Greg Z. Newcomb ([info]docnuke) wrote,
@ 2005-05-17 15:11:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
The Science Nazi
When Seinfeld was the biggest thing on TV, I wasn’t a fan. It’s not that I dislike the show, I just didn’t watch a lot of standard prime time programming. Seeing the show in syndication, I’ve always gotten a laugh from it.

I hope Mr. Seinfeld and Mr. David will just keep counting their millions and excuse me for adapting a bit of their routine for a new program I’d like to propose: The Science Nazi.

Much like the soup-denying character from Seinfeld, the Science Nazi will have his catch-phrase: “NO SCIENCE FOR YOU!” This will be used to deny the benefits of science to those in our society who continually seek to forgo science for mysticism, spirituality and superstition.

Why do we need the Science Nazi? Have you taken a look at what’s happening in Kansas right now? A bunch of idiots promoting “Intelligent Design” are trying to make the Kansas Board of Education abandon evolution in science classes. The “Intelligent Design” guys will insist that they just want to provide an alternate to evolution, which they feel is just an unproven theory. As the great Carl Sagan once said, “Bullshit!” No, wait, that was Penn & Teller. What Sagan said was “Evolution is a fact, not a theory.” Evolutionary changes can be observed in small increments over decades in simple species such as insects, and the fossil record continues to provide us with links between complex organisms, such as the recent dinosaur find that helps bridge the gap between meat and plant eaters.

See the Intelligent Design folks make their argument without any published studies, documentation, or any of the paperwork that people making these kinds of arguments should be required to produce. They don’t say who or what the “intelligence” behind the design is because then they’d be required to provide proof of it. Basically, they want you to take it on faith that it can happen, because nature is so well organized. Yes, nature that produces two-headed snakes, flies that live for less than a day and tree-hugging marsupials that only eat Eucalyptus.

One of the other reasons the Intelligent Design folks don’t want to mention the method for the intelligence is that then they’d be forced to reveal that its just Creationism promoted by their evangelical Christian backers. I guess they just feel that Kansas, with its lack of topography, will be more open to their attempts to drag education back into the dark ages because nothing opens the mind more than a Kansas landscape.

This is why we need the Science Nazi. In a situation like this, he would walk up to the Kansas Board of Education and announce:

NO SCIENCE FOR YOU!

What’s that Mr. Board Member? You want to use your cell phone? Sorry that was only possible with the scientific discovery of radio waves.

NO SCIENCE FOR YOU!

What’s that Mr. Intelligent Design/Creationist? You want to drive your giant SUV? Sorry, gasoline is a fossil fuel from the days of the dinosaurs, which don’t exist in your Bible. Not to mention the refining process, and the workings of the internal combustion engine.

NO SCIENCE FOR YOU!

What’s that Mr. Concerned Parent? You don’t support gay marriage cause it’s “unnatural” since gays can’t breed, even though your own quadruplets couldn’t have been born without fertility drugs?

NO SCIENCE FOR YOU!

What’s that President Bush? You don’t support stem cell research and denounce global warming, yet you want to bomb places and send spaceships to Mars? Bombs and rocket fuel don’t just magically appear like the voices in your head that told you to be president.

NO SCIENCE FOR YOU!

These are just a few of the reasons why we need the Science Nazi. We need to remind people that they can’t have it both ways. They can’t have their 21st century technology, medicine and conveniences and still expect society to adhere to fairy tales from 2,000 years ago. If they want that kind of life, they can hang out with the Amish or set up a sanctuary cut off from the world like in The Village. If they are lucky and a divine source is watching out for them, maybe a bunch of them won’t drop dead from easily curable diseases.

Oh, and you, the guy right there, yes you, the one who doesn’t want kids reading Harry Potter because magic is bad, unless it’s Jesus-magic. You shouldn’t be using a computer, that’s chock-full of science and technical wizardry. Log off! Get out of here!

NO SCIENCE FOR YOU!



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(67 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Bravo
[info]nanorc
2005-05-18 12:12 am UTC (link)
Bravo, Doc Nuke! I agree 100%!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Bravo
[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 04:08 pm UTC (link)
Thanks, Nanorc! Good to see you here amongst the crazies. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2005-05-18 06:09 pm UTC (link)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7898702 :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)

That sucks...
[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 06:40 pm UTC (link)
The link from my mysterious visitor mentions the death of Frank Gorshin, a great impressionist and the man who will always embody The Riddler.

Perhaps I can put my dislike of Quentin Tarantino aside long enough to see Gorshin's guest appearance on the CSI finale...

Farewell, Frank, I'm doing my Riddler laugh in your honor....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: That sucks... - [info]shadowflyer, 2005-05-18 07:55 pm UTC

[info]xanath
2005-05-18 06:40 pm UTC (link)
This is fantastic. Mind if I link? (I'm here from metaquotes.)

--Kris

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 06:41 pm UTC (link)
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.

Go right ahead.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]xanath, 2005-05-18 06:55 pm UTC

[info]hugh_mannity
2005-05-18 06:41 pm UTC (link)
You were metaquoted. So I dropped by to give you a supersize "Attaboy!"

*applauds wildly*

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 06:43 pm UTC (link)
I've never owned a supersize "Attaboy" before, that's awesome.

I shall display it proudly. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]salzara_tirwen, 2005-05-18 08:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]docnuke, 2005-05-18 08:22 pm UTC

[info]ajodasso
2005-05-18 06:42 pm UTC (link)
Ahaha! Wonderful!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 06:44 pm UTC (link)
Thank you.

Gee, I'm the belle of the ball today.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]neadods, 2005-05-18 08:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]docnuke, 2005-05-18 08:23 pm UTC

[info]shinuhana
2005-05-18 06:48 pm UTC (link)
I dropped by from metaquotes. You crack me up. I hope you don't mind that I friended you :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 06:49 pm UTC (link)
I don't mind. I'm not always this amusing, but I have my moments.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]shinuhana, 2005-05-18 06:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]docnuke, 2005-05-18 06:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]shinuhana, 2005-05-18 07:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]docnuke, 2005-05-18 07:44 pm UTC

[info]lannamichaels
2005-05-18 06:50 pm UTC (link)
You rock.

(Reply to this)


[info]liddle_oldman
2005-05-18 07:15 pm UTC (link)
Fine idea!

After they set up their sanctuary to protect them from evil science -- let's release smallpox into it. I doubt if their God meant us to exterminate something that their God had given them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]duckflambe
2005-05-20 12:06 am UTC (link)
No need to release smallpox, without science most of them wouldn't last past winter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sunfell
2005-05-18 07:17 pm UTC (link)
I'm crossposting this to [info]dark_christian- it's great!

(Reply to this)


[info]mycroftxxx
2005-05-18 07:22 pm UTC (link)
*sigh* If only public denial worked that way. As I was reading this, I was thinking of the other definition of "Science Nazi" - and imagined Brownshirts of Science(tm). I could so easily see young athiest boys recruited from schools going around and informing on the idiocy of people around them, bringing down the terrifying wrath of Dougie Howser (from his role in Starship Troopers, natch) and the SSoS! (SS of Science!).

As pleasant as the thought of one of those collapsable metal baton being whipped across the face of a southern baptist patriarch is, is there actually anything that can be done in the real world to put the semiotic hurt on the antirational?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 07:30 pm UTC (link)
Vote 'em out of office. Set up laws so that a true majority is heard and not just the squeaky wheels (such as the fact that 98 percent of the indecency complaints received by the FCC comes from one Christian group and not from the majority of television and radio viewers/listeners) and constantly challenge them to come to the table with facts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mycroftxxx, 2005-05-18 10:49 pm UTC

[info]allassein
2005-05-18 07:32 pm UTC (link)
Also here from Metaquotes. Mind if I friend you?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 07:44 pm UTC (link)
I don't mind at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]allassein, 2005-05-18 07:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]docnuke, 2005-05-18 08:02 pm UTC

[info]slashaddict13
2005-05-18 07:51 pm UTC (link)
Too true! I'm going to be passing this post along to my husband as well. He's going to love it!

(Reply to this)


[info]scendan
2005-05-18 08:35 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for this. I think I shall go off and reread Sagans The Demon-Haunted World now. Awesome. Mind if I link?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 08:37 pm UTC (link)
You're welcome. No, I don't mind.

The best part of reading a Sagan book is hearing his voice in your head.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]scendan, 2005-05-18 09:25 pm UTC

[info]daromaius
2005-05-18 10:01 pm UTC (link)
I'm disturbed that spirituality is lumped in with superstition and mysticism.

Beyond that, amusing post.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 10:56 pm UTC (link)
Keep in mind that one person's spirituality is another persons supersition or mysticism.

There's nothing inherently wrong with any of them, so long as you are not basing the rules of society on them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]daromaius, 2005-05-19 12:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]morgash, 2005-05-19 09:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daromaius, 2005-05-19 09:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]morgash, 2005-05-20 04:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daromaius, 2005-05-20 04:54 pm UTC

[info]lafinjack
2005-05-18 10:46 pm UTC (link)
Thank you.

(Reply to this)


[info]soberloki
2005-05-18 11:01 pm UTC (link)
May I bear your children? I promise, they'll deserve their science. Lots of it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-18 11:32 pm UTC (link)
Well, I'm afraid I'm spoken for, and I'm not really into the mini-me thing.

