Commissars Of Science Speak, Paint Selves As Progressives
Dean
Scott Kirwin's got articles from The New Scientist (a publication I generally like by the way) which are critical of the ID proponents in Dover: here, here, and here. I'm sure some will find them inspiring reading and useful ammunition. I find most of it irrelevant and some of it depressingly predictable, like reading a New York Times piece on red state America and the strange specimens found there.
What's sad is that these people can't even make themselves think for one minute--not for one minute--that maybe, just maybe, it's they who are imposing doctrine and trampling free inquiry and democratic values, that it might just be they who are acting in the mold of William Jennings Bryan and not the sadly beleaguered (and apparently Dowdified) Michael Behe.
The biggest irony of all is that they even admit that there's a very good possibility they could win their way through democratic means, but they prefer to see that as a backup, a sort of last-ditch escape hatch: "Oh, if we don't get to impose our will by forced censorship, maybe we can count on open debate and democratic values? Well that's cold comfort, but at least we've got that as an emergency escape hatch. Or maybe we'll just move to France."
Chances are they'll win the day in court, because it looks like precedent is on their side--never mind that the precedent they rely on is an attrocious one. When they win they'll almost certainly high-five themselves and congratulate each other for their court-imposed victory against pernicious ideas and corrupting influences that might cause our young people to think improper thoughts.
"Oh we got trouble my friends, right here in Science City!"
The result will be the same: another generation of kids taught that scientists are intellectual tyrants who are afraid of a debate, and that science teachers lie to them and censor ideas they don't like. Oh yeah, and that school board elections are a farce, that school boards only exist to rubber-stamp whatever the Federal courts officially approve of.
Meanwhile, science curriculums around America will remain a boring, bland, uninspiring regurgitation of nothing but officially approved dogma, typically averaging about 10-20 years behind the real state of research in most fields. And the vast majority of people will continue to think of scientists as the high priests of an arcane religion that they find incomprehensible and intimidating, or intolerant and dogmatic.
I can't write on this subject anymore. It's too upsetting.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Vatican Science
- The Woodstock of Evolution
- Where it belongs...
- The Anthropic Principle(s)
- Commissars Of Science Speak, Paint Selves As Progressives
- From the Mailbag: Skeptical Questions...
- Bring It? Okay, It's Been Brought
- More Discussion
- A Voice of Sanity on Intelligent Design
I suspect the ID debate is rather narrowly focussed, and separate from the regurgitation aspect which I think is more driven by standardized testing mania.
Seems to me that individual science teachers *do* teach controversy, although there is some finesse in selecting a real controversy that someone who is not a specialist in a field can understand, let alone say, a fourth grader. The problems I see are:
1. That a teacher does that depends more on the indiviudal acumen and attitude of the teacher rather than their explicit training.
2. Centralized curriculum policies (often driven by standardized testing) can prevent teachers being able to improvise or incorporate topical study modules, especially if they are perceived to be taking time away from "core" content.
3. It is costly, in an information gathering sense and lesson preparation sense, for every teacher to figure out current controversies to teach. Presumably if there was coherent and identifiable demand for it, enterprising information intermediaries would spring up (they probably already have) and provide it. Seems to me, for example, that this business about Homo Florensis (sp?) is a good example of a topic that kids might be interested in.
I have read and enjoyed every Stephen Jay Gould book at least once (and usually multiple times). Natural selection and its modern successor theories make intuitive sense to me, almost mathematical in their workings. I have faith (yes, I appreciate the irony) that a natural explanation can be found for all the questions the ID folks raise, if we're persistent and clever enough. And then when I read the comments on your posts, they make me want to scream at the commenters, "Stop supporting my position! You're making me sympathize with the ID folks!"
You seem to rely on commentary rather than primary sources to arrive at your conclusions. This is intellectually lazy in the extreme and likely explains many of your inaccuracies and much of the bias that you are showing. For instance I see you support Dembski because of postings on his blog.
Have you ever read one of his books?
