From the man who famously cautioned that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.";
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Both quotes from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech.
We just never hear about the second one.
'guard against public policy becoming captive to a scientific-technological elite.'
Like Suzuki, Gore, hoisting the Kyoto Protocol on us ??
"You are no more anxious than I to get this war over with. The difficulty is that there are so many things that we didn't do in the last twenty years that their accomplishment now is a matter of weeks and months. It cannot be done in a minute. There is no use going back over past history either to regret or to condemn; although I was one of those that for the past two years has preached preparedness and tried to point out the deadly peril into which the United States was drifting. I don't see any point in telling amyone else that he was wrong."
"We have got a fearful job to perform and everyone has got to unify to do it. No other consideration can now be compared to that of defeating the powers that are trying to dominate.... We have got to win and any individual in this country, so far as I'm concerned, that doesn't do his very best to fulfill his part of the job is an enemy. This applies whether he's a doctor, soldier, laborer, professional man, or just another taxpayer."
- Ike (prior to going to Europe)writes to his brother in early days of the WW II
"Science is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once again authority, not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and establishment of truth by the elite. But the authority in this new model is not derived from sacred texts; rather it is derived from legitimate practice of scientific method in the scientific domain, extended into non-scientific domains. Note that this does not imply that scientists cannot, or should not, as individuals participate in public debate; only that if they do so cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives them they raise from the dead the specter of authority as truth." Brad Allenby - Nightmare Science.
Google 'nightmare science ' and you will be able to track down the whole essay.
Actually the global warming issue has moved from the area covered by the quote listed into the one addressing the military-industrialists. Global warming is now big business for many. It supplies sources of income and prestige for many now. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them now have greater incomes than any old fashion military-industrialist, though they're probably still lagging the International AIDS upper echelon.
Correction, google 'nightmare science brad allenby',scroll down to the fourth result, and you will be able to read the whole essay.
Ah, Ike. Modern day Cincinnatus. I wish we would see his like again, but I fear we shan't.
"Dinkless Wells" thinks that any politician who throws buckets of cash at our scientific elites is wonderful, even if they happen to be a thief, shill for the Russian mob and an illiterate mutt. Oh, it also helps if they stop to talk to the great Paul Wells.
He also said something like, "if there's ever a nuclear war, just run outside with your rifle and shoot all your neighbors, because living will be worse than dying. You'll be doing them a favor."
Can you imagine if Bush had said that?!
Governments so frequently take the asp to their own bosom. How often do we see governments appoint "blue-ribbon" panels of "experts" to advise them on one or another policy issues, only to fill those well-funded bodies with a collection of activists incapable of looking critically at their own biases and assumptions.
I believe that this point is related to some of the recent criticisms on this site of the various Status of Women councils across the country. Similarly, I have often been struck by the succession of "reports" and "research studies" on child care issues put forward by activist groups committed to the day-care industry. These studies should, of course, be judged on their own merit, just as we would do with studies produced by or for the tobacco industry.
"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct.
...
In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
...
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
...
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
...
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
"
-FAREWELL ADDRESS (1796)
George Washington
usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
"if there's ever a nuclear war, just run outside with your rifle and shoot all your neighbors, because living will be worse than dying. You'll be doing them a favor."
That idea is for the birds.
Scientists are only human.
In the theory of darwinian evolution (even if we accept the notion of progression from one species to another) the mechanism of evolution -- random chance vs. divine direction -- is equally unproveable on either side, although the apparent and exquisite design we see all around us provides practical evidence of the latter.
Yet the former is dogmatically embraced by scientists.
This opened the door to science based on worldview assumptions, in this particular case, the twin assumptions of the sufficiency of human scientific endeavor (God cannot exist because we cannot prove Him), and its attendant consequence, a commitment to the philosophy of materialism (the material universe is all there is).
The end result of all this is to, in effect, make scientists themselves gods.
And this brings us back to Genesis chapter 3. "Eat from the tree of knowledge -- you shall be as gods."
Advise many scientists apparently find impossible to resist.
"Just the facts ma'am"
Sgt Joe Friday
I disagree with the disdain for science. I'm completely in favour of science.
Activism isn't science; it's the opposite of science. Choosing an opinion based on a selection of scientific articles isn't science; it's activism.
The scientific method is based on observation, and not the observation of one person but of a significant statistic, to mitigate bias. It's based on observation over time, to mitigate results based on accident. It is then grounded in reason and logic, which insist on valid and reliable correlations. These correlations must be continuous and must enable predictive strength.
Science is fallible, which means that its conclusions must not merely be testable but must be open to falsification. You must be able to disprove them; the conclusions can't have been moved into Faith - which is beyond debate and disproof.
For a politician such as Gore, Suzuki, Paul Martin etc, to attempt to justify the Kyoto Agreement, by referring only to those scientific studies which assert warming, and not to refer to those scientific studies which reject warming, is a political act. Not a scientific act.
Again, science must be open to falsification, and therefore, there must be studies done which question, which explore, the conclusions of other reports.
With regard to the mechanical (Darwinian) versus Metaphysical Agential (Superior Agent) theories of evolution, it is obvious that the writer supports the latter. That isn't a scientific theory, for it is not open to proof or disproof. However, be assured that many, many scientists do not accept the mechanical randomness of the neoDarwinian theory, and are exploring informational processes which, although they certainly don't move into the realm of a Metaphysical Agent, do move out of random mechanics.
I'm all in favour of science - and I'm against the misuse of science.
I'm in favour of science. This is why I find the politicization of science so distasteful.
Darwin's theory is an incomplete theory - not fact. It's subject to some glaring holes and as such, is subject to revision and possibly bound for replacement with some better scientific theory.
The problem arises when you talk to people that when you question Darwin, you inevitably get the hackles on a lot of people up because so many people have been programmed to think in binary terms. You are either for Darwin or Genesis. There are no other choices and the choices are absolute and not to be questioned. If you question the absolute authority and truth of Darwin you are a "Christian fundamentalist" and your opinion is discounted. This is the problem with politicization. It turns Science into the very type of religion these "scientists" claim to disdain - with the dogmatic intolerance of the inquisition.
People who are truly interested in science instead of just being against religion, are interested in knowing the truth and progressing the body of knowledge. Questioning is the basis of science. If you can't question the science, you aren't a scientist.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
-FAREWELL ADDRESS (1796)
George Washington
usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
darwinism errs on focussing on survival of the 'fittest'. it isnt, its survival of the 'luckiest'.
there are a whole slew of ways to expire, not just some gene shortcoming. the most robust offspring will die in a drought. the chance misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time will put the healthiest individuals in the stomach of a predator if it happens at an inopportune moment. even if that moment was never to recur for the rest of their existence.
its survival of the LUCKIEST. and not the fittest as the social darwinists like to attribute to themselves.
genetic predisposition is only a small %age of the survival equation.
it still amuses me that Eisenhower, of German lineage (the name, the name!) is the man who kept SHAEF functioning which dealt the German nazis their deserved defeat.
maybe something in the German makeup they are good at conducting wars.
he sure rose up in the ranks real quick.
my granddaddy bears some facial resemblance to George C. Marshall from the few photos I've seen.
Patton however is the one I identify with. shooting his mouth off, aaaaaand... ummm, shall we say being equally successful as he was undiplomatic about things.
Natural selection, ET, is of course "unprovable". Mathematical theorems are proveable, not scientific theories.
The difference between the ideas of natural selection and divine guidance is that the first is answerable to the evidence. If the preponderance of the evidence is against natural selection, then we reject or alter the theory. But how do you find evidence against divine guidance? You can not even in principal, and that makes the idea not scientific but religious.
The vast majority of biologists support evolution and the theory of natural selection (the two are different). They do so not of dogma, but because it is consistent with a truly massive amount of supporting evidence.
ET, if you want to do religion, go do religion. But don't demand scientists do the same. They are in the business of studying natural phenomona, not scripture.
evolution? pshaw.
