Comment #16981

Posted by mynym on February 19, 2005 01:03 PM (e) (s)

“Yet another school board is contemplating defacing science textbooks with warning stickers….”

And the modern pagans must protect their holy books from that?

It seems to me that if the words in the book are true, no little sticker designed to create thought will matter.  However, if the words in the book are false and rely on, “Well, this is the best naturalistic explanation we currently have.  It may be utterly stupid and false, but you should accept what is false because at least it is naturalistic.  And well, that’s what science is!” then a sticker designed to generate thought will matter.  Why will thought matter?  It’s probably because thought generates intelligence, while textbooks written to inspire Nature worship only inspire proto-Nazi scientism.  If you are going to put naturalistic explanation before that little issue of the truth, incessantly, then the least that should be done is to note that a textbook may have nothing to do with the truth.

Comment #16983

Posted by Sarg on February 19, 2005 01:25 PM (e) (s)

Mynym

The words in a science book aren’t “true” or “false”. They are the best explanation found by scientific means for a certain phenomena. If there is something that should be done in schools is explaining this to children BEFORE they learn anything about science. In my school (I’m Spanish), they did. However, in religion class they told me that christianism was the one and only Truth. No wonder I’m an atheist…

On the other hand, these stickers are not meant to produce thought. Science encourages thought. If anyone can prove without doubt a theory to be wrong, the theory will be changed to conform to reality. These stickers are meant to produce confusion, equalling scientifically provable theories with religious faith.

The fact is that religion has a place in the life’s of people. Things like this are only an effort to extend that influence.

(I should call Godwin’s law, hehehe)

Comment #16984

Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 01:25 PM (e) (s)

Richard Dawkins, the famous Oxford atheist zoologist, author of “The Selfish Gene” “The Blind Watchmaker”, was at least honest when he said “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”.  ‘Tis a pity everyone in The Church of Darwin is not as forthright.

Make no mistake, the core constituency on both sides of this brouhaha are driven by religiuous ideology.  It stopped being about science a very long time ago.

Comment #16987

Posted by Enough on February 19, 2005 01:33 PM (e) (s)

Dave, that mined quote has been explained to you several times in another thread.  Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strengths.

Comment #16988

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 19, 2005 01:37 PM (e) (s)

Dawkins did indeed say that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. 

But Dawkins did NOT say that Darwin denied God.  Dawkins did NOT say that evolution has evidence God doesn’t exist (though Dawkins personally finds the lack of evidence for God to be persuasive).

Nor did Dawkins say anything that should prevent faith-filled Christians from being intellectually or religiously fulfilled.

In short, Dave, your nervousness that someone else might find happiness and peace in science is no kick against evolution, but it does raise questions about what you claim as the inherent Scrooginess of Christianity. 

Dickens wrote, “The stairs were dark, but darkness was cheap, and Scrooge liked it.” 

History tells different story:  Darkness is expensive, ignorance costs lives and money.  Scrooge was wrong.

That shouldn’t make any Christian nervous or unhappy, and I cannot understand why anyone would be bothered by those who light candles against the darkness, even if those candles illuminate the paths of atheists.

Comment #16989

Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 01:38 PM (e) (s)

PZ Myers wrote:

The use of those stickers was struck down by the courts

For that you fail Current Events and Civil Justice.

The use of the sticker was struck down by one (singular, not plural) lower court.  The ridiculous ruling handed down by Clinton appointed crony/judge Clarence Cooper is being appealed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  I expect a judge at a higher pay grade will reverse Cooper’s goofy finding.

Comment #16990

Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 01:41 PM (e) (s)

<sigh>

Yeah right.  Richard Dawkins being an atheist is beside the point but Stephen Meyer being a Christian is oh so relevant.

Spare me.

Comment #16991

Posted by Michael Rathbun on February 19, 2005 01:42 PM (e) (s)

Furrfu, time yet again for the endless “failing to have a religious opinion is itself a religious opinion” dorkitude. 

The vengeance of the Fates upon me is manifest, in that I now understand entirely too well the reason for the irritation exhibited by my (few remaining) friends at my constant iteration of the “anything you believe about the world is a religious belief” mantra, back when I still held supernatural beliefs.

Comment #16992

Posted by Enough on February 19, 2005 01:44 PM (e) (s)

Why would you expect that?  You didn’t point out any sort of legal flaw in the ruling that could have been grounds to overturn.  I assume that once the ruling is upheld, the higher court will also be labelled as Clinton appointed cronies who don’t know how to uphold the constitution like DaveScot does?

Comment #16994

Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 01:50 PM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell,

The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution.  Darwin never subscribed to it.  Anyone who’s actually read “The Origin of Species” knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters.  That’s been falsified.  Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin’s Lamarckian belief if there’d been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley’s.  Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism. 

And that’s the way it was.  Deny it if you want, it doesn’t change the facts.

Comment #16995

Posted by PvM on February 19, 2005 01:58 PM (e) (s)

The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution.

It merely supports mutation/selection as one of the powerful forces of mutation. Your dogmatic position is falsified by the evidence. Your revision of history and your unfamiliarity with the evidence, fail to impress.

Darwin focuses on selection working on variation. That later findings helped understand the source of this variation is a powerful addition to Darwin’s findings. We now understand both aspects much better. A powerful paradigm became even more powerful.

Comment #16996

Posted by PvM on February 19, 2005 02:06 PM (e) (s)

Meyer’s religion IS an issue to help understand the motivations of the ID movement and to help understand why, despite a flawed scientific foundation, a position of ‘god of the gaps’, it still holds to a position that ID is the best explanation.
In other words, it is an explanation for an observation that ID is scientifically vacuous and helps explain why inspite of this, ID exists as a religious/political movement.
Meyer’s religion and Dawkins’ atheistic position are irrelevant to their scientific claims but it helps explain why Meyer focuses on a ‘God of the Gaps’ approach with all the logical flaws and the inevitable conclusion that ID is scientifically vacuous.
Sometimes, ID seems to take the position that their religious position is used to prevent their scientific arguments from being fairly evaluated. Nothing is more wrong. It’s the poor performance of their scientific arguments, combined with their political/religious goals which are used to explain the existence of ID. Science seems to be a means to an end and suffering because of it.
Meyer’s lastest paper makes for an excellent example. A limited overview of scientific knowledge of the Cambrian is combined with an ‘eliminative argument’ to infer design as ‘the best explanation’. In other words ‘a god of the gap’ argument without ANY scientifically relevant details as to how ID explains the Cambrian.

Comment #16997

Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 02:14 PM (e) (s)

Enough

I expect it because Cooper’s decision was ridiculous.  I have made my reasons clear before using relevant quotes from the decision itself.  I didn’t bookmark it.  If you missed it, too bad.

