This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Creationists declare war over the brain

Creationists declare war over the brain - Comments

LeeC's Avatar Comment 1 by LeeC

Creationists declare war over the brain

Well, I didn't think they had a brain between them, so I shouldn't be surprised they would start a war to get a brain.

But what will they do with the brain when they if they get it'

Sorry, maybe I should read the article rather than just the headline.


Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:02:00 UTC | #255546

LeeC's Avatar Comment 3 by LeeC

What can scientists do' They have been criticised for not doing enough to teach the public about evolution.


Well, if it wasn't for IDiots passing on misinformation and trying to ban the teaching it would be a lot easier

UPDATE: Why can't I get a bloody question mark' What is wrong with this keyboard' I can see a question mark (') when I type in the comment box, but get a single quote instead when posted'

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:10:00 UTC | #255552

WilliamP's Avatar Comment 2 by WilliamP

I thought they had declared war ON the brain.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:10:00 UTC | #255549

InfuriatedSciTeacher's Avatar Comment 4 by InfuriatedSciTeacher

I'm not sure I see the point of their efforts... neuroscience isn't exactly chock full of people are going to buy into the ridiculously poor logic that DI spews forth regularly, and isn't taught in K-12 education. I suppose they find is necessary to demonstrate something other than a materialist worldview in order to have ANY hope of justifying the rest of their absurd claims. Somehow, this doesn't frighten me in the least. I look forward to seeing them attempt to even UNDERSTAND Dennett, much less debate with him.

edit: in my mirth I seem to have missed a key point: these yokels don't attempt to understand anything, they deliberately MISunderstand it.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:11:00 UTC | #255553

Fuller's Avatar Comment 5 by Fuller

Dualism is a difficult concept to counter, because it's very intuitive to many people.

It's totally wrong, of course.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:11:00 UTC | #255554

Supreme Boeing's Avatar Comment 6 by Supreme Boeing

Yeah, well, that first paragraph is really hard on the brain. Maybe that explains why the creationist zombies need more braaaainzzz...

> Thanks to Supreme Being for the link.

Who's that?

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:13:00 UTC | #255555

frederickofamerica's Avatar Comment 7 by frederickofamerica

its all up to GOD, at least according to Sarah Palin

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:18:00 UTC | #255557

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 8 by Mark Jones

Surely they have to demonstrate a mind/soul, whatever, that can *persist* without the brain? Otherwise they're just saying, this bit of the brain has an effect on this other bit of the brain. Without demonstrable persistence of the mind/soul outside the physical (good luck with that one), what would be the point or significance of the duality anyway?

I've got some question marks here, LeeC, take your pick...


Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:22:00 UTC | #255560

Wosret's Avatar Comment 9 by Wosret

I'm asking us as a world community to go out there and tell the scientific establishment, enough is enough! Materialism needs to start fading away and non-materialist causation needs to be understood as part of natural reality."

Indeed! It is about time the dogmatic scientific establishment recognized Leprechaun-causation, and fairy-causation as a natural part of reality.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:25:00 UTC | #255563

Xplodyncow's Avatar Comment 10 by Xplodyncow

Oh, good, "non-material neuroscience." I hope this means that the Discovery Institute will underwrite my scientifical investigation into non-Christian Christianity.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:26:00 UTC | #255564

Wosret's Avatar Comment 11 by Wosret

Now the institute is funding research into "non-material neuroscience".

How would they go about that exactly? Me thinks they will be getting paid to do nothing.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:32:00 UTC | #255566

root2squared's Avatar Comment 12 by root2squared

"YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz, "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down.

You cannot underestimate the utter contempt and disregard the scientific establishment has for you.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:34:00 UTC | #255568

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 13 by ANTIcarrot

I think scientists sometimes get distracted by details in debates like this. The purpose of science is to make useful predictions.

As long as you can usefully predict what will happen when you press on the gas pedal, it doesn't really matter whether the scientists are right about the car running on petrol, or the IDiots are right about it running on diesel. The key difference is NOT the fuel type, but that only science can make useful predictions. Pretending the car runs on petrol (even if it secretly in some obscure way really doesn't) is still more *useful* than the alternative.

In this case, the question should be, "How do we prove we're right," but rather, "Okay, fine - the mind is non material. How does that help us treat patients?" It's an obvious and inescapable conclusion that a supernatural theory of mind is completely useless for the purpose of health care.

Why bother playing a chess game when you can go straight to checkmate?

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:42:00 UTC | #255570

Wosret's Avatar Comment 14 by Wosret

I think it's funny how definite these clowns are of what it isn't, yet they can't give you s single piece of information about what it actually is.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:44:00 UTC | #255572

LeeC's Avatar Comment 15 by LeeC

Comment #269164 by Mark Jones

I've got some question marks here, LeeC, take your pick...

Thanks... I'll have the blue one.

Let's try the cut and paste method


Let's try the keyboard with the question mark symbol '

Bugger - still doesn't work, but thanks for trying

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:44:00 UTC | #255573

Greyman's Avatar Comment 16 by Greyman

11. Comment #269170 by Mitchell Gilks on October 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Now the institute is funding research into "non-material neuroscience".

