In case you haven't been following the vivisections of Wells' horrid book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, I thought I'd mention that there's more online at the Panda's Thumb. Wells' book is a collection of anti-science propaganda, brought to us by those friendly frauds at the Discovery Institute and Regnery Publishing, and the crew at The Panda's Thumb are slowly working their way through it, documenting the falsehoods, the distortions, the poor scholarship, and the generally atrocious crapitude of the book. It's great fun!
The critiques of Chapter 3 (developmental biology), Chapter 9 (the genetic code and information), and Chapter 16 (American Lysenkoism, and this chapter was such a mess of lies that it spawned two additional posts: the distortions of the Ohio situation and Wells' legal dishonesty are treated separately) went up early, but now various contributors have stuck the knife in Chapter 7 (who needs evolution?), Chapter 10 (irreducible complexity), and Chapter 15 (the war on Christianity). There are only about ten more stalls to muck out in this Augean stable. They'll be done eventually, but one thing is certain: the fellows of the Discovery Institute will have spewed out more crap by the time it's done.
- Log in to post comments
I think it's wonderful that the folks at Panda's Thumb are working to correct that scientific distortions put out by the Discovery Institute. Unfortunately, though, I doubt that their work will make an impact on the DI's intended audience.
What scientists want is for ordinary people (non-scientists) to learn enough science that they can start to tell the difference between actual science and pseudo-science. Even if you don't know enough to be able to do physics or biology or whatever, you can still appreciate it as a legitimate, important activity.
However, there is a huge group of people who are never going to learn even that much science. The people that the DI is targeting are those people who are unable or unwilling to follow an actual scientific argument. For such a person, there are really only two feasible options: (1) Accept what (mainstream) scientists say, on the grounds that they are smarter than you are, and have studied it more than you have. (2) Reject what scientists say, on the grounds that they are no smarter than you are, but are just pretending to understand better than you.
The Discovery Institute flatters the nonscientist by telling him that he doesn't need to feel inferior to the experts, because the so-called experts are just spouting bullshit, anyway. If you teach someone to recite some anti-evolution catch phrases, such as "irreducible complexity", you give him the feeling that he is a match for any evolutionary scientist.
PZ seems to think that religion is behind the anti-science attitude in the US. I think that's backwards. The anti-science attitude is what is driving people towards religion (and religious beliefs such as creationism and intelligent design). Science makes many people feel stupid, while religion makes people feel like they understand things as well as anyone does.
A fair comment here would be to question why the Un. of California, Berkeley has not revoked Mr. Wells PhD degree, seeing as how it was frauduently obtained.
PZ seems to think that religion is behind the anti-science attitude in the US. I think that's backwards.
I think PZ has it exactly right. Religion is behind the current resurgence of "faith". However, I count myself an unintended consequence, the blowback if you will of that effort.
I have renounced my Christianity, and I suspect that this is not uncommon. Moderate Christians are being forced to think about the unpalatable nonsense that forms the bulk of any dogma, and this is splitting the world into two camps.
The "kill them all God will know his own" religious and the non religious. I am a recent arrival in the latter camp, and it's been fantastic to make that decision.
The ongoing radicalisation of religion, Islam or Christianity, will eventually drive the rational thinkers out, and into the non religious camp. Well either that or we are in for a new dark age .... I think that the less likely outcome though.
Wells' degree was not fraudulently obtained. He had an obliging advisor who let him slip through the degree process -- it happens. If anything should be done, it would be to chastise UC Berkeley for being so slack; that's the kind of slipshod lack of rigor that erodes the reputation of a very good school.
Oh, great yet another "PIG" book that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. I've lost track of how many times I (an atheist with a degree in Islamic history) have had my arguments 'refuted' by someone referencing the blurbs the COVER!! of the PIG about Islam.
Maybe PIG should stand for "Pig Ignorant Guide"
PZ:
It was my impression that while Wells actually did the work needed to earn his doctorate at UCB that strings of a sort were pulled to get him into the program in the first place.
After all, he had no undergraduate degree in the sciences, and his post-doctoral position was an unpaid title arranged by Philip Johnson. The whole time he was there his education was paid for by some combination of the Unification Church and the Disco Boys.
It may be legitimate, but the whole thing smells. As I remarked to another fellow here, Wells might have scientific credentials, but he doesn't act like a scientist and as far as I'm concerned he's an enormous phony.....SH
mndean, is that supposed to be a recursive acronym like WINE?
Re PZ
By fraudulently obtained, I meant that he entered the program there under false pretenses, as he unwittingly admits in his chapter in the book, 'In Six Days. Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation." I would consider an individual who enters a degree program under false pretenses and obtains a degree to have done so fraudulently.
Creationists/ID acolytes are often accused (rightly) of indulging in what's sometimes called the "fallacy of the excluded middle" ... and here's a classic example of that technique used by one of The Good Guys. This example is just as bad as the "I can't see how it could have evolved so it must have been created" silliness.
I see no evidence that this sort of bifurcation is happening, and lots to suggest that this is a gross oversimplification (by which I guess I really mean, "dead wrong").
I see no evidence that this sort of bifurcation is happening, and lots to suggest that this is a gross oversimplification (by which I guess I really mean, "dead wrong").
Posted by: Scott Belyea | September 24, 2006 11:58 AM
I confess I'm extrapolating from a sample of one:-) Plus some anecdotal examples picked up in the course of my internet travels.
However, I consider myself fairly average, and if I have come to the conclusions I have, it's likely that many others are doing the same. Haven't you ever read any Asimov?
Besides, I'm not writing a thesis, just making a personal observation.
Don't be so sure that we won't be in for a new Dark Age.
In Many European countries, there are huge numbers of Submissionists, (followers of Muhammad, piss be upon him), and they are, according to the demographers, likely to exceed 50% of the working population within a few decades. Their numbers in the US & Canada are also becoming significant.
When you consider that violent intimidation is commonplace within Submission, the likelihood of the radicals (who can claim to be the more devout) scaring the bejabers out of the moderates is virtually assured. They've scared plenty of non-Submissionists in the West already. They will almost certainly take us over, I believe.
A little off the subject of this thread but of some interest. There was a conference at Yale last week, as reported by Carl Zimmer which included a presentation by, among others Ken Miller. Appartnely, he has somewhat refined his position on the issue of thesim vs philosophical naturalism, possibly in response to comments on this blog relative to an earlier presentation. Despite our philosophical differences with Prof. Miller, he is one of the best and most eloquent defenders of the theory of evolution out there. The URL follows
http://www.yale.edu/terrylecture/thisyear.html
In Many European countries, there are huge numbers of Submissionists, (followers of Muhammad, piss be upon him), and they are, according to the demographers, likely to exceed 50% of the working population within a few decades. Their numbers in the US & Canada are also becoming significant.
Americans frequently say this, and as a European living in a country with a significant muslim population, I have to say that I see absolutely no evidence of it.
On the contrary, the country is so resolutely secular as to guarantee an electoral trouncing for anyone, Christian or Islamic, publicly holding the kind of views that GWB is credited with.
It is no more than a variety of ghost story that right wingers tell each other at night.
Is it anyone's argument that there is a legally tolerated mechanism for denying a graduate degree to a creationist - radical or becalmed, open or hidden - when he/she answers the questions correctly? I have been around that situation more than once, with no legitimate mechanism for scratching the itch. I am reminded of the related incident at Texas Tech University in which the faculty member had to alter his policy of denying letters of recommendation to students who would not agree with the concept of evolution - all he now is permitted (if my memory serves) is that they admit to understanding evolution. They don't have to agree or even admit to its rationality.
Is it anyone's argument that there is a legally tolerated mechanism for denying a graduate degree to a creationist - radical or becalmed, open or hidden - when he/she answers the questions correctly?
A recipe for disaster in my view. What if an individual merely disagrees with certain peripheral elements of evolution?
Nah, you shouldn't dogmatize (is that a word??) evolution, or indeed any kind of sceince. Totally goes against the grain of the thing.
Religion is behind the current resurgence of "faith".
I really don't think so. There are many non-religious sources of anti-scientific attitudes. Belief in the power of crystals, belief in homeopathy, belief in astrology, etc. Religion is an outlet for the backlash against science, not the cause of it.
Anyway, my point is that IDers don't care about coming with an argument that is convincing to scientists, they only need to convince nonscientists. It's a psychological and political battle, not a scientific one.
Re toucantoad and Brian Coughlin
You folks are not seeing the forest for the trees. Mr. Wells applied to and entered the graduate program at UC Berkeley for the express purpose of earning a PhD degree with the idea that he would then be in a position to "destroy Darwinism." Does anyone believe that he would have been admitted if he had stated to the admission officials that destroying Darwinism was the purpose of his application? I think not. This is even more outrageous in that there are a limited number of slots available in graduate programs at prestige universities and admitting Wells denied adminision to someone who might have made a contribution to the field.
Anyway, my point is that IDers don't care about coming with an argument that is convincing to scientists, they only need to convince nonscientists. It's a psychological and political battle, not a scientific one.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | September 24, 2006 01:05 PM
I think you are right about the nature of the "battle", but not the cause.
The current upsurge of religion is not natural or accidental. It has been consciously and deliberatly orchestrated.
As an insider from the religious community, that was my perception, and now that I'm outside looking in, it's even more apparent.
The primary source of the problem are the fundies in Christianity and Islam, they are in effect the same people. Consider that religious wars in Europe contributed in no small way to the enlightenment, my hope is that an accelerated "30 years war" effect will nip this bullshit in the bud. I think we can even see some early signs of it, the reactions of guys like Dawkins and Harris are indicators that the rational part of society is starting to stir.
Unfortunately, though, I doubt that their work will make an impact on the DI's intended audience.
This is true of most any pseudoscience, but you're not trying to change their minds. You need to change the minds of the lurkers -- this is newsgroup talk; the arguers for any given pseudoscience are incredibly unlikely to change, as are their followers, but the largely unseen lurkers do see the facts and change their minds. These people are thristy for knowledge, typically, but are not great at figuring out if an unfamiliar subject is being presented honestly. Without efforts such as the PT takedown, they naturally assume that the unfamiliar subject is being presented honestly -- when they see it isn't, they drop it.
Now these people are unlikely to troop on over to PT, but they don't need to; PT's critique becomes the source (like Talk Origins' many pages of info) for others to counter the PIGDIDit BS when it comes up in forums, blogs, conversation, etc.
This is something I've seen work again and again. In over 10 years now of my countering a specfic bit of pseudoscience I've seen perhaps one, maybe two, believers become non-believers, but have seen many lurkers either email (and support me in email of course :)) or delurk long enough to demonstrate that they've been persuaded by facts.
But for most people, well, they just have the wideranging and often arcane bits of info at hand to refute this BS, so they need a source. This source can be, and often is, a web site, like TO, or PT (or in the case of the stuff I critique, my web site. You can see the info from these places used, and used effectively, very often, but it needs to be there to use.
I don't agree. I would think that a fair portion of the DI's intended audience is likely to be composed of reasonably intelligent people without scientific training. That's why they've cloaked this creationism rubbish in a quasi-scientific facade. They're hoping the unitiated won't catch on to the fact that they're not really scientists. Sure, they're also preaching to the already-converted anti-science crowd, but they can only make political gains by suckering people that might oppose them. It's up to the rest of us to continually point out the fact that they're just naked evangelizers. While there may not be many creationists that read Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula with an open mind, I do think that it makes a difference. It might not make front page news, but at the very least it allows us to refine our ability to oppose sloppy thinking in our own lives and communities.
Funny coincidence: The Augean stables of creationism is the title of my most recent post, in which I take a crack at dismantling an creationist essay by one James L. Melton, a pastor eager to lecture scientists on their deficiencies. These people are just fanatical about recycling: They borrow each other's arguments (word for word, even, as with famous plagiarist Ann Coulter) and no refutation ever suffices to retire their talking points. But one must keep up the good fight or they'll tromp over us.
re: SLC
I see that forest, and I agree that had Wells stated in an application essay that his intent was to gird his loins for the destruction of "Darwinism", he probably would have been dismissed as a serious applicant. More than likely he would have been categorized as a kook. But my intended point - that I still believe valid - is that our higher education system in biological sciences does not require that a single student agree with a single statement they make in response to assessment by faculty. I agree that it should be highly unusual in Wells' specific field for one with his poor adherence to the principles of science to succeed, but I am not surprised that he did so.
I have heard before in these comment sections an incredulity that universities could turn out science graduates with such animosity toward methodolgical naturalism and even with obvious goals to proselytize from a credentialed position. I'm just not surprised by this at all - disturbed and saddened - but not surprised. I fail to see where these occasional outcomes are correctable as our system of education is organized.
Brian, of course there's no evidence of a Submissionist take-over in the West, now. But a radicalist take-over could easily occur in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. Already, a moderate Submissionist in Canada (A spokesman for moderate Muslims has resigned from the Muslim Canadian Congress, citing death threats and safety concerns) has been intimidated out of an important position.
The democratic process, and the breathing room from the demographics, will save us for now, but think what'll happen if the radicals take over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, or Saudi Arabia's oil.
Christian fundamentists, although closer to home, don't pose anywhere near such a threat.
Well-meaning people such as yourself are letting the West sleep-walk into the next Dark Age. And I'm not right-wing, by the way.
I doubt any sort of "religious takeover from within" will succeed upon Western culture unless it were to happen within the space of a few decades at most.
When a country is dogmatically ideological, they tend to have a severe problem advancing in science and technology ... and wind up behind those who didn't go down that route.
(Consider Europe and the Middle East after Rome fell - Europe was dogmatically religious and had problems, then Islam took over and got dogmatic while Europe was starting to drift out of dogmatism ... and the two areas waxed and waned in power respectively. Also contemplate the different levels of science in the USA and USSR in 1950 vs 1990.)
So while any given country could be at risk of falling to dogmatism, I doubt that the Enlightnment and the civilization it's produced is nearly as likely to fall. Hell - look at China. They suck in a lot of ways, sure ... but they're improving. They have to, because they want to be an economic powerhouse, and there are things that you have to do in order to make that happen.
Michael, I agree, the timescale is decades, and by then the demographics will have kicked in.
But the thing is, they'll use our technology against us. This didn't happen at Poitiers in the 8th C, or Vienna in the 18th C. Terror then was a man on a horse with a sword. Don't you think it's changed just a bit since then? Try this multiple choice quiz:
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
1.. Superman
2.. Jay Leno
3.. Harry Potter
4.. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
1.. Olga Corbett
2.. Sitting Bull
3.. Arnold Schwarzenegger
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
1.. Lost Norwegians
2.. Elvis
3.. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
1.. John Dillinger
2.. The King of Sweden
3.. The Boy Scouts
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
1.. A pizza delivery boy
2.. Pee Wee Herman
3.. Geraldo Rivera
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
1.. The Smurfs
2.. Davey Jones
3.. The Little Mermaid
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
1.. Captain Kidd
2.. Charles Lindberg
3.. Mother Teresa
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
1.. Scooby Doo
2.. The Tooth Fairy
3.. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
1.. Richard Simmons
2.. Grandma Moses
3.. Michael Jordan
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
1.. Mr. Rogers
2.. Hillary Clinton
3.. The World Wrestling Federation
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other as diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
1.. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
2.. The Supreme Court of Florida
3.. Mr. Bean
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
1.. Enron
2.. The Lutheran Church
3.. The NFL
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. In July 2005, the London Subway systems was bombed by:
1.. The Minnesota Twins
2.. Harry Carey
3.. The Rolling Stones
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
15. In August 2006, 10 passenger jets in London were targeted to be destroyed with liquid explosives by:
1.. Pepsi
2.. Wal-Mart
3.. Proctor & Gamble
4.. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Tricky one, eh?
The democratic process, and the breathing room from the demographics, will save us for now, but think what'll happen if the radicals take over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, or Saudi Arabia's oil.
The scenario you've outlined is almost guaranteed to happen, especially since the middle east has been brought to the boil by Bush. So what? If everyone keeps their heads, a stand off similar to the east/west standoff, and we'll become a little more energy conscious and probably kick off an economic boom replacing fossil fuel technology.
Christian fundamentists, although closer to home, don't pose anywhere near such a threat.
That is a fatal underestimation. These people are within spitting distance of the levers of power of the most powerful nation state the world has ever seen. No Islamic fundamentalist will ever wield the kind of power available to an american president. Not in a 1000 years. That makes the christian fundamentalists the real threat in my book. Although I'll grant you that in principle, both are barking mad.
You are thinking like a nationalist, that American fundamentalists are not as bad as Islamic ones, trust me, they are. They will kill as many people, in fact they've already got the carnage underway. Just because it isn't Americans dying doesn't make it acceptable. People are people as far as I'm concerned, I'm funny like that.
The hysterical "the muslims are coming" meme is completely absurd when you compare the relative strengths of the parties, yet even fairly sensible Americans bolt down the yummy home grown propaganda. Wake up and smell the coffee. The real threat is at home.
Daryl McCullough: Personally, I think both directions are partially right, partially wrong. I dare say a careful investigation would show a feedback loop.
Richard Harris: Christian fundamentalists have come damn near to taking over the US's arsenal of nukes. Fortunately there are some checks and balances left, whereas there wouldn't be with Pakistani terrorists. On the other hand, the US has many more nukes ...
And your history of terrorism is quite selective. You forgot (for example) the IRA and the Oklahoma City thing just to begin. You can tack on the coup in Chile and much else on top of that, and those were official state actions to boot.
Belief in religion almost rises and falls with the tides. Science has little to do with it in my view. More influential is ordinary folks (read largely uneducated) fearing the unknown. If times seem uncertain and they imagine multiple boogey men just over the horizon, then they flock to church for reassurance that someone (god in this case) will make them safe. It's an old shtick, long used by politicians, preachers, and other con artists. A perfectly good example is Bush, who has been fomenting fear ever since he managed to finagle a temporary lease on the oval office. It's the only thing he has going for him--since he's failed in everything else while in office--and he's been playing it like Nero on his fiddle.
As for the PIGs of the world, they are written for and read by the choir. The DI may kid themselves that others read them, but they are only fooling themselves. But if we are honest, PT is also read only by its choir so supporters of science are not much better off then the acolytes at the DI. Progress will only be made when we can get those who belong to neither choir to actually read and comprehend something about evolution and science, but given that reading is viewed as un-American by most citizens (this afternoon most eyes are glued to the tube watching that paragon of American culture, the NFL) we will see a cold day in hell before that happens.
My apologies for my current cynicism.
SLC:
"The late Israel Shahak was another Israel hater, even though he lived there."
Besides being the reason for the conflict between Chomsky and Dershowitz, what has that to do with the problem of using Dershowitz on Chomsky?
Taking my example from Chomsky ( ;-), I would reversely not trust Chomsky on Dershowitz.
And frankly, noting how wrongly you described how Well's obtained his PhD on another thread, I don't trust your conspiracy theories either.
sigh! Wrong thread again - please didregard my last comment.
So what if Muslims use our technology against us?
Which country has total miitary dominance relative to the other one(s)?
1) The USA.
2) Every "Muslim" country combined.
Further, precisely how much has all the terrorism done to win them a position of real political influence? It has at most slightly damaged our freedoms, without actually strengthening their position in any way.
Is terrorism bad? Of course.
Is terrorism a major influence in world politics? Sometimes, sure.
Does it really accomplish anything the terrorists claim to want? Well ... I guess we could claim Bin Ladin had a large part in Russia's downfall ... I wouldn't, though.
Does it cement their positions of power relative to the people around them? Of course it does! But that doesn't affect me very much, and it certainly doesn't justify any of the responses that have been made to it recently.
What I am saying is that if the Muslims wish to try to rule the world, they will have to first become Western.
Richard Harris: Allow someone who actually got paid to know these things to interject. I spent 8 and a half years in Military Intelligence as an Arabic linguist. While I have devoted the last ten months to a bold attempt to wash all knowledge of the middle east out of my brain with alcohol, enough remains that I probably still know more than you do, so, here's my opinion: You're being paranoid. Sure, the muslim fundamentalists are a threat, but they're hardly the Greatest Danger The World Has Ever Seen. A hundred years from know, "Islamo-Fascism" will be remembered as being this century's version of "Bomb-Throwing Anarchists" or "The Yellow Menace". That is, if they think about it all; They'll probably be too busy fretting about "The AI Threat" or "Lawless Spacers".
BTW, "Islamo-Fascism" is itself a fucking retarded term. The only way to count the Muslim Fundies as "Fascists" is to stretch the definition so wide that Stalin and Mao are "Fascists" too. "Islamo-Totalitarianists" would be accurate, but is rather clunky. Therefore, the best term to use would be "Theocrats". Now you know.
Can't people agree to refer to this DI shit by his full name? I always somehow imagine we are discussing H.G., whom I love.
Maybe we can get him to change his name. "Mud" seems appropriate.
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
-----------------------------
In 1995, the Oklahoma City Federal Building was bombed by:
a) Sharko
b) Maura Tierney
c) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
d) A white guy
In 1995, nerve gas was released into the Tokyo subway system by:
a) Jeffrey Tambor
b) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
c) Japanese cultists
d) Frylock
In 1998, an abortion clinic in Alabama was bombed by:
a) Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
b) Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law
c) A Christian male extremist mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
In 1996, the Atlanta Olympics were bombed by:
a) See c) above
b) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
c) Tom Goes to the Mayor (a bomb in and of itself)
d) Guillermo Del Toro
"7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by..."
He wasn't "trying to rescue passengers". He was just an unfortunate person in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Richard H:
Do yourself a favor and go watch the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares"; it's widely available online, but I doubt it will ever show up in BBC America's sales catalog.
Spend some quality time with Michael Ruppert's newsletter "From the Wilderness" and/or his book Crossing the Rubicon.
Also good is http://www.oilempire.us/
But start with the BBC documentary. The world is a bit more complicated than your facile multiple choice quiz makes it out to be.
Brian C. wrote:
"...The scenario you've outlined is almost guaranteed to happen, especially since the middle east has been brought to the boil by Bush. So what? If everyone keeps their heads, a stand off similar to the east/west standoff, and we'll become a little more energy conscious and probably kick off an economic boom replacing fossil fuel technology."
Unfortunately, there is no "replacement" as such out there for fossil fuel technology. A kind of "Power Down" is the only viable road in the long run.
see
http://www.postcarbon.org/
http://dieoff.org
http://www.peakoil.net/
I just worry that scientific understanding and even literacy itself may not survive in the long run. Though as one economist put it, "In the long run, we're all dead", or words to that effect.
By the way, anyone here ever read _A World Lit Only By Fire_ by popular US historian William Manchester? Nice homage to the early baby steps of the scientific revolution that made the Enlightenment possible. A narrative worth remembering.
*sigh* I'm beginning to think the dysopian future of the first two Mad Max films are examples of tales/narratives of OPTIMISM now.
I just worry that scientific understanding and even literacy itself may not survive in the long run. Though as one economist put it, "In the long run, we're all dead", or words to that effect.
The phrase you want is "on a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
From chapter 15:
"So the definition of "Traditional Christianity", like "Darwinism", is a word that means whatever Wells wants it to mean, but Wells doesn't stop with just new definitions for words. When Wells writes, "Before Darwin, science and theology in Christendom generally got along quite well. Indeed, most of the time they were mutually supportive. Serious conflict erupted only after 1859, and then only because Darwinism declared war on traditional Christianity" (p. 170), he's also inventing a new history of the interaction between religion and science.
We here at the Thumb would remark that readers should Google, at their convenience and presumably after they have replaced their irony meters, "Galileo"."
Don't be so sure that we won't be in for a new Dark Age.
In Many European countries, there are huge numbers of Submissionists, (followers of Muhammad, piss be upon him), and they are, according to the demographers, likely to exceed 50% of the working population within a few decades. Their numbers in the US & Canada are also becoming significant.
Even if you don't know it yet, Brian Coughlan was right: this is a right-wing ghost story.
As an American living in the Netherlands, I've gotten a chance to see up-front the "brown peril" that the pseudo-liberal Pim Fortuyn party scared people about. They scared the bejeebus out of Dutch people, telling them that these strange-looking folks who had such big families were going to overpopulate their little German drainage ditch, and turn it into an Islamic caliphate. The swore that unless something was done, this swarthy menace would force Dutch women to wear headscarves, ban their precious beer, and their precious porno. Ordinary rational, liberal Dutch people were scared shitless; their uniquely secular society was under siege, and when Pim Fortuyn was martyred by a random (blond Dutch) nut, the Dutch voters turned hysterical, and voted accordingly...
...And so, these xenophobes got elected, and showed their true colors. It was a classic bait-and-switch game, where they took a wedge issue and split people the same way that American Republicans have done with flag burning and gay marriage. They formed a government with the CDA (the right-wing Christen Democratisch Appèl) that lasted three months, then fell apart due to backbiting and incompetence. The CDA-based prime minister Jan Pieter Balkenende replaced this with another CDA center-right government, which has scrapped universal health care, and created all sorts of red tape for new immigrants. Thanks to these misguided policies, new immigrants, including "knowledge migrants" such as myself, have to wade through roughly 6 months worth of bureaucratic bullshit to buy into the government health isnurance that used to be a right.
Here in the urban parts of the Netherlands, in certain neighborhoods, there are rows and rows of massive apartment buildings which are populated by large numbers of unskilled, disenfranchised, alientated people from North Africa. They've come here because they want to work hard, make some money, take care of their families, and be useful members of their community, period. However, coming to a new country and socially integrating is not too easy (believe me!), and a lot of them are out of work and don't feel all that welcome here. Thus, they fall back on their own culture... or a derivative of it.
These people are no serious threat to the European status quo; there is no real threat to the tolerant Dutch culture, other than from right-wing demagogues. The fact that politicians can successfully scapegoat these already marginalized people, even in the enlightened Netherlands, is chilling. Admittedly, there are a handful on the fringe and they can do a lot of physical dammage, but most of them are just trying to get by.
These people are no serious threat to the European status quo; there is no real threat to the tolerant Dutch culture, other than from right-wing demagogues. The fact that politicians can successfully scapegoat these already marginalized people, even in the enlightened Netherlands, is chilling.
Exactly. What I found quite shocking was to encounter here, the same kind of hysterical attribution of super powers to islamic terrorists, that I frequently encounter on right wing sites. Or from right wingers.
An objective assessment of this situation, could never conclude that there is an existential threat to the US or the EU from these people. Something as simple as an annual ⬠spend on arms, or the actual statisical odds of dying by terrorist attack would be plenty to blow such a laughable idea out of the water.
It is a classic nonsense used to herd sheeple onboard a war platform, to ensure a free hand to kill as many of the "enemy" (random men, women and children) as possible.
The irony is that home grown religious wacko's are sneaking into more and more positions of power. Critical thinkers in the US should be vigourously directing their energies in that direction.
These people are no serious threat to the European status quo; there is no real threat to the tolerant Dutch culture, other than from right-wing demagogues.
There might not be a serious threat to the status quo, the culture, but there may be a serious threat to individuals residing in that culture and who wish to take advantage of the tolerance of the culture. I'm sure that the murders of politician Pim Fortuyn and film director Theo van Gogh are not the only transgressions that have been committed--they're the only ones that have been mentioned in the US press.
I'm sure that the murders of politician Pim Fortuyn and film director Theo van Gogh are not the only transgressions that have been committed--they're the only ones that have been mentioned in the US press.
I'm sure you are right. These people are dangerous, but not in an existential threat to the planet sense.
American religious extremists, because of their proximity to real power, are such a threat. Remote certainly, but much more concrete than anything Islam can threaten.
Another thing that occurs to me. There wasn't really a war on Christianity, not in the sense that rationalists felt threatened by extremists. But there is now.
Religious extremists are forcing the issue, when in reality they have got nothing in their armoury. Time for the 2nd round of the age of reason, and this time we go for the knock out:-)
Richard ended his ridiculous little quiz with:
Tricky one, eh?
