The Monster of Wichita, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #144
November 16, 2009 Mike Gold 47 Comments
Last week, Associated Press writer Roxana Hegeman told the world “Defiant and unapologetic, a man accused of shooting a Kansas abortion provider confessed to the slaying Monday, telling The Associated Press that he killed the doctor to protect unborn children.
“Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., spoke to the AP in a telephone call from jail, saying he plans to argue at his trial that he was justified in shooting Dr. George Tiller at the abortion provider’s Wichita (Kansas) church in May.”
Given the fact that Monster Roeder had plead not-guilty and his trial starts in January, you’d think that by confessing he just saved the state of Kansas a lot of time and money. No, this is Kansas, Toto. The place where there was a law that compelled the public schools to teach the faith-based story of “creationism” as though it were a legitimate science of differing opinion. Legitimate? Well, it is to those who believe in it as a matter of faith. Science? No, it’s not. Sorry. It doesn’t meet a single test of science. For one thing, there’s no independently verifiable evidence.
The faithful need no evidence. Their bible says it’s so. Their bible also says the sun revolves around the Earth, the planet is only 6,000 years old, and the joint’s flat. It also endorses slavery. I honor those faithful by presuming they are consistent: if they believe in creationism, it follows that they also believe in all this other crap.
And some think Scientologists are weird.
Will Roeder and his fellow travelers start owning slaves? Actually, I assume Roeder won’t be in a position to indulge in slavery. But their bible says it’s cool.
Getting back to Monster Roeder – since he’s admitted his guilt, I’ll dispense with mitigating words such as “alleged” – he told the AP “because of the fact preborn children’s lives were in imminent danger this was the action I chose.”
You know, for decades now I’ve been staying calling these bigots “pro-lifers” was incorrect. Roeder brings truth to the lie. He is an admitted murderer. That’s certainly not pro-life. Abortion is legal although Roeder, should he have had a truly miraculous sex change, could have opted out. Killing post-born people in cold blood is called “murder.” I haven’t found that footnote reference in those ten commandments these people keep harping about.
Oh, and performing that act of murder in the foyer of the doctor’s church doesn’t make it any worse, just a lot more tacky. It reminds me of the time Chicago mob boss Big Jim Colosemo was shot down in the foyer of his restaurant. His murder led to the creation by Johnny Torrio of what later became known as the Capone Mob. It became known as the Capone Mob because Torrio was off in New York State helping organize the Cosa Nostra. So we know what became of the Big Jim Colosemo foyer shooting. We do not yet know what will become of the George Tiller foyer shooting.
Not yet, we don’t. First, the gangsters have to beat the rap. Unfortunately, Kansas is a great place for this monster to make his stand.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking bizarro music and blather show starts up Sundays at 7:00 PM Eastern on www.getthepointradio.com , replayed the following Thursdays at 10:00 PM Eastern. Likewise, his Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind rants pop up every on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday exclusively at www.getthepointradio.com . The regular Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind rants continue every Monday and Friday on The Point podcasts, available right here at www.michaeldavisworld.com , as well as at www.comicmix.com, www.getthepointradio.com,www.zzcomics.com, and www.ravenwolfstudios.com. You can subscribe to The Point podcasts at iTunes by searching under “The Point Radio.”
Gold is also a regular contributor to www comicmix.com, and edits their online comic book content. Check out the all-new GrimJack: The Manx Cat #6 and Jon Sable Freelance: Ashes of Eden #4, and Andrew Pepoy’s The Adventures of Simon and Ajax, now being solicited in the IDW Publishing section of this month’s Diamond catalog.
Martha Thomases
November 16, 2009 - 6:49 am
Perhaps he can get Stupid Stupak to testify on his behalf.
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 16, 2009 - 8:53 am
The biggest weapon the Creationists have is the fact that few lay-people understand the weight the word “Theory” has in science. Their argument that evolution is “Only a theory” is like saying that…well, that not being allowed to shoot people is “only” a law.
They maintain that if they claim that rats taste like pumpkin pie, that’s a “theory” too, and has equal weight with the one they’ve been testing and measuring for decades or even centuries.
This guy is a extreme fundamentalist religious terrorist. He is using violent acts to convince people to behave in a way similar to the dictates of his interpretation of his religion. He matches any definition you can come up with for the term. Except for the one where people assume the word “Muslim” must be included.
But you’ll never hear anyone in a position of power say so. Because we’re all so worried about offending group x or y, especially if those groups have enough wackburgers that they might respond to your statement with something a little more personal than a harsh letter to the Times.
