Hitchens: Talk of a uniter is 'piffle'

[grantcart]

Source: Slate

All this easy talk about being a "uniter" and not a "divider" is piffle if people are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I have been droning on for months about how Mitt Romney needs to answer questions about the flat-out racist background of his own church, and about how Huckabee has shown in public that he does not even understand the first thing about a theory—the crucial theory of evolution by natural selection—in which he claims not to believe. Many Democrats are with me on this, but they go completely quiet when Sen. Obama chooses to give his allegiance to a crackpot church with a decidedly ethnic character.



Read more: http://www.slate.com/id/2181460/pagenum/2

---

The entire article like most of Hitchens is well written and reasoned even when you don't agree with him

[geek tragedy]

1. "a crackpot church with a decidedly ethnic character. " OH NOES!!!!!! n/t

[originalpckelly]

2. I believe that piffle can be cured with Beano or Gas-X.

[ixion]

3. evolution is a proven fact, not a theory

the so-called "intelligent design" crowd has been trying to rewrite history and claim it's a theory, when, in fact, it's a fact.

Intelligent design is a theory, and a poor one at that.

Intelligent? What is so intelligent about humans? We're really crappy animals with just enough brain power to destroy ourselves and the planet. That doesn't really seem that intelligent to me.

[originalpckelly]

6. Facts are evidence used to prove or disprove theories.

:eyes:

It's called logic, and even though the theory of evolution is damn well proved, it is still a theory.

[ixion]

11. nope, sorry, but you're wrong. It's not the "theory of gravity" it is the "Law of Gravity"

there's a difference.

In this sense, evolution is a law, not a theory.

[originalpckelly]

14. No, it's called the theory of general relativity.

You've given a very good example of why there is a difference between facts and theories.

Science is wonderful, because it doesn't have strict and unchanging doctrines. When the best observations of science no longer support a theory, it is hopefully recognized, although that doesn't always happen.

[Lance_Boyle]

15. sigh. evolution and gravity are scientific theories.

Calling a theory a "law" does not change what it is.

[originalpckelly]

16. This is what happens when even the most basic of principles in science...

are politicized, isn't it?

Crazy world we live in these days.

[Zodiak]

37. It is a crazy world we live in

If all of the sudden, political experts at science are begin to crawl out of the woodwork, they would at least read a few pages on the philosophy of science first.

Science is a philosophy for explaining our world around us....it has specific rules. If the rules are not followed, it is NOT science. The correct political position for a evolution-defender is NOT that evolution is a fact (because it isn't), it is that intelligent design is not science.

This is why scientists are not getting involved in the political discourse on this subject...they know intelligent design is not science, and therefore it is outside of their purview to answer (unlike global warming). The same goes for "when human life begins" for the anti-abortionists. These are philosophical questions, not questions of science. Leave the scientists the hell alone...ESPECIALLY if you do not know the ins and outs of the scientific method...and leave the philosophy and religion at the door.

(this post is not in direct response to the message above...just a rhetorical post brought on by the message above)

[ixion]

18. that's not what I was taught...thermodynamics is another one

it's not the theories of thermodynamics, it is the Laws of Thermodynamics.

but whatever floats your boat, I guess. :)

[Zodiak]

41. You were taught incorrectly

The word "law" is used in the hard sciences a lot. You will find precious little of them in the biological sciences. There, we have "dogma", but it is still a theory.

There is no "float your boat" when it comes to science, there are only the rules. If you are speaking outside of the realm of science, you can say what you like, but you are in the scientific world, now, and layman's term are no good.

A law is not a fact, a theory is not a fact, a dogma is not a fact, and a hypothesis is not a fact. Nothing is truly "proven" in science, just supported within an accepted mathematical certainty. We have p-values, not "belief".

Seriously, if you do not fully know the scientific method, it is best that you read up on it before you make yourself certain what words like "law" and "theory" mean in the sciences. Your teachers may have been simplifying things quite a bit to avoid a long philosophical discussion on statistical certainty.

