Bird Flu and Superstition

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
Americans and their leaders will have to get over their love affair with intelligent design . Polls show that most don't believe in evolution. But it is actually impossible to talk logically about bird flu, or any other rapidly evolving and constantly changing virus, without using the language of evolution -- specific words such as "mutant," "recombination," "genome" and "selection." Without that language, a sensible popular or political discussion, let alone a scientific discussion, is impossible: We're stuck talking about the virus "jumping" from birds to humans, as if it were a magic bug with a mind of its own. We're stuck thinking that a virus is a hex that can be lifted with a single lucky charm, not something that will change over time.

We're also stuck with magic solutions: silver bullets, protective amulets, Tamiflu prescriptions. And until we are willing to elect the politicians, pay the businessmen, and support the scientists and science educators who can come up with something better, that, I'm afraid, is all the flu preparedness we'll ever have.
link

The emergence of new viral strains is an example of evolution at work, and it gets difficult when you accept that evolution can occur at one scale but put a barrier there for larger scale (both physical and temporal) change.
 
I find it hard to believe that most Americans don't believe in evolution. When you can virtually see something so obvious happening, I don't know how you can argue convincingly against it.
 
Well you start saying that mutation occurs on small scales, i.e. bacteria, and selective pressures work there but larger scale change is impossible.
 
I also find it difficult to believe that "most Americans" don't believe in evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if my state, Alabama, was predominantly creationist, given the number of Southern Baptists, but the country?
 
^ Is this strictly because of religiosity, do you think? Or is there perhaps a more general, cynical disaffectation with science involved?
 
This is quite a sophomoric analysis trying to link the bird flu with the creation/evolution debate. We've seen far too many mutations of viruses to support the idea that we "cannot talk logically about the bird flu".
 
nbcrusader said:
This is quite a sophomoric analysis trying to link the bird flu with the creation/evolution debate.



there's no "debate."

there is science, and there is superstition.

to equate the two as somehow equally worthy views is completely false.
 
nbcrusader said:
Sorry, we are back to the one way conversation.



sorry, but it's not as if the two things can even be in dialogue when we are dealing with science, which studies things that can be tested and quantified. you cannot do this with superstitions.

it's not even apples to oranges.
 
nbcrusader said:
Sounds like you agree then.



yes, i agree with the fact that it is impossible to formulate a cogent, comprehensive policy in regards to a virus that is subject to the laws of science when we have to deal with increasing religiosity in the language of politicians and in the citizenry of many parts of the united states.

i think china and india are cheering -- we're going to lose our edge in math and science because things like evolution and creationism are somehow viewed as two subjects equally worthy of debate and consideration.

yet another example where blind, literal adherence to a centuries old text is a formula for getting people killed.
 
nbcrusader said:
I guess you are about inclusion unless it is something you want to exclude.

This one is effectively derailed.

Good bye.



well, good bye, but the point is that there isn't a debate. the two are not comparable, and it would be irresponsible for anyone not to speak out when the two are equated.

it amazes me how you can draw parallels between things like, say, social inclusion and then say that's the same thing as factual inclusion -- do we include non-facts in science classrooms? should we be sensitive to the beliefs of creationist when, as the article notes, evolutionary language is needed to understand and then create effective policy to combat something as deadly as this bird flu?

i'm not going to let people die so a creationist can feel included in the formulation of medical policy.
 
Irvine511 said:
well, good bye, but the point is that there isn't a debate. the two are not comparable, and it would be irresponsible for anyone not to speak out when the two are equated.

The reality is: there is a debate. The fact you don't want one is a separate issue. It's a bigger world out there.
 
nbcrusader said:


The reality is: there is a debate. The fact you don't want one is a separate issue. It's a bigger world out there.



now this post, my friend, is one that isn't worthy of a response.
 
if you only knew how much i actually have to live the dumbing down of math and science education out of "sensitivity" to the home schooling market.

that's where my visceral reaction to this comes from.

i see kids getting bad, watered down, equivocated information.

it makes the home schoolers happy, and it makes my company happy because the product is purchased because it spoon feeds qualified information to the narrow-minded.

it is the children who lose.
 
Yes, there is a debate. It belongs in religion or alternately, philosophy classes.

Get it the hell out of biology class, biochemistry class, immunology class, bacteriology class, virology class and so on.
 
are we not all supposed to be so open minded but when someone disagrees with our opinion how we become so defensive. What a benign society it would be if we could not disagree. If not bird flu something else will get you so who gives a shit. We all die some day. Can anyone disagree with that point? Oh I suppose re-encarnation could but I am not offended.
 
cseggleton said:
are we not all supposed to be so open minded but when someone disagrees with our opinion how we become so defensive. What a benign society it would be if we could not disagree. If not bird flu something else will get you so who gives a shit. We all die some day. Can anyone disagree with that point? Oh I suppose re-encarnation could but I am not offended.



evolution is perhaps the best supported scientific theory.

creatinism is not even an opinion, it is a belief/superstition.

saying that someone is factually incorrect when they are is the responsible thing to do.

a teacher would not be doing her job if she allowed children to hold incorrect beliefs in their heads (i.e., "London is the capital of Finland"). something that is factually incorrect is not an opinion, nor should it be treated as such.
 
Irvine511 said:


i think china and india are cheering

Uh-I think China & India are sweating because the migratory bird paths of that area is going to spread avian influenza across both of them. And before you think they are above religous supersitions, why not look into one of the main ways A.I. is passing to humans in rural SE Asia (I'll give you a hint-it inolves a drink made of duck blood).
 
:scratch: What does that have to do with anything? Do they distribute this duck blood drink to public schoolchildren and make them drink it?

I believe Irvine was referring to who will have the competitive edge in the sci/tech jobs market of the future, not to who is most likely to get bird flu.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom