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.

[kimpire.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. The point is that there are people who want to say he shouldn't be allowed to use the Bible, or mention God in his inauguration speech, etc. etc. because it's a government sponsoring religion. That's just as idiotic as these people suing against evolution.

[andamaroo.livejournal.com]

Oh, I see.

I think if you want a relgion free presidency, you should elect a religion free president.

[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.

[hiddenkrypt.livejournal.com]

Technically, that would be government support of athiesim or agnosticism.

Not that I care, but people would still complain.

[hiddenkrypt.livejournal.com]

Perhaps a better example would be swearing on the bible in court?

[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.

They DO Complain, Constantly

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

No, actually -- that would be the president's personal choice, something which the fundies and evangelicals simply do not understand, which is pretty screwed up considering how important they think the Doctrine of Free Will is under precisely they circumstances they decide it is.

I care nothing whatsoever for the religious beliefs of any elected official (and remembering that, given how frequently he goes to church, Bush is nearly as religious as I am). I care about them enforcing our laws and defending our Constitution. I care about them extending preferences to a particular religious group.

Thing about "government support of athiesim or agnosticism", i.e., showing no preference one way or the other, is twofold: [1] it's a classic example of protecting people from the "tyranny of the majority"; [2] it demonstrates, without saying as much and in fact without even thinking about it too hard, that you really don't need religious permeation to have a society. The mechanics of the legal system we have operate if you worship Jesus, Ba'al, Zoroaster, Great Cthulhu, Bugs Bunny, or the Sci-Fi Channel... or nothing at all.

[andamaroo.livejournal.com]

You can opt to affirm instead of swearing on a bible.

It's the secular version.

[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]

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.

Re: (moved to thread)

[zenturbo.livejournal.com]

I love your Icon...mind if I snag it, as I am a chemist?

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: (moved to thread)

[mtgat]

Go for it. :)

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

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

If you'll allow, I do believe you are missing, or at least glossing over, a very specific point: The problem is not in the discussion of alternatives, but in the discussion of alternatives with no clear scientific basis in the context of science.

I have said that if God bellowed "I AM" at the top of His lungs, and we couldn't find any other credible explanation, we'd all believe in God. The difference there is what the evangelicals decry: proof. Evidence. Go back and reread about the Babelfish.

The reason biologists and science teachers get up in arms about this stuff is that, basically, there is nothing to intelligent design, and there is no real alternative to evolution. Science certainly does look at theories, all the damn time. That's the peer-review system. You speculate, you research, you gather evidence, you draw conclusions, you submit the results for publication, the results are reviewed. Science is duplicatable. It's a cookbook -- sometimes a frickin' dense one, but a cookbook nonetheless. If you can't duplicate the results, something went awry, and you have to find out what.

ID, however, has no such process. Basically, it says, these parts of the puzzle haven't been solved (conveniently forgetting the word yet), therefore the entire puzzle is wrong. At core, it is put forth by superstitious people. They worship an invisible sky being and believe that science's attempts to figure out the processes (and, ultimately, the origins) of life threatens their faith, because science is supremely good at disproving things -- like, say, supernatural stuff, such as God. Therefore, rather than be threatened by it, they want to get rid of it. They want their point of view, which spackles in any gaps in the chain of knowledge to date with "A MIRACLE OCCURS", to be given equal weight with peer-reviewed scientific research, solely on the basis of their believing it to be true. No proof. No possibility of proof, as far as I'm concerned, although, again, I allow that I could be wrong, which is more than they'll do.

They are fearful people worshipping a small and weak god who needs to be constantly protected from the slightest question.

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

I work three cubicles away from a woman who looks like Kiera Knightley after she's eaten two steak sandwiches au jus. Neener.

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

[mtgat]

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.

It's not. Alternate theories are proposed and discussed all the time. When I was in graduate school, the head of the department was an astrochemist who swore his data suggested the center of the sun was actually made of lead, which is radically different than the current accepted solar model (that while the reactions in the sun can generate may elements, it is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium). I don't know if he's right and I don't know if the accepted current model is right. I do know that the current model was based on the best evidence and observations possible, and that until my old professor can generate more data to overturn that evidence, I'm going to continue to buy into the "hydrogen/helium" paradigm, and that's what I expect my children to be taught in school.

Evolution is being challenged every day, by real data and real observations. It's a theory, and it's evolving as new information comes to light in the fossil record and elsewhere. That's what theories are supposed to do.

Intelligent design, by the definitions you posted, is not a scientific theory. It cannot be measured. It cannot be tested. It cannot be observed in any kind of fashion, controlled or otherwise. It is a guess, and rather than coming from observation into theory, it starts with an assumption, slaps an unprovable hypothesis together, and works backwards to dig up observations while ignoring or handwaving away anything that doesn't fit. That's not science; that's superstition dressed in a lab coat so it won't be snubbed at parties.

Real scientific debate takes place daily. Sometimes it's based on ideology and ego, sure, but it comes to the table with facts and measurable results. Saying "I think it could be this," is very nice, but until someone in the ID camp can show actual numbers, it's no more credible than the Flying Spagetti Monster. I'm in fact willing to give credence to the FSM Theory of Creation, if someone brings adequate, verifiable evidence. But I refuse to tell schoolchildren or anyone else that FSM theory is equivalently scientific to evolutionary theory just because someone thinks it is. That's bad science.

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

[pyrephox.livejournal.com]

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?

Because this is NOT what is happening in the attack against evolutionary theory, and it has never BEEN what has been happening. Nowhere are the proponents of Creationism (call it intelligent design if you like, it's still the same dogma in prettier clothes) asking questions about the nature of the world, /or/ proposing testable, falsifiable alternative theories. Instead, they are using a pretty much entirely ignorant (or willfully deceptive) oversimplification of evolutionary theory with the only purpose being to discredit it through what is, quite frankly, either rank stupidity or a deliberate campaign of lies.

If you want to challenge a scientific theory, you come up with your own theory. You design an experiment to test the ability of your theory to explain or predict its subject, and then you run that experiment. If it succeeds, you get it published so that your peers can see what you did, how you did it, and so that they can try it on their own, to see if you've really got something, or if it's a fluke. If it fails, you go over the experiment, revise your theory, and try again.

Evolutionary theory has been changed, revised, updated, and clarified for decades using just this technique. It is not a 'sacred cow' that is protected rabidly by the scientific community without reason...it is BEST explanation for all the research done to this date.

Creationists have no theory. They have no experiments. They don't even have quantifiable operational definitions of most of the terms that they use. "God did it," is not acceptable in the scientific field, any more than, "Green apes from Mars did it," is. And rather than attempt to gain what they lack, Creationists instead use political campaigns to make the scientifically uninformed believe that there's some vast conspiracy to keep their views out of scientific debate. It's underhanded, it's unscientific, and it's vile.

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

[lordavon.livejournal.com]

There are some scientific bases for ID -- somewhere I read about likening it to forensic science -- which also has at it's base an assumption of a perpatrator -- but I will admit to not being as up on the theory as others are. And, given the nature of paradigm shift, an alternative theory would by necessity have to focus on the small, unsolved portions of facts.

What I see happening all too often, however, is that whatever small evidence is gathered and submitted for review is ridiculed rather than reviewed. I don't really think ID will ever be given the weight of evolutionary theory -- evolutionary theory is too useful, and ID doesn't seem to explain the facts any better for scientific use -- but I do lament the discussion oppotunity at times.