[/i]
only if one chooses to deliberately ignore that you cherry picked all those examples out of the hundreds of terrorist acts in the same time period.
lesseee...
who bombed the Oklahoma federal building?
muslims?
nope.
Richard, you have a one track mind, and it's a sad thing to see.
I do hope that xian terrorists don't mistakenly shoot one or your own because they thought they were an abortion doctor, or maybe one of your kids will get blown up at a clinic?
the mindset of a radical xian fundy and a radical muslim fundy are exactlyt the same, and they are quite capable of the exact same acts of terrorism, give the circstance and opportunity.
It really isn't a religion we are fighting here, it's simply terrorism borne out of ignorance and frustration, and governements taking adavantage of same for their own ends.
Time for the 2nd round of the age of reason, and this time we go for the knock out:-)
sounds wonderful, but I'm having trouble envisioning what would represent a "knockout" in this scenario.
can you paint a picuture of what "the second age" would look like?
I simply can't figure out what would happen to all of the individuals who simply are unable to be convinced by reason.
...and there are a LOT of them around, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, there is no "replacement" as such out there for fossil fuel technology. A kind of "Power Down" is the only viable road in the long run.
most people tend to only associate fossil hydrocarbons with "fuel", and forget that just as important, they are lubricants and sources of hydrocarbons for plastics.
think of a world without plastics.
*shudder*
Jay Leno killed Bobby Kennedy?
I know Superman and Harry Potter are fictional, and I know that it wasn't a Muslim (Sirhan Sirhan is Christian), so that leaves only Jay Leno.
They shouldn't be painted with such a broad brush! It's a little like equating secular humanists with Josef Stalin. The problem is that people like to lump all of "them" (in the case of immigrants in the Netherlands, one million individuals of all different walks of life, political and religious persuasions, etc.) into a single, monolithic persona. There's no doubt that a few of them are dangerous, but the same could also be said about the 15 million Dutch nationals that live here, too -- i.e. most of them are quite nice, but there are a handful that do wish to do something violent and evil. Thee same could be said about any sufficiently large group of people. This type of stereotyping is The Problem, and isn't going to lead to a solution.
Stop right there: Pim Fortuyn, the only Dutch politician assasinated in modern history, was killed by a mentally ill Dutch animal rights activist named Volkert van der Graaf, not an "Islamofascist", or whatever gobbdlygook bastardization of English you want to use. His murderer wasn't motivated by immigration issues: get that fact right, goddamit! Lazy journalists in Britain and the US have tried to portray him as a martyr for his beliefs, rather than ostensibly the victim of what was random violence (really, what did he have to do with animal rights, one way or the other?)
In the case of Theo van Gogh, it's very true that he was killed by a religious nut, namely Mohammed Bouyeri. This was a terrible, tragic act, and the world is a worse place because of it. However, Mohammed Bouyeri was born and raised in Amsterdam; he was not an immigrant. Him, Samir Azzouz, and other members of the Hofsdtad network were Dutch nationals...
Cracking down on immigrants and making their lives harder than they need to be isn't going to help in situations like this. Immigrants didn't have anything to do with the tragic deaths of these people, but they have been the secondary victims of these crimes. It's important that people don't confuse these issues: contrary to popular stereotypes, religious extremism is not synonymous with immigration, period.
They shouldn't be painted with such a broad brush! It's a little like equating secular humanists with Josef Stalin. The problem is that people like to lump all of "them" (in the case of immigrants in the Netherlands, one million individuals of all different walks of life, political and religious persuasions, etc.) into a single, monolithic persona. There's no doubt that a few of them are dangerous, but the same could also be said about the 15 million Dutch nationals that live here, too -- i.e. most of them are quite nice, but there are a handful that do wish to do something violent and evil. Thee same could be said about any sufficiently large group of people. This type of stereotyping is The Problem, and isn't going to lead to a solution.
Stop right there: Pim Fortuyn, the only Dutch politician assasinated in modern history, was killed by a mentally ill Dutch animal rights activist named Volkert van der Graaf, not an "Islamofascist", or whatever gobbdlygook bastardization of English you want to use. Excluding events in WWII, he was the first Dutch politician to be assassinated since the de Witt brothers in 1672. His murderer wasn't motivated by immigration issues: get that fact right, goddamit! Lazy journalists in Britain and the US have tried to portray him as a martyr for his beliefs, rather than ostensibly the victim of what was random violence (really, what did he have to do with animal rights?)
In the case of Theo van Gogh, it's very true that he was killed by a religious nut, namely Mohammed Bouyeri. This was a terrible, tragic act, and the world is a worse place because of it. However, Mohammed Bouyeri was born and raised in Amsterdam; he was not an immigrant. Him, Samir Azzouz, and other members of the Hofsdtad network were Dutch nationals...
Cracking down on immigrants and making their lives harder than they need to be isn't going to help in situations like this. Immigrants didn't have anything to do with the tragic deaths of these people, but they have been the secondary victims of these crimes. It's important that people don't confuse these issues: contrary to popular stereotypes, religious extremism is not synonymous with immigration, period.
Time for the 2nd round of the age of reason, and this time we go for the knock out:-)
sounds wonderful, but I'm having trouble envisioning what would represent a "knockout" in this scenario.
I guess that the meme would take hold that the gloves are off in public discourse regarding faith. That faith no longer has a protected niche when it comes to reasons for doing something. Every political action needs to be explained in rational terms, and those are the only terms acceptable.
j.t.delaney: The Netherlands scrapped universal health care? Really?
Ichthyic: Quite true. I wrote a brief article about hydrocarbons a few years ago for that reason ... available on my website if anyone wants it to pass around. (With attribution, please!)
This is how it was explained to me. I'd lived here before in 2000, and healthcare was a given. Healthcare was covered by employers, and that was that. However, since the beginning of 2006, the system has changed rather drastically: employees can buy into healthcare, but for non-EU citizens, you first must have an ID card from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the ID cards typically take 6 months. After that, you apply for insurance, and sometime later (1-4 months), your card arrives. In the meantime, it's recommended that you don't get sick(!) If you do get sick and you've started the process, the insurance companies are often nice about reimbursing you for expenses afterwards, but that means more paperwork...
It's not quite as extreme as the United States, but it isn't the socialist wonderland that you'd imagine. Really, they throw in arbitrary bureacratic bullshit in there, just for the hell of it. Still, in the U.S., I don't think insurance companies are required by law to examine your eligibility for residency.
I have to say, it feels really strange to be on the other end of the immigration -- to have basic necessities run through some asshole's idea of a new-and-improved bureacratic ringer. I'm what's called a "knowledge migrant" - a particular category of migrant with special skills (or a lot of money.) Allegedly, this means that the handling of my documents have gotten the "red carpet treatment" by their standards. In spite of that, there was a lot of arbitrary stuggling that was necessary to arrange an apartment, to open a bank account, to set up any sort of insurance, or even to get paid. Luckily, we had savings. All of these rules are presumably put in place to make illegal immigration as difficult as possible -- no doubt, it really works. But, it also collectively punishes a lot of other people -- regretably for them, just the kind of people that the economy here desperately needs.
This is how it was explained to me. I'd lived here before in 2000, and healthcare was a given. Healthcare was covered by employers, and that was that. However, since the beginning of 2006, the system has changed rather drastically: employees can buy into healthcare, but for non-EU citizens, you first must have an ID card from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the ID cards typically take 6 months. After that, you apply for insurance, and sometime later (1-4 months), your card arrives. In the meantime, it's recommended that you don't get sick(!) If you do get sick and you've started the process, the insurance companies are often nice about reimbursing you for expenses afterwards, but that means more paperwork...
It's not quite as extreme as the United States, but it isn't the socialist wonderland that you'd imagine. Really, they throw in arbitrary bureacratic bullshit in there, just for the hell of it. Still, in the U.S., I don't think insurance companies are required by law to examine your eligibility for residency.
I have to say, it feels really strange to be on the other end of the immigration -- to have basic necessities run through some asshole's idea of a new-and-improved bureacratic ringer. I'm what's called a "knowledge migrant" - a particular category of migrant with special skills (or a lot of money.) Allegedly, this means that the handling of my documents have gotten the "red carpet treatment" by their standards. In spite of that, there was a lot of arbitrary stuggling that was necessary to arrange an apartment, to open a bank account, to set up any sort of insurance, or even to get paid. Luckily, we had savings. All of these rules are presumably put in place to make illegal immigration as difficult as possible -- no doubt, it really works. But, it also collectively punishes a lot of other people -- regretably for them, just the kind of people that the economy here desperately needs.
You got the Augean stable remark form Peter Nyikos on Usenet.
Ichthyic nails it: think of a world without plastics. *shudder*
And fertilizer. Fossil fuels are used as fertilizer; and whatever you think of the so-called Green Revolution, without them crop yields will be significantly lower. *shudder*
I do not look forward to some utopia (which it won't be) without oil. In no way do I wax sentimental about planting gardens atop skyscrapers or moving to some sustainable oasis, or any of that rot. I'm not happy about peak oil claims; I'm just afraid that they're true. Society won't collapse all at once; life will just get more and more difficult. But I hope not.
The people that the DI is targeting are those people who are unable or unwilling to follow an actual scientific argument.
But these people have relatives, neighbors, and friends who can use the information from PT, Pharyngula, Aetiology, etc., to parry their creationist assertions. Having a personal relationship with someone (like me!) who tells them that they accept evolution makes a big difference. It's not ideal, and perhaps it's not even right, but it's true.