly, there are people who have problems with every scientific idea, from the definition of pi to whether we actually walked on the moon. These people do not deserve time in classrooms.
To misquote Douglas Adams, you must be using some definition of "many" that I was not previously aware of.
Some days I think I spend most of my time debunking these arguments. There are appropriate venues for this kind of discussion and I spend a great deal of time in them. (Search EvoWiki that I sent you earlier for my name for a little of what I've written.)
We do argue that school rooms are not a place for this kind of discussion for the reasons we've given. It takes long enough to teach kids the scientific state of the art without trying to inform them of every idiot brigade that objects to every scientific theory. If we have to teach:
"Scientists say communicable diseases are caused by germs, but some people say they're caused by evil spirits, some people say aliens are experimenting on us, some people blame god punishing people for sins, some people claim it's environmental toxins, some people claim it's misaligned chi (though some argue the chi is blocked rather than misaligned), some people argue it's caused by vaccines, some people blame elves, some people blame bad smells, and it could be imbalanced humors, some people blame memories from earlier states in our evolution..." We've already spent 8 times as long discussing cranks as we have discussing science, and we aren't done listing what "many scientists" believe, nor have we presented a single argument for any side. You want to start introducing arguments? Great, we can have health class reduced to a long string of rebuking empty arguments and never once cover people needing to wash their hands after using the restroom.
So, you're using a definition of "changing" I'm not familiar with either.
Going to have a fight on our hands? Where have you been! I've been fighting this fight since 1985. I've been fighting it online for almost a decade. If times are changing, it's that the fight seems to have gotten easier lately. The YEC have slunk back into their caves to lick their wounds, the IDiots stumbled getting out of the gate and are still trying to pretend they didn't sprain their ankle, and the best the denier crowd can forward now is the anemic "Teach the controversy!" meme, which doesn't even present a positive argument for anything. They've lost all traction on their own ideas and are now reduced to doing nothing but lamely attacking evolution (as if that would help creationism) with the same tired nonsense the creationists have been using for decades. They can't even get their proponents to shut up about their real motivations long enough to win even a single court case.
Frankly, the evo/cre debates have never been more boring. It's not game-over by any stretch of the imagination, but round 4 of the fight was a clean knockout and round 5 has started with the opponents staggering around in a circle trying to catch the pretty birds flying around their heads.
(The rounds, by my reckoning:
1st round: The scientific debate; won by knock out with the discovery of radiation removing the last legitimate argument against an earth old enough to have evolved modern assemblages.
2nd round: Pure creationism; first legislative battle, nearly lost on a TKO during the Scopes decision, which left creationism unchallenged for decades, but finally won with Sputnik panicking the government into seriously reformulating school curricula in order to teach science better..
3rd round: "Scientific" creationism came out with several punches, like "Evolution is a religion" and "We have a scientific theory that isn't Bible dependent at all!". All were laughed out of court, with creationism doing it's best to mock itself.
4th round: Creationism is reformulated again, this time with even less overt biblical dependence. Doesn't work. The entire game is pretending that "unknown Intelligent Designer" isn't a religious concept, but they can't even stop themselves from capitalizing it and referring to the designer as "He". "cdesign proponentionists" seals the deal and they cannot convince courts ID is anything other than creationism in a lab coat.
5th round: "Teach the controversy!" But there isn't any controversy, they don't have any arguments, and so there's really nothing to teach but easily demonstrated falsehoods. They still can't stop their own proponents from asserting the religious value of their arguments at every turn, removing any pretense that these have a legitimate secular purpose. I can't see a court case going their way at any high level.
When Newton proposed mathematics could keep the moon from crashing to earth and the planets orbiting the sun, he was accused of atheism. Clearly, he was just trying to make God redundant by claiming angels weren't needed to hold the planets to their courses. Certainly, some people used Newtonian determinism this way.
I expect you will now be lobbing complaints at the atheistic way gravity is taught, yes?
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 6, 2008 10:34 AM
Yes, I was clarifying and expanding your point, not countering it.
Agreed. But there is a difference between what religion does and what certain (or even many) religions do.
I think Gould was arguing "ought" rather than "is". Science is descriptive, not prescriptive; NOMA is prescriptive, not descriptive, so clearly not part of science itself!
By the way, where does the A in NOMA come from? Was it just Gould sticking it on there because he didn't want to sound like an LOLCat? "NOM NOM NOM!" :-)
I believe in divine powers: I have a cat. :-)
I disagree.
Let's take this example.
Suppose God decides to perform a miracle (for whatever reason a god might do so) and makes all the large trees in my yard vanish. *POOF*! One instant, they're there, the next, they're gone. There are holes in the ground where they used to be, tracing out every root, but no trees.
Now, suppose a scientist walks by my yard and looks at it. He'll be very confused. All the plants in my yard are clearly shade-adapted, yet there is no shade. The leaf-litter of my yard suggests the presence of several live oaks and pignut hickory trees, yet there are none.
He'll collect data. There are objective facts he'll be able to determine. All evidence will suggest that there used to be trees in my yard. He can watch the shade-loving plants die and, by experiment, determine roughly the time the trees vanished from my yard. He'll be able to document the continuing non-existence of trees in my yard.
But what to make of it, scientifically?
Oh, he might make some hypotheses; some of them will even be objectively testable. Maybe the trees underwent some kind of spontaneous, massively simultaneous nuclear decay... no radiation detectors in orbit would have spotted that and there's no sign of the heat release that would cause.
But as, for the sake of argument, we're saying, "Goddunit", any hypothesis he creates will either be determinably false (since the real answer won't be any of those, any answer can test must test false) or not currently testable (maybe aliens did it with some kind of high tech).
Science will fail *with regards to this one event*. Methodological naturalism will not result in an answer for this event.
But that won't stop the scientist from going back to work the next day and doing his job.
There are already things in science we cannot explain. Maybe they were miracles! Probably not. I don't particularly believe in miracles, but the point is, there are gaps in our knowledge. Those gaps are challenges to methodological naturalism, not deathblows to it. That's why we continue to study them. An actual miracle, if it occurred, would be a place that methodological naturalism would always fail at, but at no point in the life of any one scientist studying it would that become clear. It would remain a gap, but since there are other gaps, it wouldn't necessarily stand out even.
It wouldn't end science overall. Science would never progress with regards to the missing trees, but it would continue to improve technology, to discover aspects of the natural world, and to refine its theories. I don't see how one set of missing trees would stop it.
Now, yes, if miracles were commonplace, science would as an endeavor, be fruitless. If fairies were hiding in flowers ready to just start violating causality to frustrate scientists, it would be a waste of time. The more miracles, the harder it is to make descriptive statements with any validity.
But to say the existence of any miracle invalidates science entirely is getting dangerously close to confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical.
Look at it this way, methodological naturalism is a method. We can use the method, even where it doesn't work. If it didn't work a lot, we'd be fools to use it, but it does work. It has a long history of working. It's worked stunningly well. It's more than doubled human life expectancy, created technology that lets us see distant galaxies, let's people who have never met communicate, records my brilliant prose for dissemination all over the world, and checks my spelling to boot! So, even if there are exceptions, we can continue to use it. And we can continue to apply it to those exceptions. If they are real miracles, it will never work on them, but the method will never report, "We're done now, no explanations left, go with superstition!" As long as methodological naturalism continues to produce good results in the vast majority of the cases, a few trees vanishing from my yard do not constitute the death of science.
Then science isn't possible. You *don't* know that antibiotics don't work by miracles. You don't know that nuclear fission doesn't happen because of angels.
I consider science a game. The rule is, "*IF* we assume naturalism, how many rules can we work out?" That if is what distinguishes methodological naturalism from philosophical. Science doesn't state, "There are no angels causing atoms to decay", it says, "I have no need for that hypothesis." Maybe it is angels. We certainly don't have a clue what causes atoms to decay at one moment and not another, so much so that quantum physics suggests it actually IS purely random. But angels aren't testable, so we will continue to investigate the matter.
As long as the angels are acting in a predictable fashion that just happens to match the results of the naturalism assumption, science will march on just fine.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 6, 2008 11:11 AM
If you meant that the argument that Gould makes is prescriptive, and not descriptive of actual religious practice, then I agree, since it is obvious to me that many religions, contra NOMA, actually do make claims about the physical world.
I think it is "argument", but the LOLCat explanation is just as good: "UR RELIJON IZ IN MY SCIENCE, MESSIN UP TEH NOMA!"
As for your arguments regarding naturalism, I think they miss the point. If miracles are possible, then we have no way of estimating how frequently they occur, and your argument about their relative improbability is meaningless. If miracles are possible, perhaps antibiotics work via angels, and we are simply miraculously convinced that they work via purely biological principles. If miracles are possible, perhaps spirits cause fission except when we are looking. If miracles are possible, then you've essentially got the Matrix -- we cannot be certain (however you want to intepret that notion) of any beliefs we have.
And as long as that is true, the postulating of angels in unnecessary. But if one postulates angels, then no phenomena are predictable, since the world would then be at the whim of the will of the supernatural. And, as an empirical matter, the fact that the world does operate in predictable ways seems to pretty much rule out the angel hypothesis.
Posted by: Tulse | March 6, 2008 11:52 AM
Michael Suttkus II wrote:
You know, there's always some cognitive dissonance on my part when someone arguing against teaching creationism in the schools uses analogies which compare evolution to "the germ theory of disease" or contrast it with "vitalism." The assumption is that the other person of course accepts the germ theory of disease, and of course understands that vitalism as a science theory has been dead for decades, if not centuries. Well then, you don't think the handful of cranks on the other side should be given equal time, do you?
The dissonance comes in because I don't just read the scienceblogs and skeptic sites which deal with the pseudoscience of creationism -- I also read the scienceblogs and skeptic sites which deal with the pseudosciences of Alternative Medicine and Vitalism. And belief in both is not only alive and well, but thriving, spreading, and making their way into academic and medical circles. You can see them everywhere in the media, too -- Energy Healing and Cosmic Consciousness, "The Secret," homeopathy, psychic detectives and 'traditional' chiropractic.
It's a HUGE battle right now, in part because these forms of pseudoscience are often fueled by multicultural concerns and misunderstandings of quantum physics, and so they're pretty common among the well-educated and those who see themselves as "enlightened" and liberal. Major medical centers now offer Reiki, which "adjust the life energies which, when blocked, cause our bodies to become ill." So much for the germ theory of disease. So much for the "dead as vitalism" phrase.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the people who support and market this stuff aren't cranks. My point is that they are not FRINGE-DWELLING cranks. They are cranks front-and-center, in their own right.
I don't know that much about King of Ireland himself -- given that apparently Christians are falling wholesale for the magical thinking in alternative medicine just as much as the New Agers are (as are some atheists), I would not rule out that he goes to a homeopath. Making the assumption that the Teach the Controversy Creationist would not want to give "equal time" to rebutting the germ theory of disease is risky.
Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2008 12:24 PM
I actually encountered something like this recently. An atheist was commenting about how he views people's religious beliefs that same way he would view someone believing in astrology. Then the Christian he was discussing this with came back getting all huffy because it wasn't just his religion being insulted but now his belief in astrology too.
Posted by: mcmillan | March 6, 2008 1:17 PM
Exactly what I was saying!
In truth, NOMA is nothing other than a request for religions with materialist claims to admit defeat. Science, by virtue of it's structure, will always play in it's half of NOMA. NOMA, thus, depends on religions saying, "You're right, experimentation is a better way to deal with objective facts. We'll stick to philosophy and unmeasurable claims from now on!"
Which is what I was arguing religions should do years before Gould gave it a name.
Literally, true, but practically irrelevant. If miracles occur all the time, but are indistinguishable from non-miraculous, regular events, then there's no need to make a distinction.
You don't really need to know the number of miracles, all you need to do is look at the success rate of methodological naturalism. As long as it is working, it's working. As far as I'm concerned, it's a tuatology. A few miralces will remain indistinguishable from the usual things-we-don't-understand-yet. If "a few" becomes many, yes, science will fail, but as long as progress is being made, it's clear that the number of miracles is small, so, yes, you can estimate it qualitatively.
As someone once said, "Uncertainty is painful, but certainty is just foolish."
You aren't certain. You never will be. Certainty would be philosophical naturalism that you believed in utterly. Uncertainty is the hallmark of science. That's what makes science better than all the other ways of knowing, no pretenses to absolute certainty.
But nothing is predictable. All you can do is say, "Based on what we know so far, the speed of light travels at X in a vacuum." The prediction is that it will continue to do as it has always done, but you're not certain of that. All you know is that it always has and doesn't seem likely to shift. To say that you are certain it won't because there are no angels is a presumption.
Tomorrow it might not, but there's not much point in thinking about that.
Look at it this way. There are phenomena in the world that we do not understand. There can be no pretense of certainty with these because we don't have any certainty at all with which to have a pretense of. To say that we will explain them in the future is, dare I say it, an act of faith. It's philosophical naturalism, the assumption that they DO HAVE a natural explanation.
That's not science. Science doesn't presume the truth of naturalism, it simply operates where naturalism is true, or a reasonable approximation of true.
No, just rules out renegade angels disobeying their lot. It makes angels unneccessary.
"Evolution does not demand the non-existance of God, it merely allows for it. That is enough to invoke condemnation from those who fear the non-existance of God more than they fear God himself."
You can replace "evolution" in that statement with any other successful scientific theory, except most of those don't earn so much ire.
I would never assume the other party doesn't believe in vitalism. Despite having been killed two centuries ago, vitalism remains alive and well in the public mind. That's why you can still find science-fiction authors and "life draining" machines. Scientifically, that concept makes about as much sense as draining the cuteness from a kitten.
Ah, but there's a trick! In my experience, creationism and alt-med are on opposite ends of the political spectrum in this country. If debating a creationist, the chances that he favors much alt-med is low, with the exception of "holy water" and "healing prayer". There are some exceptions, like Wells HIV denial, but even there, for a full blown creationist to fully swallow an "alternate disease source" is relatively rare. For instance, even Wells doesn't deny germs entirely, just HIV.
Pseudosciences are regimented. Alt-med is largely a Democrat vice. Creationism is almost purely Republican. They've split UFOs down the middle, with "Evil aliens doing experiments on us!" being the usual Republican version while "Wise aliens trying to give us messages of spiritual power!" is the usual Democrat version.
I think it has to do with the fact that most alt-med schemes largely favor "ancient remedies from distant, mysterious cultures!", while all good creationists know that other cultures are filled with foreign infidels who aren't to be trusted. Stupidity sometimes counters stupidity.
Psychics are decently accepted in both branches. Christians used to be strongly anti-psychic, but that hasn't been the case consistently since the 1800's. Energy healing has to be dressed up as "touch of god" to work for them. Cosmic consciousness is right out, the secret is clearly pagan witchcraft to keep you from praying humbly. Homeopathy is pretty widespread, but doesn't deny germs per se, and Chiropractic is largely leftist, but less so every year.
The secret... sheesh. Just when you think pseudoscience can't possibly get any stupider. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE STOP OPRAH?
See, you said it yourself!
I've yet to meet a creationist who understood quantum physics well enough to reach even the alt-med level of ignorance about it.
Disgusting, isn't it? And several states are requiring insurance companies to pay for quack medicine.
Respectful Insolence, another blog on this server, does a lot to attack alt-med nonsense, including their regular feature, "Your Friday Dose of Woo", which continually depresses me about just how stupid some things can get.
Astrology is condemned in the Bible. Again, we find that most creationists are as ignorant of their own religion as they are of science.
And Dodgeball was my favorite game in PE. You could get hit fairly quickly and sit out the rest of the stupid game. This gave me a lot of time to study the weeds and insects away from the game yard.
Ah, PE. When playing baseball, I used to hide behind the pine trees when the teams switched sides. That way I could stay in outfield the entire game. Outfield was great. Except for those rare instances when a ball interrupted your research.
Of course, I can't hide behind a pine tree anymore. I probably should have played more sports. OH, IRONY!
