Why don't scientists take on Intelligent Design?

Science and Technology
101
It would be helpful if you stopped characterizing what I say.
Lausten,

A) I wasn’t singling out you. (it’s like they have the right to spout the most outlandish dishonest crap about liberals - but god forbid pointing out their base disregard for honesty.)

B) I was characterizing what I’m feeling and hearing.

If there was a common sense “all we need” solution, I think we would be working on it.
THERE WAS ! ! !

Honestly discuss science and the global situation - making lying about scientific facts socially unacceptable.

Then there was making less babies.

also learning about our planet Earth - how she evolved to today and about her interwoven systems and how we depend upon her for all we have and hold dear.

Of course, reject the notion that “He who dies with the most toys wins!” - along with Ayn Randian State of Mind which seemed to be the foundation for the Tea Party movement and our neo-Republican party.

Recognize eternally increasing consumption and profits is an insane physically impossibility.

Recognize that our world is getting crowded and that the notions which worked great when the world was an boundless cornucopia - are out of date and can only speed our self destruction.

Temper our self-centered greed.

 

I believe a lot of constructive processes would have flowed from people getting on the same page and simply absorbing those realities up there - instead every god damned effort made to take a more nurturing approach to our planet is confronted with attacks, back stabbing, dirty tricks, contrived confusion and all of society says hoohum.

 

But that was then,

today all we can really do is,

as they used to say, get right with god (of your choice), cause outcomes have been locked in,

even if it’s going to take another couple decades to come to full fruition.

We shall reap our just rewards.

102

Imagine that Greta Thunberg toils her life away for the next 50 years trying to get her fellow earthlings to take action, but they never do, civilization is rather in shambles by then, but we’re still pumpin’ greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere.

So Greta gives up.

At this point, I think she would deserve that luxury. She deserves the luxury of accepting the futility of trying to influence for truth. She deserves the luxury of badmouthing any of those she wants who have opposed her efforts. She deserves the luxury to be cynical, and to spit on hope that was never fulfilled.

(tho some might wish she would never give up)

103
I guess I did kind of jump to a conclusion, but when I read “The dickish have taken over” I kind of thought of the Republican party right away. Of course there’s also the “woke” and “social justice warriors” on the left who don’t understand that the cultural view was very different decades ago.
Wanted to give this some thought. I think “The dickish have taken over” was originally meant to mean the recent rise of authoritarian rule, but I still think it's valuable to keep that in perspective of the larger trend toward democracy. In the nearer term, I'd say it was sometime around when the Fairness Doctrine ended and news became an extension of political parties on up to Citizens United, where non-millionaires pretty much lost their political voice. I have trouble drawing the line on what is a strategy and what is done out of a sense of purity and tradition that I don't understand, one that results in a different view of fairness. I'm sure there are powerful people pulling strings out of sight somewhere, but I'm also sure there are people who see deregulation as some form of free speech. So, not much of a clarification here, but I wanted to add something to what I said earlier.
104
The best what? Serial killers?
It’s an old quote highlighting the fact that “do-gooders” are always weenies.
105

" “do-gooders” are always weenies." That sounds like an opinion not a fact.

Anyway the quote you based it on could easily be about serial killers. Note: “The best (serial killers) lack all conviction, while the worst (serial killers) are full of passionate intensity.”

I like your new pic, btw.

106
Imagine that Greta Thunberg toils her life away for the next 50 years trying to get her fellow earthlings to take action, but they never do, civilization is rather in shambles by then, but we’re still pumpin’ greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere.
Hmmm, fifty years, still business a usual, running all those engines? That doesn't really compute with the rate of changes we are seeing throughout this biosphere we depend on for everything. Here's just one example most try to ignore, but you can bet it will have hideous cascading consequence and it is heading our way sure as the sunrise and a morning shit. -
... Between 1850 and 2100, under the most conservative IPCC scenario for the trajectory of greenhouse gas concentrations, the decline in global-mean surface pH among models ranges from 0.12 to 0.14, a 36% increase in acidity;

under the worst scenario, it ranges from 0.41 to 0.43, a 165% increase in acidity.

But pH is not the only concern.

Enhanced ocean CO2 uptake alters the marine carbonate system, which controls seawater acidity. As CO2 dissolves in seawater it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3), a weak acid that dissociates into bicarbonate (HCO3-) and hydrogen ions (H+). Increased H+ means increased acidity (lower pH).

The rate of the ocean’s acidification is slowed by the presence of CO32-, which binds up most of the newly formed H+, forming bicarbonate.

But that buffering reaction consumes CO32-, reducing the chemical capacity of the near-surface ocean to take up more CO2. Currently, that capacity is only 70% of what it was at the beginning of the industrial era, it may well be reduced to only 20% by the end of the century. …

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/monitoring-ocean-carbon-and-ocean-acidification-0


And since being a bummer isn’t my only goal in life, I’ll not even mention the growing anoxic zones, oops, well no details, okay. :wink:

 

Why is this man still smiling? Because I have my life and today and have but one death to experience. Not to mention a sweetie waiting for me to come to bed.

