A few links

2007 in review for secular humanists.

This didn't surprise me much, given my experience with Todd Friel. And FYI, it's the latter, Todd.

Another unsurprising news item: Ron Paul is from Texas and is a...drum roll please...CREATIONIST.

Obama's holiday ad

Compare poor Rudy's fruitcake ad to Obama's holiday ad:

Poor Rudy

lolz

And nothing screams Republican Presidential nominee like a dude in a sweater vest lisping the words "fruit cake!" (Swampblog)

Alter on Krugman

Krugman has complained about Obama's insistence on having all the players at the table to talk about healthcare, implying that Obama is naive about politics and that this will not accomplish much of anything. I've been a bit reluctant to take sides on the Obama-Krugman spats, as I respect both men. I think Jonathan Alter makes a strong argument supporting Obama's approach to politics:

FDR's third-term success, dominated by World II, was dependent on his unifying the country.

Similarly, Woodrow Wilson's big legislative triumphs over entrenched interests in 1913 (for example, an income tax), Lyndon Johnson's in 1965 (Medicare and the Voting Rights Act) and Bill Clinton's in 1993 (painful tax increases) were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message.

Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul.

An important reason to support Obama

A little dated, but important to clarify why I lean strongly towards Obama over Hillary and Edwards:

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

There is no substitute for absolute public campaign financing to truly "reform" Washington -- blocking donations from all private sources: corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists...I think Obama is one of the very few people who may even consider moving the country in that direction. Unfortunately, it is quite unlikely that Congress will go along -- they're too mired in money.

Just one thing

I know I've been writing a lot more on politics lately than I used to. In part, this is because I got burnt out on the boilerplate atheist issues. In part, it's because I've been imparted with passion to see the GOP lose every possible seat in both Houses and the Executive by the seemingly-endless trail of corruption and evil policies.

I do have a motive in writing, though, about stories like this one: it seems that very few people really understand what is going on behind the scenes in Congress, and the low approval rating is likely a direct result of GOP obstructionism. They've set the historic record for the number of procedural blocks of legislation and in half the time usually required to do so.

It's just unbelievable. Stories like these don't get aired out by the mainstream media, so I feel an impetus to share them once I read them. And I just hope that some of the readers that check in here from time to time will find them 'newsworthy' enough to share with family & friends when the occasion arises.

"Intelligent Design not a true science"

As I recently mentioned, the Alligator's archives are screwed up and a great many links are broken from publications that I or Gator Freethought have gotten in the newspaper. As a result, I'm reposting as many of these as I have the time and ability to, just to preserve and provide an electronic copy of the documents. Below is the first thing I ever submitted to a newspaper in my life, and it got in. After that, I guess it got a little addictive.

Intelligent Design not a true science
by nsfl
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050826column2.php
published 8/26/2005

In response to Eric Wang's well-written, but somewhat shortsighted column, he cries foul that, "...there is not a marketplace of competing ideas in our public schools today, but only a monopoly of evolutionary theory." Today is the result of 2000+ years of competing ideas. Aristotle and Plato argued that nature, especially living things, showed "final causes" in their apparent design. Today, ID activists claim the same—that nature shows “the evidence of design”. Empedocles, among others, argued that change could occur in organisms to allow adaptation, giving the appearance of design. Darwin argued 150 years ago the same.

The crux of the issue is whether or not a force or "Designer" moves us towards a presumed goal, teleologically. The error in Wang's thinking is that science has, or can, reject or accept this philosophical notion. How? It can, and does, subject the premise of change and adaptation, both of which are natural phenomena, to its method of inquiry. Science is by definition methodological naturalism, and as such posits, tests, and questions only physical and natural phenomena. Science is limited in scope (and "on purpose") to questions of natural philosophy, not whether or not a "Designer" had it all in mind, or whether or not this "Designer" exists. It ignores the question because science is constrained to natural explanation of natural phenomena.

So now the question remains—can science empirically detect God’s fingerprints? Is it possible, without arguing from incredulity, to know scientifically, rather than “by faith” if “designed”? What is the a priori, natural evidence of supernatural creation/design? How does one distinguish ignorance of natural phenomena from knowledge of supernatural phenomena? Is it possible to scientifically argue for Design without arguing from incredulity? For hundreds of years, gaps in knowledge were filled with “God did it”. Now they are being filled with “Designer did it”. Has science proven either one philosophically wrong, or simply shown us that the mechanism by which posited Designers work is inextricable from the natural universe, and that the this universe and its natural laws is all that science can and will comment upon?

So in short, science describes a natural process, known as "descent with modification". If we want to teach science, we teach natural mechanisms and processes, without invoking supernatural causes. If we want to teach anything else, Wang and others had better realize we may no longer honestly call it “science”, but must admit we have moved into metaphysics, philosophy, or theology. Is there a “monopoly” of thought, or is science the one way of rationally, and objectively, viewing our natural universe? Why did the Kansas board consider redefining science itself into one of these latter three? Is it the job of our state, or of families, to lay the foundation for those?

If I get a new link for the Alligator's archive of this, I'll update it.