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 6, 2008 2:25 PM
Michael Suttkus wrote:
I used to think this was usually the case -- and it meshed with my own experience -- and yet I've recently read (somewhere) some statistics which put it in doubt. I've also personally run into some very conservative Christians who embrace homeopathy, chiropractic, and various forms of vitamin/nutrition woo with a passion. The anti-vacc crowd seems to come from both sides of the spectrum.
Apparently, magical thinking, conspiracy thinking, and a belief that Nature should never be 'interfered with' are as potent a cocktail for the right as the left.
(I used to HATE Dodge Ball. We would play it in a circle with several people in the center -- the object was therefore to pick out the unpopular kids and try to hit them with the ball as hard as possible, while shouting out "Don't worry, Bob and Nancy, we're not going to go after you guys" to those the class favored.)
Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2008 2:50 PM
Since some respondents here (and on other treads) have said some less-than-complimentary things about King of Ireland (including myself), I think I should point out that, while KoI has said many things with which I vehemantly disagree and consider idiotic and dishonest, he has also, in other statements, shown himself to be a far more open-minded, sensible and compassionate commenter than most of the people who come here spouting creationist blithering-points. My uneducated guess du jour is that he's (at least) a decent guy who's not quite out of the influence of the anti-science catechisms he's been fed by his spiritual "leaders."
Just thought I'd toss that out. Y'all can go back to talking about "smear the queer" now (a game I last heard of before I learned what "queer" meant).
PS: I'm not sure about all of these "alternative medicines" we've got to talking about here. Chiro definitely works for many people, and private insurers have started to cover it. Reiki seems to get good results, at least for some (I'm still skeptical, but then I'm more Apollonian than Dionysian). Homeopathy, crystal healing, complex wire-and-crystal pyramidal sculptures that allegedly channel healing energy...not so much. (Aromatherapy sounds like woo, but given how deeply and easily smells can affect minds and feelings, I wouldn't be too quick to kick it to the curb.)
Offhand, I would say that, at the very least, these alternative treatments (along with prayer and spells) constitute what could be called "psychosomatic medicine:" techniques to get the mind to act on the body, to heal by thinking it's healing. This doesn't mean it's all bogus -- just subjective, idiosyncratic, less verifiable, and more dependent on the individual's mindset than the objective stuff like antibiotics and resetting broken bones.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 6, 2008 4:13 PM
Reiki gets results exactly the same way all placebos get results, as does chiropractic. This has been demonstrated over and over again.
Most people do not comprehend that placebos were incredibly well. Depending on how you present the placebo, you can find them effective in up to 50% of subjects tried, for as many as 90% of diseases tested. Think about that for a second and see how easy it is for completely worthless remedies to get tons of testimonials.
This, along with a number of other effects, makes it astoundingly easy to declare a technique "works for some people". Everything works for some people.
Interestingly, placebos work better if they cost more, and the more work that seems to be going into them.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 6, 2008 10:12 PM
"Going to have a fight on our hands? Where have you been! I've been fighting this fight since 1985. I've been fighting it online for almost a decade. If times are changing, it's that the fight seems to have gotten easier lately'
I think you maybe missing something. These debates are "modern world" debates. They have been going on for centuries. The next generation is "post modern" I am not an expert on all of what that entails. I have been with the 20 something crowd since they were 12 though. I taught them then and recently have been in mentoring roles now that they have become adults. They are both more open minded and naive then my generation was. This can be good or lethal or both.
You guys are arguing with the 50 and over crowd of Christianity mainly. Even in Christianity rules have changed and few see it. I mean of the debate. There is a disconnect between the 50 something and 20 somethings. I have tried to referee it and quit trying. Barak is even in the game at this late stage because he gets it. I am not saying I agree with his policies. He get the divide. He listens to them and talks their language.
That is my point right or wrong. But I would bet money that 'the controvery' will be taught soon right or wrong. I am not even saying I agree that it is good that it is. It may bring so much unwanted baggage with it from my side of this debate that we will regret getting what we wished for. I am not sure where I stand on that. But "teach the controversy" is a post modern thought that seems reasonable to kids trained in it.
Take the Science thing out of this and just put think about my point. If I am right and they are naive in their open mindedness then it does not even have to be true to get them to swallow it. No matter what it is.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 7, 2008 1:02 PM