ALL matter, inorganic and organic, is made of protons and electrons.
they combine in a stellar furnace over the eons to become all the elements.
the elements combine into molecules and compounds.
some enter the class organic.
these combine into components of cells and those combine into living reproducing 'evolving' species.
uh, lets retrace that.
protons? its ALL protons and electrons?
can sumby tell me what mechanism is it, what property, where is the capability in a proton to 'know' what to do to eventually become self-aware life?
how does that work?
its all made out of simple protons and electrons and if you really look at it, its the electrons doing all the work, bonding into neutrons which provide the isotopes, conducting the chemical reactions according to their whim to provide the necessary 'glue' to create the molecules that provide the building blocks etc etc
and keep on doing it exactly and only as necessary to 'evolve' into life.
so how do protons and/or electrons pull it off???
watch the vitriol, mumbo jumbo and insult pour out now !!!
RobertJ
Thank you for pointing that out. But if his name were Suzuki instead of Eisenhower, he'd have been in an internment camp (with Michelle Malkin's approval.)
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
-Benjamin Franklin
Darwinsim one of the fundamental beliefs of the scientific religion. It is so foundational that it is never to be questioned. Any one who dares question it directly attack the power base of religion of science.
jonesy:
the difficult question of dealing with american born japanese, you know, 2nd and 3rd generation enlistment aged males was handled by creating divisions of this group and sending them off to the fighting in italy, far and away from anyplace their loyalties might be questioned, ie pacific.
they fought well.
see, the problem was and gawd Im not trying to be racist here, but japanese are far more recognizable than aryans within the european dominant society of US A at the time. they were simply much easier to ferret out and heave into the internment camps.
RobertJ. What ESSENTIAL liberty are we being asked to give up?
"Darwinsim one of the fundamental beliefs of the scientific religion. It is so foundational that it is never to be questioned. Any one who dares question it directly attack the power base of religion of science."
Dead. On.
Science, to paraphrase Henry James, is a method of gaining knowledge, not a set of conclusions.
RobertJ
Why wouldn't there be the same question of loyalty with a guy whose name was Eisenhower? And in terms of Japanese being far more recognizable, that doesn't hold water because there are plenty of Asians who aren't Japanese (Chinese, etc.) I don't think that you are a racist, but I certainly do believe that racial considerations were the motivating factor for those who decided to intern Asian and not European descendants of the enemy nations. So much for the melting pot.
Joe:
Actually, the reason scientist believe that earth is (more-or-less) round is because the evidence in support of it is so overwhelming that it becomes almost perverse to deny it.
The same is so with evolution. People want scientists to replace a thoroughly sound and established scientific idea with religion. Can you blame scientists if they sometimes get a bit irritated?
I was going to say "religious idea" rather than "religion", but it is not even that. Creationist theories run the gamut from "evolution with divine guidance" to "the world was created in 4004 BC". If creationist want scientists to replace the theory of evolution, perhaps they should first agree which creationist theory they have in mind. There are thousands throughout the world.
rabbit - how on earth do you conclude that I support 'evolution by divine authority'???
Actually, the vast majority of biologists support evolution but they don't necessarily subscribe to the causality of only the two forces of randomness and natural selection. I work in information dynamics and work with a lot of biologists, who reject the mechanical causal dyad of neodarwinism (randomness and natural selection) and ADD a networked informational causality which inserts strong and weak anticipation. If you are interested, go to the online journal I edit and check out some names and papers. Authors are in biology, chemistry, physics.
wwwdot library dotutoronto.ca slash see
We most certainly aren't involved in any methaphysical causality (aka divine guidance).
Joe, neodarwinism, which is the mechanical version of Darwinism, is most certainly questioned by a lot of scientists. You can read them in various journals, such as Biosystems, Journal of Theoretical Biology, etc. The reason it is questioned is because it relies on randomness, long temporal periods and 'selection'. Logically and mathematically, these three factors alone wouldn't produce the results of highly organized complex organisms. It's also an enormous energy cost.
So, more and more researchers are moving into an analysis of evolution, NOT as guided by some metaphysical Divinity, but as operating as a complex adaptive network of information.
There is no evidence of one species evolving out of another. There is no evidence that random chance and natural selection led to the variety of life we see on our planet. Evolution (Darwinism, natural selection, random chance)is a core belief of the religion of secular humanists/atheists/liberalism.
If you are at a party and you say that you do not believe in G-d, people shrug their shoulders, so what. If you say you do not believe in evolution you will be looked at as a crack-pot religious person and everyone will be shouting at you.
I am a molecular biologist and I have seen no concrete physical proof that one species has evolved out of another.
just saying
Rabbit,
There are gaping holes in Darwin's theories. You are inadvertently illustrating my point above (9:51am) about science acting more like a religion and less like a, well, science.
If you question Darwin, you aren't by default denying science. People have taught Darwin's THEORIES in science class because for a hundred years, Darwin's theories were the best explanation available at the time. It isn't fact, it's a theory - subject to revision and could be thrown out and replaced at any time if someone publishes a more plausible theory.
Even Einstein's special theory of relativity is subject to holes (the famous "cosmological constant" is a "fudge factor" that even Einstein couldn't account for.) It is also at odds with the laws of thermal dynamics. All of this science is now taught as the most up-to-date information we have. But people are still working to improve what we know.
It's still Stephen Hawking's goal (as it was for Einstein) to find the "Grand Unifying Theory" that would tie the logic together. This would mean a revision or re-writing of both theories.
The bottom line is that there is almost nothing in science that is absolute. There is almost nothing that is not subject to revision at any time. If this was not the case, there would be no need for scientific research because we'd already know everything.
To point this out does not make one a religious fundamentalist. The choices are not binary as I mentioned above in my earlier post. If you believe science as absolute fact then you are no different than creationists. Science is a discipline of human understanding based on our observations of the natural world. Yes, it is based on the "objective" scientific method as far as we are able as human beings but it is written by people. Flesh and blood.
Science is not perfect because it is the written account of what humans know and humans are not perfect. Science then will never be perfect. This doesn't mean your alternative is religion. In accusing everyone who points out that science doesn't have all the answers of being a religious nut, you make yourself look like the same intolerant religious nut you accuse others of being.
Science is an academic discipline - not a cult.
Absolutely true, if you ignore the fossil evidence, and the DNA evidence, and the physiological evidence, and the fact that evolution has actually been seen to take place in our time.
One wonders what sort of evidence you would actually consider "concrete".
Warwick:
I agree totally with everything you say except that the part about "gaping holes in Darwin's theories". That's a lot of hog wash promoted by some very bad science.
"Darwin's theories" (I assume you mean his theory of natural selection) has stood the test of time. It has been improved and built upon (e.g. the question of whether evolution tends to be episodic or gradual, and the incorporation of genetics), but that just demonstrates that it is indeed science, and not religion or dogma.
So what are you saying? That because all scientific knowledge is provisional, scientists should not defend the idea of evolution? Sorry. Evolution and natural selection are the best explanations we currently have, and they should be taught, studied, and yes, defended.
Should the fact that all scientific knowledge is provisional prevent scientists from teaching the
the idea that the earth is round? Should flat earth theory be taught alongside of round earth theory in school because scientific knowledge is incomplete and uncertain? Ridiculous. We should teach the truth as we best now understand it, and evolution is it.
The provisional quality of science does not mean that every alternate theory is right or equal or deserves the same respect. And it certainly doesn't justify teaching religion in the science classroom.
rabbit - I've no idea how you come to the conclusion that I promote 'divine guidance'. Since I'm an atheist, that would be a remarkable leap of illogicality on my part.
At the same time, I don't promote the simplistic mechanisms of neodarwinism, relying as it does on only randomness and natural selection. However, I strongly promote the theory of evolution, but within a process of informed informational networking rather than randomness and the statistical averaging of natural selection.
I work in information dynamics and there are many biologist collaborators who also reject neodarwinism (randomness and natural selection) in favour of a more complex evolutionary process.
ex-liberal. Evolution is not a core belief of the religion of secularism, liberalism, atheism. To align these three is, in itself, illogical. I'm an atheist but not a Liberal (understood in the modern sense of our Liberal/NDP socialism not in the classical liberalism).
randomness and natural selection are the domain of the neodarwinists. My understanding is that core Darwinism is a bit more complex and less reductionist.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence about evolution. Species adapt all the time. There's a recent article in Science VOl 313 July 14 about the recent change in beak sizes of finches in the famous Galapagos Islands. If you consider that all organisms, both as individuals and as collectives, are informationally networked, then, you'll see how they constantly adapt to each other.
Warwick, I don't think of science as inadequate due to human ignorance, but rather that formal theories can never fully explain informal instances; that's Godel.
I didn't mean to suggest that any theory should be taught. I don't mean that natural selection and evolution shouldn't be. Just that people aught to recognize that questions about science are not attacks on science or an attempt to replace science with religion.
I think you should teach what is the most probable solution to any question. Only if there are more than one plausible and roughly-equal solutions/theories should both be taught. Obviously, religion doesn't count.
There are some people who attack science from a religious perspective and those people should be denounced as mixing apples with oranges. Science and Religion are separate. You may say that perhaps what we know to be science is God's doing and that the building blocks of science like DNA and the Big Bang are the method God used to build the universe. But this is religious philosophy, not science and has no place in a science class. Certainly the creationist myths should have no place in any school.
My point is that those who defend science often do so far too dogmatically and defensively. People, often due to fatigue or frustration at arguing with the religious end up being intolerant of any dissent. I find intolerance and rigidity to be the worst enemy of science.
My bet is that there will be a huge revision if not replacement of Natural selection and evolution. Again, this doesn't mean I want to see invalid/inferior theories taught. It means that I look forward to more research.
The biggest irony is that I have a darwin fish on my car cause the first time I saw one I laughed like hell...
ET:
It was Richard Ball that brought up the topic of "divine direction", not you. These computer thingys are so confusing. My apologies.
But what the hell is "informed informational networking"?
And since when did Godel talk about "informal instances". Godel's most famous result was about the limitations of mathematical systems. If that's what you're talking about, well it has nothing to do with scientific epistemology.
rabbit,
the DNA evidence does not "prove" evolution as far as I can tell. The same genes code for the same proteins from flies to humans but this does not prove that flies evolved into humans or that they have common ancestors. There is a fossil record but it does not include so-called "missing links" which would show amoebas becoming amphibians and then mammals.
ET,
species adapt but that does not prove that finches become any other species.
Atheists, secular humanists, and liberals tend to believe in evolution to explain the origin of life/the meaning (or lack of meaning) of life
Warwick:
If scientists seem overly defensive about evolution, it's because the vast majority of "attacks" against evolution are clearly religiously inspired (e.g., The Discovery Institute, the recent Dover case in the U.S.). Most scientists strongly believe (as they should) that science should not invoke divine or supernatural causes. What you get down to it, "then a miracle occured" explains nothing.
If people were to put forward scientific alternatives to evolution or natural selection to explain the given evidence, then the reaction would probably be a little more restrained. There doesn't seem to be much of that about, however.
The meaning of life: Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. And, finally, here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and to hopefully spark some sort of controversy, which, it seems, is the only way, these days, to get the jaded, video-sated public off their f***ing arses and back in the sodding cinema...
Sorry, ex-liberal, but the fossil record is full of transitional forms ("missing links", as you call them). Someone's been telling you big fat lies. Of course, every time a transitional form is discovered, two more are created.
Rabbit, what are those transitional forms?
Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould is famous for declaring that transition fossils are lacking:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."(Gould)
ex-liberal, if an adaptive form becomes isolate it can be understood as a species.
I believe in evolution, not because I am an atheist, but because it makes scientific and logical sense.
rabbit, I don't agree with the notion of 'transitional forms' for that implies that an organism is gradually moving on a predetermined path to a 'final form'.
rabbit, with regard to Godel, the basic concept is that a formal system can provide an abstract model but the model cannot fully articulate all instances (informal). You already know that.
Informed informational networking deals with what it says: the theory that both abiotic and biotic realities are interactive and networked and that adaptations are the result of information exchange. That means that we reject randomness as the major cause of change. I work with biologists and physicists in this field.
Google the phrase Semiosis, Evolution, Energy and you'll hopefully come up with our online journal. I tried in an earlier post, caught in spam, to give the link.
ex-liberal:
Allow me to quote (Laurie Godfrey, 1986(?))"
rabbit
those are all nice words, but what transitional forms are you talking about and why haven't some of these transitional forms survived?
