from Vox Day:
It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic.
Here the rhetoric is only used to dance on the grave afterward.
I like it: live by the rhetoric; die by the dialectic.
And here is the post, which itself makes some good reading for those interested in the evolution debate.
Richard Leakey, who is clearly oblivious to the fact that macro-evolution is no closer to being open and shut than it was in Darwin’s time, boldly predicts a great acceleration in discoveries that have proven elusive to date.
So let’s see…the High Church Atheists–Dawkins, Dennett, the late Hitchens, Harris, PZ Myers–have whined and wailed about the greatness of evolution, insisting that there is plenty of proof, without offering any.
Now Leakey has entered the fray, insisting that discoveries will accelerate to the point that the evolution debate will be open and shut, in favor–of course–of the evolutionists.
This in spite of the fact that these “discoveries” have been quite scarce for 150+ years post Darwin.
I’ll grant Leakey this much: while I have my doubts here, it is quite possible that the debate may go away in a few decades, although the nature of that outcome may very well be at variance with what he hopes.
Well, not really. Vox, however, illustrates a point that I spent no small amount of time making during my tour of duty at Southern Baptist Theological Cemetary::
Clearly, a bright line needs to be delineated between scientific evidence that has been independently replicated by experiment, scientific evidence that could be independently replicated but has not been, and scientific evidence that cannot be independently replicated by experiment. And furthermore, it is necessary to stop giving the latter two types of scientific evidence, or more properly, potential scientific evidence, the same level of credence that is given to actual scientific evidence that has been reliably and independently replicated.
I recall a spat I had with one of the leftists who clamored that anyone contesting the anthropogenic global warming dogma was either ignorant or stupid. I pointed out to him that, when you cut through the B.S., there are basically three types of scientific “information”:
(1) Scientific fact: that which has been demonstrated and replicated experimentally;
(2) Scientific opinion: hypotheses which have not, but potentially (key word there) could be–experimentally verified;
(3) Scientific opinion that gets reported as fact: hypotheses that have not been proven through experimentation, but nonetheless get reported as Holy Writ.
Examples of (1): Newtons Laws of Motion; the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
Examples of (2): various theories regarding the behavior of subatomic particles. On one hand, there are observational bases for the hypotheses; OTOH some of those hypotheses are yet to be conclusively verified through experimentation.
Examples of (3): anthropogenic global warming; various theories of evolution; premises that embryonic stem cells hold the promise for the cure for everything from jock itch to the deadliest cancers.
When arguing on such matters on this space, I have a simple warning: don’t bother coming over here spewing opinion and then telling me “it is science” if you have no experimental basis to show.
I will call BS every time.
Whether you are arguing for macro-evolution, global warming, or even young earth creationism, we require honesty here:
(1) There is a huge difference between that which has been demonstrated by experimentation versus mere opinions about observations. We will never begrudge you for your opinion, but don’t come over here telling us how “scientific” it is if it is not.
(2) We must be honest about the limits of science. Science is great for understanding natural phenomena that can be duplicated via experimentation. That understanding has driven the development of no small number of technologies. If you can read this, you are enjoying the fruits of science.
OTOH, there are things that science CANNOT do for you.
Science cannot prove there is a God, let alone which model of God–Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc., or even no God–is valid. I can point to science to make a rational case for faith in a higher authority, but it would be less than intellectually honest to give you an article of faith and then tell you it is scientific.
Science cannot establish the veracity of miracle accounts, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Again, those are articles of faith.
At best, archaeology can help establish facts, but even that has limits: you are limited to what has been discovered to date. 150 years ago, Biblical skeptics touted the lack of archaeological evidence for Biblical accounts. Since then, archaeology has been quite favorable–rather than destructive–to Biblical accounts. In the world of Biblical scholarship, conservatives have made advances that liberals never thought possible 50 years ago.
Even then, archaeology is not science. What you are dealing with is observable data of varying quality, not experimental data that is reproducible.
in order to be shut out of key academic posts.
If this were a private university, I would consider it worth mentioning while including the caveat that they have the Constitutional right to exclude anyone they wish for whatever reason they want. They have the right to be racist, sexist, even anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-whatever they wish. It’s called freedom of association.
Not so in this case, as the University of Kentucky is a public university that is funded with federal and state tax dollars.
From Vox Day:
If evolutionists built airplanes, they wouldn’t get off the ground long enough to crash.
02/18/2007: The other day, a former co-worker was tearing into Reagan’s record regarding HIV/AIDS, the non-sequitur that liberals always love to raise every time I remind them of his Cold War victory.
Aside from the fact that Reagan spent more money on AIDS than on heart disease–both of which are conditions that are largely behavior-driven anyway–I decided to drop the gauntlet on him and his True Believers on the left.
Fact is, Western liberals have slaughtered more innocent people than Stalin and Mao combined.
In the 1960s, we had made great inroads toward wiping out malaria, especially in Africa, where it had ravaged entire villages. This great progress was due to a wonder-pesticide: DDT, which was both potent and inexpensive.
Then, the Left bought into the Chicken Little rantings of Rachel Carson, whose book Silent Spring is as important to the Left as The Communist Manifesto. The Left-driven outcry led to the ban of DDT.
As a result, tens of millions of innocent people have died of malaria over the decades. All so the liberals could save a few birds.
This makes me want to give liberals the bird.
Aside from the fact that DDT was doing little–if any–harm to the bird population, the premise that people are less important than birds is Paganism cross-dressed as science.
That is one more thing to keep in mind every time a scientist wants you to take his or her words as holy writ, dismissing their critics as “flat earthers”.
Anyone who thinks people need to die to save the earth can step right in front of my rifle.
02/18/2007: Michigan State University professor Jon D. Miller presented results that both encourage and trouble researchers regarding scientific literacy in America.
On one hand, people understand basic science twice as much (28%) as the last study (10%) in 1988. On the other hand, the trend of people believing astrology and extra-terrestrial aliens. He also expressed concern regarding the widespread belief in Biblical creationism over macro-evolution.
Considering that much of what passes as science today is mere psuedoscience–proclamations regarding evolution and catastrophic global warming come to mind–perhaps Miller should be alarmed at the nutballs among his own ranks.
02/12/2007: I must admit, Samuel J. Hunt makes a few–and I do mean a few–decent points in his “science proves God did it” proposal, as reported in WorldNetDaily.
On the other hand, Hunt is doing Christians a disservice on both the scientific and theological fronts.
For the record, I accept Biblical creation while conceding that science cannot now–nor will ever be able to–prove the account. This is because creation is a miracle–an interruption of the natural order–and therefore the proof of it is outside the scope of the scientific method. After all, you cannot form a hypothesis and test it–gaining reproducible, repeated results.
That, however, is not the same as inferring that a reasonable person can accept that a much higher form of intelligence and power–I’d say the Biblical God is the best case–is the originator of all that we know of the natural world.
That case can be made from what we know of homeostatic controls–which incorporate the use of negative feedback–that are characteristics of every organism. It is also probable that natural flight controls–in birds and insects–satisfy the Behe criteria of irreducible complexity (remove any one portion from the system, and the whole system fails).
However, I say this with a caveat: none of what I am saying proves that God did it; it only makes a rational case such that a reasonable person can infer such.
That is one of my main gripes with Hunt: he is demonstrating that he does not truly understand science, and the idiots at WorldNetDaily are reporting his “findings” as scientific Gospel. Ergo, they are making Christians look like idiots.
In terms of theology, Hunt is taking a very reductionist approach to God: suggesting that the Holy Spirit is a magnetic field. This is both scientific and theological rubbish, and should be condemned as such.
Any understanding of the Holy Spirit is outside the scope of the scientific method. One cannot form a testable hypothesis–designing an experiment that proves an attribute of God via repeatable results such that one can tie it to God beyond all scientific doubt.
Theologically: Hunt tends to forget that the Holy Spirit is a person. Just read John 14.
My hypothesis: Hunt is either an ignorant Christian who needs more education in matters for which he purports to speak, or he is a closet evolutionist promoting this drivel in order to make creationists look stupid.
At any rate, shame on WND for giving this guy the time of day!
11/01/2006: Vox Day–a fine Christian libertarian–has been playing up to his role as a baseball bat, while atheist Sam Harris is a baseball:
Praise for Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris:
I can’t sign my name to this blurb. As a New York Times best selling author of books about business, my career will evaporate if I endorse a book that challenges the deeply held superstitions and bigotry of the masses. That’s exactly why you should (no, you must) read this angry and honest book right away. As long as science and rational thought are under attack by the misguided yet pious majority, our nation is in jeopardy. I’m scared. You should be too. Please buy two, one for you and one for a friend you care about.
— Unsigned, New York Times best selling author
He’s scared, all right. I can’t say I blame him for being an utter coward, though. I’d be terrified to admit that I praised anything written by Sam Harris.
Of course, Sam “I travel with bodyguards to protect me from Christian suicide bombers” Harris is a real profile in atheist courage himself.
Christian suicide bombers? Only my libertarian sensibilities keep me from supporting legislation that would make it illegal for the Sam Harrises of the world to breed.
Any New York Times best-selling author who slanders a group of people and lacks the stones to put his name on his remarks is unworthy of print. Personally, I think he’s full of Bravo Sierra.
Neither science nor rational thought are under any attack from Christendom; in fact, it’s the other way around: a highly-vocal sect of scientists are working tirelessly to foist their secular, amoral, degenerate agenda on the world under the guise of “science”.
In addition to being anti-Christian bigots, they are a disgrace to the very field of study that was enriched by–horror of horrors!–Christians.
They plead for tolerance, but their tolerance only extends to varying shades of leftist secularism. They are as totalitarian as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao ever were. And they see themselves as elites who are entitled to rule over the masses.
Physicist Gets “Voxed” by Larijani, Part 1
For the past few days, I’ve been locked in a two-tier battle with Andrew Spivack, a physicist who is finishing up his PhD, on the Boundless blog. The two tiers are the following:
In the first part, he decided on one moral absolute, which he later modified as a biological absolute: the [human] species must survive. He basis that on the premise that every species has a collective will to survive. As a result, actions that contribute a net positive evolutionary advantage (PEA) are morally acceptable.
Farmer Tom and I took him to task on that one, contesting it on two fronts:
His response on the second point was that I was arguing in hypotheticals, when in fact I pointed out that everything I listed has historical precedence for implementation as public policy. The 1900s handed us a plethora of forays into eugenics, sterilization experiments, forced abortions, genocides, and even active euthanasia.
And all of it was part and parcel of applying Darwinian evolutionary thought to public policy. The play-by-play for that one is found here.