You know, it's truly amazing to what extent anything that has any remote connection to Christianity or Religion is under attack, even within Science. It is not only in the area of the Government, due to the Separation of Church and State, but also in relation to Science.
I remember mentioning one time in the comment section of another Post, the whole scientific fiasco relating to Abortion and Breast Cancer. Perhaps I should get the Brochure on that sometime and do a complete Post on it, but for now, I just think that what I've already said in the comment section of a previous Post is worth repeating. The non-italics is what I've added to it today.
"No matter what the issue, if it is political, than there is research supporting both sides. BB-Idaho actually left a Link in the comment section on one of the below Posts supporting the 'Safe Sex' program."
I hadn't done the necessary research when he left this link, yet the next Post down, below this one, is at least in part, a response to that and illustrates very well how Abstinence, since it is also taught within Christianity, is Under Attack.
"It's just like the issue of Abortion and Breast Cancer. There is research that says there's a link and research that says that there isn't.
"A group of people who study research collected a bunch of the available research and analyzed it, applying high standards as to what was good quality research and what was not and they found problems with the research that supported no connection, yet most of the research that supported the connection passed the test.
"Unfortunately, all it takes in order for those who want to deny the connection and keep this issue in the 'Controversial Mode' is for them to keep repeating their faulty research results and this is listened too, whether there are problems in the research or not."
Aside from Abstinence Education and the Connection between Abortion and Breast Cancer, I've seen this same scenario going on in the Evolution verses Intelligent Design Debate. If one takes the time to listen to what is actually being said, the arguments in favor of Evolution are full of false accusations against those on the other side, such as the discussion that took place on one of the Posts at the "Bring It On!" blog, which came across to me as more accusations between the participants, than actual arguments offered.
Bring It On! - Academic Freedom Legislation: The Creationists Back Door?
Now that I've visited the site again, I've realized that there are duplicate copies of a lot of my initial comments. That's because I kept trying to submit these comments, but was given no message about them being held for moderation. They appeared to just disappear, but apparently, they all went through. Oh well.
If you want to review the Evolution verses Intelligent Design discussion that took place on my blog, just click on the Label for it to the right. Griper did a post on the subject as well and the Link to it is below.
The "Good News" Declared
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
the only argument i can give in regards to evolution vs intelligent design is that by the nature of the meaning of science is that it presupposes determinism, thus must restrict itself in its scope of study to that. to allow the argument of intelligent design as a theory in competition to evolution within science is to longer restrict it to determinism.
science has a very unique characteristic. it can be used to give credibility to the theories of study outside of science but the theories of those studies outside of science cannot give credibility to the theories of science. it must rely on itself for credibility.
I have comment moderation enabled, but I always inform my readers of that by leaving the message that comment moderation is enabled at the bottom of my posts. It cuts down on confusion. If that wasn't posted over there then it's not your fault that your comments were duplicated, Lista.
Yes, for every positive there is a negative and vice versa. The same goes for global warming. There's "proof" out there that it does exist and "proof" that it doesn't. Of course the majority of the time it isn't proof at all but simply people's opinions.
As far as evolution verses intelligent design goes, I choose intelligent design because my life-experiences are all the proof I need. As to what other people's opinions are, I could care less, except for the fact that those pushing for evolution have such closed minds they won't teach both subjects and let people make up their minds for themselves. At least in Texas Bible Studies are now mandated to be taught for those who wish them. That's a start in the right direction. Maybe more states will follow suit, but don't hold your breath for California, Oregon or Massechusetts, cause I doubt it will ever happen.
there is another bone of contention for me. what is taught in schools should be left up to the individual states. the federal government should keep its nose out of eduation.
Gayle,
There was no such message on the "Bring It On!" blog. I checked. Also, when ever I leave a comment on your blog, there is always a message at the top that tells me that my comment will be "Visible after Blog Owner Approval".
I'm just frustrated about all the duplicates, because there are like 140 Responses to that Post and it starts with a whole bunch of duplicates from me. This is bound to discourage people from reading very far in the comment section of this post. There are no trash cans available either, or I would delete the duplicates myself.
