Brain Fertilizer: August 2005 Archives

This Blog Is Closed Indefinitely « Blogging »

The last post was a good enough epitaph; Brain Fertilizer is over now.

Who knows, maybe 6 months later I will want to blog about news, events, or politics. But for now, I'm switching to Musings and writing about the Chiefs. It may not appeal to many of you, but it's what I'm doing. There will be plenty of non-Chiefs' stuff, too, as I discuss parenting, leadership, spirituality, or other aspects of life. There may even be a pun or two, who knows?

But it's a new direction.

So the new place is now Chiefly Musing. Brain Fertilizer has become the "Chief Muser." Please adjust your blogrolls accordingly, although emails will be sent out soon.

Thanks for a great time, people!

--Nathan

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

The Definitive Post on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design « New Thinking »

Don't bother arguing about ID with a committed evolutionist.

They are close-minded and refuse to accept that any other viewpoint might be correct.

They claim that ID is not science, in that it is not falsifiable, not replicable, and has no predictive utility. But they fail to note those same objections apply to Evolution Theory as well.

Don't believe me? Read any defense against the Theory of Irreducible Complexity. "It could have worked out this way" is absolutely not falsifiable. A fact conveniently overlooked by supporters of Evolution Theory.

Macro-evolution has never been observed in nature, which kind of destroys any chance of replicating it. And predictiive utility? Go ahead: tell me what the next new species to emerge is, and what its characteristics will be. I dare ya.

Plain simple fact: no genetic trait can appear that isn't already in the genetic code. That's Rule #1 of Evolution Theory. So the only way for speciation to have occurred is by changes in the genetic code, i.e., mutation. Evolution Theory supporters would have you believe that the vast array of species you see before you occurred because enough favorable mutations occurred in an organism still capable of passing on genetic information, and that enough of the offspring received that genetic information to intermingle, be displayed and passed on to succeeding generations...and in sufficient numbers to actually compete with non-mutated versions of that same organism. Which is difficult enough to swallow, except that they also expect you to believe all this happened within the accepted astronomic estimates of the age of the universe, which every computer projection I've seen indicates is pretty much impossible. Allowing for random mutation at a far greater rate than we see occuring in nature (remember the "observable, replicable, and predictive" requirements for something to be "science"?), it would still take much longer than the universe has been in existence for speciation to the extent we observe to occur, by at least a factor of 1000.

Another problem with discussing ID with an Evolution Theory supporter is they fancy they can use their own "common sense" to disprove ID. Aside from the fact that they are usually arguing against a strawman to begin with, they don't allow you to disprove Evolution Theory with your own common sense. Scientists are supposed to be the ones determining what the common man should or should not believe, I guess.

Because that's what is at the heart of Evolution Theory chauvenism. The person arguing against ID has decided that ID is not science. They don't have to listen to the rigorous documentation of ID theory, the peer-reviewed publication in scientific journals, the theories that have been tested and falsified, because they have already decided that ID is not credible, based on the experts they chose to believe because those same experts have also already decided ID is not a credible theory. Circular logic like that is also not scientific.

What, in fact, is the harm of teaching ID theory? Is anyone going to change their lifestyle if they believe ID is true? Are toasters and MP3 players and cars going to stop working? Are people going to stop going to doctors? Is Evolution Theory research going to get less funding?

At worst a generation of kids will grow up believing that ID is a credible theory. It won't make them worse football players, worse lawyers, worse doctors...or even worse scientists. And some of them will see inherent contradictions between Evolution Theory and Intelligent Design, and do some research and experiments. And some will attempt to disprove Evolution Theory. And some will attempt to disprove Intelligent Design. And maybe 100 years from now we'll still be arguing the theories.

Or, if the Evolution Theory supporters are as correct as they think they are, Intelligent Design will be totally disproven. From that point of view, sure: why waste the next 100 years checking it out?

The answer is simple: Because science can learn things even by chasing down blind alleys. Serendipitous results from mistakes and bad assumptions have taught us more than staying within the orthodoxy ever did.

And isn't the "Teach Evolution Theory Only" stance rather condescending, after all? It assumes, "I'm smart enough to look at all information and decide Evolution Theory is correct. But those stupid hicks in Kansas/wherever can't."

Bottom Line: Teaching Intelligent Design as an alternative idea to Evolution Theory as the cause for speciation cannot and does not have any potential harmful results; conversely, increasing debate within the classroom only helps in the refining of theories, ideas, and understanding.

Show Comments »

Wow. That's pretty definitive.

Hear, hear.

posted by GradualDazzle on August 5, 2005 07:05 PM

The answer is simple: Because science can learn things even by chasing down blind alleys.

The greatest indicator of a scientific breakthrough is not "Eureka!" but rather "Hmmm. That's odd..."

posted by Sharp as a Marble on August 5, 2005 08:17 PM

That's also a pretty good indicator of a Sci-Fi horror flick, now that you mention it...

posted by Nathan on August 5, 2005 08:24 PM

The biggest problem I have with proponents of Intelligent Design is that they never offer and evidence for the theory. Instead they simply attack evolutionary theory, like you just did in this post.

You also make the claim that there's a whole raft of rigorous testing that's been done to advance ID into the realm of actual science. Unfortunately, every single source I've ever read doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. Instead the authors make objections to evolutionary theory the centerpiece to their arguement. I've yet to come across any documented experiment that was designed to indicate that ID was a factor in...well, anything.

The fact of the matter is that evolution appears to work, and it stands up to every reasonable test that we've been able to come up with. Saying that we don't know everything about the mechanisms of change since life appeared is certainly true. But to use that as a basis for a claim that there's an unseen, unknowable, untestable force isn't credible.

James

posted by James R. Rummel on August 7, 2005 02:43 PM

James,
Thanks for the restrained response.
However, I'm not attacking Evolution. Read it again.
I'm criticising the people. As such, I don't see that I need to offer a defense of ID; in fact, such a defense would be useless, because you've already stated you refuse to believe it, regardless of information. Why should I bother to try to convince the close-minded?
The evidence is out there. You refuse to acknowledge it. Or perhaps it doesn't meet your standards?
Well, the same thing applies to Evolution Theory, eh? It doesn't meet many people's standards, but again, the Evolution Theory chauvenism reigns supreme: the only people allowed to have an opinion are those who embrace Evolution Theory and reject ID.
Look, there's no rancor in my stance. I find it amusing, and worthy of note, that's all.
If ID is so ridiculous, why do so many people find it answers questions that Evolution doesn't? If ID is so ridiculous, wouldn't the best way to demonstrate that be to take it seriously? Why do we need to bar it from school? Why do people who consider ID to be intriguing and worthy of study be barred from PhD-level study and research?

Which you didn't address in your response. It's just another variation of "I don't think ID is science, so no one else should, either." That's what I cannot accept. I'm smart enough to make my own decisions, to make my own judgments. You claim that ability for yourself, why will you not allow me that right?

That's the point of this post, NOT trying to prove ID or discredit Evolution Theory, even if you insist on seeing it that way.

posted by Nathan on August 7, 2005 03:20 PM

I don't see that I need to offer a defense of ID; in fact, such a defense would be useless, because you've already stated you refuse to believe it, regardless of information.

Actually, I think that I made it pretty clear in my previous comment that I've examined the so-called "scientific proof" for ID and found it to be wanting.

The evidence is out there. You refuse to acknowledge it. Or perhaps it doesn't meet your standards?

Maybe you can point me to a scientifically sound study where ID is tested and stands on it's own merits, instead of something that simply attacks evolutionary theory while offering no proof for ID. Simply claiming that "the evidence is out there" isn't compelling.

Well, the same thing applies to Evolution Theory, eh? It doesn't meet many people's standards, but again, the Evolution Theory chauvenism reigns supreme: the only people allowed to have an opinion are those who embrace Evolution Theory and reject ID.

Like I've said, evolutionary theory has held up to every reasonable test while ID proponents have offered nothing viable so far.

Look, there's no rancor in my stance. I find it amusing, and worthy of note, that's all.

Of course! That's why you use terms such as "chauvenism" and "close-minded". There certainly isn't anything that smacks of ad hominem and personal attacks there at all!

If ID is so ridiculous, why do so many people find it answers questions that Evolution doesn't?

You're constructing a straw man. I never said that ID was ridiculous. If you'll be so kind as to go back and take a look at my original comment you'll see that I simply said that I've never seen any scientific justification for it.

You certainly aren't making a very good case for the claim that I'm wrong by avoiding giving me a source and attacking me directly.

Why do people who consider ID to be intriguing and worthy of study be barred from PhD-level study and research?

This is a blatantly false statement. Last time I checked, there isn't any bar on research into ID. Anyone who can find the funding can go right ahead and perform research to their heart's content. The reason why there doesn't seem to be any grant money available for such research goes back to my original point: there has never been any glimmer of proof that ID is a viable theory. The people who are tasked with passing out grant money have a responsibility to fund research that has the greatest chance of producing results, a criteria which ID clearly doesn't meet.

If you feel that strongly about it (and it appears that you do), then why don't you start a charitable foundation in order to fund ID research? I just saw in the news that several museums are opening in the US which presents paleontology in a Biblical light. There should be enough people willing to help out to make it a success.

I'm smart enough to make my own decisions, to make my own judgments. You claim that ability for yourself, why will you not allow me that right?

Another straw man. I never made any statement that could possibly be taken to mean that I'm trying to deny you that right. This is yet another ad hominem attack.

That's the point of this post, NOT trying to prove ID or discredit Evolution Theory, even if you insist on seeing it that way.

You made the claim that ID is supported by a huge body of scientifically sound research, while devoting a fair amount of the post to discussing the reasons why you don't think that evolutionary theory is correct.

I'm pretty hard pressed to find any other point of your post, to be frank.

James

posted by James R. Rummel on August 9, 2005 04:03 PM

James,
Do you ever listen to yourself?

When you say things like:
Like I've said, evolutionary theory has held up to every reasonable test while ID proponents have offered nothing viable so far.
...you are doing the exact thing you blame me for.

Who's reasonable test? Who defines "nothing viable"? Do you realize you refuse to offer a single point in defense of Evolution Theory that you demand of ID?

When you understand the answers to those questions, you'll understand the point of my post. No matter how many times I repeat that this post isn't about the validity of either one, but about attitudes towards the theories, you still refuse to accept it. If you are "hard pressed to find any other point" in my post, you are ignoring what's right there in print.

Even when I state flatly: "I'm not trying to prove ID or disprove Evolution Theory", you insist that I do so. Talk about a strawman argument!

In your self-righteous indignation, you ignore your own reflexive ad hominem attacks on me as a person, pretending I've insulted you personally to fuel your pique.

But I'll humor your petulant request. If you really want the background information, start here. From there, you could stop by http://www.talkorigins.org/, a pro-Evolution website oft-cited by Evolution Theory supporters that is so filled with contradictions and non-falsifiable evidence that it very nearly qualifies as the Emperor's New Clothes. Other than that, you are welcome to do research on your own. Why should I believe you really want to learn anything when you state so clearly:
I've examined the so-called "scientific proof" for ID and found it to be wanting.

So I guess I'm left wondering what your point is. Other than the preservation of your belief system, that is.

posted by Nathan on August 9, 2005 04:41 PM

You know, it's pointless arguing over crap like this that's driving me out of the current event/political/news blogging. I'm responding to your complaints, James, because I started it the discussion, so I might as well continue it, even if you are ignoring most of what I say to push your viewpoint.

You will be welcome to discuss football and philosophical musings on my new blog without prejudice. I'm not going to bring up controversial topics like this any more.

posted by Nathan on August 9, 2005 06:53 PM

Like millions of other people, I find a certain emotional comfort in the idea that an all powerful being is somehow watching over everyone and that everything has an ultimately good purpose. Intellectually, I find the whole concept of monotheism to be ludicrous.

In the past, religion provided answers to unknowable questions and acquired enormous power and authority in doing so. As science increasingly provides people with the answers they seek, the church loses power and credibility. Intelligent Design is an effort to bridge the gap between science and religion and win back a few hearts and minds.

Take a lesson from the Muslims. They openly admit that religion is politics. Arguing over the scientific validity of religious ideas is a waste of time.

posted by Weapon of Mass Disturbance on September 28, 2005 06:26 AM

« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 04:42 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Quick Hits « Stuff Important to Me »

1) 83% of the problems in our society are caused by people making up statistics to support their point.

2) Is it unavoidable that the higher we are able to satisfy ourselves on the hierarchy of needs, the less profound/pervasive the satisfaction?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

John Kerry « Politics As Usual »

Someone really isn't paying attention to their mailing lists. I got this email this morning:

..."drag America away from mainstream values and the issues that matter to ordinary Americans."...?

As if.

Read More "John Kerry" »

Dear Nathan,

This weekend the GOP is kicking off its 2006 campaign cycle at the party's annual summer meeting in Pittsburgh, with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum playing host. What does it say about the Republican leadership that they're putting a right-wing extremist at the center of their effort to keep control of the Senate? It says that their goal isn't just to hold on to power, but to drag America away from mainstream values and the issues that matter to ordinary Americans.

I'm not up for re-election in 2006, but I - like every Democrat - must do everything in my power to fight to restore responsible leadership in the House and Senate that will act on behalf of the interests of average Americans whose voices are being drowned out in Washington today.

You bet we wanted to win last November, but it turns out that one of the things we did accomplish in 2004 was this: we built an incredibly powerful organizational force online and offline that can come together again in 2006 to win back the House and Senate.

Like it or not, that fight starts now.

With five million supporters and activists, we've formed an organization called Keeping America's Promise. Our work is to mobilize volunteers, activists, donors - and of course voters - in support of tight and winnable races.

Without you, the Senate and House will stay in the hands of outside-the-mainstream Republicans. Please support our preparations for victory in 2006 by making a donation to Keeping America's Promise today:

Make a Contribution

Consider what's at stake in just Democrat Bob Casey's race against Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum is totally out of touch with the reality facing American families and totally out of touch with mainstream American values. And yet he has become the mainstream within the Republican Party:

Santorum believes millions of people are uninsured because, "some people don't want [insurance] - like the Amish." [Harrisburg Patriot, 6/10/97]
Santorum believes child care is a "Washington" issue that ordinary Americans don't care about. [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/05]
He said that the environmental movement's days are numbered and that environmentalism is against nature. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4/24/95]
He believes in privatizing Social Security. [Congressional Record, S3231, 4/5/05]
Santorum thinks it's wrong to help single mothers earn a college degree. In his book, It Takes a Family, Santorum said that "The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." [It Takes a Family, pg. 138]

By the time the GOP wraps up its summer summit on Saturday afternoon, we need to have raised $500,000 to support our work to defeat extremists like Rick Santorum.

Make a Contribution

The 2006 Congressional election cycle will be a fight between two competing visions of America's future:

Democrats see an America where everyone has an opportunity to work hard and get ahead. Republicans see an America where the special interests get their way and families get the short end of the stick.
Democrats see an America that is energy independent and a good steward of the environment. Republicans see an America that continues to send its hard earned paychecks to the Saudis and risks sending our sons and daughters to the battlefields of the Middle East over oil that's beyond our control, in the hands of unstable and undemocratic regimes.

Winning back the majority in the US Congress is an essential step toward realizing an American future that you and I want for our families and for our children.

And because of the power we built together in this amazing online and offline community, your continuing support of Keeping America's Promise is now a critical ingredient to winning the fight.

But we can only compete and win if you stand with us. Please make a donation today:

Make a Contribution

Thank you,

John Kerry

Paid for by Friends of John Kerry, Inc.

« Hide "John Kerry"

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:27 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Toyota's First Big Blunder? « Car Issues »

10 new hybrid models rolled out, and they announce intentions to have hybrids make up 25% of their vehicles sold.

This could be a mistake because hybrids aren't anywhere near as good on gas as touted. The lifetime use of a hybrid is also still unknown...a horrible resale value because hybrids turn out to be a disposable car (not worth the cost to replace the hybrid components) wouldn't be good for sales, and would be horrible for the environment.

Which is mistake number two: with consumer awareness rising as to hybrids not meeting gas mileage expectations, but with the company already committed to producing hybrids (having gambled on it being the Next Big Thing), they have to point to a reason, and they seem to have seized upon "It's for the environment!" But I think with all the chemicals involved in producing batteries, a hybrid probably isn't all that environment-friendly, and if more information on that drifts throughout the car community, Toyota may have a boondoggle on their hands.

I admit it: I wanted a hybrid based on their claims. But I waited, because new technology is often buggy. With the information coming out over the last year, I'm glad I waited.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Really? « Politics As Usual »

Democrats Heartened by Narrow Loss.

To that, I say: Let's make sure it continues to happen, then! Everyone will be happy.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Two Things About Hawaii « Stuff Important to Me »

Hawaii has the stupidest birds in the world. If you get too close, they walk to get away from you, rather than flying. A bird was sitting in the middle of the road today. Just sitting! Was that the best place it could find??

Several (just about all) of the fast food restaurants in the area are staffed entirely by women, ranging from high school up to middle age, including crew chiefs, assistant managers, and managers. I'm not sure why I find that so interesting.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:52 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Gunther Cunningham « Kansas City Chiefs »

As much as I love the guy, about half the time I really can't figure out what the heck he's talking about!

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

No Known Fatalities « Stuff Important to Me »

Interesting story.

Man...France, plane crash...I should be able to come up with something snarky.

...I got nothing.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Still, the Chiefs Shouldn't Have to Move « Kansas City Chiefs »

But it's a two-way street. The leadership of Jackson County and the state of Missouri should probably get involved, as Mr. Gretz points out. Otherwise, why should the Chiefs sacrifice to stay in Arrowhead if Jackson County and Missouri won't lift a finger to help?

"Love" isn't just words. It requires that you follow through with actions. I'm sure Jackson County loves the money and prestige and free national exposure they get from hosting the Chiefs. Tangible appreciation must support rhetoric.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Stop That Nonsense Right Now! « Kansas City Chiefs »

What nonsense, you ask?

Well, lately, I've seen a comment come up, sometimes in the form of a question:

Fans just want the defense to be middle of the pack...

Not this fan.

Okay, here's the thing. Remember the first half of 2003, when the Chiefs started out so well? Sure, we won a few games because Hall broke a return for a TD. But the defense kept us in several games so that Hall could win it with a TD return. The defense can and should be quite good this year.

And we need it to be. Anything less than excellent (top 10) means we don't have a chance to win the Superbowl.

Why is it so necessary? Well, the better the defense, the more dominant we will be. The weaker the defense, the greater the chance for an upset. Sure, teams can win Superbowls despite a bad defensive showing in the playoffs...but the first rule of football is that offense wins games, but defense wins championships. That's because, in most cases, an offense can have a bad day when timing is disrupted, when WRs don't concentrate, when a QB gets a little pressure, but a defense generally can figure out a way to keep hitting and disrupting even when things don't go exactly right. Occasionally the right offensive game plan can totally exploit a defense's weakness, but that's not the way to bet.

But when you really look at the issue closely, the reverse is actually true, as well. Winning teams tend to have good defenses.

Sure, the "Greatest Show on Turf" won a Superbowl. Their offense was so awesome, they were blowing them out by 6 touchdowns halfway through the first quarter...what's that you say? It didn't go quite like that? One of the best offenses in NFL history needed a defensive stop on the 1-yard line to preserve a victory?!? Huh. Who'd a-thunk? And did the St. Louis Rams really have a Top-10 caliber-defense that year?

The stats say so.

I have a feeling that the stats might have been influenced by a number of teams having to pass to try to keep up with the Rams' offense. Against a truly good defensive team (like the Titans), the Rams offense had just enough to allow the defense to win it.

And let's return again to the 2003 Chiefs. We pretty much had a top-10 defense for most of the year. Sure, we were a little porous against the run, but what we lacked in yardage stats, we made up in turnovers. Because the offense would get 10-14 points up on the other team, and they'd switch to passing and we'd intercept or knock loose a fumble on a sack or strip the ball before the WR had solidified his hold.

But a funny thing happened against a good defensive team, right? They didn't beat us by lighting up the scoreboard as much as they showed the entire NFL something: running worked nearly as good as a pass in picking up yards on the Chiefs. It didn't help that our run-sniffing MLB (who also was such a student of the game that he made all the right defensive calls) was hampered and then out with a knee injury. But even though our offense was just as good, it didn't and couldn't make teams panic and go pass-happy anymore. They learned by watching the Bengals that if they kept pounding the run, we'd keep bringing more guys up to the line of scrimmage, and still be unable to stuff a run. That became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as I've argued before. And even worse, it made us way to vulnerable to a run-fake, like the one Cincinnati pulled when Warfield had no safety help, and a bad turn gave up a TD.

Bad juju.

It won't be that way this year.

Last year, when we stuffed the run on the first two series, it didn't win us anything. We could stuff the run on the first six series and they'd still keep going, knowing that eventually we would buckle. This year, when we stuff the run on the first three series, they can have no such confidence that we might still buckle.

Because we now have Derrick Johnson and Kendrell Bell. Because Kawika Mitchell and Keyaron Fox are healthy and eager to show they have caught on to the NFL. Because Sammy Knight is just salivating to pick off a pass or knock the ball loose like he always does. Because Surtain comes from nowhere to snag interceptions...even worse when Warfield comes back and does the same thing. Because Siavii had a full off-season with the Chiefs, and should be fully recovered from the Bronco Cheap Shot*, and Sims is playing for pride. Because Jared Allen added strength and weight and experience in the offseason and will still be a force even when double-teamed. Because Carlos Hall adds a good rush.

So now our opponents have to respect our defense. And our offense may be even better, with a full complement of WRs, the return of Kris Wilson, and the 1-2 punch of Holmes and Larry Johnson. Panic-mode for the opposing team should come earlier and more often...and our defense should benefit from that. They should look good, they should do more than just be mediocre.

We could very well have a team for the ages.

Cross-posted here.

Show Comments »