How would they go about that exactly?  Me thinks they will be getting paid to do nothing.

Well, they have plenty of practice at that, do they not?

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:51:00 UTC | #255577

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 17 by rod-the-farmer

Reminds me of an old saying, "Bullsh## baffles brains". Can someone arrange a live video recording of real scientists laughing them out of the hall when they try to present this ?

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:58:00 UTC | #255582

debacles's Avatar Comment 18 by debacles

dont make me slap a dualist

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:59:00 UTC | #255584

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 19 by NewEnglandBob

Patricia Churchland got it exactly right: is an argument from ignorance. The fact something isn't currently explained doesn't mean it will never be explained or that we need to completely change not only our neuroscience but our physics.

I look at the names here like Dembski, Beauregard, and the Discovery Institute and you can see that these are the names known for their ignorance. These are the people who have been discredited so often and by so many that they should be embarrassed to still be around.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:20:00 UTC | #255592

Don_Quix's Avatar Comment 20 by Don_Quix

How in the world could you even begin to scientifically study something that is non-material/not part of this universe?

I suppose their idea of "scientific study" involves a great deal of prayer and genuflection.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:27:00 UTC | #255597

Daniella's Avatar Comment 21 by Daniella

What is matter' Never mind.
What is mind' No matter.

Georges Dupenois

Where do they think this non material mind is situated' How are we accessing it' Does it hover over our heads' Is it tied with a non material piece of string around our ankle' When you "loose your mind" is there some sort of lost and found bin in the after life where you can claim it back' When you "change your mind" do you some how pick up a new one' If you have a "clashing of the minds" are they actually (non materially) clashing with the other persons'

F**ckn IDiots!

EDIT: No questions marks for me either :(

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:29:00 UTC | #255599

Nick LaRue's Avatar Comment 22 by Nick LaRue

Why don't they try to prove dualism? If mind and brain are different things then maybe if you put the 'material' brain in a different bodies the 'mind' can inherit the new brain. Of course trying to do this without killing people first might be difficult. Then of course you have the problem of volunteers for such an experiment, I'm sure none of these ID scientist have the balls to do it. I'm also sure they'd say my idea for an experiment to prove it would not work for some reason or another.

Of course I'm not suggesting we go around performing lobotomies on people, unless of course they want them. Then there are probably those who could use one and.... oops got ahead of myself... (pun intended)

That said, this is just another bunch of creationist crap trying to dig it's heels in to prove that 'god' exists. I'm so tired of their weak experiments and picking on developing sciences. They should make a law banning this garbage.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:32:00 UTC | #255605

Don_Quix's Avatar Comment 23 by Don_Quix

Where do they think this non material mind is situated' How are we accessing it' Does it hover over our heads' Is it tied with a non material piece of string around our ankle'
Exactly. Even if that were the case, at some point there would have to be some kind of interface between the material and "non-material" sides, otherwise there would be no information transfer (which would be the same thing as not having it). Such a structure in the human brain would likely be quite easy to detect ("Hmmm...this structure seems to be extremely active and has no apparent physical purpose. It must be the modem to God!"). There is absolutely zero evidence of any such thing.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:34:00 UTC | #255608

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 24 by Bonzai

I fail to see how "dualism" would lead to "God" or supernaturalism.

Computer softwares can be implemented on different hardware platforms. So there is this "duality" between hardware and software in the sense that taking a computer apart and staring at the mother board is not going to tell you how it solves equations with Newton's method, for example. But there is nothing supernatural about it.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:35:00 UTC | #255610

Janus's Avatar Comment 25 by Janus


dualism could be defined as you propose, but that's never what dualists actually believe. The point of dualism is that Mind is a substance, i.e. that it is irreducible, i.e. that it is supernatural.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:40:00 UTC | #255614

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 26 by Bonzai


I know that is not what the religious dualists believe, but that is at most what they can legitimately argue for.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:43:00 UTC | #255618

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 27 by Border Collie

It's amazing how much emotion and idiocy a little funding can dredge up ...

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:44:00 UTC | #255621

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 29 by Steve Zara

Comment #269214 by Bonzai

Hardware/software dualism is a bit misleading, I think. If you look at the motherboard in enough detail you will see the arrangements of electrons and magnetic fields in the memory and the ROMS, and from those it would be easy to find out how the equation solving was done.

I don't think any kind of dualism makes sense.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:48:00 UTC | #255625

Don_Quix's Avatar Comment 28 by Don_Quix

Well, this should all be pretty easy to settle with a little research. All that is required is to ask someone who has been dead for a number of years and then come back to li...oh wait. Nevermind.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:48:00 UTC | #255624

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 30 by Bonzai


I think. If you look at the motherboard in enough detail you will see the arrangements of electrons and magnetic fields in the memory and the ROMS, and from those it would be easy to find out how the equation solving was done.

Only if you are a programmer of machine language, so there is an interface.

But for the purpose of the software programmer and the trouble shooting guy these are two seperate levels.

EDIT: For the computer we build the damn thing so we know about the interface, but for the brain we don't.

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:51:00 UTC | #255627