Teacher in trouble over puppet Faust
There's not much more to say except I'm so angry I can hardly breathe. You can check out the outraged comments at Panda's Thumb. Sigh.
At least I had a leftover catfish burrito for breakfast.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program
Now that I'm done ranting about people I don't like, let us move on to more interesting topics. The first is this thread over at JREF on linguistics and the various ways that cultures describe the world, and what this means. I found it quite interesting, even if I didn't follow all of it, and I think you will too.
Secondly, in this thread at Panda's Thumb, I asked this question:
I'd like to elaborate a little bit on this issue, because I’ve had some time to think about this, and have come up with some ideas.
First, some definitions. For the sake of argument, let's use the word "scientists" to mean "researchers in any of a broad variety of evolutionary study, from archaeology to geology to paleobotany to zoology." And we can use "science" to refer to the collective body of knowledge derived from the use of the toolbox called "science." "Evolution" or "the theory of evolution" will refer to the collective body of knowledge that explains how species develop and change over time (read: no big bang, abiogensis, etc.). This is just for the sake of this argument, ok? Ok.
Scientists routinely make the well-founded claim that evolution is a "Fact." It is. It happens. Deal with it. The evidence in support of the theory of evolution is well-supported and comes from many different disciplines. Among reputable scientists working in fields related to evolution, there is no question about the basic ideas surrounding it. Cutting-edge research in evolutionary theory mainly involves the more esoteric, fine details of the process. We know all this. Evolution is a fact.
Why, then, can we not adequately convey this to the fundamentalist Christians arguing for creationism? I think the problem has two sides.
The first is that fundamentalist Christians have a belief-centered mindset. Everything they think is important comes with a leap of faith included at no extra cost. More importantly, they believe that these things are true, in an objective sense. They believe in the outside-their-heads reality of a sky being who watches you masturbate, and in the existence of an afterlife, etc. There is no distinction for these people between things they believe are true and things that are true. Contrast this with scientists (remember to refer to the definitions above!), who utilize an entire arsenal of tools to ensure that things they believe are true don’t get in the way of finding out what is true. So when we try to explain to these people about the fact of evolution, there is a fundamental miscommunication occurring. Their understanding is that we’re just talking about what we believe, rather than what has been observed by science to be true. You can make all the analogies to falling apples, gravity, and the germ theory of disease you want. It will make no difference, because they fundamentally see things very differently from scientists. This is what leads to meaningless words invented by the fundamentalists – words like “evolutionist,” or “Darwinist.” Words intended to evoke a belief system of evolution, even though none exists. To them, there is no knowledge without belief, so there must be an evolutionist belief system.
The second problem is with the way fundamentalist Christians interpret their faith. People like the Catholics (full disclosure: I was raised Catholic, and my understanding of evangelical fundamentalist Christianity comes mainly from what I’ve read, not what I’ve experienced) view the Bible as an allegory, and the teachings of the Church as a constantly evolving body of theological knowledge and philosophy, which changes over time. Modern advances in medicine and technology are thought about at great length by scholars within the Church, and opinions on what Catholics ought to think about them are issued and debated, and during the homily on Sunday, the priest tells you what you ought to be thinking about these things, and what practical effects it will have on practicing Catholics. I don’t agree with the Church about a lot, but I’ve gotta say, it’s not a bad system in and of itself.
Let’s look briefly at birth control. Ok, so birth control pills come out, the Catholic Church thinks about it, decides that based on its teachings over the years and its philosophies about how life is created when sperm meets egg, that they’re against it. Priests tell their parishioners that they are not to use birth control pills because it is against Church teachings. Ok, fine. My point is, there’s a method in place to address new findings.
Evangelical Christianity operates much differently. From what I understand, there are no “Church teachings” as such, and the Bible is the sole source of material. Moreover, the Bible is held to be literally true, and the inerrant word of God. Not to be interpreted as times change. Literally true. Period, end of argument. Birth control pills, rockets to the moon, germ theory of disease, evolution? Not in the Bible, ergo, wrong. There does not appear to be a procedure in place to move with the times.
So something like evolution comes along and basically shows the Bible to not be literally true, the world was not created some 6,000 years ago in six days, all the animals were not created suddenly, and there was no global flood. Now the whole basis for these people’s belief system has collapsed, and with it their perceived reasons for being good, moral beings. They therefore view evolution as the enemy of what is good and moral. That’s kind of a big jump, but it makes sense.
So in the end, these two problems join up to create immense resistance to evolutionary thought, and telling people over and over that evolution is a fact, showing them the evidence, and attempting to argue logically is not going to make one bit of difference. They don’t understand the difference between fact and belief, and they view evolution as the opposite of morality because of the unbending, unchanging nature of their belief system. We need to find other ways to engage with these people, because reality will not work against them. Thanks for reading this.
Secondly, in this thread at Panda's Thumb, I asked this question:
The problem is that the other side can’t, or won’t, or doesn’t, understand this. Scientists are framing the debate as science, but the fundies are framing the debate as belief, as morality, as all this stuff that it patently isn’t. Is the problem that fundamentalists have a worldview that is so wrapped up in belief that they really do not understand the difference between facts and knowledge and blind faith? Or is the problem more fundamental (excuse the pun) — that their religion requires a belief in the literal truth of their mythology such that if any part of that mythology is proven to be literally untrue, the whole thing unravels? I don’t know. I’ll occasionally read about ex-fundies, but there doesn’t seem to be any explanation for this lack of understanding about the difference between fact and belief.
I'd like to elaborate a little bit on this issue, because I’ve had some time to think about this, and have come up with some ideas.
First, some definitions. For the sake of argument, let's use the word "scientists" to mean "researchers in any of a broad variety of evolutionary study, from archaeology to geology to paleobotany to zoology." And we can use "science" to refer to the collective body of knowledge derived from the use of the toolbox called "science." "Evolution" or "the theory of evolution" will refer to the collective body of knowledge that explains how species develop and change over time (read: no big bang, abiogensis, etc.). This is just for the sake of this argument, ok? Ok.
Scientists routinely make the well-founded claim that evolution is a "Fact." It is. It happens. Deal with it. The evidence in support of the theory of evolution is well-supported and comes from many different disciplines. Among reputable scientists working in fields related to evolution, there is no question about the basic ideas surrounding it. Cutting-edge research in evolutionary theory mainly involves the more esoteric, fine details of the process. We know all this. Evolution is a fact.
Why, then, can we not adequately convey this to the fundamentalist Christians arguing for creationism? I think the problem has two sides.
The first is that fundamentalist Christians have a belief-centered mindset. Everything they think is important comes with a leap of faith included at no extra cost. More importantly, they believe that these things are true, in an objective sense. They believe in the outside-their-heads reality of a sky being who watches you masturbate, and in the existence of an afterlife, etc. There is no distinction for these people between things they believe are true and things that are true. Contrast this with scientists (remember to refer to the definitions above!), who utilize an entire arsenal of tools to ensure that things they believe are true don’t get in the way of finding out what is true. So when we try to explain to these people about the fact of evolution, there is a fundamental miscommunication occurring. Their understanding is that we’re just talking about what we believe, rather than what has been observed by science to be true. You can make all the analogies to falling apples, gravity, and the germ theory of disease you want. It will make no difference, because they fundamentally see things very differently from scientists. This is what leads to meaningless words invented by the fundamentalists – words like “evolutionist,” or “Darwinist.” Words intended to evoke a belief system of evolution, even though none exists. To them, there is no knowledge without belief, so there must be an evolutionist belief system.
The second problem is with the way fundamentalist Christians interpret their faith. People like the Catholics (full disclosure: I was raised Catholic, and my understanding of evangelical fundamentalist Christianity comes mainly from what I’ve read, not what I’ve experienced) view the Bible as an allegory, and the teachings of the Church as a constantly evolving body of theological knowledge and philosophy, which changes over time. Modern advances in medicine and technology are thought about at great length by scholars within the Church, and opinions on what Catholics ought to think about them are issued and debated, and during the homily on Sunday, the priest tells you what you ought to be thinking about these things, and what practical effects it will have on practicing Catholics. I don’t agree with the Church about a lot, but I’ve gotta say, it’s not a bad system in and of itself.
Let’s look briefly at birth control. Ok, so birth control pills come out, the Catholic Church thinks about it, decides that based on its teachings over the years and its philosophies about how life is created when sperm meets egg, that they’re against it. Priests tell their parishioners that they are not to use birth control pills because it is against Church teachings. Ok, fine. My point is, there’s a method in place to address new findings.
Evangelical Christianity operates much differently. From what I understand, there are no “Church teachings” as such, and the Bible is the sole source of material. Moreover, the Bible is held to be literally true, and the inerrant word of God. Not to be interpreted as times change. Literally true. Period, end of argument. Birth control pills, rockets to the moon, germ theory of disease, evolution? Not in the Bible, ergo, wrong. There does not appear to be a procedure in place to move with the times.
So something like evolution comes along and basically shows the Bible to not be literally true, the world was not created some 6,000 years ago in six days, all the animals were not created suddenly, and there was no global flood. Now the whole basis for these people’s belief system has collapsed, and with it their perceived reasons for being good, moral beings. They therefore view evolution as the enemy of what is good and moral. That’s kind of a big jump, but it makes sense.
So in the end, these two problems join up to create immense resistance to evolutionary thought, and telling people over and over that evolution is a fact, showing them the evidence, and attempting to argue logically is not going to make one bit of difference. They don’t understand the difference between fact and belief, and they view evolution as the opposite of morality because of the unbending, unchanging nature of their belief system. We need to find other ways to engage with these people, because reality will not work against them. Thanks for reading this.
I'm Mad as hell, etc. etc. etc.
Ok, here's the thing. I'm almost 30, and I think there are some things I shouldn't have to put up with anymore.
Here's a list.
1. Keeping quiet when drunk, belligerent assholes ruin my night.
2. People who treat me as a taxi service.
3. People who hurt my feelings repeatedly even though they swear they'll change. I wouldn't put up with this from my boyfriend, why should I put up with it from people who are supposed to be my friends?
4. People who lie to me about stupid, inconsequential things.
5. Being someone's "back up" friend.
6. Being someone's friend only for a specific event, occurance, or situation. A good example would be a "drinking buddy." If you can't be my actual friend, I see no reason to hang out. Real friends can and should be both drinking buddies and serious-discussion buddies.
7. Office pranks.
8. People who think that being cruel is funny.
9. Having the same argument with anyone over and over and over. My mother, or a friend, or Joel, I just feel there should be a way to keep this from happening.
10. Giving love, friendship, or advice into a black hole (i.e., getting nothing but sucking in return).
11. Giving someone the same damned advice for the same damned problem over and over and over. Shit or get off the pot -- just stop talking to me about it.
12. People who need to have jokes or comic strips explained to them.
13. Drama.
Here's a list.
1. Keeping quiet when drunk, belligerent assholes ruin my night.
2. People who treat me as a taxi service.
3. People who hurt my feelings repeatedly even though they swear they'll change. I wouldn't put up with this from my boyfriend, why should I put up with it from people who are supposed to be my friends?
4. People who lie to me about stupid, inconsequential things.
5. Being someone's "back up" friend.
6. Being someone's friend only for a specific event, occurance, or situation. A good example would be a "drinking buddy." If you can't be my actual friend, I see no reason to hang out. Real friends can and should be both drinking buddies and serious-discussion buddies.
7. Office pranks.
8. People who think that being cruel is funny.
9. Having the same argument with anyone over and over and over. My mother, or a friend, or Joel, I just feel there should be a way to keep this from happening.
10. Giving love, friendship, or advice into a black hole (i.e., getting nothing but sucking in return).
11. Giving someone the same damned advice for the same damned problem over and over and over. Shit or get off the pot -- just stop talking to me about it.
12. People who need to have jokes or comic strips explained to them.
13. Drama.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Yeti Crab!
Those wacky marine biologists over at the Monterey Bay Research Institute have discovered a brand-new, really, really cool critter living near one of the deep-sea vents. Check this out:
Man, I love the fact that there's still 7-inch long blind hairy crabs we have yet to discover. Anyone who wants to spend their time locked in a cell all alone talking to nobody and doing nothing but praying is more than welcome. I'm going to stick with the hairy crabs, thankyousoverymuch.
The function of crab's 'hairs', which feel like toothbrush bristles, is still unknown. Rafael Lemaitre, chair of invertebrate zoology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, and a crustacean expert, thinks they might be used to comb edible materials from water or mud. "The hairs are almost like feathers," he says. "They have secondary and tertiary branches. That facilitates all kinds of things sticking to them."
The hairs seem to be covered with, or even made up of, filamentous bacteria. Whether the crabs eat the bacteria or use them for another purpose remains to be seen.
Man, I love the fact that there's still 7-inch long blind hairy crabs we have yet to discover. Anyone who wants to spend their time locked in a cell all alone talking to nobody and doing nothing but praying is more than welcome. I'm going to stick with the hairy crabs, thankyousoverymuch.
Friday, March 10, 2006
More things I hate (mostly Ben)
Here's a snippet of a conversation with my almost-sister Melanie.
Denise: i also hate garrison kellior
Beekiller: agreed.
Denise: him and his stupid voice and the way everyone in the audience laughs at him even though he's not funny
also i hate ben from clark's and actually boycotted trivia this week
(also because mike and jason suck)
look, ben, the reason you don't like sonic youth IS because you don't "get" it, not because everyone else is trying to put one over on you
your understanding of and appreciation for music lacks sophistication, even though you can play some elvis costello tunes on the guitar
sometimes music is about more than a nice tune with good lyrics
sheesh
Also, the reason Ben hates comic books is because he's too fucking stupid or lazy to put the thought into understanding comics as an actual, valid literature format. Look, I was skeptical at first, sure. But Joelster assured me that there was something very worthwhile there, and the more I read (of course, got started on Sandman), the more I realized he was right, and the more interesting the whole genre became for me.
I also for the life of me can't figure out why he thinks he is entitled to sit there and make fun of every single other person at the table for liking comics. Look, Ben, you're clearly in the minority here, so why do you continue to be rude to one of us as though it were funny and expect everyone else to go along with it? We LIKE comics. All of us. So shut up. You're wrong.
Also, he once insulted our collective sexual prowess on the basis of liking comics, which is pretty funny considering Mike gets hit on everywhere we go, Joelster and I have been enjoying a varied and active sex life for eight years, and Lori and Mark are preggers (ok, Lori is not so into comics, but still). Funnier still is that Ben couldn't get it up for like months. Sometimes, I really hate knowing these things and wish I could erase them from my memory. Thinking of Ben and his GF having sex makes me slightly ill. Thinking of them um, having kinky sex makes me really ill.
Now that I've made you all ill and gotten these things off my chest and into your brain where they can torment you, I'll be off.
Denise: i also hate garrison kellior
Beekiller: agreed.
Denise: him and his stupid voice and the way everyone in the audience laughs at him even though he's not funny
also i hate ben from clark's and actually boycotted trivia this week
(also because mike and jason suck)
look, ben, the reason you don't like sonic youth IS because you don't "get" it, not because everyone else is trying to put one over on you
your understanding of and appreciation for music lacks sophistication, even though you can play some elvis costello tunes on the guitar
sometimes music is about more than a nice tune with good lyrics
sheesh
Also, the reason Ben hates comic books is because he's too fucking stupid or lazy to put the thought into understanding comics as an actual, valid literature format. Look, I was skeptical at first, sure. But Joelster assured me that there was something very worthwhile there, and the more I read (of course, got started on Sandman), the more I realized he was right, and the more interesting the whole genre became for me.
I also for the life of me can't figure out why he thinks he is entitled to sit there and make fun of every single other person at the table for liking comics. Look, Ben, you're clearly in the minority here, so why do you continue to be rude to one of us as though it were funny and expect everyone else to go along with it? We LIKE comics. All of us. So shut up. You're wrong.
Also, he once insulted our collective sexual prowess on the basis of liking comics, which is pretty funny considering Mike gets hit on everywhere we go, Joelster and I have been enjoying a varied and active sex life for eight years, and Lori and Mark are preggers (ok, Lori is not so into comics, but still). Funnier still is that Ben couldn't get it up for like months. Sometimes, I really hate knowing these things and wish I could erase them from my memory. Thinking of Ben and his GF having sex makes me slightly ill. Thinking of them um, having kinky sex makes me really ill.
Now that I've made you all ill and gotten these things off my chest and into your brain where they can torment you, I'll be off.
Gross!
Gross words:
Earbuds
Moist
Glisten
Pussyfoot
Peptic
Tampon (seriously, you couldn't think of anything...cuddlier-sounding? Sounds like crampon, dude, seriously)
In other news, it was like 63 degrees today at lunch! I wanted to take off all my clothes and jump around! But, upon sober reflection, I decided not to. I have to get my thyroid checked -- I think it's gone hypo, like they said it might. I feel lousy, in all honesty. I now know the meaning of lethargy. I sleep plenty, that's not the problem. The problem is that I can't seem to sleep enough. And I know I've put on a lot of weight in a short amount of time for pretty much no reason. I really haven't been eating *that* badly. Anyway, I'm not due for a checkup till next month, but I may try to get in before that. Ugh. If I can find time.
I'm not feeling especially interesting or humorous today; too lethargic.
Earbuds
Moist
Glisten
Pussyfoot
Peptic
Tampon (seriously, you couldn't think of anything...cuddlier-sounding? Sounds like crampon, dude, seriously)
In other news, it was like 63 degrees today at lunch! I wanted to take off all my clothes and jump around! But, upon sober reflection, I decided not to. I have to get my thyroid checked -- I think it's gone hypo, like they said it might. I feel lousy, in all honesty. I now know the meaning of lethargy. I sleep plenty, that's not the problem. The problem is that I can't seem to sleep enough. And I know I've put on a lot of weight in a short amount of time for pretty much no reason. I really haven't been eating *that* badly. Anyway, I'm not due for a checkup till next month, but I may try to get in before that. Ugh. If I can find time.
I'm not feeling especially interesting or humorous today; too lethargic.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Holy bad science, Supergirl!
This article in Slate definitely got my dander up today. Basically, the article says that these guys at teh Univeristy of Virginia say that women are happier when they stay at home, and that "progressive"-minded women are unhappier than anyone else.
The whole discussion bothers me. First, Slate doesn't link to the article. You can follow the links here to find it if you want. That's just annoying. Mind you, I haven't got time right now to read the original study, so I'll just go from what the Slate article says.
Second, the study was conducted from 1992 to 1994. I'm not a sociologist, but I find it apalling that these bozos (there's pictures on that link above!) would draw conclusions that they seem to think are valid now from 10-year-old data. Expecting these results to be anything other than a by-now historical curiosity seems a bit strange. This is really my main beef with the article. A lot has changed for women in the last 10 years, whether you're a stay-at-home mom or a career-driven singleton, especially the coming of the internet. A study from 10 years ago is practically obsolete considering the wild and crazy changes that took place, IMO.
Women who "stay at home" now have message boards, chat rooms, and all kinds of other ways to be connected to the "outside" world. Who's to say that this increased sense of "what else is out there" may not be contributing to an erosion of stay-at-homes' sense of well-being? And what about the opposite? Maybe us so-called progressive women are getting more out of the internet too, that is allowing us to feel more connected to women like us. Maybe our happiness is increasing as we realize the internet is a valuable tool to reach out to like-minded folks, maybe increasing our happiness. I can't tell you how many posts I've read places like the Bust forums that say things like "I live in a small town, and am so happy I have this online community, because there's nobody here like me!"
What's more, it sounds like these guys didn't get any info from the husbands. It would be interesting to see how their attitudes towards their marraiges correlated (or not) to their partner's.
In short, if you hear about this study, don't be mad. It's old, out of date, and incomplete, and you shouldn't let people with such bad hair tell you that your choices are wrong. Seriously, what is up with those guys?
The whole discussion bothers me. First, Slate doesn't link to the article. You can follow the links here to find it if you want. That's just annoying. Mind you, I haven't got time right now to read the original study, so I'll just go from what the Slate article says.
Second, the study was conducted from 1992 to 1994. I'm not a sociologist, but I find it apalling that these bozos (there's pictures on that link above!) would draw conclusions that they seem to think are valid now from 10-year-old data. Expecting these results to be anything other than a by-now historical curiosity seems a bit strange. This is really my main beef with the article. A lot has changed for women in the last 10 years, whether you're a stay-at-home mom or a career-driven singleton, especially the coming of the internet. A study from 10 years ago is practically obsolete considering the wild and crazy changes that took place, IMO.
Women who "stay at home" now have message boards, chat rooms, and all kinds of other ways to be connected to the "outside" world. Who's to say that this increased sense of "what else is out there" may not be contributing to an erosion of stay-at-homes' sense of well-being? And what about the opposite? Maybe us so-called progressive women are getting more out of the internet too, that is allowing us to feel more connected to women like us. Maybe our happiness is increasing as we realize the internet is a valuable tool to reach out to like-minded folks, maybe increasing our happiness. I can't tell you how many posts I've read places like the Bust forums that say things like "I live in a small town, and am so happy I have this online community, because there's nobody here like me!"
What's more, it sounds like these guys didn't get any info from the husbands. It would be interesting to see how their attitudes towards their marraiges correlated (or not) to their partner's.
In short, if you hear about this study, don't be mad. It's old, out of date, and incomplete, and you shouldn't let people with such bad hair tell you that your choices are wrong. Seriously, what is up with those guys?
Monday, March 06, 2006
PS
I've been thinking I should lock annoying guy and Ben from Clark's up in a room. Maybe they'd fight it out, maybe they'd cancel each other out and form a vacuum of awful, or maybe they'd just starve to death while being assholes. Any way it works out, I figure it's to the good of mankind.
Items to Discuss
1. Thanks everyone for all the linkys to my post below. I worked really hard on it, so it's nice that you all noticed :)
2. What the hell was that thing Charlize Theron was wearing at the Oscars? The whole dress was awful (was it me, or did it really look like it didn't fit?), but the bubble of poo next to her head? Yeesh.
3. Seriously, annoying guy at work with the humor of a 6 year old? Shut up.
4. Don't try to engage me in intelligent and spirited debate while I'm at work. Thanks.
5. Other guy at work? Religous nut? Please, please, please don't recommend any of your creationism books to me. Please? I don't want to get into it with you. You seem nice enough, if not that bright, but this is a workplace, and I don't feel this is the correct time/place combo to discuss religion. Thanks.
6. Seriously, Charlize? WTF?
7. I think I should get paid to ride my bike, eat burritos, have wild monkey loving with Joelster, and drink wine. Why don't you all get on figuring that out for me and get back to me? Thanks.
8. Where did the blood on this piece of paper come from? WTF?
2. What the hell was that thing Charlize Theron was wearing at the Oscars? The whole dress was awful (was it me, or did it really look like it didn't fit?), but the bubble of poo next to her head? Yeesh.
3. Seriously, annoying guy at work with the humor of a 6 year old? Shut up.
4. Don't try to engage me in intelligent and spirited debate while I'm at work. Thanks.
5. Other guy at work? Religous nut? Please, please, please don't recommend any of your creationism books to me. Please? I don't want to get into it with you. You seem nice enough, if not that bright, but this is a workplace, and I don't feel this is the correct time/place combo to discuss religion. Thanks.
6. Seriously, Charlize? WTF?
7. I think I should get paid to ride my bike, eat burritos, have wild monkey loving with Joelster, and drink wine. Why don't you all get on figuring that out for me and get back to me? Thanks.
8. Where did the blood on this piece of paper come from? WTF?
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Great Asimov!
I found this quote from a poster at the JREF forums which sort of sums up some of what I was attempting to discuss below.
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Dueling Viewpoints?
In response to Joolya's comment:
I could not agree more. Terry Pratchett has Vimes say something about how even though he knows he should respect the ethnic folkways of others, when those folkways include torture or murder, they don't command any respect at all. A somewhat melodramatic statement of my point, but worth considering.
I just don't think that all viewpoints are equal.
Particularly not in the evolution-creation debate, and particularly not in many of the sorts of debates so-called "skeptics" often find themselves (homeopathy, alien abductions, the Bermuda triangle, miracle cures, perpetual motion, Holocaust denial, etc. etc. etc.).
I also think that po-mo tends to be a load of steaming turds. But that's just me.
Check out this book to find out why.
Anyway, the point I wish to make is that when you make a factual claim, a statement of fact (e.g., there's some stuff too complex to have evolved, this person was abducted by aliens, or homeopathy works as well as or better than traditional medicine), those claims are and should be subject to careful inquiry to determine their veracity. Science is the best toolkit we have to date to look at the world with. The methods of science allow us to view the world with safeguards in place to ensure we're not getting in our own way -- that is, we're not biased, or wearing rose-colored glasses, etc.
You can't then turn around and say, well, yeah, but MY claims should be exempt.
Look at it like a baseball game. Within the rules and framework of "baseball," there are certain rules, yes? You can't stop playing by the rules because you don't like the rules anymore, and you can't quit and go home because you started losing. If you lost, you can keep believing that you've won the game, certainly. Nobody can keep you from doing that. But that doesn't make it so.
But that's fine, right? Sure. But let's take our analogy a bit further. It's fine for you to believe what you want. Right up to the point at which you start insisting to me that you really won the game, even when I show you concrete proof that you lost. See, your opinion is not as valid as mine, right?
Another step. Let's say you lost the ball game, and that you refuse to acknowledge it. Then you go further and say you want your version of things entered into the historical records as fact, you want me banned from the game for showing you that you're wrong, and you take a vote on who everyone else thinks "should" have won the game. You can do all of those things, but you still won't have won the game.
Does everyone see where I'm going with this?
What frightens me is that creationists have had the facts pointed out to them numerous times, and they still turn around and try to pretend those facts don't exist. The sheer force of willful ignorance and self-delusion is scary. Think about if you actually met the person who is convinced, utterly convinced, that they won the baseball game. Wouldn't you think that person needed some serious therapy?
Just as baseball games aren't won by who the audience thinks should win, or what creationists would prefer to believe, scientific theories do not sink or float based on what people would prefer, or on what's more comfortable. The creationist point of view is less valid in every way than the theory of evolution. Period. End of story.
I would be all relativist (being the good little liberal that I am) about people having different viewpoints, or all po-mo about science being a social construct ... but in this debate I cannot accept that there are equally priveleged points of view.
I could not agree more. Terry Pratchett has Vimes say something about how even though he knows he should respect the ethnic folkways of others, when those folkways include torture or murder, they don't command any respect at all. A somewhat melodramatic statement of my point, but worth considering.
I just don't think that all viewpoints are equal.
Particularly not in the evolution-creation debate, and particularly not in many of the sorts of debates so-called "skeptics" often find themselves (homeopathy, alien abductions, the Bermuda triangle, miracle cures, perpetual motion, Holocaust denial, etc. etc. etc.).
I also think that po-mo tends to be a load of steaming turds. But that's just me.
Check out this book to find out why.
Anyway, the point I wish to make is that when you make a factual claim, a statement of fact (e.g., there's some stuff too complex to have evolved, this person was abducted by aliens, or homeopathy works as well as or better than traditional medicine), those claims are and should be subject to careful inquiry to determine their veracity. Science is the best toolkit we have to date to look at the world with. The methods of science allow us to view the world with safeguards in place to ensure we're not getting in our own way -- that is, we're not biased, or wearing rose-colored glasses, etc.
You can't then turn around and say, well, yeah, but MY claims should be exempt.
Look at it like a baseball game. Within the rules and framework of "baseball," there are certain rules, yes? You can't stop playing by the rules because you don't like the rules anymore, and you can't quit and go home because you started losing. If you lost, you can keep believing that you've won the game, certainly. Nobody can keep you from doing that. But that doesn't make it so.
But that's fine, right? Sure. But let's take our analogy a bit further. It's fine for you to believe what you want. Right up to the point at which you start insisting to me that you really won the game, even when I show you concrete proof that you lost. See, your opinion is not as valid as mine, right?
Another step. Let's say you lost the ball game, and that you refuse to acknowledge it. Then you go further and say you want your version of things entered into the historical records as fact, you want me banned from the game for showing you that you're wrong, and you take a vote on who everyone else thinks "should" have won the game. You can do all of those things, but you still won't have won the game.
Does everyone see where I'm going with this?
What frightens me is that creationists have had the facts pointed out to them numerous times, and they still turn around and try to pretend those facts don't exist. The sheer force of willful ignorance and self-delusion is scary. Think about if you actually met the person who is convinced, utterly convinced, that they won the baseball game. Wouldn't you think that person needed some serious therapy?
Just as baseball games aren't won by who the audience thinks should win, or what creationists would prefer to believe, scientific theories do not sink or float based on what people would prefer, or on what's more comfortable. The creationist point of view is less valid in every way than the theory of evolution. Period. End of story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