[lakercub]

27. No...I'm afraid you are wrong

There are laws of gravity, but there is an overarching theory of gravity as well. The theory tries to explain what gravity is and how it works, while the laws give us a mathematical model for the effect of gravity on an object. The laws are used extensively in the practical world, but why do the laws work? What makes them work? That is what the theory tries to explain. (Note, Newton's Laws of Motion break down at quantum levels, so laws can be and are violated, but theories must withstand all the evidence or the scientists go back to the drawing board)

Evolution works the same way. Evolution has been demonstrated in laboratory environments. But what makes it work? How do species evolve? What is the effect of natural selection on evolution? These are some of the questions that the Theory of Evolution addresses.

When you hear the words "just a theory," know that the person you are talking to is betraying scientific ignorance. Theory is the pinnacle of science. The first part of scientific discovery is simply to come up with an idea about how something works. No problem, that's easy. Next, the true scientist will then try and organize a reasonable hypothesis for his initial idea/conjecture. This hypothesis must be testable in some way and be falsifiable...in other words, the scientist must try to find ways to disprove his own hypothesis. This is where ID and creationism start to break down...neither is in any way falsifiable.

Then the testing begins. Huge amounts of testing and observation must generate gargantuan amounts of evidence in order to show that the hypothesis stands up and is solid. Publication of the hypothesis and results in peer-reviewed journals, seminars, conferences, etc is also crucial in order to have those knowledgeable in the field try to find mistakes. After all this has been done (and it takes a long time) then the hypothesis may graduate to theory. No non-falsifiable hypothesis, or hypothesis lacking supporting data, or tested hypothesis not subjected to peer-review can ever really graduate to the level of a theory. ID is bankrupt for this whole last part. Very little work has been done outside litigation, so to call ID a theory is just a joke. ID has barely progressed past the idea stage. No testable and falsifiable hypotheses have been put forward aside from a few trivial examples and the testing aspect is non-existent. ID and creationism are not theories, and likely never will be given their current state of "scholarship."

Evolution has been tested in so many fields in so many ways that the amount of evidence is staggering. Most of us have absolutely no concept just how much work has been done. But, rest assured, evolution is one of the most tested theories that we have. There are always aspects of evolution that may have to be changed when new evidence comes to light...but that is a strength, not a weakness. Any theory that is unable to adapt to new evidence is not very good. But the overall fundamental understanding of evolution has withstood years of attempts to show it false and come out smelling like a rose.

But the theory of evolution by natural selection will never be proven....nor will the theory of gravity. But they don't need to be...in fact, there is really no such thing as proof outside of philosophical realms. For instance, one of the testable criteria for evolution is that no mammals will be found in certain layers of rock because no mammals existed at that time. The usual example is if you find a rabbit fossil in Pre-Cambrian rock, evolution is in trouble. No one can prove that no rabbit fossils are in Pre-Cambrian rock. But the amount of digging done without any evidence of rabbits in Pre-Cambrian rock has given us overwhelming evidence that we never will find a rabbit in Pre-Cambrian rock. I also can't prove we weren't all put here last Thursday with implanted memories by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but there is no evidence for it (except pasta) so it doesn't need to be taken overly seriously (my apologies to all those touched by his noodly appendage).

One last thing, and this grates at the ID folk. The Theory of Evolution is far more developed and understood then the Theory of Gravity and many other scientific theories. The workings of gravity are much more unknown to us than the processes involved in evolution.

[ixion]

29. please see the link I posted below that discusses my point

thanks.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

[lakercub]

30. interesting

I disagree with a few points, but the problem still is in stating that the Theory of Evolution is not a theory. It is a theory, and no biologist in the world will tell you otherwise.

[Zodiak]

42. Actually

I know one on this board.

But this person is not a researcher nor possesses any post-graduate experience.

But this scientist agrees....evolution is a theory, and a damned good one at that.

[papau]

44. I agree evolution is well tested -any progress on explaining the cell membrane function - or

the reason for single cells to be push by "selection" into becoming multi-celled (beyond the fact that single cells clump) -- other than the catch all of filling a niche and clumped cells are close together?

Other than for those "timeline definition" Bible folks, there is no conflict between religion and evolution or any other science - bit of a straw man - except for "timeline definition" fundi's that refuse to accept that English translations with current meanings are not the same as original language with that culture's intended meaning - and even the latter is open to differences of opinion.

But one should note that ID is even a part of science in the idea that physics theory should invoke Anthropic reasoning in its attempts to explain and quantify the required fine tuning that allows humans in this "possible alternate universes", the "alternate universes" being as untestable as any anthropic explanation called intelligent design. But evolution is indeed the only scientific explanation from the development of higher forms of life on this planet.

[Selatius]

21. You confuse the layman's definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory.

The two don't have the same meaning.

[ixion]

23. here's a link that discusses what I'm talking about... it's not political

I don't really care much for politics, or making things political.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

[Zodiak]

36. You are wrong

Evolution is a theory. Nothing in science is proven, there are only observations that support a model. Once a model is well-supported, it becomes "theory". Evolution is one theory that is very well-supported, but that is what it is.

Intelligent design is not even science, it is religion.

[Fenris]

4. Every time he opens his mouth, I wish more and more that this country had stricter immigration laws.

Specifically, ones targeting self-absorbed British pseudo-intellectuals.

[TwilightZone]

8. ...masquerading as Democrats.

I think we can do without Hitchens' particular brand of "help" more often than not.

[heliarc]

31. He's hardly a pseudo-intellectual

His work on Kissinger, and Orwell is intellectual to the core. He was wrong about Iraq... tragically. But he was right about the Taliban.

[Barrett808]

46. He still defends the invasion, correct?

So he's still delusional.

[heliarc]

47. To remove the taliban?

Yes... How is removing the Taliban a bad goal? The Taliban were oppressors through and through. They don't even believe in letting people enjoy MUSIC, and kill women when hearsay says they have committed a sin.

And he supported the invasion of Iraq is what you're going to say. He has always supported the Kurds and when HW bush sold the kurds out and immolated them by ignoring their plight in the first Gulf war he was the first person to criticize the strategic import of the day. His support has as its underpinning the real concern for the oppressed in Iraq and while he finds himself in bed with some of the worst people right now. I respect him for his position. He has a lot of good reasons to hold the positions he does. I disagree with a lot of what he says right now, but that does not discount his work on Kissinger, which is solid and purposeful. For people to call him delusional here is just partisan backpeddling Let's concentrate on why the man is wrong about one thing or another, and resist shooting ourselves in the feet by discounting everything he has to say without making sure to preserve some good arguments.

[Barrett808]

48. He was still defending the invasion of Iraq in March:

So, Mr. Hitchens, Weren't You Wrong About Iraq?
http://www.slate.com/id/2162157

Delusional.

[TwilightZone]

5. Well-written garbage is still garbage.

Heaven forbid that an "ethnic" person attend an "ethnic" church.

[MadBadger]

7. Hitchen's isnt exactly the man I go to about religion.

[originalpckelly]

9. Yeah, I bet.

And an Obama supporter is not exactly the person to go to about a criticism of Obama.

[Warpy]

10. Hitch is always a good read, right or wrong

and he's right about any talk of uniting the country with the rabid ideologues on the GOP side being piffle. The problem is that I don't think Obama knows it's piffle.

The good thing about a rigid opposition is that it's so easy to break. That should be the aim of any incoming administration, not sweet talking them into suddenly becoming rational and putting country ahead of party, people ahead of dogma. That latter just aint gonna happen.

[heliarc]

32. He's also right about Kissinger. nt

[Lance_Boyle]

12. I can't agree wholly with what Hitchens says here.

Freaky religious nuts of all races, creeds, and colors scare the bejeebus outta me. But I do find it a bit unfair to lump all the weirdness of Obama's church on the candidate himself, and even a bit dishonest of Hitchens to compare Obama to Huckleberry in terms of "religiosity." I have not heard any evidence in Obama's speeches that he is, as his church suggests it is, "responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples." That's the difference to me. Obama's religion seems to be mostly a personal matter. The moment I hear him evangelize for nationalizing jeebus, he goes into the "will not vote for" column, but I've only heard that sort of tripe from Huckleberry and Brownback.