Yet ironically, the religious right WILL refer to him as a holy warrior. And not see how that’s a problem at all.
Jeremiah Avery
November 16, 2009 - 9:07 am
It’s hard to take a side seriously that thinks that “The Flintstones” was a documentary. Some of the “pro-life” movement are also pro-death penalty, strange. These zealots talk about protecting the unborn, but what about the actual children themselves?
It would be amusing if he’s found mentally incompetent; though the standards in Kansas are probably different.
Reg
November 16, 2009 - 10:08 am
@ Mike – The Bible (both the Tanakh and the Christian framed B’rit Hadashah) is comprised of content that reflects allegory, poetry, history, instruction, biographical records, laws, statutes, and more, more, more. Some readers and some believers in the Word sometimes mistake instances of poetic structure for more literal decrees.
The earth being 6,000 years old pretty much comes from the reference…”… that one day [is] with the L-rd as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day….”
The writer (Peter) could have just as easily scribed “a thousand, thousand, or thousand, thousand, thousand, thousand…” but you can see how that would be a tad cumbersome. That, plus the fact that his background was one of being a fisherman and not a math major should mean that we should cut the brother some slack in his choice of terminology in this case. Knawmean? But no, the majority of balanced Christians do not ascribe to the 6,000 year old Earth model.
Re: the earth being flat…I’m not sure why that myth is ascribed as coming from the Bible…as there’s a passage in Isaiah that directly rejects that contention, by establishing that G-d “..sits upon the circle of the earth.”
And re: endorsing of slavery… that would seem to be a very strange stance to take for a people who were absolutely familiar with the evils of bondage, wouldn’t it? I don’t see the Bible endorsing slavery (certainly not from Yahweh’s decree), but speaks to the historical and cultural context of those eras. Has that framing been corrupted for very bad intent and effect? Absolutely… but that’s due to the evil in man… not the scriptures.
And finally… I trust that we’ve become ‘boys’, so please read the following not as an attack on your or anyone else’s personal views on the very, very, very sensitive topic of abortion…. but while I’m in total agreement with you that the actions and mindset of this warped individual are indeed monstrous (and thereby deserving of being called a monster), why is it that the killing of unborn babies (although technically a legally licensed act) not also considered or equated as being monstrous?
I mean isn’t there a huge disconnect when someone can go to jail for drowning puppies, but not for terminating the life of human beings while they are in the process of being formed in the womb?
Do I agree with the sensibilities and actions of damaged individuals like Roeder? Absolutely not. But can I understand some aspects of the triggers that push them from righteous indignation and moral outrage to crossing over to aberration and madness? Yeah..unfortunately I can.
Reg
November 16, 2009 - 10:40 am
Clarification edit on the above.. “What he meant to type..wuz”
Recognizing that no one is jailed because abortion is a legal act…. but isn’t there a huge disconnect between the outrage ascribed to the of killing puppies, and the aborting of unborn children is somehow pushed into the backgrounds of our psyches?
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 16, 2009 - 10:45 am
“I mean isn’t there a huge disconnect when someone can go to jail for drowning puppies, but not for terminating the life of human beings while they are in the process of being formed in the womb?”
In that one is legal and one is not, no, there isn’t a disconnect. If you want to discuss morals and not laws, we can be here all day. And I don’t really want to be.
The main problem with Fundamentalist Christians is they do not hold to the idea that the Bible contains allegory, but that is to be taken literally. They do not interpret the story of creation as a story whose moral is “God made everything through a process we are now trying to grasp using science” but as a copy of the instruction manual.
A brief look on the Web shows a number of sites using in some cases the very same passages from the bible to support their side of the abortion issue.
There’s endless passages in the Bible that have been interpreted to condone or decry this and that. As a rule, you can interpret it to support your cause with a minimum of fuss, even if you have to resort to acrostics to find the proof. And for a lot of people, once it’s been “proven” to be in the Bible, that’s good enough for them.
“re: endorsing of slavery… that would seem to be a very strange stance to take for a people who were absolutely familiar with the evils of bondage, wouldn’t it?”
Some thing, really – you can find the most amazing passages in the bible to support any damn thing. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives directions on the proper way to sieze a women from an enemy nation as plunder.
Also, quite often, people aren’t as much against slavery as much as they’re against their OWN slavery. We tend to just find a new group and a new term.
The Bible is a collection of texts which were chosen to be part of it by the HRC. Some (many) were left out. One wonders how different the world would be if certain texts were chosen over another.