The Science Nazi, however, is very much available.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]isilmelupus
2005-05-18 11:57 pm UTC (link)
What is wrong with providing another point of view on the subject of evolution? Yes macro evolution is observable but what about micro? That defies the laws of thermodynamics. If evolution is true then teaching intelliegent design as well should be no threat to it. In fact it would probably support it, so why act so threatened by it? People deserve to see all points of view and angles of a situation or theory, not just the one you think is right. I want both to be taught, not just one. Let them decide for themselves based on the evidence they see, let them at least know they have another option on what to believe. Even Darwin gave credit to a single creator when he wrote his theory of evolution.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]morgash
2005-05-19 02:18 pm UTC (link)
"That defies the laws of thermodynamics."

Au contraire. Rather than explain it myself, I will defer to Bob Riggins, a science teacher from South Texas, and his article called Thermodynamics for Two, Please.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]silmaril, 2005-05-19 04:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]whswhs, 2005-05-19 05:48 pm UTC

[info]madfishmonger
2005-05-19 03:01 am UTC (link)
Here from metaquotes. Linked you in my journal. Very amusing ;)

(Reply to this)

Stiring up the pot, my job in life.
[info]loving_to_love
2005-05-19 06:09 am UTC (link)
As I don't watch mainstream TV or read newspapers, I just became aware of the term Intelligent Design only two days ago. And while I agree with Carl Sagan that evolution is fact, not theory; there are still some unanswered questions with regard to two major elements in my line of reasoning.

1- the Intelligence or cause behind the Big Bang; and
2- some obvious missing links in the evolution of mankind.

Dinosaurs are obvious. We have footprints, bones, and enough fossil fuel to power automobiles for a century. But we have primates and just a few rare specimens of evolving man where there should be dinasaur amounts (well . . . proportionately).

I have proposed that "man" was genetically engineered from naturally evolving primates simply because of the lack of a multitude of evidence supporting the evolution of modern man. Man *is* evolving. We're getting bigger. We're getting taller. There are millions and millions of supporting carcasses to prove it. But where are the millions of carcasses between quasi upright man and upright man?

Fundamentalist Christians don't want to entertain the genetic engineering of human beings anymore than "scientists" do. But I think the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. Even modern mathematicians who approach reality from the quantum level are finding an underlying Intelligence behind what appears to be chaos.

What is wrong with acknowledging this? Creationism reeks of religion. But "Intelligent Design" is a term that is at least open to investigating the intelligence behind the obviousness of evolution. If it is religion in science's clothing, shame on them. But I personally like the notion of taking into consideration that there is an intelligence that seems to pervade the universe. It is so obvious to me that to ignore it seems ignorance at its finest hour. Perhaps something was set into motion billions of years ago . . . and perhaps at some point, when a certain level evolution had occurred, someone . . . from somwhere (perhaps the same folks that set things into motion in the first place?) . . . intervened, manipulated a little DNA here and there and . . . voila . . . mankind was born.

Just a thought . . . neither of the opposing views make sense all by themselves. Remember Carl Sagan also wrote a book of fiction ["Contact"] in which he incorporated an intelligence that monitored human behavior, accessible not by space travel but by interdimensional travel. While a work of fiction, it came from the same mind that perhaps could not propose what he believed to be true to the scientific community, which can be as close minded and dogmatic as the Fundamentalists. I think the mathematicians will eventually bridge the gap. Right now they are as harranged by the hard cold scientific ("if I can't smell it, it doesn't exist") community as the Christians are. They almost work in the realm of pure mind.

I did enjoy your piece :) Very clever.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Stiring up the pot, my job in life.
[info]docnuke
2005-05-19 10:54 am UTC (link)
Sagan noted in Cosmos that if we come to the conclusion that "God created the universe" then the inevitable question is "What created God?" As he put it, the question is "too big."

Is it possible that something has had a hand in the laws of nature? Possibly. Could something have manipulated genetic codes, or set in motion a series of events that led to what we know as the universe? Of course it is possible. Legitimate science would jump at the chance to find evidence of intelligence beyond what we currently understand, whether it be from another dimension, planet or even from deep within organic cells (as some would propose that mitochondria almost act as a separate entity within a living cell).

The heart of good science is an open mind. It is constantly questioning what we know, or think we know, and then seeking to prove or disprove those questions with repeated tests.

If the promoters of Intelligent Design were actual scientists, they would come forth with research, but they offer nothing beyond a plea for considering something beyond evolution, which they claim is flawed. Since they are backed by Evangelical organizations, it would seem that they have an agenda beyond trying to expand scientific horizons.

I'm glad you enjoyed the piece. Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]morgash
2005-05-19 01:54 pm UTC (link)
In his ongoing columns for Slate magazine, William Saletan gives an excellent description of how ID evolved from basic Creationism--ironic, huh?--and how ID is being used in Kansas. Here's one telling passage:
Essentially, ID proponents are gambling that they can concede evolutionist earth science without conceding evolutionist life science. But they can't. They already acknowledge microevolution—mutation and natural selection within a species. Once you accept conventional fossil dating and four billion years of life, the sequential kinship of species loses its implausibility. You can't fall back on the Bible; you've already admitted it can't always be taken literally. All you're left with is an assortment of gaps in evolutionary theory—how did DNA emerge, what happened between this and that fossil—and the vague default assumption that an "intelligence" might fill in those gaps.

Whether you agree with him or not, Saletan's column makes some cogent points.

(Reply to this)


[info]gyobaku
2005-05-19 06:49 pm UTC (link)
Not all Christians are Bible-toting, pro-life homophobics, you know. :/

Looking past that, this is funny, thanks for posting.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]docnuke
2005-05-21 03:35 pm UTC (link)
I know that the vast majority of Christians aren't. Unfortunately, that majority is not in control of the country right now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]anne_jumps
2005-05-19 06:54 pm UTC (link)
We need to remind people that they can’t have it both ways. They can’t have their 21st century technology, medicine and conveniences and still expect society to adhere to fairy tales from 2,000 years ago. If they want that kind of life, they can hang out with the Amish or set up a sanctuary cut off from the world like in The Village. If they are lucky and a divine source is watching out for them, maybe a bunch of them won’t drop dead from easily curable diseases.

That's my favorite part. I just quoted that.

(Reply to this)


[info]nemo_wistar
2005-05-19 09:02 pm UTC (link)
You can thank [info]anne_jumps for sending me to you. Excellent piece.

Shameless self plug: If you are a fan of the insanity that is Jack Chick, then feel free to brouse my archives for a series of dissections. I think you'll enjoy them.

(Reply to this)


[info]temima
2005-05-20 12:08 am UTC (link)
While ID and fundamentalist Christianity was the focus of the post, people who take the Hebrew Bible and the Quran as literal license to be assholes to women, gays, and each other should have engineering, genetic testing, fertility drugs, and so much more, withdrawn.

Meanwhile, the rest of us who think both different religions and science keep each other thoughtful will sigh about being lumped with the dinks, often by the dinks themselves.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]originaluddite
2007-03-20 01:05 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for expanding this to more than one religion. The 'Science Nazis' (assuming that 'Science' also covers 'Technology') could also deprive Islamic fundamentalists of - like - guns and bombs and stuff. Mind you we would still have the problem of non-religious assholes (e.g. like the Nazis themselves).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Nice thought, but...
[info]karl_lembke
2005-05-20 07:27 am UTC (link)
One thing the opponents of science, whether it's the Intelligent Design-Intelligent Origin Theory (ID-IOT) crowd or the People Eschewing Testing on Animals, all assert is that the thing they oppose is not required for scientific advancement to take place.

The folks at PETA will explain to you, slowly and in very small words so you can understand it, that computer models and tissue cultures are perfectly adequate for conducting research. Not only that, they're cheaper and more effective.

Never mind how tissue cultures were developed and computer models validated, or how they're checked when gaps in the software become apparent. My argument in rebuttal is a simple economic one. IF non-animal research methods are so much better, why are no labs using them to the exclusion of animal methods? Money for research is tight, and researchers are in constant competition for limited funds. If you could substitute a cheaper, more effective analytical technique, you'd be more likely to receive that grant (it'd be smaller, so they're more likely to part with the money). If non-animal methods are more effective, then consider that the people who fund research are not handing over that money as a full-employment program for researchrs. They want to see results – a cure for something, or a new fuel source, or even just a better cosmetic. They have an incentive to look for anything that might improve their chances of realizing what they want their money to produce.

If we assert that the Animal Research Establishment is conspiring to reject alternatives no matter how much better they are, someone – maybe some organization like PETA? – could establish a lab that uses non-animal research methods. Sooner or later, the increased productivity would be obvious to all, especially to those who want to see real results for the money they funnel into research proposals.

Likewise, the ID-IOT crowd can ignore the scientific basis for selective breeding, hybridization, and genetic engineering. If your perspective is sufficiently myopic, you'll never be disturbed by where the horizons lead. The ability of a person to ignore facts they don't like and feel perfectly justified in helping themselves to the results of those facts should not be underestimated.

(Also linked from my blog.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Nice thought, but...
(Anonymous)
2005-05-20 06:53 pm UTC (link)
Intelligent Design-Intelligent Origin Theory (ID-IOT)

... I just fell in love with you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Nice thought, but... - [info]karl_lembke, 2005-05-20 09:48 pm UTC

(67 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…