Here’s a nice take on the matter for your reading pleasure.

http://www.ksusentinel.com/news/2005/01/26/Viewpoints/Evolut…

Comment #16998

Posted by Enough on February 19, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)

…and you were rebutted.  If you missed it, too bad.

Comment #16999

Posted by PvM on February 19, 2005 02:21 PM (e) (s)

The extent of ‘Davescot’s “argument”

[quote]The use of the sticker was struck down by one (singular, not plural) lower court.  The ridiculous ruling handed down by Clinton appointed crony/judge Clarence Cooper is being appealed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  I expect a judge at a higher pay grade will reverse Cooper’s goofy finding.[quote]

Comment #17001

Posted by Enough on February 19, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)

The extent of his argument seems to vary from “I don’t like this ruling, ergo it’s wrong” to “aw come on guys, it’s just a little sticker, who cares?”.

Comment #17002

Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 02:49 PM (e) (s)

The stickers have yet to be removed, by the way.  It appears the Cobb County School board is ignoring his order.  I wonder if the National Guard will have to be called in with tanks and guns and such to remove the stickers?  It’s highly amusing for those of us who see how preposterous the situation is.

Latest development:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/0205/18evolution…

Appeals court asks mediation on evolution stickers

By KRISTINA TORRES
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/18/05

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has asked both sides in the Cobb County evolution disclaimers case to meet with a mediator March 1.

The step is an intermediate one as the county school board appeals a federal court ruling banning disclaimers on textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact.”

The court’s request surprised neither Michael Manely, who represents parents who want the disclaimers removed, nor Linwood Gunn, who represents the school board. The two lawyers don’t expect it to come to much, either.

“I’m not overly optimistic of reaching any kind of settlement,” Gunn said today.

U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled Jan. 13 that the disclaimers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and ordered them removed immediately. The board has since requested that the order be put on hold pending the outcome of its appeal.

Comment #17004

Posted by Enough on February 19, 2005 03:02 PM (e) (s)

Wow.  We agree. It really is preposterous to expect a state board of education to put a sticker on a biology textbook.  Or is it preposterous for them to comply with a judges ruling, like the rest of society?

Comment #17006

Posted by Jim Harrison on February 19, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)

Dave Scott better hope that the theory of evolution doesn’t rule out the existence of God since that would mean that God doesn’t exist.

Comment #17030

Posted by frank schmidt on February 19, 2005 09:41 PM (e) (s)

Dave Scott, IGC, in his enthusiasm for True Belief faults Darwin because he was not omniscient:

The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution.  Darwin never subscribed to it.  Anyone who’s actually read “The Origin of Species” knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters.  That’s been falsified.  Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin’s Lamarckian belief if there’d been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley’s.  Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism.

If Dave knew anything about Biology, he would recognize that mutation/selection won because it fit the observed data better than any other alternative.

And, if Dave had read the Origin of Species with suitable background and discernment, he would have recognized that Darwin noticed some things that later became understood with the rise of genetics, including a difficulty with Lamarckian evolution/inheritance in the case of social insects:

For no amount of exercise, or habit, or volition, in the utterly sterile members of a communtiy could possibly have affected the structure or instincts of the fertile members, which alone leave descendents. I am surprised that no one has advanced this demonstrative case of neuter insects, against the well-known doctrine of Lamarck.Origin of Species, Gramercy facsimile of the 1st ed., p. 262.

This phenomenon is now easily understood in the light of Dave’s maligned mutation/selection.

So Darwin thought through the implications of his ideas, but didn’t pretend to have all the answers, nor did he speculate on mechanisms of heredity without any data. Doh.

Sounds like he was a scientist. Which the various IDC’s, YEC’s, IGC’s and CNC’s aren’t.

Comment #17032

Posted by Air Bear on February 19, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s)

Whoooeee!

If the proposed Tennessee sticker indeed says

“This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions “religious theories” and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.

Comment #17033

Posted by Air Bear on February 19, 2005 09:52 PM (e) (s)

Whoooeee!

If the proposed Tennessee sticker indeed says

“This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions “religious theories” and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.

Comment #17036

Posted by Keanus on February 19, 2005 10:17 PM (e) (s)

I”ve been away for some time and am just picking up this thread—about which I may have more comments tomorrow (that is about the stickers in Shelby County), but thought I would comment on DaveScot’s usual shallow nonsense. Whether it’s DaveScot or those he supports at the Discovery Institute, their arguments can best be described as wishful thinking. By the most accurate label that is simply prayer. My late mother was one to rely on prayer often, so I’ll not malign it—it has its  place for believers—but it has no place in science, rational analysis, or objective assessments of any kind. DaveScot, If you don’t believe that, try it on the IRS sometime. Or on computer code, or on increasing your income, or making that old clunker in the garage cure its ailments all by itself. Doesn’t work, does it? Well the same holds for sciencce. Prayer won’t get you a resolution to your ancestry or that of any species on earth. Only hard nosed analysis of the facts. But keep praying and you’ll continue to have a measurable impact on the readers of PT, which is to say none. Nada. Zilch. So your motives must be something perverse. like masochism, perhaps?

Speaking of prayer, yesterday afternoon I was driving out from Philadelphia to my home, about an hour or so out in the country, and listening to “Science Friday” on  NPR. Ira Flatow was hosting a panel at the AAAS meeting in Washington with a live audience. One of the penelists was Leon Lederman, retired head of the Fermi Lab in Illiinois. When the subject turned to creationism and evolution, Lederman, a very serious man by the way, set me to laughing out loud when he suggested a simple solution to the creation/vevolution controversy was to set up two health care systems. If you accepted evolution you went to evolutionary based hospitals where medicine based on the best science was provided. If you were a creationist or subscriber to ID, you’d go to a creationist run hospital where eight to ten people would gather round the afflicted, holding his or her hand and pray. Lederman was obviously being facetious, but with its coming from a man of his stature, it was hilarious.

Comment #17037

Posted by Empiricist on February 19, 2005 11:13 PM (e) (s)

Here is my suggestion for a passage that should be integrated into books that discuss evolution. It should not appear as an extraneous sticker because it is essential to understanding the philosophy of science and the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. Any textbook that omits the ideas communicated in the following passage is in my opinion incomplete and perhaps misleading.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It provides an incomplete schemata or framework for studying living organisms. One or more parts of the theory may be incorrect. As with any scientific theory, the entire theory or substantial parts of it may be shown to be false in the future. The theory may be altered or superceded as more data is gathered and as knowledge increases. One fundamental area of incompleteness concerns the mechanisms for the evolution of the first organisms. Several preliminary suggestions have been made but very little is known with even a minimal degree of certainty. Science always maintains an open and inquisitive stance when investigating phenomena. Science avoids dogmatism and acknowledges the growth, change and tentativeness of empirically based knowledge.