Evolution is a theory. Generally people who do not believe in G-d, "believe" in evolution. I am just saying that that there is no "proof" of one species evolving out of another - of say bacteria becoming lichen, or fish becoming mammals.
ex-liberal:
1. What transitional forms am I talking about? Here's a web site:
2. Why haven't any transitional forms survived? "Surviving transitional forms" as a term doesn't really make sense. There are all sorts of transitional forms living today, but how are we to know which ones they are? We don't know what they will evolve into, if they will evolve at all. You may want to be more precise here.
3. While many atheists "believe" in evolution, so do many non-atheists. So what?
4. Mathematicians use proofs, scientists use evidence. You can't "prove" a scientific theory. But regarding evidence, there's a ton of it. You want details, I suggest you search the web, or read one of the many books. How about "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas Futuyma?
http://www.nabt.org/sub/evolution/panda2-4.asp#PLATO,%20ARISTOTLE,%20GALEN
The above link is from The National Association of Biology Teachers:
FROM ARISTOTLE TO DARWIN AND BACK AGAIN:
A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution
This is the unusual title of a remarkable book that is a big help in understanding how Darwin—without even reading Aristotle—insured the eclipse of Aristotelian teleology inbiology. Its author was Etienne Gilson, late of the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, where he enjoyed an illustrious career as a scholar of the philosophy and theology of the Middle Ages.
Gilson got around to reading the Origin of Species when he was in his mid-eighties, and he read it three times, he said, before undertaking to write on evolution (p. 139). His book is not an easy read. One must pay attention, and go slowly, in order to follow his discussions of Aristotle, his bringing out the mechanist objection to teleology, his appraisal of finality and evolution and of the limits of mechanism, and "the constants of biophilosophy." He certainly had no need to apologize for what he called his "exceptional ignorance" of the subject, following his third read: "noting once again how little qualified I was to read it." Instead of unfamiliarity, we also find the contributions of the seventeenth century Francis Bacon, Georges Buffon of the eighteenth, Lamarck, and others, blended into his discerning analysis of Darwin's Origin. It is clear that he made himself a master of a field that was not his own, a field to which he brought his own erudition, and that as an octagenarian he expressed himself with a vibrancy and acuteness of reasoning that spring from every page.
It's funny. Science is being attacked by post-modernist lefties as being right wing, and by religious right wingers as being left wing. And yet you never hear of either group getting so disgusted by the technology that comes from science that they refuse to use it.
All of science is just theories. Evolution is no different than quantum mechanics or gravitational theory in that regard (in fact, it's impossible for our current theories of quantum mechanics and gravity to be simultaneously true ... at a fundamental level they are contradictory - though there's hope super string theory might fix it by replacing both of them). And while many (if not most) high school kids wish that only what was known for certain be taught in schools, it probably wouldn't be good for our society, because it would mean canceling every science class. Take away theories and there's nothing left. I wonder how long it'd take other countries to overtake us technologically?
Kate may not appreciate us going on about the validity of evolution, but just a few more thoughts.
I am just saying that the theory of evolution has become a belief system that requires faith.
Did atoms from the big bang become humans?
Religion defines a person's worldview.
Religion answers the basic questions of life:
Where did we come from? (From chance collisions of atoms in a 'primordial soup.')
What are we here for? (There's no ultimate purpose in life - it's all random chance.)
For most people, all of science requires faith. How many people could, without appealing for authority, explain the experiments which provide evidence for the existence of protons and electrons? Except for a few physicists and chemists, people believe in them because they trust the people who tell them they exist. Same for almost everything in science. DNA? How many people have done the experiments suggesting they do what people think they do. Again, it comes down to trusting (or not trusting) the people who claim to know these things. Same thing for evolution, except in this case it goes against some core beliefs for some people (not all people, many Christians, including the Catholic church, have no trouble with evolution - it's just the way God went about creating the universe).
As a whole, people 'believe' in science because things like computers, MRI's, heart transplants and the like work.
Eisenhower also wanted to take over Canada to get our resources. Dief was here at that time. He stopped,due to American pressure,The Avro Arrow. Why are you quoting Eisenhower? Like he was a great man. He was a soldier, a lot like dictators around the world.