Comments on: Intelligent design and popular culture: Population crank is now U.S. science and technology policy director

By: GSV

GSV — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:39:51 +0000

Ms O’leary could you clarify what you mean by this please? I am unable to parse it.

“The brain is reparable because the focus of attention of the mind repairs it.”

By: O'Leary

O'Leary — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:02:31 +0000

DarelRex,

First, clarification re Taub: I was defending Taub, not exposing him. I was exposing Holdren and Ehrlich.

While you are right in saying that overpopulation and irreparable brain theories could be just as bogus even if materialism were true, they are vastly less likely if intelligent design is true.

The brain is reparable because the focus of attention of the mind repairs it. That will not be a materialist theory of the mind until a plausible materialist theory of the mind arises.

Don’t look to Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, or Richard Dawkins for that.

Both the high science culture and the popular science culture fastened on the overpopulation and irreparable-brain theories because they supported worldviews dear to them. How about

People = insects.
Brains = machines.
Therefore, massive intervention = good?

Patrick, Big Science is totally, head over heels, into materialism.

Big Science and materialism are quite obviously synonyms at present. So, with respect, I am not clear on the point of your critique.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:33:13 +0000

I noticed that as well. A phrase like “Big Science” would make more sense in this context.

By: DarelRex

DarelRex — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:20:24 +0000

I thoroughly enjoy your exposés of Holdren, Ehrlich, and Taub. But where does the swipe against “materialist science” come from? Seems to me that strict materialism could be completely true throughout any given day, year, century, or millennium, and the overpopulation and irreparable-brain theories would be just as bogus.