Spiked on liberal creationism

| 77 Comments

There's an essay here from Spiked that makes some good points on the philosophical and intellectual causes of the Intelligent Design problem. (And it quotes me, so therefore it's very good!) It's a little long, but the thesis is that

It is suspicion of all groups who claim authority rather than excessive respect for religion that drives hostility to science....[T]he theme of anti-intellectualism on the American right has drawn vigour from the critique of expertise developed since the 1960s by their opponents in the culture wars. It was radicals who pioneered the idea that children should educate the teachers, that doctors were no more expert than their patients, and that claims to expertise generally were little more than an excuse to assert power by marginalising the voice of the victim. In this picture scientists are not disinterested investigators of the truth so much as spin doctors for their paymasters in business or government. It is the coming together of these two strands from left and right that represents the real danger for science.

I think that goes a little far. I would certainly agree that there is just as much quackery and hoodooism on the left as on the right--I live in Northern California, so I should know--and I agree that the tendency to ignore what a person says on the grounds that "he's funded by so-and-so" is an illogical and childish attitude that is all too common. But the problem isn't just hostility to people who claim authority. Such hostility can actually be pretty helpful; I understand the motto of the Royal Society is "On the Words of No One," which is a pretty anti-authoritarian sentiment. Rather, the problem (other than simple ignorance) is hostility to reason and objective science. That hostility takes the form of both traditional fundamentalism (by which reason and science subvert the unquestioning faith demanded of us by God and society) and newfangled Pomo tergiversation (by which science is exploitative, inherently racist, and part of an intellectual scheme to oppress the proletariat and deprive them of their health insurance coverage).

Thanks to reader Kelvin Kean for the pointer.

77 Comments

“Question authority” was once a popular liberal sentiment … one that I think we could certainly use more of today … rather than the unquestioning worship and obedience of supposed authoritative sources – e.g. government, media, religion, etc.

Oh, yeah? And why should we question authority? Just on your say-so?

:-)

In the hope of maintaining balance and truth I want to ask those who are interested in what Timothy calls ‘tradition fundamentalism’ to read what R. J. Rushdoony actually teaches.

http://www.forerunner.com/revolution/rush.html

Even so, he is not well known among Christian fundamentals and therefore we can hardly call his work traditional.

When we deliberately misrepresent a large segment of society and what they stand for, it always brings our motives into question.

I’m not sure what The Messenger is referring to about misrepresentations of fundamentalism. Unless you can find some other way of parsing fundamentalist statements, they pretty much speak for themselves. Never mind Rushdoony, virtually any of Falwell’s infamous statements about gays, liberals, et al are enough to set the record straight on fundamentalist Christianity.

There’s no questioning of motives here. Fundamentalism, whether Islamic or Christian, finds modernity in all its various forms (science, literature, freedom of choice, free speech, free association, democratic principles, equality, etc.) as a threat to its singular vision of the world.

Unlike evangelicals, fundamentalists rarely equivocate in their presentation of self. One rarely comes away from an encounter with a fundamentalist wondering where they stand on any given issue. Their forthrightness and honesty is unmatched and that’s why they’re so alarming. Misrepresenting fundamentalism is a rather difficult thing to do.

I think Tim has a valid point here. I have been thinking along similar lines for some time-basically that PoMo arguments and ID/Creationist arguments are very similar in some fundamental respects. During a recent argument with a conservative colleague about ID, it turned out that he kept (quite ironically I thought) repeating some standard PoMo arguments about testability being passe and trying to justify this by reference to Lakatos and Laudan (a clear misunderstanding or miscitation of the two philosophers of Science).

But if you read Phillipp Johnson you get very much the same argument: that Darwinism is metaphysics imposed on the evidence and there really isn’t any clear empirical basis to argue for evolution. Interestingly, there has been almost no testing of ID propositions and it is not even clear what the major propositions are.

But the argument is the same: 1) Testability, falsifiability, objectivity are really not practiced or practicable; 2) One’s point of view is paradigm dependent; 3) Darwinism is a metaphysical paradigm; 4) The scientific establishment is oppressing those with different points of view; 5) the critics of science cannot really be expected to follow normal scientific rules, because normal scientific rules are discriminatory.

I keep seeing these arguments made. But now it seems that ID proponents are borrowing another page from the PoMo Book: accuse Darwinists of being associated with Social Darwinism. The irony here is immense given the Discovery Institute’s support for laissez faire policies of the sort Social Darwinists supported-or are rumored to have supported anyway.

A good, short summary of some of the problems associated with a lot of what passes for theories of culture is provided by Marvin Harris in Theories of Culture in Post-Modern Times. IT’s a good, quick read, and Harris was always entertaining even if he tended to overstate things a bit.

Anyway, that’s enough ranting for now.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 60, byte 60 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Whether Rushdoony is widely know among Fundamentalists or not, Christian Reconstruction (or Dominion theology) constitutes a significant subset of the Christian Right. That they aim to replace American democracy with some sort of Bible-based, theocratic rule seems fairly evident in view of their writings (primarily Rushdoony’s, along with others like Gary North and the Rutherford Institute’s John Whitehead). With respect to ID, Howard Ahmanson is a principal backer of the DI, and I believe Philip Johnson dedicated one of his books to Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson is a former board member of Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation, the foremost Christian Reconstruction organization in the U.S.

Connecting the dots here isn’t exactly rocket science.

Whether Rushdoony is widely known among Fundamentalists or not, Christian Reconstruction (or Dominion theology) constitutes a significant subset of the Christian Right. That they aim to replace American democracy with some sort of Bible-based, theocratic rule seems fairly evident in view of their writings (primarily Rushdoony’s, along with others like Gary North and the Rutherford Institute’s John Whitehead). With respect to ID, Howard Ahmanson is a principal backer of the DI, and I believe Philip Johnson dedicated one of his books to Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson is a former board member of Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation, the foremost Christian Reconstruction organization in the U.S.

Connecting the dots here isn’t exactly rocket science.

You know, when I was much younger, the science establishment was telling me that civilization as we knew it would collapse with this many people on the planet. The so-called population explosion.

Oops.

When I was younger, the science establishment was telling me that the ozone layer was disappearing and land animals would all go extinct as they fried in fatal levels of ultraviolet radiation.

Oops.

And now science is wondering why people don’t trust the science establishment.

Duh.

Just the facts, please, science. Thanks in advance.

My rant:

I don’t think the problem is with authority per se but with the increasing lack of accessibility to scientific knowledge. The problem is in the way contemporary science makes its findings available to the general public. For non-experts, which constitutes the vast majority of people, the technical language that scientists use to speak about their findings is too often beyond the reach of the average or above average Joe.

Specialization is the name of the game these days, and it is very difficult to find someone gifted enough to disentangle the morass of technical jargon that feeds this proprietary use of language and provide a meaningful synthesis. We no longer have the public intellectuals of the past, and those who do act as legitimate mediators between science and the public more often than not speak to a subset of specialists in other fields. We’ve created a sort of incestuous environment as a result.

I’m not advocating a dumbing down of science for the sake of popular consumption. It simply wouldn’t work. But this leaves us with a paradox of sorts. As science advances, the need for specialization increases in order to keep up with the latest developments, which results in less (meaningful) accessibility to scientific knowledge, which in turn increases the role of authority as a way of either acknowledging or refuting the science itself. The general public is ill-equipped to deal with the raw findings of science on their own and scientists are not rewarded for publications that target popular audiences. So, we are ultimately left with a intellectual void for which charlatans are more than willing to fill.

With that, I’m heading off to bed. Sweet dreams.

Buridan

What do you think of Ward Churchill?

The far left is as disruptive as the far right. Most people are centrists. Unfortunately (but deservedly) the science establishment employed in academia has been associated with the Churchill types. When people see him they don’t think he’s unusual for an academic. They think he’s honest for an academic.

Rather than run around whining about the “Christian fundamentalists” if I were you I’d be worrying about my own image in the public’s eye. I’m here to tell you it is in far worse shape than Jerry Falwell’s flock.

Buridan Wrote:

For non-experts, which constitutes the vast majority of people, the technical language that scientists use to speak about their findings is too often beyond the reach of the average or above average Joe.

When are you lefties going to figure out that you don’t have a monopoly on smart?

DaveScot Wrote:

Unfortunately (but deservedly) the science establishment employed in academia has been associated with the Churchill types.

Dave, you really ought to get your head out of the clouds. All the scientists I’ve ever worked with tended to deride people like Churchill.

in Comment # 18845 the following is said

DaveScot Wrote:

I was much younger, the science establishment was telling me that civilization as we knew it would collapse with this many people on the planet

DaveScot Wrote:

he science establishment was telling me that the ozone layer was disappearing and land animals would all go extinct as they fried in fatal levels of ultraviolet radiation.

Hmmm Dave care to site any references where the scientists, when you where younger, said that? I’m not talking about 1 scientist but rather show me where the consensus view was.

Me thinks you are just blowing hot air. Don’t worry we are all used to you doing that.

I’m breaking my own rule by feeding the troll but what the hell.

Dave, please reread my post again but this time without your knee-jerk expectations. If anything, I’m more critical of the scientific community in this respect than with average Joes like yourself. There’s no need for you to be defensive. It’s a structural problem within the academy that feeds into the public and then back into the academy. But then this is really a domestic dispute among academics, so I don’t expect you to understand.

Now do you mind if I get back to sleep! :)

Good point… PoMo crap is really as dangerous as the fundamentalist one. I think, that highlighting similarities between various strains of deprecation of human reasoning faculties is a good way to de-camouflage their real, abominable nature…

The Royal Academy’s motto, ‘nullius in verba’ is perhaps slightly less radical than ‘on the words of no one’ suggests. I can only find a dead link for the phrase on the Royal Society website; but it must come from Horace, epistles 1, 1, 14 ‘nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri’. Loosely paraphrased: (if you ask what philosophical school I belong to) I am not bound (like a slave) to swear to the words of any teacher / master’.

I predict that as this anti science rant continues, someone (quite possibly DS) will say ‘and scientists in the 70s were worried about global cooling.’

As has already been pointed out, hard core fundies do not usually postmodern memes for their arguments, but there are two important parallels as far as I can tell: - the selling of anti-darwinism and other far right ideas to the moderately conservative public relies heavily on framing science, academia and moderate/left parts of media and politics as a self-serving elite. - both pomo and formalized fundamentalism are reactions to modernism (modern sociology and modern theology respectively), so they are both anti-logic and anti-evidence at heart.

The far left is as disruptive as the far right. Most people are centrists. Unfortunately (but deservedly) the science establishment employed in academia has been associated with the Churchill types.

Ironically, Ward Churcill types are much more likely to be anti-science and anti-technology luddites, GMO-obsessed activists and anti-darwinian bio-mystics of various stripes (like Mae Wan Ho, a DI 300 list signatory) than mainstream scientists.

I don’t know about the population figures, although I suspect this has a lot to do with the fact that technology has so far kept up with population growth and will continue doing so till oil runs out. However, I do know that the ozone hole is shrinking exactly because past alarmism about ozone depletion has led to decreasing use of CFCs.

The roots of fundamentalist anti-intellectualism don’t have much to do with postmodernism. Evidentially, in Europe there is hardly any fundamentalist anti-intellectualism, even in France and Germany, the cradles of post-modernism. On the contrary, French and German cultures are very technocratic. In Germany there is some Christian fundamentalism, mostly in Bavaria, but it’s Catholic rather than Protestant, which means that among other things it accepts evolution. In France people trust the government’s nutritionists to tell their children what to eat.

However, most of the third world, especially its Muslim parts, displays all the characteristics of American Protestant fundamentalism, complete with hatred of everything that smacks of Western imperialism, although post-modernism has never reached it. The reason this happens in the USA and Islam but not in Europe can’t be drafting post-modernism to serve religious conservatism. A likelier reason is strong public support for religion coupled with conservatives being unable to keep up with rapid social change and feeling threatened by liberal values.

Another possible reason is that American culture is historically anti-intellectual due to the frontier societies, whereas Europe is not; the Islamic intellectual tradition is different from the Western one in that in its medieval heyday it was never in conflict with religion, but rather viewed itself as part of Islamic knowledge.

I read a very good point yesterday on the talk.origins usenet group yesterday that sums up my opinion on science/scientists v. the other blustering groups out there.

I tend to believe the scientists, not because I believe that they are always correct…because they surely are not. I tend to believe the scientists because the non-scientists are always proven incorrect on every point that can be put to a test.

I agree with Buridan when he wrote “ … the technical language that scientists use to speak about their findings is too often beyond the reach of the average or above average Joe.” I have long argued that Science should heed German mathematician David Hilbert’s maxim (which he credited to an unnamed French mathematician) that “A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street,” but changing “mathematical” to “scientific.”

All too often the lessons of science are couched in esoteric language with which the average person, even many college graduates, is simply not conversant. Science needs popularizers, not to pitch it like a product with a political slant (the path the ID promoters have chosen) but to explain it clearly and carefully with one dollar words in ten word sentences. Scientists too often talk to each other and not to the public. I think science, more so than almost any other academic field, has a teaching obligation that extends beyond the lecture hall and lab student to John and Jane Public. Most of all, science needs to take the mystery out of science, especially in those areas of the discipline that should inform public policy. Too often when such efforts are made, they degenerate into farce like the Peter Jennings’ program on UFOs on ABC last week that had nothing to do with science, but was probably perceived by most viewers as science. I know hokum like that sells, which is why ABC produced it, but when we have an administration (or school boards or state legislatures) making decisions that ignore the facts or are rationalized on bogus science, this nation (and the world) has a real problem. The scientific community has to be out in front, demanding visibility in the press and on terms the public can understand.

re Ozone http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050[…]0228-12.html

Certain scientists have a habit of sensationalizing things. The latest debacle is global warming. Keep in mind the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Speaking of Germany, did you know that unemployment there just hit a 30-year record high? France, and indeed Europe, has a horrible growing problem with Muslum fundamentalists. I always get a chuckle out of people holding up progressive secular Europe as a positive example.

I also get a chuckle out of people saying American culture is anti-intellectual. Who landed a man on the moon? Who put up the global positioning system? What nationality is Bill Gates? Where did Intel start? Cisco? The internet? The Hubble space telescope? I could go on and on.

I would also point out that the countries in the world today that enjoy the highest standards of living are those where the Protestant Reformation took hold. Far from being the boogeyman atheists think of Christianity, and if they’re not blind and acknowledge the success say it is in spite of Christian culture not a result, they’re wrong. The Protestant Work Ethic is what led to all this success.

Protestants didn’t invent capitalism but they did make a religion out of it.

Write that down.

To DaveScot,

You seem to be confusing science with technology. The European Middle Ages had a great deal of technology, too… but centuries of being steeped in superstition didn’t exactly move the ball of science very far forward.

Tomorrow, I’m getting on a plane bound for Japan. My personal experience is that the standard of living there is at least as high as anything I’ve experienced living in the U.S., and in some ways, it seems even higher (life expectancy in Japan is significantly higher than it is in the U.S., for example). So far as I’m aware, the Protestant Reformation has yet to “take hold” in that country.

Oh, yeah? And why should we question authority? Just on your say-so?

Nah. I’m no authority. ;-)

Whether Rushdoony is widely know among Fundamentalists or not, Christian Reconstruction (or Dominion theology) constitutes a significant subset of the Christian Right. That they aim to replace American democracy with some sort of Bible-based, theocratic rule seems fairly evident in view of their writings …

I don’t know if it was Rushdoony’s group or not, but about 15 years ago (when I was a fundamentalist), I sent for some information on the Founding Fathers. What I got back alarmed me … even as a fundy. There was no hiding what the group believed or wanted to accomplish. America was founded as a theocracy and the goal of any True Christian ™ was to get America back to that state.

Fundamentalist Christians naturally think they are better than others - having God’s spirit in them - abiding in Christ - having “God’s Word” - etc. So, they can’t help but believe that America (and the world) would be better if they were in control of government. How could they go wrong or support bad, regressive ideas when God is on their side? Sound familiar? It should. We’re (supposedly) fighting a worldwide war against people who think in a similar way.

Keanus

Evolution isn’t couched in language that’s not understandable until you try to portray mutation/selection as the mechanism that accounts for all diversity. It’s easy for anyone to understand that mutation/selection has never been observed to do anything other than modify extant forms without changing the forms… big dogs and little dogs are still dogs. Mutated drosophila are still flies. Antibiotic-resistent bacteria are still bacteria. Dark moths and light moths are still moths. Finches with big beaks and finches with little beaks are still finches.

What’s so hard to understand about that?

It isn’t hard to understand that DNA doesn’t fossilize so any genetic relationships between extant species is between extant species. Ancient DNA cannot be observed as it’s long destroyed. All extant species are related in some fundamental way but as it has been pointed out many times this could be a common designer as well as a common ancestor so it really proves nothing.

The bottom line is that mutation/selection as the driving force behind all of evolution is gigantic extrapolation of contemporary observations.

Tell the man on the street it’s an extrapolation and he has no problem understanding THAT. And that’s the problem. It’s easy to understand that mutation/selection is a hypothesis with big problems like failing to account for the Cambrian explosion and failing to explain irreducible complexity. Both of those were problems Darwin said could devastate his theory. In an honest world absent atheist agendas it would have devastated his theory. The man on the street understands that.

DaveScot Wrote:

I also get a chuckle out of people saying American culture is anti-intellectual. Who landed a man on the moon? Who put up the global positioning system? What nationality is Bill Gates? Where did Intel start? Cisco? The internet? The Hubble space telescope? I could go on and on.

Not Bill Dembski, or Michael Behe, or the Discovery Institute. These things were done, rather, by men and women who didn’t let their faith destroy their intellects.

Levy has an excellent point - there is obviously a strong strain of anti-intellectualism in American history, and in America today. Is that inconsistant with our tradition of innovation and discovery? Not at all. One benefit of a pluralist society is that these trends can co-exist, much to the dismay of creationists and other anti-intellectuals.

Posted by DaveScot on March 2, 2005 11:08 PM You know, when I was much younger, the science establishment was telling me that civilization as we knew it would collapse with this many people on the planet. The so-called population explosion. Oops. When I was younger, the science establishment was telling me that the ozone layer was disappearing and land animals would all go extinct as they fried in fatal levels of ultraviolet radiation. Oops. And now science is wondering why people don’t trust the science establishment. Duh.

Science is an imperfect human endeavor, as is anything involving human beings. That it might make some mistakes along the way is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that a thinking person would toss out the baby with the bath water. Sounds like your view of science is too idealized. Get back to reality, man.

What you should be wondering about is how supposedly divine institutions and people who have God on their side and His Word in their Heart can commit horrific acts, promote the oppression/subjugation of other human beings and make so many failed predictions (of Christ’s return) down through the ages.

A very great many folks who tout moral objectivity are actually pragmatists. Arguments in favor of the intrinsic rationality of moral positions are mighty scarce in right-wing publications, but one finds many comments to the effect that belief in absolute morality is necessary or desirable for the maintenance of social peace.

The Fundamentalists and their allies are aware that they are retailing their own version of relativism. Which is why they mostly maintain the irrationalist position that acts are good because it is God’s will—they seem to think that the only thing that keeps us from murdering each other is divine sanction, not only because absent divine sanction we wouldn’t know any better or be able to restrain ourselves, but because murder wouldn’t be wrong in the first place.

The difference between a (strawman) Postmodernist and a (strawman) Fundie on this issue is that the former thinks that man is the measure of all things while the later thinks that God is the measure of all things. Of course since it’s pretty obvious that there is no legislating God, the second position turns out to be a varient of the first. The serious alternative to both of them is a philosophy that reasons about morality instead of substituting bluster for argument. You can’t make morality objective simply by insisting that it would be nice if it were.

JIm Harrison wrote

A very great many folks who tout moral objectivity are actually pragmatists. Arguments in favor of the intrinsic rationality of moral positions are mighty scarce in right-wing publications, but one finds many comments to the effect that belief in absolute morality is necessary or desirable for the maintenance of social peace.

Which is, of course, the core of the Straussian position on religious belief. Not only is religion the opiate of the masses, that’s a good thing!

RBH

Ed Darrel mentioned

Erlich is (I think he’s still around) an entomologist, a grasshopper specialist, as I recall.  Population booms and busts were his specialty. 

Erlich is indeed still around. He’s at the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford and still publishing. The main insect group that he worked with has been butterflies. One of his claims to fame has been his early work in developing metapopulation theory.

Name me one great idea in basic science created by a non-Jewish American in the 20th century. … I was thinking about other fields, though - physics, economics, computer science, linguistics, and philosophy.

Don’t be stupid. That’s what the creationists are here for.

Please don’t make me babysit you all.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 15, column 85, byte 1095 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Darn link didn’t work…

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr[…]2594,00.html

if that don’t do it try this

http://tinyurl.com/4obgk

How did Ward Churchill get into this discussion? How is it relevant?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 834, byte 918 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Top 10 ways you can tell you are not talking about science.…

10) The other guy starts by saying how ignorant you are as opposed to where your argument is wrong in his view.

9) Your ideas are all invalid in some massively agreed upon manner than s/he can’t quite remember or put their finger on.

8) Your opponent is comfortable with a theory that changes often when faced with new tests or measurements.

7) The theory claims to tell you WHY but is incapable of telling a detailed account of WHAT or HOW.

6) The theory is totally dependant on another unproven theory that they refuse to talk about. For example if you accept there is a omnipresent God and the bible is his literal word then 7 day creation is very logical. Likewise if you disbelieve evolutionary biogenesis then evolutionary biodiversity becomes untenuable.

5) Your opponent talks about Phd. degrees or even worse starts to name which school the Phd came from. If you have it you have it. If you don’t have it you will talk about where you went to school and who hired you etc etc etc.

4) Your opponent makes claims based on large numbers without any details on the mechanics of HOW. For example, there are an infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1 but none of them are greater than 2. Yet most people would believe that if I picked an infinite number of numbers without ever picking the same one twice that one of those numbers would be above 2.

3) Your opponent believes that the absence of a valid argument AGAINST their theory is the same as evidence FOR their theory. To prove a theory TRUE you provide support for that theory, if that theory claims it is the only possible explaination then you have to prove all other explainations impossible not just claim yours is more likely. If person A knows the truth and lies to person B who doesn’t know the truth who is then instructed to lie to person C who also doesn’t know the truth but knows person B is lying. Person C is instructed to lie, does he then tell the truth or a lie? Yet person C may even be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that person B is lying…does that make what he says the truth?

2) Your opponents Theory does not use numbers. Numbers are inheriently scientific as you claim 1 reject 9 and are very specific regarding how many times you do this by stating significant figures.

1) Your opponents theory does not predict future events. If you learn only one thing here it is that science predicts things that can be proven false or it isn’t science.

I think the purpose of PT is to discuss the pros and cons of intelligent design, not to delve into debates about U.S. foreign policy. There are many places on the web to do that.

How many of you here that are tenured professors think United States foreign policy invited 9/11 and that it was a matter of the U.S. getting what it had coming to it?

Most of them, but it’s the general population that is getting it wrong, not them. When everybody hates you, it’s because of you, not because of them. It doesn’t have to be your fault - for example, it could be because you belong to a different ethnicity from everyone around - but it’s ultimately because of you. If you want, you can argue that 9/11 is a reaction against the USA’s spreading freedom in the world. That’s more or less how Pearl Harbor happened: Roosevelt declared an embargo on Japan in order to cut off its raw materials and force it to stop conquering Chinese territory, so Japan retaliated by bombing Pearl Harbor.

Whatever the outcome for Churchill, the battle lines have formed and are hardening. Here’s what many of us, I hope most, would like to see: substantive change, a revolution even, at the University of Colorado. It must start with electing regents who have a commitment to restoring real, intellectual diversity and an evenhanded exchange of ideas. That means hiring conservative professors to balance the now left-lopsided scales.

Conservative scholars are welcome to publish research in peer-reviewed journals. Instead, they flock to think tanks where evenhanded exchange is a farce and intellectual diversity is the enemy. If you have serious research that shows humans were intelligently designed or there is systematic bias against conservatives in the academia or the world is flat, it’ll pass peer review.

Don’t be stupid. That’s what the creationists are here for.

Why is that stupid? In physics the USA wasn’t even on the intellectual map till Hitler drove the German intelligentsia to it. The greatest physicists of the 20th century ar all European. In economics, the two greatest figures of the previous century were British John Maynard Keynes and Jewish Milton Friedman. In computer science, Americans created infrastructure but not the idea, which was created by British Alan Turing. In linguistics, the most important person is of course Noam Chomsky, who is Jewish.

I’ll give you one example from biology, Alan. Charlie Wagner created Nelson’s Law. Singlehandedly overturned 150 years of biology. That’s not a great idea in the sciences by a non-Jew?

Levy

The hate is inspired by envy. It’s what we’re doing right, not wrong, that is the cause.

Now you know.

“I’ll give you one example from biology, Alan. Charlie Wagner created Nelson’s Law. Singlehandedly overturned 150 years of biology. That’s not a great idea in the sciences by a non-Jew?”

No one should claim that creationists lack a sense of humor.

Well, I think this discussion has pretty much run dry. Folks wishing to blame America for September 11 may do so on the Bathroom Wall.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on March 2, 2005 7:06 PM.

What good is half an underlying language structure? was the previous entry in this blog.

The brain of Homo floresiensis is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter