It doesn't pay to get a faster drive if you don't like the destination
Posted by aogTuesday, 31 July 2007 at 21:57 TrackBack Ping URL

I was reading some screed in New Scientist the other day, about how voters in the USA shouldn’t vote for politicians that don’t believe in evolution, because they obviously don’t trust Science.

I thought about that a bit and came to the conclusion that the article had it exactly backwards. I take as a starting point that almost all politicians decide what they want done first, or get bribed by supporters in to doing what the supporters want, and then cherry pick evidence to justify their pre-determined actions. Where the screed writer goes wrong is in presuming that a familiarity with the rhetoric of Science prevents this kind of thing, a view for which I have never observed the slightest bit of corroboration (something that the author himself demonstrates by presuming such an unsupported theory).

However, the two sides are not equal because we live in a secular, Scientistic society for the most part. Those demagogues claiming the imprimatur of Science are likely to get much further in their efforts to damage society for their own group’s benefit. That makes them much more dangerous. Anti-evolutionists, on the other hand, tend to get a lot more mockery, particularly from Old Media, meaning they have much less scope for damage. Clearly, then, such politicians should be the preferred choice.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
cjm Friday, 03 August 2007 at 21:57

where’s the science in evolution ? darwin pulled it out of his cat’s ass. what does it predict, how is it useful ? it’s just the religion of the left.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 03 August 2007 at 22:57

No, actually Darwin got in mainly from peasants who practiced the Intelligent Design version of it. Darwin’s thesis was the random chance could achieve the same thing as purposeful culling on longer time scales.

cjm Saturday, 04 August 2007 at 09:55

i compare darwin to a small child who looks up to the sky and says “there’s something out there”. he made an observation about an obvious process. it’s kind of fun when you get someone going off on how only ignorant people deny evolution is real science, to ask them to explain their understanding of it; i.e “how is it used, how foes it explain speciation, etc”. stand back though, as they there tend to be spittle flecks flying.

Hey Skipper Saturday, 04 August 2007 at 15:25

cjm:

what does it predict, how is it useful ?

One could ask the same thing of plate tectonics.

Evolution could only be a religion if it is immune to contradiction or modification through new evidence. It is not.

Oddly, though, while the Left universally accepts evolution, the Left completely fails to take on board its consequences.

.. how foes it explain speciation

Interesting how it ties in the the aforementioned plate tectonics.

cjm Sunday, 05 August 2007 at 00:41

plate tectonics are well understood, and can be used to predict what the earth’s configuration will be in the future, and what it was in the past. don’t get me wrong, i don’t have a dog in this fight, i just don’t care for people acting superior based on their own choice of superstitions. if you have a source for the actual application of the science of evolution, i would love to see it.

you might have the courtesey of correcting my typos when quoting me :)

Hey Skipper Friday, 10 August 2007 at 22:30

cjm:

you might have the courtesy of correcting my typos when quoting me :)

True — but cut & paste is so much easier than simple courtesy.

i just don’t care for people acting superior based on their own choice of superstitions. if you have a source for the actual application of the science of evolution, i would love to see it.

In general, and in this particular case, I don’t, either. However, I don’t mind in the least denigrating many of Islam’s superstitions, so clearly I think one can make a case for doing just that.

As for a source of the actual application, by asserting the earth is much older than extant physics, it forced a contradiction that was only resolved by the discovery of fusion, and the effects of radioactive decay. (Lord Kelvin, using thermodynamics, proved Darwin wrong on the age of the earth. Unfortunately, Kelvin was wrong.)

Additionally, the first proof of plate tectonics was the consequence of one of evolution’s deductive consequences: all isolated populations will diverge over time.

Post a comment