From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #280 Dead-Flames Digest #280, Volume #48 Wed, 14 Sep 05 16:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: (NDC): Blue states revolt ("RickNBarbInSD") Re: The Meters at the Fillmore ("pookietooth") Re: The Meters at the Fillmore (joker4153@comcast.net) Re: (NDC): Blue states revolt ("Ray") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- theory has demonstrated an ability to correlate and explain a wide variety of disparate data with a high degree of confidence, and has proven to have the ability to predict experimental results and to point out new areas that may be investigated for new data. As a scientific theory, the theory of evolution has the same standing and authority that atomic theory, the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum physics possess. As a complement to labelling evolution as "just a theory", the creationists also like to refer to their own particular outlook as a "model". Examination will quickly show that this is simply not true--creationism is not a scientific model in any sense of the word. Scientific hypotheses, theories and models are all based upon several fundamental criteria. First, they must explain the world as it is observed, using naturalistic mechanisms which can be tested and verified by independent observation and experimentation. Although the existence of God is not necessarily denied by science, supernatural explanations which are based upon the unseen actions of God are excluded from science as a matter of necessity. As biologist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out, science is dependent upon the assumption that the world is real and operates according to regular and predictable laws, which are not changed from moment to moment at the whim of supernatural forces: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course." (cited in Montagu, 1984, p. 241) Geologist and theologian Dr James Skehan also notes, "I undertake my scientific research with the confident assumption that the earth follows the laws of nature which God established at creation . . . . My studies are performed with the confidence that God will not capriciously confound scientific results by 'slipping in' a miracle!" (Strahler, 1987, pp. 40-41) In a manner similar to that of science, the actions of supernatural entities are also excluded from the legal arena--no person is permitted to argue in a US court that they are not responsible for a crime because Satan was in control of them, or that such and such a crime happened because it was the will of God. Neither system denies the existence of God, but both exclude God as an explanatory mechanism. The creationist idea that God divinely created the universe may or may not be true, but, by postulating a supernatural event which occurs outside of the natural laws of the universe, such an idea places itself firmly outside the realm of science. There is simply no experiment which can verify any of its assertions and no predictions of future data that can be drawn from this hypothesis, and those who hold such conclusions can do so only on the basis of faith. This is fine for a religious outlook or an ideology, but it has nothing at all in common with science. Another characteristic of science is that it must be falsifiable. As we have seen, it is not possible to "prove" that any scientific model is absolutely true and correct. It is, however, quite possible to prove that any given scientific model is not correct--that is, it can be conclusively shown to be false. The evolution model, for instance, could be falsified in any number of ways--a new species could be reliably observed to suddenly POOF! into existence from nowhere, for instance. On a more realistic level, the evolution model would be conclusively falsified if any of the three basics we pointed out earlier--variation, heritability or selection, were shown by experiment to be invalid (i.e., if some genetic mechanism were to be found which made it chemically impossible for mutations to occur in the DNA, or for any such mutations to be passed down from one generation to the next). The evolutionary model would also be falsified if the fossil remains of a fully modern human being or a flowering plant were to be reliably found in strata that have been dated to the Cambrian period of earth's history, or the Devonian, or the Permian, or if it were to be conclusively shown that all fossils found to date are elaborate fakes, planted by an international conspiracy of evolution scientists to impose secular humanism upon the earth. So far, however, no evidence has been reliably presented, by the creationists or by anyone else, which falsifies the evolution model. Every experiment that has been performed and every bit of data which has been collected has tended to confirm its validity. And how does creation "science" fare when put to this test? The central tenet of creation "science" is that God created the universe out of nothing, by Divine fiat. This "model" is, however, completely unfalsifiable. There is no test or experiment which can conclusively show that God does not exist, or that creation did not occur. Since, by definition, God is capable of doing or accomplishing anything, there is nothing that can be pointed to that God cannot have done, and therefore the hypothesis itself is unfalsifiable. Any potential problem with the "creation model" can be (and very many times has been) explained away with a wave of the hand, with the simple assertion, "God did it that way." Because the tenets of scientific creationism cannot be tested, investigated or falsified, and because they invoke supernatural entities as explanatory mechanisms, they cannot be considered to be a scientific model. Some creationists, moreover, have turned this criticism into a virtue, and have argued that, since it cannot be proven that Divine Creation did not happen, then it must be assumed that it did happen. This, of course, violates basic logic. One could just as easily assert that life on earth is the result of experiments by extra-terrestrial biologists from the planet Melmac, who seeded the primordial earth with artificial biological compounds. There is no way to test or verify this hypothesis, and thus no way to prove it wrong. This, however, means only that it is not a valid scientific theory--it does not mean that there must of necessity be Melmackian exo-biologists. In court, the creationists have argued that their view is not necessarily religious, since it refers to "a creator", not to "God". During the Arkansas trial, for instance, the defenders of the Balanced Treatment Act argued, "There is nothing inherently religious about the terms 'creator' or 'creation', as used in the context of Act 590. Act 590 is concerned with a non-religious conception of 'creation' and 'creator', not the religious concepts dealt with in the Bible or religious writings. . . All that creation- science requires is that the entity which caused creation have power, intelligence and a sense of design." (Defendant's Trial Brief, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) This argument is nonsensical, and it has been rejected by every judge who's ever heard it. In their lucid moments, the creationists are quite willing to concede that their "model" is not scientific. Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, openly admits, in his textbook Scientific Creationism: "A. Creation cannot be proved 1. Creation . . . is inaccessible to the scientific method. 2. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 5) "The creationist model does presuppose a God, or Creator, who did create things in the beginning." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 4) Another ICR member, Duane Gish, writes, in his book Evolution? The Fossils Say No!: "Creation is, of course, unproven and unproveable by the methods of experimental science. Neither can it qualify, according to the above criteria, as a scientific theory, since creation would have been unobservable and would as a theory be nonfalsifiable." (Gish, 1978, p. 21) "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. . . . We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." (Gish, 1978, p. 40) Lately, the creationists have taken to arguing that, while creationism is indeed not a science, neither is evolution--evolution is, they say, a "religion" of "secular humanism". As Gish puts it in a letter to Discover magazine: "Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)." (Gish, Discover, July 1981, cited in Overton Opinion) Paul Ellwanger says, "We're not making scientific claims for creation, but we are challenging evolution's claim to be scientific." (Attachment to Ellwanger Deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion) Ellwanger was, ironically, the author of Arkansas Act 590, which required creationism to be taught as a "science". This issue was settled in 1994, when a Federal Circuit court ruled, in Peloza v Capistrano School District, that "evolutionism" was not a religion, and teaching evolutionary theory in a science class was not an interference of anyone's religious beliefs. The creationists have yet to explain why, if they now concede that creation is not a scientific model, they did make that claim when the Arkansas anti-evolution law was passed, or why they have referred to themselves as "scientific" creationists, or why they have demanded for several years that their outlook be treated as a "science" and not as a mere religious dogma. This tendency to say completely contradictory things is typical of the creationist movement--their story changes according to the needs of the moment, with no apparent concern for internal consistency (first, creationism was openly religious, then after the Supreme Court ruled that religious outlooks cannot be taught in public schools, creationism became a "science" that was just as valid as evolution, and after that argument was tossed out of court, creationism became a religion again, but now evolution became a religion too-- a religious faith that can't be falsified--which doesn't stop creationists from presenting the scientific evidence which they claim proves evolution false.). The cynicism and intellectual dishonesty of the creationist movement was best illustrated by documents presented during the Arkansas trial, which showed that the creationists were advising potential witnesses to downplay the religious dogma behind creationism in an attempt to avoid having the law declared unconstitutional. Paul Ellwanger, the creationist who actually drafted the Arkansas law, wrote to one supporter: "It would be very wise, if not actually essential, that all of us who are engaged in this legislative effort be careful not to present our position and our work in a religious framework. For example, in written communications that might somehow be shared with those other persons whom we may be trying to convince, it would be well to exclude our own personal testimony and/or witness for Christ, but rather, if we are so moved, to give that testimony on a separate attached note." (Attachment to Ellwanger deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion) In another letter, Ellwanger wrote: "We'd like to suggest that you and your co- workers be very cautious about mixing creation-science with creation-religion. . . Please urge your co-workers not to allow themselves to get sucked into the 'religion' trap of mixing the two together, for such mixing does incalculable harm to the legislative thrust." (Attachment to Miller deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion). And in yet another letter, he says, "If you have a clear choice between having grassroots leaders of this statewide bill promotion effort to be ministerial or non- ministerial, be sure to opt for the non-ministerial. It does the bill effort no good to have ministers out there in the public forum, and the adversary will surely pick up at this point. . . . . " (Attachment to Ellwanger Deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion). At the same time that the creationists were urging their supporters to downplay the religious basis of their outlook, they made no secret of their religious aims when appealing for funds or for political support among supporters or conservative legislators. Much of the creationist literature openly declares that the motives behind the "scientific" creationists' attacks on evolution are religious and moral, not scientific. Ellwanger, the person who wrote the Arkansas anti-evolution law, admitted in a letter to the legislator who sponsored it for him, "I view this whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces." (Attachment to Ellwanger Deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion) Georgia Judge Braswell Dean, a creationist supporter, declared, "This monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of permissiveness, promiscuity, pills, prophylactics, perversions, pregnancies, abortions, pornotherapy, pollution, poisoning, and proliferations of crimes of all types." (Time Magazine, March 16, 1982, p. 82) The Creation Science Research Center has declared that its "research" has proven that the scientific model of evolution is responsible for "the moral decay of spiritual values, which contributes to the destruction of mental health", as well as "a widespread breakdown in law and order" (Creation Science Report, April 1976, cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 285). Evolutionary theory, the CSRC pontificates, is directly responsible for "divorce, abortion, and rampant venereal diseases." (Segraves, The Creation Report, 1977, cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 285) Apparently, creationists seem to think that none of the evils of the world existed until Darwin published On the Origin of Species in the mid-19th century. Unfortunately, the creationists have given us no written statement about which varieties of "Satanism" and "moral decay" can be attributed to evolution and which can be attributed to other scientific models such as the general theory of relativity and gravity, the molecular theory of chemistry, or quantum nuclear physics. The conclusion is inescapable; the creationist movement, knowing that it would be illegal to force their religious viewpoints onto others through legislation, instead made a deliberate effort to hide their religious goals so as to not have their law declared unconstitutional. Now that their legislative effort has fallen flat on its face, the need for the pretense of "science" is removed, and they can once again revert to their openly religious dogma. In conclusion, then, by their own admission, the outlook of the creation "scientists" is not in any way, shape or form scientific. It is nothing more than a cynical and deliberate attempt to enshrine their own religious dogma into law under the guise of "science", in direct violation of the US Constitution and of all the basic principles of democracy. Rick ------------------------------ From: "pookietooth" Subject: Re: The Meters at the Fillmore Date: 14 Sep 2005 15:50:18 -0700 Dave Kelly wrote: > The original band...Art Neville/Zigaboo/George Porter/Nocentelli > November 18th & 19th > Fillmore auditorium - San Francisco > $75.00 > Um....did I just type $75.00 > Lemmee check. > Yeah.....$75.00 > Pass. $75 is kind of steep. But the original Meters at the Fillmore? That's gotta sell out in less than an hour. ------------------------------ From: joker4153@comcast.net Subject: Re: The Meters at the Fillmore Date: 14 Sep 2005 15:53:54 -0700 Is this some kind of Katrina benefit? ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: (NDC): Blue states revolt Date: 14 Sep 2005 15:59:03 -0700 pv34pv3p wrote: > I don't think seperating by red and blue states would achive what you > want... > > Prolly oughta try it by county to get a more accurate representation of > where blues actually dominate... Separating red and blue states by population -- you know, actual people --gives the breakdown exactly as described in the previous post. > http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7902 This merely demonstrates that maps like this one don't provide an accurate picture. Take CA for example - it went Kerry but you'd never know that from this map, which has most of the -surface area- in red. Merely looking at the surface area however doesn't take into account population distribution, which of course is a key component here and makes a huge difference. Moverover simply breaking counties (and states, FTM) down to red and blue doesn't take into account the variation in red and blue -within- counties - also a key component to getting an accurate picture of where American really stands right now. Here's a map that corrects the overly-simplistic red-blue county dichotomy: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ It shows that America isn't mostly red but in fact mostly purple. And this map doesn't even take into account the population density - which gain is a key component to understanding where Americans really stand - which is 51% to 48%. Here's another - this map takes the previous map and incorporates population density by rescaling the size of the states according to their populations: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/cartlinearlarge.png Thus we see that America is not only purple but also psychedelic. 8-o ( various cartographic representations of the election can be found here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ ) > Re-run the stats by county and the figures would be considerably less > in all regards, except perhaps crime rate. You forgot population. And education. And income, tax revenue, and venture capital. And the number of top-quality universities, high-tech corporations, and wineries. And the number of people who believe in evolution, global warming, and other truths about reality that have been proven by science. And the number of people who know that that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. And probably the successful marriage rate too. Ray ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .