Open Letter to MG, EmeryRoolz, and Everyone Else who Doesn´t Understand Science
(I needed some kind of marginally offensive title to get this party started.)
The following two articles on Delusions of Grandeur should get us off to a good start.
I´m hoping to god that my pathetic HTML works, and that the above link will in actuality take you to mgrant8.blogspot.com. If not, my apologies, I don´t really have time to check (at the moment, I´m typing this from Copan, Honduras). Just type in the address and scroll down to read "Faith Based Science" and "Scopes Episode II: Revenge of the Moron."
Done? Excellent. Then let´s begin.
Open Letter to MG, EmeryRoolz, and Everyone Else who Doesn´t Understand Science:
Dear Sirs,
It has recently come to my attention that you are all quite distressed at the recent happenings in Kansas, where, in addition to a fine corn crop, or whatever else they grow for miles around, a great many Creationists have embraced Intelligent Design theory as an alternative to Evolution.
You don´t have to worry. That is, essentially, what this letter is for: reassuring you. In fact, if you have any qualms at all, it´s probably out of ignorance. And, given that you´re obviously worried, I´ll see what I can do to set you straight.
First off, I´d like to make a few distinctions for us to consider:
a) science, as it is explained in textbooks,
b) science, as it is practiced in universities,
c) science, as it is practiced by evolutionary biologists who do not wish to compete with a contending theory,
d) science, as it is practiced by Intelligent Design theorists,
e) science, as it is practiced by Creationists,
f) science, as it is practiced by damn good scientists.
We´re all well familiar with A, having taken high school biology at one point. Historically, this type of science runs into a severe problem - it doesn´t exist. C and E are nearly identical. At times, E and D are identical. Ideally, B and F would be identical as well, but unfortunately for the scientific world, F doesn´t usually exist either.
Ideally, science (the A version) works something like this:
Man makes observations. Man makes hypothesis. Man tests hypothesis. After more testing and observation, man makes theory. Theory becomes gradually more refined, much like a fine wine becoming greater with age.
Historically, science happens something a little more like this:
Man firmly believes something. All observations are made through this filter of belief. All data collected is determined "relevant" based on how it fits with the prevailing belief. Man bolsters theory with data that tells him what he already knows and wants to believe.
Obviously, we need more women scientists. But before I´m accused of being cynical, let me assure you that I´m not. Science has advanced in this way, more or less, to our present state of knowledge. It works, no matter how flawed the process may appear to be. And the process isn´t flawed, and this is why.
Let´s say you want to go out into the world and make observations. If you didn´t have some kind of a filter to tell you what knowledge was relevant and what was not, I bet you´d never get anywhere. The most well-known example occurs daily in every lustful young man, trolling for booty as night falls:
Gotta find myself some hot women. A young woman will walk by, and the observation will begin. He could look anywhere - her personality, her laugh, her kneecap, her brain. But we all know that none of those are relevant. And so the screening proceeds, based on a few key features that, were it not for the filter that tells the young man exactly where to look, would be entirely invisible to him.
Maybe not entirely.
Point is, this is how science works. And it´s not a point that can really be argued. All proponents of the MG/Emery system of interpretation have is, essentially, the high school textbook, and any examples stemming from the last sixty years of Evolutionary Theory. And if you look at nothing but Evolutionary interpretations of the natural world, you´ll be hard-pressed to find something that doesn´t fit. But chances are, you won´t even be looking. In fact, if you´re a serious convert, chances are you´ll actively work to squelch opposing evidence, without any realization that you´re doing so. Hell, we could interchange "Evolutionary Biologists" with "Creationists" and use the exact same description.
Now before I´m inundated with angry letters that point out that the average Evolutionary Biologist knows a good deal more about science thatn the average Creationist, let me say that I agree...sort of. I´m not claiming they have equal scientific knowledge. But on average, their knowledge of the historical process of science is about the same. Which brings me back to my point a paragraph ago - this can´t really be argued. This is the process that just about (and I only put in that disclaimer because my knowledge isn´t exhaustive) every change in worldview has taken, whether scientific, religious, cultural, or whatever. Historically, there isn´t another story, and certainly not one that bears much resemblance to the story told in textbooks. That is, unless your history only spans some hundred years, in which case all you will know is the prevailing theory and how it has been refined. And in that case, it´ll probably seem true.
(Speaking of history, make sure you read the end for a great defense of the Scopes Trial, and why it´s probably better to do research that spans beyond Hollywood before making a conclusion.)
And now, a true story:
Vestigial organs, for those of us...uh, you...that were asleep in class, are those organs that have, so far as we know, no specific purpose in the body, the appendix being the prime example (and the brain in most men or women, depending on what sex you are). For that reason, Evolutionary Biologists don´t study it much - there´s no reason to, since, according to their explanation of the natural world, not a lot of great information can come from it. Intelligent Design theorists, however, don´t have that restriction, and have therefore began study of the appendix. The best way to see if it´s important, of course, is to see what happens to people who don´t have it. And as it turns out, their risk for acquiring cancer is significantly, significantly greater, so much so that a strong correlation was drawn between removing the appendix and the later acquisition of (I think...) cervical cancer.
Does it mean ID is true? No way. Does it mean Evolution couldn´t possibly have an explanation for the correlation? Not at all. Does it mean that, if it weren´t for ID theory, this information would never have been discovered? Probably, unless all Evolutionary Biologists decided to remove their appendices and they all got cancer.
Point is, this is why restricting scientific teaching to Evolution is a bad idea. It squelches the scientific process.
Again, so we´re clear - it´s science that will suffer if Evolution reigns alone, not religion.
Should Evolution be taught? Hell yes. Should any other credible scientific theories be taught? As many as possible. The greater the competition, the greater the discoveries and the more information is gathered.
Is Creationism a credible scientific theory? In the sense that it depends on holy texts before scientific observation, no. In the sense that it works exactly like any other worldview, scientific or no (beliefs, then observation), yes.
Is ID a credible scientific theory? Yes. It´s not Creationism, not by a longshot. And if that´s the claim you´re making, you probably need to read someone besides Richard Dawkins. Hell, some of the ID guys even have Ph.Ds.
(Richard doesn´t.)
Time is short. Will finish later.
The following two articles on Delusions of Grandeur should get us off to a good start.
I´m hoping to god that my pathetic HTML works, and that the above link will in actuality take you to mgrant8.blogspot.com. If not, my apologies, I don´t really have time to check (at the moment, I´m typing this from Copan, Honduras). Just type in the address and scroll down to read "Faith Based Science" and "Scopes Episode II: Revenge of the Moron."
Done? Excellent. Then let´s begin.
Open Letter to MG, EmeryRoolz, and Everyone Else who Doesn´t Understand Science:
Dear Sirs,
It has recently come to my attention that you are all quite distressed at the recent happenings in Kansas, where, in addition to a fine corn crop, or whatever else they grow for miles around, a great many Creationists have embraced Intelligent Design theory as an alternative to Evolution.
You don´t have to worry. That is, essentially, what this letter is for: reassuring you. In fact, if you have any qualms at all, it´s probably out of ignorance. And, given that you´re obviously worried, I´ll see what I can do to set you straight.
First off, I´d like to make a few distinctions for us to consider:
a) science, as it is explained in textbooks,
b) science, as it is practiced in universities,
c) science, as it is practiced by evolutionary biologists who do not wish to compete with a contending theory,
d) science, as it is practiced by Intelligent Design theorists,
e) science, as it is practiced by Creationists,
f) science, as it is practiced by damn good scientists.
We´re all well familiar with A, having taken high school biology at one point. Historically, this type of science runs into a severe problem - it doesn´t exist. C and E are nearly identical. At times, E and D are identical. Ideally, B and F would be identical as well, but unfortunately for the scientific world, F doesn´t usually exist either.
Ideally, science (the A version) works something like this:
Man makes observations. Man makes hypothesis. Man tests hypothesis. After more testing and observation, man makes theory. Theory becomes gradually more refined, much like a fine wine becoming greater with age.
Historically, science happens something a little more like this:
Man firmly believes something. All observations are made through this filter of belief. All data collected is determined "relevant" based on how it fits with the prevailing belief. Man bolsters theory with data that tells him what he already knows and wants to believe.
Obviously, we need more women scientists. But before I´m accused of being cynical, let me assure you that I´m not. Science has advanced in this way, more or less, to our present state of knowledge. It works, no matter how flawed the process may appear to be. And the process isn´t flawed, and this is why.
Let´s say you want to go out into the world and make observations. If you didn´t have some kind of a filter to tell you what knowledge was relevant and what was not, I bet you´d never get anywhere. The most well-known example occurs daily in every lustful young man, trolling for booty as night falls:
Gotta find myself some hot women. A young woman will walk by, and the observation will begin. He could look anywhere - her personality, her laugh, her kneecap, her brain. But we all know that none of those are relevant. And so the screening proceeds, based on a few key features that, were it not for the filter that tells the young man exactly where to look, would be entirely invisible to him.
Maybe not entirely.
Point is, this is how science works. And it´s not a point that can really be argued. All proponents of the MG/Emery system of interpretation have is, essentially, the high school textbook, and any examples stemming from the last sixty years of Evolutionary Theory. And if you look at nothing but Evolutionary interpretations of the natural world, you´ll be hard-pressed to find something that doesn´t fit. But chances are, you won´t even be looking. In fact, if you´re a serious convert, chances are you´ll actively work to squelch opposing evidence, without any realization that you´re doing so. Hell, we could interchange "Evolutionary Biologists" with "Creationists" and use the exact same description.
Now before I´m inundated with angry letters that point out that the average Evolutionary Biologist knows a good deal more about science thatn the average Creationist, let me say that I agree...sort of. I´m not claiming they have equal scientific knowledge. But on average, their knowledge of the historical process of science is about the same. Which brings me back to my point a paragraph ago - this can´t really be argued. This is the process that just about (and I only put in that disclaimer because my knowledge isn´t exhaustive) every change in worldview has taken, whether scientific, religious, cultural, or whatever. Historically, there isn´t another story, and certainly not one that bears much resemblance to the story told in textbooks. That is, unless your history only spans some hundred years, in which case all you will know is the prevailing theory and how it has been refined. And in that case, it´ll probably seem true.
(Speaking of history, make sure you read the end for a great defense of the Scopes Trial, and why it´s probably better to do research that spans beyond Hollywood before making a conclusion.)
And now, a true story:
Vestigial organs, for those of us...uh, you...that were asleep in class, are those organs that have, so far as we know, no specific purpose in the body, the appendix being the prime example (and the brain in most men or women, depending on what sex you are). For that reason, Evolutionary Biologists don´t study it much - there´s no reason to, since, according to their explanation of the natural world, not a lot of great information can come from it. Intelligent Design theorists, however, don´t have that restriction, and have therefore began study of the appendix. The best way to see if it´s important, of course, is to see what happens to people who don´t have it. And as it turns out, their risk for acquiring cancer is significantly, significantly greater, so much so that a strong correlation was drawn between removing the appendix and the later acquisition of (I think...) cervical cancer.
Does it mean ID is true? No way. Does it mean Evolution couldn´t possibly have an explanation for the correlation? Not at all. Does it mean that, if it weren´t for ID theory, this information would never have been discovered? Probably, unless all Evolutionary Biologists decided to remove their appendices and they all got cancer.
Point is, this is why restricting scientific teaching to Evolution is a bad idea. It squelches the scientific process.
Again, so we´re clear - it´s science that will suffer if Evolution reigns alone, not religion.
Should Evolution be taught? Hell yes. Should any other credible scientific theories be taught? As many as possible. The greater the competition, the greater the discoveries and the more information is gathered.
Is Creationism a credible scientific theory? In the sense that it depends on holy texts before scientific observation, no. In the sense that it works exactly like any other worldview, scientific or no (beliefs, then observation), yes.
Is ID a credible scientific theory? Yes. It´s not Creationism, not by a longshot. And if that´s the claim you´re making, you probably need to read someone besides Richard Dawkins. Hell, some of the ID guys even have Ph.Ds.
(Richard doesn´t.)
Time is short. Will finish later.
posted by NateWazoo at 10:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home