The word "Proof" has been very much over used. Most of what exists out there relating to almost everything is only Evidence and not Proof. I get so tired of the arrogance of calling Evidence "Proof".
The reason why I care what other people think is because it is the opposing opinion that prevents Intelligent Design from being taught along side of Evolution in Schools. Their Opinion is, thus, being imposed on the rest of the public and that bothers me.
Griper,
Determinism is a Philosophy, not a Science, and Philosophy has no more place in Science than Religion does. The only way to be a true seeker of truth is to "Follow the Evidence Where ever it Leads." This is not possible to do, if Science is limited to "Determinism".
Your second paragraph sounds correct, for Science and Faith are two separate things, yet I get so tired of having the Science of Intelligent Design called Faith and the Faith of Evolution called Science. That is where the primary flaw lies.
Griper,
Sense I live in such a stupid liberal State, I don't actually like it when my State makes the decisions. I wish decisions could be based on fairness and truth and that truth could be sought with more of an Intellectual Honesty, whether than Stubborn, Determined, Boastful and actually Childish Opinions that go way beyond Reasonable Bias.
I didn't used to think that way until I saw the actual extent of not only bias, but the actual dishonesty that takes place quite often within what is supposed to be Science. I'm constantly shaking my head.
just thought you might like this article. it does have a bearing on the two posts.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238618931577035.html
and determinism is a fact of life, lista, only not in the manner that you think.
I'm sorry y'all have such a low opinion of science. :)
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - Men readily believe what they wish. J. Caesar
That's sort of a sad article, Griper.
I remember when I was in High School, not long after the Sexual Revolution, I was shocked one time when I was talking to a group of fellow High School co-workers where I worked and told them that I was a Virgin and they told me that "That's Ok."
Even though that was meant to be an encouragement, it came across to me as the strangest thing I had ever heard. I didn't need any encouragement because most of my friends at the time were fellow Christians and also Virgins. I was proud, not ashamed, of my Virginity and the "That's Ok." statement was such an understatement that it bothered me.
Of course it's Ok! It's way more than just Ok! How in the world do such attitudes get started?!
The Article that you left a link to, though, Griper, is really truly sad.
Also, if you think that I'm not understanding Determinism, Griper, than maybe you should explain it to me.
BB,
I do not have a low opinion of Science, BB. I have a high respect for Scientific Data when it is presented right. It is the behavior and attitudes of some Scientists that I have a low opinion of. These Scientists have no respect for Science at all, but simply use it to manipulate and further their own personal political agendas.
Yes, men do have a tendency to "Believe what they wish", but this isn't necessary. Objective Science is possible. What's required in order to accomplish it is the desire to "Follow Truth, where ever it Leads" and to care more about truth than about our own Political Agendas. There are Scientists out there that are Honest and Fair with their Data, yet there are also a lot of close minded idiots, who manipulate the data to fit their own biases.
I believe that Griper wrote something once about how a little bias is inevitable and perhaps this is true, but it needs to be set aside a little in order for the true seeking of truth to really happen.
"I have a high respect for Scientific Data when it is presented right." Huh?
Oh come on BB,
All you have to do is read just a little bit of the Article that I left a Link to on the previous post and you will see a really good example of bad, dishonest and very sloppy Science. I don't have a low opinion of Science in general, BB, I just have a low opinion of sloppy Science.
IMO, those who practice such Sloppy Science do not have a very high opinion of or respect for Science and give Science a bad name. There is a lot of Sloppy Science out there, especially relating to things that are political in nature and it is a real shame.
Imagine, for example, if there is a link between Abortion and Breast Cancer, a definite Health Issue, and this information does not become public for a good number of years simply because of Scientists who are more concerned about their Political Agendas than about Public Health. Doesn't the very thought of that annoy you at least a little?
"Imagine, for example, if there is a link between Abortion and Breast Cancer, a definite Health Issue,"
OK. I have. In our state is a congressman who keeps pointing out a glaring link between abortions and breast cancer. (this and outstate $$ keeps him elected).
Two years ago, he repeated this
'fact' on the floor. The house
chair, same part (Idaho has only GOP), a woman disputed him, but he kept right on. He didn't shut up until she metioned that she never had an abortion, but had breast cancer. He may be correct, but
the world's finest clinic
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/abortion/AN00855
thinks not. You will be gratified, though, that up this way, despite scientific evidence,
but because of politics, many think there is a postitive correlation. I again defer to
Julius Caeser (and perhaps even
Pontius Pilate) :) There is data.
There is our credulity...and as I recall, we have been over the problems of 'social' sciences and statistics...they lend easily to
reinforcing our existing opinion.
It's hard to know sometimes which side of an issue has the Honest Science and which side has the Sloppy Science. I've seen Sloppy Science being defended quite often within some rather well established groups, though, so the mention of the "World's Finest Clinic" is not going to automatically convince me.
Consider this, though... If in a Liberal state the Abortion/Breast Cancer connection is denied, yet in a Conservative State, it is defended, does this sound like Science to you? I think it sounds like a bunch of stubborn people who just want to believe what ever they want to believe. Where's the Honesty and Integrity gone, as well as the true seeking of truth?
No, I can see why you would not be impressed with Mayo. I grew up within 150 miles of their hospital complex in Rochester, MN. If you are very very sick it is the place to go. A baby niece was life-flown there in an ice storm: heartbeat uncontrollable at 250 per minute. Touch and go for months. Parents could talk to the
ped 24 hours a day. She is a healthy 9 year old today. 12 year old niece, other side of family.
Got sicker and sicker. Parents took her from doctor to doctor, hospital to hospital. Couldn't find anything with tests. She was referred to Mayo-Rochester and arrived extremely ill. In two days they had identified her condition as one of the more complex types of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She and her parents moved into the Ronald McDonald House there at no cost;
it is full of such kids. They stayed nearly a year. She knew all the nurses and doctors by first name; they helped her start a blog; and she underwent agonizing
bone-marrow testing & chemo. She is a healthy 14 year old today. So,
yeah, IMHO, the place is very good; not only the best in the profession, but they really care...they walk the walk. As for
breast cancer, I just happened on their site and they just happen to
find no relation to abortion. If they did, I would be very impressed indeed!! As for 'sloppy
science' well, as I learn daily from the blogs, even though Bush and the GOP have had the keys to the castle now for eight years.. all the screwups are the democrats fault. Surprizingly, quite a few people believe that, but when I start to believe that kind of logic...you can call me a 'sloppy scientist'. :)
Ok, maybe it is a good hospital and maybe the Abortion/Breast Cancer connection is still under debate, but I'll tell you what is confusing about it. A woman who has never had children and never given birth is also at greater risk for Breast Cancer. Doctors agree on this one.
Those who have had an Abortion have a similar risk factor in relation to Breast Cancer as those who have not given birth. Once a woman gives birth, there is a certain change in her body that reduces the chances of Breast Cancer. Abortion seems to hinder this and keep the woman at risk for Breast Cancer as if she had never given birth.
There is more agreement on this part of the equation than on the blanket statement that there is a connection between Abortion and Breast Cancer, yet I look at that and say. Oh come on! What's the difference? That still should be disclosed.
And yes, assuming that the fault for everything that happens during a president's term of office is the president's or his party's fault is indeed Sloppy Science. Many causes have delayed effects and the President and his party do not have full control over all the decisions that are made by the Congress.
I agree. Although I have not studied it in depth, there seems to be some estrogen level factor
in addition to the BRCA2 genetic
predisposition..some claim even
diet. this place seems fair and informative, and I already learned that eskimos & indians have the lowest incidence. As well as some
carcinogens of which I was unaware. All clues, no doubt...
Well, I guess I'm going to have to read the Abortion/Breast Cancer Brochure again. Unfortunately, I can talk and write responses to comments a lot faster than I can read.