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 16, 2009 - 11:04 am
You beat me to it on that clarification, so I’ll reply to the clarification.
“isn’t there a huge disconnect between the outrage ascribed to the of killing puppies, and the aborting of unborn children is somehow pushed into the backgrounds of our psyches?”
The thing that’s considered outrageous is the CRUEL “killing of puppies” as in some form of torture. Who knows how many dogs (cats, other pets, etc) are destroyed every day, yet that’s considered acceptable (albeit a shame) by most people.
Of course, evquivocating humans and dogs is always a bit of a weak argument to use. It’s more emotional than factually valid, and arguments/debates over emotional issue are almost impossible to resolve, let alone win.
Whenever I am in a discussion with someone who’s against aborion, I ask the question, “Is there ANY scenario where you would consider an abortion to be a viable option for a person?” That includes the classic three chestnuts; rape, incest, medical threat to the mother. If they say no, never ever an option, I end the discussion, because it will go nowhere. If they say “Well, yes, in certain curcumstances…” Then I say “Okay, then we fundamentally agree – there are certain scenarios where an abortion might be a viable choice for some people. All we differ on is the number of scenarios we consider valid.”
Billy Graham, about the only televagelist that I’ve never heard a harsh word against, said in an interview that he considered the three chestnuts to be realistic possibilities where an abortion might be acceptable. That pretty much ends the debate for me. If he’s on “my side”, You’ve gotta come out against Billy Friggin’ Graham.
Reg
November 16, 2009 - 11:11 am
Vinnie… see my edit that just edged out your post as they raced to the server.
And to your point.. the sense of moral outrage is the basis for laws relating to murder, is it not? So I still believe that my ‘disconnect’ question remains a valid one.
re: slavery.. we’re in agreement. And as I typed previously, the problem lies in the heart of humanity, not the scriptures.
And to your point regarding Biblical content… I agree…to a degree. I hold to the instruction that I am to study the scriptures with the desire to understand and rightly apply them in obedience to the intent and for benefit to my fellow peeps. And to also recognize that…”..the letter of the law kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
Of course there’s always the question as to Who or whom actually did the choosing, isn’t there? 😉
Martha Thomases
November 16, 2009 - 12:03 pm
@Reg: The late, great Flo Kennedy once said, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
It’s debatable whether or not an embryo is a person. An embryo COULD be a person, but, in these days when cloning is possible, so could any other living cell.
What’s not debatable is the fact that, at this point in time, embryos require a human host. I would hope we could agree that this host should be willing, and not forced.
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 16, 2009 - 12:39 pm
” I would hope we could agree that this host should be willing, and not forced.”
Alas, there’s a third option, “unexpected”, and it’s there that most of the debate is made.
An embryo is at best, a potential person. As the embryo grows, its potential rises (unless hampered by physical faults) until its birth.
The legal definition of a person has to remain at “birth” because of all the legal nightmares that would arise if it changed. Can you take an unborn child as a deduction on taxes?
I’ve always wanted to ask about identical twins. The claim is that the soul is in the zygote at the moment of conception. So what happens when the zygote splits and becomes twins? Do they each get a half a soul, does it expand to a full soul, or is another one shipped?
There are so many questions about this issue that has required the HRC to add on so many doctrines (Limbo leaps to mind) the way DC adds events to continuity. Geoff Johns should write the next book of the Bible and clear up all the continuity issues.
Martha Thomases
November 16, 2009 - 12:58 pm
@Vinnie: Not to get caught up in semantics, but I would argue that “unexpected” is not in the same category as “willing” and “unwilling.”
Unless one is artificially implanted with embryos, every pregnancy – even the planned – is unexpected. One doesn’t know which particular moment is going to result in a baby.
Once one knows, then we get into the voluntary part.
Reg
November 16, 2009 - 1:15 pm
Actually, in the case of Dr. Billy Graham.. I could say the he was 1. Slow as molasses in wintertime on the civil rights and equality issue, 2. that relationship he had with Tricky D never set well with me, and 3. he had a little problem with Jews in his early days. Fortunately it is said that he later owned up to these deep personal flaws and totally renounced and rejected them. Which only goes to prove that every one of us must commit to keeping our houses swept and look to grace to keep us.
But to his response to the abortion question, I do agree with the realistic possibilities attached to the three chestnuts.
But it should also be stated that from a statistical aspect alone (in no ignoring the very real pain and challenges affecting those who are touched by any one of the three), the numbers attached to the chestnuts are the proverbial drop in the bucket when compared with those who got caught up in the fun moments but for whatever reasons don’t want to be responsible for the creation of life that is sometimes generated during the dance. And by ‘those’… I mean both parties.
