Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-18-2011, 09:59 PM
tom tom is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Default Re: Not the same

Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
This thing all started when I replied to a post calling out the litany of Obama missteps with the sarcastic comment that to my knowledge he believes in evolution. This was meant to convey what I think is the ridiculous idea that whether or not you believe in evolution is some measure of the man.
I don't think anyone meant to suggest that belief in evolution is a safeguard against poor judgement, or even that denial of scientific fact necessarily leads to poor judgement in other matters. Instead, denial of science is an indication that someone's judgement is more likely to be immune to evidence and factual correction, and at times (Perry being a perfect example here) of a predisposition to view the opposition in conspiratorial terms.

Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Climategate is not manufactured. Those emails were sent but the incident has certainly been used for political purposes.
I don't believe that the emails were faked. I believe that the whole "scandal" consisted of sifting through a decade or more of hacked emails to find examples of sentence fragments that, when taken out of context, appear to mean something very different from what they meant in their original context, followed by right wing propaganda outlets like Fox reading the same few tiny resulting soundbites - freshly cherry picked from the enormous document dump, and even then with their meanings deliberately changed - hundreds of times on the air and then telling their audience that the previous decade or more of peddling politicized junk science is thereby vindicated, and the hard work of an entire field of actual science is thereby debunked. The kind of thing that can only even seem true in an information cocoon where 99.999% of real information is filtered out and a spotlight is put on the .001% of information that, when appropriately misconstrued, supports their narrative.

Here is a video that does an excellent job of substantiating that position by looking at the actual examples touted by right wing media as proof of fraud.

Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I doubt Perry knows much about climate science and I also doubt that most people who have a 'side' in the controversy know much about climate science either. People are passionate about something they have little grasp of. This is typical of the way we as a society operate.
I agree that it is typical. And I can't blame the average person for lacking the interest to become informed about scientific issues. But it's unfortunate when people develop strong opinions and then vote based not just on lack of information, but on deliberate campaigns of misinformation. And it is a completely different kind of problem when someone who is trying to convince us he should be president openly rejects the evidence and accuses scientists of being involved in a conspiracy in front of millions of people in a formal debate.

Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
As I said, I don't know the ID line. Are they saying that the things they are finding are supernatural? Or are they simply saying there are alternate explanations for certain phenomenon?
The idea of "irreducible complexity" is that certain biological systems are too complex to be the result of natural selection and therefore must have been designed. This entails an extremely high burden of proof, and almost no one with any expertise in the field thinks that people like Behe have successfully met that burden (or come anywhere near it).
But to keep this relevant to our earlier thread: even if Behe was successful, the strongest scientific claim he could make is that at least some biological systems did not arise from natural selection. A reasonable conclusion would be that the science warrants a higher probability for the notion that a supernatural designer played a role, but that last part would not be "science", strictly speaking. It would be a sort of philosophical or speculative interpretation of the scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
My imagination doesn't work that way. When you say an earth identical to ours for me it is impossible to admit the existence of an earth identical to ours without it having gone through the same process to get to be identical to ours.
I didn't mean for it to be something difficult or even that counter-intuitive. When I say "identical", I don't mean "having an identical history", just "every single molecule is in the same exact place, moving in the exact same way". Surely God, hypothetically, could create an exact replica of Earth as it exists at this moment in some parallel universe. New-Earth would lack our history, but no one (other than a hypothetical omniscient being) could tell the difference between the two.

Last edited by tom; 09-18-2011 at 10:11 PM..
Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.