A Foregone Conclusion
Historians have tried for years to disabuse us of the Warfare Thesis mythology. But their efforts have largely been in vain. The Warfare Thesis myth has always served as a powerful context for evolutionary theory and, false or not, evolutionists show no signs of forfeiting this powerful narrative.
Similarly, statisticians have tried for years to bring discipline to their field which too often uses statistics to “discover” a desired conclusion. One journal, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, recently even went so far as to ban altogether null hypothesis significance testing. But biostatisticians at Johns Hopkins rightly point out that ridding science of shoddy statistics will require scrutiny of every step, not merely the last one.
I point out the Warfare Thesis and statistical inference not as disparate examples of scholarship gone wrong, but rather as two very related problems. You might say statistical inference is one of the Warfare Thesis’ preferred tools, and this new vaccine study is a good example.
The study’s most significant finding was that the MMR vaccine is associated with reduced autism risk. The authors were right to seek some sort of confounding variables to explain this unlikely result. But this result, even if explained away, hints at the underlying challenges and problems in such a research study.
One problem is that the we are dealing with people. Different parents have different levels of concern. And diagnoses may be influenced by various factors. Second, autism spectrum disorders include a variety of symptoms and conditions. Statistical comparisons may be complicated by such factors.
Nonetheless, the authors concluded that “receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD.” While that is technically true, the opposite is also true. That is, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with an absence of increased risk either. In other words, the uncertainty of their results is such that they are consistent with both no increased risk, or some increased risk. Either could be true, within reasonable levels of statistical confidence.
What the results do show is that the MMR vaccine is not associated with a dramatic increased risk of ASD. Receipt of the vaccine was not likely associated with a doubling of the risk, for example. But again, those results are subject to the caveats discussed above (which may be overriding factors).
The bottom line is that the study’s conclusions are false and irresponsible. And they led to yet more false and irresponsible proclamations in the media, with commentators such as Sanjay Gupta making demeaning comments about parents struggling with this difficult decision.
One might ask how papers such as this survive peer review? The answer is that the paper said exactly what the peer reviewers were looking for. You see, like all literature, the scientific literature comes in a genre, and today that genre is the Warfare Thesis. This is made clear at the very beginning of the paper, long before the data are considered:
Two doses of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine are currently recommended for children in the United States: the first at age 12 to 15 months and the second at age 4 to 6 years. Although a substantial body of research over the last 15 years has found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), parents and others continue to associate the vaccine with ASD. Parents cite vaccinations, especially MMR, as a cause of ASD and have deferred or refused vaccinations for their children as a result. Lower vaccination levels threaten public health by reducing both individual and herd immunity and have been associated with several recent outbreaks of measles, with most cases occurring among unvaccinated individuals.
There you have it. Science has revealed the truth yet resistance to the undeniable facts continues, posing threats to us all. There was no question where the paper was headed—the results were a foregone conclusion. There is no way the researchers were going to discover anything wrong with vaccines. Those were the ground rules that readers must understand.
And once the beachhead is established the media’s heavy artillery can be brought to bear, proclaiming how the science had once again debunked the recurrent myths of the ignorant, as commentators such as CNN’s Jake Tapper shake their head in disgust.
These new truths then, in turn, lead to laws such as the California law mandating vaccines for all public school students which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law today. The law forces parents to violate their conscience or lose their tax monies to a public school system they are not allowed to use. Brown is a good leader but this new law is unfair and a mistake.
Does any of this mean that vaccines are not a great public health success, or that they should be avoided at all costs? No, of course not. Vaccines hold great promise and have conferred great health benefits. But the choice of whether or not to vaccinate is not simply a scientific question.
The problem is not that this is a difficult decision for some. That’s life. The problem is that evolution’s Warfare Thesis has resulted in both faulty science and an environment of discrimination against and vilification of parents struggling with legitimate decisions.
h/t; Little John
If you want to debuke a paper, you know you can ask for the data, redo the statistical analyses and see what you get.
ReplyDeleteIf you get something completely different, then write a letter to the editors. That's how real scientist critize their colleges.
Accusing the editors and all the reviewers of forgery is a big deal.
Nothing to do with evolutionary biology really.
I'm glad you understand the gravity of this corruption of science.
DeleteIf you want to debuke a paper, you know you can ask for the data, redo the statistical analyses and see what you get.
DeleteNo, you missed the point. The statistical analysis is not the problem. It is the interpretation of the results. The conclusions are technically true, but they are terribly misleading and in that sense they are false. For example, you could do a study and rightly conclude that you found no evidence the Earth is round. The problem is not in your analysis, but in your interpretation of the results.
If the conclusions are technically true, how could it be misleading ?
DeleteNonetheless, the authors concluded that “receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD.” While that is technically true, the opposite is also true. That is, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with an absence of increased risk either.
Here you are just trying to confuse your audience by showing a bad understanding of logical concepts.
If A is true, then its opposite Aprime can't be true too. Simple logic.
Cornelius, you obviously have a problem with the decision to not allow unvaccinated kids attend public school. Therefore, I assume that you also oppose the laws forbidding people to smoke in offices, restaurants, etc. The rationale for both laws is the same. Your decision not to vaccinate, or to smoke, is yours. But any society that allows these freedoms also has a responsibility to protect others from you enjoying these freedoms. Smokers are a risk to others in close proximity to them, as are other children in close proximity to unvaccinated children. The choice seems clear to me; either ban willfully non-vaccinated children from school or ban those who for health reasons cannot be vaccinated.
ReplyDeleteAcartia
Deleteyou obviously have a problem with … blah, blah, blah
Whenever a comment starts out with “you obviously have a problem with …” then you know it is followed by something that you don’t have a problem with.
Therefore, I assume that you also oppose the laws forbidding people to smoke in offices, restaurants, etc. The rationale for both laws is the same.
Curious analogy since while the decision to smoke can bring on the possibility of injury and death caused by smoking, the decision not to vaccinate avoids the possibility of injury and death caused by vaccinating. Strike one. You get two more swings.
Ch:(Although a substantial body of research over the last 15 years has found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), parents and others continue to associate the vaccine with ASD. )
ReplyDeleteThere you have it. Science has revealed the truth yet resistance to the undeniable facts continues, posing threats to us all.
Could you clarify what is the basis of your conclusion? I am unsure how the Warfare Thesis pertains. What is the war between, statistics and gut feelings? Cause and effect? Drawing any conclusion from science?
There was no question where the paper was headed—the results were a foregone conclusion.
Do you have evidence that this is a forgone conclusion of this study, that researchers suppressed the number of autistic children ? What is the basis for your truth
There is no way the researchers were going to discover anything wrong with vaccines.
Just like ther was never found anything wrong with thalidomide? Actually by your logic ,they is no way the could even if there was a statically significant result that vaccines caused autism.
Those were the ground rules that readers must understand.
Take your unbiased word for it?
The law forces parents to violate their conscience
Not really, though it would be nice to know what the basis of their objection is, but if your example is typical it is not based on statistics. Mixed with a knowledge of the nefarious activities of scientists who wish to foist dangerous drugs on their and their own children. But no one is taking their children by force.
or lose their tax monies to a public school system they are not allowed to use.
Many people pay tax monies to the schools without children attending school. The requirement to pay those taxes is based on the principle that an educated population is a societal good.
The question is does your right of conscience to protect your child override the rest of the parents in the school rights to protect their children.
V:
DeleteCould you clarify what is the basis of your conclusion? I am unsure how the Warfare Thesis pertains. What is the war between, statistics and gut feelings? Cause and effect? Drawing any conclusion from science?
If you would like an excellent lesson in how the Warfare Thesis is applied in our science and culture, then invest 90 minutes and watch the movie, *Inherit the Wind.* As you watch it keep in mind that although it is promoted and accepted by evolutionists as a historically accurate and cogent screen play (fictionalized names, etc, but otherwise incisive and accurate themes), everything of import in the story is false, and false in a very particular way. There is an “angle” which should become extremely obvious to you as you watch the film. The lone exception to this is the final take down of Scripture at the end, as Clarence Darrow forcefully cross examines William Jennings Bryan. It is all religious. This was evolutionary thought and the Warfare Thesis in action, and it would be difficult to underestimate its importance. The New York Times described it as “the most amazing court scene in Anglo-Saxon history.” In that application of the Warfare Thesis, which is how it has been applied since (including this vaccination paper), the mythical war that evolutionists present their audience with is between (i) rational, objective thought and (ii) ignorance and bigotry.
