My Zen Arcade

I’m actually not writing this as an attack or even criticism of ID.

Its been bothering me for quite a while that supporters of ID can’t understand why it doesn’t belong in science classes. 

The core reason is that these people don’t understand what science is.  They think that science is a quest for truth, for fact.  Many scientists will agree, but it isn’t hard to find one who doesn’t, and who instead sees science as a tool that adequately describes the universe for our purposes (big difference there). 

The thing is, that’s only half the game.  Science is both goal AND method.  Even if ID were true, it STILL wouldn’t be science because it doesn’t follow the scientific method.

Look, lets suppose I wanted to let people know about the plight of starving countries around the globe.  I might make a big old presentation about covering the economics and policy decisions surrounding the situation it with PowerPoint charts and note cards, and hand outs, and so forth.  Or, I might write a fiction novel, or paint a picture, or make a documentary.  All of these things might get us to the truth, but we would not say they were the same.  In a policy context, we’d probably use the presentation, in an ethics class, maybe the novel and documentary.  And, sometimes there would be cross-over in context and genre, but it would always be notable as an exception.  My point is that we wouldn’t go before congress and read the novel, nor would we show the presentation in a literature class.  The PowerPoint slides aren’t literature, and the novel isn’t a congressional report.

The same applies with Intelligent Design.  It may be true, it is, in fact, impossible to say that it CAN’T be true (which is one of the reasons it isn’t a science).  But even if God (or an alien, or whatever) himself came down and spoke to every scientist in the world and told them that ID was true, it STILL wouldn’t be science.  And any definition of science that would allow for it would be virtually meaningless, or, at least, useless.

And that’s why ID doesn’t belong in a science class.

So, as if to prove my point about religious views being pointless in any debate other than theological:

“Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades,” Kern said in the recorded comments. “It is not a lifestyle that is good for this nation.”

Kern, who was joined at the rally by Baptist ministers including her husband, the Rev. Steve Kern, has rejected demands that she apologize and said her beliefs are rooted in biblical passages that she said characterizes homosexuality as a sin.

First, she’s obviously wrong in the ‘few decades’ statement, because, y’know, there were those people we refer to as the Greeks, for whom homosexuality was a norm, though, if I understand correctly, they still did view marriage as between a man and woman, used for merging families and property, and for procreation (there simply was no concept of romantic love back then).

Second, if her beliefs grow out of a text that allows no deviation from its fatwas, then it has no place in any non-theological debate because that position can’t meaningfully be challenged.  It is dogma.  Unwavering, unchanging, inflexbile.

Oh, Man-Cow, we hardly new ye

So, as you’ve probably heard, at some courthouse in Crossville, Tennasee, there’s now a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (along with Jesus, etc.).

Someone, apparently, is quite upset by the whole thing.  Its not completely clear what he is upset about, but at the very least he is poorly informed about almost everything he discusses.  As a disclaimer, I have to admit (if you don’t already know it) that I don’t see any significant difference between FSM and Jesus, or, at least, I don’t see one of them as more or less bizarre or likely than the other.  Interestingly, I don’t see this as an insult to Christianity.  I think that, once you have an omnipotent, supernatural being, and his son being sent to Earth, and all these miracles, you just gone into the realm of the strange so far that it becomes difficult to see anything as being impossible.

That said, the Josh appears to be suffering from some sort of persecution syndrome which is common amoung those who have a massive majority (whites, men, christians) or disproportionate amounts of power in society.  They become very agitated when their views are not taken as law, or they have to share their space with others, etc.  One has to wonder, would Mr. Hayes be so quick to jump to the defense of Scientology?  Buddhism?  Taoism?  Probably not. 

Here’s my initial breakdown.

1. He’s complaining that people who vote based on their religions are being kept out of public debate.

“In our present context, those advocating for a completely secular state
discriminate against those who appeal to Christianity or the Bible for
guidance in public policy by merely labeling their agenda as religious”

But it seems to me that if you are guided by your religion, and your religious text, then by definition you have a religions agenda.  Call me nuts.
Further, once you have a religious agenda, there’s no point to debating.
Let’s see an example using abortion.
Person 1: Abortion should be illegal because the child within that womb has a soul and is therefor alive.
Person 2: Abortion should be illegal because the foetus is sufficiently developed to be considered alive and human.  Further, the foetus feels pain when the abortion is done.
Person 1 is stating a dogmatic belief which can’t possibly be argued against.  It may, in fact, be true, but there’s no point in debating it.
Person 2, however, is offering up evidence and making an argument.  His first statement may be a little hazy, but his second statement is clear as day.  Either one of these could be discussed and new information could be introduced to support or undermine his claims.

