Discovery Institute and FRC present: Washington DC Event – Darwin’s Dangerous Idea The Disturbing Legacy of America’s Eugenics Crusade. There is live video available for those who wish to see the event remotely. Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute shows the connection between Darwin’s ideas and America’s Eugenics Crusade.
“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words. Politics aside, framing is part and parcel with the condescension of our secular elite that the masses cannot be reasoned with and must therefore be manipulated.
The authors of “Framing Science” (see below), which appeared in Science, are world-renowned scientists and therefore know whereof they speak. Well, not exactly. Matthew Nisbet is a professor of communication and Chris Mooney is a correspondent for the atheist magazine Seed. (Nisbet’s blog is also hosted by Seed.) Nisbet and Mooney are both outspoken defenders of Darwinism and critics of ID — which is no doubt why the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publisher of Science) regards them as qualified to “frame” science.
FRAMING SCIENCE — A Science and Society Policy Forum
Matthew C. Nisbet and Chris MooneyScience 6 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5821, p. 56
SOURCE: www.sciencemag.orgIssues at the intersection of science and politics, such as climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research, receive considerable public attention, which is likely to grow, especially in the United States as the 2008 presidential election heats up. Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively “frame” information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message (1). However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists’, and controversy would subside.
In reality, citizens do not use the news media as scientists assume. Research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments. Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens, selecting news outlets and Web sites whose outlooks match their own (2). Such screening reduces the choices of what to pay attention to and accept as valid (3). Read More ›
From God’s Numbers:
Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. …Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific [sic] theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.
….
Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist.
Commenting on Sam Harris and his facile denunciations of religion, Mike Gene hits the mark: Harris ends with this basic argument: “There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith  but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical  and even spiritual  without pretending to know things they do not know.” But these are empty words. For example, is Harris (or Dawkins) recognized as someone who displays compassion? He can Read More ›
“Galileo’s conflict with the church could have probably been avoided if he had been endowed with less passion and more diplomacy; but long before that conflict, he had incurred the implacable hostility of the orthodox Aristotelians who held key positions at the Italian universities. Religion and political oppression play only an incidental part in the history of science; its erratic course and recurrent crises are caused by internal factors. One of the conspicuous handicaps is the conservatism of the scientific mind in its corporate aspect. The collective matrix of a science at a given time is determined by a kind of establishment, which includes universities, learned societies, and, more recently, the editorial offices of technical journals. Like other establishments, they Read More ›
Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins are at it again, however not face to face this time, but as guests on alternate days on NPR’s ‘Fresh Air’ with Terry Gross. She asks pertinent questions but as always, remains objective, taking no position on either side. In Wednesday’s interview, Dawkins takes a moment reading from page 15 of his book, to clear up any question of Einstein having theistic views, but rather, as he himself embraces, having merely a breathtaking admiration and respect for the Cosmos, but from purely naturalistic origins. Dawkins paints a picture of mankind’s progress, with science and culture at the forefront, providing a humanistic view of what we have achieved, and stating that it is “demeaning, to retreat Read More ›
Here’s what’s appearing on Starbucks coffee cups that’s relevant to our concerns: The Way I See It #224 Darwinism’s impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty. — Jonathan Wells, Biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The Way I See It # 220 Evolution as described by Charles Darwin is a scientific theory, abundantly reconfirmed, explaining physical phenomena by physical causes. Intelligent Design is a faith-based initiative in rhetorical Read More ›
Read More
If you’ve been part of the ID debate, none of this is news: Here is the film’s website: www.indoctrinate-u.com.
British paper currency — the 10-pound note — features Charles Darwin. (The custom is that the notes all have the Queen on one side and a famous Briton on the other. The notes are in denominations 5, 10, 20, and 50; there are no 1-pound or 2-pound paper notes, these are coins). A couple of days ago the Bank of England issued a new 20-pound note, using new security features, and took the occasion to change the “famous person.” This is a news-worthy cause for British Darwin-doubters, who should urge that Darwin be dumped from the 10-pound note whenever there is a new security-upgrade version, on grounds that he is the chief prophet of the materialist religion, and his presence Read More ›
This is the first article I’ve authored for this site; I apologize in advance if I format wrong or make some other mistake.
As is so often the case, I ran across the most interesting material while looking for something else, and thought others might be interested as well.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was an important 19th-Century philosopher. He was also an obnoxious curmudgeon. He wrote an essay: “38 Ways to Win an Argument,†which details all the unfair, manipulative, and downright mean tactics which can be employed to win an argument, especially a public one, whether or not the truth is on your side. Reading through these techniques it struck me how many of them are employed by the Materialist/Darwinist side against ID and other positions critical of their claims.
I have picked out a few examples, with their original numberings from his essay (quotes from Schopenhauer are in italics if I’ve figured out this formatting system right). These were taken from a translation of Shopenhauer by T. Bailey Saunders: The Art of Controversy, and Other Posthumous Papers, London: Sonnenshein/New York: Macmillan, 1896.
Read More ›
I finally figured it out. It’s because scientists have not officially blessed its use. To take a drug that scientists say you shouldn’t try yet is to commit a horrible transgression against the authority of the scientific clergy. Even when you’re dying of stage 4 cancer and no scientifically sanctified therapies are available you are not allowed to wander off the reservation and try unsanctified remedies. You should instead just die quietly without making any waves. http://www.thedcasite.com http://www.buydca.com Disclaimer: I am not affiliated in any way with the above sites. I have no financial interest in DCA. I have no friends or family suffering from cancer who stand to benefit from DCA.
I just love being eventually proven right but vindication usually doesn’t come to me this quickly. As I was trying to tell Mike Dunford, including my now prophetic-appearing conjecture that manmade CFC-caused ozone depletion is a real global warming culprit, unlike the mythical C02 effect…
Last year, Bromwich’s research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn’t increased in the last 50 years. “What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down.”
“In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion.”
–David Bromwich, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Geography, Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University
Thanks for playing, Mike. Better luck next time.
A concerned friend passed this along to me. I pass it along to all of you. Civilization Calls
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged From The Sunday Times, February 11, 2007