So it’s Saturday afternoon and we’re watching the Mets on Ch. 11. They’re playing the Cubs in Wrigley, when, during a commercial break, David Wright, in his Mets uniform and standing in Shea, pops up to tell us:
“Hi, I’m David Wright. I invite you to the ‘Salvation Miracles Revival Crusade’ with Dr. Jaerock Lee, at Madison Square Garden, July 27, 28 and 29.”
...Sorry, boys and girls, while we mean no offense toward anyone’s spirituality and religious devotion - Wright’s included - that was the weirdest player/team-connected TV ad we’d ever seen within a telecast of a big league game.
And are Mets telecasts and Mets dressed in their Mets uniforms now available to help deliver religious come-ons of any and all kinds?
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Wait, what?
* Tears up letter, sobbing pathetically *
What planet do you live on? Because this statement is as asinine as Everett's believing there were no dinosaurs (the Santa part is completely different, because it's respected by everyone as a folk tale told to children). There are plenty of people who not only believe that there weren't dinosaurs or that evolution is false because that's what they were told as a child, but who are willing to go to ludicrous measures to stop anyone who tells them -- or anyone else -- anything to the contrary. Where do you think fundamentalist psychos come from?
But of course not all of them will; some will think about it, realize there's a wider world out there, and change their minds. That's the other reason why we need to protect the teaching of observable truth in schools--it protects the rights of all children to be exposed to it, and gives them the opportunity to accept it, no matter who their parents are. It isn't just in case I want to send my kids to school in Kansas. I can teach them what I want them to know at home, though that will inevitably lead to the conclusion on their part that their teachers at school are stupid freaks. I really don't want them to think that, because it would cause them severe social and probably intellectual problems. Since I don't want them to think it, it follows naturally that I don't want it to be true.
I encourage you spend some time on the campus of any large and/or prominent university and see if you still hold this view. Intolerance and disrespect are hallmarks of extremists on all aisles.
Santa Cruz California... Protest to protest, get in fights about who hates bush more etc.
I went to Cal. It's an excellent example of that. But I still have no respect for sham faith healers or those who support them. Or people that don't believe in dinosaurs.
Some ideas and beliefs are not worthy of respect. Call me intolerant, but I am equal opportunity. I will denigrate the beliefs of crazy lefties and righties.
Umm, something doesn't add up here.
I encourage you spend some time on the campus of any large and/or prominent university and see if you still hold this view. Intolerance and disrespect are hallmarks of extremists on all aisles.
There's much truth to this, but contrary to what the Republican spinmeisters and their lap dogs on talk radio would have us believe, the policies that effect our lives on a daily basis are not determined by the reigning ideology of the English Department at Duke University, or by Linguistics Professors at MIT.
There's a line in The Battle of Algiers where the head of the FLN offers to trade his homemade plastic bombs to the French in return for their airplanes and their mass produced napalm bombs. In this vein, I'm sure that most of us liberals would gladly trade the Berkeley Sociology Department for a few seats on the Supreme Court. Hell, for a few dozen federal court appointments, I'd even thrown in the entire Ivy League while I was at it, plus the entire state of Massachusetts, including Fenway Park, and maybe even the editorial board of The New York Times.
And not only that, you can have Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon for just one little itty bitty seat on the FCC or the FDA. We're very reasonable in our polite requests.
an abuse of a media-newsgathering credential"
Hmmmmmmm . . . . Let's see. If the "authorization" referred to in the first sentence refers to the media credential in the second sentence, then why would Wright have agreed to do a promo for someone just because they had a media credential? Given that Jerry Manuel, apparently, also did a promo, it appears that whomever had this credential, acting for this agency, was able to convince both Manuel and Wright that they were authorized to have players and coaches to do promos on their behalf, and then actually get the thing done, and aired, without anyone checking or noticing, until Wright's spot.
Clearly, at the very least, there needs to be an additional step in the process of getting promotional spots approved. If I'm David Wright's agent, I sure as hell insist on prior approval of everything, and if I'm Dave Howard, the Mets' VP, I make sure everyone knows who is the ONE person that must sign off on (and be checked with) to ensure every promo is legit.
Of all the possibilities, I think this is probably the one that reflects least negatively on Wright. At least he doesn't believe in faith healers, and at least he's not into ripping people off of their life savings hoping for a miracle cure.
Ah. I guess the joke works better when it isn't redacted by the nannybot.
"I encourage you spend some time on the campus of any large and/or prominent university and see if you still hold this view."
If Republicans are so all-fired worried about that pernicious liberal influence in schools, maybe some of them should dedicate their lives to teaching, instead of squeezing every last dollar out of the private sector as consultants and lobbyists.
It is very likely that one, maybe two, people had some decision-making authority to make David Wright available for this type of activity. Because they were either
A. Lazy (didn't check)
B. Misled (told one thing another happened)
C. Had a personal agenda (cynical but possible)
this event took place. So now the Mets will have to put "internal controls" in place to insure future public smudges on their rep don't occur. All because somebody either didn't do their job correctly or abused their authority. Hence, the levels of approval grow in nature.
So the next time one of you corporate denizens b*tch and moan about all the cr*p you have to endure to "get something done" remember this silliness. Because more then likely at one time somebody really messed up and management's reaction was to put more oversight in place.
You get the right people in the job and this nonsense doesn't happen. Period.........
well, mitt romney is our governor.
including Fenway Park,
now you gone too far.
I have to take exception to this.
1) As pointed out before, most people who have problems with intellectual design aren't "liberals who freak out." They're almost overwhelmingly scientists who have a problem with the "science" of intellectual design.
2) The reason why these scientists have problems with ID is because there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it. In fact, from what I've read they don't really make ANY statements which can be disproven (which is kind of the basis of science).
3) Some of these people who have problems with ID couldn't care less that people believe in ID AS LONG AS IT'S NOT TAUGHT AS A SCIENCE. There's a significant difference between believing that things come into being fully-formed and TEACHING IT TO KIDS as a science.
It's amazing the amount of debate ID generates, despite the obvious problems it has. And the fact that it DOES get so much support despite those problems shows a serious problem in the school systems of the US.
F
People can believe what ever they want. As long as they realize it's a belief and not a fact.
All I have a problem with is teaching ID as a science when it very clearly is not. And that people claim that people should be "open-minded" about teaching it in the schools as a science.
F
Does that include people who believe that when they aren't standing for the US national anthem, they aren't necessarily disrespecting the soldiers who fought for the United States throughout its history?
F
F
No, they are traitors.
Then why do you take exception to people making fun of Carl Everett for saying that dinosaur's didn't exist?
As one of those lefty profs that the right seems to complain a lot about, I think this is a great point. The dept. I work in is pretty far left, a good deal of experts in Marxist, Derridean, ect theory. We have a couple adjuncts who made a lot of money in the media industry, and they're just as firm in their pro-business beliefs as we are in our critiques of the media (which tend to be pretty radical). The difference is, they're trying to teach their students how best to make money in the industry, where we try to teach ours how to best understand the circulation of ideologies (ours included). We've dedicated our lives to understanding this process, many of sacrificing a lot of opportunities along the way, while they've chosen a view that conviently absolves them of any moral responsibility for their actions ("this is how the system is, someone will be doing my job anyway, it might as well be me").
If people really can believe whatever they want, then "whatever they want" logically includes the belief that Carl Everett is an idiot deserving of mockery for his personal beliefs.
Personally, I think that the voicing of intolerant beliefs is a good thing, as long as you can stand the shouting. People are going to believe what they want to believe anyway. At least with an open dialogue, you know where you stand, and you get a non-zero chance to persuade people with contrasting viewpoints that they're full of ####.
Everybody loves sacrifices.
But no one wants to do the sacrificing.
I don't think you know the level of commitment these people have to their beliefs, one of which, an absolutely <u>huge</u> one, is that you should believe <u>exactly</u> what they believe.
And if you can believe that dinosaurs are a matter of opinion, you can be made to believe anything (literally anything) you hear from the pulpit. So in itself, no, disbelief in dinosaurs is no big deal. It is, however, a sign of what's wrong.
It will never end. As long as there are people, most of them will want simple answers to difficult questions, so religious belief will never die. And the most (all?) successful religions are proselytizing in nature.
Now, granted, Carl Everett's level of disbelief is pretty extreme, but to cite things as FACT that clearly aren't fact is just blindness of a different kind.
Anything in particular that you're referring to?
And most details are extrapolated based on living creatures. Does it have sharp teeth? Then it had to eat meat (whether or not it's an omnivore is harder to tell.) Lots of one creature found in the same square mile in the same time period? It must have traveled in packs.
We can learn tons of information without having actually observed dinosaurs. It's just hard to comprehend out how it's done unless you do it.
If you want to go all "critique of science" here, it is actually pretty easy to defend Carl.
Carl Everett is mocked for saying dinosaurs never existed simply because they aren't mentioned in the bible. That requires more than faith, it requires that you ignore the world around you. As people have said, the former is to be respected, but the latter gets no such treatment.
How do you spot a conservative? Just go looking for the guy who describes himself as moderate and non-biased. It's so easy because conservatives don't have ideological programs. They just believe in the fair and balanced truth.
Sometimes I think the world is going to burst with the irony of it all. Conservatives accuse the left of nihilism and then have the temerity to suggest that the existence of dinosaurs is a matter of opinion and that science is a matter of faith. The real truth is that conservatives are ####### nihilists who have replaced their desperate unbelief with superbelief and they, and their creeping control of the institutions of power is a real, and serious, threat.
Why does it matter? Rauseo's statements can be taken independently and dealt with on an independent basis. It would seem the only purpose to bring such things up would be to discredit the speaker. If there is a more noble goal, then its an easy answer because the positions are internally consistent. In both cases it is about respect.
All I have a problem with is teaching ID as a science when it very clearly is not. And that people claim that people should be "open-minded" about teaching it in the schools as a science.
I'm confused as to what you mean by "teaching it as a science" Perhaps I don't know enough about modern ID polity, but at its core, it is a philosophical construct, and AFAIK it has its roots in early western philosophy. Its major provisions are both arrived at through the application of logic and mathematics. It requires certain premises to be held which are discussable, but such premises are also the foundation of other analytical query which does not solely relate to a Theological goal or evolution theory.
1) As pointed out before, most people who have problems with intellectual design aren't "liberals who freak out." They're almost overwhelmingly scientists who have a problem with the "science" of intellectual design.
I think the 'wacky liberal' thought comes from the article posted by Devin, and in the penumbra of the early post by Vaux. "Science" in and of itself is no more objectionable than "sabermetrics" in and of itself. The problem arises when inquiry becomes polity, and then such polity is used for destructive purposes.
And I don't care whether someone is a scientist or a janitor, when you are dealing with polity, then the debate is about polity. You cannot just force an issue into a system that you are comfortable.
In and of itself, the concepts of:
"hange in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes"
is not inconsistent with
"the concept of an intelligent being designing a system of life (or our system of nature)"
In fact, most anyone that studies design does account for entropy in almost any model. What is inconsistent is whether formation was designed or whether it was the result of an undirected process. Any of these systems require an initial belief construct
2) The reason why these scientists have problems with ID is because there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for it. In fact, from what I've read they don't really make ANY statements which can be disproven (which is kind of the basis of science).
Again, what do you mean by "scientific" as a modifier. The belief system starts with a premise. The premise has some basis of tautology in its proof. Much of what is considered operable science does the same things. You observer physical phenomena and you assign various levels of cause. Not all of the causations can be proven, at least not with existing measures. You except them as the operable hypothesis. That is how we end up with things like "luminous ether" predominating thought.
But you can see the Belief Theory aspect of science manifesting itself right here. There is an earlier assertion that "science" is rational as a definitional construct. That is like defining sabermetrics as "the search for the truth". Its a rhetorical construct meant to present a position that is irrefutable, and then defining what you like as being part of the irrefutable construct and anything you don't like as part of its negation.
The field of evolutionary biology is no different than astrophysics or sabermetrics. Some of its practitioners make mistake and form wrong premises . Some of these wrong premises become canon, and then the true believers argue anything against canon as being heresy. And then call for the eradication of anything heretical--- sometimes by imprudent and hostile means.
When it reaches this level, its not about some canon that you hold near and dear (and which you probably have not independently corroborated in any way) that you think is rational, and all else is not. There is nothing particular irrational about Aquinas, Aristotle or Plato that certainly form the precursors to the philosophy of intelligent design. There is nothing irrational about starting at that premise and developing a system of thought based on that premise.
And when you reach this level, its about polity. Its about how we interact with one another. I have no problems with anyone calling someone an "idiot"; As Rauseo implies, the action is disrespectful, and you can try to rationalize it all you want, it will not change the element of disrespect.
Where there does become a problem is when people then whine and cry upon their being called an idiot. Then what you see is an escalation beyond speech. Then people will try to use economic leverage or express power to try to silence viewpoints because they don't like it. THere is nothing objective about the action; it is merely arbitrary, capricious, and based on exclusionary principals.
When are the people worried about protecting and promoting a diversity of opinion on a topic mounting their protest of those business schools which lack Marxist, left Keynesian and other heterodox economists?
And as Rabbi Hillel would put it: “If not now, then when?”
You tease me a lot, but you got me on the spot.
Is that an oblique Slade reference?
An opening for use of the phrase "toilet face"!
Oooh, oooh, oooh, oooh, I know this one.
John Sebastian
The full quote is:
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?
My ex-father in law quoted this to me when I told him that I was getting divorced from his daughter. It was meant to make me stay. It had the opposite effect. I'm not sure what that says about me.
Later on in the conversation he told me that there were two types of people in the world: those who get divorced (the bad people) and those who work it out (the good people). Two years later, I sh!t thee not, he got divorced.
The man behind the mask
And he's out of control
He's back
The man behind the mask
He crawled out of his hole
Just to rock and roll"
On a more serious note, I don't understand the liberal furore against Intelligent Design. I remember many moons ago learning about the Watchmaker Analogy in philosophy, and that's really all Intelligent Design is - just the Watchmaker Analogy with some data to (try to) back it up. To my mind it's rather devoid of scientific content because it doesn't really make any testable claims, so it shouldn't be taught in science classes, but rather in philosophy.
Of Lovin' Spoonful fame?
Welcome Back Kotter (and Backlasher).
Best Regards
John
Glad to see that a physically abused wife who leaves her husband is the villain of the marriage.
And you can tell him I said that!
When people say that intelligent design isn't scientific what they mean is that it's propositions aren't falsifiable.
The current political movement of intelligent design has nothing to do with Plato or Aquinas or any other legitimate philosophical position. It was thought up in a think-tank for the political purpose of attacking evolution. Along the way their most effective strategy has been to depict evolution and intelligent design as opinions between which it is impossible to decide. This is an explicit attack on the rational goal of being able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. The effect is to reduce everything to a matter of opinion and to rob the empirical world of its truth. The effects of this kind of nihilism for the practice of politics are wide ranging and pernicious. If anything intelligent design is explicitly anti-philosophical, if philosophy is used in the classical sense of "love of wisdom".
The liberal furore is that it's supporters are trying to push it into science classes, where you admitted it shouldn't be. I don't care if it's taught as a philosophy, but I'll fight it if someone tries to make it part of the science curriculum.
I don't really think any government has ever really followed Keynsian theory. Some might talk about spending to stimulate the economy, which is part A, but rarely do you hear of cutbacks when everything's going well, which is part B.
I'd be curious to here from someone who has more of a background in economic theory/thought though.
The tables have turned. William Jennings Bryan was the guy at the Scopes trial. I'm not sure where Bryan would fit in today's political climate.
Having done some reading on the topic, and having personally known several scientists who believe in ID, I think there are two largely distinct and mostly separate ID movements. There's the well-known political movement, which is blatantly and obviously a religiopolitical trojan horse, and then there are the people who are actually doing the thinking and working to see whether this concept could provide a way of thinking by which valid scientific insights might be gained. The latter people generally have very little sympathy for the political shenanigans of the former, and probably wish they'd disappear.
Yeah, I'm not aware of plan B ever being implemented. That was the Public Choice school's critique, IIRC. Usually, when the govt wants to slow the econmy down, they just use monetary policy instead of tax hikes or budget cuts.
And if you think that inability to distinguish between truth and falsehood will not seep into the greater consciousness, just take a quick look at 24-hour TV news. Everything is presented as a debate. No one searches for the truth. We get both sides of each issue, but no analysis of which side has the facts. Thus we are left just to follow whomever represents our ideology in the debate. Unless of course you want to do the search yourself, and that's pretty much impossible for more than one or two issues unless you are jobless and childless.
ID proponents want it taught in science class as an alternative to evolution.
I don't think anybody disputes this, though I'm not quite sure what you mean by "an intial belief construct". If ID were only about the origin of life, it would cause less dispute, though it still wouldn't be science and shouldn't be taught in science class. ID makes claims far beyond this, however.
Best place I can think of is www.bautforum.com It's a great place to ask questions about almost anything related to science.
Beyond that, I can't help much.
Are you referring to Deism, 2Alous?
Why does it matter? Rauseo's statements can be taken independently and dealt with on an independent basis. It would seem the only purpose to bring such things up would be to discredit the speaker.
I, for one, had no more noble goal than that. I believe that Rauseo calling for "respect" is prima facie ridiculous.
One could certainly say that about me, and is welcome to do so.
Ok, I might not be interpreting what you're saying correctly, so correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretations. But essentially, you're telling me that ID is a philosophical construct. How is that the same as science?
Again, I'm not arguing that it has no basis in being discussed belief-wise. I just object to classifying it as science.
I don't think so. He deliberately said "The liberals who freak out when someone suggests intelligent design...," so in my mind, he isn't talking about Devin or Vaux, but seems to talking about those nebulous liberals who have a problem with intelligent design.
I'm not sure I understand this with regard to ID vs. evolution. What exactly do you mean here?
That's fine to discuss and to argue about. However, it's NOT science.
This is, perhaps, the core problem wrt this issue. Science is NOT solely a belief system. Here's what my version of the scientific method is:
1) The scientist makes observations,
2) The scientist formulates a hypothesis based on these observations,
3) The hypothesis makes certain predictions which the scientist can test,
3) The scientist takes another set of observations to test the predictions of the hypothesis,
4) The scientist shows that these observations conform to his hypothesis OR the scientist DISPROVES his hypothesis based on the data.
5) After much testing, the scientist shares his hypothesis with others who, in turn, test this hypothesis with their own observations.
There are a couple of important points wrt this process.
1) The scientist can never PROVE anything. That means you can NEVER know anything for certain. However, if the data conforms for many observations, you can say with a certain degree of confidence that the hypothesis is true (thus, making it a theory/law). However, even this is not foolproof, for as instruments and technology improve, they can often show that a theory is incorrect, thus requiring a new hypothesis to explain the contradicting data (e.g., Einstein's theories of relativity trumping Newton's laws of motions). Even scientists, both modern and earlier, have fallen to this problem of equating supporting evidence as proof. Basically, all you can ever "know" in science is that nothing is really knowable. However, since we live in a world where being an "idealist" in this sense would leave people unable to function in this world, we have to (and usually tend to) be pragmatic about how supporting evidence proves a theory.
2) Hypotheses must make predictions which can be disproven. Otherwise, this is not science. This is probably the main point of my problem with ID. There is nothing that is TESTABLE in its ideology. Does it work as a philosophy or in logical reasoning? Maybe. But does it work as SCIENCE? No.
3) There was going to be a 3rd point, but I forgot what it was when I was concentrating on my first two points :p.
The problem isn't with science or sabermetrics, itself, but rather in how people use it. Science and sabermetrics (well, heck, any human idea, really) are all based on MODELS of the world. Science and, I think, sabermetrics are basically a search for those models which can prove useful in this world. That doesn't necessarily equate them with the truth, though sometimes, it fortuituously is equitable.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, aside from saying that just because there are issues with how people use science and sabermetrics doesn't necessarily preclude them from being rational or valuable.
Which is why I don't really have a problem with people questioning evolution. I just don't think this justifies promoting ID as a suitable replacement.
In addition, though, mistakes that ARE made, are in most instance, very quickly revealed, because of the peer review which is such an important part of the scientific process (e.g., cold fusion).
True. But it is not SCIENTIFIC wrt my definition (or other definitions). As long as it stays in the realm of the metaphysical, I don't think people would have as much of a problem as they do when people attempt to teach it as a science.
Again, I disagree. If you don't like my definition of science, there are other definitions out there which might be to your liking. But every single one that defines what is and what isn't science relies on certain objective standards for it to be classifed as science. It is not arbitrary or capricious.
F
Teleology.
He would've been a different man with a different education. If here were plopped in today's world as he was then, he'd be a TV preacher.
But the problem is that it IS being taught in science classes.
That is the exact reason why this "liberal furore" against Intelligent Design is occuring.
If people teach it solely in philosophy class, I don't believe there would be this "liberal furore" against it.
F
Being able to reproduce them means nothing as far as evidence of their existence. This is using similar logic as "no monkey has ever given birth to a human, so humans can't be descended from monkeys."
To prove that dinosaurs existed, we simply have to provide enough evidence to make the likelyhood of them having not existed be almost 0. We have fossils in the form of bones in such quantity that there can be no doubt. These aren't just a few oddly shaped rocks that make something resembling something that could be a creature, these are millions of fossils from thousands of different creatures. We have fossils of eggs, and in a few very spectacular finds, we even have bits of flesh.
We've even proven how fossilization works, so it's not as if that evidence can be attacked. To put it simply, there is no chance given the evidence we have that dinosaurs didn't exist.
I'm sure ID's backers love it to be thought a political agendum; it masks its true purpose, which is that you and I and everyone else should love and worship their god.
It passes as fact only among the ignorant. Anyway, it is indeed a quibble compared with the greater argument, which is that dinosaurs and, by inevitable extension, evolutionary theory, are nonsense and that any and all truths are found solely in the Christian bible.
I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this.
Carl Everett stated:
God created the sun, the stars, the heavens and the earth, and then made Adam and Eve. The Bible never says anything about dinosaurs. You can't say there were dinosaurs when you never saw them. Someone actually saw Adam and Eve. No one ever saw a Tyrannosaurus rex.
He also viewed the bones as man-made fakes....
I have no clue what you're trying to defend Carl Everett from in your statement.
F
Educated guess makes it seem like there isn't much evidence behind it, when there actually is. Wear and tear on skeletal remains, the area it was found in, what was found around it, etc. gives so much information that most things aren't educated guesses. A bracheasaurus wouldn't have been able to have it's head above it's body for more than 10-12 seconds at a time, simply because the size of the heart required to keep blood preassure in the brain would be far too large to fit in it's ribcage. There are lots of things you can figure out if you know how to do it, and it's not as if we can't gain lots of information from animals living today. Just because there's 70 million years between lizards and dinosaurs doens't mean that they don't share lots of traits.
Deism generally held that God created the universe and the laws of nature, but thereafter did not intervene in creation. William Paley, the originator of the Watchmaker analogy, was an Anglican divine.
I thought it was Jewish
He said this?
Of course, this begs the question as to just how unlikely it is for the world around us (or something like it) to have arisen by chance, and whether this is meaningful anyway - after all, one of the reasons we conclude that the watch was made by some guy is because it serves a clear purpose. The "purpose" of the universe to its putative creator is mysterious at best.Well hang on, I may have been misconstrued. I think (if it's going to be taught) it should be taught as philosophy not as science. Because it doesn't really make testable claims or predictions. But which scheduled timetable period it's taught in seems irrelevant to me. Sex-ed is often taught in science classes. Is that a problem? Not really. I'm not saying ID should be taught compulsarily in schools, mind.
I actually think the real reason for the furore is what's seen in this thread - typical liberal paranoia. Look at all these horrible nasty people trying to establish a reactionary dictatorship around us! Teleological arguments are just a stalking horse for a theocracy! I enjoy the smell of my own farts!
You haven't been misconstrued, you've just misunderstood why liberals are against ID. It's because it's being pushed into science classes to try to displace evolutionary theory because there are people who don't understand evolution that think it has major problems.
And as ID was instituted in Kansas, it is just a trojan horse to move religion into the classroom. The only paranoia I see is from conservatives who are trying more to beat liberals than improve schooling.
Sex-ed is quite a bit different from philosophy with a religious bent. Not only that, but sex-ed is pretty much a practical thing. And it most closely relates to biology.
Additionally, when it's being added as PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC CURRICULUM, it takes on quite a different meaning than just being added as something to be taught.
Well, considering that it's actually been adopted in some states and has had to have been overturned in the courts as NON-SCIENCE, I think you're wrong.
F
Beyond that, I can't help much.
Thanks for the reference, DTM, but I was referring to the search for truth in all issues (The war, immigration, the budget, election fraud, etc.). It's always presented as, "Here's what the President and his lackeys say" vs. "Here's what the Bush-haters say." Both are presented as equally valid. Which one is right never even enters the discussion.
Thanks for bringing back the Flying Spaghetti Monster handle. I'm a big fan.
There's much truth to this, but contrary to what the Republican spinmeisters and their lap dogs on talk radio would have us believe, the policies that effect our lives on a daily basis are not determined by the reigning ideology of the English Department at Duke University, or by Linguistics Professors at MIT.
Well, I wasn't clear, but in my mind I wasn't referring to faculty but to students.
I was politically involved in college, and witnessed an incredible amount of close-mindedness, anger, and stereotyping. These "qualities" were not exclusive to one side of the political spectrum.
There is nothing that would help you with everything because anything that attempts that gets intentionally or unintentionally contaminated by politics.
Why, then, is it that the dinosaurs lived on earth but became suddenly extinct? God had actually placed dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. They were mild, but were driven out to this earth because they fell into the trap of Lucifer during the period in which Adam could freely travel back and forth between this earth and the Garden of Eden.
Now, dinosaurs that were forced to live on this earth had to constantly look for things to eat. Unlike the time when they lived in the Garden of Eden, where everything was abundant, this earth could not possibly produce enough food for dinosaurs with big bodies. They ate up all the fruit, grains, and plants, and then began to eat up other animals. They were about to destroy the environment and the food chain. God finally decided that He could no longer keep the dinosaurs on this earth any more, and exterminated them with fire from above.
In that spirit, I'll give Wright a pass on this one, even though the "fake media credentials" story does seem questionable. Even if he thought he was endorsing something somewhat more mainstream that was occurring at Shea -- a Promise Keepers-type thing, or what have you -- shouldn't he still have questioned whether the Mets would be involved in that... unless, of course, he does believe in that kind of thing himself?
But, I'll give him a mulligan and forget it. Deliberately choosing blissful ignorance works fine for me when it comes to rooting for non-outspoken athletes, although I wouldn't recommend it as a science curriculum.
You're right, but I'd appreciate it if the news media at least gave it a shot.
Statements such as "believe in evolution" or "evolution as fact" highlight this. One does not believe in any theory. Rather one views that theory as the best model that explains the observed facts. Theories aren't facts, either. One must always be open to evidence that trashes the prevailing theory. At least that is how it supposed to work. Scientists, as a group, fall short of this noble ideal as often as any other group of humans and end up reluctant to admit they can't explain anything and eager to protect their ideological turf. The press often confuses the issue by presenting our best scientific understanding of the day as if it is 100% proven true. It is, in my opinion, this lack of good scientific understanding by the public that leads to the popularity of ID and the ease with which people believe utter nonsense. It is also why people think that scientists can know and do anything with just enough money and time.
The News Media is a lot like the Pirates: Money over Quality.
Of course not. I think there is nothing wrong with rooting for a player with whom you share little else in common. However, seeing a good player on your favorite team and then deciding he must share your political/religious/music tastes is nuts.
Scientists fall victim to the same quirks of language that the rest of us do. What certain words mean in the philosophy of science has a subtle but distinct difference from the way that we normally use them. More education might change this, but it won't happen any time soon.
Evolution is fact. We have seen it occur. We have made it occur. Not in us, but in simpler creatures. The theory is that the same sort of process created us from those simple creatures. And the totality available facts -- data and observations, we call them -- support this theory, with quite a bit of uncertainty around the margins. But that's always going to be the case.
Evolution? Fact.
People evolved from "lower" organisms? Objectively our best guess based on fact.
Evolution happened exactly like XXXX? Probably wrong, the little picture is very muddled.
God guided the process? Consistent with the best available theory, and neither supported nor contradicted by fact.
God created people and other creatures in their current form? Not consistent with facts.
Basically, I'm saying that if I discover that the Mets have a John Rocker, I am going to root less for that guy; however, I'm not going to say, "hey, I can't root for any of these guys, since for all I know, some of them are John Rockers."
A very good point. I'd definitely like for the science curriculum to change to show what science actually is rather than these set of "facts" as you put it. Unfortunately, we always seem to aim for the easiest way for our school systems.
I don't really remember how I understood the scientific method and hence science so well, but I don't think I've EVER viewed it as facts which are the one-and-only unchangeable truth. But then again, I probably learned it that way in private school.
Some other good points, especially the press angle. However, do you hear about studies which "prove" that something causes cancer, etc?
Sometimes, I don't even know if some science teachers understand the fundamental axiom of non-knowledge in science (I just made that up :p). When I transferred to a public school, I found that I was often being presented these views as facts and it always confused me as to why they did it that way.
F
Oops, that was supposed to be "How often do you hear..."
Whoa, major brain fart.
F
It's important to distinguish theory from fact, though the distinction isn't always clear. Gravity is a fact. Newton's Theory is an explanation of how gravity works. Similarly, evolution is a fact. Darwin's Theory is an explanation of how evolution works.
As for teaching ID in schools, that can be done but only very carefully. It's religion, and there are 1A issues with it.
The accusation against "liberals" in this thread is hilarious. It would be a classic case of blaming the victim if it weren't so misdirected. Let's get the facts clear: proponents of ID are the ones trying to mandate the teaching of ID in science class.They are the ones creating the furor. Scientists -- not "liberals", scientists -- oppose that. Anyone who thinks the Dover judge is a "liberal" is looking at the political spectrum from the far end of the universe. That's 13.7 billion light years of parallax effect.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main