Trying to prevent a passage like this from appearing in a textbook on evolution would be a tendentious and egregious form of selective censorship. I hope that any scientists visiting this forum would find the passage unobjectionable.

Comment #17038

Posted by steve on February 19, 2005 11:18 PM (e) (s)

Count yourself lucky GWW isn’t around to comment on that.

Comment #17039

Posted by Dan on February 19, 2005 11:19 PM (e) (s)

Empiricist - why single out evolution?  I’m all for students getting a brief intro to some issues in philosophy of science, but since the issues highlighted in your proposed passage apply to all theories, there’s no reason at all to mention evolution.

Comment #17042

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 12:33 AM (e) (s)

Dan asks, “why single out evolution?” I do not think that one should single out evolution when discussing the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. Consider first year physics students who are taught Newtonian mechanics. It is important that students know that the scientific theory designated “Newtonian mechanics” was thought to be “true” for many years. Indeed, some scientists thought that physics was largely a “solved” problem and that Newtonian mechanics was a “fact”. But Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by theories such as quantum chromodynamics and general relativity. For example, the predictions generated by Newtonian mechanics are completely inaccurate for fast moving objects. There is no upper bound on the velocity of an object in Newtonian mechanics, and now scientists believe that there is an upper bound of c (the speed of light). So the “disclaimer” style discussion in a textbook covering Newtonian mechanics should mention that it is incomplete, wrong, and has been superseded.

I believe that scientists also think that the theory of quantum chromodynamics is incomplete and wrong. Researchers are working on successor theories involving, for example, “branes”, and students should be made aware of this. General relativity also breaks down I believe, i.e., the theory is known to be incomplete and wrong. If there is a physicist reading this perhaps he or she can comment.

There is no shame in stating that scientific knowledge is incomplete, changing and tentative. The passage in a textbook that discusses scientific uncertainty may vary depending on the scientific area. For example, sometimes a scientific theory that is being taught is already known to be flawed.

Comment #17044

Posted by Colin on February 20, 2005 12:42 AM (e) (s)

Empiricist, this is a very (probably too-) short take on the legal difficulties, but singling out evolution makes a big difference.  We essentially look at the motives of the rulemakers to see if they had a valid secular purpose in making the rule, and/or whether they were entangling the government too closely with religion.  (If you’re not familiar with the standard, it’s called the Lemon Test, and Wikipedia has a good article that sums it up rather well.)

A general science disclaimer isn’t a problem, and most people here would support it, as long as it didn’t explicitly posit ‘religious theories’ as an alternative to objective science.  (That’s a pretty boneheaded move on the part of the creationists, by the way.)  When the rulemakers single out evolution, though, it’s clear what their motivation is - religion in general, and creationism in particular.  That implicates the Lemon standard, since the rulemaker is paying special attention to one scientific discipline for transparently religious reasons.

One way to look at it is that a rulemaker obviously can’t have a valid secular purpose for disclaiming only evolution, because evolutionary theory is an integral part of science - it’s not categorically different from, say, astronomy.  Nor can a rulemaker singling out evolution pretend that he’s not doing so for religious reasons, since there’s no good non-religious reason, so he’s using the machinery of the state to support a narrow and somewhat radical religious dogma.

Comment #17046

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 20, 2005 02:11 AM (e) (s)

The use of the sticker was struck down by one (singular, not plural) lower court.

It’s not the first sticker to be proposed, nor is the first to be struck down.  “Courts” is correct, in the plural.  See Freiler v. Tangipahoa (http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9830132cv1.html)  The Supreme Court declined to intervene against the decision, letting the lower courts’ rulings stand.

Comment #17047

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 20, 2005 02:22 AM (e) (s)

Oh, good grief.

DaveScot said: 

The evidence doesn’t support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution.  Darwin never subscribed to it.  Anyone who’s actually read “The Origin of Species” knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters.  That’s been falsified.  Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin’s Lamarckian belief if there’d been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley’s.  Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism. 

And that’s the way it was.  Deny it if you want, it doesn’t change the facts.

1.  All evidence supports mutation as a key source of the variation from which natural selection makes its choices. 

2.  Darwin didn’t “believe” in Lamarck’s proposed mechanism, and in fact argues against it throughout Origin of Species.  You may want to check it out, Dave:  http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Darwin’s general claims have never been falsified by anyone.  For a guy who wrote before genes were noticed or understood, the man was incredibly prescient.

So, no, it’s not correct to claim that Darwin “believed” that acquired characteristics were passed on.  That’s not Darwin’s work.

3.  How would those who swim in ignorance and dogma know it if it bit them?  You know the rules, Dave:  Every dogma gets one bite.  You need to curb yours.

Comment #17051

Posted by Buridan on February 20, 2005 03:11 AM (e) (s)

I’m still waiting for DaveScot’s explanation of why atheism is a religious belief. Somehow P and ~P are now equivalent in the upside down kingdom of Christendom.

Comment #17055

Posted by Buridan on February 20, 2005 04:19 AM (e) (s)

On another note: I’ve always been a little skeptical of the claim that evolutionary theory is maligned by fundamentalist/evangelical Christians because it poses a threat to literal accounts of the Genesis tale. Modern theology and biblical studies have done far more harm to literal renderings than all of science combined. The rise of higher criticism in the 19th century closed the book on this matter at least for serious scholarship.

I think there’s a more mundane reason for the Religious Right’s obsession with evolutionary theory. It has more threatening implications for their doctrine of “original sin” than anything else, which by the way represents the core of the RR’s theology.

The reasons are simple. It removes the moral dimension from the natural world, or more accurately, modern science finds questions of morality in the physical world nonsensical. This would also fit much better with IDists. A physical world without a moral dimension removes the need for redemption and thus a need for a providential deity (an intelligent designer). Most, if not all, IDists are theists not deists.

Ah, you say, but what about the social dimension of sin? That surely doesn’t require the physical world to be morally located. The crux of various doctrines of original sin have always (and more importantly) extended beyond the realm of human social interaction and implicated “all of creation.”

If the notion of “sin” is only an incidental characteristic of human action and not a pathological feature of the natural world, then it can theoretically be addressed through human action alone. In other words, we don’t need the intervention of the divine to save us from our so-called intractable depravity because it’s not intractable. We can save ourselves so-to-speak. Take away the moral dimension from the natural world and the bible is effectively devoid of content.

You’ve got to love the Enlightenment for this one.

