Postmodern Science

Bill Nye, the snake oil salesman who peddled the $200 ionator that promised to turned tap water into “ionized” water which would kill just about any bacteria has discovered another way to use [cough] science:

Here’s the “pro-science” message Bill is selling:

“Sexuality’s a spectrum, everyone is on it. Even you might like it if you sit up on it,”

“Drag king, drag queen just do what feels right.”

“This world of ours is so full of choice. But must I choose between only John or Joyce? Are my options only hard or moist? My vagina has its own voice.”

How edgy.

At least we can catch a glimpse of what science is going to look like as postmodernism begins to shape it.

Posted in post-modernism, Science, Social Justice, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

More Threatiness from Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson posted a video about science and he considers it the most important words he has ever spoken.

He begins by asking, “How did America rise up from a back woods country to be one of the greatest nations the world has ever known?”

His answer is “science.”  As he notes,

We pioneered industries and all this required the greatest innovations in science and technology in the world.  And so science is a fundamental part of the country that we are.

All of this is true, but he omits crucial context.  Science did not function as some type of magic wand in a vacuum.  On the contrary, other factors were involved that allowed American society to untap the great potential of science.  Such other factors include capitalism and a culture that prizes individualism and freedom.  Without capitalism, individualism, and freedom, I’m not convinced America would have pioneered industries.  And I find this relevant because a significant portion of the “pro-science” community happen to be anti-capitalist collectivists.

Then Tyson starts with the fear-mongering.  He says people have “lost the ability” to judge what is true and what is not.  And these people represent a threat to our democracy.

How scary.

But is it true people have “lost” their ability to  judge what is true and have embraced an anti-science stand?  What possible novel developments is he talking about?

Continue reading

Posted in Neil deGrasse Tyson, Science, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 5 Comments

More on Atheism and Postmodernism

Previously, I commented on an essay by Helen Pluckrose in a blog entry entitled, Why the Left Will Lose to the Regressive Left.  Pluckrose must have noticed my blog entry and commented on it on her FB page:

I never argued, or even implied, that religion was the only thing that would stop postmodernism from destroying science.  As I noted, the title of that blog entry was why the Left will lose to the Regressive Left (and I explain this clearly in the last few paragraphs of that blog entry).  If I were to use a medical analogy, what I offered was a diagnosis, not a treatment plan.

Continue reading

Posted in atheism, post-modernism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Memphis March for Science Splits Because of Infighting

From here:

On one side are scientists who value their work for its purity, its separation from politics—illusory though that may seem under an administration that seeks to downsize the EPA, cut the NIH budget, and deny climate change. On the other side are scientists who’ve felt the impact of the field’s politics for years. People of color, women, the disabled, immigrants, gay people—they’re all clamoring for scientists to confront science’s biases and improve instead of celebrating its successes on the Washington Mall.

In Memphis, things fell apart. On Saturday, the city will host two official events: a march organized primarily by activists and a rally led primarily by scientists.

Posted in March for Science, Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments

The Atheist’s Where’s Waldo Approach

Over the years, I have shown the fatal flaws inherent in the atheists’ demand for evidence of God’s existence.  We have seen such demands completely ignore the subjective dimension of all evidence and mistakenly treat evidence as if it can objectively adjudicate disputes.   We have also seen that such demands invariably translate as a demand to see a miracle, yet such demands rely on God of the Gaps logic, a form of reasoning all atheists deny.  This problem alone renders the atheist’s demand for evidence as incoherent.

Let me see if I can illustrate yet another problem in this demand for such empirical evidence.  If you step back from the whole debate, you’ll notice that atheists treat the question of God’s existence as one big game of Where’s Waldo.


Can you find Waldo in the picture above?  You see lots of things in that picture – all kinds of different people doing different things in different states of dress.  You see people in the water and on the beach.  You also see animals, various inanimate objects, various boats in the water, etc.  Waldo is just one more thing among many things in the picture.

Now, almost every atheist I have encountered treats reality like that picture, only they can’t find Waldo.  They’ve looked and looked, and they can’t find him.  They’ve asked countless people to point out Waldo, and no can do it.  Thus, they conclude Waldo is not in that picture.  Those who think Waldo is in the picture are either delusional or they squint their eyes so hard that someone who kinda, sorta, looks like Waldo (but is not) is identified.

