Another God That Failed

The America Spectator ^ | Published 3/4/2004 12:03:59 AM | By Tom Bethell

[Formoore04]

"And that's even before you get to the problems with creationists, etc."

What's the problem with creationists?

[expatpat]

I agree with you. While Political Correctness is not much of a problem in the hard sciences, it is rife in the soft sciences and biological (semi-soft) sciences.

[GulliverSwift]

It's even a problem in some of the physical ones as well. There are many leftists within the atmospheric science programs who are constantly promoting the human-caused global warming baloney.

You're right about the bios, though. They are ripe with left-wing hypocrites who refuse to accept the slightest bit of research showing racial or sexual differences but at the same time fall over themselves to promote illegitmate and shamefully biased research on homosexuality. And that's just one example, to say nothing about the zoologies, anthropology, medical research ...

[mc5cents]

What's important is that we continue striving towards a goal of ultimate truth, whatever that means.

I'll tell you what that means. It means that we, man, think that we can approach God. We cannot. We are human. Not God. We can NEVER BE GOD. Let us only try to be HUMAN. Let us try to treat each other like we would like to be treated. Let us love one another. I believe that that message was sent to us LONG ago by someone we all know. It is a simple message. We are not listening. We are too busy be smart.

[mc5cents]

What's important is that we continue striving towards a goal of ultimate truth, whatever that means.

I'll tell you what that means. It means that we, man, think that we can approach God. We cannot. We are human. Not God. We can NEVER BE GOD. Let us only try to be HUMAN. Let us try to treat each other like we would like to be treated. Let us love one another. I believe that that message was sent to us LONG ago by someone we all know. It is a simple message. We are not listening. We are too busy being smart.

[mc5cents]

Sorry about the double post. I tried to correct and hit the post button... oh well.

[Buggman]

What's the problem with creationists?

Well, you see, science isn't really about the quest to learn the truth about the physical universe, it's the quest to find a materialistic, non-theistic explaination. Because materialism explains everything . . . well, it will explain everything, someday . . . what do you mean that's a statement of faith? It is not! Is not, is not, is not!!!

Evolution is a fact! Never mind that we have no explanation for abiogenesis or the Cambrian explosion. Never mind that we lack sufficient transitional fossils to prove the case to anything other than a completely sympathetic audience. All scientists believe in Darwinism! Well, there's the hundred who wrote that letter to PBS expressing skepticism after its Evolution mini-series, but they aren't real scientists, just biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, geologists, etc. They don't count because by definition, to be a proper scientist, you must believe in Darwinism as a paradigm.

The fact that more Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ than evolution as the origin of life means that they just don't understand it. Nevermind the fact that we've had a lock on the government-run schools, the government funding, most of the private funding, thousands of hours of government-funded PBS specials . . . it's not that the case for Darwinism is just so bad and unsupported a theory that even after having uninhibited access to and control of all of those soapboxes, it's easier for most people to believe in a Bible story--anyone who doesn't agree is just too stupid to understand evolution.

Evolution is a fact, and anyone who disagrees must be ridiculed and summarily dismissed from the argument. Logical debate is pointless, and only gives the other side credibility that they don't deserve, because they're either morons or evil. See Keith Burgess-Jackson.

[lasereye]

For a good example of how "transitional forms" are identified see this post:

Whale Evolution

[expatpat]

As a physicist, I think of the atmospheric sciences as 'semi-soft' -- a poor understanding of the (complicated)processes involved and a dearth of non-confused experimental data.

[grassroot]

Ahem, small (g) in the title would be more appropriate.

[exDemMom]

I believe the underlying problem is that government funding, which increasingly dominates medical research, demands that a "political" consensus be substituted for the exploration of rival theories by the normal trial and error of scientific method.

I would have to disagree with that. Government funding (mostly) paid for my PhD, but it didn't direct my research. Even within the parameters of the boss's grant (i.e. government funding), I had considerable leeway to research the stuff I wanted to research. There was no pressure on us to produce only "politically correct" results.

What I see here as the major problem is the hype surrounding the scientific discoveries. All of these claims made about sequencing the human genome, and none of them based in fact. No one who knows anything about the subject ever expected that once the genome was decoded, cures for everything would be right around the corner. Yet, that was in the media, day after day. Where does such hype come from? I would blame the media, except that most media types understand less about science than they do politics, and, therefore, don't even know enough to promote such a scam. That leaves only other scientists--they should be ashamed of themselves for engaging in such hype.

[Elsie]

Let the GAMES begin!

[Physicist]

Dateline 1755: "Another God Fails: Electricity All Hype, Franklin in Disgrace, All Hope of Phenomenon's Utility Finally Debunked"

[Hacksaw]

Dateline 1755: "Another God Fails: Electricity All Hype, Franklin in Disgrace, All Hope of Phenomenon's Utility Finally Debunked"

Wow - you have convinced me! You boys are so tricky! Now how about realizing that I did not write the article and respond to what you think are the fallacies.

[Moonman62]

Was that the year Franklin tried to cook a turkey by electrocuting it, but zapped himself instead?

[NJ_gent]

" I'll tell you what that means. It means that we, man, think that we can approach God."

No good science attempts to do any such thing. Good scientists recognize that there is a limit to what we can and cannot know. They recognize we are limited by the fundamental laws of physics and of the universe in which we exist. Hawking is the first to say his concern does not extend to the instant prior to the Big Bang, simply because physical laws, as we understand them, do not function prior to the Big Bang. Ask him a question about what things were like before the Big Bang and his response will be something along the lines of, "I don't care because there's no way for us to know". It's not about approaching God, it's about using our God-given intellect to the best of our abilities to test the bounds of what humans can understand in our current existence.

"We are too busy being smart."

It almost sounds as though you're advocating the total abandonment of all human discovery. We seek to better understand ourselves and the world (universe) in which we live. In religious terms, one could say that we are mystified by God's creation, and therefore yearn to find out all we can about it, much like a child's curiosity. Scientists are merely adults who never lost the curious nature of a child. To not explore creation is to cheapen it. It's essentially saying, "yeah, there's a universe... so what? Lots of stars, lots of different things - who cares?". If you ever needed evidence as to God's intent for man's scientific exploration of the world around him, simply look to the innate curiosity of a child, and the fascinating and beautiful world that captures the imagination from cradle to grave for virtually every human being ever born. We live in a universe created for the purpose of being explored. Otherwise, all we'd need is one planet on which to live and one star to feed us energy. Everything else that exists, exists to be understood.

Science and religion are never in conflict with one another, unless one tries to do the job of the other. Good science tries merely to explain what the bullet is made of, how fast it's travelling, and it's trajectory. Good religion tries to explain who fired the gun.

[jennyp]

Phillip Johnson, the U.C. Berkeley law professor who began a new career some 15 years ago as an articulate critic of evolutionism, thinks that "DNA is vastly less important than we have been led to believe."

He's not a scientist - but he did sleep at a Holiday Inn one night. Plus he's the father of modern fabian creationsm, and in Tom Bethell's mind, this makes him an expert on genomics.

[TheHound]

Good rant. I do not think the article was about the genome project per se. I think it was using it as an example of the politicization of science research. Once the politics of a science is set - to espouse or support a leftist dogma - there is no going back.

There are many examples; from global warming to homosexuality. The best example I can think of is that of The Limits of Growth by The Club of Rome written back in the early '70's and admitted by the authors to be a fabrication of science - "to make people think".

Do a search on google and see how many courses are still being offered at major universities as if it were fact. Count the number of sites you find before you find one that actually debunks its propositions with real facts.