Posted by Anthony on November 20, 2009
I came across this recently and it took me a bit to track down the original document. It seems that it may only be available in pdf? Here is the PDF I found of the original. So that it might get wider exposure, I asked a trusted ACM volunteer to transcribe it for me. I think the insight into the mind of certain folks gained from reading it is valuable. It’s also more evidence that this way of thinking didn’t die with the Nazis.
(Ron Weddington was co-counsel for the pro-abortion camp in the Roe vs. Wade camp)
****************************
Dear President-To-Be Clinton,
Some years ago another Southern Governor, when asked about the possibilities for prison reform, supposedly said something to the effect of, “Well, I don’t think we’re going to get very far until we get a better class of prisoner.”
Well, I don’t think you are going to get very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population.
Face it; you know that anything that even resembles the programs of Democratic Presidents in the past is going to make you a one term President. Reagan spent all our money on bombs and even if there were money for programs such as pre-natal health care, job training and day care centers, it would be years before we would see and dramatic results. And, as anyone who follows education can see, more money doesn’t necessarily translate into better educated kids. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on May 13, 2008
So I bet all of my readers have been following the Texas raid of the Mormon ‘compound’ filled to the brim with raging polygamists and abused children. I am not great fan of Mormonism, don’t get me wrong, but the whole affair has done nothing more than make me scoff. You’ve probably seen the sneering questioning by media personalities of people from the compound, or lawyers for them, etc. The idea that a man might have more than one wife and that this wife is ‘underage’ is self-evidently despicable to them. In some discussions I’ve seen on cable television, the underlying pretext seems to be “Ah, well, that’s fundamentalism for you.” Read: “See, when people really believe their religion all sorts of bad things happen.”
The utter hypocrisy of this rankles my nostrils. Not that I in any way want to come across as justifying having sex with ‘underage’ individuals (though I’ll have my own arguments against it), but it is pretty apparent from the news in general that people are having sex with minors all over the place. Those are the ones that are reported. The sad humor of it all is that people act surprised. We have a society that is utterly saturated in sexuality. It should surprise none of us when people act on the advertisements and billboards. Talk about mixed messages. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on October 23, 2007
 Herr Professor has issued yet another response in our saga of talking to each other without actually talking to each other. This will be my final comments, unless the Professor in seeking the last word says something truly outrageous.
There are only a couple of points that are worth addressing.
In the first place, he thinks he still has got the upper hand in his view that I am siding with Watson’s allegedly racist remarks. I am glad he returned to the original article, as it is a fine corrective to his accusations. He gives several quotes which he says are undeniably racist in nature. He fails to quote what Watson said about those remarks, so I will do so for him:
“I can understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was quoted as saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. This is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”
That sounds an awful lot like he denied saying the things that were attributed to him. Don’t you think?
What does “This is not what I meant…. there is no scientific basis for such a belief” mean? Not that he stands by the quote attributed to him and which you quoted against me. I have already said that if more evidence about the matter emerges, for example that it becomes apparent that he really did say such things, or similar things, I’d be willing to re-evaluate the matter.  It appears that the Doc does not plan to be forthcoming on any new information.
He quotes me as saying:
Now, he continues to focus on my emphasis on the ethical indiscretions of scientists. There is a reason for it, and namely it is this: people are giving undue regard to scientists.
To which he replies,
Nonsense. That’s like citing a few examples of spectacular plane crashes and then saying that people are putting “undue confidence†in the safety of air travel.
By this he shows that he is simply out of touch with reality.
He now goes on to quote me as saying:
I thought it ironic that Herr Professor thought that Dawkins, a zoologist, was no longer speaking outside his field when he addressed religion, because, well, he wrote a book defending his views, didn’t he?
To which he replies:
That’s not ironic, it’s merely inaccurate. Perhaps he should re-read my post, and notice that it nowhere makes the claim that he attributes to me. But I suppose he has to criticize me for something, even if he has to invent it himself.
Yes, let’s quote his post, shall we?
