|
Help defend science: flunked not expelled
Author: cbit on April 18 2008 Viewed 7004 times. 29 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: EsromCole, yghartsyrt, bodo, Zanf, Analog, Logo, hecanjog, crabster, bleen, license, Otterfan, minisystem, mlbot, Jetsom, subset, 11t1, zach, monty, Spark, SenorFrio, Fredo, ignatius, delete, tantan, p, tylth, jp, sAMsKi, flies
-->
Apologies, a completely non-music related post.
The creationist/ID friendly pseudo documentary called Expelled will be screening near you soon. In the film, Ben Stein claims that scientists critical of the theory of evolution are being silenced by the powers behind "big science". Through ham fisted montages the film also tries to establish a link between the theory of evolution and Nazism and other genocidal ideologies.
Christian fundamentalists are lobbying hard to promote this film, even offering incentives to school groups to go and see it.
A counter site has been launched by the national center for science education that lists, and refutes, the lies and important omissions of the expelled film.
Publishing hyperlinks to the expelled exposed site, using 'expelled' as the visible link text, will help make the counter site more visible in search engines, and help ensure that people really do hear 'both sides' of the story. If you can, please help out.
Here's a review of the film:
link
Digging this page will help spread the word too (there's a subtle digg link beneath this blog post)
edit: "help defend science" == shorthand for 'help protect people from being robbed of the chance to understand the scientific method, to understand the crucial importance of evidence based reason in evaluating truth claims, to understand the principles or critical thought, to appreciate the enormous weight of evidence in support of evolutionary theory.' | |
Comments
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
dach
is that humans want to see themselves at the center of things
considering we have the most complicated structure in the known universe right behind our eyes (at least some of us do), I'd say humans most definitely are at the center of things. Not just want to see themselves there. If you know of something more advanced and more amazing in all the universe, then let me know.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
dach
Take two children, one young enough to believe in the existence of santa claus, and one who is a little older, and has realised that mommy and daddy bring the presents.
Science is like the older child, who has an understanding of the mechanics of the situation, and sees no evidence of the existence of Santa Claus, (and in many cases actively tries to destroy the faith of the younger child by telling them that there is no Santa Claus).
A third viewpoint is of course that Santa Claus exists not as a physical person, but as a spirit of giving, as a force of inspiration that makes both children and parents happy, and that is a definite existence despite the lack of physical evidence. This is the Myth of Santa Claus. Religion often understands this type of existence implicitly, while externally appearing to be like the simplistic child saying "The presents appear, therefore Santa Claus exists!". Bad science, but right conclusion! Science, with the focus on proof and evidence and logic regularly fails to understand this.
The existence of Santa Claus then is not a universal Truth you can give a yes/no answer to. It just depends on your viewpoint. The real issue here is does the older child have the right to proclaim themselves as authorative on the matter, and do they have the right to (mis)inform the younger child of their conclusions? I wonder if their sense of disappointment with their truth motivates them to take the truth away from the younger child. If Santa Claus doesn't exist for them, why should he exist for anyone else..
This is why I have come to dislike science, despite its wonders.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
crabster
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that it's better to pretend than to be a "spoil sport" and tell it like it is and possibly cause cognitive dissonance? If so, then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Zanf
f'king typical of you crabster - you always have to undress everything and leave the truth naked and bare.
Come to think of it, it was you who told me that Santa doesnt ride around in his sleigh delivering presents with the baby jesus.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
flies said: " cbit said: "The act of saying 'unless it doesn't', like any other act, presupposes that existence exists. Since at the very least that thought is a 'movement' of consciousness, which exists."
can you flesh this out a bit? i'm not sure i follow."
Saying something, like 'existence doesn't exist' involves the direct experience of consciousness (i'm assuming solipsism is not true, and that i'm not the only mind ;) ). To experience consciousness is to concede that consciousness (at least one instance of it) exists. And if we reflect on the fact that a consciousness must exist, in order to be a consciousness, we notice that existence is primary--the metaphysical primacy of existence. Christians and other theists tacitly get metaphysical primacy back to front, imagining that consciousness is primary, and that it gives rise to existence.
This stuff is culled from Objectivism, which imo gets metahpycical primacy right, but fails in other areas.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
The existence of Santa Claus then is not a universal Truth you can give a yes/no answer to. It just depends on your viewpoint.
Lol, this is such nonsense. Follow it through and see where it takes you:
Did the atrocities of auschwitz occur? It just depends on your viewpoint
Is the capital of England, London? That depends on whether you think it is or not.
Is 2+2=5 Yes, if you believe it is.
Questions such as the existence of Santa Claus, or of Gods, are also matters of fact, exactly like these. It might feel good to believe that these magical people exist, and we might want to pretend that they do for that reason, but when we're thinking clearly we don't asses truth claims based on how good they make us feel.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
The 'my truth, your truth' meme is responsible for an awful lot of muddle headedness.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
crabster
Zanf: Hahaha
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Fredo
I think it's a bit rude the way you keep referring to "these magical people." It's a bit haughty and elitist.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
Fredo: 'magical people' accurately reflects what is being claimed for the beings theists believe in.
Perhaps some theists may feel slighted when its pointed out that that they believe in an invisible magical person, but the shoe fits, so the problem is not with the description.
Any time a taboo is challenged (in this case the taboo that we should respect grown people's belief in fairy tales) it's going to look rude. Sure.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
(the 'fairytales' refers specifically to the monotheistic religions)
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Fredo
Are you kidding? "Magical" usually refers to crystal balls and other hocus pocus, and I think a Christian would be deeply offended by this term. It's clear you are using that term to characterize the "mysterious" with something a bit more disney. It certainly is a very biased choice of words.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
Fredo said: "Are you kidding? "Magical" usually refers to crystal balls and other hocus pocus, and I think a Christian would be deeply offended by this term."
Great, let them be deeply offended. I'm not interested in walking on egg shells. Christian doctrine is heavily based on magic. If Christians have the courage of their convictions they will accept that characterisation.
" 1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects."
It's important to notice something here: Only in recent times has 'magic' taken on a negative connotation, and that tarnish--the association with hucksterism--has developed because we notice time and again that magic fails to perform under critical scrutiny.
The fact that the word magic makes one think of hocus pocus and con artists is no accident. And it has not always been that way.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
Only in recent times has 'magic' taken on a negative connotation
To qualify that: old school Christians used the word to refer to the powers of the devil, they only approved of Yahweh-sanctioned magic.
04/22/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
flies
dach said: " is that humans want to see themselves at the center of things"
considering we have the most complicated structure in the known universe right behind our eyes (at least some of us do), I'd say humans most definitely are at the center of things. Not just want to see themselves there. If you know of something more advanced and more amazing in all the universe, then let me know.
the universe is a very large place. there's no reason to expect that we are the most complicated thing in it. Certainly I am the center of things important to me. That is not in dispute.
ID makes the universe into a system planned for our benefit. this is arrogance.
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