Do you have evidence that this is a forgone conclusion of this study, that researchers suppressed the number of autistic children ? What is the basis for your truth?
The paper’s Introduction spells out the ground rules. Decisions not to vaccinate are not rational. The fact that the paper’s authors misrepresented the results is no surprise.
Take your unbiased word for it?
If all else fails, shoot the messenger.
it would be nice to know what the basis of their objection is
There you have it. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith, you will now give an account to the rational and objective Dr. V, and he will judge whether or not you are acceptable.
The question is does your right of conscience to protect your child override the rest of the parents in the school rights to protect their children.
That would require objective, rational science to give accurate conclusions.
The question is does your right of conscience to protect your child override the rest of the parents in the school rights to protect their children.
DeleteThat would require objective, rational science to give accurate conclusions
The problem is that you don't take peer reviewed papers as objective, rational science. For the moment that's the highest standard of science we have.
Maybe the papers you published are also full of subjective bias ?
"The paper’s Introduction spells out the ground rules. Decisions not to vaccinate are not rational."
DeleteI only have a handful of peer reviewed papers, but I don't remember ever writing the introduction before analyzing the data. Once the data is analyses, and the conclusions (or inferences) determined, I started to write the paper. And, in my case, the results and discussion were always the first sections written, followed by the introduction and then the abstract.
It is good form to keep the introduction as inconclusive as possible, but it is not absolutely necessary. After all, the title and abstract, the first two things ever read, generally summarize the conclusions.
Acartia
DeleteI only have a handful of peer reviewed papers, but I don't remember ever writing the introduction before analyzing the data. … It is good form to keep the introduction as inconclusive as possible, but it is not absolutely necessary.
Sure, agreed. But the Introduction is logically prior. It introduces the research topic, prior research, where things stand, and so forth. It sets up the framework and going in position—the paradigm. You’re not going to put something in there that indicates you were biased toward the results that were “discovered.” The fact that the authors saw fit to begin the paper with that discussion shows that it is the paradigm within which they are working. They, and the peer reviewers, saw nothing wrong with introducing the topic with the “objective science versus ignorant commoners” framework. If you watch *Inherit the Wind* you will see repeated scenes portraying the people as ignorant, bigoted, and religiously driven. It’s all fiction.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"If you watch *Inherit the Wind* you will see repeated scenes portraying the people as ignorant, bigoted, and religiously driven. It’s all fiction."
DeleteI have watched it, although it has been many years. I have also done much reading on the Scopes trial. Yes, it was definitely an exaggerated and biased portrayal, but it wasn't all fiction.
But your claim that evolutionists see this as an accurate portrayal of history simply does not correspond with my experience. I don't know any evolutionists who would consider this an accurate portrayal of history. Any more than The Ten Commandments, The Robe, Ben Hur, or The Bible, etc. are accurate portrayals of history. The difference is, I can still enjoy all of these works of fiction without getting upset about them.
Sure, you are probably correct in that the writing style used by the authors of this paper is poor scientific writing. But if you have a problem with the interpretation of their data, or even how they collected their data. I think that it would be of greater value to criticize this rather than to pick apart the style.
ch:
DeleteIf you would like an excellent lesson in how the Warfare Thesis is applied in our science and culture, then invest 90 minutes and watch the movie, *Inherit the Wind.* As you watch it keep in mind that although it is promoted and accepted by evolutionists as a historically accurate and cogent screen play (fictionalized names, etc, but otherwise incisive and accurate themes)
Perhaps you mean that the movie creates a narrative which people believe is true.
" However, Lee and Lawrence state in a note at the opening of the play on which the film is based that it is not meant to be a historical account, and many events were substantially altered or invented."
"Lawrence explained in a 1996 interview that the play's purpose was to criticize McCarthyism"
The lone exception to this is the final take down of Scripture at the end, as Clarence Darrow forcefully cross examines William Jennings Bryan. It is all religious
If someone claims that the Bible is an accurate literal record of events, it is not religious to examine the Bible as historically accurate. If the Bible is introduced as scientific, it is subject to the same criticism as any scientific text. You seem to want it both ways.
The New York Times described it as “the most amazing court scene in Anglo-Saxon history.”
Just an opinion, but what makes it amazing is Spencer Tracy, no one says the remakes are amazing.
