*applause*

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Strange picture of Obama there…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Could we dare hope that a ray of light is peeking through our dark ages of superstition?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Silly name for this effort. The benefits of education are hardly limited to notions of “innovation”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“What gets paid gets done.”  There is no truer truism.  When Americans get recognized and paid for their intellect this country hopefully will emerge from present day mind set of consumerism’s “you deserve it” and the egotistical “it’s a free country, so no one can tell me what to do”. 
Nurturing of our children and their truthful education is essential.
Obama is trying, I feel, to make this happen.  Thanks for the intellectuals of this country.
Where would this country be today if John McCain were in the White House?  I shudder at the thought!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I wouldn’t get carried away on Obama’s rational-thinking glory just yet. Remember he was addressing the NAS, not the NCSE. He has made no clear statements – to my knowledge – that evolution, not creationism, ID or guided evolution is the “science” he is championing.

As for McCain, he would have done some things better than Obama and some things worse. Either way, Obama is not going to lead us into the great American Enlightenment anymore than any other leader that supports faith-based initiatives, ubiquitously stated church-affiliations, discussions and inaugurations lead by the likes of Rick Warren, social policies modeled on outdated and unsuccessful ideologies and a foreign policy that amounts to self-flogging on the one hand and indecisive inaction on the other.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m not sure how I feel about his only in the sense that there are plenty of religiosos who get doctoral degrees in physics and never have there faith claims challenged as sam notes. So as long as faith is considered beyond sustained criticism it won’t matter how many little scientists you churn out. They already know the one conclusion they’ll reason toward.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

thank darwin there is nothing faith based about darwinism.

nothing faith based about the idea that all of the matter in the universe at one time was contained in the size of a head of a needle.

ok the math runs out there but try some reason and logic on the idea that all the matter in the universe was that small.

materialism and religion: two sides of the same coin called faith based.

at least the religious know they are faith based the materialist does not have a clue they are faith based.

once a person buys into scientism, materialism, or religious dogma the rest becomes faith based.

naw we are all here by chance and there is no meaning to life but lets do good in the world after all the world is meaningless.

think deeply where that desire to do good comes from. if you say the evolutionary process then think were the desire to do harm comes from.

your materialistic paradigm will make your answer to that question will be based in intellectualism not intelligence.

wake up you have been had by the intellectuals. they know not. used to be one. a professor with pure intellectual status.

intellectualism is not intelligence best kept secret in the world. an intellectual is a walking library.

my own phd is nothing more than a degree in intellectualism it took a realization to awaken this sleeping mind to the very beginning of intelligence.

at least mc war would have invaded iran and we would have control of both iran and iraq oil.

to the victors belongs the oil. the american way.

obama wins a peace prize and will send over 30,000 more troops in our wars and nation building for profits. that is intellectualism as materialism in the form of capitalism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,
What do you claim is the preferred alternative TO materialism, and why?  Also, if you don’t mind me asking, what did you profess with pure intellectual status when you were a professor? 

I suspect that “intellectualism is not intelligence” is what Dan Dennet would call a “deepity”, but if it really does mean something of significance that’s not obvious, perhaps you could explain what YOU mean by it?

I do think that some PART of the desire to do good comes from evolution, since humans are social animals and so within the group at least have strong drives to ensure that our fellow tribe-members are happy and healthy and safe almost as much as ourselves.  Beyond that, though, we also have intellects that can allow us to explore possibilities and implications of our choices and behaviors and to think about what kind of world we would prefer to live in and to have those we love live in.  That’s all you really need to have a desire to do good…most people would rather not live in a world where the “desire to do harm” is indulged above the “desire to do good.”  We can often be short-sighted and allow ourselves to ignore the implications of what we do and are often guilty of applying (in our own minds) different standards to ourselves than to others, but these are errors, and I think over time most of us learn from those errors and improve at least a little.

Back to the original topic of the article:  While I of course doubt that the program Obama has endorsed will be anything LIKE what we would wish to see carried out, at least we have a president who recognizes that science and math and education in general are important for the continued success of a technological society.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi DoctorMelkor,

  Good point and questions. I wouldn’t expect an answer though. He doesn’t seem particularly interested in conversation.

  Researcher’s points started off sounding interesting, though lack of discussion does lead one to think that ‘deepities’ are at least a valid critisism until he justifies the exact context of his issues. Sticking ‘ism’ on the end of a word and listing it next to the original does not a conversation make.

  His use of intellectualism and scientism are interesting. Intellectualism could tie into the belief that geology trumps biblical creationism or disbelief in faeries being just intellectual statements, he seems to use it in that context, like the belief you are right is a type of superiority. You can frame it like this i suppose and a discussion of how the difference between evidentially right/wrong and belief in evidentially right and wrong would be interested, though it has been dealt with by philosophers for a while now. The charge of scientism is another one of his favorites. As he use’s it this seems to be the objection that belief in science is just another faith. Again this would be worth discussion. I would say that there are aspects in which this is true, though belief in science is a little different that faith in the supernatural, else we wouldnt be using different language and arguments for the two. I would say that in the sphere of mental health flirtation with fiction is fine, though crossing into belief creates a large potential for action outside of fiction, which is the problem. Actioning faith in science can create new drugs, new computers, new everything as well as creating hope for many people with various disabilities. Of course it can be used for negative things, but this is where laws and political engagement help over prayer. His argument about faith in science is partially valid, though for his own advantage he misses some rather obvious differences.

To solve this problem he posts and runs.

(apologies to researcher if i’ve mistaken your gender)

Ben

You don't have permission to flag this entry.