My main concern is that the political nature of certain issues does not hinder patients from receiving the information that they need in order to make Informed Choices relating to their health. Abortion Clinics are really sloppy about telling the girls who come in for Abortions all that they should know about the risks, both Physical and Emotional, relating to Abortion.
Too often they are just told that it is a very simple procedure and it will be over before they know it. There are all sorts of things that they should be told that are never mentioned, especially in the Liberal State of California. To really have free "choice", it needs to be Informed Choice.
I'm no expert but on the subject of a possible abortion/breast cancer link if a study comes out in support of it first thing you'll hear is the strong bias of the pro-life researchers but if the study comes out the other way with no link proven or shown you never ever hear about a pro-abortion bias. Frustrating.
Lista, there are times when I get duplicate comments on my post too. It is the administrator's job to delete them, which I always do. If they haven't deleted your duplicated comments that's their bad. :)
I think I figured it out: 'sloppy science' is any science we disagree with. :) So, can we posit 'sloppy politics', 'sloppy religion', 'sloppy medicine', 'sloppy business',etc?
I happen to strongly disagree with the folks at the Discovery Institute, but in my discussions with them, neither of us accused the other of 'sloppy'. (although given me, a physical chemist and my friend/opponenent there a marine biologist-neither a bona
fide evolution theorist, could I guess be a mite sloppy :) ) As the esteemed Griper would likely note, "he sighs and ponders the devolution from discussion to name-calling to black vs white"..and
again the grey area is unpopulated. I suspect young
Shasta Samoyed is blissful in not
pondering such stuff. :)
Z-man,
That's funny. I was thinking that just the opposite was true in that the Pro-Abortion Bias is more prevalent than the Pro-Life Bias, but than again maybe what you mean is that the Pro-Life Bias gets all the lime light and the existence of a Pro-Abortion Bias gets denied. In that case, I would probably agree with you.
Gayle,
Perhaps negligence in deleting duplicated comments is one of the downfalls of fast moving blogs which move at the rate of quite a few posts per. day. I wonder how blog administers can keep up with that and perhaps the real answer to that is that they don't.
BB-Idaho,
You're talking as if "Sloppy Science" does not actually exist, only Bias, but I'm telling you that "Sloppy Science" does exist and Bias is the cause.
When it comes to Evolution verses Intelligent Design, the sloppiness lies in the conclusion that the Evidence on the side we agree with is Fact and even that which isn't proven is Science, while the Evidence on the side that we do not agree with is not even Science. Bias causes Sloppiness in thinking.
Anyone who looks at this issue honestly can not come to any other conclusion other than the fact that neither position can be proven Scientifically and there is valid evidence supporting both sides. Any conclusion other than that is not only Biased, but Sloppy as well.
BB,
The Articles that are addressed by the Linked Article in the previous post were very sloppy, plain and simple. There are 17 pages there explaining all the flaws in the research and they are actually pretty major. To deny that Sloppiness exists does not address the problem. It's more like denying that there's an Elephant in the room.
The reason why there was never any accusations leveled against anyone during your discussions with the people at Discovery Institute is because they are generally polite and so are you. I also do not think that the research methods by those guys is sloppy and for the most part, you're not that sloppy either, except perhaps in your thinking that there is no such thing as sloppy research. lol.
Read the linked article of the previous post and you will see what I mean.
ID is a concept; some are pushing it to a hypothesis. The tenets seem to be three:
1. Life is too complex, chemically, genetically and physically to have evolved..therefore it must have been 'designed'.
2. The expansion of lifeforms and complexity in the 'Cambrian Explosion' occurred to rapidly (530 million years) to have been random evolution.
3. Specific utlilitarian cell structure, such as the rotational base of certain unicellular motive
cilia, are difficult to explain by evolution.
..pretty much summarizes ID theory. Note, these are three
negative 'can't be' concepts.
Next, I will comment on a cute, but true tale...
Back when I was a college student,
I switched minors from Physics to
Biology as I could double up quicker on Botany/Zoology yearly offerings. In the lab, we were observing Euglenas through a microscope: these are one cell critters which seem to straddle the animal and plant kingdom..eg, they are motile, have a tail-like structure and a light
sensitive area known as the 'red
eye spot'. But they have chlorplasts like a plant and perform photosynthesis. Thus they are an intriguing link in the evolutionary theory. We were to sketch them with a colored pencil, and I was a very good sketcher. This freshman coed kept looking over, curious..looking in her own scope and peering at my sketch.
So, when I finished shading in the
'red eye spot' area....I put eyelashes on it..and got the reaction you would expect..surprise and laughter.
We were married four years later!
Evolution has a "Can't be" concept as well and that is that the world "Could not possibly have been designed."
Since neither "Hypothesis" can be proven, perhaps both are just "Concepts" and not Hypothesis. Assigning the more esteemed terminology to the side you agree with is nothing but bias and again proves nothing.
Evolution is based on a few tents as well, the main ones are...
1. Natural Selection has been observed within species, therefore it must have occurred between species as well.
2. The Fossil Record seems to follow a pattern, therefore the missing fossils between species will certainly be found in time.
These "tenets", as you have put it, can not be proved any more than the ones that you sited relating to ID.
If we rephrase the "can't be" concepts just a little to say "The evidence leans more towards Intelligent Design.", whether than "Evolution can't be", than we will see that the "can't be" nature of the concepts is nothing more than a terminology thing.
I never actually accused you of being sloppy, BB. I only accuse those who do research such as that addressed by the Linked article in the previous post, as well as also those who do as you have alluded to several comments back, who use "Name-Calling", whether than arguments.
Cute BB,
I don't know if your last comment was an argument for Evolution or a story about how you met your wife, but I guess it does deserve a pause and a smile. :)
The bottom line is that Evolution has Evidence and Intelligent Design has Evidence. That being the case, why shouldn't they be taught side by side in the class room?
Moving back up to the comment you posted Yesterday, "The Black verses White" position in this case would be that my position is superior and the other has absolutely no merit and "the Grey Area" would be realizing that neither position can be proved and thus, both are valid.
I order for Intelligent Design to be taught in school next to Evolution, all that is required is admitting to the Grey, not admitting that ID is the better of the two positions.
A point about this Intelligent Design vs. Evolution controversy, I never got the equating of Intelligent Design with the Protestant literalism of the 7 Days, all we're saying is there's a Prime Mover. It's a typical liberal bogeyman.
Yeh, that's true. Evolutionists keep calling Intelligent Design Creationism for the sake of discrediting them and saying that it's just based on Religion, the Bible and Faith and not Science. I have to keep correcting them and telling them that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. Where as Creationism is based on the Bible and Faith, Intelligent Design is based on Science. Yes, I said Science. They use the same Scientific methods as the other side does, but avid Evolutionists keep calling Intelligent Design Creationism in order to side step the real issues.
Apparently my long declamation about pros/cons and teleology was posted to cyberspace. Lucky you!
During the Dover, PA courtcase, I exhanged a number of e-mails with the ID community..which consists of the Discovery Institute. (see
Wiki, also 'wedge strategy') In a nutshell, the proponenets of both sides argued for a few days and the judge decided:
"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order
permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or
disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
..during the trial the ID board members were summarily voted out, as happened in Kansas a year later.
(I also had some correspondence with the ID-ers on that one). While the wedge strategy is to load up schoolboards, the concept of making scientists "disparage or denigrate" what they are trying to teach is self-defeating and IMHO
loathsome. The reverse would be
to force Sunday School classes to
"disparage & denigrate" their lessons on Adam & Eve, Noah and Moses..and I cannot imagine even
diehard atheists being interested in that. As for Z's prime mover, a scientist would want to find out the details on where the prime mover came from. As for his' typical liberal bogeyman', we have discussed previously 'labels' such as 'sloppy science'..puerile name calling really, which perhaps makes us feel good while entrenching the other side further.
Wonder what happend to my long science post yesterday?
Hi BB,
It seems that whenever you lose something to cyberspace, you always say "Lucky me", but I never do feel that way. You really should do some of your longer comments on your word processor. Oh well.
In response to this, I need to repeat something that I just said in my previous comment, which is "Evolutionists keep calling Intelligent Design Creationism for the sake of discrediting them and saying that it's just based on Religion, the Bible and Faith and not Science."
Sunday School is different than Public School because it is optional and Public School is not and anyway, IMHO, the Intelligent Design Advocates are not trying to "disparage or denigrate" Science. This is a bias of the judges and is not based on the truth. All that the Intelligent Design Advocates are striving for is for Evolutionist to be honest about the weaknesses of their "Theory" and to teach it honestly and not as if it is a proven fact.
You are right about the name calling, yet when Scientists Omit Crucial Research, Misrepresent the Evidence, state that a source says something that it does not, Use Nonstandard Research Methods, Present Opinions as Facts and use Faulty Logic, I have to call it something. There has to be a way of distinguishing good research and good research evaluation, from that which is Dishonest and Misleading.
My "Sloppy Research" comment has to do more with the Article that I left a link to in the previous post than it does to this post, though the ideas in this post are similar. At least in my own case, I did not throw out a label without evidence to back it up. Once again I need to say, Read the Linked Article and you will see what I mean.
Just as ID Advocates can not prove Scientifically "the details on where the prime mover came from", so also Evolutionists can not prove Scientifically some of their Theories either.
When I was growing up, Sunday School was not optinal! IMO, at the secondary level, evolution is not taught 'robustly', but rather as a general section on biology.
Even so, in my correspondence with
the 'Institute', I suggested that perhaps it should be held for more
advanced biologies at the college level (where it would be optional).
But, they seem to think it acceptable at lower grades.
As for "Evolutionists can not prove Scientifically some of their Theories either." ..suggest you
bounce your doubts off the very
rabid, but learned folk at pharyngula
It's not the extent to which they stress it or push it that bothers me. It's the fact that they present it as if it's an established fact and do not stress that it's a theory. It's presented this way in museums as well and IMO, this is a dishonest presentation.
If Evolution was not taught at all in grade school, that would be fine with me. High Schoolers, though, are old enough to think for themselves. Good honest information is not destructive. It's not going to hurt anyone to hear about an alternative theory. I have no idea why some people are so paranoid.
Forgive me, BB, but if you think that Evolution can be proved, you are caught up in the deception. My statement that "Evolutionists can not prove Scientifically some of their Theories." is a fact and their continuous, unrelenting habit of elevating Evidence to the level of Fact is just the problem that I'm concerned about. It's not honest, but unfortunately, your bias will not allow you to see that.
Bias? Perhaps; 95% of scientists
support evolutionary theory. (I suspect that if computer science and engineers were left out it would be 100%...but I'm biased :)
this author has pretty well summed up my opinion....
Hi BB,
You and I could no doubt go back and forth on this subject forever. Fortunately, 95% of Scientists do not insist that the Entire Theory can be proved. My gripe is when it is presented as if it is Established Fact and that is what I am calling dishonest.
Whether or not you and I have different opinions on the subject of Evolution and Intelligent Design is not the issue. The issue is that if both are valid Theories, than both should be taught.
Oh shoot!
I was starting to read your link at work today, but only read the first couple of paragraphs and than this evening the link doesn't work. From the little bit that I did read, I wasn't sure that I was even going to disagree with it, yet I was wondering what it had to do with Intelligent Design verses Evolution, if anything.
Sort of an interesting debate here . Was surprised to see the Ayn Rand outfit weigh in on the side of evolution (even more surprised that they are pro-choice) although, I guess if "Selfishness Is A Virtue" it would make sense.
Next...does Sasquatch exist? :)
I guess it is time from me to do another post, mostly because there are getting to be a large number of comments under this one. Please stand by.
As to your second Link, 576 Comments?!! I don't think so. That's way to much for me to read. Thanks anyway.
Post a Comment