Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert

LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

[wagglebee]

WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.

“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”

Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!

[grey_whiskers]

I blame the scientific popularizers (e.g. ignorant-of-everything-but-still-supercilious members of the press) and some of the more militant atheists.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

And what about heliocentrism? There’s another absolutely diabolical doctrine started by so-called `scientists.’

The problem is not with geocentrism, but egocentrism.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Nice mismatched quotes around "scientists" btw.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Once again, there is no religion of Darwinism. As far as I can tell, the term is used to try to discredit a theory of science that *some* people feel somehow threatens Christianity. I do have faith that, eventually, people will get over this perceived threat to Christianity, just like they got over the supposed antitheistic theory of heliocentrism. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Catholic church un-excommunicated Galileo, within the last few decades.

This cuts both ways: some opposed to Christianity like to use evolution and (shall we re-coin a phrase?) "scientism" as a cudgel to attack faith and Faith.

See also Dawkins, Pharyngula, etc.

There are a number of conflicting undercurrents, of which not all the disputants are explicitly conscious -- empiricism vs. scholasticism, intellectual pride, Pharaseeic impulses, etc.

But why concentrate on the real issues when slinging mud is *so* much more fun, is what many people feel.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I disagree with you on one important point, and it (by analogy to Communism and jihad) has to do with "useful idiots."

Many of the abortionists (Kermit Gosnell) are driven not by ideology to weed out the unfit, but pure, unadulterated greed; many of the womyn seeking abortions have been subject to "hard selling" of abortion or pressured into one by family members or impregnators : after *first* having been sold the bill of goods that "sexual liberation" is better than "repression".

It is all but one front in a much larger war on the souls of men: fought as much by words, propaganda, social media and peer pressure as much as by bullets and bombs.

But that does not mean that all of the participants are explicitly aware of, or endorse, the strategy and tactics of the Generals, so to speak.

NO cheers, unfortunately.

[grey_whiskers]

"Evolution" and "Social Darwinism" are convenient philosophical springboards from which to *launch* eugenically related attacks; for an interesting aside on this, read P.J. O'Rourke's essay on "Overpopulation" in All The Troubles In The World: he notes that Paul Ehrlich decries the teeming throngs in India, but not the equally crowded masses on the Riviera -- is his concern for "overpopulation" merely a politically correct way of expressing and acting on racism?

Cheers!

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Glad you’re awake to such.

[Doe Eyes]

I blame the scientific popularizers (e.g. ignorant-of-everything-but-still-supercilious members of the press) and some of the more militant atheists.

Would you name a few of these militant atheists?

[Quix]

Absolutely indeed.

Even the Supreme court asserted accurately that atheism was a religion.

The religion of Scientism also has it’s dogma, doctrines, high priests as gate keepers of the truest truly true truth etc. etc. etc.

gag.

[Quix]

Read the quotes I posted at #276 . . . abortion has deliberately been turned into a population reduction scheme by the satanic globalists.

[grey_whiskers]

Nice quote-mining of Mein Kampf.

It is ironic to find that Creationists are roundly excoriated for out-of-context quote-mining of "Darwinists" to try to show that evolution is either not believed by evolutionists, or is self-contradictory; but in defending evolution, one is allowed to do not only quote-mining, but a type of controlled burn against Godwin's Law.

Try reading the quote in context, mmmkay?

Here's your paragraph:

This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed

And here is the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted, which inexplicably got left out from your citation:

It would be impossible to find a fox which has a kindly and protective disposition towards geese, just as no cat exists which has a friendly disposition towards mice.

Hmmm, beginning to sound like "Master Race" yet? Keep reading.

This is the next paragraph:

That is why the struggle between the various species does not arise from a feeling of mutual antipathy but rather from hunger and love. In both cases Nature looks on calmly and is even pleased with what happens. The struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behind in the ruck everything that is weak or diseased or wavering; while the fight of the male to possess the female gives to the strongest the right, or at least, the possibility to propagate its kind. And this struggle is a means of furthering the health and powers of resistance in the species. Thus it is one of the causes underlying the process of development towards a higher quality of being.

Sounds like "survival of the fittest" to a T.

And the next couple paragraphs provide the segue to The Master Race^TM (BARF ALERT):

If the case were different the progressive process would cease, and even retrogression might set in. Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the former would always increase more rapidly if they possessed the same capacities for survival and for the procreation of their kind; and the final consequence would be that the best in quality would be forced to recede into the background. Therefore a corrective measure in favour of the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted; but even that portion which survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a new and rigorous selection takes place, according to strength and health.

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants – who mainly belonged to the Latin races – mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.

BTW, what does it say that you have to quote Mein Kampf to falsely attack creationists, while utterly misrepresenting the true Darwinist "struggle for survival" memes in it, within a couple of paragraphs of your quote?

So would you rather plead guilty to being a Nazi (YOU quoted Mein Kampf to make your case!); or simply to intellectual dishonesty (I've seen the same arguments posted by Darwin Central members here on FR, btw, but in fairness to you, I don't know where you got the quote from); or to mind-numbing carelessness in your eagerness to score cheap points (you could have Googled the quote and verified the context even as I just did, trivially)?

NO cheers, unfortunately.

[grey_whiskers]

Although I DO find it amusing that Creationists are almost entirely incapable of arguing against a scientific theory without making it an argument against atheism.

But Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Pharyngula are notable pictures of mental health, eh?

FAIL.

[grey_whiskers]

The "dogmatic belief" comes from an over-reliance on the null hypothesis coupled with Occam's razor, to the point that "not sufficiently demonstrated and publicized within peer-reviewed channels" becomes *equivalent* in the scientist's / doctor's mind to "necessarily false".

Look at the troubles early doctors had in advocated aseptic conditions in surgery; the role of Heliobacter pylori in ulcers; the dogmatism of Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Gleick, etc. in AGW.

Over *time*, science does have an error-correction feature: but like the garbage collection feature in Java, or like the error-detecting mechanisms in DNA replication, it is not foolproof, even over a timespan of decades or (possibly?) centuries. And it is explicitly dependent upon the expenditure of large sums of money and tens of thousands of people being supported with taxpayer money and devoting their lives to nothing else: which, as Heinlein points out in another context, is a very rare circumstance, and not the default condition of human culture.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

The theory of evolution very much drives experimental science. I cannot imagine even trying to formulate a working hypothesis if I did not take into consideration various elements of the ToE. I do not think my work would be possible without it.

Self-selection error. LOL.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Yet they claim to not accept evolution - despite when they need it, accepting it at many hundreds of times the observed rate.

What is the "rate" of evolution?

Not simpleminded: more complex than you're used to dealing with.

Some features are conserved: the "rate" of evolution in those features is essentially zero.

Some features (the ansatz of natural selection) are held to change fairly rapidly by survival of the fittest in a relaxation process akin to Metropolis Monte Carlo.

But, different features are conserved, or subject to change, within different species, or different environments, or different sets of environmental changes, or different changes to the local food web, over different time scales.

And (see the "nylon bug") -- specific changes can apparently be accelerated (given artificial suppression of predation, unlimited food, and a huge population all subject to the same local constraints) for a short time to a specific end.

So who says natural selection must be random?

Or can't God ever put His thumb on the scales without bothering to tell us? (...or YOU?)

Just stirring the pot.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

We need a "Godwin's Law" for crevo strawmen, i.e. when it happens declare a win and walk away.

At your service:

Internet Forums and Social Dynamics: Part I: Everybody is someone else’s weirdo

Internet Forums and Social Dynamics: Part II: Snapbacks

The Internet and Social Dynamics, Part III: Getting Back to Basics, or, Don't be so Acidic

Internet Forums and Social Dynamics, Part IV: The Problem of Knowledge, or When Doctors Disagree

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Giraffes did not elongate their necks so as to eat leaves from tall trees; giraffes with longer necks had the advantage of being able to eat leaves in tall trees and therefore they did not have to compete with the animals eating the lower leaves.

Begging the question, but how do we know there were tall trees?

And what was the selection pressure which led to the trees getting taller?

For that matter, what were the list of genetic changes all of which would have to occur in tandem in order for the neck to get longer successfully? (Size of vertebrae, together with proper structure to support the neck; changes in ligaments and musculature; changes in the blood vessels and hormones to signal to the blood vessels in the neck to keep blood pressure to the brain correct despite the increased hydrostatic pressure; etc. etc. ad infinitum).

Some things scale continuously; some have abrupt changes in behaviour beyond a certain threshhold.

Has anyone *done* a bioengineering study on the giraffe to see if there are any discontinuous physical characteristics which would require elemental changes to aspects of the physiology, once the neck got beyond a certain length? And the genetic changes necessary for the individual proteins coded for, the macroscopic structures, and the inbred ('instinctive') behaviours to accomodate these things?

Can you actually demonstrate this, or is it nothing more than hand-waving to be accompanied by personal attacks on the questioner?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

All it has come down to is that evos have demanded the right to control the vocabulary and insist on everyone playing by their rules. It is intellectually dishonest to hold people to two sets of standards, forcing them into a heads I win, tails you lose situation.

+1

Full Disclosure: I see a great deal of disagreement among evolutionary evangelists (to coin a phrase) as to whether evolution requires, or is independent of, abiogenesis.

Usually it depends on who else is in the chat room or discussion.

If among the scientifically literate, then it is agreed that "of course" abiogenesis is not part of evolution, it is merely a discussion of "allele changes within a selected population and statistical effects of these changes upon the survival of the population and/or subgroups."

But let fundamentalist Christians show up and it becomes "science disproves the Bible, you stupid fundie, you don't even know what DNA is."

But that of course is anecdotal, and the plural of anecdotes is not data, right?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

What is predictable is that if I subject a population of bacteria to ten different stresses, the genome of the population will change such that the stressful conditions become optimal or normal conditions.

Trivial counterexample, but nonetheless instructive.

Subject a petri dish of bacteria to several moles of elemental Fluorine.

Let me know how that hopey-changey adaptation works out for you, mmmkay?

You are taking for granted four *key* elements.

1) The efficacy of the change in killing the target population.

2) The amount of time required / allowed to adapt (special case: something which is uniformly fatal, allowing *no* survivors) 3) 2nd special case: something which is not uniformly fatal, but for which there exists no successful evolutionary adaptation within relevant time scales)

4) The presence of multiple stressors -- lungfish may survive drought, but not backhoes digging in the mud.

And the fact that most individuals do not survive infanthood without being snarfed up for lunch by a predator, also influences the efficiency of how much a beneficial mutation actually *spreads* once it occurs.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

However the observed rate of erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain the formation of mountains over millions of years.

How does erosion form a mountain instead of wearing it down?

/quibble>

[grey_whiskers]

Like Socialism to Free-Markets, Eugenics thinks they know better than “the market” what is desired and desirable - but they are wrong. Humans bred to be “nonviolent” will simply not have the same drive to succeed as a normal “violent” human.

Or, since you seem fond of quoting Mein Kampf, let's compare your statement to the paragraph *before* the one you cherry-picked to associate Hitler with Creationism:

The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.

Cute.

[grey_whiskers]

That is why Science is of use and Creationism is useless.

If you are going to speak of "utility" it is necessary to agree on what constitutes Good.

Science strikes me as having been perverted into a Faustian bargain:

O what a world of profit and delight,
Of power, of honour, of omnipotence
Is promised to the studious artisan!
All things that move between the quiet poles
Shall be at my command: emperors and kings
Are but obeyed in their serveral provinces,
Nor can they raise the wind, or rend the clouds;
But his dominion that exceeds in this
Stretcheth as far as doth the mind of man:
A sound magician is a mighty god.
Here Faustus, try thy brains to gain a deity.

The mistake is thinking that one *must* deny the existence of the Supernatural, or of God or Satan, to practice science: still less that one must (in effect) sell one's soul to do so.

That part is only necessary to feed the concomitant intellectual pride.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Moreover you have, as is typical of Creationists when discussing evolution, moved the goal posts on to abiogenesis.

The goal posts historically *started* with abiogenesis vs. the hand of God, they didn't get moved there.

Quite an odd statement on your part.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Take Einsteins E = MC^2 then apply the zeroth thermodynamic law to energy or absolute zero where all molecular activity ceases. Now solve for Mass.

I've never heard of the zeroth thermodynamic law -- do you mean the 2nd Law of Thermal Documents? ;-)

And molecular activity does not cease at absolute zero: due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the non-commutation of the quantum mechanical operators for position and velocity, polyatomic species still have vibrational energy even at absolute zero (hence the name "zero-point" energy).

Try rewriting that so it makes sense, please?

Cheers! Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Once you abandon reason and evidence in favor of your favorite theological interpretation you may as well claim the Sun is in orbit around the Earth......

Snapback PLACEMARKER.

[grey_whiskers]

Ever hear of the Pharyngula blog?

[grey_whiskers]

Concur. Somewhere or other (between Limbaugh and P.J. O'Rourke, or elsewhere on FR) I've seen quotes which imply that some of the nuttier green eco-types want to reduce the world population to the order of several hundred million.

They're too stupid to realize that if the ENTIRE population is reduced to college professors, UN parasites, telephone sanitizers, diversity coordinators, and the like, that there will be nobody left to grow the food, maintain the sewer lines, take out the garbage, and other such unsavory but necessary tasks.

And if (as sounds all too likely from their present behaviour) they insist on sodomy most of the time, and abortifacents or abortion for the few times they practice heterosexual coitus, then they will face extinction themselves in short order (on evolutionary time scales, of course).

What *is* the survival value of an abortion or of fellatio, anyway? It doesn't propagate the species...

Cheers!

[Quix]

Welllll there’s documentation for those who are interested in the truth . . . certainly of their goals and methods.

http://twoday.net/static/omega/files/quotes_from_people_who_consider_us_subjects.htm

I’m sure they are quite smug in their deception that THEY are uniquely qualified as elites to further the species . . . as the only ones allowed to procreate and give birth.

Then there’s the cloning technologies the fallen angels have given them . . .

They don’t think they need that many serfs and slaves to populate their slave/servant roles in vast areas of restored ‘national parklands’ from reclaimed metropolis areas voided of exterminated ‘useless eaters.’

At the time of the construction of the GEORGIA GUIDESTONE, the target population for the globe was 500 million. Purportedly it has been lowered since to 200 million.

Thankfully, Scripture indicates they won’t get that low . . . but with 1/3 to die early on in the END TIMES/TRIBULATION period and 1/3 of what’s left later to die . . . someone calculated that to be about half of the starting population . . . there will still be tons of blood flowing.

[GourmetDan]

"You are taking for granted four *key* elements."

The greatest assumption is the one which assumes that the systems and mechanisms which produce what we observe necessarily 'evolved'.

Apply the fallacy of affirming the consequent to that bit of begging the question and voila, evolution.

[exDemMom]

This cuts both ways: some opposed to Christianity like to use evolution and (shall we re-coin a phrase?) "scientism" as a cudgel to attack faith and Faith.

See also Dawkins, Pharyngula, etc.

I am aware of such people. They do scientists and science a grave disservice by their actions. Because, unfortunately, the general public sees those people and assumes that they represent the majority of scientists, when in reality, they represent only themselves and their beliefs (and I count atheism as a belief). Whether you are devoutly Catholic, or devoutly atheist, science cannot validate your beliefs. That's not what it's for.

Most people have never seen scientists in their natural habitat--where we represent all religions--where, for example, a new intern was coming to our lab, and we did our best to accommodate her religious need to pray several times a day (we ended up making an arrangement with a Muslim scientist who also needed to pray several times a day). As far as I can tell, the only thing that sets scientists apart from other people as far as beliefs, lifestyles, etc., is that we chose science for a career instead of something else, like accounting or firefighting.

[exDemMom]

The religion of Scientism also has it’s dogma, doctrines, high priests as gate keepers of the truest truly true truth etc. etc. etc.

Not at all. There is no religion of "scientism", and there are no gatekeepers. In fact, the scientific community in general makes great efforts to bring more people into our community. We try to engage kids at school and do our durndest to ignite that spark of curiosity which drives people into science careers. I can think of no other career where one has the opportunity to routinely discover new things that no one else has ever found before.

[GourmetDan]

"There is no religion of "scientism", and there are no gatekeepers."

Of course there is. Philosophical naturalism is the religion of scientism. The gatekeepers are the peer-reviewed publications that are committed to scientism.

[allmendream]

It was the author who falsely associated Hitler - who believed in fixed kinds “a fox remains always a fox”, and that his race was created in “the Highest image of God” with a philosophy of “Darwinism”.

Darwin's theory isn't about “stronger” and “weaker” but only variations that are well suited for conditions or not.

Hitler was a rather strict Creationist - he doesn't even allow that a canine “kind” could give rise to foxes, dingos, coyotes, and wolves - all in record time when needed. Nope - to him “a fox is always a fox”.

What does it say that the author of this article had to start out with a dishonest attempt at guilt by association. Is he a Nazi - or just intellectually dishonest?

[grey_whiskers]

Nice attempt at diversion.

You quoted Mein Kampf.

Except you misquoted it.

And the part you left out was the money quote supporting the central point of the thread.

Here's a hint: when you try to necklace someone with a connection to the Nazis, make sure you put the tire around someone else's neck.

Cheers!

[exDemMom]

The "dogmatic belief" comes from an over-reliance on the null hypothesis coupled with Occam's razor, to the point that "not sufficiently demonstrated and publicized within peer-reviewed channels" becomes *equivalent* in the scientist's / doctor's mind to "necessarily false".

Hmm, do you see the irony in accusing scientists of "dogmatic belief" when the entire field of science is built upon empirical observation? If you can't demonstrate an idea with empirical data, then it's not science. End of story.

Look at the troubles early doctors had in advocated aseptic conditions in surgery; the role of Heliobacter pylori in ulcers; the dogmatism of Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Gleick, etc. in AGW.

This is actually a couple of different issues. It took time to demonstrate the theory of germ transmission of disease, and the role of aseptic surgical techniques in breaking the chain of transmission. But the science was sound, and stood up to rigorous experimentation, so that there is now no question that surgery must be performed in aseptic conditions (although how best to achieve those conditions, and how aseptic any procedure must be--for instance, open chest surgery requires a higher level of care than wart removal--are still subjects of research). The same thing with establishing H. pylori infections as a major cause of gastric ulcers--when the properly controlled experiments were done, and the results communicated to the scientific and medical communities, and other scientists were able to replicate the findings, that, too, was accepted by the scientific and medical communities. That's the hallmark of scientific advance--it may take a while, decades even, for a hypothesis to be rigorously tested through controlled experimentation, but once it is established as being valid, it is accepted.

With AGW, however, there is something else going on. As far as I know, a disproportionate role of carbon dioxide as a component of the greenhouse effect has never been experimentally established. It has been established that CO2 fluoresces strongly within a narrow range of the IR spectrum. Someone hypothesized (in 1938!) that this fluorescence could raise atmospheric temperature. It was also later shown that the carbon dioxide levels have increased slightly. Fast-forward a few decades; some ideologically driven politicians saw in this a way to increase their power over the citizenry (because people who balk at having their lives dictated by a politician who merely wants power will gladly allow their lives to be dictated if they can be convinced that it will save the planet). So the politicians, who control grant moneys, dictated that grants be directed towards AGW research. We now have a situation where AGW advocates point at thousands of papers that supposedly establish CO2 as a driving force of atmospheric temperature; what they don't point out is that the vast majority of those papers use the terminology "X is happening because of global warming", which is a throw-away phrase meant to convince the politicians that the research funding is, in fact, going towards AGW research.

I haven't heard of Ben Santer. What I see happening with Michael Mann is that he became emotionally attached to the hypothesis, which is always a bad thing for a scientist to do. Perhaps one of the harder lessons for a scientist to learn is to let go of a hypothesis when it doesn't pan out, and to move on to something else. Most of us learn that lesson in grad school...but some don't. It doesn't look like Mann did, although he may be figuring it out--I think it was his email that said it was a travesty that the temperature record isn't conforming to their hypothesis, in those infamous leaked emails?

And it is explicitly dependent upon the expenditure of large sums of money and tens of thousands of people being supported with taxpayer money and devoting their lives to nothing else: which, as Heinlein points out in another context, is a very rare circumstance, and not the default condition of human culture.

Guilty as charged. Throughout history, science has been supported throughout government funding. I have come to an uneasy truce between my belief that such matters should be privately funded, and the reality that almost my entire career has been taxpayer funded, from the beginning of grad school up to my current job. Protecting scientific enquiry *is* specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but spending billions of federal dollars on it may be pushing Constitutional boundaries.

[grey_whiskers]

I'd love to reply in detail, but I had insomnia and woke up at 2:00 AM -- MUCH earlier this morning so I'm suffering a strange form of jet lag.

So, placeholder: you appear to be discussing mostly in good faith, but with a little bit of unwarranted condescension about "being a scientist."

I've got to do some shopping and cooking (I do the cooking in the house, so I like to know what the ingredients are too), so I'll re-look in maybe by 4:00 PM, and let the answers stew in my tired brain in the meantime.

Cheers!

[exDemMom]

Self-selection error. LOL.

Not hardly. No matter what your line of work, choosing the right tools for the job facilitates the work. In my case, the toolkit includes the Theory of Evolution, among other tools.

On a local radio station, I hear an ad where a hairdresser is asking a woman how she would like her hair cut and styled. After she explains her wishes, the hairdresser fires up a chainsaw. Trying to formulate workable hypotheses using the literal creation story out of Genesis instead of the ToE bears a lot of resemblance to the hairdresser trying to style the client's hair with a chainsaw.

[exDemMom]

Of course there is. Philosophical naturalism is the religion of scientism. The gatekeepers are the peer-reviewed publications that are committed to scientism.

For science being a supposed religion, with supposed gatekeepers, there sure were a lot of hits when I Googled "science news" just now. Over 4 billion--I have never seen a search show up that many hits before.

Peer-review is a quality-control measure. By having people review an article for scientific plausibility and accuracy, we can filter out the junk science that, if published, would quickly make science lose all credibility. FYI, the databases where scientific publications are catalogued are public-access, and many of the journals give free access to their articles. Other journals charge a fee for accessing full articles, but they don't refuse anyone access if they are willing to pay $35 or so. That whole scenario of "gatekeepers" of science just doesn't mesh with reality.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-post, dear grey_whiskers!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the links!

[GourmetDan]

"For science being a supposed religion, with supposed gatekeepers, there sure were a lot of hits when I Googled "science news" just now. Over 4 billion--I have never seen a search show up that many hits before."

Surely a competent scientist would recognize a non sequitur before posting?

"Peer-review is a quality-control measure. By having people review an article for scientific plausibility and accuracy, we can filter out the junk science that, if published, would quickly make science lose all credibility."

The only place 'credibility' has in science is as a tool to convince non-scientists that what they are being told should be believed. An emotional appeal to 'credibility' is the antithesis of science. Surely a competent scientist would recognize that.

"That whole scenario of "gatekeepers" of science just doesn't mesh with reality."

Sure it does. You just proved it.

[exDemMom]

Begging the question, but how do we know there were tall trees?

1) Fossil evidence

2) Photographic evidence

The fact that we can look at pictures of giraffes in their native habitats and see tall trees strongly suggests that tall trees also existed in the past.

And what was the selection pressure which led to the trees getting taller?

One selection pressure (but not the only one) would be that short trees keep getting eaten by all the short herbivores. Have you ever noticed that in a pasture containing cows, the height above the ground of the leaves and branches of the trees in the pasture almost exactly coincides with how high the cows can reach? *That* is a selective pressure.

For that matter, what were the list of genetic changes all of which would have to occur in tandem in order for the neck to get longer successfully?

Probably not as many as you would think. A random mutation in a promoter of a gene responsible for vertebrae formation that causes the neck vertebrae to grow longer would be sufficient. The muscles, ligaments, and blood vessels would automatically grow to fit (just like they always fit people of different heights and bone structures). The only other change might be vascular changes to strengthen vessels against the higher pressures resulting from greater elevation of the head; that would not have to occur simultaneously with the vertebrae elongation. Evolution does not occur through sudden massive changes throughout the entire genome; it progresses change by change.

Has anyone *done* a bioengineering study on the giraffe to see if there are any discontinuous physical characteristics which would require elemental changes to aspects of the physiology, once the neck got beyond a certain length? And the genetic changes necessary for the individual proteins coded for, the macroscopic structures, and the inbred ('instinctive') behaviours to accomodate these things?

Yes, people research all of those issues, and if you are genuinely interested in finding the latest research on biomechanical features of giraffes, I'm sure you can find it in a zoological/veterinary research database. Giraffe-specific research is not generally found in PubMed (although studies covering all of those aspects of physiology are there, if they concern humans, pets, or laboratory animals).

Although I did find this in PubMed:

Pressure profile and morphology of the arteries along the giraffe limb.

Østergaard KH, Bertelsen MF, Brøndum ET, Aalkjaer C, Hasenkam JM, Smerup M, Wang T, Nyengaard JR, Baandrup U.

Zoophysiology, Department of Biological Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. kho@hst.aau.dk

Abstract

Giraffes are the tallest animals on earth and the effects of gravity on their cardiovascular system have puzzled physiologists for centuries. The authors measured arterial and venous pressure in the foreleg of anesthetized giraffes, suspended in upright standing position, and determined the ratio between tunica media and lumen areas along the length of the femoral/tibial arteries in the hindleg. Volume fraction of elastin, density of vasa vasorum and innervations was estimated by stereology. Immunohistological staining with S100 was used to examine the innervation. The pressure increase in the artery and vein along the foreleg was not significantly different from what was expected on basis of gravity. The area of the arterial lumen in the hindleg decreased towards the hoof from 11.2 ± 4.2 to 0.6 ± 0.5 mm(2) (n = 10, P = 0.001), but most of this narrowing occurred within 2-4 cm immediately below the knee. This abrupt narrowing was associated with a marked increase in media to lumen area ratio (from 1.2 ± 0.5 to 7.8 ± 2.5; P = 0.001), and a decrease in mean volume fraction of elastin from 38 ± 6% proximal to the narrowing to 5.8 ± 1.1% distally (P = 0.001). The narrowing had a six-fold higher innervation density than the immediate distal and proximal regions. The sudden narrowing was also observed in the hind legs of neonates, indicating that it does not develop as an adaptation to the high transmural pressure in the standing giraffe. More likely it represents a preadaptation to the high pressures experienced by adult giraffes.

Can you actually demonstrate this, or is it nothing more than hand-waving to be accompanied by personal attacks on the questioner?

I don't engage in personal attacks, and I endeavor to show the evidence, or at least have it available, to support anything I say.

[exDemMom]

The only place 'credibility' has in science is as a tool to convince non-scientists that what they are being told should be believed. An emotional appeal to 'credibility' is the antithesis of science. Surely a competent scientist would recognize that.The only place 'credibility' has in science is as a tool to convince non-scientists that what they are being told should be believed. An emotional appeal to 'credibility' is the antithesis of science. Surely a competent scientist would recognize that.

Credibility means that the correct questions were asked, the experiments were designed appropriately to answer those questions, the appropriate controls were used, and the conclusions fit the experimental evidence. I do not see where "emotional appeal" comes into play here.

Sure it does. You just proved it.

If, despite being shown how much effort is put into making science accessible to everyone, you still choose to believe that there are gatekeepers (who, by definition, exist to keep the knowledge out of your reach), then spending more time trying to demonstrate the accessibility of science is a total waste.

[Quix]

Not at all. There is no religion of "scientism", and there are no gatekeepers.

.

1. TRY publishing a professional journal article that does not please the gatekeepers . . . the Bishops of the Religion of Scientism.

2. TRY publishing a book that does not please the Bishops of the Religion of Scientism.

3. TRY publishing a book or journal article that does not please the Bishops of the irrational Religion of Scientism & THEN TRY and get tenure.

4. TRY publishing a book or journal article that does not please the Bishops of the idiotic nihilistic Religion of Scientism and THEN TRY and get a promotion.

5. TRY and get hired in most higher ranked universities with a reputation of even seriously questioning the irrational nihilistic Religion of Scientism.

6. However, it is good to know of the hostilities in the camp regarding the Judeo/Christian construction on reality. Sometimes, it turns up important. Perhaps rarely for physics issues but certainly for sociology, psychology etc.

7. BTW . . . how is it that you believe that so many original Bible Colleges woke up on a Monday morning and decided to be ruled by the irrational nihilistic Religion of Scientism and the globalist cabal instead of the Christianity of their founders?

8. It is Sad, however, to see those conservatives that still seem uninformed of the realities of our era:

http://twoday.net/static/omega/files/quotes_from_people_who_consider_us_subjects.htm

12. "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

14."To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." - Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization

15. "We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." - Arthur Schlesinger Jr., 'The CFR Journal Foreign Affairs', August 1975.

18. "No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation 22. "In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. "An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers." U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

38."The case for government by elites is irrefutable" Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?

[Quix]

Peer-review is a quality-control measure

You seem to really believe that.

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly--often almost unreadably--poorly written most scientific journal articles are?

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly shallow and insignificant most scientific articles are?

You're a scientist and you're UNAWARE of how grossly petty the vetting of most journal articles can be?

Yet you still hold to the farcical religious dogma that peer review is about quality instead of about PRIMARILY vetting whether the author is holding to the nihilistic Religion of Scientism??? One can publish all manner of garbage in peer review articles as long as one scratches where the Bishops of the irrational Religion of Scientism itch.

I haven't read the whole thread. What science are you a professional in?

[GourmetDan]

"Credibility means that the correct questions were asked, the experiments were designed appropriately to answer those questions, the appropriate controls were used, and the conclusions fit the experimental evidence. I do not see where "emotional appeal" comes into play here."

'Credibility' is simply the generally-accepted opinion of the group. The whole peer-review process is nothing more than one big appeal to the popular opinion of philosophical naturalists. No one with a shred of critical-thinking skills would be surprised that the conclusions beg the question of philosophical naturalism.

"If, despite being shown how much effort is put into making science accessible to everyone, you still choose to believe that there are gatekeepers (who, by definition, exist to keep the knowledge out of your reach), then spending more time trying to demonstrate the accessibility of science is a total waste."

I suppose that the best thing for you to do is to set something up that will allow you to declare victory and abandon the field.

[Mudtiger]

“People use science to discover things.

Creationism isn’t useful at all in that regard.”

I would say that perhaps creationism is irrelevant in most scientific endeavors. But, it certainly doesn’t hinder. One can believe in creationism and make all kinds of discoveries and applications in the biological and medical sciences...and have done so! Whether one believes in evolution or creation matters not at all regarding discovery and application. So in that sense, perhaps they are both irrelevant. The creationist and the evolutionist are both making scientific progress.

[spirited irish]

“If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”

Spirited: Hitler was a Darwinian pantheist, thus when he speaks of “nature” and “she” he refers to an immanent goddess-force (the progressive process) working through and within nature and history.

As the myth goes, over the course of millions of years of evolution, life finally emerged/evolved out of non-lifebearing matter (primordial pond scum). After evolving for another million years or so,an impersonal goddess-force emerged. Since coming into being, the goddess has been progressively unfolding (evolving) “throughout hundreds of thousands of years” in a work that involves the natural selection (predestination) of “an evolutionary higher stage of being,” or god-consciousness.

[spirited irish]

“If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”

Spirited: Hitler was a Darwinian pantheist, thus when he speaks of “nature” and “she” he refers to an immanent goddess-force (the progressive process) working through and within nature and history.

As the myth goes, over the course of millions of years of evolution, life finally emerged/evolved out of non-lifebearing matter (primordial pond scum). After evolving for another million years or so,an impersonal goddess-force emerged. Since coming into being, the goddess has been progressively unfolding (evolving) “throughout hundreds of thousands of years” in a work that involves the natural selection (predestination) of “an evolutionary higher stage of being,” or god-consciousness.