Comments on: The Return of the Lobster http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/ America's favorite blog Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:23:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: nigel http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-10168 Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:08:32 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-10168 There is a fairly effective one word rebuttal for "intelligent design": "Moose". In the flustered pause that follows, spring "tapeworm" on them. At least it might make them think about whether they're being good Christians or not. There is a fairly effective one word rebuttal for “intelligent design”:

“Moose”.

In the flustered pause that follows, spring “tapeworm” on them. At least it might make them think about whether they’re being good Christians or not.

]]> by: hedera http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-10050 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:04:36 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-10050 Oops - momentary disconnect - not <i>Star Well</i>, but <i>The Thurb Revolution</i>, which is much the most interesting of the Anthony Villiers novels. Does anyone know if Panshin ever actually wrote <i>The Universal Pantograph</i>, which was supposed to be the last book in the series? I've never been able to find a reference to it. Oops - momentary disconnect - not Star Well, but The Thurb Revolution, which is much the most interesting of the Anthony Villiers novels. Does anyone know if Panshin ever actually wrote The Universal Pantograph, which was supposed to be the last book in the series? I’ve never been able to find a reference to it.

]]> by: hedera http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-10049 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:54:19 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-10049 Mike Z, Allison ISC, the trouble with your reasonable hypotheses is that you assume the people Mike refers to as "Christian activists" are reasonable people, that is, people who reason and accept the results of reasoning. I don't think they are. I believe (having been raised Baptist, like cooper, although not the southern flavor) that they "think" with their emotions. The notion that God is on their side and that He created the world for their use is enormously comforting, and they <i>don't want to question it</i>, because if they begin to question anything at all, they might come to conclusions that would make them very uncomfortable indeed - as Mike suggested - and they don't <i>want</i> to be uncomfortable. And so they rave and rant at science, to keep themselves comfortable. I'm reminded of a comment from Alexei Panshin's <i>Star Well</i>, where one of the characters reflects that the most comfortable are the dead, and so he values his discomfort as proof that he is still alive - and in that sense he is a life-lacking man... Mike Z, Allison ISC, the trouble with your reasonable hypotheses is that you assume the people Mike refers to as “Christian activists” are reasonable people, that is, people who reason and accept the results of reasoning. I don’t think they are. I believe (having been raised Baptist, like cooper, although not the southern flavor) that they “think” with their emotions. The notion that God is on their side and that He created the world for their use is enormously comforting, and they don’t want to question it, because if they begin to question anything at all, they might come to conclusions that would make them very uncomfortable indeed - as Mike suggested - and they don’t want to be uncomfortable. And so they rave and rant at science, to keep themselves comfortable.

I’m reminded of a comment from Alexei Panshin’s Star Well, where one of the characters reflects that the most comfortable are the dead, and so he values his discomfort as proof that he is still alive - and in that sense he is a life-lacking man…

]]> by: madbard http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-10025 Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:46:28 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-10025 AllisonISC: if you want to compare notes, drop me an email. AllisonISC: if you want to compare notes, drop me an email.

]]> by: Allison in Santa Cruz (biology geek) http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9965 Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:02:55 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9965 Madbard -- You graduated from UCSC the year before I started graduate school there. Our paths likely didn't cross. Earl in Davis -- Good luck with your local chapter of the Church of Crustaceana! I did my undergraduate work at UC Davis and think you shouldn't have any problems building a congregation. Mike -- I think this seemingly uncrossable divide between religion and science could be breached if both sides started from the premise that the two are not mutually exclusive. And it's not just a matter of "live and let live," either. Religion and science were both invented by <i>Homo sapiens</i> to satisfy our desire to understand our place in the universe. It seems to me that a reasonably intelligent person would know better than to let religion encroach on science, and vice versa. Then again, what the hell am I thinking, expecting people to be reasonable?? Madbard — You graduated from UCSC the year before I started graduate school there. Our paths likely didn’t cross.

Earl in Davis — Good luck with your local chapter of the Church of Crustaceana! I did my undergraduate work at UC Davis and think you shouldn’t have any problems building a congregation.

Mike — I think this seemingly uncrossable divide between religion and science could be breached if both sides started from the premise that the two are not mutually exclusive. And it’s not just a matter of “live and let live,” either. Religion and science were both invented by Homo sapiens to satisfy our desire to understand our place in the universe. It seems to me that a reasonably intelligent person would know better than to let religion encroach on science, and vice versa. Then again, what the hell am I thinking, expecting people to be reasonable??

]]> by: Mike Z http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9964 Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:24:08 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9964 Adam and Jhequia - Here's two more of my cents: While's Adam's right about the science stuff, we also all know that the specific evolution vs. [insert alternative] "debate" is merely a symptom of a deeper issue. The thing that's scaring people about science is the claim that we now have viable scientific (i.e. naturalistic) explanations for everything that religion was supposed to explain. And this becomes a really big problem--one that can turn Christians into anti-science activists--when it comes to ethics. Over-confident science writers like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson claim that if darwinian evolution is correct, then humans are essentially purposeless animals. Therefore, any ethical codes based on religion are bunk. Unfortunately, many people believe this sloppy argument, and are afraid that it will lead (or, rather, IS leading) to the destruction of our society through moral decay. What is not so often heard is that the arguments by Dawkins and Wilson actually really suck. While they may be good scientists and writers, they are lousy philosophers. I believe the theory of darwinian evolution to be approximately true. However, human culture and ethics are not based solely on biological evolution--behaviors are not 100% heritable. There is much more going on in the development of human behavior and morality than Dawkins and Wilson can really explain. Of course, that doesn't mean that ethics can only be found in religion. Ethical codes that everyone can agree on can be established through rational, non-religious methods as well. Anyway, this all got way too long, but if the scientists would stop over-stating their case against religion, and if atheists can be allowed to explain their moral reasoning, then maybe the Christian activists will stop seeing evolution as such a huge threat to their way of life. Adam and Jhequia -

Here’s two more of my cents: While’s Adam’s right about the science stuff, we also all know that the specific evolution vs. [insert alternative] “debate” is merely a symptom of a deeper issue.

The thing that’s scaring people about science is the claim that we now have viable scientific (i.e. naturalistic) explanations for everything that religion was supposed to explain. And this becomes a really big problem–one that can turn Christians into anti-science activists–when it comes to ethics.

Over-confident science writers like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson claim that if darwinian evolution is correct, then humans are essentially purposeless animals. Therefore, any ethical codes based on religion are bunk. Unfortunately, many people believe this sloppy argument, and are afraid that it will lead (or, rather, IS leading) to the destruction of our society through moral decay.

What is not so often heard is that the arguments by Dawkins and Wilson actually really suck. While they may be good scientists and writers, they are lousy philosophers. I believe the theory of darwinian evolution to be approximately true. However, human culture and ethics are not based solely on biological evolution–behaviors are not 100% heritable. There is much more going on in the development of human behavior and morality than Dawkins and Wilson can really explain.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that ethics can only be found in religion. Ethical codes that everyone can agree on can be established through rational, non-religious methods as well.

Anyway, this all got way too long, but if the scientists would stop over-stating their case against religion, and if atheists can be allowed to explain their moral reasoning, then maybe the Christian activists will stop seeing evolution as such a huge threat to their way of life.

