Sen. Claire McCaskill’s gift of Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) is a gift that simply keeps on giving. Previously Akin alienated the GOP leadership and most of the known world with comments that, in cases of legitimate rape, women often do not get pregnant because “the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.” He also claimed that doctor routinely performed abortions on women who are not pregnant. Now, at a Tea Party meeting in Jefferson City, Missouri, Akin has said that that there is no science behind evolution. Akin sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Akin’s remarks not only leave doubt about his knowledge — or ability to understand – science but also what he considers “the thing” that he is supposed to do in Washington:
I don’t see it as even a matter of science because I don’t know that you can prove one or the other. That’s one of those things. We can talk about theology and all of those other things but I’m basically concerned about, you’ve got a choice between Claire McCaskill and myself. My job is to make the thing there. If we want to do theoretical stuff, we can do that, but I think I better stay on topic.
Of course, such comments could be used by some to disprove any evidence that we have evolved intellectually. Frankly, whenever I hear Akin speak recently I too begin to doubt evolution in the human species.
Notably, Akin sits on the committee with Rep. Paul Broun, the chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Broun made headlines this month with the following statement: at the 2012 Sportsman’s Banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia on September 27th, he said this:
God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.
As many of you know, I have shown equal disregard for both of the main parties that hold a monopoly on power in the United States. Indeed, the low quality politicians that we see in both parties is the very danger of all monopolies — once protected from competition, the quality of a product declines. The political monopoly in this country is the ultimate example of that phenomenon. What we need is a Sherman Act for politics, starting with the eradication of the electoral college and the establishment of a new rule on general elections.
As for Republicans, I have many friends from that party who are intellectual and honest. These characters are destroying the credibility of their party which often appears anti-intellectual and anti-science.
God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.
————————————————-
Is he the savior? Doubt it.
Hi, Slartibartfast,
“I was pretty clear that I was giving my opinion, but Newton’s laws don’t “hold up mathematically”. Ever.” Opinions are fine, and over this issue, our opinions have trans-disciplinary issues. You can’t measure either speeds accurately enough to call in Einsteining physics, and then make a calculation to show that Einstein holds. 110 mph plus or minus what, 10 mph plus or minus what? The negligible part of the equation is swamped by the error in measuring. I do agree with you, but Newton still drops out if you drop the Einstein part of the equation, and at low speeds and heights, the error of measuring swamps anything Einstein adds.
Now the rest (liking that bold as it makes it easier):
“Really? Exactly when did our ancestors become conscious? How do you know that no species besides homo sapiens sapiens is conscious?” Who knows, and I don’t. But you’re ignoring degree as to the latter, and degree makes all the difference. Otherwise, Einstein who? I’m conflating consciousness with intelligence intra-species. Would you like to argue otherwise?
“Why is human social structure “artificial” as opposed to the social structure of, say, gorillas or a wolfpack or dolphins or bees or ants?” Well, because it’s definitional? Artificial means “Humanely contrived or man-made”, it has no other meaning, and neither you nor I should play Humpty Dumpty on that word. Bonobos, chimps, gorillas, dolphins or wolfs, have a great possibility of some degree of consciousness. Ants or bees, too much evidence otherwise, a social structure is not proof of consciousness, nor in this case even raises a question without an episode of “The Outer Limits” as a starting point.
“How do human social structures “require a direction above just fitting into an environmental niche over long periods”? ” Okay, you got me as direction is a human thing, direction being neither positive or negative regarding an environmental niche, but just human. If we don’t like the niche, we’ll build canals and flood it.
“Are you implying that the social structure of other species don’t contain their own unique elements?” Certainly not, but don’t confuse unique elements with complexity, a word which is not an either-or. A bee hive, or ant colony, is certainly complex in terms of your understanding. You ignore that complexity has degrees, so would you really want to argue that an ant colony is equal to the complexity of Manhattan Island? And that is just a small part of the complexity that is human. Humans have their unique elements, just go to the mines past Superior towards Winkleman. No ants.
Okay, I may have gotten off track with which bold applies to which of my arguments, but this: “Hey, look, it’s a pre-emptive straw man!” Okay, read it, and back on track. “Please don’t compare monogamous animals with “marriage” was my quote. Really, are the wolf police going after a wayward wolf for not paying child support? If that was a straw-man, damn I need more.
“What, exactly, does that have to do with anything?” from my “the complexity is substantially different”. Nothing and everything. If you view complexity as something you have to work at understanding, such as an ant colony, while ignoring all the human complexity around you, then you are right. Has nothing to do with anything you can see.
“Do you even understand what you are trying to say here? How do you measure the complexity of a society? (You brought up the term magnitude, which implies measurement, by the way…)”. If there is no way to measure complexity, then there is no way to measure an ant colony versus anything else. So the words complexity and “ant colony” have no meaning when juxtaposed. As for “magnitude” (10 times), you need to have more interaction with laypeople. It’s as much a qualitative phrase as a quantitative, and in this domain strictly qualitative. I was being conservative, I thought 2 or more magnitudes, but went with one. Given, by your words, there is no possible way of measuring complexity of a society, ant, bee, or human, then, hell, my evaluation is as good as yours. Maybe better because I understand complexity isn’t a zero or a one.
