23 Responses to “Another Controversial Cartoon”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Does the existance of an evil tyrant, just as bad or even worse than Saddam Hussein, invalidate the argument that Saddam Hussein is (or was) an evil tyrant?
Or, asked differently, why should Dawkins fight against 'animal rights terrorists' over 'IDists'? Because you believe 'animal rights terrorists' are a bigger threat to science? Because objectively they are? And could it be that there are even worse threats than both 'animal rights terrorists' and 'IDists', thus forcing us to ignore both and fight against a third threat?
Let's face it, anybody who fights for or against anything will inevitably have different priorities than you or me. And the fact that we might have different priorities does not make somebody elses causes invalid.
Comment by hrun — March 3, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:03 pm
I think the fact that their focus is on ID and religion proponents, which do not threaten to burn down labs or are not suspects in murder cases (and IMO, do not threaten science at all), and they completely ignore the actual threat (animal rights terrorists), shows that their agenda is actually anti-ID/anti-religion, not "pro-science".
To put biochemists who argue for ID anywhere near the same plane as animal rights terrorists is ludicrous.
Comment by Guts — March 3, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:10 pm
For one, the animal rights terrorists are on Dawkins' home turf. Locality still has weight, morally, for how one should spend one's time. Most ethicists would agree that, ceteris paribus, the demands at home take priority over the demands across the street (or over seas for that matter).
But things are not ceteris paribus. ID theorists are not threatening the lives of scientists.
Great cartoon, by the way!!
Comment by bipod — March 3, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:18 pm
So what if they burn down labs or murder people? There are police to deal with such crimes. Why even bring it up? It remains a fact, that just because in your opinion there may be worthier causes to fight for (or against), does not make other causes unworthy.
Why, if you were to ask Dawkins, he might even tell you that he feels IDists are a greater threat than terrorists. It might be that in his eyes 'terrorists' are not an actual threat to science, thus he might not feel the need to fight against it.
Now, if you would like to make an argument that Dawkins is not 'pro-science' but 'anti-ID/anti-religion', that's perfectly fine. But you have to show it by proving that his actions are indeed not 'pro-science' but 'anti-ID/anti-religion'.
For example, I donated money to the folks who got hit by the flood in southeast asia, but I did not donate money to the folks in the southern US. Some might say that my actions show that I am for helping people struck by natural disasasters. But you might make an argument from my ommission to aid people in the US. What if I were to donate money for sending a high school cheerleading team to nationals but refuse to help the drunk homeless person who is sleeping on the sidewalk? If you would like to make the case that I am not a charitable person, you can't argue from the fact that there may be worthy charities I am not getting involved in. If that was a valid argument, nobody would be considered charitable.
The same holds true for people attempting to (in their eyes) defend science.
Comment by hrun — March 3, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Ahh, right. Brings me right back to donating money for the folks in Banda Ace, but not in New Orleans.
And as I said, there is already a mechanism in place to protect people from getting killed. It's called law enforcement. There is no mechanism in place to protect science from ID (in Dawkins eyes).
Comment by hrun — March 3, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:28 pm
This isn't about "other causes" this is about the way actual threats to science are ignored. There is an ideology, as expressed by these terrorists, that actually threatens science and scientists, to ignore this and focus on the ideology that fosters ID shows a hidden agenda. These aren't just some random nuts harrassing scientists. I can't think of anything else that is more important to inform the public about, the Chancellor of Oxford University obviously thought it was so important that he made a speech about it.
Which is ridiculous. If a scientist can't do his work because he's afraid of his lab getting burnt to the ground while he is performing an experiment, I can't think of any other greater threat to science that needs to be addressed, that needs calling attention to. This is why Pro-Test was formed.
This is a great example. This has been written about extensively on this blog. It's not just Dawkins either, there is a pattern, as shown here.
Comment by Guts — March 3, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Guts, the great example you show is more of the same. One threat gets ignored, while another one gets addressed. From that fact you make the argument that Dawkins is insincere. This argument does not hold water.
If you can make the argument that ID is not a threat to science, then you have proven your case. Dawkins ignoring threats that are perceived by you to be more urgent does nothing.
Comment by hrun — March 3, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I don't think we should underestimate the threat-iness of ID proponents. I mean, dude, those people quote scientists out of context!
Comment by Krauze — March 3, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Hrun,
Uhh, that "other" threat includes (but is not limited to) the prevention of the construction of science labs. Which ID proponent has ever accomplished this through death threats and harrassment? Behe? Dembski? Nelson?
"Perceived by you" is the understatement of the year, as if I was the only one who thinks this is an extremely important issue that shouldn't be ignored. People who say they are "pro-science" should step up to the plate and start living up to their name if they are to be taken seriously.
Comment by Guts — March 3, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Hi Hrun,
So what you're saying is that Dawkins' perception of ID as a threat to science is just his personal opinion? I already knew that.
Comment by Krauze — March 3, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Those inhumane bastards, how could they.
Comment by Guts — March 3, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Ever since I was a kid, I wanted to become a scientist. I wanted to dissect monkey brains to cure brain Alzheimers, having tea and crumpets with those nice people from AFL every other Wednesday.
Imagine my horror when I read about YEC Gary Parker quoting Lewontin out of context. Can anyone truly understand the pain and anguish this must have caused poor Dr. Lewontin? For weeks, I fretted over it, deciding whether to ignore the risks to pursue my dream of becoming a scientist. But in the end, I realized that the personal dangers were to great, and decided to pursue my other dream of dancing in the Ice Capades.