If Person 1 is prevented from taking part in a debate (and I’ve yet to see any evidence of this sort of thing happening…just look at the Republican Presidential debates), its only because they aren’t bringing anything to the table that can be debated (I suppose you could have a theological debate about whether or not the ‘child’ has a soul). 

2. Secular people are not neutral.

 ”In spite of their best efforts to appear as the objective, rational party, those opposed to Intelligent Design and the influence of religion upon the state have shown themselves to not be so “neutral” after all.”

I’m not at all certain what he’s talking about here.  In what way does any of this show a lack of neutrality? Further, where does rationality imply neutrality? 
A rational person approaches a situation or issue with an open mind, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a priori knowledge.  If you tell me a rock is made of gold, I can approach it rationally, and, knowing what I
know, test to see if it is really gold.  That test does not mean I am biased towards or against it being gold.
I have acquired knowledge and applied it.  Further, more than just factual knowledge can be applied to situations a rational person finds themselves in.  If we decide that logic is a useful tool, then in every situation, I can then apply logic to help me judge truth from fiction.  I do not have to recompile all the rules of logic in every situation.
In the case of I.D., the same thing applies.  Arguments might be made for Intelligent Design against evolution, but that doesn’t mean that both theories must wiegh equally (which is what proponants of I.D. want you to see as ‘fairness’).  Were one to apply this rule to all things, then we’d have to include, say, ‘time cube’ in out classrooms and all conspiracy theories about the moon landing, JFK’s assasination, and the Masons.  That isn’t neutrality.  Neutrality would be looking at the arguments for and against each side and determining which makes the stronger case, without presupposing the outcome (assuming you have no knowledge of the topic).
Again, neutrality doesn’t mean not having an informed opinion, nor does it mean going into every situation tabula rasa.  A rational person need not claim neutrality as a characteristic.  A rational person claims adherance to facts in evidence and logic.

3. He appears to be angry at Darwin

” While the idea of creation via the Flying Spaghetti Monster may seem ridiculous, modern Darwinist dogma is even more ridiculous in saying the universe came into existence out of nothing. To put it in mathematical terms, nobody multiplied by nothing equals everything”

Of course,   Darwin, and evolutionary biologists don’t make that claim at all.  In fact, that claim falls well outside the boundaries of biology.  So this may be the result of anger based on a misunderstanding, I suppose. 
Mr. Hayes, I do suggest that perhaps your energy spent writing this ‘editorial’ would have been better spent reading about rational thought and evolutionary theory (Darwinism, Neo-darwinism) so that you at least know what your opponant is actually saying.

If, as Ms. Bachmann says, things are so good in Iraq, why are people still blowing up?
And, if she can’t read the body count, why should anyone listen to her on global warming?

Bachmann on: McCain, global warming and the media (The Political Animal)

Bachmann recalled having Christmas Eve dinner with General Patraeus, who told her Baghdad was 80% secure and that the head of the insurgency there threw in the towel, saying he wanted to live in a stable society.

First, this is MUCH more like Vehicle Voltron than transformers.
Second, why does anyone continue to think that intelligent, adaptive, self-configuring robots that can combine to form BIGGER robots are at all a good idea?
All scientists should have to possess at least a modicum of knowledge of SF.
Or the Simpsons.
So they can set the switch to ‘good’.

Real-life Transformers: Shape-changing robots could help save lives | the Daily Mail

The £4.6million experiment will attempt to build swarms of tiny robots, each the size of a sugar cube, that move around on their own and connect together to form larger, intelligent machines.

Look, it seems to me that if you are a creationist, you must believe that god takes a very VERY active role in human affairs (having created us out of dust and all).  That role must preempt any mortal activity, including science.  Science tells us the earth is billions of years old, but creationists say its 6000.  The subtext (text?) being that science has it all wrong, that the evidence doesn’t matter.

God trumps science.

Okee Dokee.

Empirical data means nothing.  Fine by me.  Physical evidence 0, God 1.

But what I DON’T like is how they pick and choose which science to like, based on how offensive it is to their beliefs.

The only sane, reasonable, consistent, non-hypocritical thing to do is to reject science out of hand.

Why are you using penicillin?  Or any medicine for that matter?  And cars?  Cars run on oil (can we agree on that?)  and thats from those dinosaurs millions of years ago which, obviously, are a lie, probably perpetuated by Satan.  Oh, did I forget to mention that most of modern biology has ties to evolutionary theory?

