'Why I’m sticking up for science.'

[Nearly Sane]

Dawkins is correct here.


https://archive.vn/ehxJ3

[Dicky Underpants]

Dawkins is correct here.


https://archive.vn/ehxJ3

Mercy on us! A professor of biology removed from his  post for teaching evolution in a university in contemporary New Zealand? Blimey, I think they even allow that at Brigham Young University in Mormon territory. Never thought I'd hear that NZ had descended to a lower level of ignorant stupidity than Kansas (whose original decision I think was overturned).

[Udayana]

Mercy on us! A professor of biology removed from his  post for teaching evolution in a university in contemporary New Zealand? Blimey, I think they even allow that at Brigham Young University in Mormon territory. Never thought I'd hear that NZ had descended to a lower level of ignorant stupidity than Kansas (whose original decision I think was overturned).

Dawkins seems to be enjoying his new role as winder-upper, but note he did not say "removed from his post for teaching evolution".

Clements was removed from his post (which included teaching evolution and ecology) following his signing of the letter to The Listener. Now, his "punishment" is questionable, but is down to a clash of views over the value of including Matauranga Maori in science courses and free speech in academia - not for teaching evolution in any form.
     

[Dicky Underpants]

Dawkins seems to be enjoying his new role as winder-upper, but note he did not say "removed from his post for teaching evolution".

Clements was removed from his post (which included teaching evolution and ecology) following his signing of the letter to The Listener. Now, his "punishment" is questionable, but is down to a clash of views over the value of including Matauranga Maori in science courses and free speech in academia - not for teaching evolution in any form.
     

Well, Dawkins' wording is (probably deliberately) ambiguous . He says "Professor Kendall Clements was removed FROM teaching evolution.."
Dawkins is certainly concerned that Maori myths, coupled with instilling a lot of white man's guilt and a peculiar form of vitalism are being introduced  into the biological curriculum. But I get the feeling he'd like us to think that science is being hopelessly watered down and the teaching of neo-Darwinism is under threat.

[Sriram]

Neo Darwinism is under threat anyway....from scientists themselves...

[Sriram]

Makes one think..... what does all this 'knowledge' of science really mean to anyone....what's the big deal anyway?

Most people in the world (even in developed nations) have very little (if any) knowledge of evolution, cosmology, atomic physics, genetics etc.  Quite often it is rudimentary at best. Even for many people who do have some knowledge of it, it hardly makes any difference in their lives. Much of what is learnt in college is forgotten by and by.

Most people in the world are happier believing in local legends and myths. It gives them a better sense of meaning and purpose than science does.

I don't think there is ever going to be a time, unlike what Dawkins seems to want, when all the people in the world are going to be rational atheists, living content lives with the limited information of the external world that we have through science. 

[Stranger]

Makes one think..... what does all this 'knowledge' of science really mean to anyone....what's the big deal anyway?

Most people in the world (even in developed nations) have very little (if any) knowledge of evolution, cosmology, atomic physics, genetics etc.  Quite often it is rudimentary at best. Even for many people who do have some knowledge of it, it hardly makes any difference in their lives. Much of what is learnt in college is forgotten by and by.

The point is that even if they don't understand it, or even believe it, it still touches their lives. Technology works for everybody, whether they believe in the theories that enable it or not (all electronic devices rely on quantum mechanics, GPS relies on general relativity, and medicine often needs to consider evolution). That's why it's absurd to regard it as somehow cultural.

[Sriram]

Too much is made of technology. Humans have lived for millennia without most of the recent technological marvels. Even most of us on here (the aged ones) have lived for decades without computers and cell phones. People in India have lived for decades without TV.....probably some people still do.   

Most people in India don't use much of the technology. (Admittedly cell phones have caught on very well even in rural areas). Most technology is only a convenience and many people will not miss it if it suddenly disappears.

Medical marvels are useful no doubt....but even here there is a growing distrust of the medical fraternity and there is an increasing trend towards traditional medicines.   

[Stranger]

Too much is made of technology. Humans have lived for millennia without most of the recent technological marvels. Even most of us on here (the aged ones) have lived for decades without computers and cell phones. People in India have lived for decades without TV.....probably some people still do.   

Most people in India don't use much of the technology. (Admittedly cell phones have caught on very well even in rural areas). Most technology is only a convenience and many people will not miss it if it suddenly disappears.

Which all rather spectacularly misses the point, which was that technology (that does affect lives, even if you argue that we could do without it) works for everybody regardless of their beliefs, which puts it, and therefore the science that enables it, into an entirely different category to any culture-based beliefs.

It's also worth pointing out the naivety of thinking people wouldn't miss it if it suddenly disappeared. You are neglecting the role it plays in the global system of finance and trade. Whether you think that is a good or bad thing, doesn't change the fact that we all depend on it to some degree or other.

Medical marvels are useful no doubt....but even here there is a growing distrust of the medical fraternity and there is an increasing trend towards traditional medicines.

Which is a problem. Modern medicine is far from perfect, but at least it has some basis in evidence, whereas "traditional medicines" have been shown, time and time again, to simply not work (at least not work any better than a placebo).

Q: What do you call an "alternative medicine" that works?
A: Medicine.   

[Udayana]

...
Medical marvels are useful no doubt....but even here there is a growing distrust of the medical fraternity and there is an increasing trend towards traditional medicines.

Of-course we wouldn't have had the medical advances we now consider routine without the knowledge gained from the rest of science. And little hope of fully understanding the conditions that people resort to "traditional medicine" for help with.

[SteveH]

Neo Darwinism is under threat anyway....from scientists themselves...

No it isn't. Fundies have been saying that for over a century. It's never been true, ad it isn't true now. The more palaeontologists,  biologists and zoologists discover, the firmer becomes the evidential basis of neo-Darwinism.

[jeremyp]

Too much is made of technology. Humans have lived for millennia without most of the recent technological marvels. Even most of us on here (the aged ones) have lived for decades without computers and cell phones.no doubt....

This is true, but most of the participants in this forum are off an age where we would be long dead in previous eras.

The fact that this forum exists is a testament to the power of science. So get off your hobby horse. Science is worth sticking up for. What's happening in New Zealand is of major concern for science in New Zealand at least.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Makes one think..... what does all this 'knowledge' of science really mean to anyone....what's the big deal anyway?

Most people in the world (even in developed nations) have very little (if any) knowledge of evolution, cosmology, atomic physics, genetics etc.  Quite often it is rudimentary at best. Even for many people who do have some knowledge of it, it hardly makes any difference in their lives. Much of what is learnt in college is forgotten by and by.

Most people in the world are happier believing in local legends and myths. It gives them a better sense of meaning and purpose than science does.

I don't think there is ever going to be a time, unlike what Dawkins seems to want, when all the people in the world are going to be rational atheists, living content lives with the limited information of the external world that we have through science.

Just out of interest let’s say that (heaven forfend) you contract some potentially lethal illness, and you’re offered a choice of treatments: modern, Western, scientific MRI scanners and the like for diagnostics, exhaustively tested and evaluated medicines and other interventions for treatments, post operative support (artificial limbs or organs for example) etc vs traditional, non-scientific, “local legends and myths”-based therapies.

Which would you choose, and why?         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I actually was in line to make a bit of money one time but the organisation wanted me as part of my remit to actively speak against evolution. I declined the contract because of that.

[Sriram]

I have no issues with modern science. I also accept the strides made by modern medicine. No doubt about that.

I am merely saying that all this need not imply or support scientism and atheism.  Its the over emphasis of science and technology that I am objecting to.  There are lot of things besides what science and rationality have to offer, which are very important to humans. We cannot underestimate the importance of faith, culture and even many religious beliefs, analogies and allegories.

Yoga for example, is based on Prana (vital energy).  This is taught in many schools.  It does not conflict with science and is very important in itself.  If Dawkins had his way he would abolish all such things that he did not understand or which did not directly follow from the theory of evolution as understood by him.

As Shakespeare says.....

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

– Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You have a remarkable knack for packing an awful lot of wrong into relatively few words.

I have no issues with modern science. I also accept the strides made by modern medicine. No doubt about that.

So you’d take the scientific treatment rather than the village folklore one then right? For your own wellbeing, that's good to know.

I am merely saying that all this need not imply or support scientism and atheism.

It doesn’t. I’ve never heard anyone argue for scientism (that’s just one of Vlad’s favourite straw men), and atheism is merely the finding that the arguments for theism aren’t sound. Science has nothing to do with that.

Its the over emphasis of science and technology that I am objecting to.

What "over emphasis", and where?

There are lot of things besides what science and rationality have to offer, which are very important to humans.

No-one says otherwise.

We cannot underestimate the importance of faith, culture and even many religious beliefs, analogies and allegories.

No-one does that either, and you could add music and art and literature to that list too. These things being important to people does not though imply that they also provide objective facts about the universe, even though they may sometimes claim to do so... 

Yoga for example, is based on Prana (vital energy).  This is taught in many schools.  It does not conflict with science and is very important in itself.

… like this. You can teach anything you like in schools but if there’s no evidence for it then there’s no evidence for it. Call it a guess or a speculation or similar and that’s fine, but not a fact. Sorry.

If Dawkins had his way he would abolish all such things that he did not understand or which did not directly follow from the theory of evolution as understood by him.

That’s flatly not true. Dawkins has gone to some lengths to say he wouldn’t be without the cultural offerings of the CofE for example.

As Shakespeare says.....

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

– Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

Yes, but Hamlet doesn’t then say: “And I may guess at what those things are and call those guesses facts.”

That’s your problem here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,
 atheism is merely the finding that the arguments for theism aren’t sound.

Wrong. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.
If you can't even get that right what hope have you of reaching the intellectual heights of possibly finding that the arguments of theism are or aren't sound?

[Sebastian Toe]

Wrong. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.

Really?
I thought it was a mental illness brought on as a  result of a severe case of goddodging.
I know this is true because some bloke on the interweb told me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really?
I thought it was a mental illness brought on as a  result of a severe case of goddodging.
I know this is true because some bloke on the interweb told me.

You need to get out more.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Wrong. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.
If you can't even get that right what hope have you of reaching the intellectual heights of possibly finding that the arguments of theism are or aren't sound?

Ah, so the great Vlad has pronunced "wrong" and lo!, it is therefore wrong eh?

Yeah right. Is there a justifying argument to back up your assertion, or is that it?

[Udayana]

I have no issues with modern science. I also accept the strides made by modern medicine. No doubt about that.

I am merely saying that all this need not imply or support scientism and atheism.  Its the over emphasis of science and technology that I am objecting to.  There are lot of things besides what science and rationality have to offer, which are very important to humans. We cannot underestimate the importance of faith, culture and even many religious beliefs, analogies and allegories.

Yoga for example, is based on Prana (vital energy).  This is taught in many schools.  It does not conflict with science and is very important in itself.  If Dawkins had his way he would abolish all such things that he did not understand or which did not directly follow from the theory of evolution as understood by him.

As Shakespeare says.....

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

– Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

People may want to study all sorts of things that are not science - that is fine, but it doesn't mean that they should be taught by science teachers as science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ah, so the great Vlad .........

I think he's got it, by George he's got it!

[Sebastian Toe]

Yoga for example, is based on Prana (vital energy).  This is taught in many schools.  It does not conflict with science and is very important in itself. 

Sadly it does conflict with Catholicism.
Pope Francis says......

In a homily during morning Mass at the Vatican guesthouse where he lives, the pope said that many people are seeking peace and a feeling of freedom, and try to find this through yoga and Zen classes.
    Instead, it is only by humbly accepting the Holy Spirit that a person can be free, the pope said, according to Vatican Radio.
    "You can follow thousands of catechism courses, thousands of spirituality courses, thousands of yoga or zen courses and all these things," said the pope. "But none of this will be able to give you the freedom as a child (of God)," he added.
    "Only the Holy Spirit can prompt your heart to say 'Father'.
    "Only the Holy Spirit is capable of...breaking that hardness of heart," said Francis.

[Sebastian Toe]

I think he's got it, by George he's got it!

He's recognised a sign of narcissism?

[Sriram]

Sadly it does conflict with Catholicism.
Pope Francis says......

In a homily during morning Mass at the Vatican guesthouse where he lives, the pope said that many people are seeking peace and a feeling of freedom, and try to find this through yoga and Zen classes.
    Instead, it is only by humbly accepting the Holy Spirit that a person can be free, the pope said, according to Vatican Radio.
    "You can follow thousands of catechism courses, thousands of spirituality courses, thousands of yoga or zen courses and all these things," said the pope. "But none of this will be able to give you the freedom as a child (of God)," he added.
    "Only the Holy Spirit can prompt your heart to say 'Father'.
    "Only the Holy Spirit is capable of...breaking that hardness of heart," said Francis.

People see a conflict because that is the way they think. Devotion is not new to Hinduism. We have several devotional sects....which is what we call the Bhakti Marga  (Path of devotion). 

Hinduism recognizes different paths to salvation and the Path of devotion is one of them. We have no issues with devotion to Jesus or Allah or Jehovah. They ARE paths to salvation. But not the only ones....