On 3 Dec 2007, at 16:04, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Dec 3, 2007 1:41 AM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which >> might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for >> its >> excellence in scientific research. > > > This demonstrates that skepticism leads to better science, right?
You're arguing that evolution is bad science? > > > I say that only because anti-religious people constantly confuse > correlation > with causality. It's only fair if I do, too, even though it is > terribly > unscientific. But hey, I'm an American. Stimulated by being > surrounded by > those who are skeptical of science, I strive to excel. > > Seriously, though, confusing correlation and causality has become my > main > problem with your anti-religious postings, William. If you're going > to > argue that religion is anti-scientific and causes all sorts of > social ills, > it seems that you have no freedom do simply cite all sorts of > correlations. > You have to show causality -- that religion *causes* evil, no just > that they > co-occur. You sound like the tobacco lobby claiming that cigarettes don't cause cancer! > > > It is basic to statistics that when things correlate, the cause > often is a > third factor. The coexistence of religion and evil isn't exactly > news, now > is it? > > Let me suggest the sort of third factor that could cause the > correlation > between fundamentalist religion and creationism: greed and fear -- > leaders' > greed for money and political power; followers' fear of what might > happen if > they misbehave. Keeping people ignorant has been a tool of greedy > people, > religious or not, for all of history. It is demagoguery and > religion has no > corner on it. > > It's bad science use correlations to say that religion is to blame for > evil. It's like saying that hospitals obviously are the cause of > disease > because a survey showed that a high percentage of people who go to > hospitals > are sick. Correlation does not imply causality. It certainly indicates somewhere to look very closely for it though. And when multiple indicators all point the same way you need a much better counter-argument than appealing to 'correlation does not imply causality.' > > >> >> The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus two percent, >> found that 35 percent of the respondents believed in UFOs and 31 >> percent in witches. > > > How many of the UFO believers imagine that dolphins could fly > spaceships? > Now that's truly bizarre. When people are encouraged to believe any old nonsense they choose as a matter of 'faith' it is not surprising that they lose the ability to discriminate in other areas too. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