]]> by: Earl http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9962 Fri, 12 Aug 2005 04:14:42 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9962 The return of the lobster hits all the true points. It is not just Bush's (and Kansas Board of Education's) current idiocy that concerns me...it is the simple statements every politician who wants to be elected will be heard to utter at some point: "God Bless America!" Ask them what they mean by that. I have no clue...and I don't think they do either. Why are statements like that so accepted as a stirring finale to an otherwise banal speech? Please ask them why they expect us to so completely accept such a humanoid deity that grants vaguely defined favors to selected groups of people. The foisting of religion upon us all is rampant and often not noticed. Don't let them win.......counter religious apathy with the beauty of natural history, of our knowledge of the world around us. The more they know the less moronic they will be (how's that for a profound statement! hah!). Meanwhile I start the Davis, CA chapter of the chuch of Crustaceana (Reformed). The return of the lobster hits all the true points. It is not just Bush’s (and Kansas Board of Education’s) current idiocy that concerns me…it is the simple statements every politician who wants to be elected will be heard to utter at some point: “God Bless America!” Ask them what they mean by that. I have no clue…and I don’t think they do either. Why are statements like that so accepted as a stirring finale to an otherwise banal speech? Please ask them why they expect us to so completely accept such a humanoid deity that grants vaguely defined favors to selected groups of people.
The foisting of religion upon us all is rampant and often not noticed. Don’t let them win…….counter religious apathy with the beauty of natural history, of our knowledge of the world around us. The more they know the less moronic they will be (how’s that for a profound statement! hah!). Meanwhile I start the Davis, CA chapter of the chuch of Crustaceana (Reformed).

]]> by: madbard (yet another UCSC alum and biology geek) http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9958 Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:04:33 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9958 actually, when we scientists need adam to help defend us, we are in big trouble. are those torches and pitchforks i see at the entrance of the lab building? AllisonISC: I'm Oakes c/o 92. actually, when we scientists need adam to help defend us, we are in big trouble. are those torches and pitchforks i see at the entrance of the lab building?

AllisonISC: I’m Oakes c/o 92.

]]> by: Pete IVDL http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9925 Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:23:37 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9925 I'm so glad some people (including the Adam) can refute arguments properly. I swear, the stuff's in my head, it just gets interpreted wrongly through my fingers... In my defense, it's really cold here today (they're predicting the first snow here in 22 years... of course, they're only <i>predicting</i> snow; we might all get suntans yet) Jim - bugger! I haven't thought through all the negative implications of levitating incontinent small furry mammals. All I can think of to say would be : <b><i>INCOMING</i></b>! I’m so glad some people (including the Adam) can refute arguments properly. I swear, the stuff’s in my head, it just gets interpreted wrongly through my fingers… In my defense, it’s really cold here today (they’re predicting the first snow here in 22 years… of course, they’re only predicting snow; we might all get suntans yet)

Jim - bugger! I haven’t thought through all the negative implications of levitating incontinent small furry mammals. All I can think of to say would be : INCOMING!

]]> by: Adam Felber http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9923 Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:22:00 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/03/the-return-of-the-lobster/#comment-9923 Jhequia- I respect your opinion, but can't agree on a couple of points. Two deserve mentioning: -This argument <i>isn't</i> about "whether God exists." It's not even about whether the Judeo/Christian God exists. It's about whether the Bible is accurate in its account of the world's history. What's important about this distinction is that many, many Jewish and Christian clergymen DO believe in evolution. - You point out that "evolution is STILL a theory." It's science. It will always be theory. The study of science is the teaching of well-founded scientific methods, laws and theories. It seems to me that you're "falling for" the standard line that some less-honest creationists use to object to evolution, if you'll forgive me for saying so. This rather unfair "theory" objection comes from a (sometimes willful) misunderstanding about what scientific theory <i>is</i>. Here's a good explanation: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm If we stop teaching things that are theories, we're going to have to stop teaching things like quantum theory and relativity. That'd suck. Jhequia-

I respect your opinion, but can’t agree on a couple of points. Two deserve mentioning:

-This argument isn’t about “whether God exists.” It’s not even about whether the Judeo/Christian God exists. It’s about whether the Bible is accurate in its account of the world’s history. What’s important about this distinction is that many, many Jewish and Christian clergymen DO believe in evolution.

- You point out that “evolution is STILL a theory.” It’s science. It will always be theory. The study of science is the teaching of well-founded scientific methods, laws and theories. It seems to me that you’re “falling for” the standard line that some less-honest creationists use to object to evolution, if you’ll forgive me for saying so.

This rather unfair “theory” objection comes from a (sometimes willful) misunderstanding about what scientific theory is. Here’s a good explanation:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

If we stop teaching things that are theories, we’re going to have to stop teaching things like quantum theory and relativity. That’d suck.

]]>