You are off your rocker. There is much science against man-made global warming, very much indeed. Explain why the Norsemen called part of Greenland Vineland. Too many SUV’s a thousand years ago, I guess. The Maunder Minimum may be around the corner. And Darwin? Laughable. How do they date the rocks? By the bones. How do they date the bones? By the rocks. Ad nauseum. And it is embryonic stem cells that is the problem, not all stem cells.You may have evolved from slime to apes to man, but I did not. Nor did Jesus.

Don’s scientific opinions seem entirely consistent with his estimate of his place in the evolutionary scheme of things.

Climatologists can come up with models, but that is not much different than economists when they do the same.

The same kind and level of science told us about the upcoming ice age in the 1970s.

As an engineer, about 20 years ago, I learned about error analysis.  When you have a bunch of +/- 5% terms (and in climate they aren’t all even that small) that grow geometrically over time, the same mathematics that predicts a 2 degree increases in temperature would show (in the mouseprint footnotes if at all in the publication) it is plus or minus 10 degrees.

You CANNOT measure distance with an accelerometer.  But you protest, it is just the integral of the integral of accelleration!  Yes, but if there is an inaccuracy, the inaccuracy will increase with the square of the duration.  So when standing still, you will eventually end up moving faster than the speed of light.

If you wish, I can install such a speedometer/odometer in your car…

And this is science and mathematics which goes back to Newton and Leibnitz.  Very demonstrable, calculable down to many, many, decimal places.

Darwinism or evolutionism or the rest has a different problem.  Newer mathematics and science can measure complexity (separate design from randomness - Claude Shannon’s information theory is the foundation).  But life forms are very complex, and we can MEASURE and CALCULATE the amount of information required to jump the gaps, and there is no known force in the universe capable of producing such order other than intelligence.  (I specifically don’t say God, but I do suggest looking into nebulas or other locations in space for something which CAN self-organize since DNA and protein cannot do so by what the physicists, chemists, and mathematicians have proven).  They say it happened contrary to known science, yet offer no experiment or suggestion likely to explain it.

And I have to wonder, just as the patents were expiring on CFCs, we discover a “hole” in the ozone which turned out to be more hype, and somehow the billions of tons of chlorine Mt. Pinatubo injected directly into the stratosphere could not possibly be responsible - it must be the heavier than air CFCs which are far from the stratosphere and tend to go into the soil where they are digested by bacteria.  Yet those poor ozone molecules swoon when they see a CFC 25 miles below, so we must ban them.

(Aside: This makes air conditioning more expensive and toxic condemning many poor and elderly to earlier death and discomfort - apparently Benedict XVI approves of this in the form of the Montreal Protocols, perhaps he will approve of burning crops instead of oil so we can starve the poor as well as bake them, but theology doesn’t always mix well with economics or science).

Science should be a search for truth.  Not merely an alternate dogma where dissenters are labeled heretics and burned for asking honest questions, nor as jumping off point to conclusions that demand we radically modify our behavior.

For that matter, what the CDC already knows and publishes - but is utterly ignored by the media and politicians - on STDs would be something far more effective to have public policy change behavior.  And we are doing it (wrongly from a liberty perspective but at least it is good science) on smoking.  Infertility, disability, and huge expense even when things can be made tolerable are all effects of the sexual revolution, and there is plenty of science.  But the promiscuous Prius owners are straining at the gnats and doing unspeakable things to Camels, or perhaps cigars as Ms. Lewinski can testify to.

Note to All:: Science is a verb...not a noun....science deals with the “knowable”...specifically, the measurable(which is really just technology[black plastic boxes]...not science)...it does not address the “unknowable"(that which cannot be measured).... thus the “unknowable” is banished(excluded)… from the “data & calculation”....for example, dear scientists....what is the calculus for IRONY???...while “mankinders” are undoubtedly material & social(just read the newspapers)...man is supranatural & spiritual...science & mathematics only confirm the “MYSTERY”...they do not refute it...."MYSTERY" is not a riddle or a puzzel...it is a Mystery...Man remains the created...not the creator....finite cannot be made to equal infinite(any doubts....then, check your lastest “portfolio” statement)....some are comfortable living inside the “mystery”...they operate with faith(TRUST).....most are not...in fact, the “mystery” terrifies nearly all(they operate with fear(SUPERSTITION)...and thus....they perpetually attack that which frightens them(which, eventually leads to very poor “science"(formulation//modernity)...Godel, Wittgenstein & Hesienberg understood this...and yet, not surprisingly, their “science” has been shit-canned for 75 yrs...we will always be “Newtonian” with our dear Nominalistic(anti-reality) Unitarian God..."science"....mostly, chronicled as error....is merely intended to address the threats of an antagonistic then indifferent “MYSTERY”....Prometheus stole the fire, but the poor hapless fool forgot the rest & left the best...Long live the Trinity....especially, the Holy Spirit...the Giver of Life.....PS///Life does not come from DNA....DNA comes from Life...Finally, the ancients feared nothing but the “MYSTERY”...the moderns, armed by their “science”...fear everything but the “MYSTERY”....Hey Buddy, can you spare another spreadsheet??

ADDENDA::the ancients(Greeks) worked very hard to wretch REALITY from MYTH....unfortunately, the moderns,...with their “science"(mostly behaviorlism)...work even harder to return REALITY(MYSYERY) to MYTH(empty formulas)....where’s a good hard workin’ Greek when you REALLY need him???

This is a bizarre rant, worthy of a low-level kept intellectual of the Technocracy.  But I notice that Derbyshire is published here, he’s a Darwinist / Nihilist now.

I think Taki and his site have come down with the Neocon Derangement Syndrome.

