Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 7:56 PM:Rick Kellogg's letter persists in changing the subject when purporting to discuss evolution, to one of discussing the origin of life.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in the Faith and Values letters and comments, Darwin did not discuss the origin of life. The title of his great masterpiece was "The Origin of Species" not the origin of life. It is about how populations of an existing species, in response to environmental changes, adapt and change into new species.
There are many hypotheses about the origin of life, but the question is not currently answerable by science. The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis in one speculation, however there is no scientific support for it whatsoever.
Since this point has been made many times in both the letters and the comments, Kellogg's disregard for that must indicate something, though I'm not sure exactly what.

Jessie wrote on May 1, 2008 9:55 PM:To Irvin: Who would have thought economists, math teachers, and physics professors don’t use evolution in their everyday work. Who besides a creationists would even have asked if cell phone engineers, rocket designers and algebra teachers would rely on evolution in their daily work? How this is evidence for creationism I'll never know. You stated every field we can imagine doesn’t rely on evolution. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Not only can I name one group of professionals that study evolution, I can name many, such as paleontologists, comparative anatomists, molecular geneticists, zoologists, botanists, mycologists, virologists, population geneticists, geologists, to name but just a few. I’d really like to know the microbiologist you talked to so I could ask him or her how microbiologists study antibiotic resistance in bacteria and viral responses to antiviral drugs. Your arguments have never been convincing, they have now become pathetic.

Hey Jessie wrote on May 2, 2008 8:09 AM:The microbiologist Irvin talked to was likely much wiser than you and knew better than to argue with the likes of Irvin.

Oh Jessie wrote on May 2, 2008 8:54 AM:Some months ago, after being bombarded with arguments and evidence, Irvin resorted out loud to what has always been the bottom line for him and makes his opinions 100% irrelevent. He said that no matter what evidence anyone came up with, there were two kinds of truth and the ordinary world of truth had nothing to do with his higher truth. So there you have it. It's not a debate at all and never was. NO logic, NO facts, NO evidence have any bearing on the matter whatsoever for Irvin. So there's not a reason in the world to attend to him. Irvin is, of course, entitled to believe whatever he wishes. But it's the nadir of intellectual dishonesty of him to falsely claim to be discussing or debating things with others when that's not what he's doing at all. I completely lost all respect for him when he fessed up.

Nick wrote on May 2, 2008 9:17 AM:Once again Irvin Forbing shows his complete ignorance of science. Evolution has been demonstrated over and over again in well controlled scientific studies. I bet Irvin can't observe an atom with his sense or measure it with a ruler - so I guess they don't exist for him. Perhaps if we all concentrate hard enough we can get Irvin Forbing's atoms to disappear. And as for his question - ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer. Please, can't the editorial staff filter the letters for IQ?

Jessie wrote on May 2, 2008 9:21 AM:To Stephen Bennett: Dawkin’s has not branded any questioning of Darwinism as a plot to insert religion, only the plot of creationists to sale their religious beliefs as science. This position is supported by the world’s most prestigious science organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences and AAAS. If creationism (ID) is deserving of a place in science classrooms what evidence does it have in its support? We keep hearing creationists suggest there is convincing evidence, but the actual evidence is never presented. Even the ID film Exposed doesn’t present evidence of ID, instead the film goes on ridiculous witch hunts suggesting (through gross and embarrassing misrepresentations of fact) that evolution is the cause of all evil in the world. And where is the scientific support for creationism (ID) that we also hear about. A visit to any web site of prestigious science organizations (e.g. National Academy of Sciences) makes it perfectly clear that creationism (ID) is a nonscientific and dishonest attempt to place religion in science classrooms. As for conspiracy theories (science is out to get creation scientists) why did creationism (ID) fail so miserably when it had its big day in court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) with a Republican church-going conservative Bush-elected judge (Judge John Jones)? After listening to days of evidence presented by both sides Judge Jones concluded creationism (ID) "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.” As for which side was “exposed” for being dishonest Judge Jones concluded “creationist witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions.” As for Dawkin’s extraterrestrial comments you gleefully commented on you should have first read Dawkin’s response (Google “Lying for Jesus”) before you wasted your time characterizing Dawkin’s as some type of supporter of intelligent design.

John the Baptist wrote on May 2, 2008 9:24 AM:Re: Forbing and microbiologists. How many microbiologists does Forbing know? I'm fairly certain he would have received a much different answer from Kenneth Miller. As for the others he listed, they are totally irrelevant, as Jessie noted. Regards

Jessie wrote on May 2, 2008 9:29 AM:To Hey Jessie: As evident by his letter Irvin can't argure his way out of a paper bag. How about you? Surely you can do better than a 2nd grade level response such as "the microbiologist Irvin talked to was likely much wiser than you." Are you Irvin by any chance?

John the Baptist wrote on May 2, 2008 9:37 AM:to Jessie, re post of 5/1, 9:55 PM: I'm preparing a rebuttal to Forbing's rant. I'd like to include your list of scientific fields if I may. I'm still pondering whether Forbing's "questions" paragraph was supposed to be a rebuttal to "The statement, 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution' made by Theodosius Dobzhansky is absurd." or a case of ADD. Regards.

