Can Ideas Have Consequences?

Ideas Have Consequences: A Report from the National Conference on Christian Apologetics:

This past weekend, more than 1,500 people attended the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte, NC. The theme was "Ideas Have Consequences." Among the speakers was Discovery Institute Fellow Paul Nelson, who gave three separate presentations to highly engaged and enthusiastic attendees. His first session was a premier screening of Living Waters: Intelligent Design in the Oceans of the Earth, in partnership with Illustra Media. This beautifully filmed and wonderfully narrated documentary shows marvelous examples of design in dolphins, turtles, salmon, and whales.

The crowd of over a hundred at the screening thoroughly enjoyed the film. In the Q&A session afterward, Dr. Nelson received many positive comments and excellent queries about current evolutionary explanations for the origin of Cetaceans, how to promote Illustra films, and what people can do to encourage discussions on the evidence for design in nature and the shortcomings of materialist philosophy.

There is more. I read it all and I don't understand any of it. I don't understand how ideas can have consequences, unless you are using the definition "a conclusion derived through logic". I think that actions based on ideas can have consequences.

The only thing that makes sense of this nonsense is that it is produced by The Discovery Institute. How dare they use the URL evolutionnews.org.

Christian Apologetics really are the worst. Their writings are total word salad. They make Sarah Palin look good. I dare you to read Dave Armstrong.

Duping theologians:

In 2012, atheist philosopher Maarten Boudry committed a Sokal-style hoax against a theology conference^[12] by submitting an intentionally absurd abstract, under an anagrammatic pseudonym,^[13] that was promptly accepted.^[14] Conference abstracts are not subject to peer-review, so getting this sort of material under the radar isn't as difficult as it might seem - and should a conference be desperate for the numbers, they might just accept any old rubbish to fill the slots. Yet, even a casual read-through of Boudry's abstract shows it to be clearly a load of nonsense. The opening sentences form a semi-coherent screed about Darwinian evolution:

In the Darwinian perspective, order is not immanent in reality, but it is a self-affirming aspect of reality in so far as it is experienced by situated subjects. However, it is not so much reality that is self-affirming, but the creative order structuring reality which manifests itself to us.

Boudry even managed to shoehorn Dawkins' name into the abstract, too, suggesting that we should "reframe our sense of locatedness of existence within a the space of radical contingency of spiritual destiny"[sic] — which is, somehow, contrary to Dawkins' own assertions. The lesson to draw from this? sometimes, "expertise" really means "using big words," and it doesn't take much to impress people who are eager to have their own views reinforced no matter what. As Jerry Coyne noted:

I defy you to understand what he’s saying, but of course it appeals to those who, steeped in Sophisticated Theology™, love a lot of big words that say nothing but somehow seem to criticize materialism while affirming the divine. It doesn’t hurt if you diss Dawkins a couple of times, either.

Ben Stein's Can Of Worms

From The movie overview for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

His heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few.

Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

First of all, let me point out that “confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers” with “believing that there might be evidence” doesn’t really make it seem like Ben Stein has a strong argument for his case.

Secondly, let me point out that Mr. Stein has ripped the cover off of his can of worms. By the logic that Mr. Stein is using to promote “intelligent design”, I should have a legitimate complaint against every place of worship in this country. How dare they not hire me to preach to their congregations that there is no God!

If Ben Stein wants religion to enter the science classroom, it seems only fair to let atheism enter the place of worship.

How Will Becoming More Ignorant Help Us Solve Our Problems?

Teacher Fired Over Religion:


What a great question Christine Comer asks: “How can I remain neutral over something that is not science?” Creationism is not Science. Creationism belongs in a Theology class taught by a qualified Theology teacher. It does not belong in a Science class taught by a Science teacher. If we were to apply the same logic to what the Creationists want us to do to our schools then it follows that teachers trained in Physical Education would teach Math, teachers trained in Biology would teach History, teachers trained in Computer Science would teach Theology, etc. Is this what we want? Let our Science teachers teach Science. Their job is hard enough already. In many cases it is life threatening. They don’t need the Creationists and Intelligent Designers making it harder for them. I don’t understand why there is even a debate about this. The whole issue is so idiotic.

The United States is rapidly imploding and destroying itself because of stupidity and ignorance. Other countries have better savings habits, better birth rates, better health, better healthcare, better education, etc. Terrorist are not the biggest threat this country faces. We ourselves are the biggest threat this country faces. We elected an immoral idiot as our president and have suffered the consequences every day since. George W. Bush has managed to put our great country into crisis mode. We need smart people to help us solve our problems. Teachers help make people smarter, if they are allowed to teach properly. Let’s keep religion out of our Science classrooms. It does not belong there.

Knuckleheads And Energy And Time

The following paragraph is from Advice From "Becoming a Writer" by Zuska:

Time and energy spent in efforts to educate knuckleheads about women's abilities and the barriers they face is time and energy that can't be spent for some other creative endeavor. And yet, the knuckleheads and the barriers must be dealt with. For even the energy required just to manage one's reactions to the endless series of knuckleheads and institutional barriers, without actually trying to do anything to educate the knuckleheads or remove the barriers, is energy no longer available for science. Possibly one of the most aggravating aspects of this work is that those dishing out the harassment and discrimination, those engaged in behavior that supports and enables institutional barriers, are the very ones who will tell you there is nothing for you to be so upset about. You are: overreacting, taking things out of context, lacking a sense of humor, misunderstanding, complaining about things that are just "normal", magnifying the significance of a possibly regrettable, but singular, slip-up. You are accused of seeing sexism everywhere, because you dare to point it out somewhere.

I admit to knowing pretty much nothing about sexism in the field of science. When I read the paragraph that I have borrowed from Zuska I think of two things. First, how much time and energy is wasted by scientists, and other rational people, because of creationists and intelligent designers (the knuckleheads). Second, I think of how much time and energy is wasted by people going to various religious ceremonies and praying. Time and energy spent saying and hearing the same thing over and over again must certainly dull the creative mind into some sort of unthinking rote-loving slush. I feel especially angry and sad when I think of children being forced to go through all of the propaganda of organized religion. I realize that people do all of this because they think it is the right thing to do. I simply disagree. It would take a much longer post to go into why I disagree. For now, I just wanted to express what the paragraph by Zuska made me think of.

Jesus Will Come And Then You'll Be Sorry, Atheist Dog

PZ Myers on Intelligent Designers:

“…they'd rather just whine that they don't understand something, so we must not, either.”

I outright stole my title from the second comment which was by Glen Davidson. I hope he doesn't mind. I just couldn’t resist it.