A commentor on Huffington Post today brought up the "wonderfully intelligent" arguments of Intelligent design. My reply is not comment length and so I posted it here. I hope that for anyone confused about science, religion, and evolution, it can help to clear up the confusion that has been created by the ID propagandists. Although I can't find the link right now, anyone interested in a wonderful satirical exposition of this nonsense should read The Onions article on the theory of gravitation being replaced by the theory of Intelligent Falling. It is wonderful.
Here is my response to the post which basically just repeats the nonsense that ID has repeated to attempt to confuse people about science and evolution..................
Brighterside, some have made comments about your writing that bordered on cruel. I will try to be as nice as possible, but you should know that the "problems" you cite concerning evolution and THE ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, are talking points, they are not real issues. I hope that if nothing else you can learn today that evolution has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zip to say about the origin of life. You are talking about a completely different aspect of science and calling it evolution. If you do this people will always be able to correctly say that you don't know what you are talking about. If you broadcast that you don't know what you are talking about in these ways, you will receive much derision and scorn and you'll deserve it.
Ignorance is not knowing something you should know. Nescience is not knowing something you wouldn't be expected to know. If you are not a scientist and you keep your unfounded ideas to yourself you are merely nescient, as are many people about science. Then your response to this issue would be "I don't know enough about science so I rely on the experts (in science) to inform me." If you begin to broadcast the fact that your uninformed imaginings should be just as important to scientists as real science then you cross the line into ignorance and you should be prepared to have that label appropriately attached to you.
I, for example, know science but I know little about auto mechanics. If a mechanic looks at my car and concludes that the battery is dead they might offer to replace the battery. Ah, but here is your objection and so we must say that isn't the only possibility! There could be a supernatural being living in my battery who has merely taken the day off to visit family in Fresno. Can you prove to me that that is not the REAL problem with my battery? I should. of course, insist that my mechanic check to see if my battery god has maybe left a note, maybe the number of his family in Fresno. We could ask when he's coming back! Then my car will be healed. To some people this sounds silly but that would only be the scientifically minded boobs.
My auto mechanic might, (before calling an ambulance to take me to the ER for psychiatric evaluation) correctly tell me that he or she has no idea about battery gods but the whole process really does work well without the invocation of any supernatural forces. He or she might say it is pretty simple; I take the old battery out, put the new battery in and you are good to go. They might tell me that whatever I might believe about who or what is living in my battery really doesn't relate to auto mechanics. He or she is probably a nice person so I think they would offer to let me keep the old battery if I really believed I had a special friend living inside.
How do you think your mechanic would respond to the suggestion that there really should be a debate about the gaps in battery science and the possibility that your battery god should be invoked to fill those gaps? Aren't there advances in battery science every year? Doesn't that prove that we really know nothing about batteries? After all you just put a pile of metal together with some special water and my car magically starts? Come on, who is stupid enough to believe that could happen without the intervention of the battery god? Really! Metal and water and then my car somehow comes to life. Can you believe that auto mechanics believe such rubbish? Of course you and I know that this would be impossible without the intervention of the battery deity. Its just common sense. Why do you think auto mechanics don't see this obvious truth? There in a nutshell are your objections to science. They make sense, right?
How do you think he or she would react to your suggestion that the teaching of auto mechanics is incomplete if we don't have a debate about whether the battery makes electricity in the way science has shown it does or whether the battery needs our supernatural being to work. Then, of course, we must debate your god's influence on the radiator and the fan belts and most importantly the air bags. Can't any person with half a brain see that it could only be by the direct intervention of (fill in the name of any of hundreds of deities) that they could know just when to deploy to save our life? Smart people can see this, correct? While the auto mechanics cling foolishly to talk of sensors and relays and explosive deployment devices, you and I know that it is only by the will of allah, krishna, jesus, etc., that such a miraculous event could unfold. Why wouldn't the auto mechanics join us in such an important debate? I mean sure, they could spend their time using science to make even safer cars but why do that when the issue of divine intervention in automobile function remains unsettled?
How do you think auto mechanics would respond to the idea that the battery deity theory should be taught alongside the scientifically based understanding of how batteries work? How do you think they would respond if you told them your ideas about the battery deity aren't really religion, the battery deity is obviously an auto mechanics issue, not an issue of belief!
How would you suggest that your auto mechanic begin the process of looking for your battery god? Does he look for only yours or does he look for all deities created by earthlings? Is he required to scour the psychiatric wards and look for everyone's imaginary friends? How exactly do you suggest the mechanics begin this search in a scientific manner?
I think that your auto mechanic would say this, "You know lady/sir, you want a new battery or not. I don't care who you think lives in your battery. You can believe the pope is in their if you want but I can only tell you about what's real. Your battery is dead. You want it fixed? Please tell me now and move on. I have more important work to do then discuss Batterio the almighty battery god with you."
This is what scientists are saying to you. Do you want to know how reality works? We'll tell you what we know. Does any of it require the invocation of supernatural forces? No. Are you free to believe whatever you want about supernatural forces? Yes, you are. Just don't come tell us it has something to do with science and should be taught as science. And be aware that if you want to use the advance of science as a criticism you will be sad to discover that the outcome of scientific advance has usually been to fill in another area purported to be supernatural with a natural explanantion. So if history be your guide then you would have to put your money on the fact that the "gaps" where you would like to insert your imaginary friend will also someday be filled in by science. You can argue with your other non-reality based friends about whether the battery god is really the father or allah or great spirit or agni or jesus and make lots of beautiful wars over it. But please don't come tell us we need to dialogue with you about your imaginings. You've all made up different beings with different likes and dislikes and different rules. You want us to look for the god of everyone's imagination? Should medical science begin a dialogue on Vulcan physiology? Perhaps the alien species of Battlestar Gallactica should be the focus of medical school curricula? Perhaps doctors have better ways to spend their time?
Let us stick to reality. When we teach science, let us stick to reality. When you get your kids home you can undo whatever you wish, tell them that it is only through the intervention of the flying spaghetti monster that cars can transport us from one place to the next. You are free to do this! Scientist aren't going to go door to door with textbooks in their hands trying to convince you otherwise. Anyway, we don't like to wear black pants and white shirts. It reminds us of when we worked as busboys to pay for college.
Do you understand any better? If not, then have this conversation with your mechanic the next time your car breaks down. Ask him or her why they aren't considering the supernatural possibilities for your car's dysfunction. Ask them to dialogue with you about the impossibility of something as complex as cars without the intervention of your favorite deity. Ask them how they can accept that a blob of metal mixed with magic water somehow creates the miracle of life in your car. Ask them why auto mechanic school doesn't engage this important debate.
Before you do take these precautions. Line up a new mechanic and write your name in your underwear so they aren't stolen on the psych ward. When you are discharged from the hospital, come back and tell us about your experience with bringing an intelligent approach to auto mechanics. If you wish to continue to dialogue about science, I would suggest these steps.
Learn what science is and what it isn't.
Learn what religion is and how it differs from science.
Learn what evolution is and what it isn't.
Learn that what you think may be possible and what is real may differ.
If you learn these 4 simple things, you will have nothing further to say about science, evolution and religion. But if you continue to remain willfully ignorant of those 4 issues that are essential to your arguments and yet are entirely misunderstood by you, you will meet with scorn and derision from people who have taken the time to understand these issues.
I will tell you emphatically, you should not listen to me if I tell you I have some great idea for repairing your car. You should also understand the limitations of your knowledge in the area of science and vow to avoid making ignorant statements about things you know nothing about. We all should.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
On Not Repeating Past Mistakes
As we have traversed this period of history encompassing the first and second “gulf wars” and the events of 9/11/2001, we have heard from many corners caveats about repeating past errors. Frequently, where US military action is concerned, we hear about not repeating “the mistakes of Viet Nam.” It seems, however, that this may be one of those phrases that enters the murky waters of “common knowledge” and we cease to seek agreement on its meaning before we toss it into our conversations. I for one have used the phrase and even, I find, assumed that the listener knows what I mean. I think it is not an issue confined to me, however. I think it may be a pervasive cultural phenomenon that we all know what “the mistakes of Viet Nam” were and we use the phrase rather casually. It is my own reflection on my personal use of the phrase that leads me to ponder this question: What are the mistakes of Viet Nam? Today, I’ll talk about the first mistake that I’ve identified. I'll post others later but feel free to add to it in the comments.
Threat Exaggeration
My self-examination ran roughly along a temporal line. What errors did we make first? It seems highly probable that the earlier mistakes laid an important foundation that allowed Viet Nam to become the runaway train it so disastrously became. What preceded our involvement and coaxed us onto our path. Then, as now, we started with threat exaggeration.
Our involvement in Viet Nam fell on the heels of the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950’s. Interestingly, then, as now, we misidentified the threat prior to exaggerating the chosen target. The threat of totalitarian, repressive government was misidentified with the economic system that it accompanied in its major forms in that time period, communism or socialism. The threat was seen as pervasive and as inseparable from totalitarianism. Hysteria ruled, culminating in Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. The military threat that countries such as the USSR and the PRC posed was grossly overestimated resulting in gross over-reaction on our part. We began to see the threat as so pervasive that we thought ourselves the only people capable of saving the world from certain doom. Our worldview became increasingly paranoid. We developed a mythical view or ourselves as savior to the world and we marched our boys off to fight the falling dominoes in the grand communist conspiracy.
It is hard to say how much the exaggeration is intentional. I believe that it is to some degree but I also recognize that as humans we have some of these tendencies written into our DNA. The tendency to mythologize our tribe as the favored of god is not a uniquely American trait. The tendency for xenophobia and suspicion of the motives of outsiders and other tribes is probably hard wired into us as well. One of the mistakes we make is not acknowledging our programming in order that we may rise above it, when appropriate. Would not a survival benefit have accrued in past times to those whose threat assessment software was tuned a little to the paranoid side? It seems obvious that personal survival and even tribe survival would be enhanced by threat exaggeration as opposed to threat minimization.
To accomplish realistic threat assessment, we have to ask ourselves the pertinent questions. What evidence do I have that the threat has been appropriately identified? What evidence do I have to support the assessment of the threat level?
In the 1950’s we laid the foundation for Viet Nam by misidentifying the threat as communism rather than totalitarianism. Half a century later we still operate on this mistaken assumption. We will support the most brutal of totalitarian regimes for the sake of democracy, as long as they don’t pursue socialist/communist policies. Out of the other side of our mouths, we deplore all the same actions by brutal regimes that operate under the banner of socialism/communism. In order to support our misguided belief we live with the obvious conflict that capitalist propaganda, capitalist disrespect for human rights, capitalist torture, and capitalist repression of dissent is all “good” merely because it isn’t communism.
Our collective paranoia is institutionalized in organizations like the CIA. They get paid to be paranoid. Reason tells us we need wise leaders who can evaluate evidence and consider the source. Think then, about a regime taking power for whom even our institutionalized cold war paranoia is not paranoid enough! Is it any wonder they have brought us to this point?
When the First Indochina War ended with the Geneva Conference in 1954, the country was temporarily divided at the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh controlled the North and the south was given to EMPEROR Bao Dai, who had been installed as Emperor by the Japanese. The condition of the treaty was for democratic elections to take place in 1956 to restore a unified Viet Nam. Wow! That sounds like the kind of stuff we like! Elections! In 1955, the megalomaniacal Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem deposed Emporer Bao. When Ho Chi Minh said lets talk about those elections, it was the south that refused to adhere to the treaty signed in Geneva. So the US rode in to save the democratic elections, right! Of course not, because our fear and paranoia turns us away from the lofty democratic goals to which we give lip service. If totalitarianism was our enemy, we would have found elections a reasonable path. Our real enemy was the exaggerated threat of communism and so no democratic deal was strong enough to keep us from living out our domino theory destiny.
So here we find ourselves today. Is the threat radical terrorist, who happen to identify with the religion called Islam or is it Islam? The Joseph McCarthy’s of the 21st century tell us that it is Islam. They say it is violent religion and you can see that in the koran. They often say this with a bible, probably the most violent work of religious literature, in hand. They tell us congressional representatives who are Muslim can’t be trusted. They tell us that the enemy is pervasive among us. Be afraid! They tell us that it isn’t these extremists we need to go after but rather the states that identify with this religion are our ultimate target. Then, based on this hysteria, they lead us into foreign adventures doomed to failure. They trample democratic principles, at home and abroad, under the banner of the paranoia they’ve created.
Once again, the seed of our undoing lies in an inability to localize the actual threat and to control our own paranoid tendencies. Our paranoia has led us back to THE VERY SAME CONCLUSION that we drew in the pre-Viet Nam era; That we must become the aggressors in order to make the world safe for democracy and we must limit freedom in order that the world may be free like us! Anyone who wishes to examine the runaway paranoia and ask for a more realistic threat assessment is treated with the same tribal instinct that was leading us astray 50 years ago. Their loyalty to the tribe is questioned. Their loyalty to the King is questioned. They become presumed members of the conspiracy against us. Ultimately, they are derided and dismissed.
The voice of reason is easily lost in the cries of battle and the exhortations to rally round the flag. The ability to reason is easily overwhelmed by our urge to paranoia and tribal protection. We watched our brave young men sacrificed on the altar of our communist paranoia then and we vowed to learn. We vowed not to repeat our mistakes. This is just the first of the lessons that we as Americans have to admit we didn’t learn from Viet Nam.
Threat Exaggeration
My self-examination ran roughly along a temporal line. What errors did we make first? It seems highly probable that the earlier mistakes laid an important foundation that allowed Viet Nam to become the runaway train it so disastrously became. What preceded our involvement and coaxed us onto our path. Then, as now, we started with threat exaggeration.
Our involvement in Viet Nam fell on the heels of the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950’s. Interestingly, then, as now, we misidentified the threat prior to exaggerating the chosen target. The threat of totalitarian, repressive government was misidentified with the economic system that it accompanied in its major forms in that time period, communism or socialism. The threat was seen as pervasive and as inseparable from totalitarianism. Hysteria ruled, culminating in Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. The military threat that countries such as the USSR and the PRC posed was grossly overestimated resulting in gross over-reaction on our part. We began to see the threat as so pervasive that we thought ourselves the only people capable of saving the world from certain doom. Our worldview became increasingly paranoid. We developed a mythical view or ourselves as savior to the world and we marched our boys off to fight the falling dominoes in the grand communist conspiracy.
It is hard to say how much the exaggeration is intentional. I believe that it is to some degree but I also recognize that as humans we have some of these tendencies written into our DNA. The tendency to mythologize our tribe as the favored of god is not a uniquely American trait. The tendency for xenophobia and suspicion of the motives of outsiders and other tribes is probably hard wired into us as well. One of the mistakes we make is not acknowledging our programming in order that we may rise above it, when appropriate. Would not a survival benefit have accrued in past times to those whose threat assessment software was tuned a little to the paranoid side? It seems obvious that personal survival and even tribe survival would be enhanced by threat exaggeration as opposed to threat minimization.
To accomplish realistic threat assessment, we have to ask ourselves the pertinent questions. What evidence do I have that the threat has been appropriately identified? What evidence do I have to support the assessment of the threat level?
In the 1950’s we laid the foundation for Viet Nam by misidentifying the threat as communism rather than totalitarianism. Half a century later we still operate on this mistaken assumption. We will support the most brutal of totalitarian regimes for the sake of democracy, as long as they don’t pursue socialist/communist policies. Out of the other side of our mouths, we deplore all the same actions by brutal regimes that operate under the banner of socialism/communism. In order to support our misguided belief we live with the obvious conflict that capitalist propaganda, capitalist disrespect for human rights, capitalist torture, and capitalist repression of dissent is all “good” merely because it isn’t communism.
Our collective paranoia is institutionalized in organizations like the CIA. They get paid to be paranoid. Reason tells us we need wise leaders who can evaluate evidence and consider the source. Think then, about a regime taking power for whom even our institutionalized cold war paranoia is not paranoid enough! Is it any wonder they have brought us to this point?
When the First Indochina War ended with the Geneva Conference in 1954, the country was temporarily divided at the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh controlled the North and the south was given to EMPEROR Bao Dai, who had been installed as Emperor by the Japanese. The condition of the treaty was for democratic elections to take place in 1956 to restore a unified Viet Nam. Wow! That sounds like the kind of stuff we like! Elections! In 1955, the megalomaniacal Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem deposed Emporer Bao. When Ho Chi Minh said lets talk about those elections, it was the south that refused to adhere to the treaty signed in Geneva. So the US rode in to save the democratic elections, right! Of course not, because our fear and paranoia turns us away from the lofty democratic goals to which we give lip service. If totalitarianism was our enemy, we would have found elections a reasonable path. Our real enemy was the exaggerated threat of communism and so no democratic deal was strong enough to keep us from living out our domino theory destiny.
So here we find ourselves today. Is the threat radical terrorist, who happen to identify with the religion called Islam or is it Islam? The Joseph McCarthy’s of the 21st century tell us that it is Islam. They say it is violent religion and you can see that in the koran. They often say this with a bible, probably the most violent work of religious literature, in hand. They tell us congressional representatives who are Muslim can’t be trusted. They tell us that the enemy is pervasive among us. Be afraid! They tell us that it isn’t these extremists we need to go after but rather the states that identify with this religion are our ultimate target. Then, based on this hysteria, they lead us into foreign adventures doomed to failure. They trample democratic principles, at home and abroad, under the banner of the paranoia they’ve created.
Once again, the seed of our undoing lies in an inability to localize the actual threat and to control our own paranoid tendencies. Our paranoia has led us back to THE VERY SAME CONCLUSION that we drew in the pre-Viet Nam era; That we must become the aggressors in order to make the world safe for democracy and we must limit freedom in order that the world may be free like us! Anyone who wishes to examine the runaway paranoia and ask for a more realistic threat assessment is treated with the same tribal instinct that was leading us astray 50 years ago. Their loyalty to the tribe is questioned. Their loyalty to the King is questioned. They become presumed members of the conspiracy against us. Ultimately, they are derided and dismissed.
The voice of reason is easily lost in the cries of battle and the exhortations to rally round the flag. The ability to reason is easily overwhelmed by our urge to paranoia and tribal protection. We watched our brave young men sacrificed on the altar of our communist paranoia then and we vowed to learn. We vowed not to repeat our mistakes. This is just the first of the lessons that we as Americans have to admit we didn’t learn from Viet Nam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)