I dont get it Bennett wrote on May 2, 2008 9:38 AM:Stephen Bennett seems to proclaim some sort of weird victory that science might be willing to investigate design in nature. Uh, Stephen, that's what scientists have always done, look for patterns, intricacies, complex causal relationships. When Darwin framed the theory of natural selection, what do you think he was noticing? When we watch a zygote develop into a multicellular entity, what do you think we are watching? Mr. Bennett is excited because he thinks, erroneously, that if someone says "design" there is an implication of a "designer". Sorry, Mr. Bennett, you are as far off base as ever. Try to calm down. When someone says there could be a designer, such as an ET, s/he is making this into a scientific question that, I'd bet, you have no interest in or liking to: when did the creation happen? how? what are the characteristics of the creator? where did the creator come from? ad infinitum. You think Dawkins came out, but the core issue is the same: do we rely on supernatural forces at work in the universe? My bet is that you cannot tolerate the answer "no" to this question. Dawkins is on the same side he always was. Comprende?

Look at nature wrote on May 2, 2008 11:00 AM:If you want evidence of creation just look at nature. There are several(all) living creatures that cannot have come from evalution.

If you want an example look at the process it take the giraffe to get a wdrink of water and not eiterh 1. passing out from lack of blood to its brain, 2. it's brain exploding due to having an immedite rush of blood as it drops it's head. if it needed to evolve than they would not exist because they all would have died before their body could make the changes it needed to survive the process.

Also if you anti-ID folk take a trip to the ICR in Santee and go through their, I am certain you will find all the "evidence" you are looking for.

Three D wrote on May 2, 2008 11:10 AM:"Look at nature" at 11:00 a.m. recommends we all go to see the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) in Santee and we will be convinced of creationism.
Been there, done that, even signed the guest book :-)
Also been to Disneyland quite a few times and, while I loved the fantasy, can't say it convinced me that fairies and witches and fire-breathing dragons exist in anything beyond the brilliant imaginations of creative story tellers.
I also have great admiration for the creative story tellers and myth makers of ancient times who tried to explain a universe they were not otherwise able to understand.

Ruminator wrote on May 2, 2008 11:29 AM:____TO OH JESSIE: re: 'Some months ago, after being bombarded with arguments and evidence, Irvin resorted out loud to what has always been the bottom line for him and makes his opinions 100% irrelevent. He said that no matter what evidence anyone came up with, there were two kinds of truth and the ordinary world of truth had nothing to do with his higher truth.'

Where did you see this?

Ruminator wrote on May 2, 2008 11:50 AM:____TO NICK: PLEASE submit a letter on the case for evolution.

To Three D wrote on May 2, 2008 12:11 PM:We all can tell by your posts that you love fantasty because that is what you write, and Darwin was the biggest fantasy writter of them all.

Ruminator wrote on May 2, 2008 12:32 PM:____TO 'TO THREE D' re: 'We all can tell by your (3D's) posts that you love fantasty because that is what you write, and Darwin was the biggest fantasy writter of them all.'

I've read a lot of 3D's material and I've seen some of what you've written. Although I don't agree with everything 3D says, his material is routinely thoughtful and informed. On the other hand, your content is neither informed nor thoughtful.

to Ruminator wrote on May 2, 2008 12:45 PM:Regarding Irvin's declaration of two truths, I'm sorry but I cannot recall how long ago this happened. I don't consider this discussion serious enough to print and date 'em. But there is a way to find out! Irvin, if you are reading this, let me ask you something. What if, hypothetically, a group of scientists actually were able to observe macroevolution occurring? Perhaps imagine a project that was passed on across decades with a fast-reproducing species. Take a population of them, then divide them in two, slightly change the environment of one group, and let them reproduce for many generations and see if, at some point, they could no longer mate across populations successfully. So you'd have two species from one. Irvin: if you had this in front of you, would you renounce the Biblical or creationist account and embrace Darwin?

John the Baptist wrote on May 2, 2008 1:59 PM: to Look at nature, re post of 5/2, 11:00 AM: Before claiming no current animals could have been produced by evolution, you should first learn what the term "evolution" means. You may choose not to believe that evolution occurs, but you should at least know what it is first. Regards

Jessie wrote on May 2, 2008 2:18 PM:To John the Baptist: Please feel free to use it - anytime. How about Irvin's claim that science used to mean "knowledge” Because the etymology of the word “science” is “ knowledge “ Irwin assumes that’s what the usage of word actually refers to. Based on etymologies, Irwin must believe sperm use to be seeds, ecosystems use to be houses, lobsters used to locusts, avocados use to be testicles, and cecums used to be blind. I’m not sure if this is funny or sad. I do have to laugh at the fact that he is actually frustrated by the fact that science is an investigative process, as opposed to a body of static knowledge. I wish he’d explain where this knowledge came from when science use to be only knowledge.

Three D wrote on May 2, 2008 2:20 PM:To Ruminator at 12:32 p.m.:
Thank you for your spirited defense.
Please note, however, that the post you are responding to did not contain a single word of substance. It was solely and purely an attempt to insult.
I guess this is the kind of "Christ-like" comment he thinks would come from Jesus you know, (WWJD and all that). I do not even think the erudite, educated intellectual Paul would have stooped to simple name-calling.
While I appreciate your thoughtfulness, the post did not actually merit a response.
The poster, however, does need our compassion.

Zeus wrote on May 2, 2008 2:47 PM:Look at Nature: Have you ever seen a giraffe graze on ground level plants or drink? It appears your intelligent designer actually made the giraffe neck way too short for the animal. What’s so intelligent about designing a neck length grossly out of proportion to body size? If giraffes didn’t evolve there would obvioulsy be no fossil evidence of giraffes evolving. Yet there is. Therefore, you need to explain away the fossil progression from Eumery to Climacocer, to Canthumeryx to Paleomeryx to Palaeotragu, to Samotherium to Okapia and Giraffa . Have you ever considered that multiple structures can evolve at the same time, as opposed to taking turns in time? Professional biologts have, and in fact they study these exact events every day. As John suggested, you should actually learn about evolution (using a real science book) before you first fall prey to dishonest creationist claims. From your letter you appear to be a young person, I hope you don't allow these deceptive creationists to destroy your ability to think rationally and without superstutuous fear.

Ruminator wrote on May 2, 2008 2:51 PM:____TO 3D: re: 'While I appreciate your thoughtfulness, the post did not actually merit a response.'

Based on what I've read, there's a very real chance that 'To Three D' is an elementary school student, in which case I think some feedback could be useful.
:-)

CAVEL wrote on May 2, 2008 4:35 PM:The Queen: "Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." from Lewis Carroll's
"Through the Looking Glass." Indeed, we believe the impossible when all else fails; when grief is unassuaged; when terror strikes us ; when death looms and the forces of nature overwhelm. The fearsome volcano spewings its lava, the darkness, the horrors we shrink from and the unspeakable cruelties visited by man and the rest of nature. Such are the seeds of belief in the supernatural; mythology; the unseen force that soothes our fear and brings us comfort and solace. It is an anthropological truism that religion and mythology are in are, in one form or another, a universal construct of human beings. It is deeply and emotionally embedded to not only relieve fear, but as a form of social conformity and loyalty to the mores and practices of the clan. Despite these observations, massive evidence shows that religious belief and practice are waning, declining, diminishing steadily. In the blink of geologic time, religion will be only stuff for the historian of sociology. The ripostes and witicisms in this blogosphere are all too often merely games and entertainment; a contest of shallow logic and borrowed factoids. Nonetheless, some of the commentary I find to be witty, even cogent, and best of all: entertaining.

John the Baptist wrote on May 2, 2008 7:17 PM: to Jessie, re post of 5/2, 2:18 PM: thanks for the permission to use.
Re post of 5/2, 9:21 AM: I haven't seen "Expelled" yet. Rather than going to a showing, I plan to get the DVD when it becomes available so I can provide a thorough critique. I did find a pretty good rebuttal on youtube (Google "Thunderf00t OWNS Ben Stein and Expelled") and will use it in rebutting Kellogg. Regards.

John the Baptist wrote on May 3, 2008 12:28 AM: o Cavel, re post of 5/2, 4:35 PM: Mythology isn't my forte, but I thought it was Zeus who looked down from Mt. Olympus. Regards.

Jessie wrote on May 3, 2008 3:10 PM:John -- thanks for the link. It's a great response to Stein's film. Too bad Rick Kellogg hasn't watched it.
I look forward to your letter.

Cavel - religious superstitions may well be gone within a blink of geological time. The problem for us is we all live within that blink.

Ruminator wrote on May 3, 2008 3:42 PM:____TO John TB & Jessie: If you google 'exposed expelled', there's a wealth of links to content that exposes that cinematic fraud, including one by Dawkins on how they set him up in it.

Ruminator wrote on May 3, 2008 3:47 PM:Here's a paragraph from my next letter:

Anyone going to see the anti-evolution movie “Expelled” should first see the movie “Loose Change”, which claims that the 9/11 attacks were planned and conducted by the U.S. Government. Those believing the baloney about 9/11 are ready for “Expelled”, which also overlays reality with baseless conspiratorial fantasies.

John wrote on May 3, 2008 8:09 PM: to All. Thanks for your responses. Even though Expelled has been out for only a short time there are indeed already some good rebuttals on the 'net. If you see one that you especially like, please do post the site info. Also, I'm sure that other qualified reviewers will eventually force themselves to see the movie and provide further commentary.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch. This may not be of general interest, but is of great interest to me. I just read an Associated Press article providing advance notice of a document, to be released Wednesday, titled "An Evangelical Manifesto." The document "condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible," and "That way faith loses its independence, Christians become 'useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology." The document
also "...encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage," but notes "evangelicals have often expressed 'truth without love', helping create a backlash against religion...." I've been saying much the same thing for quite some time now. I hope this means that evangelical leaders are actually ready to address these problems. Regards

Ruminator wrote on May 4, 2008 6:11 AM:___TO JOHN: Based on what i just read about 'An Evangelical Manifesto', it should generate some energetic debate. Some self-examination within the movement is certainly in order.

