There was an error in this gadget

Thursday, April 05, 2007

The Blogswarm cometh

The time of the Blog Against Theocracy Blogswarm is nigh. [Sorry, forgot the link first time around.]

So a good place to start is with some disappointing work via Anderson Cooper 360. He has done good work in the past. His grilling of Sylvia Browne sycophants was just lovely. Warmed the heart to see a host not just take the psychic fraud being taken at her word, when the word was so easy to overturn.

But this week Cooper's show has been looking at Christianity.

He dropped the ball, as PZ Meyer points out.

But in the false arguments and unanswered questions are things for us to learn about Those That Would Force Religion On The Class, Court, And The Congress. THEOCRACY!

CHARMAINE YOEST, VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL:

Well, you know, mainstream science, throughout history, has been challenged by questions. And that's how we make advances in science, is being open to all different perspectives.
Gosh, it seems so reasonable...wait, is that what she really means? No. We aren't talking about adding a popular science hypothesis, a god theory, or anything of the sort. IT IS FAITH. That simple.

And that's all that we're calling for, is saying that, you know, have we gotten to a place in our culture where science has such an orthodoxy around Darwinian theory that we can't even question it, that we can't even look at some of the gaps in the theory, and ask, how can we do better and how can answer some of these questions?
Orthodoxy? Trying to wrap an established scientific theory in religion? Classic.

Gaps in the theory...sigh. The wounded warrior for science this one is. Many areas of our scientific knowledge has gaps, from neurology to evolution. It doesn't mean we cram every crackpot idea in. And, how can we do better? Put...God in it? BINGO! Is it still science? Nope. But it gives the the likes of the Family Research Council a warm feeling. And isn't that the point of science and research?

And, is it much to ask, what questions you have about evolution that God will help? Would laying them out make you look bad?

That's all we're asking for, is an openness of dialogue and looking at all of the research.
DING! DING! DING! I have to call you on this ma'am. What research? I have yet to see any, especially from your vanguard the Discovery Institute. Look up the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document for more on what they are really up to.

Robert Boston of the AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, point out:

I think that there is a mechanism in science that allows for these views to be aired through peer-review journals. And the intelligent-design advocates...

... have not been able to public any research that indicates...
To which Yoest claims:

That's just not true.
Can you...ACTUALLY back that up?

And when Yoest gets challenged on the Young Earth supporters, Yoest just said:

What we are looking at here is saying, there are legitimate scientific questions on the table.
So, no answer.

And, again, what questions? What have your researchers come up with?

Oh, right...NOTHING!

So, we're really, really seeing an amazing censorship of anything that questions Darwinism. And you see this kind of thing where, immediately, the minute you question Darwinism, people like Rob come up and say, oh, no, you're going to talk about God.
Yeah, they are the victims, sure.

Darwinism...questioning. Why does she so proudly go out and parade her ignorance?

Darwin's work has been torn into for more than a century.

What portions were invalidated against later ideas and newer evidence was jettisoned. Our idea of evolution, has evolved. It is not set in stone.

So what is her point?

They offer no evidence, no science, no rational argument, then whine about not being taken seriously.

PLEASE!

Well, you know, I think our children have more robust intelligence and -- and questioning to be able to cope with looking at all the different theories that are out there. I think it's -- I just have to ask, what is he so scared of?
What theory? You mean the half-arsed talking point based on a moldy old book of fables and allegories?

Is she so shocked that a person with a respect for science and education dislikes the thought of children being lied to by their teachers?

I can't get a word in -- that you're trying to conflate creationism with intelligent design.

The only thing I have talked about is intelligent design.
Simple thing. Creationism...Intelligent Design...from the minds of the same people. After the failures of forcing the bibles back into schools, we got Creation Science, Creationism, and now, Intelligent Design. Just the next link in the chain.

Talk about ID? When has she even mentioned her position or what she supports, beyond pissing on science?

Why are you afraid of the fact that 90 percent of the American people do believe in God?
What does this have to do with science?

Science is not a democracy.

We don't vote and pick how much gravity their will be this year. We don't elect or impeach the laws of motion. Evolution occurs, no matter how much you pray against it.

Sorry.

Say...doesn't this point of your go directly against your claim that this cause of yours has noting to do with Creationism? Not that we didn't know that already.

Well, absolutely. That would -- that would come in, in a history of science, in a philosophy of science.

That's why I'm saying, there's different kinds of classes. So, we're talking about kind of a broad array of things. Your kids need to know what opinions are out there and -- and -- and see what the evidence is, consider the evidence.
The backdoor. Maybe don't have ID in the main class...BUT, have a second class where we say the other class is full of lies.

Many things can be done to improve science. New approaches from the elementary ages could be invaluable. But the push of this idea seems to be to force as much confusion into science, and then kids can just pick and choose.

The closest I would ever allow to a science-based classes is at the start. Use it with a couple of other examples of how good, bad, and kooky ideas fair in the processes of the scientific method. That would be as far as it deserves to ever go. But why even bother to go there? Plenty of kooky conspiracy hypothesises out there to use. Nothing special her. Nothing at all.


Well, I hope people enjoy this weekend. Get around and enjoy the blogswarm.

3 comments:

JollyRoger said...

Given the FRC's well-known ties to white supremacist organizations, why won't Cooper (or ANYONE) call them out on it?

Is sharing mailing lists with the Klan a "family value?

Infidel753 said...

Great post. I love that "gaps in the theory" argument. They take every case where we don't know some detail of how evolution worked, and use it to claim that the whole theory of evolution is in question. By this logic, if there are some details of the geology of the Grand Canyon that we don't understand, that should call the "spherical Earth theory" into question and open the door to "flat Earth science".

Odd Jack, the Jaded Skeptic said...

The best example that comes to my mind deals with the planetary orbit. Their is the orignial, no orbiting, we just sit their and things dance around us.

Then with Kepler we have an orbit around the sun, but it is a PERFECT circle. That didn't make atronomical or mathematical sense.

Newton, invented Calculus and used it to give us a very precies oval orbit. It was good. It was very good. But...not perfect. Corrections had to be made for a slight variance.

In the days of Einstein, we came to understand where this fault lay. And it was corrected to be pretty darn precise.

But...we may learn more in the future.

That is science, always a chance of change...progress.

Biblical absolutist could easily have said the faults in Newton's work disproved the fact of our planetary orbiting, or even poo pooed Calc.

I'll have to put this with another story later. Lord Kelvin and the age of the planet.

Now that sound like a great name for a sequel.

:)