Wow. This guy is like Ben Stein on quaaludes — and just as wrong, wrong, wrong. The opening premise for his slo-mo diatribe is ridiculous:
True science only reports observable facts, rather than interpretations and assumptions.
Then he goes on with a tedious litany of examples: you are allowed to say that Archaeopteryx is a fossil of a winged animal, but you can't say it's transitional or intermediate characters, you can say Tiktaalik is a fossil of a skull and some limb bones, but you can't say it represents an intermediate between fish and amphibians, yadda yadda yadda.
Unbelievable. First, where does this gomer come off trying to dictate what "True science" is? He's contradicting practically every scientist in the world!
To claim that science is not about interpretations — that it doesn't include theories as explanatory frameworks — is patently false. What does he want to do, reduce science to stamp collecting because that's the most exciting thing his lethargic little mind can handle?
Of course science is all about interpretation — it's how induction works. We collect data, we interpret it, we make hypotheses and predictions about what we expect to see next, and we test those ideas. No interpretation, nothing to test, science would stagnate.
This is one of the more stupid statements I've heard from a creationist yet, but I'm afraid he's not at all competitive with the likes of Ray Comfort yet. On style, though, the mummified, expressionless head of Daniel Keeran is ahead on points.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Yeeeaaaahhh. I got about halfway through that one and decided that cleaning out my coffee pot was more enlightening.
Does he apply the same standard to his own beliefs:
You are allowed to say that the Bible is an ancient book of Jewish beliefs, but you can't say it's historical or inspired by God.
holy crap it's Doctor Breen
IOW, Newton should only have catalogued gravitational and momentum interactions, he should never have come to any general conclusion about them.
Oh, but they forget Newton. Only Darwin is targeted with their inane anti-science bullshit. Not that they understand Newton, of course, they just wouldn't think to be "skeptical" toward "godly science."
Darwin gave the appropriate answer to these mindless gits (btw, forms of this guy's ignorance are rampant throughout the supposedly "more scientific" ID), which is that one might as well be describing every piece of gravel in a gravel pit and call that science, if one isn't going to do theoretical science.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Can you observe a pulsar in the lab? Or a black hole? HA! Checkmate, scientists!
*eyeroll*
Well, the coffee pot got clean and I finished the video. Pretty terrible. I could imagine the audio alone being a great asset to the CIA's torture arsenal. Grand Daddy Nad seems to be censoring comments though, just like VenomfangX. Advanced age holds no wisdom for those unwilling to be challenged.
"Oh, but they forget Newton. Only Darwin is targeted with their inane anti-science bullshit. Not that they understand Newton, of course, they just wouldn't think to be "skeptical" toward "godly science.""
If you haven't checked it out already, read "Flat Earth".
http://www.amazon.com/Flat-Earth-History-Infamous-Idea/dp/0312382081/re…
It may surprise you to read that godlessness and immorality were associated with acceptance of universal gravitation, heliocentrism, and a spherical Earth (with people living in the antipodes, no less. Pure heresy!) as recently as the 1950s.
ROFL =snort= MAO =gasp= You hit that =choke= nail right on the =wheeze= head! gimme some =coff= oxygen before I =turns blue, passes out=.....
@ Keith B: You did a lot better than I did. I could only take about 30 seconds of that guy, and even that was a struggle.
When I watch Dan Keeran, I.....uh.....I tend to........uh........
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.............
Re the Darwin quote I mentioned in #4, it goes like this:
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I blame science tv. It seems like every time they break out the fancy equipment, they plaster "Real Science" all over it... The worst example I saw was this National Geographic bit on martial arts--they called it science when all they did was measure how fast or hard someone hit!
I would argue without hypotheses to test, it's not really science at all. It's just... accounting.
To take the gravity example one step further, it was predicted that gravity would act the same on other celestial bodies. Those predictions are used to send and land craft on large distant bodies like Mars. These craft send back signals using EM technology - so that acts the same as well. These met-predictions should not be overlooked nor taken lightly. But of course, they're not interested in ideas that confound their world-view.
Themadlolscientist @#8 beat me to it!
That tone of voice, and manner of speaking is the technic I was taught in grade school to use when addressing the mentally disturbed or lunatics. This guy looks older than I am, so now we know what he thinks of his viewers.
I shall take your word for it and not risk losing the lovely icecream I had earlier by watching this clip.
In other news: Poe is alive and well.
It is observable to say that he is one of the most uncharismatic human beings on the planet.
It is an interpretation to suggest that he represents a transitional form between Ben Stein and the lifeless, rotting corpse of the creationist movement.
This moronic cretin can rant all he wants but will never offer proof that his imaginary god exists. All he can muster is the pathetic attack on provable evolutionary and scientific facts, hoping that he will sound profound enough to counter doubts among the halfwits who cannot reason otherwise, It would not be hard to pick this brother of Stein apart; challenge him to a meeting and tell him to be sure he brings his god with him for backup. It all comes down to proving that your demented god exists and that there is no need for explanations from either it or you.
Damn, if I ever sound like that behind a microphone or on video, I'll take a long walk off a short pier. Seriously boring, seriously wrong, and seriously stupid.
IF he was at all right in his description of science as being observation-only, and not interpretation, he would actually undermine his own argument. He can't say that True Science (TM) only involves observation - because that is itself an interpretation. He can only say that he has observed that True Science (TM) only involves observations of facts.
Of course, if you want to go further, the 'facts' he concedes are also the result of interpretations. He said that "...It is observable to say that Archaeopteryx is an extinct feathered winged animal capable of flight and had claws on its wings..." Here are the interpretations he passed of as raw facts:
Extinct - interpretation of its absence from later strata and absence from known living organisms.
Winged - well, it has these bone thingies which look like wings of birds. Isn't 'bone' a category we derive through induction as well?
Capable of flight - Interpretation!
Claws on its wings - what are claws? sharp bony things with keratin coating them - a category we have created by induction. Interpretation!
The interpretation-less facts that remain are that a thingy was found in rock that has some ratio of radioisotopes in surrounding strata, and has sharp thingies on its long upper thingies that resemble claws on wings. That's his version of True Science. Truly Stupid. (TM)
Note, I'm ignoring his version of reality being the interpretation that his messed-up brain makes of his sensory inputs.
This guy's speech is about as animated as my computer's text to speech software.
This guy has written a few books, including an eBook called "The Richard Dawkins Delusion".
From the abstract about the eBook, we get the following nonsense...
"This ebook is an important and convincing response to the conclusions of Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. The author believes that the concept of a transcendent entity as the source of morality and ultimate justice, is an essential foundation of rational human life and society.
Without a transcendent authority and standard, the numerous pursuits and values of humans are merely peculiar delusions characteristic of the human species. Keeran points out that although Dawkins does not believe in the existence of God because of the supposed lack of scientific or factual evidence, he and like-minded others inconsistently assert the existence of numerous other non-scientific realities elaborated by the author in 55 chapters.
Atheism claims to be simply the absence of belief in a god or gods and therefore contributes nothing to human value, meaning of life, or moral conduct. These must be borrowed from other arbitrary non-scientific beliefs which then become the gods and religions of atheists ranging from nihilism to humanism and even buddhism and wiccan."
It's the same old "You can't be moral without a God" BS. I find plenty of meaning and purpose in my life without the need for a "transcendent authority", thank you very much. And, if that meaning and purpose is reduced to the level of "a peculiar delusion characteristic of the human species", then why is other's belief in God any less of a delusion.
I won't argue the point that people find meaning and purpose in religion--many obviously do. But to say that it's an "essential foundation of rational human life and society" is really pushing it (my emphasis on rational). How is it rational? What evidence supports that ludicrous position? Just because we don't believe in Buddy Christ, we can't work and play nice with others? I'm immediately reduced to (gasp) nihilism, or (bigger gasp) humanism, or even (primal scream) buddhism and wiccan? (Interesting he puts those two on the same level.)
And PZ is right, this guy makes Ben Stein sound like Howie Mandel on speed.
Isn't it ironic that this guy sounds like a robot? Religious people are drones who pass on mindless information from one generation to another. I get frustrated to unhealthy levels listening to creationists so I've evolved and try to avoid doing so at this point. Some people choose to be stupid, cant save somebody who refuses to be saved. Fuck em.
It gets even better in the video's comment section, where Droney McDullington fights with everyone who tries to gift him with a clue. From what I could make out, he believes even direct observation is meaningless. I guess because he knows God is "hiding" from us.
"On style, though, the mummified, expressionless head of Daniel Keeran is ahead on points."
Leave the poor mummies out of this! Unlike Keeran, mummies can't help being the way they are...
To claim that science is not about interpretations -- that it doesn't include theories as explanatory frameworks -- is patently false...PZ Meyers
Well it's true, there are many assumptions in natural science, which are concluded as fact rather than just an hypothesis. It's like the recent discovering of a rapidly moving pulsar (J1903+0327) which has similar orbit like the sun. It doesn't follow any evolutionist model. They observed 100 pulsars which did follow a pattern, but since space is so vast, 100 pulsars isn't nothing not even big enough to be a speck in the Universe, and certainly not enough to make dogmatic theories about.
Some people choose to be stupid, cant save somebody who refuses to be saved.
Or as Jonathan Swift said;
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"
If your TTS is that bad, demand a refund.
I'm going to confess right off the bat to not even bothering to watch the video. But just to follow up on PZ's idea that science shouldn't be reduced to mere "stamp collecting", I think if "true science" were limited only to the observable, I don't think it would stagnate, but I think its progress would be much slower. Not to mention useless, since there would be no conclusions that could be drawn from the observations. And with no conclusions there would be no possibility of applications derived from the acquired knowledge.
This video HAS to be slow-motion.
And, also, one of the stupidest things i´ve yet seen in my life. "Truuee sciieennce haas too" blah yea have to go get coffee, I suddenly feel sleepy.
And of course this guy is missing the fact that he IS using interpretations already. How does he know that the "fossils" he's looking at are fossils at all? They could have been sculpted as a prank by supernatural entities. In fact, has he studied them in person? How does he know that the entire world as reported on the internet and television is not just a fiction being broadcast by his neighbor?
Meteorologists discovered highs and lows by reporting observations of wind direction and atmospheric pressure. Those highs and lows are not directly observable themselves.
If this guy listens to weather reports, then he's not deluded, he's a filthy liar.
Probably because it doesn't reproduce.
"It's like the recent discovering of a rapidly moving pulsar (J1903+0327) which has similar orbit like the sun. It doesn't follow any evolutionist model."
And the award for Non Sequitur of the Year goes to...
Whenever I come across mindless crap from this cretin and his demented ilk, it is comforting to read the thoughts of superior minds speaking for all of us that are repulsed by the constant insanities from these mindless cretin pukes.
From T H Huxley: "Science is simply common sense at its best- that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic."
And from my man Isaac Asimov: "Although the time of death is approaching for me, I am not afraid of dying and going to hell, or ( what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism."
Or the remains of mysterious skeletal creatures. It's just as good an interpretation as any, after all.
An entertaining parody of Newton's work on gravity as if it had been redone with a non-interpretive data-collection perspective:
On the Tendencies of Motion, by "Isidore Nabi"
Why is Santa badmouthing science? Why does Santa seem so tired and slow? ;_;
PZ, you ignorant slut!
I've sat here and quietly taken it but it's time to speak out. Please, please, please stop presenting all these mental vacua as if they have something to offer me.
I can't take it anymore. I keep hanging on and hanging because each one seems to be building up to a serious criticism of evolution/atheism/skepticism or whatever but that serious criticism never comes. It must be in the next paragraph - just a few more words - but no, the promised profound revelation just keeps receding into the distance like the horizon.
Well, I've had enough and, no, I didn't listen to the whole thing. Sue me!
This interdiction against interpretation in science is consistent with a world view which refuses to acknowledge that their holy text itself requires interpretation, always. No, as they see it, other people interpret the Bible -- but they simply accept what it tells them. So you shouldn't interpret the Bible, either. You should just believe God, and not put your own ideas in there.
They crave certainty. If someone might, in theory, be mistaken, then that means anything goes and it's all chaos. In theory, theories and interpretations can be mistaken. So they think they can borrow infallibility from God, and do without that part where they're involved.
I guess we should only convict criminals who were directly observed committing the crime. Drawing conclusions based on observable evidence like fingerprints, motives, criminal history is unscientific and unjustified.
And yet, when one points out to them that God lies to Adam (Gen 2:17), what do they do?
They interpret it.
"Atheism relies upon evolution to..."
NEXT!
Huh, had not seen that one before--thanks. Clearly a forebear to my favorite quote, by ecologist Robert MacArthur:
"The only rules of scientific method are honest observations and accurate logic."
Note the plural "rules" and the "and." You need both.
What I find most amusing about jagoffs like this is that they will go out of their way to find one dumbass who claims to be a scientist ( who usually is either a plumber or has a degree in Theology from some Christian university ) who disagrees with global warming. As though one, two or even 1000 dissenting opinions invalidates all scientific discovery.
Yet the religidiots can't even get their act together to agree which bible they don't interpret is telling them the correct thing.
Next time these creationists types start spouting off about the 'holes' in evolution, ask them if they believe that a rabbit chews it's cud (Lev 11:6)... or that a bat is a bird (Lev 11:13-1119)... or if they believe that the earth is flat (Dan 4:10-11) has four corners (Rev 7:1) and an edge (1 Enoch 33:1-2) , there's a big glass dome (Gen 1:6-8)over it supported by pillars( Job 26:11) with windows through which god pours water when it rains (Gen 7:11).
Luckily, it's explained by the Bohr model of atoms.
E in MD,
Man! You really have a lot of hate in you! Wow!
Do also post on www.iliketopullwingsoffofflies.com?
Or www.ikillkittens.com?
Wow, crazy. Of course, the part he really hates is that intrepretation requires new predictions and experiments/data collection to further validate the hypothesis.
I guess we need to recall all the rockets, computers, medicines, surgical techniques, etc. These cannot be allowed since they are designed based on theories of operation which are interpretations of data.
I've been leaving this comment on most evolutionist blogs:
Don't judge all creationists just because the ones you know are pig-headed.
Just trying to clear our name because ben stein and this guy you speak of are idiots.
no worries, fred, if you're a creationist I'm sure you could independently verify your idiocy.
Next time these creationists types start spouting off about the 'holes' in evolution, ask them if they believe that a rabbit chews it's cud (Lev 11:6)... or that a bat is a bird (Lev 11:13-1119)... or if they believe that the earth is flat (Dan 4:10-11) has four corners (Rev 7:1) and an edge (1 Enoch 33:1-2) , there's a big glass dome (Gen 1:6-8)over it supported by pillars( Job 26:11) with windows through which god pours water when it rains (Gen 7:11).
don't forget that we can of course breed striped animals just by letting them see striped sticks!
Genesis: 37-39
forgot the chapter:
Genesis 30:37-39
and yes, Jon Garrison, all people who point out the glaring fallacies and contradictions in your book of ancient goat-herder musings eat kittens for breakfast.
With a dash of fly wings.
74westy grasps the real point:
I can't take it anymore. I keep hanging on and hanging because each one seems to be building up to a serious criticism of evolution/atheism/skepticism or whatever but that serious criticism never comes. It must be in the next paragraph - just a few more words - but no, the promised profound revelation just keeps receding into the distance like the horizon.
there has been an endless parade of religious apologists stretching back hundreds of years, that, after reading their missives, you would have made the exact same conclusion.
consider these things a reality-check that it still goes on, in the same fashion, every day.
Makes sense they are pushing "no interpretation", it is a popular fundie line in their little arguements over their magic book.
Thats right Michael! And there's more!!! It's aslo like the realising of my recent sneeze on my superior computer (386sx25) which has similar colours like the sun. The owner's manual of my Ford Pinto says nothing about that! They have 100 people all declaring that they can't believe it is not butter, but I beleive it is butter! It. Is. Butter!
@fred
Do you have a better suggestion for what creationism is? Or is this just like your "proof" counterparts where people complain that atheists only go after the weak proofs without ever giving a good argument? Creationism has no merit at all, there's no such thing as a "good name" for creationists. When one believes in something that flies in the face of evidence, it's called a delusion. Creationism does that.
"This guy is like Ben Stein on quaaludes -- and just as wrong, wrong, wrong. "
Ben Stein is like Ben Stein on Quaaludes. Add in the anal-retentive data-recitative idiot-savant style, and it's Ben Stein's stunt double.
Oh, you're just being defensive and expressing anger at God.
No predictions? Nothing to test? I guess now we know where String Theory fits...
The owner's manual of my Ford Pinto says nothing about that!
you have an owner's manual for a Ford Pinto?
wait...
you HAVE a Ford Pinto?
thought those things went extinct.
:p
Ha! Well, its a bit blackened... but...
Nah - I was just trying to think of something as far removed from a computer as a pulsar is from the Theory of Evolution. For an Aussie who was 8 when the last Pinto was built (quick Wiki check for that) that was about as out-there as I could manage :)
That was an amazing bit of creo-crap from Michael though, I'll be keeping a special eye out for him in future.
That was an amazing bit of creo-crap from Michael though, I'll be keeping a special eye out for him in future.
yeah, he pops in fairly regularly.
fortunately isn't as prolific as the Kenny, and usually just does drivebys.
Pitch, tone, pace. Three things that make an effective speaker, I have heard talking supermarket checkouts talk with more emotion.
He barely looks human... he looks like an incomplete CGI model sliding rapidly down the Uncanny Valley.
Ha Ha this guy should be on OPRAH ,years ago i heard her say that nobody has ever seen an atom but they exist, so therefore GOD exists .ffs ;]
In other words:
"Genesis is the only true science. Everything else is stamp collecting."
I was all excited that you guys saved me a troll, and that was so thoughtful and all . . .
Then I get to the bottom of the thread and there's nothing left but little troll crumbs.
What on earth is this guy's first language? Do you suppose he sounds this ignorant when writing in his native Elbonian?
And can we ever get it across to these people the the ToE does not address astronomy or cosmology?
