Posted on 10/20/2005 6:17:41 PM PDT by furball4paws
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
Chapter 1: The Threat IN THE SUMMER OF 2001, long before his reelection and even before he became a "wartime president," George W. Bush found himself in a political tight spot. He responded with a morsel of scientific misinformation so stunning, so certain to be exposed by enterprising journalists (as indeed it was), that one can only wonder what Bush and his handlers were thinking, or whether they were thinking at all. The issue was embryonic stem cell research, and Bush's nationally televised claim—that "more than sixty genetically diverse" embryonic stem cell lines existed at the time of his statement—counts as one of the most flagrant purely scientific deceptions ever perpetrated by a U.S. president on an unsuspecting public. Bush's assertion, made on August 9, 2001, came as the president sought to escape a political trap of his own making. Campaigning in 2000, Bush told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that taxpayer money "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos." The statement threw a bone to Bush's pro-life followers, who view the ball of about one hundred fifty cells constituting a five-day-old embryo as deserving of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings. Accordingly, these religious conservatives consider embryonic stem cell research—the study of excess embryos donated for research from in vitro fertilization clinics—ethically abhorrent. But some prominent Republicans, such as Utah senator Orrin Hatch, favored the research because of its scientific promise. As the issue came to a head in the summer of 2001, Bush publicly agonized over what to do. Finally, he opted for a supposed compromise: he would allow federal funding, but only for research on preexisting cell lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at waronscience.com ...
I just didn't want to be nominated to the Supreme Court some day (why not these days?), and have some liberal call me a racist because my post was censored. Then when He/she explained why they were so sensitive, I guess I just lost any anger.
Since we are being civil, I would like to pose a question, which I alluded to in my earlier post today. It is not a loaded question. Have you ever heard of the book, "The structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn? It is in no way a creationist book. I was reading it, and to horribly simplify one of his points, he asserted that no major Scientific theory was ever disproved without a better theory. Nobody ever conceeded error, until a more perfect model arose, and then only rather violently. He further postulated that the vast majority of scientists did not innovate, or discover, but "mopped-up" after the discoverers. They smoothed out the edges. He cites countless examples, the most obvious being the theory of combustion and the various models for the atom. It was shocking how the contemporary scientists band-aided awful theories until a better model came along. I found that interesting.
Then, later, I started studying logic, and was speaking to an aquaintence who is a Phd from Duke in Mathematics. He did his thesis on "the unknowable" in math. He was studying the limits of current human comprehension in mathematics. It got me thinking: certainly evolutionists and Theists can agree that the human mind is finite. If so, is it not possible that some questions will not get answers in our lives? Surely, it is easier to ask than to answer, is it not? If I am correct, I will get these answers in eternity. If you are correct, our descendants will get them eventually, and learn more questions as well. What intrigued me was, "what if certain aspects of the CREVO debate can not possibly be resolved (at least in the present)?
Let me put it another way, what if I stood on the edge of human capacity (which I do not presume to do), and I asked a question into the void? Suppose that receiving no answer, I posed a conjecture that was incorrect, but for which, given the limits of human understanding, were the best man could offer. Further suppose that others believed me, and set about to further refine the theory. Suppose that someone suspected it was wrong, and that some component of the true answer was beyond our understanding. Say he/she called that component "supernatural" or a miracle. If Kuhn is correct, Science would never disprove the theory, but would continue in error for ever. It would not accept that it knew less than it thought.
Okay, so that was not terribly eloquent, as it was my first attempt to express my thinking on the matter, but does that make any sense? Can you critique my scenario (seriously)? I would sincerely appreciate feedback.
"I agree, generally, with you, but if you read the entire link you'll see that stem cells is just one thing and the Creationist/ID war on Evolution and the Dover trial also play a significant role."
Yes. The fundie far-right ignorant religious whackos are determined to get America back to the Dark Ages. Their fear is palpable and as frightening in its ramifications as that of the whackiest of enviro-whackos.
Oh well. Europe and Asia won't let the shackles of religion hold their scientific advances back. Too bad America will be "Left Behind".
With such an attitude, we would still be living in caves ...
I read the book a loooong time ago. I had a rather negative take on it at that time. The idea that it would -normally- take storming the establisment gates to get a new idea through didn't square with my experience.
A caveat here. Some ideas do get more entrenched than others. Most often that I have seen this occurs in medicine and for a very good reason. Doctors have to act with incomplete information and what seems logical may be logical but nevertheless wrong. An emotional bias sets in. It hurts to think one has harmed a patient with the best of intentions.
In most of the other areas I have any familiarity with a new idea is eagerly gobbled up and chewed.
Any it is correct that most science ends up being itty bitty studies cleaning up after the great ones. Two reasons: not everyone has the smarts to come up with brilliant ideas, and virtually everyone hopes that -their- ittly bitty study will unearth a crucial flaw and put their name in lights so to speak.
You misread my larger question for a lack of intellectual curiosity, which I do not endorse. Rather, I was asking about the limits of human understanding. I am not even asserting, definitively, that the CREVO debate hits at that limit. It was an abstract thought that I was looking for thoughtful commentary on.
And Americans with get-up-and-go will.
Ok. There are no limits to what the human mind will evolve into. Of course the creationists' argument is that since Adam (or Noah depending on whom you talk to) the mind has been constantly deteriorating. I guess that is why we can't read anything that Adam wrote? Anyway, according to the creationists, the human mind will waste away shortly. Which do you subscribe to?
God can never be resolved. He is always 'just beyond' the known (and moving) boundaries of human knowledge. That is the definition of God.
What do you disagree with in my post of the definition of God? You should be upset with the ID'ers, pushing the teaching that God may be dead upon school children.
Me either, but it is an epidemic lately like the bird flu.
Your definition implied that God is only a placeholder for the unknown. I will allow that the concept of deity has been used in this manner at times in history, but it is not implicit in the concept. It is doubtful that the believers on this site would define what they believe in that way. It was condescending.
Then you followed up a strawman with a strawman. "You should be upset with the ID'ers, pushing the teaching that God may be dead upon school children."
Ok. Where is heaven?
Then you followed up a strawman with a strawman. "You should be upset with the ID'ers, pushing the teaching that God may be dead upon school children."
Strawman? You are ok with that being pushed on our school children? Yes or no? If you duck again, I will have to assume that you are ok with that.
Some weakness! No one will come out and say (one non-Christian did) and denounce Behe and ID!
1. We all evolved (common descent) from little squishy things
2. The earth is billions of years old.
3. There is no evidence of ID in the last few hundred million years of earth's history
4. Because there is no late evidence of ID, we should teach school children that God may be dead.
Assume whatever you want.
Assume whatever you want.
Thanks for going on record.
He was, he is, and he always will be. Isn't this sort of what God said?
Thank you.
" he asserted that no major Scientific theory was ever disproved without a better theory."
A theory is hypothesis supported by facts of consistent observations. Your summary of Kuhn's claim is called the correspondence principle in science. In general it says that the classical theory, is a special case of the more general theory.
"It was shocking how the contemporary scientists band-aided awful theories until a better model came along."
THe occurance of bandaiding, if that's what's really happening, means the theory is incomplete. If what is actually being bandaided is a real theory, then it means what you have is a special case of a more general theory.
"certainly evolutionists and Theists can agree that the human mind is finite."
The human mind is infinite, because their are no boundaries to it's real capacities. The only limit to those capacities is death.
"what if I stood on the edge of human capacity (which I do not presume to do), and I asked a question into the void? Suppose that receiving no answer, I posed a conjecture that was incorrect, but for which, given the limits of human understanding, were the best man could offer."
That's conjecture and it could be a hypothesis, but not theory.
"Further suppose that others believed me, and set about to further refine the theory."
It's still conjecture and possibly a hypothesis. Belief is not warranted, because there's no supporting evidence. That's also the reason it's not a theory.
"Suppose that someone suspected it was wrong,
They they should have a reason why the hypothesis is wrong.
" and that some component of the true answer was beyond our understanding."
Then the hypothesis, conjecture, or claim remains a just that and no more.
" Say he/she called that component "supernatural" or a miracle.
Folks can only deal with what is as fact, not with fantasy.
" If Kuhn is correct, Science would never disprove the theory, but would continue in error for ever."
Science deals with what is, so the problem Kuhn supposes is fantasy. Science would conclude it doesn't have an answer to be wrong about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.