Comment #17067

Posted by Steve on February 20, 2005 10:45 AM (e) (s)

Modern theology and biblical studies have done far more harm to literal renderings than all of science combined.

If the evangelicals’ kids were exposed to the latest scholarship from the Duke Philosophy department, they would be angered up over that. As it is, they’re not exposed to modern theology and biblical studies. Their kids are exposed to evolution, so they rage against that aspect of modernity.

Comment #17069

Posted by Don T. Know on February 20, 2005 10:53 AM (e) (s)

Mentioning “scientific and religious theories.” This has the same problem the original sticker had: it muddles up the scientific definition of theory with the colloquial understanding. There are no religious theories. There are religious ideas, sure enough, but lets not confuse everything by treating them as equivalent to scientific theories.

You know fundamentalists are desperate when they resort to relativism and equivalency!

Comment #17072

Posted by Don T. Know on February 20, 2005 11:00 AM (e) (s)

Posted by mynym on February 19, 2005 01:03 PM:
It seems to me that if the words in the book are true, no little sticker designed to create thought will matter.

In an ideal world, that would be true. Unfortunately, we live in a world where perception and public relation campaigns pick winners. Facts are often secondary at best. It sucks that things are this way. But, it is what it is. And, IMO, unless some mainstream scientists are willing to fight on the PR turf, they’re going to find the substance of their careers being decided by mobs.

Comment #17073

Posted by Don T. Know on February 20, 2005 11:16 AM (e) (s)

Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 02:49 PM:
It appears the Cobb County School board is ignoring his order.  I wonder if the National Guard will have to be called in with tanks and guns and such to remove the stickers?

In 1963, Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama called upon his state’s National Guard to PREVENT the imposition of federal law (de-segregation), NOT to enforce it. In any case, there is a parallel were your hypothetical to happen. The National Guard would once again be called upon to defend the opinion of a Southern state that has decided to rely on the Christian Bible to justify its defiance.

Comment #17074

Posted by Don T. Know on February 20, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)

Posted by Empiricist on February 19, 2005 11:13 PM:
Here is my suggestion for a passage that should be integrated into books that discuss evolution. It should not appear as an extraneous sticker because it is essential to understanding the philosophy of science and the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. Any textbook that omits the ideas communicated in the following passage is in my opinion incomplete and perhaps misleading.

One is left wondering why evolution is singled out. Could not, for example, a similar statement be made about physics and the “Theory of Everything?” The rise and fall and rise of String Theory alone is enough to make one think that science is about the pursuit of “best fit” explanations rather than The Truth. /sarcasm

Comment #17076

Posted by Don T. Know on February 20, 2005 11:36 AM (e) (s)

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 12:33 AM:
It is important that students know that the scientific theory designated “Newtonian mechanics” was thought to be “true” for many years. Indeed, some scientists thought that physics was largely a “solved” problem and that Newtonian mechanics was a “fact”.

It is also important for students to learn that “Newtonian mechanics” is still “true” (although, “true” is not a scientific term). “Newtonian mechanics” are simply a subset (special case) of Einstein’s framework. If one were to plug numbers into Einstein’s equations with velocity being very small, the contributing factor of v/c is miniscule and can be ignored for many applications. I’m sure Einstein felt the same way Newton did: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Comment #17078

Posted by scott pilutik on February 20, 2005 11:46 AM (e) (s)

This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

To me, the most interesting thing about this new sticker langauge is in the first sentence: “…theories about creation.” It’s not accurate to say that evolution is a theory about ‘creation’ but rather about ‘origins’. Despite the seeming similarities, the two terms are not alike, and do not necessarily overlap - which is why this rewording is ingenious. Compare the benign Cobb County first sentence - “This textbook contains material on evolution.”

Conversely, this language cleverly and wrongly presumes that evolution is staking a claim to ‘creation’, a term with obvious semiotic baggage and connotations, all favorable to Creationists.

Also quite cleverly, it abandons specifying evolution as the theory that should be questioned (and even abandons the term ‘evolution’), which a big part of Cooper’s opinion turned on. This language broadly asserts that the student should question everything, thus slipping Cooper’s analysis that centered on Cobb County’s isolation of the term ‘evolution’ as having a natural effect of elevating unnamed competing religious theories. IOW, what is being elevated if everything is being questioned?

But it might be too clever for its own good, as it elevates its own competing theory by its own terms (aforementioned “…theories of creation” as well as “…religious theories about the nature…”).

Where the Cobb County sticker overtly attacks evolution by implicitly elevating its own unmentioned theory, the Shelby sticker implicitly attacks the unmentioned evolution by overtly elevating its own competing theory.

Comment #17079

Posted by Don T. Know on February 20, 2005 11:51 AM (e) (s)

Posted by Buridan on February 20, 2005 04:19 AM:
On another note: I’ve always been a little skeptical of the claim that evolutionary theory is maligned by fundamentalist/evangelical Christians because it poses a threat to literal accounts of the Genesis tale. Modern theology and biblical studies have done far more harm to literal renderings than all of science combined. The rise of higher criticism in the 19th century closed the book on this matter at least for serious scholarship.
I think there’s a more mundane reason for the Religious Right’s obsession with evolutionary theory. It has more threatening implications for their doctrine of “original sin” than anything else …

I agree with your assessment on why the “Religious Right” is obsessed with evolution. But I would like to comment on the “modern theology and biblical studies” comment. Whether they want to admit it or not, fundamentalists recognize the power of the scientific method, even as they mock its methodological naturalism. Whereas, “modern theology and biblical studies,” like fundamentalism itself, is often a subjective endeavor with little means of verifying or falsifying its claims. And, whereas it’s easy to dismiss “modern theology and biblical studies” as being “tools of Satan,” you can only do that for so long with science before people scratch their head and wonder why “Satan” is giving them such wonderful things as technology and medicine.

Comment #17085

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 12:14 PM (e) (s)

“then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions “religious theories” and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.”

Utterly….ridiculous, if what you are saying is true then the Declaration is “unconstitutional.”  Not only that, the Constitution is “unconstitutional.” 

You’ve taken such a broad non-sectarian issue of philosophy and religion such as theism and try to make one belief a “religion,” then say that is a “Church.”  Is there a national Church of Theism/Deism?

Don’t be ridiculous… 

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of
a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only
firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these
liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be
violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country
when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep
forever.”
Thomas Jefferson,
In his Notes on the State of Virginia

Atheists prove that they are intent on undermining Liberty by undermining through a judicial oligarchy the very things that the Declaration and Constitution say.  Jefferson called such judges, “…the steady corps of sappers and miners…”

Comment #17087

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 12:18 PM (e) (s)

“The words in a science book aren’t “true” or “false”. “

Yeah, they’re just taught as “fact.”

Here is the argument, “Hey, all you are doing is punching holes in my narratives of naturalism! But the important thing is not if it is true, but if it is naturalistic, becaues that is science. So you can see why I stick with it, even if it seems stupid and ignorant. It may be utterly stupid, but at least it is naturalistic. I am concerned with naturalistic explanation, not the truth. Because naturalistic explanations are true, as we know from the history of science and religion.”

Etc., evolutionists seem to be textual degenerates, which fits with their philosophy.  It is not as if their texts can be recognized as the artifacts of intelligent design, after all.  They seem to really be the biochemical state of their brain at the moment, mixes with some inane memes they picked up from their myopic “community.”

Comment #17088

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 12:22 PM (e) (s)

“…you can only do that for so long with science before people scratch their head and wonder why “Satan” is giving them such wonderful things as technology and medicine.”

The anti-ID writers will often do that.  They say that “science” is only naturalism, all the time.  Yet then they bring up things like technology which rely on ingenuity, design and intelligence, i.e. ID.  They want the benefits of ID to be included as “science” for political reasons, yet cannot admit to its obvious prevalence and force for religious reasons. 

Ironically, science did not begin in pagan cultures in which Nature worship was typical, becaues it could not.  ID is a large part of science that seems to be denied by Nature worshippers.

Comment #17089

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 12:27 PM (e) (s)

“The rise and fall and rise of String Theory alone is enough to make one think that science is about the pursuit of “best fit” explanations rather than The Truth.”

The believers in scientism seek to make too much of the word “science,” these stickers seem to be a response to that.  Then the believers in scientism gasp at the blasphemy, this “defacement” of their holy books. 

That is amusing.

Comment #17090

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 12:27 PM (e) (s)

Don T. Know: I agree that students should know that Newtonian mechanics provides a useful approximation when the values for mass, velocity, and acceleration are constrained within certain ranges. In fact, that is one of the key reasons Newtonian mechanics is still studied. Don T Know says:

It is also important for students to learn that “Newtonian mechanics” is still “true” (although, “true” is not a scientific term).

I do not think that it is good idea pedagogically to tell students that ““Newtonian mechanics” is still “true””. Here is an example why: In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv. However, nowadays physical theories indicate that  photons have zero mass, but nonzero momentum. Basically, photons are common phenomena and Newtonian mechanics treats them completely incorrectly.

Comment #17093

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

“Furrfu, time yet again for the endless “failing to have a religious opinion is itself a religious opinion” dorkitude.”

If that has been your experience then perhaps you are trying to hide, passively, in Mother Nature too much.  They are just trying to draw you on out of there, you see.  So you do not adhere to the advice of Plato and Christ to come on out of the cave/womb to be born again?

Comment #17094

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on February 20, 2005 01:00 PM (e) (s)

mynym:
Be careful: if you keep holding diametrically opposing thoughts in your head, it will blow up eventually.  Either scientists have been wedded for a couple centuries to philosophical naturalism, in which case the scientific and technological progress we enjoy is the result of a philosophically naturalistic position, or it has relied on “ingenuity, design and intelligence, i.e. ID”, in which case ID advocates have nothing to complain about, and should let scientists do their work undisturbed.  You can’t have it both ways - rail against naturalistic science, but ascribe its success to ID.

In reality, neither claim is true, as discussed numerous times here at PT.  Science has been, still is, and will be for the foreseeable future, dependent on methodological naturalism, which does not imply scientism, “nature worship”, or a materialistic philosophy.  And if ID advocates could operatively detach themselves from their metaphysical assumptions and adopt a methodologically naturalistic approach, they would probably be able to contribute to science in fields in which an ID-based approach could be useful (and there are some).

Comment #17095

Posted by steve on February 20, 2005 01:15 PM (e) (s)

I do not think that it is good idea pedagogically to tell students that ““Newtonian mechanics” is still “true””. Here is an example why: In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv. However, nowadays physical theories indicate that  photons have zero mass, but nonzero momentum. Basically, photons are common phenomena and Newtonian mechanics treats them completely incorrectly.

If I wrote things like that, I’d want to use a pseudonym too.

Comment #17100

Posted by Hey Skipper on February 20, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)

Buridan, Andrea:

Your posts are particularly thoughtful.

mynym:

At the risk of shameless self-promotion, perhaps you should read The Argument Clinic.

Comment #17101

Posted by Buridan on February 20, 2005 02:09 PM (e) (s)

steve wrote:

If the evangelicals’ kids were exposed to the latest scholarship from the Duke Philosophy department, they would be angered up over that. As it is, they’re not exposed to modern theology and biblical studies. Their kids are exposed to evolution, so they rage against that aspect of modernity.

Actually, they are exposed to it but usually in a very bastardized fashion - a sort of heretical foil that Sunday School teachers use to indoctrinate “true versus false” readings of the bible. Seminary trained clergy of course can’t avoid it. It’s been part of virtually all seminary programs in some fashion for over a hundred years, and how they disseminate or fail to disseminate the latest scholarship to their congregations is the point.

Overall, I don’t think kids generally are exposed to much evolutionary theory in the first place, and they certainly don’t get enough science education. I still think a solid grounding in the scientific method and a good understanding of scientific reasoning would have taken care of much of these public school challenges. Again, this is just a symptom of a much larger problem in science education

(note: GWW, I’m not blaming the teachers here. In some sense, they’re as much victims as the students.)

Comment #17102

Posted by Buridan on February 20, 2005 02:11 PM (e) (s)

Thank you Andrea. I’m blushing.

Comment #17103

Posted by Buridan on February 20, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)

Sorry, I meant Hey Skipper.

Comment #17104

Posted by Russell on February 20, 2005 02:17 PM (e) (s)

Yeah right.  Richard Dawkins being an atheist is beside the point but Stephen Meyer being a Christian is oh so relevant.

Ahem. Here’s Stephen Meyer’s employer:

To assure the perpetuation of these  basic concepts of its founders, it is resolved that all those who become associated with  Palm Beach Atlantic as trustees, officers, members of the faculty or of the staff, must  believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments; that man  was directly created by God; that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; that He is the Son of  God, our Lord and Savior; that He died for the sins of all men and thereafter arose from  the grave; that by repentance and the acceptance of and belief in Him, by the grace of  God, the individual is saved from eternal damnation and receives eternal life in the  presence of God; and it is further resolved that the ultimate teachings in this college  shall always be consistent with these principles.

That’s not relevant to his objectivity as a “scientist”? What loyalty oath has Richard Dawkins signed?

Comment #17107

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 20, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)

Someone said of the newly proposed textbook stickers:

then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions “religious theories” and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.

To which mynym replied:

Utterly….ridiculous, if what you are saying is true then the Declaration is “unconstitutional.”  Not only that, the Constitution is “unconstitutional.”

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution contains any reference to any specific god or creator (with the exception of the dating protocol on the Constitution).  In rather stark contrast to Mynym’s claim, the Constitution instead spells out a structure of government that avoids entanglement of government and religion implicitly in Articles I, II and III, and explicitly in Article VI and the First Amendment.  The Declaration is not active law under the Constitution, so could not be “unconstitutional” in any sense.  In any case, the Declaration notes that “just” governments derive their authority “from the consent of the governed,” and not from any deity.  It also calls in its way for a separation of church and state, not a marriage.

Mynym’s comments are typical of a phenomenon I’ve seen often:  Some advocates against science become advocates against history and law in their desperation to impose religion on kids they don’t like.

Mynym said: 

You’ve taken such a broad non-sectarian issue of philosophy and religion such as theism and try to make one belief a “religion,” then say that is a “Church.”  Is there a national Church of Theism/Deism?

Don’t be ridiculous… 

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of
a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only
firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these
liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be
violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country
when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep
forever.”
Thomas Jefferson,
In his Notes on the State of Virginia

In Query XVIII, Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson was referring to slavery.  He does not advocate that the government should be Christian, but instead he poses the question:  How can Christians claim freedom comes from God, but still support slavery?  Surely, Jefferson fears, God will call them to account.  How can this possibly be used to support religious skewing of science in textbooks?  Jefferson’s views have been misrepresented, if the claim is he either favored a religious establishment or that he favored government paying official homage to any deity.

Mynym said: 

Atheists prove that they are intent on undermining Liberty by undermining through a judicial oligarchy the very things that the Declaration and Constitution say.  Jefferson called such judges, “…the steady corps of sappers and miners…”

Hold on:  It’s not judges who decided to go after science.  The stickers were not proposed by judges.  The stickers were proposed by creationists; since school boards are governmental entities, their insisting on stickers is an unholy endorsement of religion. 

Judges who uphold the separation of church and state do what Jefferson urged them to do.  Judges who uphold the will of the people, as expressed in the federal and every state constitution, do not undermine those documents.

Jefferson fancied himself a scientist.  While in Europe Jefferson argued for natural studies, and for the equality if not superiority of animal life in North America (compared to Europe) against those religiously-inspired folk who claimed life in the Americas was “degraded.”  Jefferson studied fossils, and showed no tendency to dismiss science in any way, particularly in favor of unevidenced religious claims.

To try to portray him otherwise is erroneous.

Comment #17109

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)

Steve said: “If I wrote things like that, I’d want to use a pseudonym too.” Steve, since you state that you are working in biophysics perhaps you could point out a problem in the text you were commenting on.

Comment #17111

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 04:04 PM (e) (s)

“….or it has relied on “ingenuity, design and intelligence, i.e. ID”, in which case ID advocates have nothing to complain about….”

You are conflating technology and science.  They are not necessarily the same things.  In the field of biology there are those who look for knowledge for its own sake.  There is knowledge that has little practical use.  And those are the people who write the mythological narratives of naturalism.  Is it especially helpful to believe the narratives, “Once opon a time, a group of proto-avian ancestors were jumping around in trees.  Some lived and some died, by this natural process they must have grown wings and begun to be avian.”  Etc.

What does have practical and technological implications is a study of the bird’s wing as such, the design and technology it uses. 

“…You can’t have it both ways - rail against naturalistic science, but ascribe its success to ID.”

I don’t rail against naturalistic science, which is a huge component of science.  I rail against proto-Nazis who believe in scientism.  That’s all. 

“…Science has been, still is, and will be for the foreseeable future, dependent on methodological naturalism, which does not imply scientism, “nature worship”, or a materialistic philosophy.”

Then you should have no problem with someone attacking all those things on the issue of origins, as that would have nothing to do with science.  So not to worry, I will attack all those things and it will have nothing to do with you, as you say. 

“And if ID advocates could operatively detach themselves from their metaphysical assumptions….”

The only way that a sentient being can detach themselves from their metaphysical assumptions is to kill themselves.  ID fellows are important in that they keep science from turning to scientism, etc.  You should have no problem with that. 

For instance, I bring up an editorial written by a person supposedly speaking for scientists and they seem to be working from an entirely different definition of “evolution” than what is promoted on PS.  You are the people who should be cleaning your own movement and making sure that everyone understands what “evolution” is.  You make the appeal to some “standard” or the “scientific community” often enough.  That is a false claim, if many scientists are writing editorials (from their position as scientists) that do not use the same definitions.

Comment #17113

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 04:13 PM (e) (s)

“The stickers were proposed by creationists; since school boards are governmental entities, their insisting on stickers is an unholy endorsement of religion.”

Now the mind that wrote this text is quite funny. 

It’s very similar to the “defacement” claim above.  Note that if the words of the textbooks are “true” or factual (some people seem to have trouble with that word, truth, maybe they are lying?) then there should be no problem with a sticker meant to cause thought.  The entire textbook can make its own case against the little sticker.  What is the tremendous, oh so terrible problem here?  Why the proto-Nazi tendency to censor in the name of “science”? 

I say that text is quite funny because look at it. 

“…unholy endorsement of religion.”

One half expects the believers in scientism to claim, “Blasphemy!” against their holy texts.  Holy, unholy…an unholy….endorsement of religion….I think I will just think on that, and laugh!  This seems to be the material of satire.  And it seems that the denizens of PS are not aquainted with the philosophy of the Founders.  Perhaps I can remedy that sometime.  Here is a hint, they were not passive agressives who believed that they did not believe anything, had faith that they didn’t have any faith, spoke of “facts” but rejected truth, etc.

Nor did they claim that Naturalism was a useful explanation, to be stuck with because of its supposed usefulness, although it was not “true.”

Comment #17114

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 04:29 PM (e) (s)

“Jefferson’s views have been misrepresented, if the claim is he either favored a religious establishment or that he favored government paying official homage to any deity.”

Theism is not a “religious establishment,” anymore than there is a national Church of Theism.

The Declaration, although it is founded on theism, is not an establishment of religion.  The New Thought Police have gone a little far in their distortions here.  Theism is a philosophical sort of belief that can also be religious.  If you are going to begin to start policing the free expression of such non-sectarian, non-demoninational beliefs such as that you are clearly being totalitarians, relying on the oligarchy that Jefferson spent some time criticizing for its various abuses.

Jefferson on the Judiciary:
“The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederate fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictiomem.’ (To amplify jurisdiction is characteristic of a good judge.) The power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
(THE NATIONAL ERA
July 9, 1857
Washington, D.C., Vol. XI No. 549 P. 112)

“To try to portray him otherwise is erroneous.”

Jefferson, like Washington, believed in ID of their day and rejected the atheistic tenents of the French Revolution.  I would provide some links but this forum does not seem to allow them.

As to,
“….paying official homage to any deity.”

I suppose you have read the Declaration?

Comment #17115

Posted by Enough on February 20, 2005 04:31 PM (e) (s)

The stickers aren’t some noble attempt to “cause thought”.  They are an explicit attempt to put religion into the public school system.  You can call us “proto-nazis” all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that the theory of evolution is being singled out for these “thought causing” stickers, because it doesn’t jive with the Adam and Eve creation story.  Period.

Comment #17116

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 04:54 PM (e) (s)

“The stickers aren’t some noble attempt to “cause thought”.  They are an explicit attempt to put religion into the public school system.”

If you are going to take the tax dollars of parents to fund the public’s schools, then maybe, just maybe, the public will want to have a say in their own schools.  Other than “allowing” them that, you may as well declare them to be State schools and be done with it.  Before someone says, “Well, I bet you wouldn’t say that if Muslim community’s wanted a say in their schools!”

Let me just note that you are absolutely wrong.  Some of the Founders also noted that Mohammedanism was to be preferred over atheism.

“You can call us “proto-nazis” all you want….”

All believers in scientism are proto-Nazis, perhaps it is the evolution of the meme.

“…but that doesn’t change the fact that the theory of evolution is being singled out for these “thought causing” stickers….”

I think the theory of evolution can stand a little thought.  What is amazing is that its propenents are this concerned over a little sticker that can be answered with an entire textbook. 

I’ll be honest, if the community wanted to put a sticker on their textbooks saying, “Naturalism is true, this textbook proves it.” 

Then, I would be for their right to do that. 

“…because it doesn’t jive with the Adam and Eve creation story.  Period.”

I think that PS’s intent focus on the intents and motivations of people (From scientific IDers, to YECs, or the Islamic) belies the fact that replacing narratives that in any way admit the transphysical with their own mythological narratives of Naturalism, may be all they are interested in.  I.e., that aspect where they can have an impact on such narratives through textbooks.  Then, very quickly, they claim their usual passive neutered neutrality, for it is not as if they are teaching the “truth.”  I suppose that lies are better?

It is a proto-Nazi pattern to severe youth from their parents in various ways.  That is just the history, where “science”/evolution becomes wrapped up in a more overtly “religious” sort of Nature based paganism.  There is science and religion, in one.

Comment #17119

Posted by Buridan on February 20, 2005 05:07 PM (e) (s)

mynym,

Your insistence on identifying natural science with religion is unconvincing (it couldn’t be otherwise) because you (or DaveScot or any of the other evolutionary discontents) haven’t made an argument for these bald-faced assertions. I realize you religionists are in the business of peddling declaratives, that’s what you do so well, but try giving the rest of us something to respond to. Don’t just declare from on high your sermonic vision of the world – I can watch the 700 Club to get that. Come on, make an argument and let’s see what we can do with it.

Comment #17123

Posted by steve on February 20, 2005 05:33 PM (e) (s)

Steve said: “If I wrote things like that, I’d want to use a pseudonym too.” Steve, since you state that you are working in biophysics perhaps you could point out a problem in the text you were commenting on.

I am not working in biophys. I have done some research in biophys. To fill out the picture, my only publication is in polymer physics, the bio stuff is just being sent as an abstract to the APS March meeting I think, nothing very important. When I graduate in 10 weeks I’m taking my Bachelor’s to the private sector to get paid.

But no, I wouldn’t care to argue it with you. I very rarely do that. To understand why, look at the arguments with Heddle. He says that this one value is so unlikely that it implies God-eh. He does this without knowing

1 What the number is
2 Even its order of magnitude
3 What other things it could have been
4 And how likely it could have been them
5 Even to the roughest possible estimate

And he’s got an advanced degree in physics! He should absolutely know better. What that illustrates is, you can’t convince creationists of something they don’t want to believe. (As someone like Pim will point out, that’s not always true. Agreed, it’s not always true. But the exceptions are too rare for me.) And I have better things to do than try, though I will sometimes (rarely) try anyway. Usually when I point out a creationist’s argument, it’s to highlight it to other science-oriented people, usually because it’s funny in some way. For example:

1 “I ain’t come from no monkey” <- Boring
2 “Complex machines do not randomly assemble” <- Boring
2 “We shouldn’t teach Newton’s Laws” <-Hilarious

Comment #17126

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 06:14 PM (e) (s)

Steve, Your response contains the following quoted phrase: “We shouldn’t teach Newton’s Laws.” Who are you claiming said that phrase? I hope that you do not ascribe that phrase to me. I certainly never said anything like it. If you do think that I say it then your reading skills are truly abysmal!

I think that Newtonian mechanics should be taught to physics students. It is an elegant and powerful theory that provides a stepping stone to more advanced theories within physics. In addition, as I said earlier it “provides a useful approximation when the values for mass, velocity, and acceleration are constrained within certain ranges.” I also said that it is important for students to know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete and wrong. The theory has been superseded. I think that this is common sense. But perhaps you think it is “hilarious”?

Comment #17127

Posted by Bob Maurus on February 20, 2005 06:15 PM (e) (s)

Mynym,

I think Thomas Jefferson would most vociferously dispute your identifying him as a Theist, and would declare himself a Deist. Some big differences there, revolving around rational thought processes as opposed to revelation.

Comment #17131

Posted by steve on February 20, 2005 07:00 PM (e) (s)

Nobody said that example was exactly what you said. What you said was

I do not think that it is good idea pedagogically to tell students that ““Newtonian mechanics” is still “true””. Here is an example why: In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv. However, nowadays physical theories indicate that  photons have zero mass, but nonzero momentum. Basically, photons are common phenomena and Newtonian mechanics treats them completely incorrectly.

And that is very funny.

Comment #17136

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 07:52 PM (e) (s)

OK. Steve. Perhaps you could point out the part that you think is “funniest”. I am eager to learn from someone with a fine physics background.

A) I do not think that it is good idea pedagogically to tell students that ““Newtonian mechanics” is still “true””.

Here is the context: “Don T. Know” said “It is also important for students to learn that “Newtonian mechanics” is still “true” (although, “true” is not a scientific term).” I disagreed because Newtonian mechanics is an incomplete and incorrect theory. The theory has been superseded. It would be strange to tell students that the theory is “true” in a formal or informal sense. Of course, as I stated above the theory should still be taught to students for the reasons I gave above. Is this funny?

B) In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv.

Is this funny? Did I incorrectly define the Newtonian equation for momentum?

C) nowadays physical theories indicate that  photons have zero mass, but nonzero momentum.

Is this funny? I gave a link to WolframsScienceworld that discusses this.

D) Basically, photons are common phenomena and Newtonian mechanics treats them completely incorrectly.

Is this funny? Photons have zero mass. Thus, Newtonian mechanics says that they have zero momentum (mv). But, we know that they have non-zero momentum by current physical theories

Comment #17141

Posted by Don T. Know on February 20, 2005 08:36 PM (e) (s)

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 12:14 PM:
Utterly….ridiculous, if what you are saying is true then the Declaration is “unconstitutional.”  Not only that, the Constitution is “unconstitutional.” 

Don’t be ridiculous… 

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of
a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only
firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these
liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be
violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country
when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep
forever.” —Thomas Jefferson, In his Notes on the State of Virginia

The Declaration is not a legal document. And, the Constitution has no mention of God whatsoever. The only mention of religion is the clause that says, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI, Clause 3).

Do you know what is inscribed on Jefferson’s Grave at Monticello?

That he was President? Nope. That he was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase? Nope.

He wanted three things listed: (1) Authorship of the Declaration; (2) Father of the University of Virginia; and (3) Statue of Virginia for Religious Liberty.

Do you have any idea what (3) is about?

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm…

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

Comment #17142

Posted by Don T. Know on February 20, 2005 08:44 PM (e) (s)

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 07:52 PM:

In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv.

Is this funny? Did I incorrectly define the Newtonian equation for momentum?

Plug in “v” where “v” is small vs. “c” @ http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/relativity/sreq.html…

Time Dilation and Length Contraction are virtually non-existent. In other words, they become Newtonian.

Newton’s equations are not wrong or untrue. They are a special case of Einstein’s Special Relativity.

Comment #17143

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 09:37 PM (e) (s)

“Your insistence on identifying natural science with religion is unconvincing….[you] haven’t made an argument for these bald-faced assertions.”

I identify any all encompassing narrative as “religious.”  There is nothing new under the sun.  Any such narrative must rely on a whole ingrained system of beliefs with built up tradition, i.e. religion.  It seems that the only way to get science to actually be such a narrative is through a belief in scientism, materialism, etc.  Darwinists ought to have no problem with a sustained attack on such things as scientism.  As they argue, such things have little to do with the “true science” that they practice, entirely separate from the assumptions of materialism or scientism.  You can look on it as a service, as attacking such things will prevent them from growing and leading to pseudo-science based on them.  So there should be no problem with any vitriol I care to write about such things. 

“I realize you religionists are in the business of peddling declaratives….”

Like the Declaration of Independence….yes, it is true, I do declare!  All sentient beings are in the process of “declaring” by their sentences, sentience and sentences are based on words. Here is a test for the testy testers, try thinking without words.

A word, there’s a thought.  Don’t you think? 

“I have drawn from the well of language many a thought which I do not have and which I could not put into words.”
(Karl Kraus, Half-Truths
and One-and-a-Half-Truths :68)

I would link that citation to me blog for some further thoughts.  But it’s “questionable content” according to the PT system.  Oh well.

“…that’s what you do so well, but try giving the rest of us something to respond to. Don’t just declare from on high your sermonic vision….”

It seems that language is designed to be sermonic.  So one may as well use it for what it is good for, I do declare.  You might do better in letting your words speak for you if you attempt to realize this.  It will probably be difficult for you to realize by now that the concepts symbolized by your text are something other than matter in motion, just a passing record of some personal memes that you’ve picked up. 

“…language, which is thus predicative, is for the same cause sermonic. We are all of us preachers in private or public capacities. We have no sooner uttered words than we have given impulse to other people to look at the world, or some small part of it, in our way… . Language is in tended to be sermonic. Because of its nature and its intimacy with our feelings, it is always preaching.  This brings us to the necessity of concluding that the up holders of mere dialectic … are among the most subversive enemies of societies and culture.”
(Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus’s Criticism
of Psychoanalysis and Pychiatry
By Thomas Szasz :441)

Kraus “….insisted that we recognize the word as a weapon, which might be used for aggression, self-defense, or suicide; in other words, he knew that language was rhetorical, and that this has profound practical consequences for human affairs.”
(Ib :63)

If you really are against its declarative nature, then the correct thing to do is not to write anything.  It is not consistent to write something like, “I do declare, that’s a declaration!  Why, the circlular reasoning of that.  Circular….why, now I will declare that circles do not exist!”  Etc. 

But let’s look at things on your terms, I am willing to.  First you must be drawn out into some declarations, instead of passively expecting me to “prove” things.  That is what people of a certain type of psychology are wont to do.

Here you are:

What is religion?

What is natural science?

By the way, is there an unnatural science? 

I realize that you will probably not think I have answered you.  Yet for one thing, I did not write that science (whether natural or unnatural) is necessarily linked to “religion,” whole systems of belief, or any sort of vast narrative.  Everyone wants to link science to their vast narratives.  Perhaps mainly because science and technology are associated and people want to think, “Hey, this seems downright useful and practical.  Sheesh, I better include this in my narrative.”  This is actually fine with me.  The problem comes in when oligarchs begin to control the State schools and the like, when the public schools are no longer the public’s schools.  You might not like it, but parents must be allowed to use their own money to teach their kids what they want their kids taught. 

There are bigger principles involved than what you think is true about origins, without thinking it is “true” but trying to feel it is true somehow, or somethin’.  One has to wonder about your “facts” or “truth” that are threatened by a sticker.  Watch out…for the sticker, it is blasphemous and downright UNHOLY!!!  That dread defacement of holy books, my how it sticks!

Comment #17144

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 09:48 PM (e) (s)

“The Declaration is not a legal document.”

The Founders viewed it as a preamble to the Constitution.  It layed out the ends that the Constitution was a means to.

“And, the Constitution has no mention of God whatsoever.”

Unlike documents of the French Revolution the Constitution maintains the Theistic dating convention that places God as sovereign over time, “In the year of our Lord…” 

The Founders could easily have excluded theism from the Declaration as well as the Constitution.  The fact is that they did not, because they were theists, with one or two Deists mixed in. 

“The only mention of religion is the clause that says, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI, Clause 3).” “

Ironically, many of those who voted for that in the federal Constitution were actually protecting their own religious tests at the State level.  Note that the Constitution allows for religious doctrine in the Sunday exception.

There are those who say the Constitution is “godless.”  Perhaps they should read it.  The main point is that the Declaration is as the preamble to the Constitution, laying out the ends to which the Constitution is a means.