July 11-13: At Netroots Nation

The Hidden History of Guns and the 2nd Amendment Book Tour Is Coming...

Thursday, June 6: NEW YORK, NY 7:30pm

Location: The Strand (2nd floor), 828 Broadway, NYC

Monday, June 10: WASHINGTON, DC 6:30pm

Location: Busboys and Poets, 450 K St NW, Washington, DC

Wednesday, June 12: PORTLAND, OR 7:30pm

Location: Powell’s, 1005 W Burnside St., Portland

Sunday, June 23: SEATTLE, WA 7:30pm

Location: Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave, Seattle (West Entrance) w/Elliott Bay Book Company

Tuesday, June 25: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7:00pm

Location: First Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley w/The Booksmith

Friday, June 28: CHICAGO, IL 7:00pm

Location: Frugal Muse, 7511 Lemont Rd. #146 (Chestnut Court Shopping Center), Darien

Saturday, June 29: MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7:00pm

Location: Common Good Books, 38 S. Snelling Ave, St. Paul

Friday, July 12: Philadelphia, PA 4:15pm - At Netroots Nation
Location: PA Convention Center, 1101 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA

Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button

Thom:

I heard a bit of your talk with the Discovery Institute rep last Thursday. I'm a fan of your show and listen because you give opposing views a hearing and are generally polite.

What bugs me Thom, as an educated person who is scientifically literate with background in journalism and a liberal perspective, is hearing the origins debate repeatedly described as "Science versus Religion" or "The Bible versus Science," etc. ad nauseum.

Yes, there are some lamentably untaught believers who say excruciatingly dumb things about science. And sadly, many in the biological sciences cartel use equally unenlightening terminology.

But let's talk about the issue the way it should be addressed: a question of which proposed hypothesis explains a set of phenomena, field data, and observed processes most comprehensively. That's what science is about. For example, physicists debated among themselves for a couple of decades about the origin of the universe as a whole. Observable data (red shift/Dopler effect, etc.) finally compelled a recognition of a point-in-time origin for said universe (there are some holdouts with "multiverse" and other dreams).

One does get the impression that there is less than a spirit of open enquiry and dialogue within the life sciences. Disagree and criticize, yes--but honestly, Thom, the labeling of any non-Darwininian model as non-scientific reeks with stonewalling and exclusion. Why not let all hypotheses be evaluated on their merits? Who says science must a priori exclude any interface with an intelligence-based origin model (all right, call it "God"). The idea that science must exclude God is an arbitrary and inexcusably biased notion which is not connectable with anything actual observable within science itself. It's just a prejudice.

I like to point out that there are basic phenomena within the biochemical basis of biology for which there is no chemical determinant. For example, the arrangement of the amino acids A, C, T, and G on the "rungs" of the DNA double helix determine the genotype and phenotype of the organism--but are not themselves chemically determined. These and other anomalies at the foundational level of biochemistry caused Dr. Dean Kenyon, emeritus of San Francisco State University, a co-author of a seminal text in evolutionary biochemistry, to question and eventually abandon his evolutionary presuppositions. An input of intelligence is the only hypothesis that will work in these and other phenomena. Why not open that to debate? A Darwinian explanation is not more scientific here; there isn't one.

Being liberal is about taking all points of view offered by qualified proponents (in this case PhDs in the sciences) seriously and not labeling one approach non-scientific because it interfaces with the God issue.

I do appreciate your having occasional conversations with the Discovery Institute people. But your chosen presuppositions make you a hard sell for those of us who like liberal to mean liberal.

May I suggest that you try to get Discovery Institute associates who are practicing scientists to speak on your show-- Stephen Meyer, David Berlinsky, Jonathan Wells, to name three who are published (see Amazon). The DI attorney you spoke with was OK, and did raise the intermediate types issue, for which your response was quite weak, frankly. But please, Thom, get some heavy hitters there, and take a truly liberal approach. Science is not all on one side of the debate.

Thanks, ART

Comments

dhavid 7 years 42 weeks ago
#1

Art, you make a good point when you say "The idea that science must exclude God is an arbitrary and inexcusably biased notion which is not connectable with anything actual observable within science itself. It's just a prejudice." Then you say " An input of intelligence is the only hypothesis that will work in these and other phenomena" concerning certain biochemical processes. In this light the idea, which seem true to me, that the brain is both autonomic function and a conduit for consciousness seems quite plausible.

Seeing the bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God is the root of the problem. Christians have made the bible into, literally, God's words. Bullshit I say; the root cause of christianity's failure.

Zenzoe 7 years 42 weeks ago
#2

Dhavid, I don't know. If you're not careful, you could face the full ire of the Almighty.... “The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish”

Or, even worse...

"..I shall smite thee with my fightful blasting wand so that thy teeth shall drop out, thy skin shall wrinkle, thou shalt have boils on thy bottom and be subject to night sweats, ringing in the ears, falling sickness, flaking dandruff, arthritis, lumbago, uncontrollable dribbling, deafness, runny nose, and ingrowing toenails. Amen." —Herbie Brennan

;-)

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Sign Up For The Thom Hartmann Newsletter Now

  • Discover the Videos of the Day
  • Get The Daily Stack - Each & Every Article that Is Researched for the Program
  • Read Thom's Daily Blog

How Do We Take Back the Military From the Billionaire Owned Military Industrial Complex?

Thom plus logo Democrats (Bernie & Lee) in the senate proposed legislation saying what the Constitution already says: that Trump can't go to war with Iran without congressional authorization. Every Republican on the committee, except Rand Paul, voted against it.