I shudder to think of how many others were scared away from a life in science by these quote-mining thugs.
Comment by Krauze — March 3, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:38 pm
I, for one, would love to hear Dawkins say that.
Comment by macht — March 3, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:43 pm
I dream of the day that scientists aren't quoted out of context. A day where common folks - like you and me - can break into laboratories and destroy years and years of research.
Comment by macht — March 3, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Krauze, what I am saying is that everybody prioritizes their world according to their perception. Obviously, to you (and others here) ID is less of a threat to science than, let's say, these 'animal rights terrorists'. To Dawkins, apparently, this is not a fight he wants to dedicate his time to. Who cares. This is like disparaging people who work at animal shelters because they are not willing to volunteer in hospitals, orphanages and hospice facilities.
The fact that there are worse threats does not lead to the conclusion that ID is not a threat or that Dawkins is insincere in his effort do defend science.
If you were able to actually show that Dawkins is unwilling to defend science (i.e. if he were opposed to fighting 'animal rights terrorists') you might have a case. Or if you could show that Dawkins is fighting ID, not because it is a threat to science, but for other reasons, again, you'd have a case.
Yes, just like those fake do-gooders who volunteer at animal shelters, but pass by homeless people. Or the folks who spend money on music ed for poor kids, while ignoring starvation in Africa. Step up. Help for real, and not with your faux litte causes that aren't nearly as important as the real problems Guts decides you should work on.
Comment by hrun — March 3, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Hrun, you aren't addressing the issue nor answering my questions. Science is actually being stopped , scientists are getting death threats, in Dawkins own home. This is not some vague , future prediction that if some concept across the seas gains favor that science will somehow someway stop working. Science is actually, right now, being stopped. Someone in his position as the "Professor for the public understanding of science" has the responsibility to speak out against this as others are doing in his own school. He has the responsibility to speak out and defend science and scientific research, if thats truely what he wants to do. The fact that he, and others, ignore this, but are lashing out against Intelligent Design and religion on an almost daily basis, points to a hidden agenda. How does it make sense to lash out at people who are not stopping science, preventing the construction of labs, murding people, issuing death threats but ignore the people who are? There is a reason for this.
Comment by Guts — March 3, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Guts,
The fact of the matter is for Dawkins et. al. it's atheism first, science second. That is why they hate ID so much. In their gut they know that the modern synthesis just doesn't quite make sense, and they deeply hate and fear the implications of a science that points at teleology in the cosmos.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 3, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 1:35 am
In following Matt's thoughts, it'd be funny if it weren't sad that this episode serves as such an interesting example of religion taking precedence over science. Only in this instance it's the ones who are always prone to denounce religion who are providing the example…
There's something odd that happends sometimes where people who seem to make the most grandiose efforts to fight their 'enemy' (who or what ever that might be) end up serving as a perfect example of the enemy whom they are supposed to be fighting.
Comment by Dane Parker — March 4, 2006 @ 1:35 am
March 4th, 2006 at 8:34 am
hrun is absolutely right.
Concepts like ID are a threat to the existing reductionistic mechanistic "modern evolutionary synthesis" and its correlary of a purposeless cosmos and ateleological evolutionary history, and people like Dawkins are right to focus on this existential challenge to their deeply-held metaphysic.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 4, 2006 @ 8:34 am
March 4th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Hrun:
Why think in terms of either/or? I would not suggest that Dawkins should speak out against the animal rights terrorists instead of the IDists. What's wrong with speaking out against the animal rights terrorists in addition to speaking out against the IDists?
Dawkins's own university has been fire-bombed. His friends and students at Oxford have been targeted and threatened. Why can't he simply speak up and throw his public support behind his own school, colleagues, and students? Why not publicly praise the 16-year-old boy who is standing up for science?
Look, there are many scientists out there who are afraid to speak out because they don't want to become targeted because of their research. But Dawkins doesn't do research. He has the media's attention. He has the reputation for addressing controversial issues. In fact, he even has some level of influence among the animal rights extremists, as much of their value system is built around his teachings about "˜specieism.' He is a unique position to make a powerful impact on this debate. In addition to promoting the "Brights" and attacking Bush and religion, why can't he just speak out in favor of biological research?
Comment by MikeGene — March 4, 2006 @ 9:11 am
March 4th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Hi Hrun,
"This is like disparaging people who work at animal shelters because they are not willing to volunteer in hospitals, orphanages and hospice facilities."
The problem with your analogy is that when people choose to work in animals shelters or to volunter in hospitals, we know that their choices are just based on their personal preferences. But Dawkins is posing as the Defender of Science, acting as if he's only concerned about the future of science. Admitting that the target of his attacks was just an expression of his personal preferences would deflate his rhetoric.
Comment by Krauze — March 4, 2006 @ 9:53 am
March 4th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
While the ID critics sustain their fear with fantasies about potential futures, here's some more real-world data about a real-world threat to science:
Note carefully that "several named companies" have now pledged "to pull their funding for the university."
I wonder if hrun can tell us what university has lost funding because of some campaign run by the DI.
Comment by MikeGene — March 4, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
March 5th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Krauze: "I don't think we should underestimate the threat-iness of ID proponents. I mean, dude, those people quote scientists out of context!"
You mean like this?…
hrun: "So what if they burn down labs or murder people?"
Comment by Douglas — March 5, 2006 @ 7:11 pm