Intelligent Design Designs Intelligent Designs
Those designs are for the minds, hearts, and souls of our children.
One of "Intelligent Design's" most influential organizations is the "Discovery Institute."
Anyone who might be contemplating the "Intelligent Design" argument that the Science of Evolution should be taught as a religious parallel to Intelligent Design's Creationism (or visa versa) should take a look at the biographies of the Discovery Institute's Leading Figures.
Of those Discovery Institute (DI) principals who provide biographies, few have degrees in life science. Most of these have not published a “peer reviewed anything” in any serious scientific journal or other publication. Most of these scientists whose bios are right there on their web page have a history of "agenda science."
The vast majority of DI principals are lawyers, political hacks, and others with no science background whatsoever, much less biological science.
Science and scientific inquiry, by nature and by design, is to have no agenda. Few seem to understand this and fewer understand the unfortunate ramifications of "science with an agenda."
If there is to be any agenda in science, that agenda is to discover scientific truths, period. Any other agenda creates a situation best described by this quote.
----------
The dispassionate intellect, the open mind, the unprejudiced observer, exist in an exact sense only in a sort of intellectualist folk-lore; states even approaching them cannot be reached without a moral and emotional effort most of us cannot or will not make.
Wilfred Batten Lewis Trotter (1872-1939) English surgeon.
----------
Among scientists, the constant struggle to resist one's own intellectual prejudice, personal bias, or other predisposing forces is well recognized and acknowledged by most. Few outside the world of basic experimental science truly understand just how rigid this world is and must remain. I find myself often losing patience with scientists who seem to ignore controversial issues such as global warming, stem cell research, and the like. But then I remind myself how extremely difficult it is to maintain clear focus completely on known facts and to hold, at bay, personal bias once one has become embroiled in a pedestrian level controversy. I say pedestrian not to sound smug but rather to emphasize the point that many pedestrian level controversies are just that, pedestrian. This issue of Intelligent Design best illustrates what I mean.
Among rank and file biologists, there is little discussion about the merits of Intelligent Design. Life scientists simply dismiss this movement for what it is... an attempt to interject religious bias into the scientific process. This is why the "Discovery Institute" is led by mostly legal eagles, public relations experts and charismatic theologians... i.e., political hacks. Lacking support from the scientific community, these fundamentalist creationists use whatever means necessary to incite and cultivate public interest in their stated agenda. They know religious zealots are always seeking an outlet; a cause; a crusade.
In essence, the DI is promoting Intelligent Design to teach our children that when we want to learn more about the physical world that it is okay to rely on the mystical realm of the metaphysical. In other words, they are promoting the same mentality held by those who burned witches in Salem.
Do you suppose these same promoters of Intelligent Design (ID) would NOT rely on the science of forensics to find the murderer of a loved one? Do you suppose they would seek out psychics to find the source of their loved one's demise? Right... sure they would. Does anyone really “believe” they would use, as a primary tool, this mystical approach?
I am certain most of these ID promoters would scoff at the use of psychics, especially if psychic "powers" were to be used as an equal to or substitute for forensic sciences. Why would they resist the use of psychic powers? Of course they would resist because they know, just like you and me, psychics have never been conclusively demonstrated to have solved a single crime. Psychics are generally a last ditch effort... after all the science that can be utilized has been utilized. Psychics occasionally supply a small piece to a complicated puzzle. But this contribution is easily over-blown.
If one is given general dimensions of a 1000 piece jig-saw puzzle missing several pieces and one, then, arbitrarily cuts out a piece of cardboard believing that piece will help complete the puzzle there is a reasonable chance that piece can be made to fit, at least loosely, into one of the empty spaces. This would not, however, confirm that the cutter of that piece had any specific cosmic foreknowledge of its shape and dimensions. The near fit would, rather, suggest the cutter was granted, by chance, a bit of dumb luck combined with an educated guess. The fit of this piece could certainly not be attributed to science. Dumb luck is dumb luck.
Just as no one can disprove the existence or involvement of a supreme being in the physical affairs of the universe, no one can conclusively disprove psychic contributions to the solving of crimes that have been unexplained by scientific investigation. But simply because science is not designed to study the metaphysical one must not conclude that science is useless in the study of the physical.