Reg
November 16, 2009 - 1:44 pm
@Martha: ‘Flo’ ain’t neva lied. When it comes down to it, far too many man are punks when it comes to being responsible for behavior and resultant consequences.
And because of that failure and weakness, the weight and challenges of giving birth, raising, supporting, teaching, protecting, etc. FAR too often rests upon solely upon the woman. I fully realize that truth. And I understand the reasons that the ‘other side’ presents.
But for me it boils down to the this.. for as much as our culture likes to promote, celebrate, proclaim, the beauty of, the creativity inside, the extraordinary potential that is inherent in every human being, the fact that we can at the same time justify the snuffing out of that same beauty and potential before it has a chance to be realized is antithetical to how a civilized and responsible culture represent itself.
Like I said.. a very, very, challenging and personal topic…and definitely recognize the opposing viewpoints, but that’s where I’m at on it.
Martha Thomases
November 16, 2009 - 2:16 pm
@Reg: Yes, this is a challenging topic. And I appreciate the thoughtful way you acknowledge other points of view.
However, the choice to have a child or not is not entirely an economic one. Yes, it would be great if more fathers were responsible (including during the act that makes them fathers), but that’s not the only issue.
This article , while more than a bit strident, presents some of the other factors. Don’t let the tone turn you off to the facts.
Reg
November 16, 2009 - 3:11 pm
@ Martha: Comments received and appreciated.
But as always when I become embroiled in conversations on this subject, the realization eventually dawns (as your reference to Flo Kennedy notes) that my commentary loses a lot in translation coz…my plumbing don’t work like that. SO I think that I’ll recuse myself from the rest of the conversation and glean from the ones who actually do give birth.
Martha Thomases
November 16, 2009 - 3:35 pm
AAck! My link disappeared. http://openleft.com/diary/16013/this-should-be-a-choice
Rick Oliver
November 16, 2009 - 9:39 pm
@Reg:
re: “But can I understand some aspects of the triggers that push them from righteous indignation and moral outrage to crossing over to aberration and madness? Yeah..unfortunately I can.”
Yes, and I can understand why many fundamentalists are eagerly promoting the apocalypse in their lifetimes, so they can bodily ascend to heaven without spending any time with that…you know… messy rotting in the ground business. Never mind the end of civilization and possibly the end of all life on the planet, as long as we get to see Jesus without waiting!
And I can understand why a bunch of misguided, impressionable folks would castrate themselves, put on brand new Nikes, and kill themselves so that they can saved by the aliens in the spaceship hiding behind the comet.
It’s because they lack critical thinking skills. Sometimes this is because they are simply mentally deficient. Sometimes it’s because they are mentally ill.
And if you understand that your particular religious beliefs can lead to “aberration and madness”, then maybe you should re-evaluate your religious beliefs.
Reg
November 16, 2009 - 10:47 pm
@ Rick,
Well I can see you have a unique appreciation or lack thereof for the gift of new life. Cause that’s really what my argument has been about.
Not the Rapture…not belief in aliens behind a comet, or even religious belief as the frame. But rather, that human life is an extraordinarily beautiful thing. Which in so many ways is perfectly captured and expressed in the innocence of a child.
And in regards to triggers that may elicit ‘aberration and madness’, I think I’m safe in saying that your word of warning could be applied to almost any and everything.
Am I right?
ed zarger
November 16, 2009 - 11:15 pm
A couple points I’ll add. (Without EVER hinting at justifying murder of anyone. *Murder is murder.)
*I applaud those who’ve affirmed that the Scriptures should be interpreted in manners taking into account historical context, type of literature (including such things as myth, legend, fiction, and apocalyptic literature — which can reveal religious truths, but should NOT be taken literally), insights of scholars and history and faith community…
*BUT … I’d encourage respecting the outlooks of the literalists or creationists, just as we should respect another person’s opinion, even if we disagree with it. I know some who interpret the Bible literally. At least one has studied much and is VERY intelligent -far moreso than I. (I used to think I was bright, until I starting writing things down, and prove myself otherwise.) I don’t agree with all they say, but I can still learn from them.
*I always figured that unscientific age for earth was largely based on literal reading of the ages in Genesis (Methusalah over 900 years old, etc.)
*I point to the abortion debate and the increasingly inflexible position of a number of religious denominations’ leaders, as the reason we can’t get compromises on anything done in Congress. Many want to crusade, and too few want to work together to improve things as well as can be done.
Rick Oliver
November 17, 2009 - 5:44 am
@Reg
Pardon my French, but you know fuck all about my appreciation for the gift of new life. Perhaps you missed the part where I said absolutely nothing about abortion, either pro or con.
And, yes, my word of warning can be applied to just about any form of unhinged zealotry. Religion just seems to be the most fertile breeding ground for this kind of violent nutcase — and Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on that.
And if you think human life is such a beautiful thing, please don’t try to mitigate the acts of a murderer with a “yes…but” argument.
Reg
November 17, 2009 - 10:21 am
@ Rick.. funny how snark begets snark, isn’t it? And you might want to do a better job of really reading and capturing the details of a person’s argument before interjecting yourself with commentary that’s non-linear in content and tone.
It’s clear that you’ve got some burn and angst in regards to religion. That’s cool. Many people, including myself, have the same, or similar concerns. But as I’ve stated previously, my belief structure of faith is rooted not so much in the religion as in an abiding relationship between me and my G-d. And, it should be noted, in the course of this discussion, the dialogue between Vinnie, Martha, Ed, and myself has been respectful and thoughtful. A methodology you might want to investigate and employ.
And in response to your last completely invalid statement… Reading (with understanding) is fundamental.
Marc and Kathy Fishman
November 17, 2009 - 11:27 am
Just to chime in very late….
A person who admits to murder should be treated as such. The law is the law, and murder is murder.
Creationism ISN’T science. And it shouldn’t present itself as such in a school. The country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. Or at least that’s what they told me in school.
Reg
November 17, 2009 - 1:53 pm
@ Marc & Kathy:
* Yes.
* So do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific construct?
Mike Gold
November 17, 2009 - 5:04 pm
Wow. Split town for a week and get 23 responses…
Reg: “Why is it that the killing of unborn babies not also considered or equated as being monstrous?” Because the phrase “unborn babies” is a rhetorical device created relatively recently to attempt to confer a status on fetuses that had not been so applied in the past. “Unborn babies” is, in my book, both presumptuous and mistaken: you might believe they’re going to get born, although a great many fertilized eggs do not, you might believe they’re living, although that’s also true of bacteria. But they’re not babies. They’re fetuses. Feti, perhaps. Their value is a matter of faith: I draw the line at birth, others may draw the line at conception, and still others merely redline the portion between conception and post-birth inconvenience that leads to righteous murder on one hand and the death penalty on the other.
That’s the real issue here. Faith vs. science. Faith is not science by definition, and what can only be accepted as faith should not be legislated and imposed upon those who do not share that faith. Intelligent design is not a scientific construct because it is faith-based.
Reg, I do appreciate the way you articulate your arguments and I respet what you have to say very much. It’s very, very hard to have a sane conversation regarding this issue.
Vinnie: Thanks for the bible quote. Plumb forgot about that one. Used to be one of my favorites, many years ago.
Martha: Whereas my feelings regarding abortion are a matter of long public record — simply put, it ain’t my affair — I disagree with Ms. Kennedy’s well-known phrase. There would still be those religious zealots who would legislate and impose their views upon the heathens, even if men did get pregnant. Other than Billy Crystal.
Martha and Reg: “When it comes down to it, far too many man are punks when it comes to being responsible for behavior and resultant consequences.” Amen to that!
For the record, I do believe Mr. Oliver values human life as much as the next person. And feline life, for that matter.
Perhaps — and I say perhaps — my view of birth and life and such is shaped by the fact that I was born two months premature (the only deadline I ever beat by such a margin). For me, life was an exceptionally tenuous thing for my first several weeks — I was born in 1950; most early premies didn’t make it. Had I died during those earliest days, would I have not been born in the first place? Well, rhetorically, I certainly would have. Legally, as well. Functionally, no, not so much.
I recognize that some of an extreme religious bent will say that is because their god was responsible for my living through the experience. I reject that as a matter of faith, and am highly curious about why those same people do not give their god the responsibility for the taking of live from those premies who did not make it. No, my surviving premature birth is attributable to one person, Doctor Joseph A. Gol (sic), of Cabrini Hospital in Chicago. If he was on vacation those weeks instead of by my incubator side, I would not be typing these words or any other.
Reg
November 17, 2009 - 5:52 pm
@ Mike…
See what you started??
:-\
Mike Gold
November 17, 2009 - 6:08 pm
Reg, it’s why I get up in the morning.
Or, you know, whenever…
Reg
November 17, 2009 - 9:17 pm
Mike – I greatly appreciate how you stir the pot as well. This is the stuff of growth. In truth tho, I was really hoping that Linda, Pennie, Tatiana and the others would share their opinions on the topic as Martha provided. After all, like the proverbial eggs and bacon breakfast, it’s the woman that’s committed.
Re: “Faith is not science by definition, and what can only be accepted as faith should not be legislated and imposed upon those who do not share that faith. Intelligent design is not a scientific construct because it is faith-based.”
The following link should provide some additional fuel for the debate at hand… or not. 😛
http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_affiliations.php
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 17, 2009 - 9:56 pm
‘I Refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing’
–Douglas Adams
If you can’t measure it, if you can’t test it, if you can’t attempt to disprove it, it isn’t science. Faith is the exact opposite of science – it must be accepted with no evidence, and as a rule, any attempts to PROVE a point of faith are deemed anathema.
I’ve said it before, there IS a place for Intelligent Design in schools – a comparative religions class, something that I think would do a good job towards increasing understanding.
But the people who insist it’s a science, and a valid scientific theory, are only showing that those words do not mean what they think they mean.
As for the Abortion half of the argument, I knew it was gonna get ugly eventually – it always does. It’s far too emotional an issue to argue rationally and objectively. It always ends in tears.
Reg
November 17, 2009 - 10:57 pm
Vinnie – that seems to be a glib hand wave against the fairly strong (imo) evidence presented in the link. They appear to provide compelling arguments refuting your stance.
Re: Abortion and perceived state of argument. I disagree… the argument in specific terms of the abortion dilemma has not gotten ugly in the least. That little detour was only tangentially connected to the dialogue on abortion which was brought back unto the tracks by Mike. Hopefully, the ladies will bring their applied wisdom to the fore.
Jonathan (the other one)
November 17, 2009 - 11:17 pm
Well, if we want a religious bellwether on the point at which life begins, I can point to Genesis, ch 1, in which Adam was not deemed “alive” until “the LORD breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.” In other words, life begins when one draws one’s first breath, yes/no?
Medically, death is defined as that point at which the brain no longer functions, as measured by an EEG. Is there any way to tell at what point a fetal brain begins producing a recognizable EEG?
Reg, part of what defines “science” is that its propositions are falsifiable – that is, there are experiments which, if they come out one way, will disprove the proposition. (If you find an instance in which, in a 1-g field, you drop an object and it does not accelerate downward at a rate of 32 feet per second per second, minus deceleration from air resistance, you have just falsified Newtonian gravity. Congratulations!) Further, once a proposition has been falsified, a scientist will seek a new explanation that takes the new data, and all the old data, into account.
“God did it” is obviously a nonfalsifiable statement, unless you can get God to publicly deny doing any such thing. Changing the word “God” to the code-phrase “an Intelligent Designer” does not change the basic nature of the statement.
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 18, 2009 - 6:16 am
I read the site in question. They do know what the scientific method is, and do a good job of explaining the difference between it and faith. However, it falls down here, in their conclusion:
“Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these “irreducibly complex” biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.”
This is using Sherlock Holmes’ third law of deduction, “When you have eliminated everything else, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth.” It sounds right, but isn’t proper science. If you prove that five out of six things are not true, all you’ve shown is that those five things are not true. There may be a SEVENTH thing that is true, or a forty-ninth, which has not even been considered. It then makes the statement “there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these structures” – who says? That’s not a valid scientific statement.
You don’t prove things by elimination, you prove it by PROVING it. And once you’ve proven it (as well as modern science can) you then try to DISprove it. Other people copy your experiments. If they get different results, then the hypothesis must be re-examined.
They describe CSI (complex-specified information) as “a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design”. Again, that’s not been proven, it’s something they purport to be true. If Evolution (defined here as “a process based entirely on chance”) were The Truth, then it would disprove that claim. They’re claiming to use the scientific theory but then slipping ing other unproven things in at the end.
Further, they describe their process of trying to prove their theory AS the theory itself. It’s a subtle “misnomer”, but I feel a deliberate one. A theory is what you get at the end of the process they describe (which is known as the scientific method.); before that you have a hypothesis. You have to go through a LONG process before you get to call it a theory. Evolution, the Cell Theory, etc have all gone through this process, and still are. By changing that name, it gives the impression that the process IS the theory, which it is not. Until they have experiments (and I don’t see any, they merely say they must be done as part of the process) that support their hypothesis, and more that fail to disprove it, They Do Not Have A Theory. They have AT BEST a hypothesis, and even that’s debatable. They don’t have any measurements or logs of their claim that complex structures can only be created by an intelligent mind. Their observations and hypotheses boil down to “How this NOT be the result of a guiding hand of some type?” And that’s not valid science.
How intelligent are spiders or beavers, or ants? They create quite complex structures.
To make sure my stand is clear, I am a religious person. I’m a non-practicing cafeteria Catholic; I believe in God and heaven. I also believe that the Big Bang happened, and that life on Earth (and maybe elsewhere) evolved from simpler beings. I have no problem accepting that God may have started and herded those complex processes along.
BUT…
That is a belief, not a fact. It cannot be proven, no matter how by how many Alps I or anyone else believe it. Since it cannot be tested or disproves it is not a scientific fact or theory. And if it’s not a scientific fact, it should not be taught as one. I feel it can (and I feel should, in conjunction with others) be taght as a philisophy or religion, but not as The Right One.
Intelligent Design is a marketing tactic designed to get religious concepts into schools. They argue that they’re not pushing God or any one deity as the designer, but by suggesting there IS a Creator, the logocal next question for the observer is “Well, who are they?” and that’s when Step Two kicks in. It’s an end-run around the Church and State rules.
Mike Gold
November 18, 2009 - 9:36 am
The beauty of the separation of church and state is that history has shown us it protects church at least as much as state, and is the only way one can guarantee any real degree of religious freedom to the citizenry. That’s why blue laws anger me. And Justice Scalia’s allegation that the individual states could recognize an official state religion and pass laws to support that religion.
And, in the final analysis, the entire abortion debate. The issues cannot be separated without bringing one or more people’s faith system onto the field. What is life? When is birth? What is death? When is ending life justifiable? What rights to fetuses have (in my home town, I do believe a fetus is allowed to vote)? What are rights as they apply to a fetus?
Outside of these faith-based consideration, all these questions are basically irrelevant. Somebody murders a pregnant mother and you want to charge him or her for killing two? It’s a short distance from that to charging an abortion-performing doctor or nurse or referral agency for murder. And, besides, that doesn’t bring either the mother or the fetus back.
Rick Oliver
November 18, 2009 - 6:36 pm
I’m sorry. I just can’t let this go. Reg, your EXACT words:
“Do I agree with the sensibilities and actions of damaged individuals like Roeder? Absolutely not. But can I understand some aspects of the triggers that push them from righteous indignation and moral outrage to crossing over to aberration and madness? Yeah..unfortunately I can.”
In other words: I don’t agree with his actions…but I can understand why one might resort to such actions. Anyone who read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (“I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”) or studied high school debate understands this ploy. And that’s all it is. A ploy.
Despite all your empty protestations to the contrary, it’s pretty clear that you don’t think that those who kill abortionists are in the same category as other murderers. Or maybe you didn’t really mean to validate his actions with “triggers” like “righteous indignation” and “moral outrage”.
I have no problem with moral objections to abortion. Personally, I’m morally opposed to large corporations that intentionally decide not to fix product defects because the cost/benefit analysis determines they’ll lose less money from law suits than from fixing the problem. But you won’t see me promoting some backhand defense of people who flip out and decide to take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner because one of their loved ones drew the short straw.
You apparently believe in the bible. I believe in the rule of law.
Rick Oliver
November 18, 2009 - 7:42 pm
@Vinnie:
Umm… I feel compelled to correct one of your statements about the scientific method. As a general rule, the theory comes first. Then you come up with hypotheses to test the theory. The problem that creationists and others love to dwell on is that the scientific method never “proves” anything; it either rejects or fails to reject the “null” hypothesis. They conveniently ignore the fact that the method works quite well at predicting outcomes. This is, in fact, what compelled some skeptics to finally accept quantum mechanics. Although many of the theories seem to defy logic as we know it, scientists were able to construct testable hypotheses that supported the theories and yielded predictable results.
Admittedly, this tends to be a chicken/egg situation, and in fact maybe my quantum mechanics example is a bad one since that is probably a case in which inexplicable results led to new theories, which led to new testable hypotheses.
Alan Coil
November 18, 2009 - 9:34 pm
Rick Oliver —
Perhaps you mis-typed. Hypothesis comes before theory.
You can look it up! (to borrow an old phrase)
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 19, 2009 - 5:28 am
No, the Hypothesis is the fancy term for “first guess”, then you perform experiments to test (and then attempt to disprove) the hypothesis, then it becomes a theory, a fancy term for “really GOOD guess”, and even then we might still be wrong. And as you say, it’s that willingness of science to admit readily that later information might come along and disprove this that Creationists jump on and claim that means it’s all piffle and flummery.
Considering the vagaries of quantum mechanics, I could almost imagine the theory coming first in its case, followed by a pieces of fairy cake, followed by the wheel, then the hypothesis.
As for Reg’s comment, I see it as a version of Chris Rock’s bit, “I wouldn’t DO it…but I understand”. He’s being quite clear that he’s against the act, but can imagine that people would/could get so emotional that they’d be driven to the act. That’s not condoning by any means.
MOTU
November 19, 2009 - 3:30 pm
I can’t believe I don’t trust myself ( ME!!) to comment on the actions of that freakin inbred, stupid, should have been aborted because his mother and father were brother and sister asshole, shooter.
The above was not even CLOSE to how I feel. I really can’t say ( M E !!) what. I really want to.
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 19, 2009 - 4:51 pm
One last comment – Roger Ebert delivers a scathing commentary on Intelligent Design, via a review of Ben Stein’s eXpelled:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html
pennie
November 19, 2009 - 5:49 pm
Late to the party as ever…and since you asked Reg, for me the point can be simplified into this thought: A murderous maniac refused to respect a woman’s right to choose and slaughtered a physician who dedicated his life’s work to assisting women in asserting that right.
Reg
November 19, 2009 - 9:11 pm
@Vinnie – Thanks for that. Exactly right. This has been a really tough week and you saved me from having to explain my comments that I really didn’t think needed explaining.
Re: ID…good feedback.. but brain is very tired, so I’ll get back later.
Pennie: Thanks for that. And I agree with your assessment.
Reg
November 19, 2009 - 9:14 pm
@Pennie: Addendum – while asserting (as posited earlier) that I disagree strongly with the concept of abortion itself.
MOTU
November 20, 2009 - 12:33 am
Reg,
I hear you and I agree with you.
I also am not in favor of abortion. That said, it’s not my place to tell any women what they should do with their bodies. I’m not that guy and NO ONE is the ‘guy’ to decide who lives or dies by putting a bullet into them.
I’m a liberal and I know for a liberal being against abortion sounds strange but being a liberal does not mean I have to believe in things I don’t.
Hey-I’m a member of the NRA and I can’t stand 99% of what the NRA stands for…BUT I do think it’s my right to own a gun and blow away any one that decides I’m going to be their prey. I’ve have family members who have been killed by idiots who decided for whatever reason they would take their lives.
Oh H E L L no.
I respect and consider you a friend and to me a real friend can say ( without fear) they see things another way.
I see things another way my friend. Let women choose, they have to face that decision not you or I.
Reg
November 20, 2009 - 7:13 am
Michael,
Wholeheartedly agree on all points.
Reg
November 20, 2009 - 1:48 pm
I’m not trying the stretch the thread out past it’s natural end, but I thought the timing was really interesting that CNN had this clip today on a debunking of evolution by Kirk Cameron and the ministry he’s aligned with.
I totally agree with Ed’s comment above that encourages each of us to keep an open mind to other points of views…. otherwise we run the risk of being as close minded as we accuse other folks (with accuracy in most cases)of being.
Some of the questions that I encounter (both here and elsewhere) lead me to some interesting wrestling matches with my G-d. Sometimes He provides me with answers, sometimes I’m challenged to dig in deeper, and sometimes it’s ‘That’s My Business, son… and not for you to know…on this side.’
Anyway, here’s the link…
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/11/20/costello.cameron.evolution.cnn
Alan Coil
November 20, 2009 - 9:30 pm
Kirk Cameron’s screed was covered and debunked several weeks ago. CNN is just now covering it? Way to be on top of the news.
John Tebbel
November 21, 2009 - 6:53 am
Humans have the intelligence to understand and control conception. Contraception is sometimes necessary. Not desirable or preferable, but necessary.
In stupid societies, the contraception of last resort is suicide. We have figured out a better way.
And the only thing holy about religion is how the clergy don’t have to dig the ditches; they have to plan the funerals for the ditch diggers.
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 22, 2009 - 8:32 am
That piece on CNN was actually quite helpful to show the differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism. These guys were not attempting to equivicate the two schools of thought, but to malign and lambaste Darwin.
Intelligent Design is an attempt to declare the idea of Evolution and A Wizard Did It equal. Whether that elevates one or drags the other down is open for debate.
The Catholic scientist (and the quote from the HRC) has the best mindset should you choose to believe in God – He created the universe, according to these laws and processes. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.