Land Of The Dumb

[filkertom]

Couple Sues Operators of Evolution Site

These morons claim they're not even religious -- they just object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact.

Well, listen, fuckwits, shmucks, asshats, brain-damage cases, shitheads, when you come up with a competing theory that's been tested thousands of times over 150 years we'll listen, okay? Until then, piss the fuck off. I have no hope that you'll use your brains for more than toupee-support structures, and I merely hope you're not allowed to work with heavy machinery.

Comments

[mtgat]

My favorite bit was from an article linked at the bottom:

Biologist Roland Hirsch, a program manager in the U.S. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, goes even further, noting that Darwinism has made a series of incorrect predictions, later refashioning the paradigm to fit the results.

Ummmm ... Yes? That would in fact be exactly what scientific theories are supposed to do. One makes an observation, comes up with a theory, tests the theory, and then one adjusts the theory as necessary to incorporate the new information. It's called "the scientific method."

*head + desk = OTP*

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

They do not undersand science. They do not want to understand science. Science is hard work... or, at least, it appears to be: its difficulty is inversely proportional to how willing you are to question.

(moved to thread)

[mtgat]

And I'll accept that as an answer, that science is hard and not everyone is bright enough to understand it. But when the ones who aren't then try to change the definition of the word "science" to include "and also stuff we think should have happened but we have no proof for," it stops being simple ignorance and turns malicious. (Also ironic, as mostly, these are the same folks who take to the streets when someone suggests changing the definition of the word "marriage," for not even remotely random example.)

[kimpire.livejournal.com]

I don't find this any more or less idiotic than the guy who sued to prevent the whole swearing-on-the-bible bit of presidential inaugurations. IMO both sorts of people should shut the hell up and let the rest of us live our lives the way we want.

[andamaroo.livejournal.com]

If I recall correctly, the president doesn't have to swear on the bible at all. He can swear on Golf Digest for all he wants.

[hiddenkrypt.livejournal.com]

Damn Straight Tom.

My biggest pet peeve over this sort of stuff is taht they don't understand the concept of a proof of a theory. They argue sence we haven't been able to prove that Evolution is absolutly right, that it isn't valid.
That was how I was tought in high school. in College however, I got a different way. You don't 'Prove' Theories. a theory is accepted as fact if it withstands all attempts to disprove it. A Theory is only valid if it is falsifiable, i.e., experiments can be done to prove it isn't true.

These people keep getting so worked up over what people are telling other people. I have to agree with mtgat. when they try to change what science means, they are making they are fighting dirty.

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

The 'heavy machinery' thing should be OK as long as they're alone in a confined space.

I wonder if anyone has made a case for religious belief as a survival trait...perhaps in that it makes some people more optimistic or ethical.... That way, one could turn the standard, smug, 'father knows best' religious argument around 180 degrees and say, "Of course you believe in a god. That's evidence in support of evolution." (Tongue lodged in cheek.)

[dhstein.livejournal.com]

Common, tell us how you really feel.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Okay. Kiera Knightley would be really gorgeous if she had just maybe two steak sandwiches au jus. Eastern North Carolina pulled pork is my favorite kind of barbecue, although the ribs at Red Hot & Blue are a close second. Harry/Hermione all the way. Morrowind is the greatest computer RPG of all time. George W. Bush flunked mime school because he couldn't stay inside the invisible box. Dick Cheney and Pat Robertson are evil, David Brooks is stupid, John Tierney is useless, and George Will should stick to baseball. And I could really go for a nice, frosty mug of A&W.

[nelladarren.livejournal.com]

I could listen to you abusing people for hours...!
Honestly - this is the most creative chain of swear words I've read or heard in ages. If you were German you'd be Bavarian... :o)))

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Danke schoen. ;) Now, effreebotty DANCE (http://www.tomsmithonline.com/lyrics/illuminati_polka.htm)!

Scientific Theories (Part 1, I write too much)

[lordavon.livejournal.com]

theory --
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

Science begins with a set of facts that you cannot explain. You form hypothesis about why they exist You test the hypothesis and develop a theory. You test the theory and others test the theory. The theory explains the observed phenomena and is useful to predict future occurances of the phenomena.

This theory then becomes the paradigm (or part of the paradigm) by which scientists investigate and determine more facts about the world (see Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

(On an aside, because I would be remiss if I didn't, allow me to point out that this, while the more accepted and known methodology of determine theories about facts, is not the only such methodolgy. However, it is the better known and more elegant methodology, used more often, and so I will focus on it.)

One of the more famous examples of a "failed" theory, of course, is ether, that wonderful substance. There are science journals kept with notes on ether, on the study of ether, the properties of ether, and so forth, and we all know today that ether does not, in fact, exist.

Paradigm shifts occur when facts exist which can't be explained using current scientific theories. These facts then are examined and new hypothesis are developed. These are tested and new theories emerge. These are tested until accepted or disproved. Either a new paradigm develops or the old paradigm remains.

Theories are not facts; they are used to explain and understand facts. Theories are still open to being disproved -- if they weren't, they would be a scientific law (A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law)

Gravity used to be a theory, and over centuries we have never been able to disprove it.

Whereas, for evolution, there have been observed phenomena that can't be explained. (You will forgive me here; I am low on many of my science and philosophy books and can't find the one I want that has some marvelous examples; however, logic would state that there must still be some observed facts not explained by evolution OR there must be some instances wherein evolution failed to adequately predict an outcome, because otherwise it would be the Law of Evolution, and to my knowledge, that has not been put into effect.

Re: Scientific Theories (Part 2, I write too much)

[lordavon.livejournal.com]

Now, I'm not a biologist. I didn't like biology. I spent my time w/science in high school and then college (and yes, even in Seminary!) in physics, which I found eminently satisfying, although I'm certainly not a scientist or physicist by any stretch of the imagination. I have enough theoretical knowledge to generally keep up, but my math is woefully not up to the task of many physics textbooks.

However, I did study, fairly extensively, the philosophy of science, aka metaphysics. And speaking as a philosopher of science, I will never comprehend why discussing an alternate theory someone may not agree with is such anathema in today's scientific culture. (Although if you are interested, I suggest John Cornwell's Nature's Imagination, a collection of articles on the future of science; and Jennifer Trusted's Physics and Metaphysics, which looks over how religious belief has informed and inspired scientific inquiry over the centuries. They are opposing viewpoints and make for excellent reading and contemplation.)

Even Freeman Dyson himself states. "The progess of science requires the growth of understanding in both directions, downward from the whole to the parts and upward from the parts to the whole. A reductionist philosophy, arbitrarily proclaiming that the growth of understanding must go in only one direction, makes no scientific sense. Indeed, dogmatic philosophical beliefs of any kind have no place in science. [emphasis mine]" (from The Scientist as Rebel, by Freeman Dyson in "Nature's Imagination," ed. John Cornwell.)

Dyson is arguing against a particular school of thought, reductionism, however, he acknowldges the general principle he epouses applies to any dogmatic belief as inherently against scientific inquiry. He later states "Science flourishes best when it uses freely all the tools at hand, unconstrained by preconceived notions of what science ought to be." [Same article above.]

How can science flourish when a dogmatic belief that evolution is the only working theory for the existence of the universe stifles alternative theories, whatever they may be? How can asking the question lead to denigration and disrespect? (If I recall my Kuhn correctly, asking the questions always leads to attack and chaos because the nature of the dominant paradigm is such that it is considered self-evident and therefore questioning it is seen as folly, but that is only my recollection, and since I can't find my Kuhn, please forgive me if I have that in error.)

Now, I'm not going to proport one theory over the other. That's not the point of this discussion. My point is that my understanding of the nature of science is to ask questions about the universe, answer those questions, and then determine if the answers can be proven and used repeatedly. When we lock up the discussion of theories and turn the theory to fact, rather than acknowledging that the theory is a theory to allow it the chance to flourish in Dyson's terminology, perhaps become Law in reality as opposed to dogma in practice, we do science a disservice. We no longer practice science but instead are as guilty of "religious dogma" as any creationist.

Re: Scientific Theories (Part 1, I write too much)

[the-blue-fenix.livejournal.com]

Gravity used to be a theory, and over centuries we have never been able to disprove it.

Nope. Gravity is and always will be a theory, i.e. an explanation for a set of consistent observations. "Stuff falls down" is a fact. "Gravity" is the theory explaining this fact, or set of facts. "Theory" and "fact" are two separate categories, like books and words; there's not a continuum where a theory gets to a certain level of proof and gets promoted to fact.

You may remember that a popular and extremely useful theory of gravity, Newton's, had to be sharply modified after a couple of centuries of widespread use when it gave the wrong answer in certain unusual and extreme cases, e.g. near the speed of light. It was replaced by Einstein's theory of gravity, even though the difference between the two under 'normal' circumstances is slight.

Whereas, for evolution, there have been observed phenomena that can't be explained. (You will forgive me here; I am low on many of my science and philosophy books and can't find the one I want that has some marvelous examples;

As we say over at www.talkorigins.org -- Cite? Trying to debate "Something, somewhere, is wrong with evolution" without specifics is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

however, logic would state that there must still be some observed facts not explained by evolution OR there must be some instances wherein evolution failed to adequately predict an outcome, because otherwise it would be the Law of Evolution, and to my knowledge, that has not been put into effect.

Actually, no. It's just that labeling well-supported theories as Laws went out of fashion between Newton and Darwin. People don't talk about the Law of E=mc2 either, and yet atomic bombs explode just fine.

[lizard-sf.livejournal.com]

It's a shame that judges and juries can't hand down verdicts of "Too Stupid To Live" when tossing moronic cases like this out of court. On a more serious note, people who file such cases need to be held *personally* accountable for the tax money they waste. I used to live in California; I still have many friends who do; and there are a MANY better things to spend tax dollars on than defending educational institutions from attacks by the illiterati. So long as those filing suits suffer no personal finanacial loss, they'll keep doing it, making everyone else suffer in order to satisfy their egos and their religious dogma. Once you make it hurt, they will stop.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

A person who files a completely frivolous lawsuit shouldn't be subject to more than a fine, but a lawyer who assists should be disbarred.

[skipjim.livejournal.com]

I've always thought it came down to parenting.

Seriously. These people, IMHO, all seem to be so afraid that they won't be able to instill their beliefs in their children by themselves they feel the state must help them, and oh by the way can you teach them exactly whichever flavor of Christanity *I* believe in while you're at it.

I don't know if it's because they think they're bad parents or if they're afraid that their kids might grow up and realize that maybe Mom, Dad, and Reverend Phelps aren't the most knowledgable people in the world.

[ericcoleman]

You do realize that hell is going to have one hell of a song circle going ... cause according to gerbils like these ... we're all gonna be there

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

We're not even getting into the Eternal Torture Chamber here. Although I think I might start another thread with it....

I hate the mainstream media.

[solarbird]

TWO SECONDS of research via a Google search on their names - TWO SECONDS! - and you find out that 1) they're Creationists, and 2) They're co-founders of a non-profit founded for the purpose of fighting the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools called "Quality Science Education for All."

The AP couldn't be bothered to fact-check this article long enough to GOOGLE THE NAMES OF THE PLAINTIFFS.

God, the fourth estate is in such a shambles. It's just pathetic.

Re: I hate the mainstream media.

[wouldyoueva.livejournal.com]

I started out as a journalism major at Penn State in the mid-70s. In our first journalism class the prof went around and asked what people what they generally read.

I was the only one who read more than the student paper, and who read for recreation.

Granted, most of the college students at the time were like this but these were our future journalists. They went on to work for newspapers (one works for the Washington Post and wrote a book about Laura Bush, another is Alan Greenspan's press secretary), and I've never gotten any evidence they've gotten any smarter or want to do more than scratch the surface.

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

solarbird, thank you--speaking as another person who gets frustrated with a mainstream press *afraid* to follow up the chain of crumbs to the ultimate political sources.
Also, great thread here, tom, thank you indeed--I kept laughing through this entire thread. "...in prettier clothes"! "...wearing lab coats so they won't be snubbed at parties"! hee!

[arcane-k.livejournal.com]

My theory is that my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend.

In the meantime, all I have to do to remind myself of the validity of the theory of evolution is watch Sunday afternoon football. Even better, watch a game of rugby.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Pinheads and putzim. May they live as their ancestors did on the savannahs -- short, nasty, brutal, and pain-filled lives.

In related news, Scott Adams is being a dick again.

[kiarrh.livejournal.com]

These are probably people who condone acts like this (http://www.livejournal.com/users/uncleboris/438002.html).

Bastards.