Leigh, are you sure it's Elbonian? I'm not sure if he can tell the difference between that and Arseian.
It sounds like he is trying to co-opt Hume's epistemology and assertion that science is limited to empirical descriptions of certain kinds.
Since the Dover trial ruling that ID was not science and therefore cannot be taught in a science classroom the creationists have been trying to redefine science such that ID fits. That tactic is behind the "true science" language. In my direct "debates" with these people not a single one has ever been able to define or characterize "true science". I give them the hallmarks of a scientific explanation and then say, "If that is not 'true science' then please define it for me." The usual response I receive is, "Science is defined by people with an atheistic agenda."
This guy is the closest I've seen thus far to characterizing what "true science" means but he does not realize that his own view nullifies all theology, theodicy, and eschatology.
The whole creationist and especially Expelled tactics and assertions prove Clifford correct--it is immoral to believe certain things, not because the beliefs are wrong (fallibility is not immoral) but because of how one formulated those beliefs. Belief is an epistemic step on the path to knowledge. Evidence is the bridge between the belief's (weak) claim to truth and the process by which one demonstrates the belief's truth. Since beliefs are not entirely private (in this context) it is sometimes morally wrong to believe certain things because, as Clifford states it, "the corruption (non-evidentialism) spreads to the whole town." One's knowledge base becomes corrupted with no means of cleansing the corruption. False beliefs can have harmful consequences. Ergo, beliefs not held on the basis and to the degree of evidence in its favor is epistemically as well as morally wrong.
As a consequence, we have dual moral and epistemic duties to cleanse the corruption.
"That was an amazing bit of creo-crap from Michael though, I'll be keeping a special eye out for him in future"
He surfaces occasionally, like a whale; the big difference is Micheal sucks instead of blows!
That sound you just heard was my head asploding...
Myers.
Learn here what technical terms like "fact" and "hypothesis" mean.
Well, duh.
Evolution is descent with heritable modification. Pulsars don't reproduce, so there's no descent and no inheritance here, so the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about them.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
MarkW: "Leigh, are you sure it's Elbonian? I'm not sure if he can tell the difference between that and Arseian."
On second thought, Mark, I feel sure that his native tongue is Arseian. As you know, linguistic evidence clearly shows that Arseian is a descendent of Proto-Indo-Asshattean, whereas Elbonian is a Tagalong language.
Since Michael's syntax has most in common with the common construct of Proto-Indo-Asshattean, the Reflexive Rectal Inversion, my money is on Arseian.
It's like the recent discovering of a rapidly moving pulsar (J1903+0327) which has similar orbit like the sun.
This is a very odd statement. It sounds scientific and logical but is actually gibberish. The only orbit the sun has is around the galactic center. The orbit duration is about 225 million years. Given the distance of the Sun from the galactic center, this gives the Sun a velocity of about 220 km/sec.
The Sun is also moving in the direction of an imaginary point, called the solar apex, in the constellation Hercules, near the bright star Vega. The Sun is moving toward the solar apex (relative to the nearby stars) at a net speed of about 20 km/sec.
Source: Peter O. Taylor: Observing the Sun (Practical Astronomy Handbooks)
E in MD,
Man! You really have a lot of hate in you! Wow!
Do also post on www.iliketopullwingsoffofflies.com?
Or www.ikillkittens.com?
Posted by: Jon Garrison | June 4, 2008 3:57 PM
If lies and kittens were trying to strip me of my rights, take away my children and indoctrinate them into believing in invisisble friends, forcibly convert me and everyone like me, yeah I would.
I'm tired of right wing jagoffs and I'm tired of them trying to live everyone else's lives for them. The left and centrist religious people I'm not concerned with because they generally live and let live.
I fail to understand why pointing out the fact that they're all full of drek is 'hate' where as people like Ann Coulter who get off on the idea of 'invading other countries, killing their leaders and converting them all to Christianity.
Just trying to clear our name because ben stein and this guy you speak of are idiots.
Posted by: fred | June 4, 2008 5:38 PM
You're welcome to believe whatever the hell you want. Your delusions are your own business. If fact if you want to teach your child on your own dime that the world is flat, was created from the blood of giants and that the people were all created when gods peed on the earth that is your own business. The moment you cross the line and start trying to teach them to MY child in a science class or to anyone using my tax money is the moment you draw my ire. Your religion is your own business and I wouldn't take that away from you.
But the fact that creationists and most right wing Christians primary goal is to convert, proselytize and evangelize using any means necessary legal or not leads me to not trust any of you for any reason. Do I hate you or people like you? No. I pity you. I pity you because the fact that reality is so scary for you that you must adhere to an ancient fairy tale to get through the day.