“Then the wise thing to have done would have been not to post it—unless, of course, you are a masochist, in which case: you’re welcome.” to my (I expect pain over this). No, I’m not a masochist, but I do understand and expect other people’s sadism. People are people.
It was fun, and you did make me think. I appreciate both.
Ariel said:
Hi, Gyges,
““Consciousness really screws with evolution.”
Why would you say that? It might add a few things to be selected for or against, and remove a few others, but so does any adaptation. Variation and selection still happen.”
Uh, because consciousness is a level above the rest of life on this planet. And it leads to an artificial social structure (human social structures are artificial) that makes decisions and requires a direction above just fitting into an environmental niche over long periods. Human social structures like marriage do not exist elsewhere. Please don’t compare monogamous animals with “marriage”. The complexity is substantially different. In fact, human society is at least a magnitude or greater in complexity than the rest of the animal world. And all from the evolution where are species reached “consciousness” (I expect pain over this).
I have two children alive only because of our “Consciousness”, without it they would have died at puberty (I’ll let you guess on that one). They will live, but what price evolution?
As for you and Dredd, my apologies.
Ariel,
I was pretty clear that I was giving my opinion, but Newton’s laws don’t “hold up mathematically”. Ever.
Consider this hypothetical: Jason Verlander is riding in a parade at 10 mph (something not inconceivable in the near future… 😉 ) and throws a 100 mph heater in the same direction (something that will very probably happen in the near future, if not at the same time…). Newton’s laws say that someone in the path of the ball (let’s say he’s throwing some chin music) sees the ball headed towards them at 110 mph while, according to relativity, the true speed is about 110 / (1 + 1 / 4.5 x 10^14) mph, which, while the difference is beyond detection, is not, mathematically speaking, the same.
In science, “laws” and “theories” are equally strong—both refer to the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. (from the Wiki entry on “scientific theory”). Again, it’s just my opinion, but, as a scientist, I think that the distinction is neither functional nor useful.
Hi, Slartibartfast, like your moniker though it makes me so depressed I don’t know how I can go on.
“Personally, I don’t think that “law” is a good term to use for any scientific theory as it generally has a connotation of absolute truth—something that just doesn’t happen when describing the universe with mathematics.”
Well, it’s because a Law isn’t a Theory. Newton’s Laws hold up mathematically, but only in a very narrow way (think boundaries). They’re Laws because they describe what is and no exception has been found except that: They are a subset of Einsteinian physics (still Theory but getting there I presume), and fall out quite handily and fit our particular velocities.
BTW, architects now of very tall buildings use Newton and Einstein calculations.
Again, a Law and a Theory are not the same thing.
Hi, Bron,
“Ariel:
that was well done.
Gene will now say you are a troll, are full of it and that he “won” because of your use of the various fallacies.
Your posts are a breath of fresh air.”
Thank you for that. Occasional praise is heartening. However, Gene H. said you’re a troll so you must be as am I. I have a feeling it has more to do with disagreeing with him, or anyone he agrees with, than any actual trollishness
Just for your enjoyment, one of the definitions of “excluded middle” is “only extreme views are valid”, notice Gene H. and his description of me ” anti-evolutionary, anti-intellectual and pro-religion”. Oddly, I’ve been an atheist for 48 years (atheists have only one thing in common “no gods”), believe “change in species over time” is a Law (change is an is, mechanism is why), and I neither hate nor embrace religion (consider it experiential, therefore it does have some wisdom; the haters think it was devised predominately for subjugation). I think there is certainly middle-ground on intellectualism (lest one’s brains fall out on the ground) as well religion. I am more absolutist on evolution, which makes his argument about me using “excluded middle fallacy” just a sweet moment of irony. If others would swat him, I would flagellate myself for schadenfreude. But then Gene H. would think I am an adherent of a 13th Century nonsense.
Dredd, I had never heard of the “blank-slaters” and I’ll have to read up on it. But it reminded me of something that happened over 30 years back. I was being evaluated by a child psychiatrist to see if I was a “fit” mother to keep custody of my then 2-year-old son. He wanted me to describe my whole life, starting at earliest memory. In the first session I traveled through early childhood and at one point said that my brother, who was 3 years older than me, had polio. (Two years before the vaccine came out.) I said that our parents told us that he had contracted the disease because a little girl in his class at school was playing with marbles and put one in her mouth, and then my brother played marbles with her and got the germs. I had been at first horrified (“How do they know?”) and then very upset (“They shouldn’t blame the little girl; how did SHE know?”).
When narrating this to the psychiatrist, I said it shocked me. He asked a pointed question: “What do you think they were telling your brother?” I answered, “It’s dangerous to play with girls.” He then asked, “How about: school is a scary place?” I agreed. (My brother did very well in school, though; he was phobic, however, and had social anxiety.)
My brother wasn’t created from whole cloth at the moment he heard this story; he had a huge history and an ongoing biological presence by that time, including polio. In fact, had he BEEN a blank slate the news of the dreadful and fateful marbles game would not have particularly damaged him, since he would be able to avoid games of marbles from that time forward. We are not only what we eat, but what we experience, what we think we experience, and what we already are.
Except Akin. He’s just as dumb as a stump so nothing in here applies to him.
E.O. Wilson continued:
(A United Biology, emphasis added).
E.O. Wilson on evolutionary heresy:
(A United Biology, emphasis added). Scientists and religionists can become fanatical when their dogmas and doctrines are challenged, whether they are on the right or on the left, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Akinoid.
“Microbe study is microbe worship now.”
It is when you join the “symbiosis is everything!” crowd. That you cannot understand that your position is as extreme and wrong headed as that of the genetic determinism crowd is your intellectual failing. It’s also part and parcel of why you don’t properly understand evolution holistically and in context.
“Some people can’t be taught because they can’t learn.”
A principle you demonstrate every time you say things like microbes practice religion and science or preach out the dominance of microbes in evolutionary process.
Also your weak ass guilt by association tactic is really getting old. Try a new troll tactic for a change since you’re apparently going to persist in using them. Variety is the spice of life. Put that in your Akinoid and smoke it.
“The only thing you’ve ever taught me is that you don’t understand how evolution works as a whole because you’re too busy engaged in your microbe worship.”
Microbe study is microbe worship now.
Some people can’t be taught because they can’t learn.
Akinoids cannot be educated beyond their point of defiance of scientific reality.
In the ~200,000 years of humanoid life, out of 3.8 billion years of organic life on Earth, humanoids have been here about 0.0053% of the time, or ~half of 1% of the time.
What is the bigger picture?
Should we see things in terms of microbial evolution which has been inhabiting 99.9947% of that time, or should we conceive of ~half of 1% of that time as the bigger picture?
Gene H, I was thinking the other day, that in a few hundred generations, humans will have tiny little pointy finger-ends like styluses so they can punch the itsy bitsy keys on their eensy beensy cell-phone-computer-thingies. I’m a typist and I have worked as a secretary for decades and I cannot even text; I can’t put an address into a GPS device. I’m a dinosaur! 😳
Joe Walsh is simply one of those people who is so impressed with himself that once he says something, he believes it is true. Thus he never needs to study a problem; just make a stupid pronouncement about it and suddenly, it is solved: IF ONLY PEOPLE LISTEN TO HIM.
Of course our government is filled with the likes of Joe Walsh. I wish they would all go somewhere and become real heroes.
Joe Walsh, another one of those folks that love the blastocyte but begrudges the child. This guy is not only a deadbeat dad but stupid to the point of malice. This douche had the nerve to try to kerry his opponent, Tammy Duckworth, by saying “real heroes” never, ever talk about their service? As if her loss of both legs wasn’t enough to warrant that title.
Thanx for the link Dredd.
Joe Walsh joins the Akinoids:
(No Exception For ‘Life Of The Mother’ Thanks To ‘Advances In Science And Technology’ ).
Presume much, Dreddful? The only thing you’ve ever taught me is that you don’t understand how evolution works as a whole because you’re too busy engaged in your microbe worship. That you want to obsess on microbial symbiosis and fixate on it as the dominate force in evolution is not some special knowledge that you are imparting on to the heathens. It’s a representation that you’re a science fringer who simply doesn’t understand evolution as a holistic process and never will as long as you persist in your delusions about the importance of microbial symbiosis. Yeah, it’s a part of the evolutionary process, but it isn’t the alpha and omega of it. It’s the flip side of genetic determinism and just as wrong. Evolution is a multifaceted dynamic process with multiple inputs that is much more complex and elegant than your simplistic beliefs based on misunderstood science.
Bonnie, Dredd, and other microbiologists say:
(The Human Microbiome Congress). The H gene says “abracadabra, I just make this stuff up cause GygesATater thinks I am cute.”
You didn’t know any of this until I brought it up on JT’s blog, and the way you Akinoids are going you never will know it.
“[U]nderstanding how higher organisms and sophisticated organisms evolved” means she is seeking to understand mechanisms of evolution better – which does not do anything to substantively prove your previous assertions about microbial life practicing science and/or religion. If her works leads to a more refined understanding of speciation? Fantastic. If it leads to a better understanding of the mechanisms of cladogenesis and anagenesis? Outstanding.
However, her knowing what she is talking about and you not understanding what she is talking about and using it to draw erroneous conclusions are two separate matters.
You’re appealing to authority, Dredd, but unlike the classical informal fallacy you aren’t appealing to her improperly as an improper authority but rather as an authority you think backs one of your erroneous conclusions, i.e. you seek to bolster your imaginary authority with her actual authority on the subject matter. You aren’t technically committing the fallacy because of this difference, but you are doing a fine job of illustrating that you don’t understand what she says in context of or in the full scope of biology.
She might as well be using magical language like “abracadabra” for your purposes.