Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? 1722
smooth wombat writes "As a follow-up to a recently posted Slashdot article, Reuters UK has an article which poses the question: is the U.S. becoming hostile to science? From the article: 'Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation,' said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3. Cornell acting President Hunter Rawlings, in his state of the university address last week, spoke about the challenge to science represented by intelligent design which holds that the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists is fatally flawed. Rawlings said the dispute was widening political, social, religious and philosophical rifts in U.S. society. 'When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers,' he said." What is your take?
Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Not Just Science (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about the message science is bringing. Some people, for religious, political or business reasons don't want to hear what science is saying. This is initially a case of trying to silence the messenger. Not just about science, either. Tell people the economy stinks, they can see the evidence all around then, and they deny it.
Seems every couple generations people in the US have to re-learn the hard lessons of their forebearers. Silence science in this country and it'll be carried on all the more in other countries. e.g. Stem Cell Research. The State of California approved a bond for stem cell research, a few billion $ if IIRC, not much of it has been spent and it will be years before any of it is, on research, because a bunch of Right To Lifers are fighting it on many fronts in state courts.
Well, I'm pro-science, but does that matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am pro-science, anti-god, some people are pro-science, pro-god, some are anti-science, pro-god, and even some (particulary insane ones) are anti-science, anti-god.
America, as a whole, can be considered none of the above. There's roughly 250,000,000 people in the US. Even if 95% of them absolutely hated science, that'd leave millions left to fight for reason.
No, no, no (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, I guess it makes sense, because nobody ever holds an "I'm riding the fence on this one" rally.
Still, this is making us look bad because the ones with the crazy opinions are the ones with the loudest voices sometimes.
Of course it is (Score:3, Insightful)
All this "Intelligent design" crap is for the physical adults that chose to remain mental children
Just look at the banning of the nature videos at the Imax theaters recently because the films discuss evolution..
The zealots in washington would have the scientists put to death if they could get away with it for denying their precious book of fairy tales.
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."
When... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Insightful)
And there's not really a lot you can do about it. There are few things more addictive and difficult to argue with than religion, because you're not talking about sense or reality or science or rational thought. You can't scientifically argue with people who only can respond with "well, there must be a creator, because I feel it in my bones" - or people who can't possibly conceive that evolution doesn't in any way rule out there still being a creator.
Ignorance is hard to fight. Ever been around an extreme racist and tried to convince them why they're ignorant, stupid and wrong? Then you know what I mean.
More than Anti-Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Animal Rights Movement (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion simply doesn't care (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also the simple matter that learning about critical thinking in general and science in particular makes it hard to swallow religious dogma. Science isn't incompatible with spirituality, but it's totally in opposition to biblical literalism and other fundamentalist practices. It's very much in the interests of these kinds of religious groups to denigrate science, as doing so makes it easier to spread their beliefs. (And, for people whose faith isn't enough, easier to justify their beliefs.)
Wolf in sheep's clothing (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti-anything to hard to do (Score:2, Insightful)
First they came for the mathematicians, and I did not speak out--
because I did not like math;
Then they came for the theoretical economists, and I did not speak out--
because I did not understand economics;
Then they came for the engineers, and I did not speak out--
because I did not believe engineering was a true science;
Then they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out--
because I did not like my science teacher;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
my take? (Score:5, Insightful)
My take is that I should learn to speak chinese.
Re:No, no, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do like the british do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to become a born again SCIENTIST but I never left the fold.
If any are tough enough to do it and already have a Biology degree, pick up and read Origin of the Species. Many things were not known to Darwin and his peers at the time like genetics and plate tectonics so many of his assumptions are not entirely accurate, but they are a path on the road to the understanding that we have today. Read it for reference, not to learn new concepts since many ideas posted are superseded by what we now know. And read it so that you actually can talk on an informed manner to those who claim to know that evolution is a myth.
Religion is a panacea for those of small minds who are to lazy to learn how the world really works and feel comfortable with small and easy answers - even if they are false.
Re:Do like the british do... (Score:1, Insightful)
Amen.
-everphilski-
How Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day, the US isn't anti-science it's a system that has been built around science in much of the developed world that doesn't promote enough skeptisism or honesty. Peer review in some circles just means you belong to the right clique, with the right point of view. Put that together with funding that often comes from political circles filled with "true believers" and you have a recipie for disaster.
Lindzen's quote "There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not" seems rather apt.
cluge
No question (Score:5, Insightful)
The 44% of the US population that don't believe in evolution of any form believe there's a God who's idea of a good time is toss dinosaur bones around the world making them look millions of years older than our 4000 or 5000 year old Earth. As if his time couldn't be better spent smiting creationists or something.
But really, if you have such a large population that simply can't believe facts, then how on Earth can science advance in that kind of environment.
Bush Administration is pro-science (Score:4, Insightful)
Dogma is dogma (Score:2, Insightful)
Intelligent design? As far as I know, nobody has actually refuted "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. The man is not an idiot, he knows his molecular biology, and he raises some valid points. Screaming, "He's just a creationist!" doesn't make the points go away. Talking about how the consensus of scientists agree with you doesn't make the points go away. (The consensus is only right until it's wrong - but it takes quite a while for the consensus to change after it's been shown to be wrong.)
Stem cell research? There are people who believe that a fertilized egg is a human being. That's not a scientific question. But until it's answered, there's a moral problem, at least for those people, and asking them to accept that there will be scientific advances just makes them think of Dr. Mengele. Now, you can argue that it's a dogma to those people, and you'd be right. But to them, it's not a scientific issue. And until you can persuade them that stem cell research isn't a moral issue, they're going to fight you. And some of them (certainly not all) can give you some intelligent reasons why they think what they do. If you can't respond with some intelligent reasons of your own, all you have is a dogma.
A Note to Creationists (Score:4, Insightful)
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatues, according to their kinds
Gen 1:24
So, even if I chose to argue with the creationist point of view solely from the Bible, you can't say that God just popped a creature into existence. He let the land produce the living creatures -- can this leave room for interpretation that God said, "let life evolve?"
It would make for an interesting study whether evolution is completely random or not. Perhaps the whole tree of species is following some sort of pattern, like a literal tree growing from a single seed -- some randomness is involved, but overall, there is a meaning and order to how the growing tree develops.
This kind of science would overlap more with Gaia theory than theology.
could be! (Score:1, Insightful)
From an authoritarian viewpoint, properly indoctrinated, docile "believers" are generally more convienient than thinkers! "Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat." -- Christopher Morley
For that matter, few corporations hav gotten rich by encouraging rational consideration of a product's merits and utility; impulse purchasing and "I want it 'cause I want it and I want it NOW!" is much more profitable.
Re:Animal Rights Movement (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's the creationists that blow up abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors.
Story (Score:4, Insightful)
Backlash (Score:2, Insightful)
What has caused most of the backlash is the issue of what is taught in school. It would help a lot educators could simply acknowledge that:
1. Science cannot tell us what happened, only what is a plausible explanation for what happened, and there are always alternative explanations.
2. You don't need to believe the theory of education to pass the class, you only need to understand it and be able to explain it because whether it turns out to be correct or not, it is widely accepted enough that you need to know about it to be educated.
There is a happy middle, but of course it is the most vocal on both sides of the issue who cannot compromise and who get most of the press.
US Religion is becoming more anti-science... (Score:3, Insightful)
These religious, anti-science people are bullies, and they must be opposed. And the opposition should start in the mainstream media, which unfortunately have been neutered by political correctness, especially giving all sides of a debate equal air time, and by the incredible propaganda of the right and the far right parties.
Even moderate Republicans are now becoming afraid of the political power of the know-nothings (because being anti-science is bad for the bottom line, but that's another story).
If you take a look at history, you'll see that, historically, periods of great scientific progress have been associated with weakened -- or at the very least more tolerant -- religions. The best example of this is the islamic golden age, which saw an incredible civilization that was tolerant of science and of other religions (including christian jewish scientists) and saw marvelous art bloom. Of course, being able to control the trade routes between Asia and Europe also helped a lot. At the same time, Europe was tightly controlled by the Catholic Church and in the darkness of the Middle Ages.
As soon as the different islamic countries were overrun by the Turkish Caliphate -- which practiced a much more puritanical and intolerant brand of Islam -- and by the Spanish 'reconquista', the islamic dark ages began.
At about the same time, Europe started its Renaissance, by re-discovering the classical Roman and Greek philosophers (whose books were copied by the Moslem scientists) as well as importing many of the arabic innovations in science (the number 'zero' and the distillation of alcohol, among other things) and asserting the powers of the state vs the power of the Church.
I am afraid the USA are headed down the same path: the puritanical streak that has always been present in American society is making a strong come-back (like it does every 30 to 50 years: see McCarthy, Joseph and the term 'witch hunt'). If it is not fought vigorously, the USA will go down the path of the great islamic statelets of the past and will slowly fade in importance. Progress, after all, has usually been followed by regression many times in history.
The question is, will it take the rest of the world with it, or will americans find the strength and courage to fight obscurantism?
Science is important but so is philisophy (Score:2, Insightful)
You see, we need science. Science is the tool that we use to understand the what questions of this world. Only an engineer will be able to tell me if this building was built well or not and if I could add another story to it without any problems. Only a Computer Science Graduate can really code at a high enough level to write most of the graphic algorithms used to draw the video games I play.
But when we try to use science to tell us about history we miss the point. Science can tell us what happened to some degree of accuracy but it cannot tell us how or why. Philosophy best explains these things. Most of what so-called scientists come up with for an explanation of the orgin of life on earth doesn't make sense and is not reproducable. Moreover it is not probable due to irreducable complexity and the probability of everything being present for the spontaneous start of life. Life has never spontanously started. That is the point of this whole Intelligent Design argument.
The problem is that people polarize over the issue. Some say that science is useless. Other say that only science is valuable. I say that both science and philosophy are valuable. We need both and both help us understand our world.
Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately for science, though unfortunately for America, attacking science produces negative dynamic stabiity. You can't disrupt one part of science without disrupting *ALL* parts of science. The inevitable result is that, in the long term, the societies with the best science will wind up with the biggest and best bombs, too. (Unfortunately, in the short term, you might wind up dead due to the bad science...)
science vs. controversial science (Score:4, Insightful)
He doesn't make a testable statement. (Score:5, Insightful)
If some "designer" spent time "designing" the "designed" parts of us
If the designer didn't need a designer, then why do we?Again, he doesn't have any testable points. It's pure religion.
Religion cannot be tested. Religion is not science.
"Intelligent Design" is religion. "Intelligent Design" cannot be tested. "Intelligent Design" is not science.