So, unless you want to spend eternity in hell, you’d best start praying for deliverance from sickness, and if you want to get across town, you’d best get down on your knees and pray for some holy teleportation.

Science, yes or no?  Pick a side, we’re at war! (Thanks, Colbert)

(At least the Christian Scientists put their money where their mouthes are, a little)

Only sluts and whores will get HPV.
(like those pesky Negro girls, who we all know are sluts and whores)
(and, apparently, 1 in 5 non-Negroes who are also obviously sluts and whores or who have horrible parents who don’t raise them as good christians)

CDC study says at least 1 in 4 teen girls has a sexually transmitted disease; HPV most common | NewsOK.com

At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group.A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls — nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

Well, I hate it when I agree with Ms. Malkin, but I ended up at the following link from her site.
While I think it is probably a good idea to shift the narrow focus of how science programs and research are handled, the idea that, because the nature of the beast isn’t pleasant to many women (”where winning is everything, and women find it repulsive”) is, well, just plain old tough titties.  I find the nature of working a job, being rated based on accomplishing tasks and how hard I work, to be VERY unpleasant.  I wanted to go to law school, but memorizing everything was really annoying.
My point is that there probably is a great deal to be gained by shifting how science/research/engineering programs (both academic and professional) are structured, but the fact that many women don’t like how it works now is hardly a justifiable reason.  Title IX should prevent women from being actively discriminated against, should ensure that women have equal access to such positions and programs, should ensure that women are not arbitrarily ignored based on their gender.  But it should not be used to change how research is run just so women are happier with it.
Thats a change that has to come because it HELPS science, not just to make it prettier.

Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man? — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

There is another essential difference between sports and science: in science, men and women play on the same teams. Very few women can compete on equal terms with men in lacrosse, wrestling, or basketball; by contrast, there are many brilliant women in the top ranks of every field of science and technology, and no one doubts their ability to compete on equal terms. Yet a centerpiece of STEM activism is the idea that science, as currently organized and practiced, is intrinsically hostile to women and a barrier to the realization of their unique intellectual potential. MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, an effective leader of the science equity campaign (and a prominent accuser of Harvard president Lawrence Summers when he committed the solecism of suggesting that men and women might have different propensities and aptitudes), points to the hidden sexism of the obsessive and competitive work ethic of institutions like MIT.“It is a system,” Hopkins says, “where winning is everything, and women find it repulsive.” This viewpoint explains the constant emphasis, by equity activists such as Shalala, Rolison, and Olsen, on the need to transform the “entire culture” of academic science and engineering. Indeed, the charter for the October 17 congressional hearing placed primary emphasis on academic culture: “The list of cultural norms that appear to disadvantage women…includes the favoring of disciplinary over interdisciplinary research and publications, and the only token attention given to teaching and other service during the tenure review process. Thus it seems that it is not necessarily conscious bias against women but an ingrained idea of how the academic enterprise ‘should be’ that presents the greatest challenge to women seeking academic S&E [science and engineering] careers.”

This just makes me sad. Mostly because this guy is following the same patterns as, say, our current C-In-C. He talks about things he knows nothing about.
First, he talks about tax cuts and tax breaks, etc., all while admitting he knows very little about economics.
Now he’s talking about medicine, which, apparently, being a war hero makes you qualified to have an opinion on.
Here its even worse since supporting this hogwash may very well end up killing children.

The Washington Monthly

McCAIN’S JUNK SCIENCE….Here’s the latest from John McCain: At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that “there’s strong evidence” that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. — a position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment.

….McCain said, per ABC News’ Bret Hovell, that “It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.”

This is from Jake Tapper, who, to his credit, calls this for the nonsense on stilts that it is. There’s never been strong evidence in favor of the thimerosal/autism connection, and what little evidence there was has practically disappeared over the past couple of years as further studies have been done. The odds of thimerosal being responsible for autism are now slim and none, and perpetuating this myth does real damage — both to the cause of autism research and to the millions of parents who hear this and decide to keep their children from receiving the normal complement of childhood vaccines.

So what happened here? Why did McCain perpetuate this rubbish without even a smidgen of doubt in his voice? Was he pandering to some constituency or other? Was he just making shit up because he didn’t really know anything about the subject? Was he misinformed by own staff about this? Unfortunately, my guess is that the correct answer here is “making shit up,” a quality that McCain has shown an unfortunate weakness for in the past. It’s just another indication that when it comes to anything outside of the few pet issues he cares about, McCain really can’t be bothered to take an interest. Not a great quality for the leader of the free world.