John the Baptist wrote on May 4, 2008 10:29 AM: to Ruminator:
Re, post of 5/4, 6:11 AM: I'm hoping to see real change, but the far right evangelicals have a very long way to get back. We'll see.
I had meant to mention earlier that I got my copy of Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism". I'm about half-way through the book. It's tough-going because I don't have the educational background for it. Trying to follow the logic of the opposing schools of philosophical thought is really mind-bending. Fortunately, Hicks is both an excellent writer and an excellent educator. I can't imagine that any current scientists would buy into Postmodernism, but a pervasive, anti-science indoctrination in our schools could eventually spell the end of science as we know it. I wonder if it's already underway? Regards

Ruminator wrote on May 4, 2008 12:45 PM:____TO JOHN TB Sorry about the content of the book but I think you'll agree that it's worth some effort to learn about this neo-Marxist fraud that is currently afflicting higher education.

A landmark event in this relative to science was the Sokal and Bricmont scandal. Don't miss that. Hicks doesn't devote much space to it but it's easy to find online with the keywords "Intellectual Impostures dawkins"

Postmodernism has had a negligible influence in science and engineering departments. It's concentrated largely in some humanities departments.

I'm currently doing a survey to gauge where it is in its life cycle. Part of the problem is that the movement is very mercurial, so it's difficult to refute decisively.

to Ruminator wrote on May 4, 2008 4:31 PM:You are correct when you say that postmodernism has not affected the sciences. It's only affected those who talk about sciences. In one sense, you could see it as a backlash against the enormous success of science, which drove the humanities into second-class citizenship in academia. Postmodernism was a way for those in the humanities to say that since everything is just discourse/language, science has no privileged position, and by being the arbiters of language, the humanities one-up science. Interesting, and part of the oceanic realization of the 20th C, that ALL our thinking is linguistic. The trouble is, the world just wouldn't be only a projection of linguistic schemas...it went along with some, not with others, in other words, it remained in the domain of science, which has chugged along hardly noticing. One interesting consequence of postmodernism is that much as you'd think it a "liberal" movement, its belief in the relativity of truth has been of most use (in the world) by the neo-cons, the Roves, the Republicans. When Bush was elected, his staff proudly crowed that being in power, they created reality now. While many who blog here still buy this, the real world again has been asserting itself despite Bush's postmodern fantasies.

Ruminator wrote on May 4, 2008 6:48 PM:____TO: TO RUMINATOR: Although I agree with much of what you say, I disagree with some, so let's look at a few points.

re: 'Interesting, and part of the oceanic realization of the 20th C, that ALL our thinking is linguistic.'

Since dogs don't have a capacity to speak that comes anywhere near their functional competence in their world, do you think dogs aren't thinking when they're doing things for which they don't have words?

Re: The trouble is, the world just wouldn't be only a projection of linguistic schemas...it went along with some, not with others, in other words, it remained in the domain of science, which has chugged along hardly noticing.

Are you familiar with the thesis that academic postmodernism is largely the product of disillusioned Marxists, particularly Lyotard, Foucault, and Derrida, simply continuing their agenda by other means?

Re: One interesting consequence of postmodernism is that much as you'd think it a "liberal" movement, its belief in the relativity of truth has been of most use (in the world) by the neo-cons, the Roves, the Republicans. When Bush was elected, his staff proudly crowed that being in power, they created reality now. While many who blog here still buy this, the real world again has been asserting itself despite Bush's postmodern fantasies.

There's much to this, particularly since the effective incapacity of postmodernists to embrace any program - beyond the leftist McCarthyism of political correctness - has effectively reduced them to political irrelevance.

John the Baptist wrote on May 4, 2008 8:12 PM:to Ruminator & to to Ruminator, re posts of 5/4, 4:31 PM & 6:48 PM: I'm just getting up to speed on postmodernism, so please bear with me. The mention of Bush and the other neocons in this context made me think of the Republicans catering to the ultra-right evangelicals and of their anti-evolution stance. I believe they'd be willing to toss out science entirely if that included evolution theory. Would the ultra right & ultra left possibly be willing to join forces to fight a common enemy? Just a thought. Regards

Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 5:50 AM:____TO JOHN TB: Although postmodernists have utter contempt for the political right, I think they'd be happy to play any side against any other side if the opportunity arose to cause damage. This might sound silly, but that's the way it looks from everything I've seen - and I have a substantial background in the philosophical issues.

The consensus goal of academic postmodernists, judging by their actions as well as their words, is to undermine and discredit Western Civilization in general and the United States in particular. They treat cultural relativism as a religious principle but constantly demonize the West - and they see science as just another arm of the power structure. The incoherence of such positions doesn't concern them. The armchair radicals in the universities seem intent on undermining the system that supports the gravy train on which they've been riding.

to Ruminator PS wrote on May 5, 2008 11:18 AM:I'm not sure their goal is to undermine western civ and the US. I believe this is an overstatement. I would say that it is to show that these (western civ and the US) should not have the PRIVILEGED position that they've had in academia. There's a big difference. Before, it seemed to be more or less given that there was one great tale of progress or importance in world history: the rise of the West, with the US being a kind of pinnacle of this. This is what was radically questioned. So one consequence is that we no longer see the West and the US as a necessarily glorious enterprise, but one with very significant warts. And another is that we see more of the art and literature of other cultures as legitimate. I am not, by any stretch, a postmodernist (I'm more on the science side), but I do believe these are two very worthwhile accomplishments. And, ironically, the postmodern movement could only have arisen IN the west, because they value justice and equality above all things...they value these things much more than, in fact, the US has.

Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 3:28 PM:____TO: ‘to Ruminator PS: Before going further let me say that I hope you will continue to engage these issues.

Re: I would say that it is to show that these (western civ and the US) should not have the PRIVILEGED position that they've had in academia. There's a big difference.

Postmodernists have trashed the Western canon of literature and art for decades while exalting the non-Western. That IS a case of privileging. To say that a Western innovation like science shouldn’t be privileged over ‘other methods of knowledge’ like voodoo and magic is simply preposterous.

I have a daughter in graduate school in philosophy and a son who’s an undergraduate. Both of them have been in and around PM-driven classes and what was being sold was a leftist demonization of the West, with America being the Great Satan. My daughter said the PMs see Walt Disney as being practically the antichrist.

Re: Before, it seemed to be more or less given that there was one great tale of progress or importance in world history: the rise of the West, with the US being a kind of pinnacle of this. This is what was radically questioned. So one consequence is that we no longer see the West and the US as a necessarily glorious enterprise, but one with very significant warts… And another is that we see more of the art and literature of other cultures as legitimate….I do believe these are two very worthwhile accomplishments.

Those are hardly PM accomplishments. The questioning of progress has a tradition that goes back to Rousseau and the questioning of the American role in the world has been debated vigorously since the beginning of the country.

CONTINUED IN NEXT MESSAGE

to Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 4:07 PM:So glad about this conversation! Thanks for speaking about it. Being on the outside of this matter looking in, as it were, I am not exposed to the depths of it as your kids are, and it's good to hear of their experience. As I said in my first post, I am on the science side. But PM is also a natural consequence of seeing understanding in terms of conceptual schemas to be understood in their own terms. This is not new to PM either. Non-Newtonian physics, non-Euclidian geometry, etc also supported this turn, as did Wittgenstein's rejection of his own early work. We do pull ourselves up by our own cultural bootstraps, but at least science makes deliberate contact with what seems to be a real world and therein lies its glory, errors and all. I agree with you and your offspring that privileging and demonizing are morally offensive by anyone, and usually are gussied-up efforts at power and domination. As I say this, I know I am a bit of a hypocrite, "privileging" the scientific enterprise. But I ascribe the privilege to its relationship to the world that seems to be there, not to science itself, if that makes sense.

Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 4:12 PM:____TO: 'to Ruminator PS

Re: And, ironically, the postmodern movement could only have arisen IN the west, because they value justice and equality above all things...they value these things much more than, in fact, the US has.

You're right that the PM movement could only have arisen in the West, since the ideas of universal humanity and justice originated in the West and are most common in the West. However, to say that PMs value justice and equality above all things is to take them at their word - and if there's anything on which they all agree, it's that you can't take what people say at face value. In fact, what they're saying can be deconstructed in terms of power relations by looking at their record. For starters, they reject the Enlightenment ideal of humanism, they have extensive ties to totalitarianism, and most are highly authoritarian in dispensing their propaganda to students.

PM's three most influential figures were all Marxists and much of the methodology of PM is Marxist in origin. In fact, according to Derrida, ‘...deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism.’

All three of them were inspired by Heidegger, for whom we have good evidence that he believed to his grave that his philosophy proved the inner truth of Nazism. Another major figure, Paul de Man, was a Nazi collaborator who not only wrote propaganda for them but suggested his own 'final solution' to the Jewish problem in 1942 in conjunction with saying that literature wouldn't lose much if the Jews were gone. Although this account runs together the totalitarianism of the left with that of the right, it seems to be totalitarianism itself that most appeals to them, which is probably why Heidegger and de Man were quickly forgiven their Nazi enthusiasms.

Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 4:14 PM:____TO: 'to Ruminator PS:

Here’s something worth considering – ‘...postmodernists are no more relativistic than creationists are in their battles against evolutionary theory. Postmodernists, wearing their multiculturalist garb and saying that all cultures are equal, are like those creationists who say that all they want is equal time for evolutionism and creationism. Creationists will sometimes argue that creationism and evolutionism are equally scientific, or equally religious, and that they should therefore be treated equally and given equal time. Do creationists really believe that? Is equal time all that they want? Of course not. Creationists are fundamentally opposed to evolution - they are convinced that it is wrong and evil, and if they were in power they would suppress it. However, as a short-term tactic, as long as they are on the losing side of the intellectual debate, they will push intellectual egalitarianism and argue that nobody really knows the absolute truth. The same strategy holds for the Machiavellian postmodernists - they say they want equal respect for all cultures, but what they really want in the long run is to suppress the liberal capitalist one.’

Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 5:11 PM:____TO: JOHN TB: The first 75 pages or so of the Hicks book is largely a historical preface on the ideas. I think you'll find it to be a much easier read after that.

Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 6:29 PM:____TO: TO RUMINATOR: re: 'We do pull ourselves up by our own cultural bootstraps, but at least science makes deliberate contact with what seems to be a real world and therein lies its glory, errors and all.'

Absolutely agreed! Here's a relevant quote from physicist Lee Smolin - '…as soon as the light of experiment is turned on, sociological forces such as govern academic politics and fashion must slink back to the shadows, as the judgment of nature supercedes that of the professors.'

The biggest difference between the humanities and science (and engineering) is that the humanities can be completely disconnected from reality checks – and they have been for quite some time. If bridge builders are incompetent, the bridges fall down and anybody can see that they're incompetent. If those in the humanities are incompetent, who outside the humanities can tell the difference?

John the Baptist wrote on May 5, 2008 8:16 PM:to Ruminator, re post of 5/5 5:11 PM: Thanks for the info. I'm just now thru p.99--reading about Rousseau--fascinating! I don't believe I had the social maturity when I was working on my B.A. to have gained a real grasp of this material. I hope it's not conceit to think that I do now. In any case, I'm in your debt for having introduced me to a whole other world. Regards

to Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 8:49 PM:We agree about science. But unlike you, I don't feel negative about the humanities at all. There are many things outside the domain of science at the moment, and these have enormous importance for humans like you and I (and your kids, sounds like). This being the case, I honor and value the humanities for bringing matters of value onto the table. I don't mind the PM people engaging us in debate, and do like (as I've said before) that their core values are the great Western and American ones of freedom and justice. I'd hate living in a state dominated by Marxist principles, but a state dominated by unregulated capitalist principles is just as bad IMHO. This is why all the countries in the Western tradition spend their days debating and wrestling with where, between Marxism and capitalism, the good life lies. Isn't it admirable? Striving and straining the competing ideals of the general welfare and individual freedom? This is why I am no more ready to hate the Marxist than I am the capitalist: each has a crucial piece that we all seem to need...but how big a piece for each? A very admirable question for a society (ours, France's, Germany's) to grapple with. I suspect that one reason American postmodernists are so critical of this country is as a response to the Reaganites, who flag-wave (and government-hate) with such equally irrational vigor. IMHO

In sum wrote on May 5, 2008 8:56 PM:Every time the IDers go at Darwin they make the same fatal omission: to offer ANY testable hypothesis. Call them Creationists or anything else, but they seem only to look for things that they imagine would be deadly for the evolutionists. When a scientist sees such a gap or problem, s/he gets quite excited and has at it, asking testable questions to find a solution. When the IDer notices such, s/he makes a proclamation and wants this to be some sort of "proof" that Darwin is wrong and that s/he is right. Right about what claim, exactly? This they won't say. Because if they make any empirical claim, it will be tested, and they have no confidence in their notions for such tests. If they say X was created intact, they don't want anyone saying, "When?" "How?" "From what?" or anything else. They want to insist that X just appeared one day, out of the blue, and won't even allow the question of "what day?" This is, of course, the opposite of scientific curiosity, and therefore it cannot be taught as science-compatible in schools. Beyond that, it doesn't matter because scientists in the many fields related to biology pay such tautologies no mind whatsoever and just go on with their work. It wouldn't matter at all if the minds of our youth weren't at stake. But they are. And in case you didn't notice, American kids' performance in the sciences is not really that admirable.

Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 9:46 PM:____TO: TO RUMINATOR: We're in agreement on our distaste for the flag-waving right. I'm a Vietnam veteran and saw the consequences of ideological incompetence firsthand. I'm deeply opposed to unbridled capitalism, which easily leads to profound injustice. My complaint list on the shortcomings of our system is quite long and I sometimes despair for the future, given the lack of leadership that we've seen.

At the same time, some of the most aggressive critics of what has been going on in the humanities come from within their own ranks. Among the best things that I've read on that recently is “Literature Lost” by John Ellis. I fiercely recommend that one, which is one of the most well written works that I've seen in many years from an academic. He was a professor of German literature at UCSC but retired when the climate created by the PMs became intolerable to him and he lost faith in the discipline. Another one is “The Killing of History” by Keith Windshuttle, which talks about the comparable degeneration of that field. “The Shadow University” by Kors and Silverglate provides extensive documentation of what they characterize as “the betrayal of liberty on America's campuses.” "Explaining Postmodernism" by Stephen Hicks is a merciless deconstruction of the movement.

I spent two years in a Ph.D. Program in philosophy and was disappointed with the seeming triviality and irrelevance of what was going on – and then came postmodernism. Philosopher Michael Sugrue commented that at a time when Marxism has failed utterly around the world the universities have become “the Jurassic Parks of the mind.” I dated a cultural anthropologist a couple years ago but soon realized that she had been podded out at Colorado U. by this stuff and that was that. I didn't understand where it was coming from until I started getting reports from my daughter.

In any case, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!

Ruminator wrote on May 5, 2008 10:02 PM:____TO: JOHN TB

Based on reading much of what you've written, I was confident that you could understand that stuff. I think by the time you finish reading it you'll have a good idea of why I'm so agitated over it.