So in your metaphor vaccines are religion and anti vaccines are evolution? Religion used government coercion to control speech in Scopes just as vaccines proponents seek to use government to limit exposure to the unvaccinated. Perhaps you should use the unvaccinated as proponents of the Warfare Thesis.
Acartia:
DeleteSure, you are probably correct in that the writing style used by the authors of this paper is poor scientific writing.
Believe me, the problem here is not one of style. This goes far beyond style.
V:
DeleteIf someone claims that the Bible is an accurate literal record of events, it is not religious to examine the Bible as historically accurate. If the Bible is introduced as scientific, it is subject to the same criticism as any scientific text. You seem to want it both ways.
Really!? This strawman *again*?
Just an opinion, but what makes it amazing is Spencer Tracy
No, the NYT statement was in reference to the real take down, in their reporting of the trial, not the play/movie.
ch:
DeleteThe paper’s Introduction spells out the ground rules. Decisions not to vaccinate are not rational. The fact that the paper’s authors misrepresented the results is no surprise.
From the introduction: "Despite research showing no link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism spectrum disorders (ASD),"
This is a factual claim, do you refute it with research that shows otherwise?
beliefs that the vaccine causes autism persist, leading to lower vaccination levels.
Also seems factual, note authors are not studying all vaccines or all families , do you contend the lower rates of vaccination have other cause?
So authors realize some parents have differing reasons for their decisions, they are not accusing them of " ignorance and bigotry", but understanding decisions are dependent on experience as a factor
"OBJECTIVE:
To report ASD occurrence by MMR vaccine status in a large sample of US children who have older siblings with and without ASD."
So the object is to provide these parents with information which is useful in making any decisions.
Perhaps you can point out where there conclusion was foregone with respect to this particular study of this specific group?
If all else fails, shoot the messenger.
Like you and Judge Jones?
There you have it. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith, you will now give an account to the rational and objective Dr. V
Doctor of mixology perhaps, but yes it would be nice to know why. I find the answer to " why " interesting, but if it is super secret ,ok.
and he will judge whether or not you are acceptable.
You are engaging in Warfare Thesis, assuming my motivations are religious, physician heal yourself. People can do what they want, just don't cause me harm.
That would require objective, rational science to give accurate conclusions.
You seems to require science to be infallible and omniscient in order to know anything about the world.
ch:
DeleteReally!? This strawman *again*?(" If someone claims that the Bible is an accurate literal record of events, it is not religious to examine the Bible as historically accurate. If the Bible is introduced as scientific, it is subject to the same criticism as any scientific text")
That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
Strawman how?
No, the NYT statement was in reference to the real take down, in their reporting of the trial, not the play/movie.
Could you link please?
V:
DeleteSo authors realize some parents have differing reasons for their decisions, they are not accusing them of " ignorance and bigotry", but understanding decisions are dependent on experience as a factor
Or, IOW, “Whatever are you talking about, we never said anything of the sort …”
This is a factual claim, … Also seems factual, …
Nothing but the facts, right? No, you are missing the message. Take a look again, keeping an eye out for the word “Despite.” Also look for “belief,” etc. Then compare with words such as “science,” “research,” “substantial body of evidence,” etc. That’s where the message is. That sets up the rational versus irrational, or science versus ignorance framework. Here is the text:
===========
Despite research showing no link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), beliefs that the vaccine causes autism persist, leading to lower vaccination levels. Parents who already have a child with ASD may be especially wary of vaccinations. … Although a substantial body of research over the last 15 years has found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), parents and others continue to associate the vaccine with ASD. Parents cite vaccinations, especially MMR, as a cause of ASD and have deferred or refused vaccinations for their children as a result. Lower vaccination levels threaten public health by reducing both individual and herd immunity and have been associated with several recent outbreaks of measles, with most cases occurring among unvaccinated individuals. Families with a child affected by ASD may be particularly concerned about reports linking MMR and ASD, despite the lack of evidence. Surveys of parents who have children with ASD suggest that many believe the MMR vaccine was a contributing cause. This belief, combined with knowing that younger siblings of children with ASD are already at higher genetic risk for ASD compared with the general population, might prompt these parents to avoid vaccinating their younger children.
==========
It’s all science versus ignorance. The facts versus irrational beliefs. There is no way they are going to find anything wrong with the vaccine.
Doctor of mixology perhaps, but yes it would be nice to know why. I find the answer to " why " interesting, but if it is super secret ,ok.