Russell Seitz is to be commended for this highly
perceptive essay on the neoconservative aversion for
science. I too have been noticing this phenomenon for
decades but until recently ascribed it to the
ideologically driven obscurantism that has been
characteristic of the neocons’ manipulation of reality
sincethey’ve been in power. But there is probably
far more than their alliance with the Zionist Fundies
that is at stake here. The neocons mix their passion
forpublic administration with another critical
characteristic of mass democratic Progressivism, a
form of radical environmentalism that is marked by a
violent rejection of hereditarianism and a stress on
human adaptability under the guidance of the
democratic state. Although this interest may be
different from why the Zionist Fundamentalists reject
Darwinism, these concerns mesh perfectly in the
short run. The neocons are killig two birds with one
stone when they rail against evolutionary biology. The
attack on the general theory of relativity is mere
fluff, whipped up to protect us against “moral
relativists,” aka people who disagree with neocons.
My book on the drifting conservative movement makes
no secret about the abysmal stupidity of the types
who take such nonsense as serious commentary (yes the
pun is fully intended).

LASTLY:: there is a massive difference between REALITY....and IDENITY..."science" pretends that they can(are) be the same...in fact, like all other so-called revolutions...SCIENCE is nothing more than an ambitious, opportunistic, adventurous usurpation...effected by obscuring, evading & replacing one genuine “cosmological order”...with another self-serving(deluding) synthetic...man goes to the top of the food chain...so many “chosen people”...so little to chose from...and certainly the question wil always remains..."chosen" for what??....likewise,....made in the “image” of God...of God’s what...mercy, or justice, or POWER.... yee up ‘n comin little totems & taboos...does morality supersede mystery??...then certainly matter can short circuit morality!!!....check out the last 500 hundred years for starters...nothing less than massive deformities emanating from deep gnostic disturbances....maybe Nietzche was right?...the Nazarene was the only Christian...certainly all those psychic disruptions originating from the Arabian Penisula have found great difficulty translating....particularly north of the Alps....a tawdry inheritance at best....leaving “science” well, well endowed...but way, way over-leveraged…

<<The neocons mix their passion for public administration with another critical characteristic of mass democratic Progressivism, a form of radical environmentalism that is marked by a violent rejection of hereditarianism and a stress on human adaptability under the guidance of the democratic state.>>

Not until I got to the bottom of this post did I realize it was posted by Dr Gottfried.  Brilliant.  Absolutely brilliant.  Spot on.  Everyone read this above quote again, thank you.

In agreement with Dr Gottfried, “democratic progressivism” is the “neo-conservative” “intelligent design”.  That is, the democratic state has the intelligence to “design” man and society into operating more efficiently.  Where have we all heard this before?  Of course, “the New Soviet Man”.  The democratic progressivism of the “neo-conservatives” are nothing more than Soviet “communism” made-over.  I know I am preaching to the choir here…

My only real addition to the overall thesis of this discussion is that the “neo-conservatives” agree to keep science (and education, in general) out of the schools for the “rubes” in “fly-over country”, but you better believe they don’t reject science and learning at Stuyvesant High School.

This article makes one error in judgement and that is that the neo-cons believe even half of what they say.  Most of it is packaging of their program to the more ignorant of the masses.  This tensds to be a good strategy as ignorance outnumbers intelligence due to our public schools by about 10 to 1.  Science does not refute religion or vice versa.  Paleos and other real conservatives reject liberal science since it seems to not recognize easily observable criteria relating to the beginning of life.  The neo-con propaganda use this rejection as a jumping off point for all kinds of pseudo science as Mr. Seitz has so perfectly observed.

Once again: Why is this leftist claptrap on Taki and not Daily Kos where it belongs? Is this considered paleo? Libertarian? No one with such shallow reasoning skills should analyze anything complex, certainly not scientific theories. His only apparent qualification: He hates neocons, by which clearly he means conservatives in general.

There are no conservatives of any stripe that I am aware of who oppose stem cell research. Excepting the cannibalistic embryonic stem cell variety, that is what we are adverse to. So the entire article falls on that subject alone. Just a big lie oft repeated, not worthy of Taki. As for evolution, they use a made-out-of-thin-air chart to show various eras or epochs, such as Paleozoic, etc. This chart has no scientific basis. Just as the outrageous dating of rocks has no scientific basis. As I posted previously, they date the rocks by the bones and the bones by the rocks. Some science.

Don, you are missing the point.

It is not that [neo-]conservatives repudiate science because of the flaky science behind evolution, global warming, or stem cell research in general.

The problem Mr Seitz brings up is that [neo-]conservatives dismiss science because it challenges their world-view; they dismiss it without ever taking it to task; without ever challenging science on it’s own ground.  If “science” says “global warming is man-made”, much of the [neo-]conservative community stand up and say “GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX”, facts be damned.

To quote Mr Seitz:

<<To political operatives, downplaying science made focus-group sense, for no-brow votes count the same as middle or high, and in many congressional districts, parents fearful of begetting video-game addicts outnumber Wired subscribers.>>

The [neo-]conservative parents are rightfully wary of “science” and “technology” because they view it as this:

http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2007/11/17/18youth2.jpeg

and this:

http://www.st-aug.edu/press-releases/images/Video-game-students.jpg

Parents don’t want their kids to be like the thugs on the street.  In their ignorance, they reject science and technology, and embrace “Masters of Business Administration”, whatever in the world that is.

The neo-cons want science, as wells as many other things such as culture and debate, dumbed down to help them keep their hold on power.

1. It’s not just the “Neoconservative” Whigs who attacking current natural science.  January 2007 I heard a leading Paleoconservative intellectual label Pasteur’s germ theory as “crazy”. He gave no argument, and a physician at the conference and I exchanged glances.  I have wondered ever since why this Paleo intellectual, a man whom I respect, should say such a thing.  Mr. Seitz article is article is thus very enlightening. I thank him.

2. Before we take the splitter out of the Neocon eye, let’s take the log out of the Paleocon.  The ultimate “Paleoconservative” hoax and faux-science is racialism.  I say “Paleoconservative” with hesitation; of course we’re really talking about fascist and racialist nationalists, who – to use a Pasteurian metaphor – are alien bacteria that infect the Tory conservative movement.  I regret to have found out the Derbyshire (sort of) is among them. The Browns, basically lifting their material from Alfred Rosenberg, peddle mendacious stuff far worse than attacks on Pasteur, Darwin, and global warming.  I’ve also read from our racialists, and read here on this site, Lamarckanism worse than Lysenko’s – proof positive that our Browns and our Reds have a lot in common.

3. Classic natural science, since the days of the Royal Academy (1661), has depended on demonstrated ad oculos experiment.  Yet one can’t perform an experiment on something that happened 10 million or 4 billion years ago.  So Natural Science, grudgingly, must admit that it too is also a hermeneutic as well as experimental/empirical science.

4. Darwin deserves to be quoted correctly.  His theory never attempted to explain the origin of life.  It was set up to explain the origin of speciation, as the title of his work says, and it explains it far better than Lamarck’s theory.  Darwin also knew zero about genetics, not bothering, at the suggestion of friends, that he get in touch with an Austrian monk, Mendel by name.  Darwin also had one characteristic with “Don”: both men are ignorant of Carbon 14 dating.  Darwin had a good excuse.  “Don” just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

5. By the way, serious biology obliges a mastery of organic chemistry and physics, and both of these natural sciences obliges higher mathematics. And Math is a humanity, not a “science”.

6. Another problem is the childish modern faith in the wonder-workings of natural science and technology.  Our high tech army and police are being bested repeatedly in 4th Generation War.  Despite all the high tech and wiz-kid machines, it was box cutters – a tool as old as the Paleolithic – that gave us Sept 11th.  And as I’ve said before, the best jury to render a verdict on “progress” through natural science and technology should be 6 men from Hiroshima and 6 from Nagasaki.

7. “Natural science” or even worse, “science”, is a silly name.  The 18th C had the good sense to call it for what it is: “Natural Philosophy”, the first of whom were the pre-Socratics. 

8. One professor of cell biology (and thus a master of organic chemistry) once told me that natural science remains Parmenidean, when it should be Heraclitan. And Husserl correctly said that Naturwissenschaft isn’t a strenge Wissenschaft.

9. Tory conservatives should have joined the ecology movement long ago, if not taken it over.  John Ball is right about this.  Someone called environmentalism “the conservatism of the Left”.  Aside from the bad Left/Right metaphor, the purport is correct.  I again thank Mr. Seitz.

I’ll leave Mr. Cudliff’s 8th point to the Editors of my last scientific publication :
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p68646l114q71827/

Since becoming acquainted with takimag.com I’ve found myself sometimes with neck hairs on end due to remarks by Sid Cindiff.  With the explicit disclaimer of pathetic ignorance of certain fields of science, for once I am mightily impressed with his contribution.  Good show!

Mr. Cundiff ought to know that carbon dating is not reliable past several thousand years. It certainly cannot date rocks at millions of years, let alone billions. It is farce. And everyone knows this dirty little secret inside scientific circles.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm

Other so-called dating systems also seriously flawed. Such as uranium-lead dating.

http://www.eadshome.com/RadiometricDating.htm

To the engineer who earlier deemed it impossible to measure distance using accelerometers, which is of course exactly how ICBM guidance systems functioned to keep the peace from 1970 till the Cold War’s end, Don now add a link to a site declaring
“There is no instrument available to measure the age of any substance. “

Having helped build the former( pendulous integrating gyroscopic accelerometers, and gravity gradiometers as well ) and availed myself of the superbly accurate 14 C dates the linear accelerator mass spectrometer at the Woods Hole oceanographic institution that reproducibly grinds out, I begin to wonder what technology will be next to disappear from such reader’s imagined worlds.

Someone ought to generate a geochronology in better concordance to their minimalist views of the scope of time, for left scot they may start arguing against reports of material innovations too numerous for 2008 years of grace to accommodate in their minds.

Best make the most of your stirrups,, and so called ‘plastic bottles’” solid state electronics” before they reveal these recent impostures to the world.

From Arthur Conan Doyle’s _A Study in Scarlet_:

My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”

“To forget it!”

“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

“But the Solar System!” I protested.

“What the deuce is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently: “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

“There is no instrument available to measure the age of any substance. “

To directly measure the age of any substance is what it means. Can one deduce the age based on assumptions of change and constancy? Yes. But then those assumptions should be examined.

As for the remark about the sun going around the earth--expertise in one field does not even warrant that a proposition proper to another field is true.

I’ll leave Mr. Cudliff’s 8th point to the Editors of my last scientific publication

Why, are the editors ready to answer a question that is outside of [what they consider to be] science but proper to the philosophy of science, or just plain philosophy?

More on the unreliability of these so-called dating systems.  A fraud being perpetuated on the world. By the liar-in-chief no doubt.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/

It is not neo-conservativism against science.  The problem is that the institutes that speak in the name of science are indeed corrupt, and untrustworthy.  And even if they were not, there is still doubt about whether a scientific method even exists, even if scientists pretend otherwise.  Perhaps it is fair to compare the institutes of science to the institutes of religion in the middle ages: little or no tolerance for alternative views or counter-opinion, inseparable from financial interest and structures of the political powers of the day.  Perhaps we will know the truth about science if science is treated as religion: separated from the state, and funded only by its believers.

The germ theory of disease is a really bad example to use here, since it was initiated by Semmelweis, who was treated as a villain by scientists of his day.  Semmelweis, who worked in a clinic in Vienna where cases of child-bed fever were often as high as 90% suggested to the doctors of his day to wash their hands between autopsies and child deliveries.  But the scientists of the time considered that suggestion unscientific, Semmelweis was deemed crypto-religious (since he attributed importance to death), and continued to go against basic rules of hygiene for several more decades throughout most of the enlightened world (interestingly in the non-enlightened world such a blunder would never have occurred to anyone, “primitive” tribes did not have the problem) and caused the death of tens of thousands of children and mothers alike.  Thanks to the ideological bias of scientists of the time.

But this story demonstrates something else.  Regardless of the scientific explanation and reasoning, often common sense is good enough for basing judgment.  Even without knowing too much science it is not terribly difficult to guess that not washing hands after an autopsy can not lead to anything desirable.

I personally am convinced that excessive dependence on cars (in most of the US public transportation is lacking, and people often have to drive cars to the local drug store) is not beneficial.  If second-hand smoke is disturbing to some, so should be the daily four-hours of traffic jams on Route number X on which most Americans go to work at an average speed of 5 MPH.  It does not take a Ph. D. to figure this out.  And it is very likely in large part responsible for global warming.

Few if any Americans are travelling at 5 MPH. Do the math, please! As for ‘public’ transport, that equals government subsidies, very bad indeed. Plus the distances in America are quite different from those in Japan or Europe, as examples. You ought to know this.

Don,

The 5MPH was not a quantitative estimate, but rather, to emphasize that the system is far from maximum efficiency.  It is not uncommon that people take highways to work, where they are stuck in traffic jams on the order of hours during the day.  The traffic jams, moreover, usually consist of one person per car.  I agree mostly with the libertarian critique of the all powerful state, but the all powerful oil lobby is not any better.  Actually those two are more or less the same thing.

I think the problem that complicates this issue is that the conclusions drawn by the institutions of science are not necessarily reliable, because these institutions themselves are corrupt and ideologically biased.  But this fact should not blind anyone to what the real problems are.  Global warming is a fact regardless of what science says.  Scientific solutions, such as recycling or alternative energy sources, do not really solve the problem.

Kari Konkola is certainly correct that Darwin, Darwinism, and the Nazis misused natural science. “Scientific [sic] Racialism “ remains, at best, a hoax. 

Still, Darwin’s general theory is better than Lamarck’s.

“Kari Konkola is certainly correct that Darwin, Darwinism, and the Nazis misused natural science. “Scientific [sic] Racialism “ remains, at best, a hoax.”

The sub-title of Origin of Species is “or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Aphysicist, global warming is not a fact. Same scientists that were preaching global cooling a quarter century ago (based on man’s activities) now proclaim the opposite. The weather is certainly variable, but warmer temperatures are part of a natural cycle, not influenced by mankind, influenced by the sun in fact. There is much data to prove this. And if the sunspot activity does not pick up we may be in a new Maunder Minimum. But man has no effect on that.

As for modern science, they give us phony carbon dating. And flu shots that are proving to be 40% effective.

An before go obscuring and lying again, tell us, Prozium, quote (cited correctly) Darwin’s definition of “race” (he meant of course “species” of plants and animals. and by “favoured” he meant natural selection” so stop lying to readers.) And, if memory serves me right, human beings aren’t mentioned in the Origin until the last page. And no mention at all in the book of what you racialists call “race”.

That should be
“and before you go”

there is still doubt about whether a scientific method even exists, even if scientists pretend otherwise.

I don’t think there is doubt about whether there is a “scientific method” that “scientists” recognize as being “ideal” or “proper"--the question is whether this method is the only way to reason about nature, or if it yields certainty or not. If it does not yield certainty, does that mean that there are not other ways of reasoning that do?

It is a doctrine of the Christian religion that “as the tree falls ,so must it lie’. The preface to On the Origin of Species contains copious references to the races of mankind , for it tries to acknowledge every extant work on the subject- including his uncle Erasmus and , tellingly, the already published views of Herbert Spencer, which are so often erroneously elided with those of the singularly un-judgmental -and vehemently Abolitionist-Darwin.

Speaking of deadwood, Don has hit the petard button with his link to a creationist illiterately invoking the 1.5% chemical environment shift in the 53 minute electron capture half life of beryllium-10. What a splendid illustration of the ease of refinement of isotope dating!

Those who deem so dim a fib an insult to the honor of God are at liberty to pray for both Don and his preterite dis-informants. Readers with a broader view of science may also enjoy learning of how even the traces of nitrogen in quartz now allow purely inorganic rocks to be carbon dated --
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/01/viking-funeral.html

Umm, race is the mechanism of speciation in Darwinian evolution. Charles Darwin was what you would call a “scientific racialist.” His book The Descent of Man was a founding treatise of “scientific racialism.”

What you call “Tory conservatism” is based on creationism. Mr. Seitz is right that conservatives tend to be creationists and this often translates into a hostility to science education on their part which is anathema to well-educated Americans.

“Umm, race is the mechanism of speciation in Darwinian evolution.”

If Prozium believes that, I wish him a happy Sunday in the zoo, looking for the author of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire in the gibbon habitat.

Give us a break !

Here’s just one example that shows how ridiculous and mendacious it is, indeed, to think that race was any part of part of Darwin’s thinking:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, Descent of Man)

Ahhhh, the latest and greatest scam to ‘date’ rocks. They sold us carbon-14 dating, which only works for a few thousand years, but at the time they told us it dated all dem bones as so old you must not believe the Bible. It fell apart of course. Then this dating scheme and that dating scheme, all eventually proven totally unreliable. But hey! Boys and girls pay no attention to the man behind the screen, we’ve finally got this here dating thing down to a science. Really we have, truly, please believe us! We’re scientists and not only don’t we ever lie, we’re always right, especially when we’ve been so wrong for so long. Don’t forget your flu shot.

“And, if memory serves me right, human beings aren’t mentioned in the Origin until the last page. And no mention at all in the book of what you racialists call “race”.”

We have to go all the way to the fifth paragraph of the preface to find the term “races of man.”

Prozium, keep up your obscuring and lying so readers can learn something, like that Darwin wrote plenty about race. For example, Chapter 7 in “Descent of Man” is entitled “On the Races of Man.” He goes on for pages and pages determining whether human races are different species or sub-species. He correctly concludes they are sub-species. Funny--this very careful scientist didn’t even think it worth considering what Sid claims you’re an idiot not to believe: that there are no races.

It is one thing to disagree with a scientific
hypothesis because you do not think that the
evidence does not warrant it.

It is another to disagree with it because it clashes
with your belief system.  Or because you do not like the
implications in your daily life.  Those are considerations that
have nothing to do with the stated theory is true or false. Facts
are, and you are supposed to adjust you belief system to them,
not the other way around.  That way likes Lysenko, who really
managed to screw up Soviet agriculture.

The problme with so many opponents of the global warming theory is
that they protest not out of respect to the climatology science, but
out of respect for their economic theory, which is irrelevant to
the subject being discussed.  Their muleheadednes leads them to make
fun of hybrid cars, or high mileage cars, even with rising gas prices
that makes those cars a great buy (same as energy efficient light
bulbs - who does not want to lower his or hers electric bill?) Such
attitude has little of common sense and a lot of zealotry.

I’m still waiting for the quotation from Darwin that says that different “races” are not the same species, Homo sapiens sapiens.  And the Latin Biological name for these supposed new species. (it ain’t there in the theoretical part of The Origin.  If Darwin elsewhere fell into the hoax of racialism, so much the worse for him.

Darwin hadn’t a clue how evolution took place, innocent as he was of genetics.  He correctly knew that variation was random (thus rejecting Lamarckanism, and that most variation is killed off my natural selection.

And, sorry you Browns, but in this matter, Mr. Seitz sides with Sid.

You know, it really amuses seeing people rush to the barricades in defense of the likes of Darwin (or say the likes of Nietzsche in other contexts) when it is observed that they held what are now considered politically incorrect opinions..  And that their ideas, especially Darwinian scientific theory, inspire and are put use by Nazis, other racialists & eugenicists, to this very day.

It’s equally amusing to see educated Christians get all annoyed when it is pointed out that Darwinism often justifies (many might say requires) atheism according to many stunted minds.  Minds like Richard Dawkin’s or Chris Hitchens,’ for example. 

Those Theists who respond, pressing for theological & philosophical arguments in the “science” classromm, calling it all “Intelligent Design theory” have, of course, every right to be indignant. 

But they are confused.  Because all they need and should do is point out the only salient point:

That science is merely a hybrid philosophical methodology.  Empiricism, crossed with rationalism, aided by applied mathematics.  That’s it, that’s all.  All the data it provides must be couched in metaphysical schema (couched symbolically, in words, say) to make any sense. 

Any moral or ethical sense, certainly.

So, when the Nazis seize power and come knocking on the faculty door, the scientist (as such,) has nothing to say to them except “where’s my funding?” and “Vat vould you have me research mien Fuhrer?” Because his methodology is amoral and has nothing fundamental to reveal *in itself* about any metaphysical reality.  There is no “good” or “evil” in science.

A *Catholic* scientist, though (one who obeys his conscience) will have a lot he could say.  He might tell them (for example):

“Whatever applied Darwinism may reveal concerning genetic variations across human populations, those differences (no matter what aggregate strengths or weaknesses they may entail) in no way impugn the dignity of any individual human person or class of persons. 

Because the Catholic Faith holds that we are all children of the Living God, and no matter what our individual weakness or sin, we are all to be treated with the utmost respect. Our personhood derives from his personhood, and our dignity from his dignity.

So I oppose you on these grounds, and will never work for you, who abhor God and his mercy.”

It’s pretty simple, no?  Let’s all just put science in it’s proper place, like good philosophers, aye?

My computer doesnt exist because science created it!!!

And my microwave oven too!!! Throw them all away its Satans work!!!

“Whatever applied Darwinism may reveal concerning genetic variations across human populations, those differences (no matter what aggregate strengths or weaknesses they may entail) in no way impugn the dignity of any individual human person or class of persons. 

Because the Catholic Faith holds that we are all children of the Living God, and no matter what our individual weakness or sin, we are all to be treated with the utmost respect. Our personhood derives from his personhood, and our dignity from his dignity.

So I oppose you on these grounds, and will never work for you, who abhor God and his mercy.”

Very well said.

“And, sorry you Browns....”

I assume I am being included in this category. If I am a Brown for thinking race is real, then Sid is a Red for thinking it isn’t.

“Inductivist” [sic] (one of the fake names used by the two Browns on this site, in attempt to make appear more common than they are) still lives in the moronic fantasy world where there are only Reds and Browns, with the fallacy that if you’re not one, you’re the other.  The fact is that every one of the many political positions rejects “race” except the Browns.  Indeed, race is the very definition of the Brown’s ideology.  I have not only pointed out the fallacy of thinking politics to be on a line going from left to right.  I have also pointed out how the “Left” (Cultural Marxism), through its identity politics, has become “Right”, eg. Black Nationalism, Black Supremacy, La Raza, etc. So the Reds are Browns, and vice versa.

“If Prozium believes that, I wish him a happy Sunday in the zoo, looking for the author of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire in the gibbon habitat.”

Russell, you are out of your depth here. Evolution works on variants in a population. These variants are variously referred to as varieties, races etc. Given time, selective pressures, and the development of isolation mechanisms, these varieties/races can give rise to new species. That is, it is quite possible that one or more of the human races may have ultimately become a separate species.

Sadly, Don isn’t the only person on this thread talking utter nonsense. Take a couple of Sid’s comments: Point 2: A continuation of previous confused rantings on “racialism”. A couple of weeks ago I was challenged to produce evidence supporting the link between intelligence and heredity, which Sid claimed did not exist. I was unable to reply immediately because my responses are only intermittently getting through to this site. However, below I have listed a review of data linking intelligence to heredity: http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/nrn0604-GrayThompson.pdf
Sid’s point 6 claims that box cutters were pivotal to the success of the 911 attacks. This is a classic example of how superficial his understanding of many matters is. He can use big words and recite important sounding facts, but he can’t connect the dots. Go to a good web site like http://911research.wtc7.net/ and read up on the basic facts regarding 911 and then see if you still think that box cutters were particularly relevant to the story. I could continue, but what’s the point attacking someone so deluded?

Darwin often used the term “tribe,” when he talked about what many people today would mean by “race”.
“Natural selection follows from the struggle of existence; and this from a rapid rate of increase.  It is impossible not to regard bitterly, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many other evils, and in civilized nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriage of the prudent.  But as man suffers from the same physical evils as the lower animals, he has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence.  Had he not been subjected during primeval times to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to his present rank.  Since we see in many parts of the world enormous areas of the most fertile land capable of supporting numerous happy homes, but peopled only by a few wandering savages, it might be argued that the struggle for existence had not been sufficiently severe to force man upwards to his highest standard.  Judging from all that we know of man and the lower animals, there has always been sufficient variety in the intellectual and moral faculties, for their steady advancement through natural selection.  No doubt such advancement demands many favourable concurrent circumstances; but it may well be doubted whether the most favourable would have sufficed, had not the rate of increase been rapid, and the consequent struggle for existence extremely severe.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex”, (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1922), 145.

Note the key point in the above: a brutal, ruthless competition is necessary for the eveolution of a species—including humans.  As a result, some members of the species are more advanced than others, and thus deserve to triumph over the more backward ones.

Note that there are two stark contrasts with traditional Christian morality:  1) In Christian thinking all humans descended from Adam.  They had originally been created good, were corrupted by the fall and now struggle to get back up from that corruption.  All humans thus were potentially the same, and would be so regarded in the last judgment.  In Darwinism, all humans are making their way up from animals.  In this race, some have progressed further than others.  Equality thus is inherently incompatible with Darwinism. 

The second contrast is between Darwinism’s moral implication of a brutal struggle for existence being absolutely necessary for evolution and thus progress.  This moral principle is in direct opposition to Christianity’s emphasis on humility, chastity, monogamous marriage, loving one’s enemies and helping the disadvantaged.  Indeed, from Darwinian perspective it looks like Christianity’s morals were designed to do everything wrong.

Several commenting here seem to prefer biological memes that survive today only in refugia protected from competing and often ferocious contemporary ideas

A decent respect for the possibilities of natural selection suggests they first float them at sites frequented by shoals of actual academic population biologists, Panda’s Thumb, or Pharyngula, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/the_natural_history_of_nonsens.php , say , in the hope that they may return here with any surviving, and advance their discourse further into the second half of the 19th century.

“‘Inductivist’ (one of the fake names used by the two Browns on this site, in attempt to make appear more common than they are)....

Right, nobody on the Internet uses pseudonyms other than fakers, at least that’s what some old man thinks. And please visit my website that goes by that pseudonym and shows that I took that name a year before Taki’s Mag
began. Your libel is duly noted.

http://www.inductivist.blogspot.com

...still lives in the moronic fantasy world where there are only Reds and Browns, with the fallacy that if you’re not one, you’re the other. 

Sid is the one who calls people what they are not. I simply applied his technique to himself--it’s not my kind of argument, it’s his. Belief in race does not make one a Brown just as denying race does not put a person in one of Sid’s tiresome political categories (that we must read about daily).

“The fact is that every one of the many political positions rejects ‘race’ except the Browns.  Indeed, race is the very definition of the Brown’s ideology.”

Nonsense, only ideologues like Gould of the last generation deny race. Race is not my definition of ideology--I simply don’t think geographical genetic variation is imaginary--so how am I a Brown? From what I’ve read, Paul Gottfried accepts the reality fo race. Is he a Brown? You certainly must believe that Sam Francis was a Brown. Everyone’s Brown who disagrees with Sid on the reality of race. 

Even Sid with his obsessive pigeon-holing can see that it is huge leap to say that all people who believe race is real are Browns. By that argument, most Americans and most of the world are made up of Browns.

“I have also pointed out how the ‘Left’ (Cultural Marxism), through its identity politics, has become ‘Right’, eg. Black Nationalism, Black Supremacy, La Raza, etc. So the Reds are Browns, and vice versa.”

But Cultural Marxists can’t be Browns because they deny race, right Siddy?

Kari Karikola’s question reflects neither what I think, nor what Darwin, as opposed to Herbert Spencer, wrote, and thus defies a scientific answer. But I decline on different grounds- don’t you think the history of 19th century metaphysical disputation a stone bore?

“I would be very interested in hearing your science-based response to the cotradicion between the moral teachings of Christianity and the moral implications of Darwinism.”

Kari,
Russell is correct in declining to respond to your comment because a purely “science-based response” is not possible. Morals are human constructs that may often have a sound practical basis, nevertheless, they are not rooted in science. If you are disturbed by the facts that scientific enquiry can uncover, then I suggest that you keep away from science.

I fail to see what business a screed against Christian “fundamentalism” has on an ostensibly conservative website - last time I checked, neoconservatives were if anything less socially conservative than paleocons. Honestly, I’ve heard enough whining and moaning about the right’s “war on science”, whatever that means, from liberals - let alone “conservatives”. If anything this belongs in Reason or a similar left-libertarian rag. I don’t deny global warming or climate change or anything like that - but I’m not going to blame neoconservatives for rejecting Darwinian theory when Biblical inerrancy is a belief that has been held by Christian conservatives (of which I am one) for hundreds of years.

Kari:

You fail to make the distinction between the facts
of the case and the conclusions certain people extract
from it.

Facts are true or false, and all you can argue is the
proof for one or the other.

The conclusions that some people draw from them is a
whole different story. As a rule, people draw their
conclusions beforehand and then look for facts to
bolster them. As Burke said, it is their passions,
their vices that lead them, not the theoretical
constructs that they embrace only in the way they
flatter their passions.

So it is with Darwinism. Yes, he observed natural selection,
which is a fact to be evaluated, but the conclusions, those
he made according to his - and his society’s preferences.

In fact, natural selection in humans favors the care of the
weak, since most humans spend an inordinate amount of time
being helpless and in the care of others when young. It is rare
in the natural world for an orphan to be cared for by a female not
its mother, and so most of them die, while in the human world, care of
orphans is an established custom.

But that is rambling, I just wanted to point out that the natural
selection theory can be made to support any position you want it
to, and then say that it is a logical consequence of it.

As for race and the rest, I go with the statement of Saint Peter
Claver, each one of us, whatever race we might be, has been
redeemed by the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that
is the first thing we need to remember about others, whatever their
race, that if Our Lord thought them worthy of his precious blood, we
have no call to despise them.
that preserves good genes until

Russel,
Your statement “ . . . question reflects neither what I think, nor what Darwin, as opposed to Herbert Spencer, wrote . . . “ is false to facts.  Check the end of “The Evolution of Species,” where Darwin sums his thesis:  “ . . .  Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows.  There is grandeur in this view of life, . . .  “ As you can see, there may or may not be grandeur in “this view of life,” but there undoubtedly and undeniably is war, starvation, suffering and death as essential parts of the production of higher animals. 

The above observation also responds to the doubts about science having moral implications: if you want species, including humans, to evolve to higher forms (which just about everybody wants), then, according to Darwinian theory, there are certain things you must do.  This kind of science has inevitable and unavoidable moral implications.

As to the argument that we should not discuss Darwinism’s moral implications because the subject is boring, do you think that effort to avoid the subject will fool anybody?  Keep in mind that as a scientist your task is to follow evidence wherever that pursuit may lead.  Otherwise you run precisely the risk of picking and choosing whatever evidence supports your preconceived notions, that adriana warns about.

The first reason why collision between the two moral systems deserves attention is that it was widely known and hugely influential at the time.  Arguably the most effective “advertisement” for Darwinism’s moral implications and their conflict with Christianity was Nietzsche.  More influential, however, was Hitler, whose observation, “. . . The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the surival of the the fittest.  . . .  Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature.  Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” sums the conflict between the two moralities nicely. Note that this view formed the foundation of Hitler’s attitude toward Jews, whom he accused of having invented Christianity to weaken Western Civilization.

The second reason for investigating the conflict between Darwinian and Christian moralities comes from further back:  arguably the most effective application of the Christian, “Darwinistically wrong” moral system in modern Western history occurred in Puritan 17th-century England.  Analysis of publishing statistics shows that a deeply internalized form of ascetic Christianity spread to about 10-15% of population, i.e., to somewhere between one fourth and one half of the literate elite.  17th-century English leadership thus adopted a moral system that from a hard-line Darwinian perspective should have led to their annihilation.  Yet, in reality that elite created one of the most “Darwinistically successful” states known to history, the British Empire.  Something here does not make sense—and thus definitely deserves to be investigated.  This is particularly necessary, when we consider how relevant the question of what causes the raise and decline of empires is to today’s US politics.

“...the conflict between Darwinian and Christian moralities....”

Neo-Darwinian theory is not a moral system. It is a scientific theory that makes claims about what is, not what should be. Scientific theories do not logically imply certain values. One can, without any logical inconsistency, accept Neo-Darwinian theory, and the value system of Christianity.

Here’s another thought. Science portrays man as naturally selfish (except toward his kin). Doesn’t Christianity teach that he is fallen (i.e., naturally inclined toward sin and selfishness) as well?

Science is not a collection of facts but a disciplined method of thinking about nature. It begins with an hypothesis, a guess about how some part of nature works. Simple observation disproves many hypotheses. At some point the body of experience favoring some hypotheses rises to the level of theory. A valid theory must consistently explain all observed phenomena that fall within its purview, and it must have predictive value. Finally, it must be possible to devise experiments to test the predictive value of the theory, so that, should experimental results not turn out as the theory predicts, the theory is disproved. Successful theories are those that survive this experimental testing, and even they are considered true only until experimentally disproved. An implacable scepticism is essential to the scientific method.

Not only the general public, but educated non-scientists and even some within the sciences have no notion of the philosophical assumptions on which the scientific method is founded. They assume that science is a collection of facts, or ‘the truth,’ without stopping to consider the essential tentativeness of all scientific claims, or the possibility that while the scientific method is one path by which we pursue knowledge of the truth, it is not necessarily the only one. A failure to apprehend these points leads one into scientism, a false assumption of the scope and certitude of scientific knowledge.

Evolution is scientifically problematic. While Darwin was an astute observer of nature what he asserted in ‘The Origin of Species” was based more on analogical than on deductive reasoning. Artificial selection - selective breeding of crops and animals by deliberate culling of specimens exhibiting undesired traits - has been known to humans since time immemorial. Darwin’s speculation was, what if the random occurrences of nature functioned as did the deliberate practice of selective breeding did, to bring about the distinct characteristics of the different species of plants and animals? He thought that it did, and that there was a process of natural selection, ‘nature’ functioning to guide the development of living things in much the same way as Adam Smith asserted that an ‘invisible hand’ guided economic markets.

The problem with Darwin’s theory is that it is not possible to conceive a controlled experiment by which to test it. Phenomena that are thought to demonstrate the existence of natural selection, such as the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, simply reflect inadvertent consequences of human intervention. They demonstrate only what we already know: first, that artificial selection or selective breeding works, and second, that we can bring it about unintentionally as well as intentionally.

At the core of modern evolutionary theory is an unprovable and undisprovable belief that life originated and developed by completely random patterns having no creative force or design beyond the self-referential. Epicurus asserted this in classical antiquity without bothering to clothe it in the trappings of modern science. And rightly he did so, for it is a faith, every bit as much as is belief in the literal truth of the book of Genesis, or the Mahabharata, or the Popul Vuh.  To claim otherwise is scientism. It is unfortunate that so many public discussions of these issues never address this point, but are instead diverted before they get to it, into revivals of the Scopes Monkey Trial or, worse yet, the fictionalized account of it in “Inherit the Wind.”

We must extract whatever factual value we can from the work of the naturalists - and there is much of it - while bearing in mind that the rest of it is merely another just-so story, one more conveniently suited to modern tastes and prejudices than those of more ancient societies.

pb,

From one point of view one could say that there is a scientific method, defined by submission to logic (at least ideally).  This rule is too general though, all argumentation has to have this intention at its base.

I agree that scientists, when at work, use certain methods, that are meant to maximize the consistency of their arguments.  On the other hand what makes a scientific argument valid is actually a rather complex question over which philosophers of science have argued for centuries.  I think Feyerabend in his book “Against method” gives a good overview through the example of Galilei, but going through comparisons of empiricism, rationalism and so on.  His conclusion is that it was not necessarily GAlilei’s science (in the modern sense of the term) that gives powers to his arguments in the end, but many other factors that seem to have nothing to do with a scientific method (rhetorical style, taking advantage of certain historical circumstances, etc.).

So perhaps it is better to say that there is a scientific method, but it is hard to pin down all its aspects and give a concrete definition of what it is.  Which actually means that scientists themselves do not necessarily have a monopoly on it.

BURKE will find little comfort in The Voyage of the Beagle--

“On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, ...Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horsewhip (before I could interfere) on his naked head...These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations.

... I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; - nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded… as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil… It is an argument long since protested against with noble feelings, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever illustrious Humboldt… Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner and with cold heart at the slave… who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty”

There is one glaring omission to this article:  That the modern left also rejects science in favor of politics.  And this is particularly true of “Scientific American”.  As a librarian I emailed them to clarify their position on the James Watson affair.  In particular I asked them why they were in favor of silencing Watson rather than attempting to refute his ideas.  Of course I never got a reply.  I think the saddest thing about the right’s rejection of science, and evolution in particular, is that evolution defends traditional conservative views with devastating effect.  What other science can explain why whites and Asians do better than blacks and browns without resorting to conspiracy theories of white wickedness and racism so subtle nobody knows it’s there?  It also explains why the feminist presupposition that all history is a conspiracy to keep women down is more than just laughably wrong.  And it also vindicates traditionally notions of sexual morality without resorting to arguments from divine authority.  It’s one thing to watch your opponents shoot themselves in the foot.  It’s another thing altogether to watch one’s allies do it.  I hope the right wakes up to what science can do for them.

“BURKE will find little comfort in The Voyage of the Beagle--”

I can’t speak for BURKE, but Darwin’s words reveal an eloquent and decent man. Only a hard man could ignore the cruelties of chattel slavery. As Frederick Douglass wrote, it was a curse to the slave and the slaveowner, and not only to them, but to all societies that have practiced it.

@Inductivist,

It was and is a cruel institution and I dream we will one day be free of it.  We can dream of being able to vote in who we wish as free citizens, of being able to think and say what we please, of being free from government tyranny, etc,etc.  Five hundred thousand died to end slavery and 300 million Americans alive today will die slaves to leaders with messiahnic fantasies.

The American Spectator has featured attacks on the theory of general relativity, and joined the Washington Times and The Weekly Standard in casting doubt on the germ theory of disease by showcasing lawyer Michael Fumento’s acquittal of the virus that has killed millions of African women in The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.
That’s a rather dishonest way to portray (by implication) Michael Fumento’s views.
Fumento has never denied that HIV casues AIDS (that would be Peter Duesberg).  He has denied that it is spread in any great amount by vaginal intercourse (as opposed to anal sex).  He has suggested that much of the spread in Africa may be due to poor medical hygiene (e.g. shared hypodermic needles), and has questioned whether, specifically in Africa, more deaths have been attributed to AIDS than are actually due to the disease.  But he has never questioned the scientific consensus on the relationship between HIV and AIDS.

This si a funny site, conservatives fighting each other. It is like watching Catholic church to debate on how many angels can dance on the pinhead :).