I had an email dialog with Hicks and he's very committed to this. I've been intending to get back to him to get his take on whether he's noticed any change in the situation since we last communicated.

If you're interested in more, I'd recommend the book by Ellis next. He's a hell of a writer as well as being VERY astute.

John the Baptist wrote on May 6, 2008 10:42 AM:to In sum, re post of 5/5, 8:56 PM: An excellent depiction of the privileged approach ID'ers/Creation Scientists take in attacking evolution theory (or "Darwinism" as they persist in calling it).
Re "American kids' performance in the sciences is not really that admirable." Yes, I've noticed, and decried it. I think the "no child left behind" program, with its emphasis on mediocrity, has a lot to do with that I have suggested, as an alternative, "no child held back."--every child should be given the chance to achieve his/her potential in whatever field they choose. But beyond "no child left behind," I know that, thanks to Bush (as governor) in Texas, and Huckabee in Arkansas, science is downplayed specifically to avoid addressing evolution. I suspect that's the case in the other Bible Belt states. Additionally, Bush's policies, as president and Creationist, have worked heavily against scientific and technological advance. Regards

John the Baptist wrote on May 6, 2008 12:58 PM:to Ruminator, re post of 5/5, 10:02 PM: Thanks for the info. I'll definitely put Ellis on the A-list of my reading list.
**** Different topic: I was thinking about writing to the editor about the new format. The wider column width makes it much easier for me to read, but the kerning on the new type font really sucks. The letters with vertical sides--b, h, i, l, n, etc--aren't allocated nearly enough space. Besides be unaesthetic, it slows down my reading. What do you think? Regards

Ruminator wrote on May 6, 2008 2:28 PM:____TO: JOHN TB - You can make the screen content much easier to read if you go to the View Menu and pick Text Size.

Rudy wrote on May 7, 2008 1:14 PM:There seems to be a consensus among many on the blog here that there is a correlation between mediocre science education/performance and creationism. Policies of Bush, etc. have also been mentioned, and the themes of "our kids minds are at stake" or "our technological permformance" are discussed in the same conversation with evolution/creation. I think this correlation is at least overstated - and probably false, although the demographics of different geographical areas may come into play - ie certain areas may produce less college-educated people and could have more fundementalist beliefs - but in general, I don't see how one's view of origins has a direct impact on scientific or technological aptitude. You could have side-by-side creationists and evolutionists working in all areas of scientific fields, with no impact on their scientific applications. How would ones' view on origins affect any of the following:
electronics and circuits, computer programming, airplane design, aerospace engineering, alternate fuel research, etc.? I don't see any impact. In fact, my father managed a mining company many years ago, and two of his best geologists were young-earth creationists, in direct opposition to my father's standard geological history belief. This had no bearing on the work they performed in locating ore deposits, reading geological maps, performing seismic tests, etc., the only affect it had was a lot of lively debate and dialogue. Fred Carr mentioned a case involving a young-earth creationist, Glenn Morton, who did express that his creationist geological point of view did harm him in the workplace-which I need to read more about to understand, but again I think the notion that creationism/ID is harming our country's technological advances/scientific progress is not true. I suspect a significant number of home-schooled creationists are faring well in many fields. There are other factors that result in our shortcomings in science education. Fire away...

to Rudy wrote on May 7, 2008 2:02 PM:I do agree that our educational performance is a product of very many variables which interact in complex ways. And also that secular and creationist scientists do work side by side. At the same time, I retain my right to the opinion that Bush's pandering to a certain brand of fundamentalism has given this group inordinate power in the areas of education and research funding. Both of these have had demonstrable impact on the quality of science (in some fields) in this country. There have been many articles written by scientists employed at NASA and NIH, for example, complaining of the astounding amount of interference they've gotten from administration hacks and cronies. Some of these people have been there for decades and find this unprecedented. So they can't be dismissed as liberals, if that made any sense anyhow. They didn't complain of this under Bush's father or Reagan.

Zeus wrote on May 7, 2008 5:36 PM:To Rudy: Mediocre science education is related in part to the rise of creationism in the United States. Polls show that about 80% of Americans are considered scientifically illiterate, making most Americans incapable of identifying the distortions of information spewed out by creationists on a daily basis. Polls also show that adoption of creationism (and the rejection of evolution) is significantly inversely related to ones level of education. I’d also like to mention that the majority of Americans do no “believe” in evolution and are bothered by the fact that their children learn about evolution in school. The parental message here for young minds is to not trust science. I suspect this religiously motivated message received by a majority of American children to not respect science is related to the declining number of American students majoring in scientific fields (which is a very a troubling trend for a science illiterate population that is being quickly surpassed by other countries (e.g. China)). So I can’t agree with you that there is a harmless relationship between science literacy in the United States and the rise of creationism. Nor do I believe that creationism should be politely accepted as a mere opinion about origins, because at its core, it is an anti-science agenda focused on keeping 15th century levels of knowledge static. Fire away.

Ruminator wrote on May 7, 2008 6:16 PM:____TO RUDY:

Theoretically, someone could be convinced that the Earth was flat yet carry on effectively in any of a wide range of fields from computer science to geology. However, would you then say that this person had a fully competent conception of the world in which (s)he lived, or that it was not important whether both round Earth and flat Earth theories were taught in schools?