107

;-p

108

Here’s a bit more in depth dive into the psychology I’m talking about. Addressing the facts doesn’t work because it’s seen as an attack on the structure. The facts are fine as they are, but what structures can we build that promote a cleaner environment and a a sustainable future?

109

Or, if you want a more evolutionary biology approach, here are two of them talking. At around 43 minutes, Trump is brought up. Not sure how much of the context you’ll need. Basically, Weinstein is saying there is a genetic basis for genocide. We find it naturally abhorrent, but when the right environmental conditions arise and a leader pushes us in that direction, the desire to kill off a competing tribe kicks in and becomes viable as a survival strategy, and to enough people it becomes the “right” thing to do. Weinstein’s theme is, we need to get to know ourselves better, know that we are capable of this violence, so we can overcome the nature with our mimeticly evolved skills and knowledge.

This is Pangborn, so you’ll have to deal with the commercials.

110
Basically, Weinstein is saying there is a genetic basis for genocide. We find it naturally abhorrent, but when the right environmental conditions arise and a leader pushes us in that direction, the desire to kill off a competing tribe kicks in and becomes viable as a survival strategy, and to enough people it becomes the “right” thing to do. Weinstein’s theme is, we need to get to know ourselves better, know that we are capable of this violence, so we can overcome the nature with our mimeticly evolved skills and knowledge.
I'm just peeking in and no time to pursue those links today, still dancing on the razors edge - I realize it's all predetermined, but that this point it's still a toss up between a car wreak and a good column. One more day.

 

I’ll listen to what Weinstein’s talk later - Is that supposed to be a revelation that we are all capable of genocide, given proper circumstances? Isn’t that how America became the Land of The Free?

To the other point, I’ve long ago appreciated that we need to recognize our own demons and dark sides - After all, I couldn’t speak about the Passion of Jesus with such self-assured understanding, if I hadn’t tasted the fires of my own burning on the cross of my own making along with some hell and damnation and I know what comes from honestly facing one’s own failing and sins and waking up to a new day.

. And right in that we have the key to appreciating why Christian has owned the human imagination so well - because Jesus speaks directly to the human drama within each of us individuals.

 

What confuses me is what any of that has to do with any of this:

Within science respecting discussions regarding Evolution, seems to me the monster in the closet that’s rarely mentioned is Intelligent Design – and when it is, it’s beaten right back into the closet.

I believe it would be valuable for scientists to acknowledge our humanity and our mind’s constant curiosity about our ‘origin’ and the ‘why’ question.
I’m pretty sure all of us possess little voices in our heads constantly prattling on about the world it’s experiencing – even if that world doesn’t get beyond Reality TV and shopping programs, or Bible stories.

When seriously learning about Evolution, particularly lay-people with no formal or deeper understanding of the ways of science, its natural for the incredible details to overload our mind and simply overwhelm.

The impression of a grand directed pageant is staring us in the face and its utterly magnificent – that is where the Intelligent Designer comes into play – like an automatic safety valve. Why? Because it helps our minds process the truly mind-boggling information we are constantly hit with when studying evolution, or biology at the molecular level.

I believe that needs to be acknowledged.

Besides, what does science have to fear, it already has an Intelligent Designer at hand, MATHEMATICS.

Don’t we? Why not celebrate that ? !

Another matter, Creationists make much of “randomness” – yet as we learn more and grow, it becomes ever clearer that “Randomness” doesn’t exist in our natural universe. There are constraints that begin with the Big Bang and are further amplified through biology and evolution.

Why not celebrate that?

They say people need stories and myths to make sense of the world around them – why not supply some fact based stories, that are so much more satisfying than myths, because they enable a life time of nonstop learning and personal discovering regarding the existence beyond us.

What does the Christian offer? A demand for obedience and constant obsessive worshipping? Seriously, what else do the loud mouth phony Christians offer?

Me, I have the wonder of a speck of dust that wanted to be more and an inspired life time worth of discovery and deeping appreciation that I belong to this world and to this time with a visceral awareness that vapid preachers of self-delusion can’t touch.

I also have a worm that simply wanted to live and have babies, oh but the places her babies would go:

How do we get from a simple worm to all this complexity?
Martin Smith – Origins Ecdysozoan Body Plans – What a scientist sounds like.
https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/09/martin-smith-origins-ecdysozoan-body.html

Oh, and lets not forget about the
Mathematical connections to Intelligent Design.

NOVA The Great Math Mystery – The Language Of The Universe

NOVA leads viewers on a mathematical mystery tour — a provocative exploration of math’s astonishing power across the centuries. We discover math’s signature in the swirl of a nautilus shell, the whirlpool of a galaxy and the spiral in the center of a sunflower. Math was essential to everything from the first wireless radio transmissions to the prediction and discovery of the Higgs boson and the successful landing of rovers on Mars. But where does math get its power? Astrophysicist and writer Mario Livio, along with a colorful cast of mathematicians, physicists and engineers, follows math from Pythagoras to Einstein and beyond, all leading to the ultimate riddle: Is math an invention or a discovery? Humankind’s clever trick or the language of the universe?

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR84HJP54fg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR84HJP54fg</a></blockquote>
&nbsp;
111
What confuses me is what any of that has to do with any of this:
I'm trying to make the case that confronting people with math and science ignores how people relate to their world. We evolved things like hyper agency detection long before we evolved the ability to create abstract models of the universe. The cooperation mechanisms that grew out of our tribal past aren't something we can just shed like an old coat now that we have evidence for our common ancestry.

ID gives people not just an origin story, but a reason for why everything is what it is and it says there’s a conclusion that works out for them. You can’t replace that with, we came from nothing and we’ll return to nothing. They think goodness comes from their story, so if you don’t believe them, they think you’re not good. I think it’s there we need to start, showing them that we care about the planet and the future and children and puppies just as much as they do.

112
⭐⭐⭐They think goodness comes from their story, so if you don’t believe them, they think you’re not good. I think it’s there we need to start, showing them that we care about the planet and the future and children and puppies just as much as they do.⭐⭐?
@Lausten makes a crucial point here, @citizenschallengev3

It isn’t that proponents of Creationism/ID think the science behind the theory of evolution is merely incorrect. They literally see it as evil. And not JUST because it makes God irrelevant.

CC: We (rightly) criticize Christians and other theists for theur historical atrocities. Religious dogma has created tribalism and hatred and suffering for Millennia. But we make a similar error by not admitting that people have used “science” to justify evils as well.

Since (as I’ve mentioned) I was named for William Jennings Bryan, I’ve studied up on him a bit. One thing about the Scopes Monkey Trial that “our” side doesn’t really acknowledge is that the author of the science textbook in question was a eugenicist – one factor that concerned people.

As a Progressive and someone who “believes in science,” I have to admit that for a time there, “my side” had it wrong.

 

In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar and cousin of Charles Darwin, first used the term eugenics, meaning “well-born.” Galton believed that the human race could help direct its future by selectively breeding individuals who have “desired” traits.
As horrific as this idea seems now, we are thinking of it with our modern sensibilities. The original idea was seen as a way to improve humanity and make life better for all. It didn't devolve into things like genocide until later.

Speaking of that, there was Hitler. Atheists often claim he was a devout Catholic (as he wrote early-on), while Christians claim he was atheist.

But those who have delved deeply into his background, diaries, speeches, etc. say he was neither. He actually detested Christianity. He was a Pantheist and Occultist. He was attracted to scientific eugenics because he thought creating a master race was the “right” thing to do.

We all know that he tried to cancel the disabled, gays, gypsies, etc., but mostly Jews. However, those who claim he did so because of Christian conviction are simply wrong. It IS true that Germany had a tradition of antisemitism due to the teaching of Popes and Martin Luther. The idea that “Jews killed Christ” made them vile to society; Hitler and others grabbed onto the “vileness” as being inherited and biological. For them, it no longer had any connection to their supposed Christ-killing (which is why they also killed Jews who had converted to Christianity).

We don’t hear much about this in the general conversation about Evolutionism/Creationism. But dig past the surface: underlying their argument is a deep fear that “science” really is evil, that it could be used to get rid of “undesirables.”

Again: YES, Christians are clearly in DENIAL about how the Bible itself has been used to do precisely that!! However, pointing this out does nothing to allay their fears about US.

So, getting back to the OP: Maybe it isn’t just about getting them to see that they are stupid, ignorant people who trust in an invisible sky-God. Maybe some of it has to do with convincing them that science isn’t diabolical.

113

AWWwwhh, you care about puppies. You old softy. But yes they are cute. How 'bout we make those ID’ers feel ashamed at how much MORE we care about puppies, et. al. than they do?

 

114

I was in the right place, at the wrong time. While I was sending my last post, Tee, unbeknownst to me was sending her post (above mine). So now I am responding to Tee’s post.

Wow you went to some dark places to support your assertion that IDer types have a pretty intense fear of “science”. I am not disputing you. I just don’t get how they can be so afraid of “science” without being stupid and ignorant. But it does make sense not to highlight someone’s stupidity and ignorance when you are engaging with him.

 

115
Wow you went to some dark places to support your assertion that IDer types have a pretty intense fear of “science”. I am not disputing you.
@Timb

Well, I’m not sure I really went to a dark place or am just making an assertion. I simply know what these folks believe and I’m sharing it.

Fundamentalist Christianity did not even exist prior to Darwin. It developed, literally, as a reaction to “new” scientific concepts that appeared opposed to the Bible or suggested that a God was unnecessary. Sheer ignorance alone cannot account for a movement that grew so massive; fear is a stronger factor than just stupidity.

And whether they actually cared about these issues before or not, racism, eugenics and abortion all became examples of the horrors of Darwinism.

30-second Google:

1920×2560 677 KB