If you think of reality as the picture, and Waldo as God, this is the common atheist approach.  But in playing this game, the atheist is merely assuming God’s existence is like detecting Waldo.  For they are assuming that God is “just one more thing” (like Waldo) that is part of reality (the picture).   We can know this because atheists assume God, if He existed, would be detectable like other things – detected by our senses and our science.  We can further know this because atheists treat God as being perfectly analogous to unicorns, fairies, and Santa Claus, which, if any existed, would just be one more thing that is part of our reality.

But is God, if He existed, merely be one more thing that is part of our reality?

Continue reading

Posted in atheism, evidence, God, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Since when did the ham-handed approach become the smart approach?

Let’s consider the rationale behind Jerry Coyne’s self-image of being smarter than all theists simply because he is not a theist.

Coyne wrote:

And many public intellectuals—and virtually all accomplished scientists—are atheists. Why? Because there’s no credible evidence for God.

Let’s assume Coyne is correct about the public intellectuals and accomplished scientists.  We need only pose one more question to such people – what would you count as credible evidence for God?  Unless that question is answered, the “no credible evidence for God” position is nothing more than vacuous posturing.

So what would count?  As we have seen again and again and again, the only thing that would appear to count is some type of mind-blowing, mighty miracle that could not possibly be explained by natural law and science.

Coyne himself made this clear on March 18, 2014:

Indeed, tests of whether miracles occur (studies of the efficacy of intercessory prayer, investigations of supposed miracles like the Shroud of Turin, and so on) have always shown that God didn’t show up. But he could have: all he would have to do is, one night, to rearrange the stars in a pattern that spelled out “I am who I am” in Hebrew. Science would have a tough time explaining that one! There are innumerable phenomena that would, if verified, convince scientists that a god would exist. Sadly, none have occurred.

Ah, the LiteBrite demo! If God exists, He should have turned the stars into a huge LiteBrite screen and given us all a message. That would convince scientist Jerry Coyne. Or so he says.

But hold on. Not so fast there. Just how did scientist Jerry Coyne get from a cosmic LiteBrite demonstration to God’s existence? The only way to connect those dots is with the God-of-the-Gaps argument.  Which is why Coyne notes, “Science would have a tough time explaining that one! “ Coyne would interpret a pattern of stars that spelled out “I am who I am” in Hebrew as evidence of God’s existence only because science could not explain it.  Since science/natural law could not explain it, God must have done it.

Well, well.  Coyne’s atheism is built on the logic of the “God-of-the-Gaps” argument and assumes its legitimacy.  For without assuming the legitimacy of this argument, there is no way to get from any star pattern to evidence of the existence of God.

So, according to Coyne, what makes him so smart compared to theists is that he concludes there is no evidence of God because there are no Gaps.   If Coyne and the Gnus are so smart, how is it that they have yet to figure out their atheism presumes the legitimacy of the God of the Gaps logic?

There’s more.

Continue reading

Posted in atheism, God, New Atheism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

Leading Atheist Activist Insists Theists are (somewhat) Stupid


Atheist activist Jerry Coyne recently admitted something that was always fairly obvious:

I don’t think one can be really smart and religious at the same time.

Of course not.  Y’see, if you were “really smart,” you’d be an atheist.

Coyne goes to insist theists display a form of stupidity:

To me, this means that someone, regardless of how “smart” they seem, is at the very least irrational if they believe in God or the attendant superstitions. It is as if their brain is a jigsaw puzzle with one crucial piece missing: the piece that accepts important propositions in proportion to the evidence supporting them. And to me that kind of irrationality is a form of stupidity, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “dullness or slowness of apprehension; gross want of intelligence.” It’s not that they’re totally stupid; just partially stupid.

Coyne doesn’t seem to realize that all he is doing here is giving us a window into his own mind.  Whether or not theism is a form of stupidity is merely a matter of subjective opinion.  For how does one objectively determine whether belief in God is irrational?  Of course New Atheists are going to think of theism as a form of stupidity. But how do they know?

Nevertheless, now that Coyne (and his fans) are so open about it, we can explore the implications of those subjective perceptions.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Comments

March for Science Further Marginalizes New Atheism

If you needed any further evidence that the “religion and science are incompatible” position of the New Atheists is a fringe belief, consider that the March for Science’s first official blog posting rejects it:

The War on Science is partly fueled by deepening divisions over class, education, religion, and urban vs. rural lifestyles. This is all part of the larger Culture War we see in the country today, and its flames are being fanned by politicians and media icons who are trying to divide us.

Don’t fall for it.

To focus on these false divisions is to get bogged down in fights over things like creationism versus evolution, faith versus science, and our different views about our place in the universe.

Rather than magnifying these existential differences, science supporters would be wise to find common ground with people of faith. Scientists have more in common with value-driven communities than most people realize. We all search for meaning, and share a deeply-held fascination with the natural world. In this way, science and religion are allies. Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe is a good example of someone who is bridging these worlds, creating a constructive dialogue. (emphasis added)


Posted in March for Science, New Atheism | Tagged , | 28 Comments

Scientist Explains Why He Will Not Join “March for Science”


The Mad Virologist explains why he will not participate in the March for Science.  It began on the MfS Facebook page:

Imagine my surprise when I saw a comment in the group about science in the US being bought and paid for. This type of conspiracy theory had been cropping up more and more in the group as well as other pseudoscience in general. So I commented that I found the idea of scientists being bought and paid for offensive and I felt that type of attitude had no place in a group that was meant to organize scientists to let our voices be heard. I often see the idea that scientists are bought and paid for coming from people that have no connection to science or scientists and this case was no different. I may have been a little curt in my reply where I pointed out that the idea of science being bought and paid for is offensive, but I never would have guessed what the response from other members would have been. I was told that I was being an elitist and snobbish in my tone and that I was being divisive for pointing out that the idea that science as a whole is bought and paid for is offensive. When I pointed out that pseudoscience had no place in a movement for science, I was told that all thoughts and opinions should be given equal footing. This was the point that I left the group.

Then he noticed many pseudoscience organizations were associated with the MfS:

I’ve told my concerns about how the march could be co-opted by antiscience groups and weaken the message that was trying to be shared to a few friends of mine. Sadly, this seems to be what is happening to the march as they’ve recently partnered with the Center for Biological Diversity. On the surface, this seems to be okay; however, this group is rabidly anti-GMO and often repeats bad science when it comes to discussing GE crops. Stephan Neidenbach addresses some of these misconceptions here and was the first to point out that this antiscience group is taking part in the march. But this isn’t the only questionable group to partner with march. They’ve also partnered with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that is anti-GMO and anti-nuclear power. Another problematic partner is the Center for Science in Public Interest which has problematic positions on artificial sweeteners and food dyes. No, aspartame does not cause cancer and the link of artificial food dyes to hyperactivity is tenuous at best. Earth Day Network is another troublesome partner as they have posted antiGMO stories on their facebook page.

There are many other partners that are fantastic scientific organizations, but my fear here is that the event is going to be tainted by the organizations that do not hold science in the same regard. Much like my experience in the main FB group, I wonder if these pseudoscience organizations are being included for “diversity of opinion.”

I don’t think they were added for “diversity of opinion.”

Posted in activism, March for Science | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Politically Correct Witchhunt Causes Student to Commit Suicide

From here:

If every other egregious example of a male student denied due process after being accused of sexual misconduct gets ignored – this one should not be.

A male student who was accused of sexual harassment committed suicide just days after the University of Texas at Arlington ignored its own policies in order to punish him. The accused student’s father, a lawyer acting as the administrator of his son’s estate, is now suing the school for violating his son’s Title IX rights.

College administrators, as well as members of the media and legislators, would do well to remember the name Thomas Klocke. Klocke, a straight male, was accused by a gay male student of writing anti-gay slurs on his computer during a class. Klocke vehemently denied the accusation, and administrators who investigated the incident acknowledged there was no evidence to support the accuser’s claims, yet Klocke was still punished.

Posted in Social Justice, Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments