|
|
Sorry...I thought this was about Kennedy, Biden and Schumer. |
Posted on 01/11/2006 8:42:47 PM PST by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
|
Neanderthals At It Again H.L. Mencken’s final report from the famous Scopes trial in Dayton Tennessee comes roaring down to us after 80 years as sharply edged as ever:
"Let no one mistake [the trial] for comedy, farcical though it may be in all its details. It serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters of the land, led by a fanatic, rid of sense and devoid of conscience. Tennessee, challenging him too timorously and too late, now sees its courts converted into camp meetings and its Bill of Rights made a mock of by sworn officers of the law. There are other states that had better look to their arsenals before the Hun is at their gates." Could he have foreseen the recent Pennsylvania case contesting evolution in terms Scopes would find unchanged from how Clarence Darrow argued for him way back then? Mencken anticipated even more in an earlier Nation column: “No principle is at stake at Dayton save the principle that school teachers, like plumbers, should stick to the job that is set before them, and not go roving around the house, breaking windows, raiding the cellar, and demoralizing children.” The continuity in both of his observations on human nature was that the Neanderthals were in charge of the law and that none of those involved had the sense to stick to what they actually knew when scientific and intellectual matters were at hand. The more recent decision was issued by a U.S. District Court Judge with the impressive moniker of John E. Jones III in a case from the equally inconspicuous Dover, PA. Judge Jones the Third could have avoided making a fool of himself by either declaring the case moot—the school board that required a statement in their biology textbook book claiming evolution was only a theory rather than a fact and that “intelligent design” was an alternative explanation to Charles Darwin’s, had been defeated in the prior election—or even ruled that the board decision was biased by religious prejudice. But the new school board had already announced it would appeal only if it lost the case so The Third knew he would not be reviewed by higher court authority and was presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to demonstrate upon a world stage his intellectual and scientific superiority to the boobs. The distinguished member of the Schuylkill County Bar, educated to the highest levels as a Bachelor of Arts at Dickinson College and, comfortably again, at its School of Law let hubris unleash his pen and decided not a mere case of law but chose to define biology, science and rationality itself, Constitutionally, legally, once and for all, for all time. All he proved, and that rather conclusively, is we have learned absolutely nothing over these fourscore years. What gives Batchelor Jones his superior powers? He admits he must deal with “complex if not obtuse” matters but claims that “after a six-week trial that spanned 21 days…no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.” No kidding, he did say traipse and it all came to him over the span of an incredible six weeks! After all, his scientific expertise prior to the Federal court was as The Honorable Chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and before that as Solicitor of the great metropolis of Pottstown, PA, surely ranking favorably with the pallid scientific background of Mencken’s memorable Dr. Crabbes. The 21-day wonder’s first target was the comparatively easy subject of biology. He acknowledged that some serious scientists had found problems with evolution citing gaps in the record and life-forms that did not seem to evolve from lower bodies. But “Just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot and will not be able to explain them tomorrow.” Certainly, this is true but, while Judge Jones thinks this disposes of the case, his is just as clearly a belief based upon faith rather than upon the empirical science he claims is the only standard for an idea’s worth. While any scientific theory deserves the liberality of this assumption, it is clearly based on cosmology rather than empirical observation. In evaluating the alternative intelligent design theory favored by the first school board, however, the Judge uses a more fundamentalist standard. “Intelligent design is a religious view,” he declares, “a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory. It is an extension of the Fundamentalists’ view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.” This is in spite of the fact that even most Christians do not view Genesis literally in every regard and that its largest denomination, the Catholic Church, accepts evolution as a likely part of the explanation rather than either/or. Even the consensus of evolutionary science has devised the cosmological idea of the Big Bang as part of its explanation, which bang by definition is itself not evolutionary but an abrupt bang. Judge Jones does not hit full stride until he defines science itself. “Science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena,” opining that the scientific revolution was explicitly about the rejection of “revelation” in favor of empirical evidence. This certainly would have been a revelation to the devout Isaac Newton, the--or one of the--men normally recognized as the leader of that revolution, or to Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, Liebniz, Napier or most of the rest of the pioneers. But the Judge moves bravely on: “science has been a discipline in which testability rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth,” a discipline that avoids any search for “meaning” or “purpose,” although he does mention the need for logic as a “tool” of science and for “ground rules,” although he limits these by claiming “the essential ground rules” are those that “limit science to testable, natural explanations.” The Judge’s admirers are correct to note he has given a “clear definition of science” and even that his is “a passionate peon to science.” Yet, to anyone even vaguely familiar with philosophy of science, it obviously is a most particular definition of science, one called logical positivism, one that was the dominant view in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and is still the majority view of the establishment institutions like the National Academy of Science relied upon so much by Judge Jones, which in his case plays the role of the Holy Office experts against Galileo (who also was a devout believer). But this particular definition has been seriously challenged and not only by religionists. Take the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, who was not religious and not a believer in God. One could have instead referenced Albert Einstein but he did believe in God. Popper wrote his Logic of Scientific Discovery in mid 20th Century to critique positivism from a strictly logical point of view. The key to understanding the Judge’s partisan approach to science is his use of “testability.” Popper was the first to rigorously argue that science does not test theories but attempts to falsify theories. Testing to prove theories is logically impossible for a reason the Judge inadvertently acknowledged. New evidence can always falsify a theory but can never confirm one since new evidence can always overturn the earlier findings. No theory is ever proven but is always open to dispute. Logically, this must include evolution. Otherwise, it truly is a religious belief. The Judge is also on shaky ground in claiming that science is limited to natural causes to explain natural phenomena. Even he recognized the need for logic, which even positivists like A.J. Ayer, recognized was not material but analytic. More importantly, Popper claimed that all science rests on cosmology which defines the point of view, the motivation, the methodology and the types of problems scientists find worthy of study and are not material themselves. Popper may be wrong but the Judge does not seem aware there is a controversy. The cosmology or cosmologies that structure science are not testable--logic is not, mathematics is not, the scientific method is not. These need to be internally consistent but they cannot be tested empirically. Big Bang is itself one of these propositions. Interestingly, Big Bang was fiercely rejected by the leading evolutionists of the 1960s for the same reason intelligent design is today. Such a belief can leave a place for God outside the theory as the cause of the bang. But Big Bang proved irresistible to scientists as part of a more rational explanation and most evolutionists rely upon it today. Again, in the 1970s, it became increasingly impossible to ignore the scientific evidence that the fittest did not always survive. The fossil record showed innumerable species that died out that seemed more fit than those that survived. Besides “survival of the fittest” sounded too much like Hitler. So evolutionists were forced to recognize outside catastrophic events such as meteors that overruled evolution and killed off normally superior species. Yet, again, if some events outside evolution as Darwin used the term were recognized the fear from some scientists was that there was room for the unwashed to introduce God as an outside creative event. The big secret is that no one follows pure Darwinian evolution today except the ignorant who have no idea what scientists actually believe. Both Big Bang (interesting capitalization) and catastrophism would be heresy to Darwin and were violently rejected by his followers when these concepts were first introduced. They are a normal part of biology today and are taught in most textbooks. Intelligent design may be more of the same in the future. Who knows? What is clear is that the keepers of the scientific tablets will continue to reject any additions to the dogma that seem to weaken its myths—especially for those for whom Darwinian evolution has become a metaphysic--and the Judge Jones of the world will continue to follow convention and the mob and assist them. But reality has a way of intruding and establishments are not always successful, especially over the long run. What is most interesting is that the roles in the earlier and current controversies have been almost completely reversed. Like Tennessee, Pennsylvania passed a law requiring adherence to the current orthodoxy, creationism in the twenties but evolution today. It is important to note that the earlier Dover school board was trying to skirt a state law that forced the orthodox view and that when popular emotion was whipped up by the orthodoxy the mob threw out the intelligent designers, not the evolutionists as earlier in Tennessee. In both cases, the popular theory was made into law and forced upon a minority that held an alternative view. In both cases, the law is made the ass, manipulated to favor the majority public position over the minority one. As in the past, the more rational position will probably prevail over the longer term. What is certain is that intelligent design is not simply a religious dogma, as it is supported by non-religionists—in fact, we printed such a defense here by William Daley (http:\\acuf.org/issue45/051005med)--and several of these appeared before Judge Jones even though he chose to ignore them. As far as the minority is concerned, there is more than one way to skin a cat. If convinced of the merits of the case, one way forward for intelligent designers is for local school boards to offer philosophy of science courses to discuss the cosmological issues as a way to circumvent the heavy hand of the state and the courts One thing is sure. Mencken would be unsurprised that human nature had not changed. Only the Hun has changed sides. The fanatics devoid of sense, the Neanderthals, and the sworn officers of the law are still abusing the Bill of Rights, only now they are being led by a Federal judge. Donald Devine, the editor, taught philosophy of science at the University of Maryland for 14 years and is a professor of Western Civilization at Bellevue University.
|
This is the time when I ask you folks to prove to me that there is a God, and if he has a place in Science class.
This is the time I ask you to justify teaching theories as fact just because they fit YOUR belief system.
Easy. The theory of evolution is based on hard scientific data. The existence of God/Allah/Zeus/Marduk, etc. is not.
Ping!
If there were any question about your closed mindedness before, the fact that you posted your challenge before you POSSIBLY could have given the post any sort of fair perusal says a lot about you and your ilk.
According to Michael Behe, even if the designer is now dead, you can still use science class to label anything that you can't explain to "What he did before he died"
"The theory of evolution is based on hard scientific data..."
And if it was based on hard scientific data then it wouldn't be a THEORY, would it?
Here's some scientific data:
Laboratory-Scale Evidence for Lightning-Mediated Gene Transfer in Soil
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/8/3440
|
|
Sorry...I thought this was about Kennedy, Biden and Schumer. |
Hmmm.
The case wasn't moot. The legal theory in question is called voluntary cessation; even if an offender stops offending, the court still has to rule on the merits of the case.
What gives Batchelor Jones his superior powers? He admits he must deal with “complex if not obtuse” matters but claims that “after a six-week trial that spanned 21 days…no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.” No kidding, he did say traipse and it all came to him over the span of an incredible six weeks! After all, his scientific expertise prior to the Federal court was as The Honorable Chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and before that as Solicitor of the great metropolis of Pottstown, PA, surely ranking favorably with the pallid scientific background of Mencken’s memorable Dr. Crabbes.
Judges adjudicate on matters of science all the time; that's why we have expert witnesses. The posturing ass who wrote this screed should stick to matters whereof he knows something - if there are any. The Law certainly isn't one.
Interestingly, Big Bang was fiercely rejected by the leading evolutionists of the 1960s for the same reason intelligent design is today.
...and he certainly knows nothing about this history of science!
Again, in the 1970s, it became increasingly impossible to ignore the scientific evidence that the fittest did not always survive. The fossil record showed innumerable species that died out that seemed more fit than those that survived.
Total BS. No one, to my knowledge has ever suggested this.
How many times are you going to paste that stupid Tom Wolfe quote, newbie? Run out of stuff to say already?
Today's professional politicians want no part of social issues. There's no money or any other incentive in them for him and any way he votes on one of them, he alienates 45% of his constituency. If he then gets clumsy or unlucky in any way and alienates another 5.5 % of anybody in the next two years, he's out of office. Thus the system has now become for pols to shunt such decisions off to judges who are totally unaccountable to the political process and basically behave like ancient satraps, appointed for life.
Judges and prosecutors have way too much power in this county. Recent cases include abominations such as the scene in which Californians voted overwhelmingly on a plebescite vote to protect themselves from a rogue political party wishing to import third-world voting blocks for itself and force middle-class people to pay for the business, only to have the proposition shot down by a single clintonista judge and the Atzlaners celebrating the "last stand" of white America in California.
At that juncture the Californian middle class had three options: give up and accept new vision of serfdom, leave and find some other place to live, or take up the gun. Many have decided to leave. I'm constantly getting phone calls and emails from people with jobs in California paying more than I've ever made, and they act like they're in a state of shock when I tell them I'm not interested.
But, sooner or later, the problem has to be faced. Sooner or later in such a process, you run out of places to run to.
But if you go to the ACU web page, it says For 14 years, he was associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, specializing in democratic theory and public opinion.
The latter makes far more sense, for a guy who used to run the US Office of Personnel Management. But professors of government and politics don't teach philosophy of science. Looks to me he's getting a little creative with his resume.
Apr 01, 2005
So Far and Yet So Near
One more problem for the Big Bang: Recently-discovered galaxy clusters reveal too much complex structure to be as “young” as Big Bang speculations would require.
The small inset in the photo above shows a recently discovered cluster of galaxies that poses a big problem for the Big Bang.
According to conventional theory, which determines the distance of a galaxy by its redshift, the cluster is 9 billion light years away. That means the light we see today was emitted 9 billion years ago, or only 5 billion years after the Big Bang, in which all matter and energy supposedly was created. Gravitational forces could not have generated such a cluster of galaxies in such an astronomically short time.
The ESO news release commented:
"The discovery of such a complex and mature structure so early in the history of the Universe is highly surprising. Indeed, until recently it would even have been deemed impossible."
Translation: This observation falsified the theory. To save the theory (upon which grants and reputations are established) an ad hoc patch must be found.
“If astronomy were a science”—as one worker in the field put it—astronomers would have wondered if the cluster might have been ejected from the nearby active galaxy NGC 7314 (at the center of the large image). They would have wondered if its high redshift might be due to that ejection instead of to an expansion of the universe. They would have wondered if the cluster might be an early stage of galaxy cluster formation in the near present instead of in the far past.
But such wondering would require them to doubt that redshift means distance. It would require them to doubt that redshift means recessional velocity. And if redshift does not mean distance or velocity, then the two major pillars of Big Bang theory are undermined.
On the other hand, because this cluster is in the halo of the active galaxy NGC 7314, this observation once again confirms Halton Arp’s prediction that high-redshift galaxy clusters will be found in association with low-redshift active galaxies. Arp made this prediction many times. In a paper on galaxy clusters, written in collaboration with amateur astronomer David G. Russell and published in the Astrophysical Journal of March 10, 2001, Arp and Russell add more than 15 new cluster/active galaxy associations to the list Arp has been gathering for three decades.
We can carry this prediction one step further. We can predict that other complex galaxy clusters with high redshifts (perhaps even higher than this one) will be discovered in the future. And we can also predict that they will be found close to nearby active galaxies. Some of them may even be found between their active parent galaxy and us.
The really big problem is not the discrepancy between Big Bang theory and contrary observations but the singularity of belief that compels astronomers to turn a blind eye to the wrong end of their telescopes while ignoring disagreements with what they imagine they see.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050401sofar.htm
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.
