What Science Does and Does Not Indicate
by BradfordDavid Berlinski will conduct a tour of the United States in April to promote his newest book The Devil's Delusion. Berlinski is a talented writer, an imposing intellect and not reluctant to buck the tide of prevailing opinion.
Confident assertions by scientists that"¦ they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God's existence.- David Berlinski
Attitudes about Intelligent Design are influenced by how we view science and God and whether our view of one affects our attitude toward the other. New Atheists have weighed in with their opinions. Another perspective from a bright analytical mind not committed to theism or Christianity is a refreshing turn of events.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:06 am
That's the best piece of hype about this nonentity of a lightweight. His contribution to science, philosophy (his graduate field of study), and mathematics are obscure if at all, and inconsequential today. Berlinski (as with Paul Nelson) of course must be credited with a little more courage than his collaborators at the Seattle club, as he does not hide behind the cover of newsboards masquerading as blogs - like Evolutionnews - or run a crooked blog like UD where posts are deleted, trimmed, and edited at will to cover up the tracks or conceal howlers. Berlinski's main problem is his extreme pomposity, which for his meger accomplishments instantly sounds comical. Like here where he lays claim to the thoughts of all scientists re god, when if at all any "experiments" are being conducted wrt god, it is to prove god's existence! Not to forget the two-bit mathematician who has published a proof of god's existence. But given the generally poor quality of discussion within the creationist community (all varieties new, old, open, and subtle) these big errors are rarely noticed.
Comment by agam — March 26, 2008 @ 9:06 am
March 26th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Go tell Victor Stenger. Hell, go tell a good number of evangelical atheists who outright abuse science to advance their philosophy and atheological views of choice, then recoil with utter terror at the thought of John Templeton's organization, which is apparently somehow a threat to science.
Who, Kurt Godel?
Comment by nullasalus — March 26, 2008 @ 9:49 am
March 26th, 2008 at 10:02 am
agam,
if you're going to cry about someone's post being trimmed and editted, it might be wise to not add a bunch of emoticons to a portion that you're quoting.
LOL. This…. from you? Wow. Now that's funny. You post a rant, loaded with smears and sneers; and then you're going to concern yourself with "poor quality of discussion within the creationist community".
Hopefully, most people take you as serious as I take you.
I also like how this nonentity elicits such an emotional response from you.
Agam, there's a difference between a nonentity and a thorn in your side. You may try to write the latter off as the former, but when you act in the manner you did it's certainly not convincing…. amusing…. but not convincing.
Comment by Doug — March 26, 2008 @ 10:02 am
March 26th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
What is your weight class agam?
Spoken like a true ideologue.
This is a false characterization. Berlinski does not pretend that all scientists think alike. Why would you infer otherwise?
If your comment was intended as an example of quality you fell short of the mark.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
agam:
Bradford:
Agam should know the background of prize-fighting before mentioning a particular weight class (lightweight) with the intent of mocking Berlinski.
Since in boxing (as well as in mma and kickboxing) the 'lightweight' division tends to be the most active. Yielding more interesting fights and fighters. Compared to that typically vapid 'heavyweight' division. The division with the fighters who (historically and for a large part) that lack heart and the ability to provide exciting fights.
Comment by Doug — March 26, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Doug I am not crying about somebody's posts being trimmed, it's just another one of those things creationist bloggers do that is ridiculous. In particular I am referring to the hamhanded management of UD where any posts that question the creationist party line - Dembski variety - are summarily deleted. It is not worth the trouble logging in to UD, we'd rather take their silly arguments apart on pandasthumb or pharyngula. If it is not serious enough there is always AtBC! You guys here too require us to register and login, but we don't mind because you don't exhibit the same sort of misplaced zeal that the folks at UD do. But I like your Quicktags and smileys, and so if its available why not use it and be more expressive?
OK lightweight is the wrong analogy to describe Berlinski contribution to letters. So then let's call him a heavyweight - in your terms - and Chu-Carroll a lightweight for making Berlinski look like a clueless newbie:grin:
Berlinski isn't a thorn in my flesh and less still for the scientific community. At this point we have many groups pursuing different avenues of research in specific fields. Theories today do not stand or fall due to the actions of individual scientists. Darn the debate over evolution isn't a scientific debate at all. Berlinski isn't about to shaft somebody's funding proposal or second someone's ternure application. For that he would have to wield some authority, or command some respect on scientific matters, or policy debates. Neither in France (where he is something of a laughing stock) nor in the US does he serve in any capacity in any scientific organization. Darn
he is not even a professor for the public understanding of science.
Evangelical atheist? OK I do have a problem with atheism, because it can be defined only wrt theism, even then how does one become an evangelical atheist?:roll: OK I get the idea, a megahall, with healing, commitment, and a lot of shaking and rolling, with millions collected and spent on a lavish lifestyle? Is there any atheist who makes anything comparable to even an obscure megachurch? I can see you being annoyed with the rather unambiguous rejection of faith by Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger, Shallit or PZ. But this is not what they do for a living. Stenger spent many years teaching physics before he took on qstions of faith. He is one of the few free-thinking scientists who spends his time writing about faith. There are numberless others who don't bother with it at all. And most of them if not all free-thinking scientists consider this sort of writing to be the least important part of their work. Jeff Shallitt for instance spent more time working with the plaintiffs at Dover than on his brilliant book reviews (read the masterpiece eviscerating that shallow and illread Freud vs. Lewis book by Antonio De Nicholas, where Shallit sets up Lewis against Russell and takes apart Lewis), and after all the work he does advising his graduate students. Scientists don't have the time to "witness" to atheists, even tenured ones. A lot of them believing or otherwise are happy to let the rest of the world carry on - with belief or without it. We aren't ranting friends. It's all in jest cheer up:mrgreen:
Comment by agam — March 26, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
agam:
Be advised along with all others that blog entries are not to be used as opportunities to bash UD. Stick to the topic. You are not the only one doing this. There are places on the web for UD complaints. This blog entry is not one of them.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
How boring. Zzzzzzzzz… I think agam got lost on his way over to Pharyngula for the party, or AtBC for the after-party.
Comment by Joy — March 26, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
agam:
There are and have been atheists who control the resources of entire nations. As for megachurches and megabuck pastors, they constitute a speck on the landscape. Most clergymen earn an income that is below the average. 99% fall into that category. Of course it is the small numbers who are exceptions that atheists like to pound the drums about.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
That's why I focused on your use of the word 'editted' and not 'trimmed'.
What you're doing isn't ridiculous? You come here and make some well-worn (random) slams against Berlinski, Nelson, UD, creationists in general. Use some pretty sorry analogies. (by the way, if Berlinski is now the heavyweight and Chu-Carroll now a lightweight you're still in a bad way. A lightweight would get annihilated by a heavyweight in a catch-bout.)
Any post? Again, a ridiculous claim.
Oh, those bastions of intellectual honesty and open-minded discussion? You don't need to ban anyone there, you'll just mock them until they shut up. Large numbers + derision doesn't not = a valid point.
Mock…. alot like what you're doing here.
Wow. Misplaced zeal? Now that's holding UD and Phar, PT and AtBC to complete different standards.
It appears that you prefer one form of 'misplaced zeal' over another.
Sure, only after you present those arguments effectively to Victor Reppert 1st.
Comment by Doug — March 26, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
OK Doug if you insist, Chu-Carroll is the heavyweight and Berlinski is the lightweight - have it your way:smile: Check out their exchange on Good Math when Chu-Carroll used blogspot. These are not random slams. They sound worn because a Berlinski or a Nelson keeps making the same mistake over and over again! Seriously, you want to question the intellectual honesty of PT? That debate got over a few years ago. PT is the best popular resource for evolutionary biology around. Game, set, and match.
OK a lot of preachers don't make much money, just as most scientists don't, and yes a lot of preachers too stay clear of creationism and all its splendourous variants - no different from scientists!
Thnks a lot for the bandwidth.
Nalam nalamariya aaval - that's how one would sign off a letter in Tamizh - literally, I am OK, and eagerly wish to know how you are doing!
Comment by agam — March 26, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
March 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
agam:
Popular being the operative word. He's popular because of his non-science positions and his tough guy rhetoric. There are thousands of better locations on the web for real science.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
March 27th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Pompous twit much? Amuchtoomuch. Of course PZ did get mad about it, so I understand. Not that you cats are easy to herd or anything. Not sure if there's such a thing as a cyber-sciencism-groupie, but… damn. Free Thinkers my ass!
By the way, you used "we" quite often in your post, who are the "we" you keep referring to? Jus' curious. I suspect we all know what you mean.
(edit)And if this post is moved to the memory hole by the TT creationists with their properly placed zeal, we will know just what kind of sneaky bastards they all really are. And we will take their silly arguments apart elsewhere. No doubt.
[/overlysarcasticineedtogotobedbutcantsleepsoamjustttypingnonsensenowr ant]
I feel better.
Comment by Rob R. — March 27, 2008 @ 1:14 am