Billy "Isaac Newton of Information" Dembski complains about the new Kansas Science Standards. The new standards making this change "scientific knowledge describes and explains the natural world physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces." Dembski complains:
Indeed, try to justify the "inalienable rights" ascribed in the Declaration of Independence not in terms of a creator but in terms of "material forces." It doesn’t work.
Yet another reason that the Declaration of Independence is not, and was never intended to be, science.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Following up on my post this morning about Randy Barnett's Taft lecture, Sandefur writes that he is a bit confused as well. That actually makes me feel better about it. It quells my nagging feeling that perhaps I'm just missing something (and perhaps I am, but if it's not obvious to Sandefur either…
Casey Luskin is back with a brand new dance, a tap dance around all those pesky little previous statements by ID advocates that come back to haunt them every time they try and claim that the "intelligent designer" doesn't have to be supernatural. He's complaining that a news article referred to the…
As promised, here are some more thoughts on Steve Fuller's contribution to the Crooked Timber seminar on Chris Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science. My last post on Fuller's essay took up his picture of the workings of science, where it seemed to me he was gesturing toward the influence of…
Billy Dembski, self-proclaimed "Isaac Newton of Information Theory," has decided that calling himself "pro-science" is just as good as actually, you know, being pro-science, while Paul Nelson seems to think that open puzzles are a bad thing in science.
Meanwhile, Denyse O'Leary is excited about the…
Give Kathleen Sebelius' right hand man, Chris Cardinal, a look:
www.firekansasdemocrats.org
How dare teach physical facts purely in physical terms. How dare those atheists teach that the world is, well, amenable to scientific investigation in a science class? Of course we all know that we got to the moon via the Declaration of Independence.
What these people don't seem to realize is that these "inalienable rights" can't be justified in terms of a creator either. "He's the creator, therefore he can define inalienable rights" or "he's omnipotent, therefore he can define inalienable rights" are gross non-sequiturs.
Bill doesn't know his Jefferson, either. The rights ascribed in the Declaration of Independence are "unalienable."
I'm more bothered by the idea that no creator = no inalienable human rights. Huh? Creationists sure do like their false dichotomies...
The man has no interest in science and for that I am sorry for him. His beef is "meaning," purpose in life, the dignity of the individual, why we can say that we have rights at all, etc.
He's always starting from pessimism and trying to work his way up to optimism. He's always starting from inert matter (no such thing) and trying to comprehend chemical interactions (elements and compounds are inherently interactive). He's always starting from a state of rest and invoking inertia (because he doesn't understand this, either) as some reason why things in motion will not remain in motion (when they do!). He invokes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and proposes a 4th) to describe a "closed" universe that is a mere projection of his own closed mind.
So no wonder that he needs a creator (his creation of a creator) to hand him his rights. It never occurs to him that "nature's god" is a metaphor for the motion of nature itself.
What an unhappy man.
I thought the Creator gave all power to the king (Divine Right). The American Revolution, therefore, was a rebellion against God!
Hey Josh -
Great post. Also, great to see you've found a home on ScienceBlogs. (This is Mark, from college, by the way)
Keep up the great posting! McCain stinks!