[no name no slogan]

13. WTF? Hitch things he's George F. Will now?

Hitch needs to retire. He hasn't been the same since 9/11 and he went all "OH NOES TEH ISLAMOFASCITS!!!!".

[lakercub]

28. that's when I stopped paying any attention

to him. His anti-muslim rants got old in a hurry.

[heliarc]

34. Please....

He shares the belief of most Europeans that Religion should in no way color our perspective on Political Power. He is willing to point out the hypocrisy of all of this religious nonsense that is tearing our country apart. In fact it is this same religious nonsense that is keeping the 3 democratic front runners from supporting Gay Marriage. Here he is paying equal measure to three candidates and to candidates across the aisle. There is very little wrong with his analysis. And I'm an Obama Supporter. I just wish Obama could shed the trappings of religion. We as Americans need to learn not to mix our politics with our religion anymore.

[no name no slogan]

40. You can be a secularist, and a European, and not be a drunken asshole

Unfortunately for Hitchens, he hasn't figured that out yet.

[killbotfactory]

17. Have another drink on me, Hitchens

It's done wonders for you.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Read it, and I'm still searching for his point

[no name no slogan]

20. Don't bother, it's Hitchens

He stopped having a point years ago.

[rodeodance]

22. "I recommend that you take a brisk tour of its Web site. "

....Identity CrisisThere's something pathetic and embarrassing about our obsession with Barack Obama's race.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Jan. 7, 2008, at 12:04 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

Sen. Obama is a congregant of a church in Chicago called Trinity United Church of Christ. I recommend that you take a brisk tour of its Web site. Run by the sort of character that the press often guardedly describes as "flamboyant"—a man calling himself the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.—this bizarre outfit describes itself as "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and speaks of "a chosen people" whose nature we are allowed to assume is "Afrocentric." Trinity United sells creationist books and its home page includes a graphic link to a thing called Goodsearch—the name is surmounted with a halo in its logo—which announces cheerily that "Every time you search or shop online! Our Church earns money." Much or most of what Trinity United says is harmless and boring, rather like Gov. Mike Huckabee's idiotic belief that his own success in Iowa is comparable to the "miracle" of the loaves and fishes, and the site offers a volume called Bad Girls of the Bible: Exploring Women of Questionable Virtue, which I have added to my cart, but nobody who wants to be taken seriously can possibly be associated with such a substandard and shade-oriented place.

[indimuse]

43. As do I...

Here is a link with Obama's Rev on....Fox Noise (NO I AM NOT A RIGHTY..NOR DO I WATCH/CONDONE PEOPLE..ESPECIALLY MY MOTHER TO WATCH FOX!!)

But I saw this interview...at 1:27 is when my ears perked up and I had to rewind and I heard it again. Obama will have to explain. This seems quite strange??? He says that "CHRISTIANITY IS WHITE AMERICA!" whwhwhwhhhwhat? see for yourself then he goes on ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYkI_0Dn4Uo&feature=related

[Progressive Radical]

24. Hitchens is a drunken opportunist. He's a polemicist and there's nothing reasonable about him.

He's an ex-leftist that decided to go where the money was - reason or principle be damned.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay.

I'm not really interested in anything he has to say about our elections.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. That's the quote! Love that George Galloway. nt

[Sulawesi]

26. Hitchens Smugness Alert!

[Blue-Jay]

33. Hitchens is "piddle".

[Spiffarino]

35. "Piffle" is what runs down Chris' leg

...every night at about 11:45 after his fourteenth scotch.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. Shut up Hitchens, you gin-soaked popinjay. nt

[dave123williams]

45. Oh, Typey McDrunkpants wrote something new?