Neaderthals At It Again

Conservative Battleline Online ^ | January 11, 2006 | Donald Devine

[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.

---

Email the Editor

[dread78645]

Most people would sooner die than think; and frequently, they do so.

Fantastic! My favorite quote.

Now that I've found you in a thinking mood, perhaps you'll consider the amount of energy diffused to slow -- and stop the mass of the Earth as described in Joshua?

The temperature on Earth would increase approximately 240° centigrade (Sagan's calculations). A nice balmy 70°F would become a rather uncomfortable 500°F. Fred, put your oven on "Broil" and crawl in. Don't worry about a water bottle, it'll boil away in a few minutes.

And then that same amount of energy would be required to restart the spin again 24 hours later.

And consider the tidal forces involved with two bodies, the Earth at 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg and Venus 4,890,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg with a closest point of approach (CPA) less than 1,000 km. The crust of the Earth (assuming Earth didn't didn't rip apart) would be crasen and lava would've have seeped up everywhere. -not to mention completely liquefying Venus.
But the Earth didn't rip apart, we don't see that cooled lava everywhere, and Venus has a crust too thick to have been molten 3,500 years ago.

Fred, do you really think this is believable?

To say Velikovsky was a moron is an crude and unnecessary insult to morons.

[Doctor Stochastic]

How many times are you going to paste that stupid Tom Wolfe quote, newbie?

Until he's posted enought vanities to have a bonfire?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I spotted that cat as soon as you posted.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Veilkovsky's theories are at least as valid as Creationism or Miss Cleo's predictions.

[Virginia-American]

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!!!

[Fred Nerks]

Read Worlds in Collison and Earth in Upheaval and then come back and tell me he was a moron.
Without reading the work, you are making that fatal error, 'I don't need to study the book to know the author is an idiot'. The questions you asked me are answered in his work.
I took the time to read his books. Why not you? What are you afraid of? He does not dispute any religious belief, he presents nothing more than the result of his research into ancient myth and legend, worldwide.
For Velikovsky to be 'wrong' - every ancient culture, every clay tablet, every papyrus of the period was produced by liars, including the OT, btw.

And that favourite quote of yours, I took it from your Page. It seemed rather fitting.

Earth in Upheaval presents the geological evidence.

Worlds in Collision deals with the tales of the ancients, worldwide.

Ages in Chaos deals with the chronology of the Middle East.

Have you read the koran? Have you read THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD? (SEE TAGLINE) Have you read the Bible recently?
Why do we read? Have you read Mein Kampf? Again, why do we read? Or, do you believe that science is finished, it's all been done, nothing more to see, move along? Do you believe that a celestial accident negates the existence of a Creator? Do you think you know the will of God? The power He uses?

I'll ask you again. Have you read the works of Velikovsky, or are you so easily led that you feel there is nothing UNKNOWN IN THE UNIVERSE? Nothing after Sagan?

I will never, never in my life understand anyone who can do what you do, tear someone apart and call them a moron without looking at the sum of their work.

[Fred Nerks]

Author: Ted Holden

---

The argument against Velikovsky derived from the Babylonian Venus
tablets is part of the so-called "Merrit FAQ" (Worlds in Confusion...).
It turns out it is again Sagan and the rest, along with t.o regulars who
parrot them, who are confused.


If Sagan is correct and our system is billions of years old,
and Venus has been in its present place for billions of years, then
ancient astronomical charts and observations MUST show Venus in its
present orbit. Indeed, scientists claim that they DO; they used
some of this evidence at the AAAS meeting in 1974 which produced
"Scientists Confront Velikovsky", claiming that the well-known
"Venus Tablets" of the Babylonian king Ammizaduga showed Venus
entirely in its present orbit in the middle of the second
millennium BC i.e. during the period when, according to Velikovsky,
it would have perforce been unstable.

But then, a number of real scholars began to take a harder
look at the Venus Tablets. The following is from an article by
Lynn E. Rose from the Winter 73 issue (#III) of the Pensee Journal,
the old Student Academic Freedom Forum. This is a long article
which I could not quote in its entirety. The article treated
mostly with the manner in which the tablets involved have been
translated in the past.

The key paragraph of the article read as follows:


"Unfortunately, nearly all treatments of groups one and three
on K. 160, and of the genuinely observational material on the
other Venus tablets that supplement K. 160, have been based on
what I call the "astronomer's dogma". The "astronomer's
dogma" is the uniformatarian attitude that the solar system
has for untold years been just as it is now, and that Venus
and Earth in particular have always been on the same orbits
they are on now, except for certain very minor perturbations
that are for most purposes entirely negligible. This means
that we can look at the present motions of Earth and Venus and
then judge on that basis how accurate the ancient observations
were. If the ancient observations do not conform to what
would be expected from the present state of affairs, then the
ancient records were defective, and were either fictions or
errors, but could not have been accurate observations of what
was going on in the sky; accordingly, it is up to us to
rewrite those ancient records so that they WILL conform to
what we see in the sky today."

Rose notes the nature of Venus as it appears to us first as
evening star, disappears for a few days of inferior conjunction,
reappears as morning star West of the sun for some months and then
disappears during superior conjunction. He notes that one of the
Babylonian tablet fragments (K. 160 from the library of
Ashurbanipal, now in the British Museum) appears to be a record of
these comings and goings:


"Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:


"In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
[that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
land, the harvest of the land is successful.


"The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
days, and a reappearance in the west. This seems to be a
superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
a reappearance in the east. This seems to be an inferior
conjunction. Most of the data in groups one and three on the
tablet are of this form. But the lengths and spacings of
these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
present.

"The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
they do not conform to the present state of affairs
either.....


These kinds of things are well-known to scholars who have
actually studied the tablets. Rose mentions numerous translators,
Boseanquet & Sayce, Schiaperelli, Langdon and Fotheringham... He
notes [as an example], that:

"The next major study of the Venus tablets was by Langdon and
Fotheringham in 1928. Their book is important for the student
of the tablets in that they bring together a great deal of
material that is not available in any one other place;
unfortunately, however, their book is dominated and severely
handicapped by the astronomer's dogma, and they find it
necessary to scoff at much of what the tablets say was
actually seen, simply because such things are not seen today."


He cites also the case of Van der Waerden:

"Further attempts to deal with the tablets along
uniformitarian lines were made by Ungnad in 1940 and van der
Waerden in 1946. Van der Waerden plays the uniformitarian
game much better than some of his predecessors, but the main
reason I want to mention him here is that he is the clearest
example I have found of an unfortunate way of talking and
thinking that is characteristic of uniformitarians. He says
at one point, after either rejecting or radically rewriting
about three out of four of the recorded observations, that:
"All I have done is to remove inner contradictions from the
text."

there's lots more...
http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/ammi.htm

[Fred Nerks]

MEGABRECCIAS: EVIDENCE FOR CATASTROPHISM Arthur V. Chadwick Associate Professor of Biology, Loma Linda University Origins 5(1):39-46 (1978). Related page — | IN A FEW WORDS |

Megabreccias give evidence of transported rock masses whose size challenges our imagination. Dr. Chadwick describes some of these and comments on their implications. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many geologic phenomena of the past do not appear to be adequately accounted for in terms of the processes now occurring on the earth's surface. In some cases it is difficult to conceive of any mechanism capable of explaining them. Among these problem areas in geology the explanation of the origin, transportation and deposition of megabreccias has long rated a prominent place. An increasing number of geologists (the so-called "neocatastrophists") have recognized the need to consider forces of enormous magnitude not now operating to explain observations of the geologic record. One of these individuals, Derek Ager, has considered the catastrophic implications of megabreccias in his book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1). In this report we will take a more comprehensive view of megabreccias and attempt to bring the insights they provide to bear on the larger problem of understanding the past history of the earth.

Megabreccias are sedimentary deposits in which angular fragments of rock in excess of one meter in diameter occur as conspicuous components (Figure 1). Such a deposit may include many other clasts smaller than one meter, which may or may not be angular. This definition, modified from Cook et al. (2), is purely descriptive and thus includes both subaerial (land) and subaqueous (underwater) deposits that have the above characteristics.

FIGURE 1. Giant rip-up associated with megabreccia flow in basal Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone at Ninetyone Mile Canyon in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado. Weathered Precambrian Vishnu Schist is found below the Tapeats (lower part of the cliff). The Tapeats includes the massive sandstone found above.

FIGURE 2. Exotic quartzite boulder compressing sand laminae in basal Bright Angel Shale overlying Tapeats Sandstone at Ninetyone Mile Canyon in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado.

The process of generation and deposition of these megabreccias represents catastrophes of extraordinary dimensions, as substantiated by both the clast size and by the requirement for rapid movement across gently dipping or flat terrain for many kilometers. Wilson (9), assessing the magnitude of the problem, has called for consideration of "major disturbances originating outside the planetary system" which may have affected the speed of revolution of the earth and the earth's revolution about the sun. All things considered, such a statement may not be too far from truth!

there's lots more... http://www.grisda.org/origins/05039.htm

And that Sagan story went right over my head as well. I'm an Aussie, maybe we don't say his name the same way that you do?

[RipSawyer]

I am interested in the theory of catastrophes.>>>>>>>>>>>

That would be a very wide ranging study indeed. You might start with chaos theory, I have nothing to offer on that subject, not having studied it much myself, but information is available on the web.

[YourAdHere]

Neanderthal is misspelled in the subject line.

[frgoff]

I saw a lot of discussion on the observed effects of gravity; nothing on any of the several theories of gravity.

I think you are confusing the law of gravity, which is the mathematical description of the observed effects of an attractive force (f=Gm₁m₂/r²) with the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why the force exists in the first place.

There are several theories of gravity currently being debated.

[Fred Nerks]

Thanks for the helpful comment.