And there’s Stanford President Emeritus Donald Kennedy.
Kennedy argued that teaching creationism discourages students from applying the scientific method, which emphasizes conducting experiments with reproducible results and drawing logical conclusions from observable, measurable evidence. “What the creationist alternative does to students is to intercept and deaden curiosity,” he said. “If relationships or correlations can be simply allocated to the cleverness of a designer, there’s very little incentive to think up an experiment or undertake an analysis.”
Exactly. That’s one of the most annoying things about the whole brawl – the way believers claim that there are all these profound mysterious areas in which science has no place but religion does, with the implication (which is often made explicit) that science is useful but shallow while religion is Deep, when in fact it’s religion that closes off real inquiry and investigation and settles for utterly banal, boring, small answers. It intercepts and deadens curiosity, and pats itself on the back for doing so. If every question can be answered with ‘God’ then it’s not being answered at all, but the illusion that it is removes the incentive to think further.
Comments
29 responses to “Intercepting curiosity”
But you can still exept Darwin and at least leave a space in your head to not rule out the fact that there may be a God.
And somebody (John M) suggested that I might be a troll? I suggest that whoever was writing Anti-occident’s lines is also writing Richard’s.
I could be wrong of course. Apologies in advaance, Richard, if you’re really the salt-of-the-earth plumber that you purport to be.
I think the thing here is that everyone gets to be a troll now and then. After all, our general intent is to troll the zeitgeist, pointing out in outrageous detail just how dumb and self-contradictory it is, and attempting to get a rise out of it…
Sounds like you’re admitting something, Dave. Come clean. Are you the scribe behind Anti-occident? It’s OK; we will forgive you.
And it’s not even Thursday.
In Richard’s defense, you can accept science without rejecting the possibility of God. He may not have worded it very precisely, but it is neither ludicrous nor unreasonable to say that one can be a scientist and a believer. Even more plausibly, one can certainly be a scientist – or even just have a vaguely scientific sort of mindset – and withhold judgment on the question of God’s existence.
Of course, how reasonable or ludicrous it is depends on one’s idea of God, which leads to the whole bait-and-switch between the hyper-abstract “God” gestured at (but never really defined) by theologians and the everyday beleivers’ prayer-answering, personally invested in our individual lives, Creator of the Universe (who is also a stern old bearded man obsessed with our sex lives) notions of God. To even use the same proper name for the two concepts is an invitation to equivocation, which is why I put one in scare quotes (defying the moratorium suggested in another thread).
Or does that constitute backsliding on my militant atheist creds?
Uhm…
Down with God! Boo God-botherers!
There. Militancy restored.
I always post here under my real name, it’s the only place I ever do…
I always post under my own name and as G. points out I worded my post poorly,this should prove salt of the earth plumber rather than trolling p.h.d.
I feel I owe you an apology, Richard. I’m not completely convinced, due to your unique typing style and persistent defense of specific types of theism. It seemed plausible to me that you would invent a fundamentalist Muslim to inflame the conversation here. Clearly, you are wary of that sort.
Anyway, you’re so consistent with your POV and your misspellings, that I think you’ve convinced me.
I had to study English as a 2nd language, so your little mistakes jump out at me.
Fam Mail —
I’ve been lurking for three years. I am officially in thrall to OB and (lesserly) to the B&W crew.
Keep me sane. Keep going. I will send you encouragement as soon as I find my wallet.
** ** **
– a true fan in British Columbia, Canada
I now feel shame! English is my first language but you write better English than me and it is your second language.
No shame, Richard. It’s a matter of practice. If you write all the time, it comes naturally. (Of course, if you write gibberish all the time, that comes naturally too – which is more pertinent to the prior post about the cultural studies/po-mo idjits.)
And, as it turns out, everyone who studies languages ends up writing more clearly in ANY languages they know: It comes from studying grammar intensively, especially different grammars. I learned a lot about grammar by reinforcing my grade school English grammar education with high school French.
Yes, I’m saying that learning French improved my English. Sadly, my French is still awful. C’est la vie.
:-)
Richard:
Just when I’ve gotten myself (almost) convinced that you really are the regular guy that you claim to be, you evince “shame” not to be able to handle your native language as well as I have learned to do. (It took decades.) What plumber would be ashamed of such a thing? Maybe it’s because I now live in the US, but this does not strike me as believable. Ignorant people here are completely shameless, and would never say anything similar to what you said. Maybe workers in the UK are different; I wouldn’t know.
Now I’m back to thinking that there may be a “trolling p.h.d.” writing your and Anti-occident’s lines.
Sorry P.M. you misunderstood me,I left school at the age of 15 with no qualifications and still have great dificulty with spelling grammar ect. Maybe shame was the wrong word to use but it does trouble me.By the way I havent even seen any posts by this anti-oxident chap, I am supprised that there is someone out there that is as dumb as me!
I sincerely apologize to you, Richard. I believe I am (almost) convinced that you aren’t a “trolling p.h.d.” I have to include the “almost,” because you changed the spelling of “occident” to “oxident.” Obviously, you get the joke, and may be the auteur behind it. Probably not, though, because you’d have to be quite brilliant, and probably wouldn’t be keen on spending your time fooling us N&Cers.
BTW Richard, this “Anti-occident” has already revealed him/herself to be an invented personage under “A buffoon.”
I’m not sure if you’re serious with your stuff about Richard, Pyotr Modenko, but I know him in the real world, and he is certainly a plumber, etc.
However, he absolutely is NOT dumb (so in that sense, Richard, you are not being truthful!).
And anyway, what exactly is wrong with being a trolling PhD?!
Hi William Scherk, up the road in BC – good that you’re in thrall to me!
“William Scott Scherk | SOLO – Sense of Life Objectivists?!!”
Ohhh-kay, NOW I’m confused…
Okay time out!
Let’s get back on topic now.
Back to topic.
It’s just another side of the “don’t ask questions we know the answers” school of epistemology. This comes standard with closed world views, including not only the major religions but Freud, bits of Marxism and so on.
b
Just so, and that school of epistemology is a very troubling and dangerous one. That’s why the whole faith=virtue and doubt=betrayal line of thought is such a bad way to go, and why we have to keep niggle niggle niggling away at it.
Sorry. Quick OT note:
I really doubted Richard’s ID. Now that it’s been confirmed by Jerry S, I shan’t mention it again.
“If relationships or correlations can be simply allocated to the cleverness of a designer…’
Presumably every Phd thesis would consist of variations on ‘Wow, isn’t God great?’
Cheers Jerry.
You would think that if part of your education was studying God’s wonders you would be paying respectful and complete attention to how wondrous these wonders are, how complex and extraordinary, just as you pay that kind of attention to the work of a great writer or composer.
You might say that the designer or creator was at the end of a process but that there was a long journey to get to the designer or creator with plenty to see and examine on the way.
All rather dreary – every journey on the motorway and every destination Heathrow airport.
I am not sure.
—————————————
signature: motrin generic e0hrrvke8fkf65e3564fg79