Guernica
Remember Guernica? Thanks to the team of senior public health scientists and practitioners at Effect Measure for finding this video.
Strolling with a skeptical biochemist
The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly
seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We
can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by
an intellignet being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the
variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind
blows.
Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.
CharlesScience reveals where religion conceals. Where religion
purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no
more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation..
The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84
1 comments:
Thank you Larry.
I'm an outraged American disgusted by the actions of the civil servants in the US, especially the thugocractic administration of this President.
In the 2004 campaign, the morally corrupt man who was reelected President of the United States often used the phrase "culture of life" in his stump speeches. Observably, he has no respect for people, no respect for life in general, and no respect for the world that sustains life. Hypocrite is too weak a descriptor. Liar might be closer if he weren't in politics. Betrayer, while true, stops too far short. Traitor feels most appropriate. Traitor against the US, of course, but, more to the point, a traitor against mankind.
I'm convinced that the Iraq war was started for one reason only, possibly the most vulgar reason imaginable: simple greed. For the sake of some people's financial gain, innocent men, women and children have been massacred, soldiers have been intentionally put in harms way, the money to pay for it has been borrowed, and none of those making the money will pay the debt, financially or with the lives of their own children. None of the justifications used as smoke screens for why we should invade Iraq had any merit from the start. Three thousand dead on 9/11 is certainly the stuff of war marketing campaigns, but more US citizens are killed in traffic accidents every month. WMD's were a fraud. Saddam Hussein killed thousands, but, we've multiplied Saddam's efforts at least fifty-fold. Oil, the most often proposed "real reason," has lots of backers, but, it, too, was only an underlying factor. I'm convinced that war-profiteering was the only real reason.
Defense contractors have been handed billions of windfall dollars with billions more guaranteed through the we-must-support-the-troops pipeline. The current troop escalation assures even greater profits in the short-term, maybe a last-ditch effort at squeezing every drop of blood from the American tax paying public before reason comes to the fore. A sort of get-while-the-gettin's good since still this very moment literally one person out of three hundred million can squeeze all taxpayers of his own accord.
Recent election returns offer a small modicum of hope, but they also serve to underscore just how impotent democratic peoples can be once a war for profit President inhabits the White House.
Post a Comment