Have you read what the originator of the No Free Lunch Theorem, which Dembski based an entire book on, has written about Dembski's work?
William Dembski's treatment of the
No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello
By David Wolpert
"In this book, Dembski attempts to turn this category-change trick for the quasi-philosophical topic of whether "intelligent design" is a legitimate alternative to neo-Darwinism. ....I say Dembski "attempts to" turn this trick because despite his invoking the NFL theorems, his arguments are fatally informal and imprecise."
Wolpert is an information scientist by the way, not a biologist, does that still make him a “Commissar”?
Anyway, lest you simply defame and accuse him as being a member of the "neoDarwinian Cabal" squelching all dissent, here's what he has to say about biologists:
Hmmm... doesn't sound like he's a fan of biologists nor their debate style does it?
Hey, it sounds like he's with you doesn't it? Darwinsts defense of their science is without a sound grounding in first principles. They should be questioned!
Now what does he have to say about Dembski's use of his theorems?
Uh oh! Note to fellow “Darwinists”: time to start attacking information science as not being scientific too.>/snark<
You worry over the possible dowdification of Behe. But you do not go to the primary source and read his own words.
You make claims about the lawsuit in Dover that if you had ever read the complaint you could not honestly make.
You support the use of Of Pandas and People yet you have not yourself read the book. You cannot recognize the numerous flaws in the six pages of the overview of the book that you have read.
You have made the claim several times now that "a book is being banned", I’ve asked before, please document that claim. I ask again that you do so. Or else, admit that the truth of the matter is that what is happening here is that people are opposed to mandating that science teachers introduce a concept into science class which is obviously “designed” to encourage school kids to investigate Christianity.
You say "thoughts and ideas are being censored", you accuse scientists and educators of being or behaving like Soviet "Commissars", and "it's they who are imposing doctrine and trampling free inquiry and democratic values,...
Where? How? Show me the evidence. Students may ask questions about evolution in class. They may challenge it. So may Dembski and Behe for that matter. They’ve sold hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of books based on this trumped up controversy and nobody is trying to stop them from selling hundreds of thousands of dollars more. The only thing people are opposing is the mandatory introduction of their ideas into science class as an alternative to evolution. Teachers are allowed to discuss the ideas of Behe and Dembski and the Discovery Institute if they feel that it is worthy of discussion. Students certainly are allowed to ask about creationism or intelligent design in discussions about evolution. This case is not about preventing anyone from talking about ideas. It is about mandating that an idea that has not proven itself be introduced as a viable alternative alongside an idea that has proven its merit.
It seems to me Dean that you have failed your readers on two counts. 1) You do not read primary sources for information on this topic. You rely on the commentary of others and thus are subject to the biases of the few you read, among many people commenting on this subject. 2) You have failed at critical thinking. You have accepted the notion that all ideas are equal, that they have equal value in thinking about and deserve equal consideration by all. This is false. There are some ideas that are wrong no matter what. The place to make this determination regarding matters of fact is not 9th grade science class. A science curriculum should represent widely accepted science. It should not contain speculations about aliens at Roswell, New Mexico as a viable alternative to the view that we have never observed life on another planet.
Dembski 's calculations are flawed and wrong no matter what your view of the theory of evolution may be. You would know this if you had read and could understand the arguments made in his books. But you have not. You would know this if you had read the work of his critics. But you have not. Behe's Irreducible complexity is wrong as well. You would know this if you were a biochemist or a geneticist or if you had read the arguments of those who are. But you have not.
This is not a case of scientists or courts imposing their views on others, I hope that this statement is deliberate over-the-top hyperbole:
“...their court-imposed victory against pernicious thoughts and corrupting influences that might cause our young people to think improper thoughts.”
Otherwise you are more confused than I had thought.
This is a case of what should be a mandatory part of a high school science curriculum. Widely rejected fringe "hypotheses" that have already been disproven by those working in the relevant fields, or established science widely accepted to be the best explanation for what we see in the world.
Should Darwinism be questioned? Yes. Are high school biology students really capable of a rigorous examination of Darwinism in the 9th grade? No. (neither apparently are most of the rest of us) But that doesn't mean that they can't question the theory, it doesn't mean that they can't ask about Creationism, it doesn't mean that they can't go to the school library check out the copy of Of Pandas and People and ask their science teacher to explain every single error, inaccuracy, flawed argument, and distortion of fact in that text.
I respect you for looking for a dragon to slay. But I humbly submit that you are charging in the wrong direction.
You mean "another generation of kids taught that scientists do science and that science teachers care enough about kids to make sure they learn science."
I'm pretty sure that's what you must have meant.
The phrase "wall of separation of church and state" first appeared in a private letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Congregation. Baptists! -- fire-breathing, Bible-thumping, fundamentalists. He was, again, assuring these fundies that the Constitution would protect their right to worship their God freely and that our government would never try to control religion by establishing a state-controlled church. It was such a Baptist, Roger Williams, who first argued for freedom of religion from government control.
Jefferson also wrote the Declaration of Independence, which is replete with references to "Nature and Nature's God", "their Creator", "Divine Providence", "the Supreme Judge of the World".
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, spoke of religion and morality as indispensible to a free republic, and of religion as indispensible to morality. The Supreme Court ruled in The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United States (1892) that "This is a religious nation" and even that "This is a Christian nation". William O. Douglas, the most liberal Justice ever to sit on the Supreme Court, agreed: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." (Zorach vs. Clausen, 1952)
The purpose of the "no establishment" clause is not to give militant atheists the power to censor all religious expression, but exactly the opposite: in conjunction with the "free exercise" clause, to free all religious ezpression from censorship.
1) Belief in the existence of a Creator is un-scientific because it cannot be disproved.
and
2) Belief in the existence of a Creator is un-scientific because evolution has proved that there is no Creator.
3) Belief in the existence of a Creator is un-scientific because it puts man and woman at the center of the universe, at the pinnacle of creation, the image of God, with a soul, an immortal destiny, freedom and dignity, inalienable rights. Evolution proves scientifically that man is not the center or pinnacle of anything, that man has no soul, no immortal destiny, no freedom, no dignity, no rights that any state is bound to respect. Man is nothing more than a monkey with delusions of grandeur. He is but a blob of proptoplasm, with no more worth than an amoeba. Human culture, religion, philosophy, art, music, architecture, law, even science, is of no more importance or value than a "culture" of bacteria. "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
Whatever you may want to call this theory of evolution, it is most certainly not humanism. It is secular simianism.
"To the Christian doctrine of the infinite significance of the individual human soul, I oppose with icy clarity the saving doctrine of the nothingness and insignificance of the human being."
-Adolf Hitler
One argument for the existence of a Supreme Being that the evolutionists have never been able to refute is the ontological argument as articulated by St. Anselm, Descartes, and Alvin Platinga. This argument defines God, Goddess, as the highest imaginable being, a being which exist so truly that He or She cannot be conceived not to exist.
Evolutionists, by contrast, constantly and deliberately look for the lowest imaginable being, a monkey, bacteria, a chemical "soup", point to it, and gleefully proclaim: "We are no more than that!.
Now, you might ask "But are there not theistic evolutionists, Christian evolutionists?" Yes, there are, but, in the light of what evolution demands them to be, their position is untenable. The Commissars of evolution tell them "You are allowed to believe in your superstitions in church on Sunday morning, but the rest of the week you must be or pretend to be an atheist just as we are."
Before Darwin came along, the definition of the scientific method was that, for a theory to be valid, it must take into account all of the facts. Now, since a theist knows that God is the first fact of all facts, he cannot leave that crucial fact out of his thinking at any time. Yet evolution orders him to, orders him to act as though he believed what he knows to be a lie, that there is no God and that everything happened by accident. If he refuses to behave like an atheist, he will be denounced as un-scientific. Evolution orders every scientist to check his brain and conscience at the door when he enters the laboratory.
Not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all atheists are Communists. But all Communists are atheists, even as they infiltrate churches and church councils, and they use the evolution theory to undermine and destroy religious belief, to replace worship of God with worship of the state.
Is there any proof for the evolution theory? Evolutionists will point to white moths in England turning black to adapt to the pollution that darkened the barks of trees. But that is change within a created kind, not anything like a monkey (or monkey-like "common ancestor" as they like to put it) turning into a man. Fossils? I have seen such fossils. There was the Piltdown Man, used in the Scopes trial. Even the evolutionists were forced to admit that it was a hoax. There was the Nebraska Man -- which turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig! There was Haekel -- boomed everywhere just as Dawkins is today -- and his theory about the "recapitulation" of evolution of embryos in the womb -- which turned out to be a lie. (This is still used to justify abortion.)
Evolutionists say that evolution will be disproved when a human skull in found in a Pre-Cambrian rock stratum. Fair enough. I say evolution will be proved when they can actually show me that favorite example of theirs, a bunch of monkeys typing the plays of Shakespeare. I don't want to see an alleged computer simulation of it. Show me those monkeys! Or, at the very least, show me the fossils of the monkeys who typed Shakespeare, with the typewriters, and proof that they actually did it, and, above all, proof that the whole thing is not a fake.
The evolutionists will at this point say "Oh, don't take us so literally! We don't mean that monkeys actually typed Shakeapeare. We only mean that the plays of Shakespeare are such worthless un-scientific rubbish that monkeys might as well have typed them."
To which I reply: It is not Shakespeare but the theory of evolution that is worthless, un-Godly, anti-human rubbish such that it might as well have been typed by monkeys.
I would like to see an evolutionist prove otherwise. Until then, I must oppose the theory of evolution.
Once again I have to agree with you. I think you nailed it on the head with:
Simply, if you believe in evolution you must therefore be an athiest. And if you want to be taken seriously in the scientific community all your presuppositions must be athiestic.
I firmly believe that it's not ID that so many people have a problem with. It's the logical conclusion that if ID is correct then there probably is a creator-God. If there's a creator-God then they probably has some specific opinions on how thing ought to run.
That so many cannot seperate the science of ID and the philosohpies of deistic religion tells me they are equally incapable of seperating the science of evolution and the philosophies of athiesm.
Because if it is it's excellent.
I don't know who you're addressing but I can only speak for myself. I'm being completely honest. The vast majority of evolutionists out there cannot seperate their atheistic philoshophies from their persuit of scientific realities.
Why is it more reasonable to assume a creator doesn't exist when answering the questions of life than to assume otherwise? Why is the latter laughable while the former is not? Aside from an idealized version of science most scientists, when attempting to answer the questions of life, allow their personal philosophies to color their research - or at least the direction of it. Based upon that philosophy alone will they allow and exlcude certian evidences. I suspect you do the same based upon your responses in various threads.
Heck, I got no problem with that! I freely admit I do the same. However, I let it be known my faith takes priority. You've yet to do that yourself as far as I've seen.
I'm a big fan of anyone who takes up an unpopular cause and champions it. After all I have spent the last several years arguing against outsourcing amongst neo-cons, Libertarians and Randists. Why? Because these are my "peeps" - my intellectual "homies". Life would be easier if I preached my position to Lefties anti-globalists, but what's the point of that?
During those years my arguments have evolved as I have learned more about the subject. While I am still anti-outsourcing, I've learned to appreciate the nuances of positions that on the surface appear antagonistic to my own. In doing so I have been able to convince the open minded that outsourcing is nothing less than the failure of management to manage - to get $1.20 of work from each $1 in salary spent (offshoring offers a 15% ROI according to Forrester statistics).
But I digress. My point is that you probably should take a break from this argument and come back to it at a later date. However in the meantime try to recognize that those of us who are "on the other side" are not closed-minded anti-religious bigots, nor is everything we write propaganda.
Ignore the extremists on both sides and focus on the middle. You'll find that the intellectual divide isn't as clear cut as you might think.