Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albion · 07-28-2002, 10:51 AM

And now William Dembski is saying that the research part of the Wedge programme should be bypassed: <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220." target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220.</a> I wonder if they'll still have the nerve to allege that the great Darwinist conspiracy is suppressing their research, now one of their own great leaders has announced that it's irrelevant to getting it taught in school.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

hezekiah jones · 07-28-2002, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:
And now William Dembski is saying that the research part of the Wedge programme should be bypassed.

Or else he's finally getting around to acknowledging that it never existed in the first place.

Principia · 08-01-2002, 06:37 PM

From <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220;p=4" target="_blank">here</a>.

Quote:

RBH,

Bear with me for a few seconds. You'll soon see where I'm going with the following. Allow me to share with you a troublesome yet memorable event in my life. No so long ago, I was walking home when I heard a commotion coming from several nearby neighborhood kids (ages ranging from about 6 to 11) standing around in a circle watching something. One of the kids said, "Ha! You dumb dog. You stupid mutt!" Curious in nature, I walked over to the group. I soon saw the oldest of the kids vigorously striking a skinny, street dog with a stick. I put an end to this modern-day inter-species lynching, and demanded that they explain to me what was going on. After getting a long silence, several shoulder shrugs, and then a torrent of "I didn't do it!"s, "He did it!"s, "No, he did it!"s, "I was just watching!"s, etc., I managed to squeeze out of them after what seemed like an eternity the following chronology of events:

#1. The dog wandered into the neighborhood and was spotted by the boys, who soon determined that it was eager to please, starving, and very tame.
#2. The oldest boy obtained a piece of rope and managed to tie up the dog's hindlegs.
#3. He then proceeded to demand that the dog jump through a raised hula hoop!
#4. The dog, unsure of how to proceed, varied its actions from sometimes trying to jump (without fully succeeding), sometimes trying to undo the knot, and sometimes verbally expressing its discomfort with pathetic whimpers.
#5. This canine reaction drew the wrath of the oldest boy, who proceeded to grab a loose branch and punish the dog for its shortcomings, while one or two of the younger boys scornfully laughed and delightedly uttered, "Ha! You dumb dog. You stupid mutt!"
#6. Arm, the valiant, stepped in and saved the dog's day. I must admit I felt like tying the oldest kid's legs, demanding him to jump through the hoop, hitting him with the stick, and saying, "It don't feel too good, don't it, don't it?! You dumb dog. You stupid mutt!" (This kid showed absolutely no remorse over what he did). He would have never been able to jump through the hoop because he was an 11 year old weighing almost 200 pounds (all folds of fat). But, I controlled myself, snapped the branch with a flair, and told them, "Get out of here before I [language omitted for I feel ashamed of what I said]!!!" They scrambled away like cockroaches.

I see several parallels between this incident and RBH's position in regard to the situation in Ohio:
#1. ID wanders into the scientific neighborhood and is spotted by RBH, who soon determines that it differs too uncomfortably from the dominating paradigm which exclusivistically & dogmatically requires that all life originate and diversify by purely naturalistic means, as opposed to allowing any possibility of intelligent causation.
#2. RBH ties up ID's hindlegs by ensuring that grade school students and undergrads be indoctrinated during their formative years with only the Neo-Darwinist party line, and ensuring that junior-high & high school teachers and college professors & researchers be silenced and disciplined and demoted whenever they dare to opine in their classrooms that all is not peachy-sweet with the "modern synthesis" and that there might after all be something fruitful with some of the alternative theories such as ID theory and self-organization theory.
#3. RBH then proceeds to demand that ID theorists & scientists have a thoroughly developed positive research program and mountains of empirical backing before forbidden words which socratically contribute to the corruption of our youth such as "irreducible complexity," "specified complexity," and omigosh "intelligent design" (scandalous!) can ever pass through a teacher's or professor's lips other than with dismissive tinges of derision, contempt, and disgust.
#4. ID theorists and scientists, unsure of how to proceed, vary their actions from sometimes courageously attempting to fully develop the logical foundations of their theories and examining the molecular blocks of life in a heretofore unseen detailed manner, sometimes trying to undo the arbitrary academic and political knots which prevent them from full-heartedly proceeding with their research program, and sometimes just verbally expressing their discomfort from this ideological censorship with pathetic whimpers.
#5. This response by ID theorists, scientists, and their supporters draws the wrath of our crusading hero of all that is "true and scientific," RBH (can't you just picture him with "RBH" stamped across his costumed chest, wearing a flapping colorful cape, and waving the American flag?), who proceeds to vigorously upbraid and henpeck ID thinkers for not having yet thoroughly proven their theory. RBH, along with like-minded Neo-Darwinists, scornfully laughs and delightedly utters, "Ha! You dumb dembski. You stupid discovery institute!"
#6. Arm, the baffled, steps in and wonders why RBH insists on keeping Neo-Darwinism the EXCLUSIVE dogma in grade schools and colleges when Neo-Darwinism ITSELF has been mostly unsuccessful in meeting its predictions that fortuitous mixings of inorganic chemicals in primordial soups, random mutations, and natural selection could explain the origin and diversity of life on earth. Arm also wonders how Neo-Darwinism would fare if it was tied up with the same artificial, arbitrary restrictions which currently encumber the development of ID theory.

IN SUMMARY: One should not tie a dog's legs and then demand that it jump through a hoop. In addition, it is illegitimate to then scold and beat the restricted dog for failing to obey the commands or for being too slow in doing so. Lastly, one's own personal inability to accomplish the same feat (jump through the hoop of empirical proof) further illegitimizes any chest-thumping claims of superiority and exclusivity. ID may or may not eventually be able to jump through the hoop, but at least untie the poor mutt and allow it to attempt the feat before denouncing it and beating it to death with a stick.

P.S.1. RBH, this is my last posting in this thread. I think we have beaten this dog to death and failed miserably in convincing each other of our respective positions. You may have the last word. It was an intellectually pleasing interchange, and I very much look forward to future chats with you. Most importantly, will you smoke the PEACE PIPE with me?

P.S.2. There is a happy ending to this -- at least with the canine incident. I took the dog to a no-kill shelter, and within 3 weeks it was adopted by a loving family. Sniff, sniff. I, um, got something caught in my eye...

tronvillain · 08-01-2002, 08:22 PM

HRG:

Quote:

Come to think of it, there have been impediments to science caused by materialists who refused to back down. I'm thinking, for example, of the early resistance to plate tectonics. As you see, the new idea in that case was a materialistic explanation itself. But the fact remains that the opponents also were materialists.

Actually the early resistance was to continental drift, and the evidence for it was pretty weak (the continents appeared to fit together). The theory of plate tectonics came later, with more evidence, and provided a mechanism by which continental drift could occur.

Quetzal · 08-01-2002, 11:12 PM

Scientae: wrt your most recent quote from ARN. This is a tactic I'm starting to see more and more of (probably as how bogus and lacking in evidence the ID movement really is is becoming more and more well-publicized). To wit: "How can we develop the evidence and theory of ID if we don't create graduates who want to work on ID?" IOW, teach students ID so they'll grow up to discover the details of ID. This is a "cart before the horse" type of fallacy. AFAIK, there hasn't been a single significant change, modification, or addition to evolutionary theory (for example) - from Fisher to Eldredge - that wasn't made by someone trained in the then-current paradigm.

The IDiots want to introduce ID in school curricula so that someday someone might be able to discover the empirical foundation of ID???

To me, this is yet another indicator of the religious foundation of ID. It goes along with the invariable foundation fallacy (ie, looking for holes or disagreements/discrepancies in the foundational document of a particular belief somehow falsifies the whole construct). Think about it: if holes could be found in the babble, f'rinstance, that discovery would theoretically falsify the whole edifice (which is how the babble thumpers falsify the Qu'ran, etc). IOW, the babble MUST be literally, word for word, the True (tm) and invariant Word of Gawd (tm). If it is subject to change, then it wasn't True (tm).

The same mindset applies to schooling. The entire fundamentalist worldview is based on being raised and schooled fundy. Once you are trained, it is supposedly for life (which is one of the things that makes them so nervous about atheists - direct falsification of their worldview just by existing). If you're fundy, you're not allowed by definition to change your mind later. Otherwise you go to hell (or whatever punishment is appropriate for the heretical backslidin' spawn of Satan). Obviously, this view is being projected to regular schooling - once you are trained in evolution or biology, you can't change your mind later because then you would be a heretic and you're not allowed to be a heretic on pain of whatever. ID therefore MUST be taught - 'cause if not no one would be required to believe it.

This may be a bit random - but I'm not totally clear on my thinking on this subject yet. I'm just seeing a lot of parallels between the way fundies/IDiots view science and their religion. In spite of them hearing the words about how science works, I don't think they understand it - even the ones who may be trained scientists. It's almost like they're speaking a completely alien language to each other.

Camaban · 08-02-2002, 01:49 AM

Quote:

This may be a bit random - but I'm not totally clear on my thinking on this subject yet.

I think this can be summarised by "They see the world from a religious outlook, and can't comprehend that other people don't. So they try to attribute religious motives and psyches to everyone, whether it fits or not" (including competing religions)

Might have phrased that badly, but you get the idea.

They simply can't believe that there are people who are honestly not religious (my old religion teacher said that people who honestly aren't religious are as rare as hens teeth... I think I, at least, am living proof that he was wrong there)

Quetzal · 08-02-2002, 03:22 AM

Camaban:

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I'm trying to take it a bit further (in a sociobiology/evo psych sense) and "collect" evidence of the different memes that make up the set known as "religious" in comparison to the set known as "scientific" (or possibly "secular", or "methodological naturalist" or something). I'm just barely starting to get the faintest glimmer that what we are seeing is a sort of memetic natural selection/competition in operation between two meme-sets which is at the heart of the evo/cre problem - and more deeply the inability of the Creationist/IDiot/anti-science crowd to understand the scientific/naturalist crowd (and vice-versa). (Note to self: somebody needs to come up with a "taxonomy" of memes for ease of classification). So far all very vague and unformed ideas - which is why my previous post was a bit disjointed.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Lizard · 08-02-2002, 07:17 PM

The fundamentalist mindset is so foreign to me (never really knew it existed until 1999, when the Kansas Board of Education adopted anti-evolution science standards, to the enduring shame of educated Kansans) that I have set about studying it.

It's puzzling how some highly intelligent people (a couple of friends of mine) can be completely rational in other matters, but when it comes to anything touching on the origin of life or common descent, they seem to switch to another mode in which nothing makes sense to anyone not versed in their slant on things.

After searching for a book on the psychology of fundamentalism for some time, I found one: "Apocalypse: The Psychology of Fundamentalism in America" by Charles Strozier. It was published in 1994, so you'll have to purchase it used, but it's worth searching for.

Strozier is both an historian and a practicing psychoanalyst who became acquainted with and interviewed fundamentalists in New York City for two years. (I didn't know NYC had them, but it does.)

The "end times" become extremely important to converts to fundamentalism. Often, they have had traumatic experiences, been "saved," and then become completely immersed in the culture, finding their social life, partners, and meaning in the church community. All are bound together by their apocalyptic visions and beliefs. It's as if traumatized people use this form of religion to make the pain go away, and it becomes their whole world.

I can see if a certain belief system is your salvation, you wouldn't want to jeopardize your social connections, not to mention eternal fate, by questioning it.

Another good book on the subject of evangelical Christianity is by Randall Balmer, "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory."

Starboy · 08-02-2002, 08:18 PM

Scientiae,

WOW! Those posts from ARN are scary. It is our own fault. Modern science has been too successful. People just don't understand what it would be like to do science the Christian way. Perhaps history classes should cover medieval science. Maybe then everyone would better understand what makes modern science so successful. Unfortunately I don�t think the Christians would allow it. Such a shame. We are on our way to becomming a second rate country. Looks like we will be able to thank Christian values for it.

Starboy

Albion · 08-02-2002, 08:30 PM

Quote:

TOften, they have had traumatic experiences, been "saved," and then become completely immersed in the culture, finding their social life, partners, and meaning in the church community. All are bound together by their apocalyptic visions and beliefs. It's as if traumatized people use this form of religion to make the pain go away, and it becomes their whole world.

I know this a generalisation and maybe not even a fair one, but time and again I hear from Fundamentalists that Jesus has saved them from a life of drink, drugs, addiction, and depravity and their lives have been completely transformed and now their whole existence is devoted to Jesus and they can't get enough of Jesus and they're looking forward to the End Times so they can be with Jesus for all eternity, and I can't help thinking, "Your lives haven't been transformed at all, you've just switched from one addiction to another."

Karen Armstrong's book "The Battle for God" is an interesting study of the history of fundamentalism in the three monotheistic religions; it doesn't go into the psychology of it much, though.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-28-2002, 10:51 AM	#41
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	And now William Dembski is saying that the research part of the Wedge programme should be bypassed: <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220." target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220.</a> I wonder if they'll still have the nerve to allege that the great Darwinist conspiracy is suppressing their research, now one of their own great leaders has announced that it's irrelevant to getting it taught in school. [ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

08-01-2002, 11:12 PM	#45
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Scientae: wrt your most recent quote from ARN. This is a tactic I'm starting to see more and more of (probably as how bogus and lacking in evidence the ID movement really is is becoming more and more well-publicized). To wit: "How can we develop the evidence and theory of ID if we don't create graduates who want to work on ID?" IOW, teach students ID so they'll grow up to discover the details of ID. This is a "cart before the horse" type of fallacy. AFAIK, there hasn't been a single significant change, modification, or addition to evolutionary theory (for example) - from Fisher to Eldredge - that wasn't made by someone trained in the then-current paradigm. The IDiots want to introduce ID in school curricula so that someday someone might be able to discover the empirical foundation of ID??? To me, this is yet another indicator of the religious foundation of ID. It goes along with the invariable foundation fallacy (ie, looking for holes or disagreements/discrepancies in the foundational document of a particular belief somehow falsifies the whole construct). Think about it: if holes could be found in the babble, f'rinstance, that discovery would theoretically falsify the whole edifice (which is how the babble thumpers falsify the Qu'ran, etc). IOW, the babble MUST be literally, word for word, the True (tm) and invariant Word of Gawd (tm). If it is subject to change, then it wasn't True (tm). The same mindset applies to schooling. The entire fundamentalist worldview is based on being raised and schooled fundy. Once you are trained, it is supposedly for life (which is one of the things that makes them so nervous about atheists - direct falsification of their worldview just by existing). If you're fundy, you're not allowed by definition to change your mind later. Otherwise you go to hell (or whatever punishment is appropriate for the heretical backslidin' spawn of Satan). Obviously, this view is being projected to regular schooling - once you are trained in evolution or biology, you can't change your mind later because then you would be a heretic and you're not allowed to be a heretic on pain of whatever. ID therefore MUST be taught - 'cause if not no one would be required to believe it. This may be a bit random - but I'm not totally clear on my thinking on this subject yet. I'm just seeing a lot of parallels between the way fundies/IDiots view science and their religion. In spite of them hearing the words about how science works, I don't think they understand it - even the ones who may be trained scientists. It's almost like they're speaking a completely alien language to each other.

08-02-2002, 03:22 AM	#47
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Camaban: That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I'm trying to take it a bit further (in a sociobiology/evo psych sense) and "collect" evidence of the different memes that make up the set known as "religious" in comparison to the set known as "scientific" (or possibly "secular", or "methodological naturalist" or something). I'm just barely starting to get the faintest glimmer that what we are seeing is a sort of memetic natural selection/competition in operation between two meme-sets which is at the heart of the evo/cre problem - and more deeply the inability of the Creationist/IDiot/anti-science crowd to understand the scientific/naturalist crowd (and vice-versa). (Note to self: somebody needs to come up with a "taxonomy" of memes for ease of classification). So far all very vague and unformed ideas - which is why my previous post was a bit disjointed. [ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

08-02-2002, 07:17 PM	#48
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	The fundamentalist mindset is so foreign to me (never really knew it existed until 1999, when the Kansas Board of Education adopted anti-evolution science standards, to the enduring shame of educated Kansans) that I have set about studying it. It's puzzling how some highly intelligent people (a couple of friends of mine) can be completely rational in other matters, but when it comes to anything touching on the origin of life or common descent, they seem to switch to another mode in which nothing makes sense to anyone not versed in their slant on things. After searching for a book on the psychology of fundamentalism for some time, I found one: "Apocalypse: The Psychology of Fundamentalism in America" by Charles Strozier. It was published in 1994, so you'll have to purchase it used, but it's worth searching for. Strozier is both an historian and a practicing psychoanalyst who became acquainted with and interviewed fundamentalists in New York City for two years. (I didn't know NYC had them, but it does.) The "end times" become extremely important to converts to fundamentalism. Often, they have had traumatic experiences, been "saved," and then become completely immersed in the culture, finding their social life, partners, and meaning in the church community. All are bound together by their apocalyptic visions and beliefs. It's as if traumatized people use this form of religion to make the pain go away, and it becomes their whole world. I can see if a certain belief system is your salvation, you wouldn't want to jeopardize your social connections, not to mention eternal fate, by questioning it. Another good book on the subject of evangelical Christianity is by Randall Balmer, "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory."

08-02-2002, 08:18 PM	#49
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Scientiae, WOW! Those posts from ARN are scary. It is our own fault. Modern science has been too successful. People just don't understand what it would be like to do science the Christian way. Perhaps history classes should cover medieval science. Maybe then everyone would better understand what makes modern science so successful. Unfortunately I don�t think the Christians would allow it. Such a shame. We are on our way to becomming a second rate country. Looks like we will be able to thank Christian values for it. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.