Skip to comments.Democrats use science as a weapon
Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and theyve used junk science to teach evolution in our nations schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of organizing, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
Democrat use false science as a weapon.
Real science has no ideology.
You realize next year the global warming scam will be 25 years old?
Well, I was with you until you called evolution “junk science.”
The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science. There is no moral component or consideration to either theory; they just are.
25 years and we STILL haven't been able to destroy the planet?
We sure aren't very efficient capitalists are we...
Leftist will always fail to use science for evil purposes compared to Dr. Insano!
While I totally agree with you, thats one of those issues on FR that is never resolved. I guess the best we can do is agree to disagree with each other when this happens.
Democrats have shown us with the Global Warming BS that scientists can be bought off just like their other lackeys.
The progressives use everything as a weapon.
...and for the last 13 of those years, the global temperature has been essentially unchanged?
Those very same liberals that love to cite Ike's cautionary words about the MIC somehow remain totally ignorant of, or conveniently gloss over the fact that it was but one of two trends Eisenhower addressed in that address. The next time you hear some liberal spouting off about, Eisenhower and 'the military industrial complex,'be sure to hammer them with your concern about, 'scientific-technological elite.' From Ike's speech:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
The only purpose of the Democrat propaganda operatives in the MSM is to repeat the lies and attack and destroy anyone that tells the truth.
Science can be lied about just like any other subject and politicians can use taxpayer dollars to pay fraudulent scientists to lie. They can also use taxpayer dollars to silence scientists who tell the truth.
You wrote: “The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science. There is no moral component or consideration to either theory; they just are.”
Of course, though...there are several “theories of evolution”.
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations.
What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter __are incompatible with the truth about man__. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago.
Prior to this there was existence, but so what? There was life, but who cares? With no one to consciously experience it, what was the point? Without self-conscious observers, the whole cosmos could bang into being and contract into nothingness, and it would be no different than the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.
One of the reasons why this is such a lonely and unpopular blog is that it takes both science and religion seriously. Most science and religion are unserious, but especially -- one might say intrinsically -- when they exclude each other.
A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings. And I mean this literally, in that it will be a science that applies to a different species, not the one that is made to know love, truth, beauty, existence, and the Absolute. Science must begin and end in this principle -- which is to say, the Principle -- or it is just a diversion. ...."
In biology there is currently only one commonly accepted theory of evolution - that of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
That the theory has materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations above and beyond the actual science doesn’t mean that there is more than one theory.
That's right. Then it is called "Scientism". Unfortunately it is "Scientism" rather than purely biological evolution, that is in fact being taught in government schools when they attempt to say that man is merely just another animal species "naturally" capable of knowing love, truth, beauty, existence, and the absolute.
They must have skipped that ultra-materialist theological aspect of the theory when I learned and/or taught it in High School.
But then again my teacher was a Catholic - and I am a Christian - as most Scientists in America are people with religious faith - so we would neither accept or teach such.
Great video. Interesting little story - the guy who yelled science was famous in England, had a science tv show - kind of like their version of Bill Nye. As soon as the song came out he couldn’t walk down the street without people yelling “Science!” at him or trying to get him to do it and he turned into a recluse.
Ahhhh.....the good old 1970s. I remember going to school assemblies and having “scientists” tell us that: There would be no more oil after 1980 2. Pollution would be so bad that mothers couldn’t nurse their babies because their milk would be poison 3. We would all have to live near the equator because of the coming man-caused ice age. Three out of three wrong. Now, a batter with a 0% batting average goes away, but scientists just keep talking.
Why not post the whole article?
Ahhhh.....the good old 1970s. I remember going to school assemblies and having “scientists” tell us that: There would be no more oil after 1980 2. Pollution would be so bad that mothers couldn’t nurse their babies because their milk would be poison 3. We would all have to live near the equator because of the coming man-caused ice age. Three out of three wrong. Now, a batter with a 0% batting average goes away, but scientists just keep talking, and getting paid for being wrong.
Read Eisenhower quotation in post 12.
They are completely orthogonal. Your desire for a spiritual approach to education has no place in science courses of any sort. Science is about method, and this method is increasingly and predominantly guiding policy because it *works*.
The real problem here is not “scientism”, but obscurantism. As Orwell said: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH; and this is how I view political-religious folks. Strong because they are ultimately embracing their very ignorance.
As Haldane pointed out: The moment someone shows me a rabbit fossil from the precambrian, I will cease to believe in evolution. This is how it is: Nothing should be sacred in the pursuit of natural truth.
"My desire"????? You're not a very careful reader. Better read my posts in this thread again... OR read them for the first time. Sheesh!
If you're talking about biological science, you must have been out of the loop for quite awhile. :)
Wrong. Some 66% of scientists overall and some 59% of biologists believe in God.
The things you think you know are wrong. Again.
There are many conservatives who recognize that the theory of evolution has almost overwhelming evidence to support it’s primary points. If the Earth is only 6000 years old then physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, and astronomy is wrong.
That said, when I look at the incredible variety of lifeforms and the amazing adaptions, I can perfectly understand why people see the Hand of the Creator. I have no problem with teachers showing critiques of evolution and the arguments of Intelligent Design alongside conventional biology.
The bottom line is that true science is not political.
You wrote: “The things you think you know are wrong. Again.”
On the contrary, the very article you linked to backs up what I said about “biologists”. Here is the key excerpt from your 2005 article:
“Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services ___than researchers in the natural sciences___, the study found.
“The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists — people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology — said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe. ...”
And here’s even more:
August 23, 2005
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science
Dr. Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute .... noted that ____until relatively recently____, most scientists were believers. “Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature,” he said. ...
Polling Scientists on Beliefs
According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, ____40 percent____ of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray “in expectation of receiving an answer.”
The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was intended ____to replicate one conducted in 1914, and the results were virtually unchanged.____ In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists. ....
[[[[ Surveys of the last decade have shown that religious beliefs about God, ___professed by 93 percent of Americans___ have become more diverse. When Americans are ___asked to define “God,”___ a fourth of them opt for something other than a conventional theistic deity. ....
....Despite the stable 40-60 split in belief-disbelief over 80 years, there has been ___a significant shift in views held by the three professions surveyed—mathematics, biology, and physics/astronomy.___
The 1996 survey showed that scientists in mathematics are most inclined to hold belief in God (44.6 percent).
While biologists showed the highest rates of disbelief/doubt in Leuba’s day (69.5 percent),
that ranking was given to physicists and astronomers this time around (77.9 percent). http://www.beliefnet.com/News/1999/12/Scientific-Semi-Belief.aspx ]]]]
.....when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey ____ to “leading scientists”____ - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation’s most eminent scientific organization - ____fewer than 10 percent____ professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.
This response is not surprising to researchers like Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, a member of the academy and a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his work in particle physics. He said he could understand why religious people would believe that anything that eroded belief was destructive. But he added: “I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That’s a good thing.”
No God, No Moral Compass?
He rejects the idea that scientists who reject religion are arrogant. “We know how many mistakes we’ve made,” Dr. Weinberg said. And he is angered by assertions that people without religious faith are without a moral compass.
In any event, he added, “the experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant,” he said. ____ “Most scientists I know simply don’t think about it very much. ____ They don’t think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists.”
___Most scientists he knows who do believe in God....believe in “a God who is behind the laws of nature but who is not intervening.”____
Noted scientist tackles question of religious faith
Dr. Francis Collins
Wednesday, ___June 29, 2011___ 11:01 AM PDT
Like many scientists, Collins said he believes the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago.
___Unlike most scientists___, Collins argued that God created the universe, bestowing it with evolution as the mechanism that would shape its eventual form. From evolution, man was gifted with free will, consciousness and morality. Thus man was made in God’s image, Collins said. Challenging scientists who say evolution disproves the existence of a higher being....”
Majority is what I said.
Are you unaware that >50% is a majority?
Only 38% of natural scientists didn’t believe in God. A majority of those in the natural science DID believe in God.
Thus the majority of scientists are people of faith in God.
As I said.
“...Thus the majority of scientists are people of faith in God. ...”
From my post: “God” defined as?
Also from my post:
.....when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey ____ to leading scientists____ - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nations most eminent scientific organization - ____fewer than 10 percent____ professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.
Some 59% of biologists asked if they believed in God marked “Yes”.
Thus a majority of biologists believed in God.
A majority of scientists believe in God.
It is a creationist myth that scientists are atheists and that science is the domain of atheism. Thus their overall ignorance of the methodology of and findings of science.
The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.
Dr. Francis Collins is doing what religious people do more often than not: Move the goal posts in such a way that their idea of a ‘God’ fits neatly in the gaps. The God of the Gaps. In other words, the usual fallacy of conjuring up a Golem of sorts that is based on nothing other than sophism.
Dr. Francis Collins is a political appointee. Never forget that.
Thanks for the ping. President Eisenhower made several good points in that speech.
It’s important to convince people that they are nothing but an accidental variation of monkeys. It is especially important to convince children of this. It is done by using the authority of science. Tell them that “Scientists say you are a new kind of monkey.” They believe it. Believing that you are no different from a monkey makes it far easier to digest other morsels of libero-marxist truth, which seem trivial in comparison with the monkey story.
Meaningless statements (as I noted in my previous posts above) unless further questions are asked, such as, "please define the god in which you believe." Jihadists believe in "god", they know him as "Allah".
"It is a creationist myth that scientists are atheists and that science is the domain of atheism. Thus their overall ignorance of the methodology of and findings of science."
"The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist."
"Mis-educated", and "mis-informed" are more correct terms that would apply to most and render them innocent. Of course, some are "willfully ignorant" for various reasons. They won't be held guiltless.
"...There are, of course, modern, deviant forms of Christianity that reject evolution, but these turn out to be much more similar to materialistic science, not in terms of content, of course, but in the form of thought.
"We are not a participant in this battle, since it is really between two forms of flatland literalism which can only account for creation with recourse to magic -- the magic of "it just happened" vs. the magic of "God made it all happen."
"The latter is, of course, closer to ultimate truth, but this is little consolation once we remember that it is also what the Mohammedans believe -- that God is responsible for everylittlething that happens, with no mediation by anything else, from physical law to human free will. So in either case -- the false religion of scientism or the bogus science of religionism -- we end up with man stripped of his innate dignity, and a man without intrinsic dignity is not a man. ...."
"...one thing that was different about the past is that people were unaware of other religious traditions, let alone science. Therefore, they lived in a kind of "innocence" (which literally means "without knowledge") that is impossible for us. ....This is why I [am] hesitant to "join a church," for fear that one would actually be turning away from spirituality and toward the world. Certainly this is the problem with "fundamentalism," which is mostly worldly (in a naive, or worse, sometimes cunning sense) and materialistic. It is definitely a response to the abnormal conditions of modernity, and therefore itself abnormal."
It appears as if you're accusing the ex-atheist (Dr. Collins) of willful ignorance, rather than just being a sincere "learner" in the process of trying to reconcile what he knows about the material world, with what he has been taught (or indoctrinated) about the non-material world.
God knows if he's innocent or guilty in this regard, you don't.
See my previous post above.
Anyway, at least Ridley is honest in acknowledging the problem, although he doesn't exactly name it or draw out its full implications. But the problem is this: that there is a literally infinite gap between man and animal (even though there is an obvious continuity as well), just as there is an infinite gap between nothing and existence or matter and life.
One can say that this gap is infinite because man intuits the Absolute, or one can say that man intuits the Absolute because of this infinite gap. Either way, once man consciously enters the sensorium of time and space, he is implicitly aware of both Absolute and Infinite, and therefore Love, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Virtue, and Eternity. These are the things that define man, not his genome.
Just so. Thus I agree with John Paul II's observation: "Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ... [Italics added]
To me, this statement draws attention to the fact that, at the root of Darwin's theory, there lies an undisclosed and unanalyzed initial presupposition: That all natural phenomena "supervene on the physical, or the material." That is, everything that exists reduces to "matter in its motions." This is hard-core materialism a philosophical doctrine. Everything in Darwin's theory is premised on the idea that this doctrine is a valid, fully comprehensive model of universal reality.
Darwin's theory is wedded profoundly to the Newtonian view of the Universe: That all natural things ultimately "reduce" to "particles" and "mechanics." There is nothing "more" to be taken into account. This can give you a good description of a machine but arguably not of a living organism, let alone a human being.
Of course, this begs the question of how life and intelligence can arise from inanimate matter. In fact, Darwin's theory not only has no plausible answers to questions of life and intelligence, but lacks a method by which they can be understood "they" having been ruled out "from the beginning," in effect, precisely because they are "immaterial things" and therefore not "matter."
And they call Darwinism "biological science!" The very word "biology" means the study of life. Darwinism does not in any sense study "life" (or consciousness), only the historical transformations that already-existent life forms have undergone in the past. As supported by a very recalcitrant and spotty fossil record.
In short, Darwinism is only about how species change, not about what caused them to be living (and intelligent) creatures in the first place. Moreover, as the eminent biologist Stephen Jay Gould has suggested, what is truly remarkable about biological organisms/species is not that they undergo change; rather that there is so much "stasis" in their developed forms over hundreds of thousands of years (in many cases). There is no continuous "evolving" going on here, as Darwin's theory predicts....
Regarding this "remarkable stasis [which] has generally been ignored as no data," Gould quipped, "If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it." Which just goes to show how the doctrinal tail wags the scientific dog....
I could go on.... The epistemological critique of Darwin's theory can easily be extended to include its resistance to the assimilation of new ideas from other parts of science, such as complex system theory and causal non-locality (e.g., there are no non-local causes in Newton) and centrality of the observer in quantum theory, etc. Darwin's theory is essentially "rigid" when it comes to assimilating new, breakthrough ideas from other disciplines of science....
But I've run on long enough for now.
In the end, to me, Darwin's theory looks more like a religious dogma than bona-fide science....
Thanks ever so much, dear Matchett-PI, for your outstanding essay/post!
p.s.: And thanks ever so much for the outstanding link! (To the inimitable Gagdad Bob....)
Thanks for the post, Joe. I am reminded that Perry is being blasted because he gave credence to an education plan offered by Jeff (?) that said basically the same thing. He was saying universities are spending much more money on aimless research than on teaching students and the costs for tuition keep going up,up, up.
And of course, you make no bones about not being a creationist.
Aren't you just something special? Just so proud of that intellect of yours, aren't you?
Ping to post 43.
Nah, the headlines would simply read *Mammal evolution occurred earlier that previously thought* and the rabbit would be reclassified as a *living fossil*.
Nothing will ever disprove evolution to an evolutionist because they don't want it to be disproved. They'd find SOME way to explain it away.
Intellect isn’t education, but they do correlate such that the more intelligent are ALSO more likely to become better educated.
Thus someone who has attained a high level of education is much less likely to be a creationist and much more likely to be of above average intelligence.
I've found the opposite to be the case - the more educated someone truly is, as in they actually know things and have really learned to use logic, reason, etc., the more likely they are to doubt evolution.
Thanks for the ping, BB.
Just as I am not a biblical scholar, I am just as ‘Not a scientist.” As I was reading through your wonderful post and noting my agreement with it, I was sure it had to be you and I rushed to the bottom to verify it. You and Matchett-PI have done an outstanding job. I intend to bookmark this thread and send the URL to many people as a excellent discussion of Science/Evolution vs. Religion/Intelligent Design.
As for my own uneducated point of view, if you accept God as the Ultimate Being and the Creator of All, as I do, then science fits naturally under that tent. If not, then one falls back on science to prove things that are unprovable. That is where the God of Gaps concept comes from. Scientists accuse believers in using God to fill the gaps that science can’t. It seems more logical to me that the gaps are in the science rather than in the continuity of God. God is there for the whole ride, not just to bridge the gaps.
An example is the inability of evolution to scientifically prove the beginning of life or the universe. They postulate a Big Bang and a primordial soup struck by lightening. How is that more scientific than the story told in Genesis? Like Marxism, it attempts to describe things while avoiding God. Neither Marxism nor evolution correspond with reality.
The evolutionists are also undeterred by the evolutionary gaps in the fossil trail and the sudden appearance of a new species without a fossil trail. They look at what exists and proceed backward for their explanation making huge leaps of faith as they go. We believers start at the beginning and proceed forward with our own spiritual evolution while noting the correspondence of the physical world with scripture.
Scientists are also incapable of explaining abstracts other than that they just happened as an unexplained progression of evolution. Has science ever explained love, beauty, music, poetry, the feeling we get from a beautiful sunrise/sunset, a full moon or a cool breeze on a clear summer night? We clearly see it explained in the Garden of Eden and Original Sin which separated the purely spiritual into the physical/spiritual while giving man free will.
I agree with the idea that God set the parameters in the beginning and those parameters included all science from biology, to physics, to mathematics, etc. He also gave us an instruction book, the Bible, as He inspired it through His believers, some who became Prophets.
That makes Newtonian Mechanics and Physics an excellent description of the physical world, and Darwin’s theory based upon them, and Einstein’s quantum physics an excellent predictor of the unseen. As you, or someone, said, Darwin’s assumptions are strictly extensions of Newton and as a result incapable of describing the abstract.
I also think mutations leading to improved survivability is a leap. In most observable cases, mutations lead to increased deformity and death. Also, because of the time involved, it is impossible to prove evolution using the scientific method. When speeding up the process in petri dish research, the scientists introduce a mutation and watch to see what happens. Despite what any of these may seem to prove, they all fall back on the original assumption that such a mutation would have occurred naturally over time if not introduced artificially. Would they have? No one can know.
I see a uniformity in all we know and that uniformity is the forces of subatomic physics. They are operative in the micro and the macro, at low temperatures and high temperatures, etc. They are various forms of electromagnetism. Most set gravity apart as a separate, yet undefined, force but I think at the nub of it it is still a form of electromagnetism. That is the essence of the physical world.
Yet, that energy is also possibly the gateway into the spiritual world. That is God’s energy, created by Him and used by Him to keep all we know together. It is also the secret of the Nirvana. It is that place where the Buddhists, Hindus, Yogis, and others attempt to reach, a oneness with God’s energy. It is also what we feel when we are in direct contact with God, when we truly feel God’s Love, Truth, and Life. It is the essence of the Word. It is the avenue through which we reach God. It allows, through prayer, an intervention into the fixed world in order to shape things our way in seeking and following God’s will.
If there is evolution, it is through that rather than through random mutations and survival of the fittest.