True Christians™ don’t do science

| 18 Comments

The National Review weighs in on the Kitzmiller decision, going for their usual simplistic black & white dichotomizing. David Klinghoffer thinks the choice is God or Darwin. The split is between god-hating atheistic evilutionists (apparently, Judge Jones must be in that group, but I don't know anything about his religious beliefs) and good Jesus-loving Christian creationists, with no conscionable position in between.

To support his claim, he trots out a parade of the wicked: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, Paul Mirecki, and…PZ Myers. Ooo-whee, I find myself in august company!

Continue reading "True Christians™ don't do science" (on Pharyngula)

18 Comments

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 11, column 2, byte 146 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

(sniffle) (sob) Boo hoo hoo.

ID had its day in court.

It lost.

Get used to it. (shrug)

To support his claim, he trots out a parade of the wicked: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, Paul Mirecki, and…PZ Myers. Ooo-whee, I find myself in august company!

Let me be the first to say ‘congratulations, PV!”

erm, make that PZ.

Judge Jones is a Lutheran. I don’t know what subspecies. :)

RBH

Ahhh, delicious! Having been absolutely trounced in court by an unambiguousy conservative, Christian judge who covered nearly every base, the DI now re-enforces its purely secular argument for the validity of ID as science – anyone who believes in evolution is an athiest or a bad Christian. As pot is to drugs, darwinism is now the ideology that leads inevitably to more dangerous thoughts. So putting this together, does this mean that I’m not a scientist if I don’t accept Jesus as my _personal_ lord and savior? Should I retract all my publications and step down as an associate editor unless I resign the Episcopal church and become “born again?” From the scientific perspective, this is truly amazing stuff. From the religious perspective, the shear arrogance of these clowns is, to quote a recent opinion, “breathtaking.”

I must possess a spelling distortion field – people can’t even spell “PZ”.

This is slightly off topic, but I’ve been pondering about this for some time and you guys might help me out.

The thing is that in all I’ve read about ID and creationism and all that stuff, all the people who agree with it seem to think that science is some kind of immoral, deform, corrupt atheistic monster trying to devour religion. And of course, all of them think that religion and faith are the root of everything that is good in the universe.

Given that, two questions pop into my mind:

1) If science is so evil and worthless, why is it that they insist so much on calling ID a science (or at least claiming it to be scientific)? 2) If religion is so good and wholesome, why is it that the greatest insult they can hurl at evolution is to call it a religion?

The answer for (2) seems reasonably simple: they’re projecting. They know that their religious beliefs are nothing but hogwash so equating something with a religion (even in their own minds) means equating it with fertilizer.

But the answer to (1) is a bit more obscure. Well, yes, the reason for calling ID a science is so they can try to stuff it into science classrooms, but why would they bother doing that in the first place? They claim that over 90% of the people believe their stuff. Clearly, whatever method they’ve been using to spread their beliefs (read: indoctrination in churches) has worked, so the point isn’t about having the chance to state their beliefs in public; they already do a whole lot of that. The point is to have their beliefs accepted as “science.” But why? Don’t they hate science?

Perhaps is also a matter of projection, or in this case, reverse projection. Science works. Scientists know what they’re talking about (at least most of them do).You cannot deny that. Not on the internet (that would be even more ironic (read: moronic) than insulting your brother by calling him an SOB). So by calling their beliefs “scientific” what they mean is that they are true, valid, rational, and a whole lot of other adjectives that even they would never associate with the word “religious.”

But I still feel I’m missing something. What do you guys think?

nope, you came to the same conclusion most of us have; these folks are mostly suffering from a severe projection disorder, couched in denial. It’s very common amongst proponents of creationism, and you will see it in just about every argument they ever make.

I’m firmly convinced there is a psychological disfunction that many of these folks share; what is at the root of it is a bigger question.

I often encourage IDists to seek medical treatment, seriously.

Pepeloco - I think a quick glance at the Wedge document is enough to answer 1. It’s not that they are trying to project science, they are trying - ultimately - to replace science - or certainly the bits of science that don’t match their holy book. And the first step is getting their religous ID nonsense taught alongside the legitimate science, followed by a phasing out of the real science leaving religous ID creationism nonsense standing alone.

Klinghoffer: “Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.…One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.”

Someone tell Klinghoffer to read the last sentence of Origin of Species, 2nd to 6th and final editions:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter 14, last sentence)

There are other references to a divine Creator, see this article by an evolutionary creationist. Darwin was not an atheist.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3Darwin.htm

Phil P

Have none of them read any Douglas Adams? There’s this little bit from HitchHiker that I know off by heart:

“I refuse to prove that I exist” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.” “But,” says Man “The Babelfish/flagellum/any other irreducibly complex thingy is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don’t.” “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that.” And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

ID truly is a much greater threat to God than is evolution.

I agree with Tim Hague that the confusion of science with religion is more tactical than psychological. Especially in the legal arena, the two have vastly different standings, so any trick that might blur the distinction can only be advantageous to creationists.

When the ultimate goal remains consistent, the arguments don’t need to.

“I’m firmly convinced there is a psychological disfunction that many of these folks share; what is at the root of it is a bigger question.”

Actually, it is YOU and your ATHEIST and WRONG CHRISTIAN felloe travelers who are dysfunctional!!!! How can you DENY the UNALTERABLE and UNDENIABLE TRUTH of the HOLY BIBLE. The TRUTH is staring you straight in the face an yet you DENY the LORD!!! You are DAMNED to HELL and ETERNAL TORMENT!!!! I WILL PRAY FOR YOU YOU DAMNED HEATHAN!!!!

.….More seriously, has anyone ever considered that part of the allure of being a fundie is that you are able to rant like a frothing lunatic and gain in status with your peers? (Not to mention never having to worry about spellin?)

It pains me no end that I actually used to think like that. Fortunately, I got better.

It has become painfully apparent to me that science is all wrong about our origins. The universe IS expanding, but that doesnt mean that just all the stuff IN the universe is getting farther and farther apart. It means the vacuum itself in which all the stuff in the universe sits is expanding. the “fabric” of space itself stretches. And as that “fabric” stretches, the gaps between the “fibers” in the “fabric” get wider. It is through these “gaps” between the “fibers” in the “fabric” of space itself that the “designers” “create” “life”. And who are these “designers”? John Lennon explains all on the Beatles White Album. ;)

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!

shenda:

I’m afraid you misspelled “ATHIEST”.

…and yes, I’m joking.

Oh wow! I was going to do an OT post but this seems OT actually. :)

http://creationsafaris.com/crev2005[…]tm#20051217a

This is funny stuff from Creation Safaris:

Evolutionary OOL is a faith ministry, funded by charitable contributions from the federal government. It survives purely on hope — hope that somehow, somewhere, scientists may find the holy grail of a purely naturalistic origin of life. Evolutionists often chide creationists for believing in a “God of the gaps” — attributing to divine action what science has not yet explained. Yet here we see a naturalism of the gaps, as philosopher of science J. P. Moreland (Biola) quips. Putting God in a gap such as the origin of life by attributing it to design, he says, is justifiable when the gaps have been getting wider for a long time. The design inference is not a mere God-of-the-gaps retreat, he also argues, because there is positive evidence for design, not just lack of evidence for a natural explanation. Evolutionists lack both of these qualifiers for dealing with gaps. They cannot coax intractable molecules to fill in a gap that molecules do not naturally wish to fill, and there is no evidence nor requirement that chance and natural law could, would or should fill it.

Yeah, “naturalism of the gaps”! That’s awesome. Yeah, Creation Safaris, that’s exactly what it is. Science tries to fill in gaps in knowlege, not just retreat, as you like to say, to GODDIDIT. If you can demostrate how “Nature” (God?) did it, physically, then isn’t this far superior to shrugging and saying “the lord works in mysterious ways.”

Oh, and by the way, what the hell do you know about what molecules “want” to do?

But throughout the 24 lectures, Hazen was frank and honest about the difficulties, which as yet have no solution. The glue that holds all the bad news together is hope that a naturalistic explanation for OOL can be found. Never did he consider that other scientific explanations, like intelligent design, might have a better explanation, nor did he explain why scientists should be permitted to contradict the evidence of chemistry and physics indefinitely, just to maintain a philosophical preference for naturalism.

Dude, here it is loud and clear SCIENCE IS NATURALISM. You can’t do science without it, and you can’t do supernatural science. It’s that plain and freaking simple!

Oh, and I notice they bring up “evidence of chemistry and physics.” What evidence? I’ve have seen not one shred of “evidence” for what you are claiming.

Hazen admitted openly that no plausible natural environment produces the phosphates, the ribose sugars, the bases, or can assemble them into nucleotides, even if the building blocks formed somehow. Nor could the nucleotides plausibly link themselves into an RNA strand.

Well, Hazen is wrong. Look up montmorillonite. ( http://www.origins.rpi.edu/chem_pubs.html )

Amino acids (a requirement for PNA), similarly, do not naturally link together — they dissolve in water.

This shows they don’t know the definition of the word “dissolve.”

The metabolism-first scenario (which Hazen and Morowitz favor), must face the eventuality of needing a genetic, information-carrying molecule. Without it, there is no hope of a Darwinian mechanism to preserve any gains.

Wait, what was that? Darwinian mechanisms perserve gains? It sounds like they think so. Oh my god, they’ve become Darwinists.

Is there anything that will force evolutionary OOL researchers out of the naturalistic pool?

Translation: is there anyway to get scientists to stop doing science and just become priests and good servants of Jesus Christ?

Pathetic people, really pathetic.

But throughout the 24 lectures, Hazen was frank and honest about the difficulties, which as yet have no solution. The glue that holds all the bad news together is hope that a naturalistic explanation for OOL can be found. Never did he consider that other scientific explanations, like intelligent design, might have a better explanation, nor did he explain why scientists should be permitted to contradict the evidence of chemistry and physics indefinitely, just to maintain a philosophical preference for naturalism.

Um, yes he did consider ID’s, uh, “scientific explanation”.

It just so happens that this past Monday, on my weekly visit to the library, I picked up a copy of “Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin” by Robert M Hazen.

Beginning on page 79 (after a short discussion of creation “scientists” and how they were wrong about the “lack of transitional fossils”, using the example of whales), we find:

Today’s creationists have toted out a new version of this old “God-in-the-Gaps” argument under the fancy name “intelligent design”. Their argument goes like this. Life is so incredibly complex and intricate that it must have been engineered by a higher being. No random natural processes could possibly lead from nonlife to even the simplest cell, much less humans. The promoters, notably Michael Behe and William Dembski, don’t talk about “God”, but they leave open the question of who designed the designers.

Such an argument is fatally flawed. For one thing, intelligent design ignores the power of emergence to transform natural systems without conscious intervention. We observe emergent complexity arising all around us, all the time. True, we don’t yet know all the details of life’s genesis story, but why resort to an unknowable alien intelligence when natural laws appear to be sufficient?

I also see a deeper problem with intelligent design, which I believe trivializes God. Why do we have to invoke God ever time we don’t have a complete scientific explanation? I am unpresuaded by a God who must be called upon to fill in the gaps of our ignorance – between a cow and a whale, for example. The problems with this view is that as we learn more, the gaps narrow. As paleontolgists continue to unearth new intermediate transitional forms, God’s role is squeezed down to ever more trivial variations and inconsequential modifications.

Isn’t it more satisfying to believe in a God who created the whole shebang from the outset – a God of natural laws who stepped back and doesn’t meddle in our affairs? In the beginning God set the entire magnificent fabric of the universe into motion. Atoms and stars and cells and consciousness emerged inexorably, as did the intellect to discover laws of nature through a natural process of self-awareness and discovery. In such a universe, scientific study provides a glimpse of creator as well as creation.

So, it seems as if Hazen did indeed consider ID’s, uh, “scientific explanation” — and, just like every OTHER origin-of-life researcher, he thinks it’s a big wet steaming stinking pile of cow cakes.

Oh, and it seems as if Hazen has also considered ID’s religious ramblings too —– and considers them just as full of cow cakes as ID’s, uh, “science”. And by golly, for someone with a “philosophical preference for naturalism”, he sure does mention this “God” thing an awful lot. I wonder why that would be . … . … .

IDers are liars. Every one of them. On every topic. At every opportunity. (shrug)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on December 21, 2005 7:02 PM.

Here’s How To Break The Law? was the previous entry in this blog.

Every cloud has a silver lining 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