The simplest and most accurate answer is that we’re not being asked to defer to them, except in their particular fields of expertise. And in the latter case, we should defer to them because they’ve learned more about it than we have. But Richard Dawkins doesn’t expect everybody to believe that God is a delusion merely out of deference to his status as a scientist. That’s why he wrote a whole book giving his arguments against God instead of just issuing a press release that said “There is no God and I’m a scientist so end of discussion.â€
In the first clause he insists that we are not being asked to defer to scientists, except in their fields of expertise. The word ‘but’ in this context clearly indicates that he sees an exception in regards to Dawkins. Why is Dawkins different according to the text? Herr Professor seems to forget he is supposed to be talking about talking within one’s field… he says that Dawkins does not expect anyone to give him deference because he is a scientist. The Professor gives evidence: “That’s why he wrote a book…”
The clear impression of this paragraph is that the fact that Dawkins is a zoologist talking about religion and theism and philosophy is not outside of Dawkins’s field because, after all, he wrote a book. If that is not the interpretation the Professor was desiring, he should write with more clarity.  The paragraph struck me as incoherent to begin with. He begins by expressly arguing that scientists are only deferred to from within their field and then goes on to justify paying attention to Dawkins on religion for what… for why…? He gives no other reason than the fact that Dawkins’s wrote a book.
Some other silly remarks:
This is nonsense. Biology and ethics are separate fields, and are separately derived. His argument is like saying “If evolution is true, there is no place outside of Darwinism to derive tomorrow’s weather forecast.â€
It isn’t like the weather at all. Darwinism does not concern the weather. Darwinism is allegedly the full account of how humans have come to be the way they are… in their totality. There is no way that in such a putative ultimate explanation of our entire nature that anything we do would be exempted from Darwinian analysis. Except by fiat.
Now let’s get to his ‘challenge.’
Morality comes from society’s experience of the consequences of certain actions. Bad consequences mean the action is bad, and good consequences mean the action is good.
And how does Herr Professor decide what consequences are bad or good? The level of cognitive dissonance here is astounding.  We evolved, says the Professor. If anything is objective within that framework, it is that what is ‘good’ is whatever furthers our own genes and the genes most similar to our own. Hasn’t he read the Selfish Gene? And whatever is ‘bad’ would be that which does not further our genes. Eugenics, racism, forced sterilization… extermination… all are ‘good’ from our point of view… as long as it is rival genes and not our own.
What we have here is nothing more than a tautology. What is ‘bad’? Things with bad consequences. What is ‘good’? Things with ‘good consequences.’ Hey Doc, while we’re at it, why don’t you tell us what an apple is? The Doc replies, “An apple is something that looks and tastes like an apple.”
WOW. Folks, this is the atheistic position. You’re looking at its finest arguments.* This is what I’m talking about when I say that they deny that there are any moral absolutes in their words but then go on and act as though there really are. This gives them the precious ability to deny the implications that would arise out of the realization that there is an objective morality while rejecting things- like racism- as wrong, which makes them feel better about themselves.
The Doc closes with this challenge:
Show me your “objective†standard, which is not my secular standard of consequences, and is not merely a subjective interpretation of ancient writings (you did say “objective standard,†right?).
I don’t accept the terms of his challenge. I don’t at all agree that access to a standard should necessarily not be found described in ancient writings, nor do I believe that such analysis would be ’subjective’ without limit. This is all part and parcel of the notion that maintained by skeptics that you ‘can prove anything’ from the Scriptures. Not true, by any stretch of the imagination. But the true flaw in his argument is the contradistinction between objectivity and subjectivity. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that though Herr Professor denies that there is an objective morality he at least concedes that there is an objective reality. But how can he say such a thing? Can he show me evidence of an objective reality apart from his own subjective interpretation of it? No, he can’t.
However, I could say that while we must account for our subjectivity in all areas of inquiry, not merely into an inquiry into morality (the only place a skeptic wants to have the conversation: fallacy of special pleading). To show that here is an objective reality I can take into account my subjectivity, but show that it is reasonable still to believe there is an objective reality by smacking him upside the nose with a wiffle bat. He would feel pain- subjectively, of course, though I doubt he will decide that it wasn’t an objective event just because of that.
To that extent I could similarly point to the fact that despite pockets.. even glaring pockets… of exceptions, racist attitudes are generally rejected as wrong by humankind. It is the equivalent of bleeding from the nose after you’ve been swatted by a plastic bat. Sure, you can always try to escape the obvious implication by pointing out that you can numb the nose or otherwise prevent someone from pain, or even bleeding (eg, by draining the fellah of blood first. yuck.), but it would be much simpler to posit that there is an objective reality, just as the near universal rejection of racism is more simply accounted for by the existence of an objective morality.
It is not my problem that the atheistic position can not account for this. Nor is it my problem that evolution does in fact give birth to an objective ‘morality’ of sorts and that most people find the implications of that morality so barbaric that they’d much rather try to ignore it. I am glad they do, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t have to think they are being coherent, because they aren’t.
*This is a caveated paragraph, but I’ve already written too much.
Posted by Anthony on October 19, 2007
Unlike Dr. Livingstone of lore, we can expect that if Dr. James Watson- of DNA and Francis Crick fame- were to go evangelizing in Africa today, he’d not fare very well. In an article from the Independent I read: “Dr Watson said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.
Well, that’s putting your foot in it. In other places on my blog here I have tried to raise awareness of the fact that scientists are people just like the rest of us and there is no reason to believe that they are especially more logical or rational than anyone else… or more ethical. For example in this entry here I discuss how more than two dozen spina bifida babies died in an experiment to see to what extent people will defer to medical and scientific authority. Sounds like a pretty unethical experiment to me, but the doctors involved were cleared. And one can hardly read an article like this without thinking of Dawkins (who is a buddy of Watson) and his view that religious instruction can be construed as child abuse.
Dawkins no doubt will be on the advisory board for determining what child abuse is and what the remedy will be. He’s a scientist, so that’s a good idea. Right?
It is a plain fact that people do defer to scientists and though we can certainly all agree that some deference is healthy, we ought to be prepared to use our own judgment and perform our own investigations, especially when it is our own health, the health of a loved one, or the health of our own society at risk. A scientist who does not want us to get a second opinion is a scientist that should not be trusted. A scientist that makes an ethical declaration is probably speaking outside his field. Scientists can be very helpful in ascertaining actual facts but they are not in a special position to tell us what conclusions we ought to draw and which ones are moral.
A more clearer example than the situation in a Maine school district can’t be found. Here we had statistics showing that only about 5 students at the middle school were sexually active, and these five were 14-15 year olds. The conclusion by the school board: Because 5 15 year olds reported having sex, make birth control pills available to 500 students without parental knowledge or consent.
Is this ethical? Moral? Are sociologists in a position to make this judgment? What about school board officials?
As far as I’m concerned, the proper area of concern for the school board are the 15 year olds attending the middle school. A little old, don’t you think? It is just an idea, but perhaps the school board should focus on education.
Perhaps we’ll get a defender of the board that insists that the educational system is not broken or dysfunctional just because there are high school age students still in junior high, and so there is no justification to advocate for a change, there. Fine, then. Just because only 5 quasi-high schoolers in the middle school report being sexually active there is no justification for enacting a policy that could give birth control pills- without parental knowledge- to hundreds of 11-13 year olds. [Source and Source ]
I don’t see what the problem is, do you? Kids are just going to do it like they see it on the Discovery channel, right? This is what happens when you get your ethics from Darwinists.
I think it is terribly ironic that Darwinists have been defending themselves from the charge that evolutionary theory does not provide a basis for racism and here we have Watson doing just that. In the article, Cambridge students were in an uproar. So much for free speech. I think we should just let him keep talking. I think it would help tone down our deference to scientists if we heard more about what they actually think, and why.
And in conclusion, we might want to consider this quote from the article: “However, Dr Watson goes on to suggest that genes may account for many behavioural traits, including intelligence and even criminality. “The thought that some people are innately wicked disturbs me,” he says. “But science is not here to make us feel good.”
That’s something to keep in mind when you reflect on on who brought us the atom bomb, weaponized Anthrax, and the Tuskegee project.
Of course, Watson doesn’t seem to have a clue here that if criminality can be genetic, he may have the gene himself. More to the point, he is so close to actual Christian teaching here: original sin. How ironic that he says that science is not here to make us feel good and reaches a conclusion that has already been issued from out of Christian theology! Some argue that theology really is about making us feel good… it is hard to see how the same conclusion shared by science and theology can mean that science is about truth but theology is about wish fulfillment.
For you see, Christian theology does not say that some people are innately wicked… all people are. And that is precisely why on questions of ethics we cannot defer to experts… Darwinists just a case in point. After all, perhaps they have the criminal gene, and perhaps they are not as intelligent as the rest of the population. Hey, don’t get mad at me! This is science.