The very fact that evolutionists ask the question reveals the Warfare Thesis. Whatever can those parents be thinking? There certainly is no rational explanation, right?
Vaccines carry risk, period. No one needs to justify to evolutionists their decision about that risk-reward tradeoff.
You seems to require science to be infallible and omniscient in order to know anything about the world
We are so, so far from infallible. My point was that one could, at least potentially, begin to make some intelligent, informed statements about the risk-reward tradeoff of there could be a modicum of trust in the scientific studies on vaccines. The fact that the studies are beholden to the Warfare Thesis leaves parents with a more difficult decision to make, knowing that the studies are, effectively, deceptive.
V:
DeleteStrawman how?
As I said, go back and watch the film. Darrow’s takedown of Scripture had nothing to do with investigating claims “claims that the Bible is an accurate literal record of events.” You are missing the key point. Do you really not see this? Have you been reading this blog for this long and you don’t see that Darrow’s takedown is entirely religious? See this:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/there-is-one-thing-inherit-wind-got.html
Where it explains this:
“The exchange was entirely religious. Can we really believe the story of Jonah? Surely god would never do such a thing. And doesn’t the Bible state that the Sun goes around the Earth and that the world is only a few thousand years old? What about the Flood and did Bryan really believe the story of the temptation of Eve by the serpent?”
Bryan destroyed Darrow’s “Enlightenment theology,” but it didn’t matter because Enlightenment theology had already been accepted. The religion was so internalized and believed, that the evolutionists didn’t even recognize their own beliefs as beliefs.
Could you link please?
Sorry, I don’t have that link handy.
By the way, another good example in Darrow's takedown of Scripture was his questioning about the Sun standing still. The contrast between his unbelievable naivete and Bryan's hitting the nail on its head response is striking. Then compare this with how it is portrayed (Darrow the rational, objective one versus Bryan, the religious zealot).
DeleteCH:
DeleteBy the way, another good example in Darrow's takedown of Scripture was his questioning about the Sun standing still. The contrast between his unbelievable naivete and Bryan's hitting the nail on its head response is striking
Gee Dr Hunter, your side won , thereby preserving the liberty of government to be able to forbid any speech in schools that runs counter to the religious beliefs of a majority of legislators of a state.
Ch:
DeleteOr, IOW, “Whatever are you talking about, we never said anything of the sort …”
First you said warfare thesis, how asks I? Inherit The Wind. Then this:
" They(the authors of the study), and the peer reviewers, saw nothing wrong with introducing the topic with the “objective science versus ignorant commoners” framework. If you watch *Inherit the Wind* you will see repeated scenes portraying the people as ignorant, bigoted, and religiously driven
Seems kinda like you were saying the researchers thought the parents were ignorant, and possibly since you think the mindset is the same between ITW and the researchers as bigoted and religiously driven.
Sorry ,I thought thinking your opponent was a ignorant religious bigot was essential to the Warfare Thesis.
ch:
DeleteIt’s all science versus ignorance. The facts versus irrational beliefs. There is no way they are going to find anything wrong with the vaccine.
That is your evidence that the authors and the peer reviewers committed serious academic fraud because of the words " persist" " belief" " substantial" " believe" in the introduction?
The very fact that evolutionists ask the question reveals the Warfare Thesis. Whatever can those parents be thinking? There certainly is no rational explanation, right?
Asking someone why something they say is true is true is an attack? Is that what it is like for you, if someone disagrees with your truth there can be no rational explanation?
Vaccines carry risk, period. No one needs to justify to evolutionists their decision about that risk-reward tradeoff.
Unless they threaten the health of my offspring, then yes it would be nice to know they have thought about risk to other children in their calculus.
V:
DeleteLet me try again. In the Introductory material to the paper, quoted above, the paper sets up the parents as "believing" there are dangers with vaccines "despite" voluminous "research" to the contrary. This is a delegitimization of the parents' decision as not based on facts or reason--as irrational. What the paper's authors are revealing here is a strong worldview bias. A good word for it might be "scientism." It believes that something like the vaccine risk-reward decision can be set to a formula and decided by data. Sure, data helps a lot but, sorry, there is no universal formula. This is not simply a scientific problem. Scientific studies certainly help (good science that is, which is not beholden to a Warfare Thesis / scientism worldview), but a parent faced with the generally high probability of reasonable benefit versus the low probability of severe injury or death along with the associated burden which one must shoulder because normal law suits are not legally allowed, must make a decision. And no one can make that decision for them. They are the ones who are going to have to live with the consequences, either way. And deciding for forego the vaccine is one way to decide. There is nothing inherently irrational or ignorant about that decision.
The Introductory material is damning as it reveals that this is not about objective scientific inquiry, where any kind of result will be entertained. It is well known that researchers bring constraining biases to their work. Even experimenters and technicians bring such biases, and where possible, double-blind studies are used. Where they can't be used, the researchers must demonstrate the credibility of their results. In the vaccine research, such as this paper, we have a failure.
It parallels evolution in that both topics have been made third rails by the Warfare Thesis and evolutionists, and so they are politically-charged. The outcomes of these studies are predetermined.
ch:
DeleteThe fact that the studies are beholden to the Warfare Thesis leaves parents with a more difficult decision to make, knowing that the studies are, effectively, deceptive.
It would be more persuasive to demonstrate that deception specifically rather than metaphysically. So far the evidence is based on the accuracy of your perception of the motivations of authors based on the words " believe" " persist" etc.
V:
DeleteAsking someone why something they say is true is true is an attack? Is that what it is like for you, if someone disagrees with your truth there can be no rational explanation?
Think of some sort of activity that someone might want to do, but also has some very obvious risk. My point is that it is obvious why people would not do it. Yet read the Introductory material to the paper, and such a decision as cast as irrational. Why in the world would they not take receipt of the vaccine? Gee.
That is your evidence that the authors and the peer reviewers committed serious academic fraud because of the words " persist" " belief" " substantial" " believe" in the introduction?
Delete[...]
It would be more persuasive to demonstrate that deception specifically
If you read the OP, you will see that an important conclusion of the paper is terribly misleading. The OP explains:
===
Nonetheless, the authors concluded that “receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD.” While that is technically true, the opposite is also true. That is, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with an absence of increased risk either. In other words, the uncertainty of their results is such that they are consistent with both no increased risk, or some increased risk. Either could be true, within reasonable levels of statistical confidence.
What the results do show is that the MMR vaccine is not associated with a dramatic increased risk of ASD. Receipt of the vaccine was not likely associated with a doubling of the risk, for example. But again, those results are subject to the caveats discussed above (which may be overriding factors).
The bottom line is that the study’s conclusions are false and irresponsible.
===
ch:
DeleteAs I said, go back and watch the film. Darrow’s takedown of Scripture had nothing to do with investigating claims “claims that the Bible is an accurate literal record of events.”
Darrow was not in the film, he was a real person, Henry Drummond was fictional. You said my statement was a straw man, I pointed out the law established the bible as accurate literal account of the creation of man. To attack the Bible's accuracy then is not religious, the Bible being both religious and historical text.
Darrow was not in the film, he was a real person, Henry Drummond was fictional.
DeleteDistinction without a difference. That was the one thing of import in the movie that was historically accurate.
To attack the Bible's accuracy
But Darrow's attack on the Bible's accuracy was theologically motivated. That's the point. He was making a theological attack. For Darrow, the ACLU, and the evolutionists, it is patently obvious that the Joshua passage must be false because there are no miracles, because a greater god would not use primary causation, etc. That is a theological claim, that came out of the 17th and 18th century debates. The Bible's historical accuracy is questioned only because it fails theologically. The theological failure is what leads to the questioning of its accuracy. It's all about religion. It is not as though Darrow brought to bear an argument about historical methods, number of witnesses, external evidence, internal evidence, etc., etc. It was a religious argument.
Go watch, or read the transcript, on the Joshua questioning. It is classic theological naturalism entering into American jurisprudence. It is incomprehensible to the defense that God would / could make the Sun stand still because of the angular momentum shifts that would occur for objects on the surface of the Earth. Things would have toppled over. Bryan, not so familiar with Enlightenment theology (or theological naturalism) can't believe what he is hearing. "You've got to be kidding me !?" is, in effect, his response. Can't you understand that if God stops the Earth, that He also can deal with angular momentum shifts? it is astonishing but Darrow comes off as the winner.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCh:
DeleteGo watch, or read the transcript, on the Joshua questioning. It is classic theological naturalism entering into American jurisprudence. It is incomprehensible to the defense that God would / could make the Sun stand still because of the angular momentum shifts that would occur for objects on the surface of the Earth.