This scientific axiom must remembered, "correlation does not imply causation." In other words. If ten psychics lead ten investigators to ten sites of ten crimes scenes this correlation cannot necessarily assign psychic powers as the resolution of the crime. For example, take those same ten psychics and give them absolutely no information about the crimes that have been committed and then see if they can locate scenes of crimes in far away lands. More specifically, if a Chicago-based investigator, without revealing a clue, asks a psychic to lead to a murder scene that had occurred in some remote place like the Congo or Tibet could the psychic do so? Not likely.
Most likely the psychic would lead a wild goose chase around the Windy City. But why? Metaphysics, by definition, is not physical and therefore space, time, and distance do not exist in this mystical realm. So why does something as supposedly so inconsequential as distance have such a profound negative effect on a psychic's self-assigned ability to perform mystical feats? Don’t wait for science to answer this question.
Science cannot address the metaphysical. True science does not seek to address the metaphysical. Yet we find propagators (The Discovery Institute) of metaphysics (Intelligent Design) trying to convince the "unscienced" (in contrast to the unchurched) that metaphysics can address scientific inquiry.
While psychics have sometimes "seemed" to offer mystical resolutions to some mysteries those resolutions cannot be tested or repeated by experiment. This fact does not, in any way, suggest scientists should welcome psychics into their world of scientific inquiry.
All things considered, forensic science scientists and educators will never teach their students to consult psychics to help them perform their scientific duties or to advance the science of forensics. Yet, the religious forces behind "Intelligent Design" are literally trying to strong-arm school boards, legislators, and the public into accepting their mystical ideologies as science. Believers in Intelligent Design have choices. Believers can believe in intelligent Design. I certainly do. Surprised? Believers can acknowledge Intelligent Design as a matter of faith. I do. Surprised? Believers can proclaim Intelligent Design to be a science. I don't. Surprised? Why? It is called distinction. The life of a believer does not have to be lived in a blinding fog of confusion or a mind numbing state of oblivion.
Those who choose to avoid, at all costs, the pain of personal doubt, change, growth and/or perhaps the deep-felt hurt of being ridiculed by family, friends, and associates will never understand the paragraph above.
The force behind Intelligent Design is this recurring human passion to enjoy the soul-soothing balm of self-assurance. Humans seem to find it extremely liberating when their inexplicable personal "feelings" are accepted as equal to or greater than conventional wisdom or even scientific truths. To gain or to claim this status is to no longer be required to explain "why" one believes, says, or does this or that. One is liberated to think, say, or do just because one believes in what one is thinking, saying, or doing. This idea makes me smile because this is a most "liberal" view of personal freedom. Yet it is the "conservative" that promotes such a non-sensical approach to democracy... to life.
Conservatives view "self-doubt" or “self-skepticism" as a weakness rather than a sensible self-imposed attribute that combats human tendencies like bias, prejudice, selfishness, hedonism, arrogance, and other natural traits that lead to living an existence of double-standards. Double-standards offer that blissful oblivion so many seem to crave. But woe be to those on the other side of that double-standard. Who has not been subjected to the wrath of those arrogant souls occupying a position of authority and happy to exercise double-standards? One's oblivion is another's hell. You know what I mean. The very essence of Intelligent Design is to count “belief” as "proof." Do the three letters, "WMD" come to mind? Think about this. Jihad is a belief-based system. Christian Conquistadors had their system of beliefs. "Belief" is all this ilk of humanity need to justify their thoughts, words, and actions... no matter how vile or violent those thoughts, words, and actions might be.
To count "belief" as science is to open the door to the past. I suppose this fact explains why conservatives so detest the "progressives" of this world. We try to open doors to the future and close those select doors to the past that would allow our regrettable erroneous ways to draft forward to consume us once again.
The fatal flaw shared by fundamentalists whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, or many other religions, cults, or sects is that they tend to believe their "belief" explains their physical world and therefore they are predestined to rule the world. It should come as no surprise that time and again, such as now, the so-called "clash-of-civilizations" raises its ugly head to leave those progressives of the world gape-jawed at the barbarism humankind is still capable of generating in the name of “belief.”
Yes, psychics should keep their mystics to themselves (and most serious psychics admit their abilities cannot be taught or forced upon another). It's funny but I feel that same way about my faith and even democracy. Psychics are the least of our problems.
Politicians whose god is power are our problem.
If we allow "so-called" evangelical conservatives to interject their mystics into science we will revisit the days when burning witches was all the rage. In one sense, are we not burning witches now? Our witches wear "turbines."
Is there really any difference in calling a young Bostonian female a witch and an entire nation an axis of evil?
Isn't the burning of witches, in and of itself, an interesting outcome of mystical predominance over scientific inquiry? Mystics tend to burn, at the stake, other mystics.
Belief and believers burn witches. Science and scientists, at worst, might attempt to study them.
Pure scientists have never burned a witch or anyone claiming to be or having been accused of being a mystic. Pure scientists are too busy seeking out and properly placing together pieces of physical puzzles to chase after witches and to sup on witches brews.
The mystical "Discovery Institute" has never discovered anything. Not one "thing." Why then, are they so arrogant as to tell scientists and the world that their mystics should be placed in the same scientific context and be regarded as having equal import in our children's science classes? Why? Because they "believe" their beliefs are sufficiently sound to count as science.
Science is science. Belief is belief. Mixing them is like mixing sugar and salt. Both have their place but mixed together or being switched and mislabeled can be deadly... especially when presented to children.
I suggest we do what sanity compels us to do. Acknowledge science as science and belief as belief.
Please support the preservation of pure science in your schools.
I believe all of humanity will eventually believe in science... and if you believe I really believe this, God help you. My point is... although belief will be construed as fact, belief must never be accepted as fact... no matter how strongly or repeatedly belief is presented as fact. Believe me, you must believe this... conservative right-wingers will repeat a belief loudly and infinitely if that is what it takes to make you and/or your children accept their belief(s) as fact. Believe me. Surely, you get my point.
Even science leaves room for doubt about the absoluteness of any given fact... but friends, science is the best tool humans possess to pry into the beautiful and magnificent secrets of our physical world. Let’s not muddy the waters of science with the opaque fog of faith.
Fog is for crystal balls and psychics and purveyors of war. Faith is for but one... the one possessing it. Faith, like love cannot be forced upon anyone. Faith, like love cannot be proven by science. But renegade faith will forcefully burn “witches” and faith will force its faithful into ghastly war after war in an attempt to force one faith upon another.
Case in point: George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil. Folks, you know exactly what I mean. Your descendants will know too when someday some other faith happens to occupy our White House. Then, the right-wing conservatives will be on their knees, not praying to “their” God but begging some bin Laden type character to separate the Islamic Church and State.
Until then, short-sighted conservatives will fail to see the unintended consequences of their actions: those actions being their relentless efforts to marry the Christian Church and State. I can see and hear it now... their great oppressor saying softly and with a grin... “oh my subjects, don’t you remember one of your favorite proverbs... what is good for the goose is good for the gander?” Consistency, in reasoning and logic, has never been a strength of fundamentalist ideologues like our nation's present conservative right-wingers.
It is time to nip in the bud this church/state/faith-based insidious “Intelligent Design” movement. While oblivion is bliss it is also deadly. Let’s simply keep both science and religion in their place. Is that too much too ask?
After all, what harm can pure scientists do? Does anyone really “believe” any of the scientists (quoted below) had or have the time, energy, or desire to burn witches or preachers or teachers at the stake? But of course not. Scientists tend to mind their own business. Not perfectly so, but generally so.
Lest you think I am Deifying scientists I am not. You will see as you read their own words how self-deprecating scientists can be. Scientists don’t need the likes of me to defend their typically obscure reputations or to temper their egos. Yes, insecure scientists will have ego issues just like any insecure human being. So sue them.
I fear the preacher assuming an “I-Deity” far more than the scientist assuming his or her hypothesis to be wrong. In case one is unaware... this is what true scientists, in effect, do. They dedicate their lives to disproving their own hypotheses. It's called the scientific method.
I would be remiss if I, before closing, did not warn of the looming capitalistic “corporate takeover of science.” It’s here and in full throttle forward. But that is another topic worthy of discussion. Until then, hug a scientist a day... an unwed scientist, that is unwed to stringy corporate funding and/or ideological dogma. A scientist a day keeps the witches away.
Remember folks, Intelligent Design designs intelligent designs... i.e., schemes.
Duane Short
August 5, 2006
==========
----------
Innocence about Science is the worst crime today.
Sir Charles Percy Snow (1905-80) English novelist and scientist.
----------
Those who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also make very poor observations.
Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist, 1865.
----------
Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought.
Albert Szent-Györgi (1893-1986) U. S. biochemist.
----------
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game.
Anonymous
----------
Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?
Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.
----------
... the scientist would maintain that knowledge in of itself is wholly good, and that there should be and are methods of dealing with misuses of knowledge by the ruffian or the bully other than by suppressing the knowledge.
Percy Williams Bridgman (1882-1961) U. S. physicist, Nobel Prize, 1946.
----------
An ocean traveler has even more vividly the impression that the ocean is made of waves than that it is made of water.
Arthur S. Eddington (1882-1944) English astronomer and physicist. In: The Nature of the Physical World, Cambridge (1929).
----------
The chess-board is the world; the pieces are the phenomena of the universe; the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
----------
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
----------
Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
----------
A man gazing at the stars is proverbially at the mercy of the puddles in the road.
Alexander Smith
----------
It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.
Sherlock Holmes, the fictional creation of Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) British physician and novelist.
----------
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.
----------
Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.
Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) Danish physicist.
----------
True science teaches us to doubt and, in ignorance, to refrain.
Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist.
----------
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth.
Pierre Abelard (1079-1142) French scholastic philosopher, theologian.
----------
The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest.
The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be "Seek simplicity and distrust it."
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English mathematician and philosopher. Concepts of Nature, p. 163.
----------
There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician.
----------
It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician.
----------
... they are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they can see nothing but sea.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) English essayist, philosopher, statesman.
----------
Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.
George Santayana (1863-1952) U. S. philosopher and writer. The Life of Reason.
----------
Science increases our power in proportion as it lowers our pride.
Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist.
----------
Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) German Philosopher
----------
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (c460-c.377 BCE) Greek physician.
----------
There's no system foolproof enough to defeat a sufficiently great fool.
Edward Teller, quoted in "Nuclear Reactions", by Joel Davis in Omni,
May 1988, p. 46.
[ Hmmm... anyone come to mind? ]
----------
Those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn.
Galen, Claudius (c.130-c.200) Greek physician, writer. On The Natural Faculties
----------
This only is certain, that there is nothing certain; and nothing more miserable and yet more arrogant than man.
Pliny ("The Elder") (23-79) Roman naturalist. (Gaius Plinius Secundus)
..and just for fun:
----------
On Physics
Physics is very muddled again at the moment; it is much too hard for me anyway, and I wish I were a movie comedian or something like that and had never heard anything about physics!
Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) Austrian Physicist in the US. (Nobel Prize, 1935). From a letter to R. Kronig, 25 May 1925.
I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961) Austrian physicist. Nobel Prize, 1933. Speaking of quantum mechanics.
Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it.
Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) Danish physicist.
If anybody says he can think about quantum problems without getting giddy, that only shows he has not understood the first thing about them.
Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) Danish physicist.
...more fun anyone?
----------
Mathematics in Science
Nobody knows why, but the only theories which work are the mathematical ones.
Michael Holt, in Mathematics in Art.
Strange as it may sound, the power of mathematics rests on its evasion of all unnecessary thought and on its wonderful saving of mental operations.
Ernst Mach (1838-1916) Austrian physicist, philosopher.
To talk about communication theory without communicating its real mathematical content would be like endlessly telling a man about a wonderful composer, yet never letting him hear an example of the composer's music.
John Robinson Pierce (1910- ) U. S. electrical engineer. In: Symbols, Signals and Noise, Harper. p. x.
Trying to capture the physicists' precise mathematical description of the quantum world with our crude words and mental images is like playing Chopin with a boxing glove on one hand and a catcher's mitt on the other.
George Johnson, "On Skinning Schrödinger's Cat," The New York Times, 2 June 1996.
END
One of "Intelligent Design's" most influential organizations is the "Discovery Institute."
Anyone who might be contemplating the "Intelligent Design" argument that the Science of Evolution should be taught as a religious parallel to Intelligent Design's Creationism (or visa versa) should take a look at the biographies of the Discovery Institute's Leading Figures.
Of those Discovery Institute (DI) principals who provide biographies, few have degrees in life science. Most of these have not published a “peer reviewed anything” in any serious scientific journal or other publication. Most of these scientists whose bios are right there on their web page have a history of "agenda science."
The vast majority of DI principals are lawyers, political hacks, and others with no science background whatsoever, much less biological science.
Science and scientific inquiry, by nature and by design, is to have no agenda. Few seem to understand this and fewer understand the unfortunate ramifications of "science with an agenda."
If there is to be any agenda in science, that agenda is to discover scientific truths, period. Any other agenda creates a situation best described by this quote.
----------
The dispassionate intellect, the open mind, the unprejudiced observer, exist in an exact sense only in a sort of intellectualist folk-lore; states even approaching them cannot be reached without a moral and emotional effort most of us cannot or will not make.
Wilfred Batten Lewis Trotter (1872-1939) English surgeon.
----------
Among scientists, the constant struggle to resist one's own intellectual prejudice, personal bias, or other predisposing forces is well recognized and acknowledged by most. Few outside the world of basic experimental science truly understand just how rigid this world is and must remain. I find myself often losing patience with scientists who seem to ignore controversial issues such as global warming, stem cell research, and the like. But then I remind myself how extremely difficult it is to maintain clear focus completely on known facts and to hold, at bay, personal bias once one has become embroiled in a pedestrian level controversy. I say pedestrian not to sound smug but rather to emphasize the point that many pedestrian level controversies are just that, pedestrian. This issue of Intelligent Design best illustrates what I mean.
Among rank and file biologists, there is little discussion about the merits of Intelligent Design. Life scientists simply dismiss this movement for what it is... an attempt to interject religious bias into the scientific process. This is why the "Discovery Institute" is led by mostly legal eagles, public relations experts and charismatic theologians... i.e., political hacks. Lacking support from the scientific community, these fundamentalist creationists use whatever means necessary to incite and cultivate public interest in their stated agenda. They know religious zealots are always seeking an outlet; a cause; a crusade.
In essence, the DI is promoting Intelligent Design to teach our children that when we want to learn more about the physical world that it is okay to rely on the mystical realm of the metaphysical. In other words, they are promoting the same mentality held by those who burned witches in Salem.
Do you suppose these same promoters of Intelligent Design (ID) would NOT rely on the science of forensics to find the murderer of a loved one? Do you suppose they would seek out psychics to find the source of their loved one's demise? Right... sure they would. Does anyone really “believe” they would use, as a primary tool, this mystical approach?
I am certain most of these ID promoters would scoff at the use of psychics, especially if psychic "powers" were to be used as an equal to or substitute for forensic sciences. Why would they resist the use of psychic powers? Of course they would resist because they know, just like you and me, psychics have never been conclusively demonstrated to have solved a single crime. Psychics are generally a last ditch effort... after all the science that can be utilized has been utilized. Psychics occasionally supply a small piece to a complicated puzzle. But this contribution is easily over-blown.
If one is given general dimensions of a 1000 piece jig-saw puzzle missing several pieces and one, then, arbitrarily cuts out a piece of cardboard believing that piece will help complete the puzzle there is a reasonable chance that piece can be made to fit, at least loosely, into one of the empty spaces. This would not, however, confirm that the cutter of that piece had any specific cosmic foreknowledge of its shape and dimensions. The near fit would, rather, suggest the cutter was granted, by chance, a bit of dumb luck combined with an educated guess. The fit of this piece could certainly not be attributed to science. Dumb luck is dumb luck.
Just as no one can disprove the existence or involvement of a supreme being in the physical affairs of the universe, no one can conclusively disprove psychic contributions to the solving of crimes that have been unexplained by scientific investigation. But simply because science is not designed to study the metaphysical one must not conclude that science is useless in the study of the physical.
This scientific axiom must remembered, "correlation does not imply causation." In other words. If ten psychics lead ten investigators to ten sites of ten crimes scenes this correlation cannot necessarily assign psychic powers as the resolution of the crime. For example, take those same ten psychics and give them absolutely no information about the crimes that have been committed and then see if they can locate scenes of crimes in far away lands. More specifically, if a Chicago-based investigator, without revealing a clue, asks a psychic to lead to a murder scene that had occurred in some remote place like the Congo or Tibet could the psychic do so? Not likely.
Most likely the psychic would lead a wild goose chase around the Windy City. But why? Metaphysics, by definition, is not physical and therefore space, time, and distance do not exist in this mystical realm. So why does something as supposedly so inconsequential as distance have such a profound negative effect on a psychic's self-assigned ability to perform mystical feats? Don’t wait for science to answer this question.
Science cannot address the metaphysical. True science does not seek to address the metaphysical. Yet we find propagators (The Discovery Institute) of metaphysics (Intelligent Design) trying to convince the "unscienced" (in contrast to the unchurched) that metaphysics can address scientific inquiry.
While psychics have sometimes "seemed" to offer mystical resolutions to some mysteries those resolutions cannot be tested or repeated by experiment. This fact does not, in any way, suggest scientists should welcome psychics into their world of scientific inquiry.
All things considered, forensic science scientists and educators will never teach their students to consult psychics to help them perform their scientific duties or to advance the science of forensics. Yet, the religious forces behind "Intelligent Design" are literally trying to strong-arm school boards, legislators, and the public into accepting their mystical ideologies as science. Believers in Intelligent Design have choices. Believers can believe in intelligent Design. I certainly do. Surprised? Believers can acknowledge Intelligent Design as a matter of faith. I do. Surprised? Believers can proclaim Intelligent Design to be a science. I don't. Surprised? Why? It is called distinction. The life of a believer does not have to be lived in a blinding fog of confusion or a mind numbing state of oblivion.
Those who choose to avoid, at all costs, the pain of personal doubt, change, growth and/or perhaps the deep-felt hurt of being ridiculed by family, friends, and associates will never understand the paragraph above.
The force behind Intelligent Design is this recurring human passion to enjoy the soul-soothing balm of self-assurance. Humans seem to find it extremely liberating when their inexplicable personal "feelings" are accepted as equal to or greater than conventional wisdom or even scientific truths. To gain or to claim this status is to no longer be required to explain "why" one believes, says, or does this or that. One is liberated to think, say, or do just because one believes in what one is thinking, saying, or doing. This idea makes me smile because this is a most "liberal" view of personal freedom. Yet it is the "conservative" that promotes such a non-sensical approach to democracy... to life.
Conservatives view "self-doubt" or “self-skepticism" as a weakness rather than a sensible self-imposed attribute that combats human tendencies like bias, prejudice, selfishness, hedonism, arrogance, and other natural traits that lead to living an existence of double-standards. Double-standards offer that blissful oblivion so many seem to crave. But woe be to those on the other side of that double-standard. Who has not been subjected to the wrath of those arrogant souls occupying a position of authority and happy to exercise double-standards? One's oblivion is another's hell. You know what I mean. The very essence of Intelligent Design is to count “belief” as "proof." Do the three letters, "WMD" come to mind? Think about this. Jihad is a belief-based system. Christian Conquistadors had their system of beliefs. "Belief" is all this ilk of humanity need to justify their thoughts, words, and actions... no matter how vile or violent those thoughts, words, and actions might be.
To count "belief" as science is to open the door to the past. I suppose this fact explains why conservatives so detest the "progressives" of this world. We try to open doors to the future and close those select doors to the past that would allow our regrettable erroneous ways to draft forward to consume us once again.
The fatal flaw shared by fundamentalists whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, or many other religions, cults, or sects is that they tend to believe their "belief" explains their physical world and therefore they are predestined to rule the world. It should come as no surprise that time and again, such as now, the so-called "clash-of-civilizations" raises its ugly head to leave those progressives of the world gape-jawed at the barbarism humankind is still capable of generating in the name of “belief.”
Yes, psychics should keep their mystics to themselves (and most serious psychics admit their abilities cannot be taught or forced upon another). It's funny but I feel that same way about my faith and even democracy. Psychics are the least of our problems.
Politicians whose god is power are our problem.
If we allow "so-called" evangelical conservatives to interject their mystics into science we will revisit the days when burning witches was all the rage. In one sense, are we not burning witches now? Our witches wear "turbines."
Is there really any difference in calling a young Bostonian female a witch and an entire nation an axis of evil?
Isn't the burning of witches, in and of itself, an interesting outcome of mystical predominance over scientific inquiry? Mystics tend to burn, at the stake, other mystics.
Belief and believers burn witches. Science and scientists, at worst, might attempt to study them.
Pure scientists have never burned a witch or anyone claiming to be or having been accused of being a mystic. Pure scientists are too busy seeking out and properly placing together pieces of physical puzzles to chase after witches and to sup on witches brews.
The mystical "Discovery Institute" has never discovered anything. Not one "thing." Why then, are they so arrogant as to tell scientists and the world that their mystics should be placed in the same scientific context and be regarded as having equal import in our children's science classes? Why? Because they "believe" their beliefs are sufficiently sound to count as science.
Science is science. Belief is belief. Mixing them is like mixing sugar and salt. Both have their place but mixed together or being switched and mislabeled can be deadly... especially when presented to children.
I suggest we do what sanity compels us to do. Acknowledge science as science and belief as belief.
Please support the preservation of pure science in your schools.
I believe all of humanity will eventually believe in science... and if you believe I really believe this, God help you. My point is... although belief will be construed as fact, belief must never be accepted as fact... no matter how strongly or repeatedly belief is presented as fact. Believe me, you must believe this... conservative right-wingers will repeat a belief loudly and infinitely if that is what it takes to make you and/or your children accept their belief(s) as fact. Believe me. Surely, you get my point.
Even science leaves room for doubt about the absoluteness of any given fact... but friends, science is the best tool humans possess to pry into the beautiful and magnificent secrets of our physical world. Let’s not muddy the waters of science with the opaque fog of faith.
Fog is for crystal balls and psychics and purveyors of war. Faith is for but one... the one possessing it. Faith, like love cannot be forced upon anyone. Faith, like love cannot be proven by science. But renegade faith will forcefully burn “witches” and faith will force its faithful into ghastly war after war in an attempt to force one faith upon another.
Case in point: George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil. Folks, you know exactly what I mean. Your descendants will know too when someday some other faith happens to occupy our White House. Then, the right-wing conservatives will be on their knees, not praying to “their” God but begging some bin Laden type character to separate the Islamic Church and State.
Until then, short-sighted conservatives will fail to see the unintended consequences of their actions: those actions being their relentless efforts to marry the Christian Church and State. I can see and hear it now... their great oppressor saying softly and with a grin... “oh my subjects, don’t you remember one of your favorite proverbs... what is good for the goose is good for the gander?” Consistency, in reasoning and logic, has never been a strength of fundamentalist ideologues like our nation's present conservative right-wingers.
It is time to nip in the bud this church/state/faith-based insidious “Intelligent Design” movement. While oblivion is bliss it is also deadly. Let’s simply keep both science and religion in their place. Is that too much too ask?
After all, what harm can pure scientists do? Does anyone really “believe” any of the scientists (quoted below) had or have the time, energy, or desire to burn witches or preachers or teachers at the stake? But of course not. Scientists tend to mind their own business. Not perfectly so, but generally so.
Lest you think I am Deifying scientists I am not. You will see as you read their own words how self-deprecating scientists can be. Scientists don’t need the likes of me to defend their typically obscure reputations or to temper their egos. Yes, insecure scientists will have ego issues just like any insecure human being. So sue them.
I fear the preacher assuming an “I-Deity” far more than the scientist assuming his or her hypothesis to be wrong. In case one is unaware... this is what true scientists, in effect, do. They dedicate their lives to disproving their own hypotheses. It's called the scientific method.
I would be remiss if I, before closing, did not warn of the looming capitalistic “corporate takeover of science.” It’s here and in full throttle forward. But that is another topic worthy of discussion. Until then, hug a scientist a day... an unwed scientist, that is unwed to stringy corporate funding and/or ideological dogma. A scientist a day keeps the witches away.
Remember folks, Intelligent Design designs intelligent designs... i.e., schemes.
Duane Short
August 5, 2006
==========
----------
Innocence about Science is the worst crime today.
Sir Charles Percy Snow (1905-80) English novelist and scientist.
----------
Those who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also make very poor observations.
Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist, 1865.
----------
Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought.
Albert Szent-Györgi (1893-1986) U. S. biochemist.
----------
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game.
Anonymous
----------
Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?
Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.
----------
... the scientist would maintain that knowledge in of itself is wholly good, and that there should be and are methods of dealing with misuses of knowledge by the ruffian or the bully other than by suppressing the knowledge.
Percy Williams Bridgman (1882-1961) U. S. physicist, Nobel Prize, 1946.
----------
An ocean traveler has even more vividly the impression that the ocean is made of waves than that it is made of water.
Arthur S. Eddington (1882-1944) English astronomer and physicist. In: The Nature of the Physical World, Cambridge (1929).
----------
The chess-board is the world; the pieces are the phenomena of the universe; the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
----------
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
----------
Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
----------
A man gazing at the stars is proverbially at the mercy of the puddles in the road.
Alexander Smith
----------
It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.
Sherlock Holmes, the fictional creation of Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) British physician and novelist.
----------
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.
----------
Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.
Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) Danish physicist.
----------
True science teaches us to doubt and, in ignorance, to refrain.
Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist.
----------
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth.
Pierre Abelard (1079-1142) French scholastic philosopher, theologian.
----------
The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest.
The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be "Seek simplicity and distrust it."
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English mathematician and philosopher. Concepts of Nature, p. 163.
----------
There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician.
----------
It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician.
----------
... they are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they can see nothing but sea.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) English essayist, philosopher, statesman.
----------
Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.
George Santayana (1863-1952) U. S. philosopher and writer. The Life of Reason.
----------
Science increases our power in proportion as it lowers our pride.
Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist.
----------
Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) German Philosopher
----------
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (c460-c.377 BCE) Greek physician.
----------
There's no system foolproof enough to defeat a sufficiently great fool.
Edward Teller, quoted in "Nuclear Reactions", by Joel Davis in Omni,
May 1988, p. 46.
[ Hmmm... anyone come to mind? ]
----------
Those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn.
Galen, Claudius (c.130-c.200) Greek physician, writer. On The Natural Faculties
----------
This only is certain, that there is nothing certain; and nothing more miserable and yet more arrogant than man.
Pliny ("The Elder") (23-79) Roman naturalist. (Gaius Plinius Secundus)
..and just for fun:
----------
On Physics
Physics is very muddled again at the moment; it is much too hard for me anyway, and I wish I were a movie comedian or something like that and had never heard anything about physics!
Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) Austrian Physicist in the US. (Nobel Prize, 1935). From a letter to R. Kronig, 25 May 1925.
I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961) Austrian physicist. Nobel Prize, 1933. Speaking of quantum mechanics.
Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it.
Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) Danish physicist.
If anybody says he can think about quantum problems without getting giddy, that only shows he has not understood the first thing about them.
Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) Danish physicist.
...more fun anyone?
----------
Mathematics in Science
Nobody knows why, but the only theories which work are the mathematical ones.
Michael Holt, in Mathematics in Art.
Strange as it may sound, the power of mathematics rests on its evasion of all unnecessary thought and on its wonderful saving of mental operations.
Ernst Mach (1838-1916) Austrian physicist, philosopher.
To talk about communication theory without communicating its real mathematical content would be like endlessly telling a man about a wonderful composer, yet never letting him hear an example of the composer's music.
John Robinson Pierce (1910- ) U. S. electrical engineer. In: Symbols, Signals and Noise, Harper. p. x.
Trying to capture the physicists' precise mathematical description of the quantum world with our crude words and mental images is like playing Chopin with a boxing glove on one hand and a catcher's mitt on the other.
George Johnson, "On Skinning Schrödinger's Cat," The New York Times, 2 June 1996.
END
posted by Duane Short | 8/05/2006 06:25:00 PM
|
0 comments
