Friday’s front-page “news analysis” by New York Times health care reporter Kevin Sack, “Culture Clash in Medicine,” dealt with two recent recommendations from quasi-government panels on limiting testing for breast cancer and cervical cancer. The recommendations have caused some outcry as a possible prelude to Obama-care rationing, concerns Sack dismissed as “anger and confusion” and some “political posturing.”
That stance is predictable: Previous front-page Times stories have nudged readers toward rationing with tales of “costly” new heart valves for the "frail" old, "wasteful" medicines and "expensive" new medical procedures that are only worth "a few months" of extra life.
The Times, which editorially supports universal health care coverage, seems to be trying to soften people up into accepting future limits on end-of-life care in the name of reducing national health care costs.
Sack managed to make the desire of Americans to live longer sound gauche, while suggesting that those who fear the recommendations are a harbinger of rationing are confused or just grandstanding against Obama:
This week, the science of medicine bumped up against the foundations of American medical consumerism: that more is better, that saving a life is worth any sacrifice, that health care is a birthright.
Two new recommendations, calling for delaying the start and reducing the frequency of screening for breast and cervical cancer, have been met with anger and confusion from some corners, not to mention a measure of political posturing.
The backers of science-driven medicine, with its dual focus on risks and benefits, have cheered the elevation of data in the setting of standards. But many patients -- and organizations of doctors and disease specialists -- find themselves unready to accept the counterintuitive notion that more testing can be bad for your health.
“People are being asked to think differently about risk,” said Sheila M. Rothman, a professor of public health at Columbia University. “The public state of mind right now is that they’re frightened that evidence-based medicine is going to be equated with rationing. They don’t see it in a scientific perspective.”
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times. You can follow him on Twitter here
Coming soon: A brand-new NewsBusters design. But we need your help!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Once the Statists do away a functioning Oil ecomony.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:12 ET by upcountrywaterHuman life span shall return to them lofty glory days.. The dark ages.
What a sale.... Life 1/2 off...
State controlled health care ! music video.
Oblahma is working on that!......
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 11:12 ET by Patriot IIIf he can get the whole country in slavery....no healthcare...no jobs...no value in the dollar.....no food.....no fuel.....etc etc etc.....people will no longer care about living longer......then the scumbag gets his wish about getting rid of Americans.....how do you spell slow boat ticket to mumbasa kenya???
“People are being asked to think differently about risk,”
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:13 ET by nolotrippen“People are being asked to think differently about risk,”
Yes, instead of taking your life into your own hands, the government plans to do it.
“Remember when ‘live dangerously’ was an individual choice rather than a government policy?” (Dave Madden, Parade, 12 February 1967).
“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)
I predicted tea parties would return. Now I'm predicting dueling will return.
Suddenly health care isn't a right????
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:20 ET by motherbeltWTH???? When did they decide THAT????
Haven't they been telling us all along that it is???
I thought everyone had the "right" to health care!!!
That explanation is no longer operative -George Stephanopolous in the Clinton years
Man, I gotta work harder at keeping up!!!
Oh, and what happened to all their previous ridiculous costly mandates (air bags comes to mind) with the rationale that "if it saves one life, it's worth it!"
apparently they didn't get
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:21 ET by Candance Moorethe memo from the union bosses.
Unions notwithstanding, this
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:42 ET by motherbeltUnions notwithstanding, this is just more proof that a government that says it "gives" you rights is also a government that decides to take those same rights away when it sees fit.
Yep... It's getting
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:46 ET by bigtimerYep...
It's getting spookier each day out there with what they are doing to us....I feel by this time next year, the pot of stew will have boiled over.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
MB, " 'a government that
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:55 ET by ForeverOnTheRightMB, " 'a government that says it "gives" you rights is also' a government that will tell you what those rights will be." Is the way I'd put it. This country is meant to be "for the people and by the people", not "for the government and by the government".
In order for God to made
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:17 ET by exLibIn order for God to made obsolete, another "god" must be put in His place.
One, if not THE, major point of hatred for GWBush from the left is his unabashed love for Jesus and belief in The Bible.
For those years we always heard about how Bush was "Anti-Science" When nothing could be farther from the truth.
Now we have an unabashed leftist in the WH whose supporters worshipper a different "god" called science.
All one has to do is follow the "logic" the left uses against Christians to see where this is going.
Most scientists are liberals, or at least the ones that will get media coverage for their discoveries. So all they have to do is present something as "science" and the left will follow it worse than the left believes Christians follow "anyone who profess to be a Christian".
To the liberal, evolution is
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:29 ET by ForeverOnTheRightTo the liberal, evolution is the beginning and the end of science, if you’re not for evolution your anti-science, and anything you believe is not science. Take Creationism or Intelligent design, if you try to talk to a liberal about either they’ll “scream” it’s not science!
ForeverOnTheRight, I'd be
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:59 ET by hydrodynDMForeverOnTheRight,
I'd be willing to bet that if you talked to most scientists - liberal, conservative or otherwise - the vast majority would tell you that they don't think Creationism and ID are science.
And I'm sure most could explain why they think so without screaming.
He didn't say they were science
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 19:31 ET by exLibThe point I was trying to make, and that I think FoR was underlining was that you CAN'T talk about Creationism or Intelligent Design BECAUSE they aren't included in the "orthodoxy" of the Science Religion
The idea is that UNLESS something is "science" it isn't allowed.
Most of the "values" and "beliefs" I had as a liberal are now being turned on their head by "modern day liberals".
We used to laugh at the right and say you needed to be more open-minded about things, remember that the Catholic Church expelled Newton because he blasphemed The "churches interpretation of science".
As I stated, today the "religion of science as 'god'" has turned this on it's head and become the ipso facto Catholic Church, ready at a moments notice to expel the heretic.
exLib, You are correct -
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 20:18 ET by hydrodynDMexLib,
You are correct - I missed your and FoR's point.
However, if I am getting your point, you seem to be suggesting that liberals are basically materialistic in their views on reality and so will reject anything that doesn't (at least potentially) fall within the realm of what science can talk about.
I'm not sure if that's the case. There are a lot of liberals who consider themselves "spiritual" in some sense. However, I do think they tend to reject traditional religious views (because they think rejecting what is established means they are smart or something) and so tend to reject things like Creationism and even ID.
My point is, I don't think their rejection of theistic ideas is based on some deeply held philosophical views about the nature of reality - or that they are necessarily materialists (or physicalists or whatever) - I think they just have a thing against established religion.
Hydro, you just proved his point.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 19:45 ET by pahuberEvolution has become a religion among many of its believers. Just look at the fanaticism of many of those who support it. Not to mention college professors who lose jobs over this issue (e.g. Iowa State, etc.).
Basically, you are probably correct in your pronouncements, but not because of the facts 'supporting' evolution, but because unless you accept evolution as truth you cannot join the field in investigating evolution.
pahuber, I think you need
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 20:29 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
I think you need to define "religion" for me since, from what you wrote, it seems that my deeply held belief that the sun will rise tomorrow means I'm part of some sun worshiping cult.
Since exLib was kind enough to clarify what their and FoR's point was, I can say that what I posted actually doesn't prove their point. Nowhere in that post did I suggest that Creationism and ID weren't valid - just that most scientists don't consider them to fall within science.
Evolution is currently the dominant theory in many areas of science. If you want to work in a field that uses that theory and you can offer up an alternative scientific theory to replace it, have at it.
hydro, you proved his point. Please re-read the post.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 21:23 ET by pahuber"I think you need to define "religion" for me since, from what you wrote, it seems that my deeply held belief that the sun will rise tomorrow means I'm part of some sun worshiping cult."
I will define nothing for you. Your reading and comprehension seem to be the problem of understanding my post.
"...just that most scientists don't consider them to fall within science."
The point you helped make and re-clarified here. A catch 22...only those who believe can join and only those joined you can ask.
"Evolution is currently the dominant theory in many areas of science. If you want to work in a field that uses that theory and you can offer up an alternative scientific theory to replace it, have at it."
This is not pertinent to what was said, but FWIW I have no desire to waste my life breaking in to a religious cabal to show them the errors of their ways.
pahuber, I'll try to
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 22:08 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
I'll try to restate exLib's point (and, exLib, please correct me if I'm wrong):
ForeverOnTheRight's post was basically a reiteration of this.
Assuming this is an accurate representation of what exLib was trying to say, then how exactly am I proving exLib's (or FoR's) point?
You quote me "... just that most scientists don't consider them to fall within science" and say that that's the point - but it wasn't. To be fair, that's what I thought FoR's was suggesting, but exLib clarified it for me in a later post. I said this in my post to you.
You seem to want to get into a discussion about whether Creationism and ID are scientific theories. If so, I'm cool with that. But then we are going off on a tangent (and, again, to be fair, I originally contributed to that by misunderstanding FoR's post).
There is no Catch-22. Creationism and ID aren't scientific theories since they (directly or indirectly) incorporate supernatural agents. Can't have those in science. Sorry. Live with it.
Why not complain how people who think Relativity is a crock can't become physicists?
You dodged the "religion" questions, so I'll ask it in another way - do you think other generally accepted theories in science, like Quantum Field Theory and Relativity, represent "religions"?
hydro, not sure if you are playing games or just that lost.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 22:57 ET by pahuberFoR: "To the liberal, evolution is the beginning and the end of science, if
you’re not for evolution your anti-science, and anything you believe is
not science."
hydro: "I'd be willing to bet that if you talked to most scientists - liberal,
conservative or otherwise - the vast majority would tell you that they
don't think Creationism and ID are science."
In stating the above you made his point. Your last point went even further in making the point w/ oblique examples.
hydro: "Why not complain how people who think Relativity is a crock can't become physicists?"
Wow, your examples are so balanced...
hydro: "You dodged the "religion" questions, so I'll ask it in another way - do
you think other generally accepted theories in science, like Quantum
Field Theory and Relativity, represent "religions"?"
From my last post to you and it applies here, as well.
"This is not pertinent to what was said, but FWIW I have no desire to
waste my life breaking in to a religious cabal to show them the errors
of their ways."
pahuber, Yea, I'm the one
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 23:06 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Yea, I'm the one that's lost. First, we were both commenting on the posts of two other people so when you said "proved their point" you might see how it wasn't clear to me what point you were referring to.
That aside - let's be clear about what FoR was saying and what I said. As I mentioned in my last post to you, FoR's point was that liberals tend to reject anything that isn't "scientific". That's why they will naturally accept evolution over, say, creationism or ID.
My comment to FoR was basically - no, it isn't just a "liberal" thing - most scientists reject Creationism and ID as being non-scientific. There isn't anything "liberal" about that.
So, nope. My comment didn't support FoR's. Well, unless you want to suggest that all liberals are scientists and that all scientists are liberals. Then, I suppose, yes it would. Are you suggesting that?
You criticize scientist for not allowing non-scientific theories like Creationism and ID into their field. So I ask if they should be criticized for not accepting folks who reject theories like Relativity. Your response was, ... nothing.
You claim that many in the scientific community believe in evolution so fanatically that evolution is like a religion to them. So I asked if you would say the same about other, nearly universally accepted theories in science. Your response was...well, you restating something you posted before that doesn't actually address my question. So, again, ... nothing.
hydro, I will make this as simple as possible for you...again.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 23:49 ET by pahuberFoR's post:
"To the liberal, evolution is the beginning and the end of science, if
you’re not for evolution your anti-science, and anything you believe is
not science. Take Creationism or Intelligent design, if you try to talk
to a liberal about either they’ll “scream” it’s not science!"
hydro 'response':
"ForeverOnTheRight, I'd be willing to bet that if you talked to most scientists - liberal,
conservative or otherwise - the vast majority would tell you that they
don't think Creationism and ID are science. And I'm sure most could explain why they think so without screaming."
I pointed out that this is a catch 22. You don't buy it...big surprise.
hydro: "You criticize scientist for not allowing non-scientific theories like
Creationism and ID into their field. So I ask if they should be
criticized for not accepting folks who reject theories like Relativity.
Your response was, ... nothing."
Actually, no I did not. I said evolutionist and provided an actual example. You want to stray off topic here.
And here:
"You claim that many in the scientific community believe in evolution so fanatically that evolution is like a religion to them."
My point and only point summed up in my 2nd post to you:
"Evolution has become a religion among
many of its believers. Just look at the fanaticism of many of those who
support it. Not to mention college professors who lose jobs over this
issue (e.g. Iowa State, etc.).
Basically, you are probably correct in your pronouncements, but not
because of the facts 'supporting' evolution, but because unless you
accept evolution as truth you cannot join the field in investigating
evolution."
Let me add that it can also cost you your job (e.g. Iowa State University) even if your not in the same field of anthropology, etc. and do not believe in the validity of evolution.
Now, hydro this has been my point and I do indeed believe that after having read your replies and posts that you have indeed strengthened my argument.
pahuber, Let me ask you a
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 21:03 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Let me ask you a question. If a person wants to join a soccer game but insists on using hockey rules, would it be unusual for the soccer players to not let him play?
I would say no. I see no paradox there - no "Catch 22".
If you want to enter science and study evolution, you are free to do so as long as you follow the rules of science. If you don't believe in evolution and you want to work on a scientific alternative, there is no problem.
If, on the other hand, you want to try to push non-scientific theories like ID or Creationism - in other words, if you don't want to play by the rules of science - then you won't be accepted within the scientific community.
Where is the Catch 22 in this?
By the way, the example you site (Iowa State) isn't relevant to my point. It didn't involve someone with a scientific alternative to evolution being fired. It didn't even involve a person trying to push a non-scientific theory into science.
Problem is, hydrodm is that your 'rules' are not pertinent : )
Sun, 11/29/2009 - 06:43 ET by pahuberAgain, you have missed the point completely.
"Let me ask you a question. If a person wants to join a soccer game but
insists on using hockey rules, would it be unusual for the soccer
players to not let him play?"
No, and this is not pertinent to my argument, at all....totally at all...I mean whacked beyond comprehension.
If you want to enter science and study evolution, you are free to do so as long as you follow the rules of science.
You mean not question the rules of "science".
"If you don't believe in evolution and you want to work on a scientific alternative, there is no problem."
Uh, sorry, but this is so damn far off the charts I will not even try to dignify it. You obviously do not understand the persecution that comes to those who choose not to buy into your multimarketing scheme. Sorry, but the truth will guide you Hydro.
"If, on the other hand, you want to try to push non-scientific theories
like ID or Creationism - in other words, if you don't want to play by
the rules of science - then you won't be accepted within the scientific
community."
Hey, how nice to be in the driver's seat and determine who are the REAL players. Scientific community mean all of science whether or not it is college, public school etc. ... so a lock on education... yet you do not see a catch 22??? LOL c'mon hydro be real you're not this STUPID. You are intelligent and not willing to even try here.
"By the way, the example you site (Iowa State) isn't relevant to my
point. It didn't involve someone with a scientific alternative to
evolution being fired."
HA! Even worse isn't it. They were just fired over not accepting evolution even though in a different field.
"It didn't even involve a person trying to push a non-scientific theory into science."
Yep... if you cannot see the problem against free speech or thought control then I just cannot help you.
Are you ready to crusade with me then Hydro?
pahuber, It's obvious to
Sun, 11/29/2009 - 17:23 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
It's obvious to me that you don't understand what constitutes a scientific theory or model. I don't begrudge you this lack of understanding. Most people are under the impression that if a theory attempts to make a statement about the physical world (and throw in something about the "scientific method"), then it automatically counts as a scientific theory.
Nope.
Scientists and philosophers have debated the topic of what counts as science for centuries. You could spend a lifetime reading about it. And although it is still debated, there are some general ideas that are pretty universally accepted.
One is that scientific theories can't incorporate supernatural agents. The reason is simple - supernatural agents, by definition, don't have known empirical properties. Consequently, you can't incorporate them into a physical theory and hope to consistently derive unique consequences or predictions which can be tested.
This isn't my rule. This isn't something I'm just making up for the sake of this argument. It isn't because scientists are just a bunch of stubborn, narrow minded anti-religious jerks. It's a practical condition on scientific theories.
If you can show me how to incorporate supernatural agents into a physical theory in a workable way, I'd love to see it.
So, now to your post.
Show me an example - a single one - of someone offering a scientific alternative to evolution who was persecuted. And note that word "scientific".
Read my initial comments above and then explain to me again exactly where the Catch 22 is. And in case you are suggesting that the "science" that isn't being allowed is ID or Creationism (which you haven't actually said in this conversation), both of these theories, though physical, incorporate a supernatural agent either directly (Creationism) or indirectly (ID) and so are not scientific.
With regard to your Iowa State example - again, it's irrelevant. Unless it illustrates a case of someone being fired for advancing a scientific alternative to evolution, it doesn't undermine my point.
You are just fixated on it because it supports your view (I'm guessing) of science as being intolerant and anti-religious. That might have been the case here, but so what? It's one example. The vast majority of scientists I've worked with over the years have been people of faith. I've never seen it be an issue.
hydro, I've just re-read our entire posts again. You are either
Sun, 11/29/2009 - 23:48 ET by pahuberincapable of understanding what I have written for you very clearly or just trying to drag this into somewhere I have no intention of visiting. I believe it is the latter that you wish to go, even though you have falsely accused me of lacking knowledge of science, etc...kinda like baiting me...
My last post not only satisfactorily explained and have reclarified my position concerning the catch 22, but I also gave you an illustration concerning ISU professor that was denied tenure.
I believe that you just do not want to see the truth and admit that those who do not take your religious approach suffer the consequences.
I am starting to see a pattern with you in your approach to things...either wear them down with circular reasoning and/or just saying the same thing over and over or just plain failing to understand the intent or point someone is making.
There is enough information available on this thread to make my point to most here at NBs... your going to have to just continue your confusing posts and innuendos concerning my ignorance of science.
See ya around.
pahuber, OK, I've reread
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:06 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
OK, I've reread the conversation as well. Let's go back to your first post (which you quoted in a later post as your one and only point):
The first two sentences are opinion and so can't really be argued. The last sentence seems to support your opinion, assuming the guy was really fired for not believing in evolution.
I highlighted the part I've been addressing. I've argued that you can "join the field" working on an alternative to evolution as long as it's scientific. Your counter to that was:
So your counter was basically to say I'm wrong without explaining why.
Regarding your argument for a Catch 22 we have this
From this and other comments, it became obvious to me that you don't understand why scientists don't consider Creationism and ID scientific theories. It seemed that you were arguing that these theories aren't accepted simply because they aren't evolution and since you can't enter science without believing in evolution, these alternate theories could never become a part of science - hence a Catch 22.
What I explained in my last post to you is why they aren't acceptable to science. You will notice that explanation wasn't based on just saying "well, they aint evolution". It was based on general principles regarding what can count as a scientific theory. You didn't respond to any of those points - not one. You just said:
Wow. That's quite the counter argument. Where exactly in that previous post did you address the idea of supernatural agents, their role in Creationism and ID and how that prevents them from being scientific? You didn't.
And, again, unless that Iowa case is an example of someone getting fired for proposing a SCIENTIFIC alternative to evolution - it isn't a counter example to my claim that you can do this and be part of science. Guess what? It isn't an example of that.
I'll close off with these two:
Give me one example in any of my posts where my argument is circular - just one example - and I'll admit I am totally wrong about this entire topic. Pretty please. With sugar on top.
There was no innuendo. I flat out said you don't understand what science is. And since you didn't address a single point in my last post to you about the characteristics of scientific theories, I have no reason to think I'm wrong about this.
Good God Hydro, you keep on with same old tired, failed logic.
Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:53 ET by pahuberYou will not accept the truth, ok and who cares.
ME: Evolution has become a religion among many of its believers. Just look at the fanaticism of many of those who support it. Not to mention college professors who lose jobs over this issue (e.g. Iowa State, etc.).
Hydroplane: The first two sentences are opinion and so can't really be argued.
The first sentence is widely believed by people on the opposite side of the argument than you. You just do not buy it... I again, recommend you watch Expelled by Ben Stein to get a glimpse of how your side protects its logic to marginalize others the opinions. Kinda like what you are doing in your last post.
The second sentence is a proven fact which you desire not to explore or even google. That is your problem and not mine.
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=624
http://www.discovery.org/a/2939
Now I suppose you will go to Wikipedia or ExpelledExposed or some other liberal think tank to try and show how untrue my statement is.
pahuber, I like how you
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:20 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
I like how you completely avoided commenting on my response to the second paragraph of your original post - the one that I said constituted the main focus of my argument. You know, the part I highlighted? That was part of your main point, wasn't it? You even said so in one of your posts.
I'm sure no one will notice you avoiding that.
Dr. Gonzalez was a proponent of ID - a theory that isn't (currently) accepted as scientific. What part of that do you not get? When I post things, do you actually bother reading them? I explained to you why it isn't considered a scientific theory. Did you actually respond to that argument? You know, the part about supernatural agents? Nope.
I don't need to look up anything on a website regarding what constitutes science and what doesn't - I've actually studied this for years using these things called books and journals.
And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is that last sentence of yours an attempt to suggest that I'm a liberal? Please, I'd love to read you actually say that.
Look, if you want my take on science, take a look at my forum post from a couple of years ago. Based on that, tell me how much of a lefty I am (assuming that is what you are suggesting).
Hydro EXposed. Please hydro I'm making this as simple as
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:06 ET by pahuberpossible for you.
ME: "Basically, you are probably correct in your pronouncements, but not because of the facts 'supporting' evolution, but because unless you accept evolution as truth you cannot join the field in investigating
evolution."
Hydroplane: "The first two sentences are opinion and so can't really be argued. The
last sentence seems to support your opinion, assuming the guy was
really fired for not believing in evolution."
Fired, denied tenure...call it what you want. Either way it is a gross injustice. He did not accept the established religion of the day and while ranking extremely high amongst his colleagues in an unrelated field he was denied tenure.
pahuber, Again - ID isn't
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:34 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Again - ID isn't considered a scientific theory. Your Iowa example has not affect on my argument that the following statement by you is flat out wrong:
To be part of science, you have to offer scientific theories. ID isn't one. I don't know how many times I can say that. You can do science and not believe in evolution - I've known scientists who don't. But if you want to work in a field where theories about the origin and/or development of organic systems play an important role, and you want to suggest an alternative to evolution - guess what? It has to be a scientific alternative to evolution. Again - ID isn't currently considered one.
Let's assume that Dr. Gonzalez was fired for his views on ID. How does that undermine my obvious point that only scientific theories should be allowed in science?
It doesn't.
All you have exposed is your inability to distinguish between the words "scientific" and "non-scientific".
And really - hydroplane? You gonna start calling me a doody-head next?
hydro, now you are just being deliberately obtuse and
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:52 ET by pahuberdisingenuous... again. What part of I do not want to debate scientific theory do you not get?
It is you who does not want to see my point, but only circumvent it entirely and say how much I do not understand.
This was not my original point, but it is a true statement.
Hydroplane: "To be part of science, you have to offer scientific theories. ID isn't
one. I don't know how many times I can say that. You can do science and
not believe in evolution - I've known scientists who don't. But if you
want to work in a field where theories about the origin and/or
development of organic systems play an important role, and you want to
suggest an alternative to evolution - guess what? It has to be a
scientific alternative to evolution. Again - ID isn't currently
considered one."
And how many times do I have to say I don't give a rip. This was never my point at all... never was... why are you saying this all the time?.... why are you still here?... why are you repeating yourself over and over and over with this garbage? I have never ever indicated that I care to discuss this bilge with you...to me you are hopelessly lost when it comes to understanding what another person is conveying. Ive made myself so clear and yet you want to tell me how ID was science...and not a theory... so why do I care I never said it was.
God you just do not have very good comprehension skills.
It depends on whether or not you are going to quit playing this game of pretending that you do not understand my point.
If you do not believe in evolution you cannot be a part of team and to be on the team you have to believe in evolution. ~ which is clearly a catch 22 situation.
That is my point of contention to wit I gave you an example...now some links which you say...suppose its truth how about this?
Have I made myself clear to you yet???
pahuber, You say that you
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:08 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
You say that you can't be a part of science unless you believe in evolution.
I say, no, you can if you offer an alternative to evolution that is scientific.
You say, I don't give a rip.
And I'm being obtuse.
It just occurred to me, though, what you might actually be trying to say - and it might all revolve around the word "currently".
Now, I don't work in a field that uses evolution so I'm just guessing here, but I don't think that currently, there are any scientific alternatives to evolution. So currently, if you want to enter a scientific field that deals with the origin and development of organic systems, then, yes, currently, you have to accept evolution.
But that's different from what you said - that you can't - as in never or under no circumstances - which is the way I took what you said.
Could this be the point of contention here?
Hydro, THAT has been my ONLY contention, but even if one is
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:41 ET by pahubernot in that field like in my example one can currently be denied tenure like at ISU.
I do not believe it should be a litmus test for other sciences regardless of what origins of life they hold to...
LOL
pahuber, I don't believe
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 01:50 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
I don't believe it should be a litmus test either.
But your one example - or maybe that half dozen from Ben Stein's movie - doesn't motivate me to think that there is some massive conspiracy in science to oust people of faith.
Well, that and the fact that I've actually worked in academia in science for close to two decades and have never seen anything like what you are suggesting.
Considering that there are thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in this country - and considering that many of them are people of faith (and please try to argue this with me) - I don't see how a hand full of examples justifies your suggestion that science is some kind of anti-religious cabal.
It would be me like me suggesting that all priests are pedophiles based on a hand full of instances.
Oh, and here is another classic of yours hydro..hard to keep up
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:12 ET by pahuberwith your nonsense.
First you want an example.
I give you the ISU example.
hydroplane responds: "Again - ID isn't considered a scientific theory. Your Iowa example has
not affect on my argument that the following statement by you is flat
out wrong:"
Then let me try this... what is it you think we are discussing, hydro? Why ask for something and then say it doesn't matter?
What are you trying to say or even argue about?
I believe my catch 22 was pretty easy to understand. You have not disproven it... and I even gave an example how others protect evolution even if it does not pertain to their field of science.
You had some respect from me during our first encounter, but it just seems the last two have been you wanting to be argumentative and not illumination of your point of view.
pahuber, See this post
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:21 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
See this post above - it might clarify things.
Or maybe not.
Hydro, you say that there
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:31 ET by pahuberHydro, you say that there is a contradiction between science & ID like the soccer & football analogy. Ok. Then you say it is okay in a latter post for those who do not accept evolution as truth to work in its field.
By stating the ISU professor I've given an example of someone who does not even work in the same scientific field of anthropology and yet was denied tenure and BTW he is a brilliant scientist.
I believe the example and there are more of them was suffice to make my point.
That was my point and my only point to your most scientist do not take the alternatives as a science.
pahuber, I never said
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 07:28 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
I never said there was a "contradiction" between science and ID. That word has a specific meaning in logic. A better word would be "incompatible".
You seem not to understand that in science you can have competing theories, all of which are scientific, which attempt to explain the same empirical data. Although (as far as I know) there is currently no scientific alternative to evolution, there is no reason to believe that someone can't come up with one.
So - you can work in a field of science and not accept evolution.
How tough is that to get?
Consider gravity. Newton came up with the first theory for it a few hundred years ago. And it worked great. It helped to predict the positions of the planets and the occurrences of total eclipses and even helped in the discovery of Neptune but then a guy named Einstein came along. He proposed a completely different theory for gravity. And at first, most scientists didn't buy it. But then the evidence mounted. Turned out Newton's theory had trouble explaining certain things, like the orbit of Mercury. Einstein's theory did a better job - and predicted other things that Newton's theory didn't even account for.
My point is that Einstein questioned a well established theory in science with an alternate scientific theory. There was resistance at first, but with mounting empirical evidence, it gained prominence in science. By contrast, ID and Creationism are not scientific theories. They incorporate supernatural agents (although ID folks will argue that they don't) and so cannot be alternate scientific theories.
They are soccer players trying to play hockey.
Hydro, did you actually watch Expelled? How can you say that
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:14 ET by pahuberthere is not a movement to squash any resistance to those that disagree?
It is beyond disagreement.
You are not the only person here with a post graduate degree... been there done that.
pahuber, Is there a
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:57 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Is there a movement to squash any non-scientific resistance to any scientific theory or model in science?
Yup. There sure is. I fully agree with you.
By the way, what area of science do you have your degree in?
hydro, If you support the methods mentioned in the film then you
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 03:46 ET by pahuberare what I thought you were. A very arrogant and spiteful individual like Hector Avalrez who wishes those who disagree with your religion to be bannished or censored. Wow, very very arrogant of you.
Is there a movement to squash any non-scientific resistance to any scientific theory or model in science?
Yup. There sure is. I fully agree with you.
I see. You are then part of the problem.
pahuber, How can I
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 18:55 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
How can I support a method mentioned in a film that I told you I have never seen?
That's what us arrogant academics call a straw man argument.
What I do support is keeping non-scientific theories out of science.
I know - it's a truly troubling and shocking trend.
Next thing you know, there'll be Catholic priests trying to keep atheists out of the priesthood.
You'll have lawyers trying to prevent those who haven't passed the bar from practicing law.
Doctors keeping folks without a medical license from practicing medicine.
Where oh where will it end?
Hydro, you leaped w/o any logic. This seems to be your M.O.
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:33 ET by pahuberhydro, here is where your thinking is clearly defective.
Which comments were those, hydro? Please quote the exact comments as to why you would make such a statement outside of just being a smug individual.
Please answer this question because I made an enormous effort not to discuss anything scientific with you, at all. I mean nada nunca nadae nyet ie other than to say that there are those fighting to make sure evolution is protected from criticisms at all. Notice, that I gave you one example allready.
How exactly did you arrive at your conclusion when my intent was clearly to avoid having any scientific discussion whatsoever with you at all? I mean, look at the total waste of time spent on explaining something so easy to you and now you want to discuss theories and evidence etc... : (
pahuber, OK, here you
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:52 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
OK, here you go:
This suggests to me that you thing the criteria for what constitutes a scientific theory or model are arbitrary - that you don't understand that there are rules for determining what counts as scientific.
This suggests that you think I'm just arbitrarily deciding what should count as science - that I'm in the "driver's seat". Only someone unfamiliar with the mountain of work that's gone into clarify what science is would make a statement like this.
That's two statements right there. Good enough for you?
Now maybe I'm wrong in how I'm interpreted those. If so, please clarify.
From your last post:
Um, where exactly did you say that in any of your previous posts? As I said before in a previous post (which of course you ignored) the brunt of my argument has been in response the second paragraph of your original post. That second paragraph doesn't express the idea that "there are those fighting to make sure evolution is protected from criticisms at all."
Unfortunately, for you hydro, my statement is deadly accurate.
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:58 ET by pahuberWow such examples to determine that I know nothing of scientific rules and theories. That has got to make you so fuzzy and warm in the glow of my total ignorance.
All I did was show that the field was not a level one and you go off on a tangent with some two step saying that I am ignorant because I do not answer questions the way you wish them to be answered.
Perhaps that is why I tried to keep it simple... but honestly, you are just dancing now.
pahuber, You
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:12 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
You said:
I provide them.
Instead of acknowledging those quotes or clarifying them, you, like a child, suggest I must be gloating.
And my complaint isn't about you not answering questions the way I "wish them to be answered" - it's that you haven't address half of what I've written at all.
Good God, Hydro.... what does NO mean in your tiny world?
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:25 ET by pahuber"And my complaint isn't about you not answering questions the way I
"wish them to be answered" - it's that you haven't address half of what
I've written at all."
Your questions were not germane to the discussion. They were only ways of switching the direction of the argument to where I did not wish to go.
I have told you this over and over and over and yet you still continue.
Also, why would I want to even have a scientific discussion with you if you cannot see that there is a concerted effort that your religion is being protected by those in what you consider 'academia'... funny word...it's starting to mean without intelligent thought IMHO : )
pahuber, This is the
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:08 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
This is the second time you have referred to my "religion" in something of a condescending manner.
I'm guessing you mean evolution and for the record, I don't work in a field that uses that theory so if tomorrow, it turned out that theory was proven completely wrong it wouldn't have any effect on me one way or the other.
OK, but with that said, I'm curious - I'm guessing you are a person of faith and yet you are using the word "religion" as an insult.
Am I reading that right?
That aside, let me ask you something else. What percentage of scientists do you think consider themselves people of faith?
By your argument, the answer should be close to zero, right? I mean, those evil atheistic fascist scientists are on a crusade to cleanse the scientific community of all those religious types, right?
So, really. What percentage would you say?
hydro, evolution is your religion. Seems very clear to me...
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 03:49 ET by pahuberI am not surprised by your condescending attitude at all... you drip with it.
pahuber, I figured you
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 19:03 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
I figured you wouldn't address the uncomfortable fact that many scientists are people of faith.
It does seem to punch a big hole in your argument.
I would ask you to try to reconcile that fact with your argument but my guess is that your response would be along the lines of "you're arrogant and condescending and you're a jerky poop-nose" or something equally insightful.
AGW is DEFINITELY a 'religion'. A 'cult', actually.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 23:34 ET by TailgunnerDivine being? Check (Gaia)
Unprovable and outrageous claims? Check.
Demands for unquestioning obedience and blind faith in leaders? Check.
Any and all evidence to the contrary attacked and suppressed? Check.
Dissenters cast into the outer darkness? Check.
International conspiracies to impose their religion by force on all who refuse to embrace it? Check.
Yup...AGW is a religious cult.
(Under those guidelines, Obama is a cult too.)
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
hDM
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 19:49 ET by BlondeTime to resurrect your Forum topic on same.
We need a spot, here, for "classics"....and that was a classic.
Cheers.
I hope he fails, too.
Hey Blonde, I appreciate
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 20:34 ET by hydrodynDMHey Blonde,
I appreciate the kind words.
And since I'm never above self-promotion, here's the link if anyone cares...
Evolution and the Conservative
hydro...
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 20:46 ET by JerAt the risk of being accused of rank sycophancy, may I just say that my votes for the two best forums during my time at NB go to yours on Evolution and Blonde's on Healthcare.
Jer
Much appreciated Jer.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 21:15 ET by hydrodynDMMuch appreciated Jer.
Not saying which of the two
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 21:26 ET by JerNot saying which of the two is #1, mind you. I only listed yours first because my reply was to your post.
:-)
Jer
Methinks we are going to have to use a pry bar for Jer's lips.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 21:31 ET by pahuberSeem to be glued to a couple of rumps in this thread ; )
pahuber...
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 21:37 ET by JerMay I say that yours is one of the most astute insights expressed at NB in quite some time.
Keep up the good work.
Jer
lol
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 21:39 ET by pahuberfunny.
It's true...the wife is always the last to know...(sob)
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 23:26 ET by Tailgunner<snif>
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
Are you kidding...she
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 23:37 ET by JerAre you kidding...she noticed it before pahuber. My leash has been shortened to one link.
Jer
pahuber
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 21:44 ET by MrShyThat post deserves one of these.
Okay, six of those, in different colors.... heck, even better. :)
I was good natured teasing Jer, but I will take the orange ; )
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 21:45 ET by pahuberI love orange.
pahuber
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 22:19 ET by MrShyYou need to tread carefully, however. Good natured teasing doesn't always go down so smooth around here.
Believe me, I know. :)
Life goal
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:31 ET by FranksamMy end of life goal is to know my name on the day I die. I have had a number of loved friends and relatives make their own 'end of life' decisions. They were not thinking about risk. They were thinking about certainty. I do not want the government deciding how and when I die. I'll handle that responsibly when the time comes for medical decisions, and I promise all of you that I won't waste your money.
Stop breathing, Sack
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 18:38 ET by carolina09Set an example.
I've read the study, and it
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 19:37 ET by OdileI've read the study, and it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with statistics. Although, I certainly don't appreciate that the NYT makes it sound like all anti-Obama-care-ites are riding the crazy train.
The study said that rather than get tested for breast cancer and cervical cancer once per year, they SUGGEST that you only get tested every other year. The statistics say that in waiting that additional year, the risks increase little and the psychological (and other) benefits double. This is an effect of the testing procedure, as they can misdiagnose easily and put you through an ordeal to find out it was nothing to worry about.
Remember that this is a suggestion based on a scientific study. Just like "don't eat tomatoes; they'll give you cancer" was once a suggestion. If you feel it is in your best interest (especially when you take your family's medical history into account) to get tested every year, then by all means do so. The people in charge of the study just want to let you know that you can choose not to and still be (statistically) in the green, by today's analysis.
"science-driven medicine"
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 19:43 ET by Quasi-socialistThat's a laugh.
Like the alternative is going to Barbers to get your blood let out. Or visiting the Witchdoctor to have him chant and shower you with dust.
Like if you get healed, they didn't use "science" to heal you. The only "science" that they're adding is accounting. And you can only account things when you've assigned finite values to everything--including human lives. (And accounting is not science!)
We USED to call it the 'Times'. Now it's the 'Times' Up'.
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 20:39 ET by Tailgunner"This week, the science of medicine bumped up against the foundations of American medical consumerism: that more is better, that saving a life is worth any sacrifice, that health care is a birthright."
I'm confused. Aren't Democrats always telling us that health care is a right?
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
In Communism, the opposite is always true
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 23:29 ET by NewHampshireThose of us who want gov't OUT of health care, know it is a right.
However, the left uses that to dupe people into thinking that if gov't takes over, it will guarantee it, when really the goal is to pick and choose who gets it.
Occasionally, those on the left let it all hang out and are caught airing their true sentiments.
How "gauche"?
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 23:42 ET by CO2MakerHow "lefty"? Really?
Don't you mean, "How adroit"?
Unless you mean, "How gaucho." Or "How gazpacho"?
<g>
Holy Sh!t
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 09:55 ET by RHawkinsReading this gave me apoplexy. I just don't know what to think any more. This is totally insane. The people who always claim to care about everyone else (you know, liberals) are coming out in publications like this now saying that they should decide what life is worth. You can rest assured that any person saying this kind of crap would be the very first to complain that they wanted any and all heroic measures taken for themselves or loved ones regardless of the cost or how long it extended their lives. Man, I just gotta get out of this country and find me an island somewhere away from these loony, cruel, and monstrous people.
2 Words for You, Hawkins
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 10:21 ET by BlondeDeath Panels
I hope he fails, too.
All medicine is "science-driven"
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 11:17 ET by CobraMan"The backers of science-driven medicine"
And there it is, Ladies and Gentlemen, the disclaimer for rationing health care: "science-driven" claims of "improved" national health care. Unfortunately for the NYT, ALL modern medicine is "science-driven," including the previous recommendations that women get YEARLY exams.
How can one "science-driven" medical reccomendation be any different from another? The answer lies in the reasons for those recommendations, whether they favor the individual or the collective. In this, they favor the collective over the individual.
It's obvious that these recommendations are not being proposed due to advances in medical science, but are, instead, being driven by economic science. It's cheaper (to the collective) to screen every two years, but cancers don't wait two years between screenings before they establish themselves. As a matter of fact, they don't wait at all. The whole concept behind yearly testing is to be able to detect and treat cancer in the early stages BEFORE it becomes well established and life threatening.
By waiting two years between tests, it is far more probable that a cancer will be much more established, and far more expensive to treat, both economically and emotionally, once discovered. Instead of saving money, and peace of mind, this recommendation will guarantee that the opposite will come true.
Once again, the "smart" people promoting this are failing to fully consider the individual benefits of their recommendations but are, instead, considering the collective benefits. Once again, they are recommending that the individual be sacrificed for the benefit of the collective.Thus is the new Health Care in America, where the collective is becoming more important that the individual.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
No offense, but...
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 14:20 ET by Odile"By waiting two years between tests, it is far more probable that a
cancer will be much more established, and far more expensive to treat,
both economically and emotionally, once discovered. Instead of saving
money, and peace of mind, this recommendation will guarantee that the
opposite will come true."
You're not a statistician, are you? Your above statement is wrong, as are many others in this post. The study was done in favor of the individual, not the collective. Read my post above. The study had nothing to do with the NYT. Those involved found that waiting two years is statistically better by today's studies. End of story.
Years from now they may do a different study that proves the opposite is true, but these studies are ongoing and improve with time. As I said in my previous post, they simply made a suggestion based on a study, much like "don't eat tomatoes" used to be a suggestion. These things flow and change as more variables and truths are taken into account, so read the study before you pass judgement on it.
In case you think I'm fighting in favor of nationalized health care, I'm not. The study had nothing to do with it and I'm not in favor of any form of government controlled health care, Obama-Care or otherwise.
(Not to be off topic, but I love your signature.)
Tell that to the woman who's Stage IV because she had to wait.
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:55 ET by Tailgunner"The study was done in favor of the individual, not the collective."
And this is a bad thing?
Thinking like this is the root of the problem. Nationalized healthcare is perfectly willing to sacrifice the 'individual' in favor of the 'collective'.
"Years from now they may do a different study that proves the opposite is true, but these studies are ongoing and improve with time."
Yeah. After thousands of women drop like flies from undiscovered and untreated breast cancers because of these politically driven 'studies'.
Governments sacrifice the individual in favor of the collective every day where nationalized healthcare is the norm.
The NHS, for example, routinely denies food and water to those patients they claim are about to die. They are then heavily sedated, preventing medical staff from detecting improvement, thereby ensuring the death of the patient.
These decisions are made within the hospital with no legal oversight or appeal. Many times families have been forced to feed and hydrate the patient on their own...and patients have recovered after being sentenced to death by their own doctors.
Think of hundreds, if not thousands of Terri Schiavos each year and you might understand the scope of the program called the 'Liverpool Care Pathway".
They deny expensive treatments to patients solely because of cost. For example the NHS, for years denied patients with macular degeneration treatment until they had lost the sight in one eye.
It took 25,000 cases of total blindness before the NHS reversed this inhumane policy. (But they saved a lot of money in that time.)
Obama wants to establish a board in the US like the UK's 'NICE'. Its only purpose will be to restrict and deny treatment in order to control costs.
They will have to push phony studies like revised recommendations on mammograms to lay the foundation for saving money...and they're willing to accept the inevitable increase in death rates from these revisions.
Obamacare is a death sentence.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
Hydro, you say that there
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 01:34 ET by pahuberHydro, you say that there is a contradiction between science &
ID like the soccer & football analogy. Ok. Then you say it is
okay in a latter post for those who do not accept evolution as truth to
work in its field.
By stating the ISU professor I've given an
example of someone who does not even work in the same scientific field
of anthropology and yet was denied tenure and BTW he is a brilliant
scientist.
I believe the example and there are more of them was suffice to make my point.
That was my point and my only point to your most scientist do not take the alternatives as a science.
Udate: Hydro, you need to watch Expelled: No Intelligence
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 04:00 ET by pahuberNecessary to see what I am getting at. If you think litmus tests are still good after watching it then we are at a deadlock because I value truth and freedom more than ideology.
pahuber, Let me give you
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 02:25 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Let me give you a little example of something I've witnessed firsthand - you know - as a guy who actually works in science at a university.
There was a teacher at a school I worked at who was fired because of inappropriate behavior. After being fired, they claimed they were fired for their religious beliefs. They did this in some lame attempt to get their job back (though, for the life of me, I have no idea why they would try to get back given the environment they had created).
I signed a number of papers which basically prevented me from talking about this incident in any detail. This is pretty standard practice, dictated by HR, to protect the school and all individuals involved.
So let me ask you - if Ben Stein stuck a mic in this person's face and filmed it - they talking about how unfairly they had been treated and how they had been fired for their religious views and then Stein turning to the camera with ominous music in the background saying how no one from the university was willing to talk about it - would you buy it?
I'm guessing you would.
Let me be clear - I'm sure there have been instances of people being fired from academic positions for their religious beliefs - but I think it's very rare.
But then - all I have is my anecdotal evidence of two decades of working in the field and you have - well - a film.
So let's call it even and say we are each working off of opinion.
Hydro, I see not that you have not seen Expelled. The e-mails &
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:33 ET by pahuberletters sent as reasons were very very clear. These were not examples of some people 'trying to get their jobs back' by anyways necessary. I guess I am not surprised that you wish not to see the movie expelled, but rather googled it and read alternate explanations.
BTW, they were not fired for merely their religious faith. You really need to watch the movie before you can speak to it.
Burying your head in the sand is not very academic of you.
pahuber, I freely admit I
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:24 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
I freely admit I haven't seen the film. My example was to make a point about how the details of things like that can be spun in different ways and viewed in different ways even by people directly involved.
Regarding Stein's film - at what point did I say that I would never watch it? Where you expecting me to run out last night and get it just because you said I should?
Since I haven't seen it, I can't comment specifically on it. I might at some point, but then I might not. Like I said, I don't really need Ben Stein telling me about my own area of work.
As I admitted in the post above, I acknowledge that these kinds of things have probably happened. But a handful of examples don't exactly support your contention that there is a world-wide effort on the part of evil scientists to keep religion out of their ranks.
Well, that and twenty years of person experience working in science, interactions with hundreds of scientists and the fact that I've never seen or heard of a single legitimate example of this.
Is that anecdotal? Yup. But I'll put my 20 years of personal, direct, day to day, year to year anecdotal evidence up against your two hours of watching a film about a field of work you have zero direct experience with any day.
Boy, 20 years of experience
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:50 ET by balboaBoy, 20 years of experience vs. a 2-hour movie? That is a tough decision...
LOL Balboa our resident idiot even chime in for yah, hydro : )
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 03:54 ET by pahuberNo doubt he is up there on the stupid scale... you can have him.
Even if true you work in the science field I have dealt with this issue much more than you will. You will not admit your side carte blanche for fear of how it will come across to NBs ... now Balboa has freely admitted he is against free speech for other views. He's ready for Stalinism tomorrow. Perhaps you are ready to join him?
pahuber, Wow. You've
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 19:08 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Wow. You've basically just degenerated into name calling at this point, haven't you?
But just for laughs, I'll keep this going.
I'm not sure what you meant by:
Could you please elaborate, because I honestly don't know what this means.
Oh, and I already know you are going to accuse me of being deliberately obtuse and having my head in my butt and yada yada so you can save that part.
I'm still trying to figure
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 19:29 ET by balboaI'm still trying to figure out where I admitted being against free speech.
balboa, Because pahuber
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 19:39 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
Because pahuber says you did - that's where.
hydro = scientific litmus test: Must accept evolution as truth.
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 00:48 ET by pahuberSo you hydro believe in litmus tests to be qualified to work in any field in science. That being evolution.
I've gathered this from many of your posts that were to thin to read.
hydro supports censorship even if a person who does not work in the same evolutionary department is fired, denied tenure, etc. even if this person works in some other field that is non-related to evolution.
In one of your other posts you even use the analogy, an extremely poor on, comparing that of a doctor having an MD. WOW, you are the true believer...do they have a church you go to and worship at?
You are what most would call an militant evolutionist.
Oh, yeah, I know you won't watch Expelled because you simply are too content that facts may get in the way or perhaps you agree with what has been going on...
As far as your ability to reason... I am not expecting to read anything of value from you in the science community anytime soon.
"comparing that of a doctor
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 00:52 ET by balboa"comparing that of a doctor having an MD. WOW, you are the true believer...do they have a church you go to and worship at?"
?
bal, I am not surprised you do not understand what I wrote...
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 01:14 ET by pahuberLet me help you.
To somehow compare evolutionary biology to the medical field as some sort of working theory with benefits is completely asinine. You do not think so? No doubt.
Evolution is a flimsy theory. Period.
Medical Science is able grasp from concrete facts that can allow the ability to reason conclusions and increase knowledge. Evolution cannot and has not. Rather it needs intensive life support to even exists and protect it.
To say to a scientist in another field outside of evolutionary biology that he/she should not be allowed to teach in their respective field simply because they do not accept evolution or believe that it does not contain all the answers is completely censorship or persecution and is nothing, but a litmus test; as many have already found out the hard way.
So... mr. bal, if you think this is hunky dory, which you have in the past, they I believe you are a true believer in evolution...rather, like hydro... a fanatic that should have a church to be able to attend due to their incontrovertible devotion to evolution.
oh, and bal, you asked what a militant atheist is? You, but just not a very bright one ;)
Got that?
pahuber, You have truly
Sun, 12/06/2009 - 22:14 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
You have truly taken "missing the point" to an art form. Go back and read that post of mine again. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Done?
Good. Let me explain to you what my point was. Professionals in certain areas of work have placed certain conditions on themselves or accepted certain requirements for acceptance in those fields.
Get it? Now look back at your previous post above and bask in the glow of your obtuseness.
And where exactly did I say it was OK to get fired from a field of work that doesn't use evolution for not accepting evolution?
Yea, I didn't.
Hydro, i believe you are a very confused person. I have
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 03:20 ET by pahubergathered this from our first posts.
I suggest you go and re-read, sit and spin, spit into the wind and cry how ignorant I am to you.
pahuber, So you hydro
Sun, 12/06/2009 - 20:47 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Nope. You claim you "gathered this from many" of my posts. Well, apparently you missed this one:
Notice the part about "if you want to enter a scientific field that deals with the origin and development of organics systems" part? Since most scientific fields don't deal with this, then, no, you don't have to accept evolutionary theory to work in "any field in science."
You seem to make a habit of misstating my position.
Regarding your censorship claim: being denied acceptance in a scientific field because you are trying to push non-scientific theories isn't "censorship". How exactly is their right to express their views being denied? Because they can't publish in scientific journals? Guess what - it's up to the editors of any journal or magazine to decide what gets published in their journals or magazines. Do you deny them that right?
And please quote me where I said that someone getting fired for not accepting evolution when they don't work in a field that uses it was acceptable.
I'm guessing you are referring to what I wrote in this post. I like how you tell me it's a bad analogy but don't bother to explain why. WOW, that's quite the argument.
Really? And how do you reconcile that with what I wrote in this post:
Wow. That sure is militant of me, isn't it?
Like I said, I may or may not watch Stein's movie. Believe me or don't, I don't really care.
And attacking my "reason" and my proficiency as a scientist? Gee - that really hurts my feels. No, really, it does.
Hydro, I believe the confusion you have wrought from my simple
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 03:24 ET by pahuberposts have been taken to a new level never imagined by english or grammer experts.
You know it was your insistence of wanting to 'educate' me in science when I wanted to avoid that discussion that has brought this abomination of posts.
I know you are going to wax ad infinitum concerning my incorrectness... have at it.
Hydro, thanks for demonstrating your ignorance on this topic.
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:41 ET by pahuberBut then - all I have is my anecdotal evidence of two decades of working in the field and you have - well - a film.
I say ignorance because here is your only 'rational' explanation to the only point I was making and surprise, you do not agree with it at all.
However, your statement stands.
Your experience, even if true, truly is anecdotal in this area. I doubt any evidence could convince you as to what is going on in the field of evolutionary biology... and your attitude confirms this very very well.
Hydro, pull your head out of the sand and watch Expelled.
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:45 ET by pahuberBut then - all I have is my anecdotal evidence of two decades of working in the field and you have - well - a film.
I say ignorance because here is your only 'rational' explanation to the only point I was making and surprise, you do not agree with it at all.
However, your statement stands.
Your experience, even if true, truly is anecdotal in
this area. I doubt any evidence could convince you as to what is going
on in the field of evolutionary biology... and your attitude confirms
this very very well.
Hydro, pull your head out of the sand and watch Expelled.
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:45 ET by pahuberBut then - all I have is my anecdotal evidence of two decades of working in the field and you have - well - a film.
I say ignorance because here is your only 'rational' explanation to the only point I was making and surprise, you do not agree with it at all.
However, your statement stands.
Your experience, even if true, truly is anecdotal in
this area. I doubt any evidence could convince you as to what is going
on in the field of evolutionary biology... and your attitude confirms
this very very well.
Exactly
Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:51 ET by countmein5050how I feel about Michael Moore's crap.
Lay off the beers countmein, Ben Stein does not equal M. Moore
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 03:59 ET by pahuberYou're probably just drunk and need to be tucked in...
Well pahuber has spoken
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 19:24 ET by countmein5050Apparently I can't insert my dislike for Michael Moore...regardless. because...well pahuber has chosen to squash the free give-and-take of opinions. Gee...this really increases your value in the party of hate and intolerance...progressive/liberals really just can't handle being squeezed by logic. Go figure. And I'll stay on this board until I longer no can sentence form a....thank you very mush...........
Let's see countmein5050 you've been here only 3 weeks and
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 00:50 ET by pahuberallready comparing Ben Stein to Michael Moore?
You are showing intense ignorance that cannot be ignored... : )
No comparison....I just can't stand Moore
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 01:04 ET by countmein5050And calling me ignorant on that basis has no effect on me. I taught 8th graders...personal insults to get attention just don't do it for me.
Merry Christmas
hydro, i do NOT KNOW you do what you say you do. Are you
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 03:57 ET by pahuberkidding me? LOL I know alot of people say alot of things on these sites. Not saying you don't in fact even if you do it makes no difference in giving you any edge on this topic.
None whatsoever. In fact, I have been debating this much more than you have.
pahuber, Given the choice
Thu, 12/03/2009 - 19:12 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Given the choice between being operated on by someone who's practiced medicine for 20 years and someone who's debated it for 40 years - who would you go with?
And if you don't want to believe me about my background, OK.
hydro, I sincerely doubt your background by the way you have
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 00:55 ET by pahuberhandled yourself and by your inability to grasp my most easy main point from the get go... sorry, but for all I know you live in your mom's basement and do this to raise your self esteem.
Now you are in favor of censorship of those who do not accept evolution... fine. You even compare it to Medical Science in its ability to be reasoned and explained. Epic fail. Most know....rather honest scientists note that there are so many problems with this flimsy theory to even know where to begin.
I will take the words or trusted scientist in the Ben Stein's film over you any day because ... well... they are actually scientists.
pahuber, Really, "most...
Sun, 12/06/2009 - 21:07 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Really, "most... honest scientists"? Care to back that up with, well, anything?
I addressed your "censorship" claim in this post.
I explained how you totally missed my point regarding doctors in this post.
Talk about epic fail.
And if it makes you feel better to believe I'm lying about my background and that I live in my parent's basement, go right ahead. Your juvenile accusations mean nothing to me.
hydro, I will let others more honest than you judge for
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 03:29 ET by pahuberthemselves. I am sure the usual suspects may try to give you a hand of support.
We've been through this so much and you wish to blame me for the confusion. Now you are upset that I have basically said you just want to argue. You won't watch the film because you are so smart and know everything that is going on...
Personally, I just think you are an arrogant individual regardless of how dumb or smart you are... methinks you are po'd because I did not tread where you wished to go...seeing how irrational you have been with such simple posts I believe you see my point.
pahuber, Since you didn't
Mon, 12/07/2009 - 20:35 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Since you didn't really reply with any substance to my other two posts yesterday, I'll just respond to this one.
Most of my points have been comments to things you have said. If you won't or can't defend your statements here, then don't post.
Look at your last set of posts. You claimed that I was for censorship. You claimed I thought it was OK for a scientist to get fired in cases where they weren't trying to push non-scientific ideas into their work. You claimed that I was a militant evolutionist. You claimed I was making some kind of comparison between the level of development of modern medicine and evolutionary theory.
You wrote all those things. I addressed them - specifically. And your response was - well - you had no response to what I actually wrote.
You just decided to call me dishonest, arrogant, confused and irrational.
Honestly, it's like trying to have a discussion with a child.
hydro, this game you have been playing since... wow... a week?
Tue, 12/08/2009 - 01:35 ET by pahuberSimply put, you decided to be obtuse from the beginning. My post was simple and to the point. You chose to make it something it was not and then some. The 'discussion with a child'... I agree with you...however, you may not like who the child is in this scenario.
You have a gift of making things complicated where they shouldn't be...congratulations.
pahuber, I said in my
Tue, 12/08/2009 - 01:56 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
I said in my last point that you can't defend your statements.
Let's do a little experiment and see.
You've brought up this Iowa professor example to show that scientists are actively trying to remove people of faith from science - whether their personal religious views are reflected in their work or not.
Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Also, you brought this up in your very first post, so you can't say it isn't germane.
If I've accurately stated your argument - I'll ask a question that I asked before and which you ignored. What percentage of scientists do you think consider themselves to be people of faith?
If your argument (assuming I have it right) is correct, that percentage has to be miniscule.
So what's your answer? And you better have something to back up your number, because I do.
Let me guess. I'm just making things complicated.
Let me also guess - you will call me names, try to insult me - but you won't post an actual reply to my question.
Given your recent behavior, I won't be surprised if you go to some random thread that I'm not a part of and post a comment insulting me.
hydro, here you are again being obtuse... not helping you here.
Tue, 12/08/2009 - 02:18 ET by pahuberUh, hydro, I had to bring this up twice before you even understood the example. Of course, this is one of many that are featured in this film. Your statement is not quite accurate. My point is that evolution seems to be a litmus tests for those, who are actually scientists, as to whether they can get tenure or keep their jobs.
Two points.
First you do not actually grasp my main point since you are dragging religion into some litmus test instead of whether or not someone actually buys into evolution or expresses problems with it. So, you have not necessarily been accurate with my main point. You've essentially, missed the mark... again.
Second, I've ignored any questions from you that are trying to derail from my main point. Mainly, because I was trying to avoid this kind of conversation. Your question does not pertain to my main point with which you, for one reason or another, do not want to accept or understand.
** Religion is not the point of contention. It has been my contention that evolution has become the litmus test in many cases. **
No, not at all hydro, you are just missing my entire point again... why do I care how many scientist think of themselves as being religious? Please, why should I care? How is that relevent? Do you even see my point?
Is the fact that you are being obtuse 'name calling'?
Given your treatment of my original posts I find it hard to believe that when the word obtuse comes up in a post you are upset if your name immediately comes to mind.
pahuber, Well, I'll give
Tue, 12/08/2009 - 13:58 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
Well, I'll give you credit for actually replying to my post for once.
Here's the reason why I bring religion into the discussion. Most people of faith (i.e. religious people) do not accept macro-evolutionary theory as an explanation for the origin of organic systems. Would you agree with that?
If so, would you acknowledge that there is a direction correlation with being religious and not accepting evolution. Yes?
Then if your argument is correct - that as a "litmus test" to being able to join science, or get tenure or keep your job you have to accept evolution - then folks who don't believe in evolution - religious people - won't have jobs, positions or tenure in science. Or, at least, not in any great number.
You contend that I am missing the point here. Please explain to me what is wrong with the above argument. Explain to me why I'm being obtuse.
If the above conclusion is a valid consequence of your argument, then a simple test would be to see what percentage of scientists consider themselves people of faith. If it's a large percentage, then your argument seems to be flawed. There have been surveys done within the scientific community on this so I can assure you (with references) that the percentage isn't small.
Granted, there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between "faith" and "belief in evolution" but, as I said above, I think most people - even you - would agree that there is a strong correlation.
Consequently, when you say
I think it's you who are missing my counter-point. Your statement would make sense if there were absolutely no connection between a person's religious views and their views on evolution. But, of course, there is a connection. In fact, there's a strong one.
So, again, I'll ask, what percentage of scientists do you think consider themselves religious (i.e. people of faith). Unless that percentage is very small, your argument has a problem.
Of course, the easiest way to check your argument would be to simply ask all scientists if they believe in evolution or not. At the moment, I don't have a reference for such a survey, but I'll look around a bit.
Well, I'll give you credit
Tue, 12/08/2009 - 19:45 ET by pahuberhydro, this attitude of yours is why I have tried to keep our posts to each other simple and self explanatory. IOW's I wanted to make a statement concerning the current trend science has been moving toward. It is a very troubling trend which excludes others based on scientists either having trouble with areas of evolution in an open fashion or those who do not believe evolution outright, but are not even in the field of evolutionary biology.
hydro, The issue is whether or not evolution is being used as a litmus test today. This is a troubling trend that has been picking up momentum at many universities (see Ben Stein's Expelled for full details).
I see where you are going with this. The litmus test is not in full swing as to show your example here. However, it is a current trend that seems to be gaining more force at universities.
Certainly.
First, you need to go back to your original posts and see where you wanted to take this debated instead of dealing with the initial point that I made.
Second, it took you several posts to finally grasp the initial post that I made.
Third, you want to say that religion instead of evolution was the litmus test, but now want to connect the two points to say there are many of faith in in any particular scientific field.
Fourth, you ignore the trend and basically deny there is any truth to it, but a few examples.
Fifth, you use an anecdotal 'self world' of 'science' to basically 'debunk' a movie you have never watched.
Sixth, you even seemed to try and justify the examples given with a hockey soccer analogy many posts ago, but now have changed to a different approach for some other reason and say it just doesn't exist.
There are those who claim to be born again and buy into the evolution and those who are athiest that say that evolution is a severely flawed theory (See Ben Stein's Expelled).
Here is where you show your hand.
First, I now see where you have wanted to take this conversation and make it into a religious argument. I have not wanted to bring this into the realm of religion at all, but simply state that evolution has and is becoming more and more of a litmus test. There are those on both sides of the scale who for some reason or another agree or disagree with evolution.
My point is that I have not tried to bring faith into the equation at all. My point is correct and will become more and more so untill...??? Perhaps it may not if nobody understands what is going on at a lot of universities around our country.
My friend hydro... you frustrate me to no end... I do not think religion has a lot to do with this issue. There are agnostics and even athiests who speak in the Ben Stein movie that are troubled over this trend.
I just do not wish to bring religion into this because it may muddy the waters... you want to discuss religion and percentages of scientists, etc.
The simple fact is that evolution is most certainly becoming a litmus test requirement in many universities. Is this a perfect example/statement? No, but the trend is documented and does not pertain to only science. Unfortunately, this view has trickled into journalism, as well.
BTW... hydro, the example of the ISU guy who was fired got along with his science colleagues at ISU. It was the religion teacher Hector Alvarez (religion teacher who petitioned strongly against tenure) that got him denied.
Hector Alvarez is the poster boy for militant atheism... balboa, you asked 'what is a militant athiest' before and here is your answere...again.
pahuber, First, I'd like
Wed, 12/09/2009 - 12:13 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
First, I'd like to thank you for a thoughtful and polite response. I'll try to give the same.
Contrast these with your statement from your first post
You have now shifted to using the word "trend". That is very different from what you first wrote. Your first statement was very black and white and opened you to counter arguments. Talking about a trend makes your argument less concrete and, as a result, harder to argue against since what defines a trend can be pretty vague or arbitrary.
My counter arguments where to your first black and white statement. To recap:
You criticize me for not getting your point right off the bat, but even at this late stage of the argument, you have altered your argument to start talking about trends.
You also criticize me for talking about religion - but go back and look at your first post - you use the word "religion" to describe those who believe in evolution. You brought up religion and faith from the start.
Like I said, there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between religion and not accepting evolution. There are exceptions (going both ways). But I'm sure you do acknowledge that there is a strong correlation. In fact, I think this is why you have suddenly started talking about "trends" that aren't in "full swing" yet.
You say I "ignore the trend". Nope. I haven't seen it - at all. Believe me or don't. Either way, all you have is a movie to back up your view. Me? Well, we've gone over that and you don't believe me anyways.
If I asked you for a comprehensive list of cases of folks in academia being denied promotion or fired for not believing in evolution, how long would that list be? To justify you suggestion of a trend, I would think it would have to consist of hundreds or thousands of cases. Can you produce such a list?
Regarding your examples from Stein's film. Since I haven't seen the film (and I'm not kidding - I might), I can't specifically comment. But unless there are thousands of examples cited in that film with people flat out admitting that they tried to get others fired for not believing in evolution, all you have is a film maker's take on a few examples - a film maker who I'm sure is trying to push a certain view. But, again, I haven't seen the film so I can't really say.
Regardless, as I've said in another post, I have no doubt that folks have been denied tenure or been flat out fired because of their refusal to accept evolution. To you, this is proof of a trend. Not to me. Name me a field of work where people haven't been fired for things that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do their job.
Oh, and regarding the whole "militant" thing - you accused me of being a "militant evolutionist". Do you still stand behind that statement?
'You have now shifted to
Wed, 12/09/2009 - 18:57 ET by pahuberYes, to illustrate that this litmus test is only gaining more and more steam and not losing it. However, my statement:
is still valid.
Certainly that has not been my intent at all. While my initial statement is not set in stone it certainly continues to be a very accurate statement.
Notice that initially, you agreed with the statement...at the very least used the soccer and hockey analogy to generally say, yes, but that is because they do not play by the same rules or are not legitimate science, etc etc" You then took the tact that it is not happening where you are at with all of your years in science.
case you were suggesting that Creationism and ID should be allowed in
science (granted, you never actually said this but some of your
comments suggested it)
which, in itself, suggests you were taking a black and white approach
(i.e. would you say there is a Catch 22 now that you have shifted to
talking about "trends" - I don't think so).
Ok, I'll eat it. It is a black and white statement and I believe it to be true.
I will not attempt to prove a negative, however, I would love to see more than a few illustrations to back this up. I categorically believe that this statement does not exist at a university or would last very long in a university setting.
Then back to your first last statement. What alternatives to evolution are being compared to evolution side by side in a university setting?
Are you ok with the word ID being mentioned in a lecture even if not necessarilly in a positive way cost a professor their job?
You see where you are headed don't you?
As addressed before, I take nothing back from my initial statement. However, it is also true that the current trend is becoming more and more overt as those who have been removed are not able to seek remedy for their injustice.
Furthermore there are groups, forgot the name of one of them, that track anywhere ID or alternative views pop up so that they may be snuffed out regardless.
Having said this I believe even more so that the catch 22 is more valid than ever. One cannot be in the field unless one believes it and one that doesn't accept it cannot be in the field. So... then one can take those numbers and say how many 'conservatives' actually believe in evolution. Those results would be derived from a skewed process to begin with....
True, however, the examples set forth in Ben Steins movie are pretty clear cut. Honestly, this has been going on for quite a long time w/o documentation and has spilled over into other fields besides science. Universities are not heralding who is getting hired, fired and for what reasons. This is not a thing whereby one just goes online and finds the data. In many a business things are just kept hush hush, deals are made and if you say nothing we'll just say it is mutual. Universities are not sacred in that these things do not exist there, as well.
Militant? I do not know, honestly. Perhaps you would not fire someone and hate to imagine this happening... then no. However, if you just want to detract from what is going on to enable the injustices so that they may continue, then yes. I just cannot read your mind to know.
First, the instances in the Stein movie are most likely the tip of the iceberg, but a few things that can help guide one to seek the truth is taking note of the organizations that exist to protect evolution from any threat whether perceived or legitimate.
Second, why does such a theory need so much protection. Do you agree with this?
Third, many of the followers of evolution, from the offset jump in to attack those who oppose their religion in a way that would make any scientologist proud.
Since debating this for quite a long time I have found the above statement to be true almost always.
pahuber, To
Thu, 12/10/2009 - 16:30 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
To quote:
You asserting that your initial comment is valid (actually, you mean "sound") is what we have been arguing. I know you think it's true. I don't. That's what this discussion has been about.
Regarding my agreement with your statement (in this post), I need to clarify that. I shouldn't have said
What I should have said is that currently, if you want to enter an area of science that uses deals with the origin and development of organic systems, you need to understand be able to work with and/or use evolutionary theory. The main reason being that it is currently the only purely naturalistic theory that attempts to describe these types of systems and processes. My view - and I know you don't agree - is that whether you actually accept it at true or not is irrelevant.
I can give you a historical example of this in physics. Around the turn of the last century, it was understood that light was a form of electromagnetic wave. The problem was that, up to that point, waves were always understood to move through a medium - air for sound waves, water for water waves, etc... - however, scientists where not sure what the medium for light was. There had to be one, they said, so they invented something called the aether. Problem was, no one could detect it. Regardless, it was widely accepted as having to exist since all waves have a medium.
Einstein, from an early age, had a problem with this idea of the aether. You could say that he didn't accept it. Despite that, he studied physics, learned Maxwell's Equations (which described all electromagnetic phenomena at that point), learned all the math necessary to understand how light is described and where the idea of the aether came from.
And then he proposed a completely different (scientific) theory - Special Relativity - which said that there was no aether (along with other things). There was resistance to his theory at first. Scientists are human, after all, and are hesitant to make big changes. In fact, Einstein never won a Nobel for his theories of Relativity since there still enough hold outs who felt the theories needed more empirical evidence. But now, Relativity is one of the central theories of physics.
My point is that something like this can could happen in the biological sciences. In fact, there probably isn't a grad student in that field who hasn't dreamed of becoming the next Einstein by proposing a better alternative to evolution. I know when I first started studying physics, I had grand ideas of creating my own new-and-improved theories.
You have been arguing that not only do you need to accept evolution as true if you want to work in such a field, but even if you don't work in a field that uses evolution and you don't accept evolution true, you won't be accepted in science. Obviously, from my paragraphs above, I don't agree.
I threw in my years of personal experience to counter your suggestion that this purging is wide spread. I haven't seen it, but then my evidence is just my own experience and you've indicated that you don't put any weight in it.
As I've said, as far as I know, no one has (yet) come up with a purely naturalistic alternative to evolution. But the same could be said about a hundred years ago regarding the aether just before Einstein proposed his theory.
No. I thought I made it pretty clear that firing someone or denying them promotion for their personal views on a topic which has no bearing on their work is unacceptable (and probably illegal). Simply mentioning ID in a lecture shouldn't result in this kind of action - if it did, I'd be in trouble since I've discussed it my some of my lectures (as a result of students bringing it up).
You need to clarify what you mean by "alternative views". If you mean theories like ID and Creationism, then since they are not purely naturalistic theories, they have no place in science. A scientist trying to interject these into his scientific work should be criticized or reprimanded if he's trying to portray them as science in a class room. I have no qualms saying that.
If, however, Creationism and ID are discussed in a philosophical context, where those to theories are compared and contrasted to scientific ones, then obviously, there is no issue.
Then how did Einstein get into physics? I'm sure your response will be that evolutionists are fanatics who defend their theory in a way that physicists didn't with the idea of the aether. OK. But that's just an opinion on your part - one that seems to be based mostly on a movie.
So you are saying that you know it's true even though you don't actually have any evidence to support it. Honestly, this is the same kind of reasoning I've heard some of the lefties on this site use some years back to explain how Bush was using the Patriot Act to spy on everyone and throw people in jail without a trial. "Have any evidence for that?" I would ask. "Of course not - you think the government advertises that kind of stuff?" they would reply.
Unless you specifically name these organizations, I can't look to see what exactly they do.
I do know that there is an attempt to get Creationism and ID taught in science classes in schools. Based on my comments above, I do see this as a legitimate fight. It isn't about having to defend some weak theory (evolution) against legitimate criticism - it's about preventing people from corrupting what science is to achieve their own theological ends.
Yea, the nerve of scientists trying to defend their own theories. Not like people of faith do the same with their beliefs, or anything.
hydro, we disagree, however we are making progress. I am glad
Thu, 12/10/2009 - 18:56 ET by pahuberto see you would not agree with the one scenario that was in the movie.
You should know that I have no problem with evolution being taught in school at this time (I do not believe it happened this way, of course). My hope is that as those who desire truth over politics regardless of what they currently buy into will win the day. IOWs I want truth regardless of outcome and am not afraid to see it to its ultimate end.
Conversely, while I personally have nothing against ID (whatever that actually means) or creationism I am not against them being at least mentioned in schools or presented as alternates (I know you do not accept this as science, etc.).
Correct.
I agree that one who enters this field should indeed have a working knowledge of the theory regardless as to whether they accept it or not. However, I believe we are going to have to agree to disagree. Both of our views, needless to say, vary from university & individuals to university & individuals. You seem to be pretty balanced however their are those who will go spastic and shriek at the first mentioning of anything seeming contrary to the theory.
Let's just say I understand your viewpoint. However, unfortunately, there have been those who have interjected pieces of one area where evolution fails as a possible alternative and have been censored or reprimanded for writing so in a scientific journal or magazine. Not sure where you stand there, but that to me and many others is a purist mindset which does not allow for other possibilities.
Many would have issues and have lost their job in just bringing it up as such.
Here is the crux of the matter.
I see a weak 'I got there first' theory trying to stave off elimination at all costs while you see 'religious' people trying to corrupt science with a bunch of religious dogmatic crap.
First, I do not believe many of the vociferous ones defending evolution are always scientists. Many just want God eliminated from the public conscience.
Second, I personally do not feel the need to defend God... He seems to be a whole lot bigger than me.
Third, it is hard to discuss something when you haven't seen the illustrations from the Ben Stein movie. They are deeply troubling. I know you say a 'movie' is all the evidence I have, but again this is what I personally believe is happening from not only watching this movie, but reading Christian news services when a teacher loses tenure or is fired over their faith... you OTOH have not seen the movie...I think you might find it interesting if/when you ever feel the need to see it.
So, I believe I have evidence to back up my claim and you say a film only... we are not going to agree at this time, hydro.
pahuber, However,
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 13:35 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
If the alternative is non-scientific (like Creationism or ID) then, as I said, yes they should be criticized or reprimanded. If the alternate is scientific, then of course not.
Maybe, but I doubt it. If you are teaching a class on philosophy or metaphysics, of course it would make sense to bring up theories like Creationism and ID if the syllabus covers the topic of origins. I think you have this idea that academia wants to purge the universe of anything religious but I disagree. Many colleges and universities have departments of theology and many more have professors with degrees in theology working in various other departments.
Your description of my view is correct.
It seems to me that you think it's OK to try to introduce alternate theories like ID or Creationism into science. If this is correct, then I'm not sure if this is because you think they are, in fact, scientific theories or if you acknowledge that they aren't, but don't care since they (to you) represent the truth of the matter and so should be in science regardless.
I know you said you didn't want to get into this kind of discussion about science and so if you don't elaborate, that's cool.
Regardless, as a result of this discussion, I'm thinking of maybe putting up a Forum post on my views about the connection between religion and science.
Yes, I haven't seen the movie. But I too read my scientific journals and I have my years of working in the field so the fact that I haven't seen this one particular film doesn't, to me, seem to detract from my own opinion on the topic.
But I might see Stein's film. However, even if I do, chances are I won't go in with an open mind and that will no doubt affect the way I interpret it. But who knows?
~Hydro
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 13:44 ET by choselife4xHere's something I've often wondered and never had a chance to ask someone who might be able to give me a good answer..
How does the theory of evolution square with Hawking's thermodynamic arrow? Any thoughts?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
choselife3x, The
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 14:23 ET by hydrodynDMchoselife3x,
The thermodynamic arrow of time is basically a comment about how the Second Law of Thermo seems to give a preferred direction to how systems evolve.
First I should say that time isn't really understood in science. From a purely mathematical standpoint, it's just a parameter in our equations. If we are dealing with a small number of microscopic objects, the equations that describe their interactions are what is called "symmetric with respect to time" (well, not quite but never mind that). Meaning, that if you show a film of two protons colliding and then show the film in reverse, either one is an allowed process.
However, on the large scale, certain processes seem to always go in one direction. For example, on its own, a gas will always expand, never contract. As another, a hot object will always cool, never get hotter. Technically, the reveres processes are possible, but they just never seem to happen.
The explanation for this is contained in the Second Law of Thermo. It basically says that within a closed system the objects in that system will most likely follow the process that results in the largest increases entropy. That's how you decide what processes will actually occur from the list of all possible processes.
So, how does this relate to evolution? Some try to argue that evolution violates the Second Law since evolutionary process represents a decrease in entropy over time. This argument, however, misses an important restriction. The Second Law says that entropy will tend increase in a closed system. The organic systems (animals, plants, whatever) on this planet are not closed systems - they are in a constant state of interaction with their environment.
If we consider the Earth as a closed system (it isn't) then as long as the entropy of the environment increases more than the entropy of the organic systems decreases, the Second Law isn't violate.
To a physicist, the evolution of organic systems from the stand point of the Second Law isn't any different than when you put water into a refrigerator. As the water freezes, its entropy decreases (the molecules become more organized as the system goes from liquid to solid) but the entropy of the air in the freezer increase as it is heated by the ice (the air molecules acquire more energy and so move around more). The entropy increase of the air is larger than the entropy decrease of the water so the Second Law is cool with it.
I'm sure you weren't looking for this kind of long winded explanation, but you did ask.
~Hahaha!
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 14:54 ET by choselife4xYes, I did ask!
So what you're saying is that the process of entropy is a given only in a closed system, i.e. there are no mitigating factors or forces. The thing is, it seems to me that the only way a truly 'closed system' can exist is in theory, or am I missing something?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
choselife3x, Well, I
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 15:09 ET by hydrodynDMchoselife3x,
Well, I should clarify. Entropy isn't a process. It's a property of a system (like its temperature or pressure or whatever). Entropy is basically a measure of all the possible ways the system can be.
For example, let's say you have three coins lying on a time. Let's assume that each coin can be in one of two states - heads up or tails up. Then there are 8 possible combinations that the system can be in - or 8 different "ways" the system can be. The entropy is basically a measure of that. (Technically, the entropy for the coin system would be the natural log of 8 times a number called the Boltzmann Constant - don't ask why).
A process - any process - will typically open up new ways for the system to be in. The Second Law says the system will tend to evolve to a state where it has more ways of being.
Back to the gas example. Let's say you have a box that's walled off down its middle. Half the box is empty and the other half contains a gas. If we remove the wall, we have made more ways of being available to the gas. Theoretically, the gas could just stay where it is and not take advantage of those new possibilities, but it will most likely expand into the other half of the box because doing so increases the number of ways the gas molecules can be and so increases the entropy of the system.
No, there is not truly closed system. That's why the Second Law actually says that a system will evolve in such a way as to increase the entropy of the universe. Good catch on that one.
By the way, there is a theoretical argument behind why systems seem to obey the Second Law - but I thankfully won't get into it.
~Oh, I could keep on asking questions...
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 15:25 ET by choselife4xAnd if you want to get into it, please feel free to PM me!
The line of thought I'm pursuing, is that order never forms out of chaos (without the interference of an outside force). Which seems to jive fairly well with Hawking's theorems, from what I understand. So I've wondered how people mesh that with the theory of evolution, which seems to point towards increasing order/complexity of matter.
Your posts give me something to mull over in that regard, thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
chose, hydro
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 15:31 ET by BlondeIf I may, hydro....you might want to send Chose your Forum link prior to getting into it.
I think you two will have a wonderful convo....perhaps another Forum topic is in order?
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde, Chose has
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 15:42 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
Chose has indicated that she doesn't want to really get that into it so I'll spare her the link.
However, I'm already ahead of you regarding another forum post. I mentioned to pahuber that I'm thinking of putting up another one about the relation between science and religion which will probably touch on this topic.
But seeing as I'm a very lazy person, I'm not sure when that will happen.
Thanks for the encouragement.
choselife3x, I know what
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 15:39 ET by hydrodynDMchoselife3x,
I know what you are getting at. The problem is that the Second Law doesn't really distinguish between entropy and "order" (or "design", which is what ID tries to address). As long as there is an accompanying larger increase in entropy (disorder), the Second Law is satisfied.
Just to make this clear - let's say I decide to build a watch. I take a number of materials and work on them, process them and assemble them. I'm the "outside force" that you referred to. Well, the entropy of the material that went into making the watch has obviously decreased.
However, my entropy and the entropy of the environment, has gone up. The processing of the materials creates waste heat and waste products. The chemical processes in my body, the heat I give off, the frictional heat created as I was assembling the parts - all of this results in an increase in entropy of the environment (which is anything outside of the watch). As long as the entropy increase of those outside forces is larger than the entropy decrease of the watch, the Second Law is satisfied.
OK - I promise. That's the last I'll say on it.
~Got it!
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 16:01 ET by choselife4xFascinating. That's exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.