I urge you to engage Glenn Morton in an email dialog. Glenn is very approachable and forthcoming. He was among the creationist elite before he went into petroleum geology but he was stunned when he confronted the physical reality of the planet - and it wasn't just him - there were a group of creationists who experienced the same shock.

If you google the phrase 'morton's demon', you should get an article by him. The header of the article should have his name as a hyperlink that you can click to get his email address. If you google 'Why I left Young-Earth Creationism', you'll get another article that's particularly pertinent.

John the Baptist wrote on May 7, 2008 7:38 PM:to Rudy, re post of 5/7, 1:14 PM: I've looked over my post of 5/6, 10:42 AM, and I stand by it. I agree with "to Rudy" that there are many other forces at work here as well. I would also like to add that many of our country's leaders come with non-science backgrounds like law, poly sci, econ, etc. They are well-educated (usually), but most often science-ignorant, unable, personally, to make educated decisions regarding science matters and are at-risk when choosing science advisers. So we are faced with the potential of science being underutilized or of attempts to use science as a "magic bullet". Regards

to Rudy wrote on May 8, 2008 8:21 AM:The rise in power of the fundamentalist right has had an even wider impact than on the teaching of things like biology. With their fearless leader, G W Bush at the helm, the already powerful strain in American culture that is anti-intellectual is given a large extra boost. I truly believe that one reason our schools are so bad is that at bottom, too many Americans including those who seek power, seem to detest the intellect. They disrespect teachers and professors and anyone who sounds like s/he has a high IQ. How, in this kind of environment, can education thrive? Want evidence? Pick up the paper on any day, especially in an election season. Obama is attacked for being "elitist". Hillary tries to win votes by proudly proclaiming that the experts in economics should be ignored when it comes to economic policy. And McCain, equally proudly, says he knows little about the same topic. And Bush is elected because he's the kind of guy you'd enjoy having a beer with. In this sense, we are the laughing stock of the civilized world, as we should be.

Huh wrote on May 8, 2008 10:08 AM:Hillary's husband is a Rhodes scholar and she's a Yale Law School graduate so it's quite a stretch to put her in the anti-intellectual camp. Politically expedient, as they all are, but not anti-intellectual.

to Rudy wrote on May 8, 2008 11:32 AM:But Hillary's husband, to be elected and loved, had to play the good old boy bumpkin, "Bubba". When her campaign started sinking, Hillary started doing boilermakers and dissing experts. Makes my point.

Huh wrote on May 8, 2008 12:23 PM:Obama going bowling and drinking beer was as theatrical as anything they did. His progression of positions on the Wright issue was quite expedient. An isolated incident hardly makes Hillary anti-intellectual and referring to the 'experts' in economics is almost as odd as referring to the 'experts' in art criticism. Many 'experts', such as the Wall Street Journal, think Obama's economic plan would slow down growth and have negative effects on the economy. Or doesn't he care what the 'experts' think?

Is this the politics blog? :-)

Get Serious wrote on May 8, 2008 1:51 PM:Please refrain from debating the merits of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in this forum. It is reserved for serious discussion by those of us who think it's time for both of them to put the best interests of the party first and drop out so John Edwards can become the next president.

to Huh wrote on May 8, 2008 4:07 PM:But Obama has never (or nearly never) pretended to be stupid the way Bill and W have. Anyhow, for the sake of others, let's try to remember that the topic was anti-intellectualism in the USA.

Rudy wrote on May 9, 2008 1:19 PM:lots of interesting responses and some different trails forming - the concepts of anti-science/anti-intellectualism/scientific literacy/worldviews form a complex topic. Responding to Zeus - I would say not trusting Darwinism is different than not trusting science. Each scientific study needs to be looked at individually. Global warming for example - we have two well-known TV weathermen/meteorologists, Loren Nancarrow on 10, and John Coleman on 9, who are both well-trained in the science of their field, and have polar opposite views on the interpretion of the scientific data on climate. Same data, different view. This is due to the need to interpret historical data, not unlike studying origins, where historical data is interpreted by both creationists and evolutionists, with differing opinions on what that data tells us about actual historical fact. I think with global warming most agree that the data indicates an overall warming, but the debate is how much is man's activity affecting that rise in temperature. Is John Coleman anti-science for not buying the company line on projected impacts of climate change? I'd say not. But most in the universities would say yes, probably categorizing him as anti-science. So most parents who would try to help their children distinguish between real scientific fact, and scientific data, as opposed to scientific conjecture/theory, are doing their kids a favor.

Zeus wrote on May 9, 2008 4:09 PM:So Rudy, please tell me how these 80% of science illiterate parents are going to explain science (which they do not understand) to their kids. Your own statement shows you have no clue what a theory in science actually refers to and that you fail to understand the evidence behind evolution (to say it is different than other sciences). You have done your children no favor here, other than pass on ignorance. And if you want to discuss global warming please don’t waste everyone’s time using weatherman as sources of information. I suspect your evidence sources for evolution-creation are equally weak.