An omnipotent being is capable of anything by definition, of course just because someone wrote it in the Bible doesn't mean an omnipotent being did anything at all.
Things would have toppled over.
According to current knowledge of physics, stopping the rotation of the earth and starting it again would have many repercussions. One might expect non biblical accounts of the occurrence as well.
Bryan, not so familiar with Enlightenment theology (or theological naturalism) can't believe what he is hearing. "You've got to be kidding me !?" is, in effect, his response.
Bryan was an expert on the Bible, it seems odd that naturalism would be unknown to him.
Can't you understand that if God stops the Earth, that He also can deal with angular momentum shifts?
Sure, anything is possible with a God . One can never disprove an omnipotent,omniscient being did not do something.
it is astonishing but Darrow comes off as the winner.
Maybe imost people are not fans of the establishment of a state religion in real life, in the fictional movie Spencer Tracy will always defeat Fredrick March.
Bryan didn't provde any evidence that the events in the Bible literally happened, only that given an omnipotent God anything is theoretically possible.
Darrow , in forcing Bryan to defend the literal interpretation of the Bible by invoking divine intercession, was attacking the law in which the government enforced its religious beliefs as the only acceptable science.
Religion really drove science and it matters
V:
Deletejust because someone wrote it in the Bible doesn't mean an omnipotent being did anything at all.
Except that we never said otherwise, which is why remarks such as this from evolutionists are intriguing.
One can never disprove an omnipotent, omniscient being did not do something.
That is precisely what theological naturalism does.
Darrow , in forcing Bryan to defend the literal interpretation of the Bible by invoking divine intercession
Again, you are operating from a false history. Darrow was not arguing for divine intercession, his point was that God wouldn't have , or couldn't have, done it that way.
ch:
DeleteExcept that we never said otherwise, which is why remarks such as this from evolutionists are intriguing.
Of course not, but Darrow was not cross examining you, Bryan and the state legislature of Tennesee did.
That is precisely what theological naturalism does.
But the assumption of naturalism does not, it is a pragmatic choice . Unless you know how to detect the immaterial.
Again, you are operating from a false history. Darrow was not arguing for divine intercession, his point was that God wouldn't have , or couldn't have, done it that way.
Couldn't have without violating the known laws of physics, ( divine intercession) not sure why he would argue God wouldn't have stopped the movement of the sun. To what legal end would he argue that?
"The question is does your right of conscience to protect your child override the rest of the parents in the school rights to protect their children."
ReplyDeleteThat is not the question at all. The question is, do the parents who make the conscious decision not to vaccinate their children (which is still their right) have the right to put children who, due to health reasons, cannot be vaccinated at risk? To me, the answer is simple. There is a consequence to every decision that is made. In this case, the consequence is that if you chose not to vaccinate your child, you will have to make alternate arrangements to school your children.
AT:
DeleteThat is not the question at all. The question is, do the parents who make the conscious decision not to vaccinate their children (which is still their right) have the right to put children who, due to health reasons, cannot be vaccinated at risk?
I agree, that was my point if unclear, how does one mediate between a contradictory rights.
To me, the answer is simple. There is a consequence to every decision that is made. In this case, the consequence is that if you chose not to vaccinate your child, you will have to make alternate arrangements to school your children.
I agree,schools can consider the safety of students.
I understand that autism isn't the only risk associated with vaccines. Children have died from complications caused by vaccinations.
Delete"I understand that autism isn't the only risk associated with vaccines. Children have died from complications caused by vaccinations."
ReplyDeleteNobody is arguing this. But please name any procedure (eg, dental, x rays, antibiotics, etc.) that does not result in death under very rare circumstances. But very few of these present a known risk to others if people choose not to avail themselves of the treatment.
I didn't mention that there because, as explained elsewhere in the OP, the one case where the vaccine was associated with reduced risk (and it was the most statistically significant finding in the paper) the authors backed away from it. The OP explains:
ReplyDelete===
The study’s most significant finding was that the MMR vaccine is associated with reduced autism risk. The authors were right to seek some sort of confounding variables to explain this unlikely result. But this result, even if explained away, hints at the underlying challenges and problems in such a research study.
===
Brown is a good leader? I'm sorry, but that statement nullifies everything else you write here.
ReplyDelete