Those who believe that it is just demonstrate how poor our science education has become.
Re:Animal Rights Movement (Score:4, Insightful)
This is like Sen. Patrick Leahy's assertion that hearings on animal rights terrorism were pointless [carnell.com] and no one really cares about animal rights terrorism.
Now, of course, you have bio companies who cannot get listed on NYSE because the NYSE is scared of animalr rights extremists.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it is observed, and the evidence for Common Descent is extraordinarily compelling, and the only remaining "alternative" amounts to magic.
Because almost everyone questioning evolution is looking for special dispensation for their particular psuedo-science or religious mysticism.
First off, the fact that you even use the word "prove" indicates you don't even understand science, and second of all, the evidence is there for your perusal. If you have an alternate *scientific* explanation then by all means provide it.
You do realize, I hope, that the flagellum argument used by Michael Behe has been falsified, and repeating Behe's lie doesn't demonstrate your own views in a terribly good light.
Wake me up when you demonstrate that you even know what the scientific method is.
Name them.
And anyone who continues to use the word "proof" as if it were a part of science has demonstrated that they are in fact ignorant of science.
Re:No question (Score:2, Insightful)
40% of scientists believe in theistic evolution? You mean, there are people with higher degrees in education that believe in a supernatural god? How can that be true when everything I have read indicates that anyone who does is an uneducated bigot with no interest in science?
That tingling sensation must be my presuppositions being challenged.
They don't believe it is "religion". (Score:4, Insightful)
The people pushing "Intelligent Design" are claiming that it is "science" and should be offered as an alternative TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES to "Darwinism".
If it were just a religion, no one would care. No one is trying to get transubstantiation taught in physics class as an alternative to "Newtonionism".
Re:Another Intelligent Design theory (Score:2, Insightful)
What science is being reduced? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Creationism taught alongside evolution in biology or philosphy in a few public schools.
2) The federal government doesn't actively fund embryonic stem cell research beyond very limited lines.
Is there any other ways in which science is degrading in this country besides the above two examples? It just seems to me that all these Slashdot stories are just making mountains out of molehills. I simply cannot see where these large dents in science are coming from. I know people are paranoid that Southern conservatives will take over the country and ban all science classes, but the reality is, we're not seeing it. Sure there are some anti-science blips, but overall, the above two aren't really affecting the numbers of students seeking science careers or America's abiltiy to lead the world in science.
So again, how is science being degraded in this country? Is it funding? Various science budgets go down, while others go up (for example, NASA has been given sizeable funding increases for the past few years now.) If it's not funding, then it is just a general trend of Americans to seek different jobs that don't require science? Or is it that we need better salaries to attract better science teachers? Do core requirements for science need to be raised? Help me out here, is American really becoming more anti-science, or is this just some passing media fad, similar to the fads of the summer of shark attacks and the flesh eating bacteria craze?
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:2, Insightful)
The current climate of the US is shifting away from valuing science and logic. And it is not solely because of the religious right. Look at the dwindling numbers of US-born science majors in universities. Science is just not that popular. (But was it ever really cool?) Look at the reaction to Dr. Summers of Harvard when he put forth a HYPOTHESIS about the small percentage of women in science. He got butchered.
When you look at our society, you can see that people have very bad reactions to ideas that don't fit into their own framework of how the world works. This shouldn't be surprising; humans have been this way for long time. What has changed, however, is that now, people start responding to these challenging ideas, not with logic or reason, but emotional arguments. This happens on both sides. The only difference is that the religous are easy targets.
Wha???? (Re:Religion simply doesn't care) (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is an article about a
chemical engineer/scientist [startribune.com] that happened to be a Christian. Do you think he would have been more accomplished if he took on an atheistic view of the world? If so, why?
This is a stupid pissing contest.... (Score:2, Insightful)
So this is a war of bullshit. Both sides are desperate to convince everyone else that their own bullshit isn't bullshit, and that the bullshit of the other side is even bigger bullshit than it already is. Its just really sad that anyone takes either side seriously. This is like two crazy people arguing about the conversations each has with the voices in their head. There is no right side to take in that kind of a debate. The proper response is to tell both nutjobs to get the hell away from you and leave you alone. Sooner or later that is what the American public will do as well.
Lee
RTFA: It's more than Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S. is not becoming anti-science. It only appears that way because our administration (sorry if this seems like flamebait.. it is, but its clearly the truth) prioritizes their political success, fiscal policy, and religeon over the recommendations of science.
I hate Bush as much as the next scientist, but the anti-science draft is not blowing from the White House. Did you RTFA? If so, you must have missed the following:
Note the use of "for many years" and polling of non-administration Americans. This is a very widespread problem and it's a rare case where it's not 100% Bush's fault. We have a growing problem and it's dangerous to assume that all will go well once Bush is out of office. The scientific community needs to combat this.
I confess that I don't have the solution. Would a new documentary TV series in the vein of Carl Sagan's Cosmos do the trick? I don't know. Would better and more conservative reporting of scientific achievements in the media (and less hyping every radical article appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine as some sort of scientific consensus) help? Beats me. Would having articulate and engrossing scientists discussing their work publically foster an appreciation for scientists and they work they do? Stop asking me these tough questions, okay? :)
I don't know what the answer is. This board will be filled with various strategies and ideas. But we need to start thinking of how to correct this dangerous trend. Yeah, Bush's administration certainly isn't helping, but saying that "the U.S. is not becoming anti-science. It only appears that way because our administration..." is wishful thinking.
GMD
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution in no way rules out a creator. In the sense of Intelligent Design I would agree that it does. Why does no one ever attempt to explain that God created man using evolution as a tool? Whatever happened to the divine clockwinder theory? Why does no one view god as the collected set of mechanics that the universe runs under? That certainly fits the bill for omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
The argument "because you say that god created man, and I have proof supporting evolution, that proof also supports the lack of a god" is not really a strong one.
Re:Dogma is dogma (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if the dogma is religious dogma or scientific dogma. If you can't question it and get reasonable answers back, it's just dogma. And, unfortunately, too much of science is that way.
Science is the exact antithesis of what you've described. Science welcomes questions. (Well, except for stupid ones.) What you can't do is make wild claims without significant evidence or some other support for your ideas. Evolution has that support. ID doesn't. If ID can make scientific arguments and predictions and test for its claims, then it can get published in scientific journals. But it can't, so it resorts to publishing books and videos and marketing to the scientifically-ignorant public.
nobody has actually refuted "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe
There are numerous refutations of Behe out there. Behe's argument basically boils down to, "It looks really complicated. It must be magic!" See, for example: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html [talkorigins.org]. Here's [pharyngula.org] a good refutation of Behe's recent testimony in the Dover trial.
ID makes no predictions, observations, or has any supporting evidence. Just vague claims of "it's complex" or "it looks designed". The only reason it's getting the attention that it is getting is because it dovetails nicely into fundamentalist Christian theology. And don't doubt that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is anything other that Christian creationism in fancy clothing.
Re:Dogma is dogma (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's such a damn genius, why does he keep trotting out the bacterial flagellum line even after the pathway was demonstrated? That sounds more like a liar who hopes that the audiences he's speaking to don't actually read the refutations. Oh, and look what's happening over in Dover. Behe is looking like a complete twit right now. His days as ID's super star scientist are over, and just how many researchers does the Discovery Institute have left that are in fields even remotely related to biology?
ID is a scam, Creationism-sans-God. At best, it's a god-of-the-gaps argument, and at worst, simply a bit rhetorical incredulity. It has nothing to say other than somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution. It's so devoid of meaningful content and prediction that it appears to be espoused by everyone from Young Earth Creationists (who obviously don't read Answers In Genesis' obvious dislike of this "theory") right on through to the more theistic evolutionist types. It's a big tent strategy, a political manifesto that has nothing to do with science at all.
The US will die without science. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's economy can only exist if it's industry can continue to be profitable.
But every industry the USA develops is eventually understood well enough by other societies with lower wage costs - so to preserve it's high cost of living, outsourcing is inevitable.
The only way to survive waves of outsourcing is to develop new industries that are not yet accessible to low-wage countries. This is a never ending cycle - invent, exploit, outsource, abandon.
New Industries are driven by new technology.
New Technology is driven by new science.
And new science is driven by high standards of education coupled to the kinds of blue-sky research that pretty much only comes from government and university programmes.
Pull away the rug at the bottom - and the whole edifice comes tumbling down within maybe one or two human generations.
Re:More than Anti-Science (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true. But do you know why this is? Because in the last couple of decades, "intellectual" has come to mean someone so out of touch with the vast majority that the label is distrusted. Intellectual = some snotty guy at Harvard telling you middle America peons that you're, well, peons, and that everything would be better if you just listened to volvo-driving people like himself. And frankly, intellectuals haven't worked very hard to erase this image, because like all good legends, there's a kernel of truth to it.
And here is specifically the problem people of faith have with modern Science. There is this idea that scientist = atheist, and that you can't be one without the other. This wasn't always this case. But if you tell everyone that the cost of embracing science is the revocation of their faith, well, you're cutting out a huge number from the pool then. As anti-Christian as Slashdot is, I know that gives you guys a warm fuzzy feeling, that you get to keep the club to yourselves and all.
Re:Do like the british do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Not Just Science (Score:2, Insightful)
In science, if even a single case is discovered that refutes a theory, then the entire theory has to be discarded. Of course, no scientist will throw out previous data if their theory is proven wrong or incomplete, so we start over again and see if we can come up with a new theory that can explain the anomolous data. Just look at the progression of mechanics: When Einstein developed his theory of Relativity, we had to acknowledge that Newton was wrong. Something else was fundamentally in charge of the nature of motion and dynamics. Of course, we still use Newton's theories because they are a useful approximation for just about any concievable real-world problem -- but they're still wrong!!
When data was discovered that routinely refuted the religious 'theory' of creation, that theory must be thrown out. Evolution is a meta-theory that supports real-life, repeatable experiments and observations. Until Intelligent Design can actually, scientifically show that there is observable, recreatable data (stories in a book are neither credible history, nor observable data) that refutes Evolution, then there is no debate to be had.
In other words, Intelligent Design has never shown the theory of Evolution to be false under any pretense. Every argument I've heard in favor of Intelligent Design is a blatant straw-man fallacy, and has no right to even be heard in debate without being ridiculed.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, here's the news. There is no controversy. The vast and overwhelming majority of scientists, and most importantly those in the biological fields, have no argument at all with evolution. There might be debates over specific areas, but the opposition to evolution in the scientific community is so small that it is meaningless. The opposition to evolution does not come from the scientific community, but from a certain brand of religious folks who want to have their religious beliefs stamped with some sort of scientific seal of approval.
As for the likes of Dembski and Behe, they're statements have so often been rendered rubbish that by this point I doubt they even believe any of the crap they spew themselves.
Intelligent Design is a minor problem (Score:4, Insightful)
A greater problem is the shortsighted policies toward research in the US. In the past, the National Science Foundation has focused on foundational research while DARPA, NASA, and various other agencies have funded practical, shorter term applications. For some reason after 9/11, it was decided that NSF grants should only go to projects that had a short timeframe for "useful" results. Suddenly, the engine that drives all the discoveries that aren't just applications of previous work has dried up.
Another huge problem started 25 years ago. Since the early 80s when educational institutions were given full rights to market their discoveries, we've seen huge profits to Universities, and an equally perverse incentive to keep research secret. It also gave a big incentive for researchers to study quick, economically valuable problems, regardless of long-term benefits. Who cares if you could find a cure for malaria? Only the third world countries would need it, and they don't have enough money to make the researcher and her university rich.
It's easy to scapegoat religious fundamentalists for the problem, but it goes far deeper. The problem of a lack of foundational research will affect the US for a generation, if not corrected.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a distorted sense of who's interfering with whom, buddy.
On a theoretical level, yes. Science is often anti-religion. A lot of scientific beliefs absolutely contradict a great number of teachings from various religions. In that sense it can be very "anti-religion" at times.
But on a practical level? I don't see science interfering with religion. I can't think of a time in this country when science attempted to intrude upon a house of worship and say "you can't worship this way" or worse, attempt to pass laws to that effect.
Unfortunately the opposite occurs with alarming regularity. The religous right actively tries to interfere with the practice of science; protesting and passing laws against scientific practices and teachings they are not approving of - stem cell research, evolution, abortion (medicine is applied science after all) and so forth.
That is the difference, friend.
It's a practice that's gone on for thousands of years. Look at Galileo and Da Vince getting heat from the church for their teachings. It's been happening ever since man said "hey, there might be something other than religion" and attempted to gain knowledge via means other than self-proclaimed prophets, superstition, and gut feelings.
Re:He doesn't make a testable statement. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, it's been a while since I read Darwin, but I don't recall in either of his books that he made a prediction that we would find species that weren't species; only that we would find species that were transitions between two other species.
And we have found those. Many, many times over. Being "between species" doesn't mean that the organism isn't itself within a species; only that the organism's species is a transitional species between two others. Looked at it that way, almost every species is transitional (the only species that aren't are the ones that went extinct with no decendants), which is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution.
Re:Three words.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Insightful)
People do, but that doesn't mean it gets any acceptance from certain groups. One of the fundamental issues is that a lot of christians believe humans have a soul and that animals do not. For that to be true you need some divine intervention in the evolutionary process to grant humans a soul once they become human. My understanding is that even the Catholic church, which accepts evolution, holds that such an intervention occurred. Once you have to believe that God has some active hand in the evolutionary process it's not much of a stretch to accept a few more fiddles along the way and thus you get Intelligent Design: the belief that evolution occurs, but with ongoing active tweaking by some external entity.
Basically it comes down to egocentrism - the desire to believe that humans are somehow special and separate from other living entities. To believe that you really need to believe that there was some active intervention to set humans apart. This really has little to do with religion necessarily (though most religions tend to grant humans such special status and hence have some explaining to do), but rather a general unwillingness to accept ourselves as simply a part of nature.
In practice humans are really only very subtley different from other animals. Every time someone claims to have some defining property that sets humans apart from animals (self awareness, tool use, awareness of mortality, language, social learning, etc.) we find new examples of animals that do the same. Tool use is now widely noted across the animal kingdom, and self awareness, and awareness of mortality are reported for a variety of animals. At least some level of language has been noted amongst various animals, and efforts to teach great apes more advanced languages have been remarkably successful. We really don't give animals anywhere near enough credit.
Jedidiah.
Re:Bush Administration is pro-science (Score:2, Insightful)
Even there, they're lacking. The "Star Wars" missle defense efforts have been dodging rigorous field testing in a way that makes it clear that political appearances are much more important than truth or success.
Re:Well, I'm pro-science, but does that matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
The US seems more eager than ever to accept science as it relates to blowing stuff up, so I don't think that's gonna be a problem. Group A is more like the "cobalt bomb" cult from planet of the apes.
Glory be to the Bomb, and to the Holy Fallout. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. World without end. Amen.
yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
Among these, yes, there's a long and robust history of anti-intellectual populist amateurism, a feeling that any man's opinion is just as good as a trained expert (maybe better), and that any one of us, just by sitting down and thinking hard about the matter, can give an authoritative opinion on any subject whatsoever.
Um, does this remind anyone of any community in particular? Say, an on-line discussion group? No? Well, let's move on...
As a direct consequence of this robust amateurism, Americans have always tended to distrust the voice of authority when it conflicts with their own "instincts" and "common sense." People who think the authority of religion is why folks reject evolution or global warming, et cetera, are utterly misunderstanding Americans. These things are rejected not because Joe Sixpack trusts authority A (the pastor) over authority B (the professor), but because he trusts his own instincts more than either.
Now, it turns out neither evolution nor global warming are plain as the nose on your face obvious. (After all, even clever scientists took centuries to clue in to them.) It takes a fair amount of education and sifting of subtle data to really understand the arguments for and against, and to accept that these theories are much better explanations for the facts than anything else.
Not surprisingly, for someone who lacks both data and education, it's going to seem hard to believe that (for example) a change of carbon dioxide content from 0.033% of the atmosphere to 0.034%, which raises the average temperature of the Earth by 2.0 degrees, or maybe only 1.5, is going to result in an onslaught of massive hurricanes, massive species extinction, desertification of big swathes of the Midwest, the cessation of ocean currents that will turn England into Greenland, buried in ice 8000 feet thick, and other miscellaneous global catastrophes. Joe Average, confronted with such a bald statement, can perhaps be forgiven for initially responding: what the hell are you smoking?
I wouldn't believe it myself, except I have studied the data and I do understand the physics.
Of course, experts are unanimous that these theories are correct. And if Americans were more in the habit of trusting experts, they would just take their word for it. "Oooookay, global warming of 1 degree causing massive climate change seems plain nuts to me, but Professor Foo here says it's so, and he's a smart guy with all the data, so I guess it must be so."
But many of us don't think like that. Hell, none of us thinks like that. How many here are willing to make a similar statement about (say) the President's judgment with respect to WMDs and the war in Iraq? "Well, it seems nuts to me, but he says it's so and he has all the data..." Ho ho. Plain fact is, we all think we're just as smart as the "smart guys" and are entitled to question their conclusions if they don't make obvious sense to us.
So, big chunks of the population remain skeptical of anything nonobvious in science. Fact of American life, mostly.
If I had to put my finger on any reason why this fact might be a smidge more prevalent than it ever was, I'd put it square on the pernicious spread of relativism over the last 40 years. We are trained for years, in school and sometime in the workplace (sensitivity training, anybody? TQM?) in the basic principles that (1) all viewpoints are equally valid, (2) truth is not an objective thing, but a subjective opinion that legitimately varies with your viewpoint, (3) explanations of events that reduce social friction and validate everyone's worth are to be preferred, even if you must doubt the evidence of your own eyes to accept them, and (4) there are often "higher truths" than the plain ordinary truth. That is, statements can
It ain't just politics, people (Score:5, Insightful)
And local issues are just as bad. In my own area (Bartholomew County, Indiana, USA), if the schools need money for something like computers or science equipment, no one can help. Same goes when we run short of money for teachers. But when one of the local highschools wants to raise $400,000 US to replace the grass in their football field with astroturf, people run over each other trying to get to their checkbooks so they can donate.
Washington will not change until the people want change...and quite frankly, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Re:It's Not Just Atheists Science (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not advocated by atheists, it's advocated by scientists.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that "The easy way out" would be to believe a story in a book while ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Kansas (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bull manure...it is $$$, not "culture" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes! I'm also a young scientist (physics grad student). You're right, although it's not just the money. It's the sacrifices you have to make in terms of family and having a life. For instance, my supervisor nearly forgot her own (young) son's birthday. She also had to carefully plan her pregnancy to coincide with tenure decisions, and had to wait a long time to have kids (which increases the risk of lots of problems).
Then there is the lack of jobs (if there aren't enough scientists, why aren't there jobs for all the current scientists?). If I wanted to end up as a medium-paid programmer, I wouldn't get a physics PhD to do it. There are much easier ways.
Then there's the slave labor that's expected of many grad students (I have a friend who was working 70+ hours a week who was told he needed to work even more).
One of my professors told me that you should only go into physics* if you love it and can't bear the thought of not doing it. He's right, except that I would add that you shouldn't do it unless you love it more than anything else. I have a feeling I won't make a really good physicist because I refuse to put my career ahead of family. One might say that this is true of many professions, except that you can make a very comfortable living in almost any city as a mediocre doctor or lawyer, whereas you have very few options as a mediocre scientist. You'll be lucky to get a job as an untenured instructor making 40k in Cornfield State University, Generic Midwestern State, and you'll be stuck teaching unmotivated students while having zero time for research, which is probably the reason you got into physics in the first place.
* this probably applies to most other sciences in addition to physics.
This is why we have so few Americans going into science.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the ignorance made apparent by assuming that religious beliefs are, by nature, born out of ignorance and not out of a deeply intellectual personal search for truth?
Not to lend credence to the Bible-thumping idiots, but evolution has its problems too. A rational search for the best answer to life, the universe and everything has caused many far more intelligent than you or I to conclude that some higher creator is a superior answer to the roll of some cosmic, trillion-faced dice. It is nothing but vanity and a very ill-placed trust in ones own faculties to dismiss every single one of such persons out of hand.
Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
In the same way that astronomy is still considered a science so to is evolutionary biology. We might not be able to have a lab setting for either of these sciences. We can't fully model their environment, it's way to big and complex and we dont know enough yet.
However that doesn't stop both fields from having their set if theorists, who seek to study and reproduce results via the scientific method. In astronomy take Stephen Hawking, he can't reproduce his theories on black holes in a lab, but we test them by only looking back into the past. In the same way, we can't test a lot of evolutionary biology in a lab, so we get our case studies from the past.
This doesn't prevent us from applying these knowledges to the future however. There is not reason why evoltutionary biology might not help us in the future. It has certainly progressed our knowledge and understanding of genetics and lead to some very interesting and pointed studies in that field. And it continues to reveal more and more interesting information about the way in which the world in which we live progresses through time.
Much like Stephen Hawkings theory of black holes might not have any relevent application to us _right now_ that doesn't mean that the study and furthermeant of such ventures should be given up as hopeless or worthless.
Sometimes to understand the future one has to take a look into the past, it's the long long records of more expirements than we could ever hope to reproduce.
~Anders
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you think of any useful applications for any aspect of biology?
If so, there's your answer.
All biology is connected to evolution.
That's a bit like saying "Can anyone think of any useful applications for all this processor and microchip stuff? What does it really give us? Sure, computers and faxes and the internet are handy, but do we really need to know about all this microchip and transistor stuff?"
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll support this now with some scientific data that proves they're the same people, right?
From what I've seen, those opposing evolution are mostly responding to strident atheists who are using evolution to attempt to claim that science has disproved God. Those anti-religion atheists belong in the same category as the anti-science theists. Science doesn't prove or disprove God. Good scientists and good theists know that.
Re:Three words.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
The theory of evolution is what turned biology from stamp collecting into science. It is only in light of evolution that biology really makes sense. We have classified vast numbers of species of animals. Evolution explains the similarities and justifies the connections we've made. We now know the connection between genetic variation and DNA. Homologous structures in animals are no longer a mystery, nor are vestigial organs/appendages.
> I just don't see any Science-Engineering connection to Evolutionary Biology...
Genetic modification. Pharmaceuticals.
Hell, we make artificial sweeteners by injecting foreign genes into bacteria. I mean, that is just neat.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't science. That's a feeling.
Also, science doesn't try to support at theory by defiling religion. Religious people only argue in favor of creaitonism by pointing out supposed (usually ignorant) flaws in evolution.
The point still remains, you can do all the "deep intellectual soul searching" that you want, but convincing yourself to accept the belief from the Christian bible or some Bhuddist teachings or whatever the hell else you want to attach yourself to doesn't have any scientific method whatsoever. You can believe that you're a unique, amazing, special creature born of some mythical creature all you want - that doesn't make it so. And just because you feel it doesn't establish any evidence for it. And it most certainly has nothing to do with "science".
So essentially, keep your new age spiritual crap or old school religious dogma and beliefs IN THE REALM OF THEOLOGY. I don't come to your church and insist that you let me educate your sunday school children on the big bang and evolution and gravity - so don't cram your baseless theological day dreams into children at school in science class.
The arrogance of Christianity, and all religions (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is right? The Christians, the Jews, the Moslems, the Buddhists, the Hindus etc? Who? Every religion claims to know "The Truth". Explain that to me enlightened Christians who claim to know everything but got it from an old book that has as much of interest in it as Hemmingway's The Old Man and The See.
I don't know if there IS a God. I certainly don't believe a church or any religion that routinely slaughtered people in the name of a God that has strange problems about sex or eating funny foods, especially on Fridays.
I think that anyone who actively tries to convince others that his religion is the only right one is a fucking moron who's afraid of people who think for themselves.
I personally don't hold much stake in atheism either, since my feelings tell me there is more to life than just a collection of chemicals, but I may be wrong.
I think it would be wonderful if people would think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, but that is terribly out of fashion today.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you cannot prove science using science. You cannot prove anything using using science, and any good scientist would be the first to admit that. Science can disprove things, but it never considers anything proven; new evidence could always be just around the corner.
Those who "are proclaiming science is God/The Truth", in your words, are not scientists. They're certainly not people who understand science or the scientific method [wikipedia.org], and I think it's unfair to hold science responsible for them. (Note how the only appearances of the words "truth" and "true" in that linked page are in centuries-old quotations, or right near the word "probability".)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't be so annoyed with the intelligent design croud if they didn't take advantage of the advances made by the very theories they declare to be invalid. So if all the fundamentalists want to show that they really believe in what they say they do, then they should give up vaccinations because modern virology is rooted in evolutionary biology. I don't expect that to happen because that would require a faith that I frankly don't think most of them are actually capable of.
For another view this is a good read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biolo gy.html/ [talkorigins.org]
Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Small?
Stats: 80% plus of americans (including our current elected leader) hold one (or more) superstitions as the basis for the formation (and often more) of the world and universe. 50% (more, actually, because there are many at the center of the curve) of Americans have an IQ of 100 or under. They wouldn't know science from sophist nonsense if you gave them a roadmap, a GPS, and a seeing-eye dog. They don't know what theory is, what it means, or what it implies. This is not their fault, at least in my view; it is the fault of the educational and political system, mainly. In a system that does not protect its citizens, why would we not expect them to turn their eyes to Zeus or the constellations?
Religionists (and some cosmologists, sad to say) are constantly self-reinforcing the proposition(s) that things happen(ed) by what amounts to magic, and that science is merely the bastard stepchild of some supernatural entity's imagination, a descriptive convenience, no more.
When fervent assertions that entirely lack evidence in the form of objective fact form an important, or the important, part of your thinking, how are you going to be able to discern the difference between convincing reality and this conviction without any reality at all?
Yes, there might be one person doing the main attacking; but mark my words, there are hundreds of mute, average or below average folks standing quietly in the wings behind that person, urging them on, funding them, and so forth.
As science knowledge expands, the cracks between the known parts get thinner and thinner. These are the dark places where religion and superstition live. But people cherish those thoughts; we have to expect that as those superstitious ideas are squeezed into the light (which generally speaking, kills them) the holders of those ideas are going to react.
This is where "intelligent design" came from. it is purest sophist nonsense with no objective fact backing up the assertions is makes, trying to hide the idea of a god under a cloak that they cry as loudly as possible "is science" when in fact it is not. Nothing testable is put forth. It's just more hand-waving. I expect the light will kill it shortly.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
The only significant cases of atheists fighting against God is over the Pledge of Allegiance, and that has nothing to do with evolution.
Re:Yes but why and how. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:1, Insightful)
Education is NOT the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The REAL danger is that, by changing the public perception of the value of real science, it makes it that much easier for fake science to take its place. We're seeing this happen on a regular basis, as the heads of important "scientific" advisory bodies are actually just pulled directly from industry, PhDs in unrelated fields wielded mightily to reinforce non-existant credentials.
Want less regulation on pollution? Appoint EPA "scientists" who are actually just businessmen.
Want limits on reproductive freedom? Get testimonials from "scientists" who are actually just clergymen.
Re:A different take on the is the USA religion cra (Score:1, Insightful)
They complain about countries which have Islamic law, but do you really think "Christian law" will be any better? These people are a threat to us sane and secular Americans.
I have nothing against religion, until of course they try to run my life and the lives of all other Americans.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
thanks
Re:You don't know Darwin's work. (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe in evolution, (the full-blown kind, not the ID kind) yey I am going to have to disagree with you here. I have yet to hear of a single testable facet of evolution. The example you give, that chimps and humans share a large portion of their DNA is consistent with evolution. But that is not the same thing as a repeatable test not is it predictive. No one has ever conducted an "evolution experiment" whereby the input was some lower life form and the output was a higher life form. We can observer similiar phenomena such as selectively breeding animals to enhance certain traits and we can and have observed minor variations in species as they react to changes in their environment. These are both evidence of evolution, but neither is a prediction or an experiment. I could always propose some exotic other mechanism (such as perhaps monkeys evolved from humans) which may be less likely to be consistent with other pieces of evidence, but is similarly not "disprovable" by any test until someone actually observes a monkey evolve into an human.
My argument also holds incidently for general relativity, newtonian gravity, or the Ptolemeic model of the solar system. All were at one time or another believed to be consistent with all the evidence, but we still don't know even if GR is the actual mechanism of gravity...it just seems to be the most accurate (hence the term theory of relativity.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:4, Insightful)
hose opposing evolution are mostly responding to strident atheists who are using evolution to attempt to claim that science has disproved God
I do not think I have ever met a single atheist that say says science disproves God, not even Dawkins. What an atheist says is that we should relate to God in the same way we relate to other pretty unlikely fixtures of our lives, such Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and little green men under your bed - too small to see. In other words, there is no compelling data that suggests that there is a God, so it makes no logical sense to think there is.
Science can not prove that there is no God, science can likewise not prove that there are no blue swans with yellow spots or a Tooth Fairy. You can't prove the non-existance of something.
Those opposing evolution today are those who would like to see Intelligent Design taught along side of Evolution, which is an absurd notion. Evolution is a theory, on a macro scale it is not proven, but it is a theory, and more, it is a scientific theory. A scientific theory has some special properties, that is why it is scientific and not just a theory. Intelligent Design on the other hand is not a scientific theory, there is nothing scientific at all about that theory, and if it should be taught in schools, it should be taught along side of other religious notions such as Christianity, Islam and Astrology.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Insightful)
The worst thing the scientific community can do in this case, is to acknowledge "intelligent design" as even a "theory".
It needs to be ignored, and called "Creationism" as it rightly is.
why does this sound so familiar? (Score:3, Insightful)
hmmm...
use the part of the bible that says homosexuality is bad, ignore the part that says wearing two different types of cloth is bad
use the part of the bible that says witchcraft is bad, ignore the part that says not to eat shellfish
etc, etc, etc
Re:Wha???? (Re:Religion simply doesn't care) (Score:5, Insightful)
What's sad is how you completely misrepresented what the poster said.
He said "makes it hard" (not impossible) and that "Science isn't incompatible with spirituality, but it's totally in opposition to biblical literalism and other fundamentalist practices." which is in complete sync with your claim above about there being scientists who "believed in a Christian view of God".
The fact is there are very, very few prominent scientists who are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians (or any other religion, for that matter), which was his point.
Here is an article about a chemical engineer/scientist that happened to be a Christian. Do you think he would have been more accomplished if he took on an atheistic view of the world? If so, why?
Could you point out the part where he said "any Christian scientist would be more accomplished had he/she been an atheist", because I certainly didn't see that anywhere.
Science and dogma don't mix very well at all. Science and spirituality do mix quite well for some. *That's* what I got from Logic Bomb's post. Re-read it and see if you don't get the same.
Re:What you ateists need to realice (Score:3, Insightful)
powers that be tell you it is true.
People are not starting to question it, the purpose of science has been to question
it all along. And so far, it has stood up to scientific analysis, which is why
it is considered valid enough to be true.
"evolution as the reson we are here is not proven"
Evolution has nothing to do with questioning the reason we are here,
it is asking the much simpler question: "How did we get here". It attempts
to answer that question by looking are where we (animals) came from, and where
they are now.
here is why I think it's happening (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem for me was that science was teaching me that I was just a bag of meat, and not really a person. Since I am just a bio-robot, there is nothing in me that's any better than, say a chicken, or a clod of earth. If I have an issue, instead of thinking my problem through, I could theoretically swallow just the right kind of pill and my issue would go away, since pretty much any negative life perceptions these days are considered brain imbalance. Depressed? Brain imbalance. Unhappy? Brain imbalance. Solution -- "happy pill".
NO! I said, no, that's not what I am, and I refuse to seek solely physical means to solve every problem in my life. I am not a bio-robot. I am not a meat machine.
I am not telling you the whole story here. It's not that I just didn't like how science made me feel and rejected it based on some sentimental reason. Not at all. My feelings caused me to examine the issues seriously and I came to realize that the hinging point is the issue of identity and the nature of cognition. Essentially science and maths take identity as an axiom, but it's not an axiom. If examined, one can see how and why it doesn't make any sense. But this can be difficult to explain because most people are not used to questioning axiomatic beliefs, and so react negatively and aggressively to such ideas (thus no useful discussion can take place).
Briefly put, science is dehumanising. If scientists could somehow address that, I feel that science would experience a revival. However, I am affraid that it's not going to happen, because scientists pretty much refuse to challenge the "everything is matter and energy and mind is just an illusion" view of materialism [wustl.edu].
(yes I am accusing the scientific community of being aggressive and hateful toward any non-materialists, with the possible exception of quantum mechanics people who are a bit more open minded usually, since they are not as stuck on the classic ideas of identity, matter and energy)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, I have no problem with any of these theories being discussed in a systemic philosophy class provided that anything brought up is not considered to be beyond question. I just don't want them taught in science class.
Would you teach theories about the Tower of Babel in engineering class when discussing space elevators? Everthing shoudl be discussed and taught but in its place and subject to question.
your job is a peace dividend casualty (Score:3, Insightful)
In the aftermath of WW-II, public policy makers in all countries, worried about yet another war and seeing the real-world impact of esoteric physics experiments rushed to advance funding in for all sorts of physics research.
Funding of physics was never about finding a breakthrough that would impact people's lives, it is mostly about figuring things out before your enemies figured things out and gained an advantage. With the end of the cold war, the pressure is off to beat our enemies with esoteric physics so in a way we should be somewhat thankful that nobody is really pushing pushing esoteric physics anymore from a policy level. This is sadly, for you, the byproduct of the "peace-dividend".
The peace dividend factor is, however, probably only 1/2 the story.
Personally, one of the reasons I lost the desire to support the "big-sciences" is that recently, academia has decided that they aren't about "dicovery" anymore, but it all seems to be about how to "monetize" their research.
Now I'm not the type of person to deny a person the bucks that they earn, but lending money to people to buy lottery tickets and then charging me a fee for the privledge isn't my thing either.
If "big-science" wants to take public money and feed the research to the public, that's great. If a few of the researchers decided they want to leave academia to try to capitalize on their research by joining companies, that's great too. But more often these days, academic institutions have decided to "licence" their research back to companies which means they want to pick the winners and the losers. Of course nobody wants to be the loser, right, so the companies woo the people that are making the decisions and that costs money. Once the winner pays for the "license", they want to recoup their investment (who wouldn't) and indirectly we (the public) end up paying again.
That to me just sucks!
I'll gladly pay a little (in the form of taxes) and take the risk nothing comes of certain research, but when the research pays off, I really resent paying again in the form of monopoly taxes to the "winner" chosen by the academic institution.
Everytime I hear people talk about academics lamenting the fact that they have to go to get private money (e.g., corporate financing) for their projects instead of getting public money, I think to myself that there is a good case to be made that academia broke the previous contract and now are just crying over spilled milk. Academia chose their path, they have to live with the consequences.
If we were in the music business, we would call this "selling-out-to-the-man"...
You might argue that physics isn't the same as genetics or computer-science, but unfortunatly, from the generally uninformed public point of view, there's not much of a difference and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. Just look at how research money is spent these days: "overhead" is one of the bigger ticket items in most grants. Nobody seems to want to isolate the spending on a project, but everyone wants overhead to go into a generic university "slush-fund" which gets intermingled with all that private money too. It's too hard to draw the line in most univeristy budgets on what is public and what is private (it's all just their money to spend however they want). If people thought Enron was bad, I'm not sure they'd be too pleased at the typical university accounting procedures...
If research wants to be monetized, then the money should pay for the research, right? Sadly there's not much money in physics research at the moment...
Re: Bringing Galileo to His Knees (Score:5, Insightful)
science has helped us understand the world without using ghost stories, even though there's a lot we don't know. it exposes zealous claims about "the word of god" for the frauds that they are.
as you said, "science" doesn't "disprove god." it disproves various PROPOSITIONS about the world that god-fearing people have historically repeated over the years. science is a METHOD for investigating reality in a sensible way, not a collection of claims. if you oppose it, you're an ostrich with your head in the sand. you can oppose some of the claims that a scientist might make, and then make a counterargument. that's great. but opposing rational inquiry itself is something else entirely.
the "strident atheist" is a straw man. you can't test, prove, or falsify claims made about an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity. so theology doesn't belong in a science classroom. the only "strident" thing that fundamentalists are opposing is the TRUTH itself, and the acknowledgment of certain facts about the world, which is why their current goal is to dumb down the science curriculum in school. you should have noticed by now that the provocateurs DON'T go around saying "Hey, everyone, science does NOT actually disprove the existence of a god. let's be careful when we talk about theology." which would be theologically sound, and possibly even appreciated by many people. but instead of saying that, they say "Evolution? I don't believe it. We gotta stop teaching it, or, at least, it's just a THEORY, and it's mostly wrong". the whole controversy is nothing but a repeat of the persecution of Galileo.
and in due time, everyone will be so familiar with the basic facts of biology that the campaign against teaching evolution will be nothing but a historical absurdity, just like with astronomy in the case of Galileo. you can only keep people in the dark so long.
the truth comes home to roost. and it ruffles a lot of feathers.
Re:why does this sound so familiar? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first was a moral law, the second was one to show how the Jews were supposed to be set apart. That became redundant when the gospel was opened up to Gentiles as Jesus' coming.
Similar thing applies here, as is clearly shown by Peter's dream in Acts.
There are quite a few people in the world who attack Christians for being ignorant of science, then go and attack Christianity without having made any attempt to understand it. Providentially, I'm both a physicist and a Christian.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying creation happened form a histroy standpoint but it is like an urban legend. There are enough true parts to mkae the nontrue stuff belivable. To some genisis being true or acurate is about as real as knowing George Washington was the first president. Now you take another course that tells you "thats completley wrong. We think it might have happened this way because we see this happening here but cannot be certain. Believe us over your book and elders because we are smarter and have evidence that although it doesn't show proof, it shows it is likley it might have happened that way.
Science and creation has ben taught as if evolution is the only way life as we know it could have been created. This troubles some who see that out of somewere life had to come in order for evolution to exist. But there isn't realy an agreed on reproducable single theory staing it happened a certain way or that we have the planets and the ability to support life becasue of a process that doesn't end up in the same begining as the bible with somethign was just there.
I know of a girl who came home and told here parents that the bible was wrong and god didn't create the earth and humans after they started studying this in science. She got this idea from somewere, is it just coincidence it happend to enter her brain at the same time when they started lessons on evolution? More like the books or the teacher gave her that impresion durring class wich raises another interesting question that i'l not ask here.
I don't see anythign wrong with teachinng evolution as a theory that hasn't been proven and not as fact. If this was going on all along, there wouldn't as big of problem or momentum behind creation science. This movment didn't come from a class that said we think evolution is how life was formed, it came from a class that taught students that evolution _IS_ how life was formed and any other opinion is fales. We can see this from all the other posts that state Look at all the scientific evidence supporting this and there is non for creation because creation isn't a science. There are posts that say because something "isn't science" it shouldn't ever be taught. We use different evidence to know history is real or true. This same evidence (usualy thru scientific means) proves parts of the bible real or true. And granted while it isn't a science, this doesn't mean anyhtign is less real or true.
When schools use science to discredit religions like in some public schools, It strikes a nerve with those that are religious. It is how they think they can counter the "your god lied" additude left in some of these children. It wouldn't be as bad if they weren't compeled to show up by law but they are. Much of this is the same argument of saying the pledge in schools. (/note the problem isn't being the pledge itself but being compeled to say it in an institution they are compelled by law to attened.)
I personaly don't se the need to include creartionism or any other example of how life started if they only teached evolution as a thoery consistant with observations instead of claiming it as fact. when i was in school, we learned about evolution as being an understanding of how life changes over time. The we learned that some belive this to be how life began. It is a little different then whats being teached now.
Re:Yes and (Score:1, Insightful)
This is, actually, not a christian-induced belief. Christianity states that believing in what makes you feel good because it makes you feel good is hedonism and denounced. Christianity teaches that God gave them what they should believe in, and if they believe in something contradictory, they will be lost. In Leviticus, I believe, the priesthood of God is detailed for the Jews. It was specified that the High Priest was to burn incense for God. If "believe what makes you feel good" were God-given, the sons of the High Priest, who tried to burn incense but were not authorized to do so, would not have been burned to death in punishment for disobedience.
The parent appears to suffer from a lack of knowledge of what Christianity really dictates and is really decrying post-modernism, essentially, the belief that truth is relative. This is where "believe what makes you feel good" comes from.
Religion is a panacea for those of small minds who are to lazy to learn how the world really works and feel comfortable with small and easy answers - even if they are false.
This is ignorant at best and flame-bait at worst. It seems to me that small minds are the ones that believe they are the only right ones. True, many Christians fall into that description, but so do many outside of Christianity. I'd say the percentages are probably equal.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does questioning evolution result in answers like "everyone knows evolution is a fact, that's a stupid question."
Basically, teaching evolution usually starts with saying what its all about. The facts behind it are so exciting that its tempting to present them without going through the tedium of explaining the rationale behind them. Its like with relativity; its fun to tell people about time dilation, but the rational behind it can be very difficult to understand.
Please understand that there is a ton of books that explain evolution, backing it up in minute, scientific detail, addressing reservation that are common among creationists. Don't take my word for it; check the "Science" section of your local bookstore.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/science/earth/1
even human genocide is a form of competition in most places. One set of humans is fighting against another and attempts to completely destroy each other. Ants are known to do this when their mounds run into each other. massive 'wars' take place simply to win territory adn when one side wins, the other mound is usually completely taken over and all its ants are killed. Of course, you could call this comeptition for land but then, there was land elsewhere. give a broad enough definition and I guarantee it occurs. If you use things like "because of hatred" or "over trivial matters" then it is tough to measure for animals, or humans.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:4, Insightful)
Everybody (except obviously the ignorant theists that only go by what their preacher told them) knows science says nothing about gods. It's the ridiculous stories in their magic book that it threatens. Evolution undermines their entire *religion*, not their god. If mankind evolved and there was no Adam and Eve, then there was no Fall, so there's no original sin, so there was nothing for Jesus to save us all from.
So you can understand why they fight tooth and nail.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
The rest of your post makes some sense, but I can't stand by and let you say this. You know why 50% (ish) of Americans score under 100 on an IQ test? BECAUSE OF WHAT A SCORE OF 100 MEANS ON THE BLOODY TEST!!!!!
IQ scores are given so that the average score is 100. It's an utterly arbitrary number. Wikipedia says it nicely. "IQ scores are expressed as a number normalized so that the average IQ in an age group is 100." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotien
I could make a personal attack on you regarding which half you're currently in, but I won't. I'm more mature than that.
Re:Here's a question. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't disagree with that. But neither that nor anything else in your post gives any objective and measurable evidence of free will.
Genocide != predation (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference in predation or competition and genocide is very clear. While animals engage in territorial squabbles as you mention, ants do not go out LOOKING for other ants to exterminate. Conflicts arise only out of expansion into neighboring territories--they only engage in warfare when their populations but up against one another. This sort of competition occurs throughout nature and is different than what humans practice, which often constitutes a concerted hunting and elimination of humans or other animals that has nothing to do with sustenance, and often nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with imposing our brand of order on the world. I do agree that a lot of human conflict arises out of contention for limited resources, but you have to also acknowledge that much of it does not. When we invaded Vietnam, for instance, there we no resources in contention that lead to that conflict: rather, it arose out of our will to test out some military toys and impose our order somewhere.
When the wolves hunt the elk, it is a negative feedback system that regulates itself. If the wolves eliminate too many elk, the wolves do not have enough food to survive, and thus the wolf population diminishes. Similarly, if the elk destroy their food supply, they die and rot in the ground, becoming feritlizer for more grasses to grow.
When humans deliberately eliminate species or groups of other humans, it is arbitrary and has nothing to do with this balance: it has only to do with a positive feedback system in which one group of people seeks unlimited growth. This is hugely different from anything else that happens in nature, and our ability to reason (and therefore, to be murderous and insane) is what facilitates this. Our ability to produce arbitrary amounts of food and to store this food facilitates unlimited growth, and it also has the side effect of making us exterminate other people and species in other to convert as much of the world as possible into food for us. This is unprecedented in the animal kingdom.
I don't need to go into torture, because while animals might occasionally play with their prey, they also play with one another. I see no reason to look upon these actions differently: I see both of the as being training and exercise of a sort. To put malice on those activities is to anthropomorphize animals with minds that are IMO too simple to derive pleasure from the pain of another being.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything in science is technically a theory -- there's the theory of gravitation, the atomic theory, etc. A fact is simply a theory with overwhelming support. Evolution has long ago joined the other major theories in having such support.
Give some logical, scientific explanation as to why a theory is taught as fact, and it is rare that any opposing theory is taught in parallel.
If there are serious differences of opinion among scientists, certainly multiple theories are taught in parallel. For example, both in high school and in my undergrad years, there was serious debate about the nature of prions. Some people thought they were viruses with a nucleic acid component nobody had yet detected, and others believed, as we do now, that prions are simply pathogenic proteins. Both theories were taught in parallel. There is no such debate about evolution, just as nobody seriously doubts the atomic theory. The only people who doubt evolution these days are born-again Christians like Behe and Johnson. They have a right to teach their religious dogma of ID in their churches, while speaking in tongues (which might make ID more comprehensible, actually) and handling snakes if they so choose, but it is simply dishonest to claim that it is anything but warmed over Genesis with the serial numbers filed off. They even admit it themselves in their "wedge document".
Also explain to me why it is that many teenagers (and I have 3, and speaking to them and their friends I know this to be true at least in our school district) don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection. I'd also like to know how evolution has anything to do with a virus (reference the avian flu mentioned in another post) changing the way it survives according to its environment. That's natural selection, not evolution. I haven't yet seen proof that it's mutated into an actual bird yet. The confusion furthers my point about the rampant confusion and misleading of students with regard to what's evolution, what's not, what is theory, and what is fact.
While there are indeed other causes of evolution besides natural selection, it makes no sense to say "That's natural selection, not evolution" -- that's like saying "That's an automobile, not a vehicle". And your idea that evolution means that viruses turn into birds also makes no sense.
Re:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
No need for hysteria. Of course that's what it means. Now — sit back and think — when is the last time you tried to discuss actual science with one of these middle-and-below folk? Are you trying to say that because the tests divide the population into a high and low group balanced on a (more or less) bell curve that this makes the left half of the curve not indicate relatively low functioning? Because that is obviously false. IQ tests do a very good job of classing us as far as the very type of thinking that science would have us do. Granted that they don't do well discriminating for artistic or athletic skill aptitudes, but that's not the issue here.
The median (and average) IQ position is in fact very low functioning from the standpoint of scientific thinking. They're not in the ball game; also, they're not particularly interested in the ball game because they can't understand the rules. They can't understand the rules because our educational system has no enlightening mechanism tuned to the midpoint. Either you're smart, and you "get it", or you're not, and you just slide by.
Science is not a venue for your average Jane or Joe. Period. The sad addendum to this is that although it is unreasonable to expect a 100-ish-or-lower person to do science, it is not unreasonable to expect that they could be taught how it works. That's where the schools fail, and that's where religion captures these people before the educational system does.
Add to that the entirely inappropriate support given by the government to religion, and you've got a recipe for programmed ignorance.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:4, Insightful)
False. God (at least in Christian theology--I can't speak for all religions) is not falisifiable, but he is verifiable. Scientific theories are inherently falsifiable but not verifiable. Yes, religion is not a good scientific theory, but that's fine--God isn't interested in proving himself to us in a laboratory, but rather in giving us the choice of choosing to be like him or not. Also, science has nothing to say about the soul, our eternal destination, morals, etc. And that is fine too. Science is a collection of ideas and methods that attempt to model our world and how it works. It's a powerful tool. But only a fool believes it to be the only usable epistemology.
Again, false. My faith encourages academics, and I know quite a number of people with advanced degrees. I personally see science as a wonderful tool for understanding how our world works. I use theoretical models of radiation all the time in the work I do (software simulation of radiation for oncology). Mendel was a monk who did ground-breaking work in genetics. Many scientists have felt that their work was inspired by God to give them a better glimpse of creation.
ID (Intelligent Design) is (IMO) a fraudulent attempt to weaken evolutionary theory to protect certain people's belief which is contrary to scientific theory. It will eventually fail.
Morality is not fantasy. You cannot claim that my belief of an afterlife is fantasy, or you exceed the boundaries of science and you are just as guilty as the ID proponents. To the degree that religions make scientifically testable claims, they should be tested scientifically. However, to assert that all religions are fantasy is just as bad science as ID.
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and how about we start teaching these heretical theories with their proper opposition too!
That crazy special relativity vs. cosmic aether
Clumsy Mendeleevian theory of the elements vs. the neat and tidy Aristotlean four (earth,air,fire, water)
Shaky oxygen theory of combustion vs. phlogiston
Bogus neural basis of behavior theory vs Descartes' hydraulic theory
Dubious Pasteurian germ theory of disease vs. demonic posession
Blashemous Copernican heliocentric theory vs. blessed geocentricism.
All of those on the left have mountains and mountains of data supporting them, wheras those on the right don't have a shred of evidence, but hey, but they're still just theories that haven't been "proven" (stupid science never proving anything), so we can't be passing anything off as facts without a nice, fair and balanced presentation of all sides.
Here's some other "theoretical concepts" that have no room in our classroom of facts: gravity, light, magneticism, electricity, radiation, atoms, life.
Also explain to me why it is that many teenagers... don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection.
Gee, I don't know, maybe it's because saying "natural selection is not evolution" is like saying "internal combustion is not car driving." It doesn't make any sense because the two concepts are not comparable. In each case, the first is a mechanism (one of many) by which the second happens. It's called a category error, and whatever other distinction you think you might be drawing is confused and wrong.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
Jedidiah.
the nature of intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
What bothers me the most is not that ID is fundamentally religious, but that it's based on a fundamentally anthropomorphic definition of "intelligence" that is impossible to define, and even proponents of evolution fall into supporting this false dichotomy. Instead of saying "No, evolution is not intelligent!" they should be pointing out that intelligence itself is not intelligent. There's atoms, they move around, and that's it. If there's even a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, please point it out, because I've never seen it, and I've been looking for a long time.
Re:You don't know Darwin's work. (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire idea of a "lower life form" and "higher life form" is grounded in the idea that humans, created in God's image, are innately superior to other animals, which are merely dumb beasts to be shepherded by Adam and his descendants. (Or any of a dozen other creation stories in which humans are created by a deity.)
Biologically speaking, a successful life form is one that survives. Some are more complex than others, but there is no evolutionary reason to conclude that a human is "higher" than a chimp or a paramecium. It is not necessary to have some function that transforms lower to higher...merely to have an effective transformation function resulting in a new species.
Re:How Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Numbers I've seen seem to indicate 1 saved millikelvin in global warming for every for $100 billion in economic loss.
Re:Animal Rights Movement (Score:1, Insightful)
ok, granted.
but your argument that animal rights groups have vast powers seems based on a single odd incident. After all, there's still tons of test animals out there, and people are still wearing furs.
Re:Do like the british do... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we do not have oil to use, as we do now, how have we not run out of oil. When I say "oh im out of milk", I don't mean the last cow has died and no more exists in the world, I mean I have no practically accessable milk until I resupply from the store.
Economically useful oil running out is a serious threat, because, well we kind of depend on it right now, hence the point. Technically the world is producing more oil as we speak, but so slowly and unreachably that it effectively does not exist to us.
Being philosophical about the existence or non-existence of a common economic commodity is like trying to prove God exists so you don't have to go to work tomorrow.
Philosophy (Score:3, Insightful)
That would definitely constitute better science education, in my book.
There are serious drawbacks to this approach: many fewer students would pass a science class with a significant philosophical bent. Hell, most of them wouldn't even be able to spell "epistemology," let alone know what it is or how it relates to science.
It's much easier to train a bunch of uninterested students in facts and figures, rather than try to interest them in learning the significance of those facts and figures. It'd be an uphill battle.
But, I agree. Teach logic, then teach the philosophy of science. That'd be a damned good start.
Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:4, Insightful)
As an aside, I'd like to register my profoud relief that you are not a dictator.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not against the scientific method, I think it is a fabulous way to discern knowledge and I use it in my research (of course). It has some major shortcomings though. I won't get in to all the problems with it but if you trace the history of the scientific method, you can see the underlying philosophies. All science was/is rooted deeply in philosophy. Why do we still get PhDs at our universities? We can get a bachelor's of science but we become doctors of philosophy with additional education. The root of science is as much a philosophy as is modern theology.
Some of the founding philosophies for our scientific method are materialism (only what you can see exists and matter is really all that matters), rationalism (all truth can be derived through reason), and quantification (numbers are the best approach to describing truth because they are universal and certain; which is why statistic and statistical significance are so significant in science).
There are modern and competing scientific methods to the one we currently use; there is a hermeneutical method that does not really deny anything in our scientific method but rather expands on it, making a more all-encompassing approach to knowledge. It is a similar but extended approach to truth.
One of the problems in our world today is that some non-religious people feel threatened by religion and some religious people are threatened by science. America was founded with a separation of church and state which means the government cannot pander to any one set of religious beliefs or people above that of other beliefs; however, it also means that the government cannot deny the free exercise of that religion or those beliefs. Separation of church and state was never meant to keep religion out of our schools, it was meant to allow for religious freedom in the country. If you look at the educational systems from the founding of the country (and especially later when free public education was mandated) up until the last few decades or so, religion was heavily involved in our schools (and government). Many people think that we are more enlightened now as we remove religion more and more from our educational system. That's an awfully egocentric belief. All of the founding fathers believed in God (yes, some were deists and many did not go to church actively, but all believed in God). Are we more enlightened than they were just because we believe Darwin and they never had the opportunity to? Do we laugh at the poor religious masses who are lost in delusions while we believe that we are one of only a few enlightened people who rise above the pettiness of religion and embrace science as our savior? Ok, I may be exaggerating a bit, but my point is that those who are threatened by religion need to stop being so fastidious (as do those who are so threatened by science).
I go to church every week. I am also studying neuroscience. There are no conflicts between the two (and that is not because I compartmentalize them from each other - I don't). Do I think religions have all the answers? No. Does science have all the answers? No and science usually produces more questions than answers (I'm not saying that's bad). Why should you care if Intelligen Design is taught in schools? Vote against it or move somewhere where it isn't taught. If it's not practical to move, then when your kids learn it at school talk with them about it and let them know you disagree but also let them decide for themselves whether they agree or not. Is exposure to the theory of Intelligent Design so bad that you can't even listen to it? I think it's a bit funny that the fundamentalist Christians asking for Intelligent Design to be taught alongside evolution are the ones who are being open-minded here. They are not asking
Re:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
You appear to be saying that IQ scores mean nothing because they are normalized to the population. I disagree, and I was specific about why; They segment the population effectively by intelligence of the specific type that we find in scientists. You've not provided any rebuttal to that, other than mischaracterizing what I said. If you want to pick another number than 100, fine, go ahead. I maintain that 100 is approximately where we stop doing science; I gleaned that impression because I know from experience that 100 is where we stop doing other types of technical work. However, the specific point isn't all that critical to my position. The idea that there is a point is what is important. Or would you attempt to argue than someone with an IQ of 40 would make an effective microbiologist... because the tests are normalized? Surely you see that such a position is absurd, and that it is not materially different from picking another point where an argument can be made for a general lack of scientific aptitude, such as 100.
Frankly, that point should probably be set higher, as we do see some fairly high IQ people making the same errors about superstition and science. 80% plus in the US claim to believe in various gods. It's a sorry situation, and that's a fact. Aside from being sorry, we can also observe that 80% of the population won't fit in the 100-and-under region because of the way IQ is determined. If you want to claim that superstition is evenly distributed around 100, I'd be interested to read your argument for that, though I can't say I hold much hope for a convincing one.
As for the rest, you are certainly entitled to post your opinion of me. I am equally entitled to not worry about it, though. Sorry. ;-)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:2, Insightful)
As a student, majoring in engineering, I can tell you this: there's a HUGE difference between maths and 'reality'.
Given a system of axioms and basic rules, one can prove the non-existence of infinitely many things, in that system. The problem is that we do not know the axioms this 'reality' thing we observe around us is based on. And it's likely we will never fully know them.
We can only estimate some of the axioms by observing the fenomena surrounding us. No matter how precise the axioms we estimate are, there's always a chance they could be approximated to a better precision (think 'flat earth', then 'round Earth in the center of the Universe', then Copernic, then Newton's gravitation, then Einstein's general relativity with its non-euclidian space-time, then whatever we might approximate next).
Also there could be axioms that have too small an effect at our scale (for example, if we can see how f(x) = 4+sin(x)+1/x looks where x is between 10^120 and 10^120 + 2*pi we can't tell how it looks where x is between 0.2 and 10, because the 1/x part is simply too damn small for us to observe it).
Or, even better, there could be no 'axioms' in this universe, and everything is at the whim of an impredictible intelligent entity that just tricks us into believing there are 'axioms' and 'rules' that govern 'reality'. Even if such an entity would present itself to us as 'God' or whatever, how would we be able to KNOW that it is not comandeered by their 'Super-God' and so on...
Anyway, the purpose of the above rant is to say that we don't know... and it's likely we will never be able to know completely the axioms (if any) that run 'reality'.
Evolutionists: Copy/Paste This Anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are two specific examples in which Evolution explains what Creationism cannot. First, consider Vitamin C. Lack of this in the diet causes the deficiency-disease known as "scurvy". All primates (monkeys, apes, humans) require Vitamin C in their diets. But various "lesser" animals, such as rats, can manufacture Vitamin C within their bodies, and so don't need any in their diet. The Evolutionary explanation is that as ancestors of the primates took to the trees and gradually became the primates, they found plentiful supplies of fruits rich in Vitamin C. Animals with defective genes (or missing genes) for making Vitamin C did not suffer scurvy and die; they survived and passed the inability to make Vitamin C onto their descendants. In terms of "biological energy", an organism that can save a little by using environmental availability instead of of internal manufacturing, has a slight evolutionary advantage -- as long as the environment maintains the availability of the nutrient, of course. In the tropics, where primates evolved, fruits with Vitamin C are available year-round. And so, over millions of years, primates became utterly dependent on Vitamin C in their diets -- and humans, of course, when described as evolved primates, continue the tradition. (Possibly to be FIXED, once Genetic Engineering gains wide acceptance, heh!) OK, NOW, The Creationism explanation, for why a loving God blessed us with the potential for scurvy instead of the dietary independence that rats have, is what, exactly?
Second example: Eyes have evolved in different ways among different branches of the animal kingdom. In the fish/amphibian/reptile/mammal line of evolution, the human eyeball has various superior traits to many precursor animals. Color vision, for example. Nevertheless, the human eye, like those of its precursors, share certain particular overall architectural features, which are: The back wall of the eyeball is covered with retinal cells. The nerves that transmit retinal signals are between the iris and the retina (the nerves are pretty transparent, but do reduce impinging light a little). At one place on the back of the eyball, all the nerve-strands bundle together to plunge through the eyeball, to connect to the brain. There are no retinal cells in this part of the eyeball, so every amphibian/reptile/mammal has a "blind spot" in the vision. You can prove it to yourself; just print this out and follow the instructions: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mindh...ter/hack16. pdf [oreilly.com] One of the other branches of the animal kingdom, the molluscs, includes clams, snails, slugs, cuttlefish, octopi, and squid. They branched off from the other evolutionary lines so far back that the development of the eyeball (most well-known in the octopus, which also has color vision) took a different route. In this architectural design, the nerve-signal cells are behind the retinal cells,
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, there is this middle-land, called "Ok, I completely disagree with what you say, but let's not let our differences prevent us from living a nice life, in mutual tolerance".
And there's also this other middle-land, called "I don't care, just leave me alone, Mr. Preacher/Priest/Guru/whatever. You could be right, you could be wrong, I don't care. I just want to have a good time without doing harm to other human beings. Thankyouverymuch"
Oh, and there's the third middle-land, called "I don't know. I WANT to know/believe , but what I've seen so far is not even remotely convincing. Try harder (or try better)"
Carl Sagan, a scientist answered that. (Score:3, Insightful)
And lets use the correct terms, as long as a forming organism is not born it is not called baby, it is called fetus. Part of the problem dealing with people opposed to a real scientific discussion is the hijacking of terms using emotionally charged words.
Science is not restricted to Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
1- I am not American.
2- I am a Christian, and hold a Christian world view.
Having said that, it is really disheartening to see so many anti-Christian views being expressed because a "they don't believe in Evolution".
It is this kind of attitude that makes all things america look silly to an outsider. Science is not Evolution. Science is much much more than that. There's chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, astrophysics, you name it. Biology is just one part of quite a large field.
A statement that says: America is becoming less scientifically inclined, means that they are no longer interested in engineering, mathematics, physics etc etc.
Is this the case?
To blame christians for this percieved lack of interest is naive and misinformed. It also harbours an agenda. It's like saying the problems with the western world are all related to TV. Is this a valid statement?
Fundamental Understanding (Score:4, Insightful)
When you describe "swirling masses of atoms inside peoples' heads" you are merely trying to assign meaning things that you've experienced. If some one else, when observing the same phenomena, see "intelligence", "souls", or "magic", is isn't wrong, it's just different. The important question is which meaning will allow us to make the predictions that will ultimately result in interaction with our environment in a way that is most beneficial to us.
So, as a neuroscientist, it may be the most beneficial for you to you to understand the brain as you do. That doesn't necessary mean that it is best for other people to view it that way. Indeed, a lot of what you've said wouldn't have meaning for someone outside the sciences. On the other hand, the idea of "intelligence" is pretty easy to understand. Basically, intelligence is just the process by which an object (something to which we have ascribed meaning) promotes a specific goal or set of goals. I'm not trying to say that this is a universal definition, but it works well for me. So in the case of evolution, one could see a particular class of organisms as the object, and survival as the goal being promoted. It's easy to see why people would ascribe intelligence to a number of "natural" processes. We are simply projecting aspects of ourselves onto the world around us so that we may better understand it.
The problem with the view you espouse (and, hopefully, you can tell from comment that I don't really disagree with you) is that people are gregarious. We are horribly afraid of being alone, and like to believe that there something fundamental connecting us to the rest of the universe. For this reason, people like the believe that the intelligence they've ascribed to other people, and to the rest of the universe, is real (whatever that means). I don't know if there's anything wrong with that interpretation. Indeed, if the natural processes going on inside your body (assuming the processes and your body are real) have given rise to your own (real) intelligence (such as you understand it) there's no reason to believe that the intelligence you assign to other people and objects is any less real.
Re:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
I am well aware of it. I would simply point out that philosophy is also a common dumping ground for ideas that aren't just unanswerable, they are simply nonsensical. Regardless of where such philosophical ideas land, they may still be interesting ideas. This in no way makes them more likely to be a representation of objective reality,
Do you understand me when I tell you that it doesn't bother me in the least that I don't know what our origin was, yet I am content to remain curious?
Sheesh. Quadratics and mitosis don't teach science. They are very specific data, information, methods of specialized subfields that use science. Science is a method. It can (and should) be taught in a few hours. Add the study of critical thinking skills (which would blow a good deal of philosophical naval-gazing right out the window)... then you'd have something. There is no reason to think that everyone should have to do science... but there is very good reason to think that as many people as possible should understand what science is.
The net is being trolled... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've lost track of how many lame Science vs. Religion / Evolution vs. ID / Modernism vs. Irrationalism pseudo-debates have popped up on my usual boards. It's the same thing over and over and over and over and over...
It's been done. For the love of all things holy, please stop posting stories like this and move on to something new. Just don't do another, "The RIAA & MPAA are hatching a plan to slaughter us in our beds" story...
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't at all, I only care when it is taught in a science class room. Intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense, it is religious belief. the only arugment that exists in everything I have read is "it just seems way too complex to have happened wtihout someone guiding it all". That is the core argument. There is no evidence other than the fact that life is complex. It lacks any predictive power what so ever.
When a real scientist comes up with a theory, there are things that are predicted or testable. If tests show those predictions to be wrong, the theory is changed. creationism has absolutely no predictable points what so ever. Just like religion, it is based completely on faith and has no groundings in experiment or observation. to give a real analogy, it would be like me saying that there was some divine intervention in humans coming up with quantum mechanics because it is so complex. It is a statement that cannot be proved, supported, disproved, or have evidence given to the contrary if you honestly believe that there is some force that is responsible for every instance of quantum mechanics understanding.
of course, if you are for intellegent design being taught in the classroom, I guess we should give time in class to every crack job that believes they have a 'scientific' theory. flat earth theory should still get at least a day. I propose something known as intellegent shifting. In my theory, rather than falling off the side of the Earth, people are miraculously transported to the opposite side of the flat earth making it seem round. We don't teach things like this because science rejects them on all grounds. and of course, I would like teachers to mention my other theory of intelligent curving whenever Einstein's theory of relativity is mentioned (its not spacetime, its a higher power that causes light to curve. I mean, have you ever seen the field equations? way to complex to occur 'naturally').
would you like history teachers spending a day on each conspiracy theory over JFK's death? no , we don't give credence to people who believe that LBJ pulled at two hand guns to finish off the president(a real conspiracy theory). Just because a group of people believe something absurd long enough doesn't make it true or deserving of any level of respect. science classroom time is usually reserved for the best explanation we have moderated by how much time and the expertise of the audience.
F=ma gets taught because it is correct in the complete sense, to the best of our knowledge. What you want to refer to is F=GMm/r^2 which is only correct to a first order approximation. The beauty of it though is it highlights the scientific process. Before Einstein, astronomers had found real world examples where the current theory failed to predict what was going on(I believe at that time, it was the orbit of mercury) and the successful predictions of general relativity in relation to said orbit and many other things (including curvature of light around the sun) lead us today to accept it as the ruling theory of gravity. But all good scientists can show you why it needs to still be modified. Scientists have moved beyond the idea that they are always correct and there isn't anywhere to go. We accept the possibility of being wrong at all times and the possibility of a new theory that could fundamentally alter our thinking.
purveyors of creationism will never think that way. They can't. It would mean the shattering of their entire world if someone could prove them wrong(I am not saying if someone actually 'proved' god doesn't exists. rather, to even accept the fact that such a proof could exist would shatter the fundamentals of any faith). Of course, encapsulate yourself just right and noone can ever do that. Play the omnipotence trump card enough times and you are pretty much guaranteed to win, at least in your own mind.
God made the CPU (Score:2, Insightful)
Is a discussion about these differences growing anything good, except the fact, we are learning more about the other sides position?
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
"Mutations and natural selection" IS "actual evolution".
Re:How Ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
AIG = Argument ad IGnoratum (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:2, Insightful)
way to plagiarize!I CLE_ID=39733 [worldnetdaily.com]
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
Anyway, the Setterfield study you mention only used a portion of the points to obtain the decay trend for speed of light, while a best fit of the entire data set shows a slight increase in speed, with constant speed being well within the margin of error. Basically Setterfield picked the data points that would give him the results he wanted, which wouldn't be too hard if you consider that early measurements were less accurate than modern measurements, thus it is obvious that if you only select data points for the larger measurements over time, the speed of light will appear to be slowing down because the margin of error is decreasing. Of course you could do the same thing with the lower measurements and have it appear that the speed of light is increasing.
There are some more responses to the slowing speed of light myth here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411.html [talkorigins.org]
And here is an article about a recent NASA study that shows the speed of light is constant:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741682/ [msn.com]
Re:The Great Fallacy: Evolution = Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, lots. And I mean LOTS: thousands and thousands of them. You really should try researching this a bit more.
Are there any animals living today that are half one and half another?
Presumably. Since the animal they are half-way to becoming isn't, by definition, here yet it's hard to know what they're between, but certainly whales, with their back legs now totally embedded in their bodies, must be over half way to some animal with no back legs at all.
The Law of Entropy states that everything goes naturally to disorder.
Universally, over all of time. Locally and in the short term entropy can be reversed with no problem. Once the sun dies, for example, entropy on Earth is going to start booming again. Until then, we can reverse our entropy at the Sun's expense.
How can the order that is life(on a molecular level that is), especially human life, by chance materialize out of nothing or out of a few base elements.
What's so special about "human life"? Once you have life at all humans are no big deal. Anyway, chance is involved in the broad sense but actually not in any important way. If a gambler backs a 1:100 chance a thousand times then luck is involved but you would not consider him lucky to have won. Life may be a tricky bet, but the whole universe has been placing that bet for the whole of time, so it's not very surprising that it came up at least once.
Actually, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in a Creator.
Only if you're stupid.
TWW
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:3, Insightful)
What this argument fails to take into account is that taxonomy is a completely arbitrary classification with no basis in reality. It's similar to saying that continental drift occurs, but only within hemispheres of the earth, and crossing the line of the equator is also forbidden. It also ignores the way evolution actually works: It's not a spider giving birth to a cockroach; it's an ancestor species partially between spiders and cockroaches that would give rise to both families.
Basically, if any genetic change is possible, then it is possible to pass it on, and that opens the door to unlimited genetic change over time. To hell with taxonomy.
Re:why does this sound so familiar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Deuteronomy 21:
A prime example of people pick & mixing what they take from the bible. Another great example is the concept of charging interest. Originally, it was a MAJOR sin to do this, however some time in the last 2000 years (IIRC) this got forgotten as it got in the way of profit. The adoptation of arabic numerals over roman ones derives from this; you can't work out compound interest using IIVX.
One of my friends, for instance, had to flee Iran when he converted to Christianity. Not a lot of incentive from family there.
One in a million. Literally. The vast majority of believers were born into their beliefs via geography or historical period. Are you more correct than those who worshipped Ra? Care to back that up with some reasoning?
Also, your anecdote proves my point. If your friend had fled to any other country, his current religion whould undoubtably be different.
Science is not an alternative to religion. It's a tool for building models of the universe in an attempt to make predictions about how it will behave. It tells us nothing about God, nothing about history, nothing about morality, etc.
Science is the opposite of religion. Religion is based on faith and believing the words of others. Science is founded on observable cause & effect, and repeatable experiments. I see nothing of that in religion.
You condemn Christians for being anti-logic, anti-reason, etc. then go and make an ad-hominen like this. Don't you see the blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency in that?
Bill Hicks was a stand-up comedian, sorry if you've not heard of him. It was meant as a joke, in an attempt to avoid the invetiable flame war (smiting? ;-) that these threads tend to bring up.
I respect you as a person if you believe in god. Just don't ask me to respect your reasoning, m'kay? :-)
Re:Fundamental Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why does this sound so familiar? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, how can you draw a line of authority, but not superiority? So if it became law that only males are allowed to drive, but females are just as important as males, its not sexist, because we value them equally.
Re:why does this sound so familiar? (Score:2, Insightful)
And lots of them come to different conclusions. If the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, shouldn't that be enough? None of those other books are divinely inspired, are they? I already have the bible. Several, actually. Maybe you can tell me which one is REALLY [av1611.org] the word of god.
So why have you interpreted this supposed prohibition against homosexuality as anything other than identifying the act as unclean, and dealt with it the same way as the others in the same chapter of the same book? Or perhaps translated the passages as prohibitions against temple prostitution, as other scholars have? You do so because you have biases, and you're reading them into the text. So are the various authors (not divinely inspired) that wrote those books.
OK, so we read that as to lie with a woman as you do with a man is unclean, anyone can be clean in God's sight, voila! Unless of course you don't like homosexuality, in which case you choose to interpret it differently.
Hmmm. These people [religioustolerance.org] seem to have found that there exist some disagreements on the subject. I'm sure you are positive that your interpretation is correct, but forgive me if I don't take your word that it's "clear". In fact, it seems that the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't agree with you [wikipedia.org]. But, I'm sure he's a heretic. And I'd like to say that there are a lot of other ambiguities in there, otherwise there wouldn't be so many churches and Variances in belief [wikipedia.org]. It's funny, when you read about all the different beliefs held by self-proclaimed Christians, besides the bible, the one most common seems to be that anyone who believes differently than them isn't a true Christian. Even the divinity of Christ isn't a constant.
A skill that you and like-minded individuals have, and those who disagree lack? If I had to choose between two authorities on the subject, I'd choose the Archibishop over you. You'll forgive me? As you get to choose your books and make the decision in your heart, so do I. I just don't claim that the bible told me so.
A historically recent development. For an example, see Inquisition [wikipedia.org]. Of course, when the church and state are intertwined, as they have been often over the last milennium or so, saying the church leaves such things to the state is disingenuous.
Again, that's not what I read [religioustolerance.org]. Perhaps the books you read say so, but then, I'm sure you read them with your biases as the filter. If anyone says differently, they should be discarded
Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he compared *anti-intellectuals* to Pol Pot.
*YOU* just equated Christians with anti-intellectual.
-
Re:why does this sound so familiar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Go to the top of the class! Right on all points. My understanding is that morality is a relative, individual thing - I take as evidence the fact that almost every culture in the world has a different definition of the word. I have absolutely no right to call my morality superior on general principles (although there are objective metrics - more on that later). The Holocaust, Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin weren't evil, their behaviour was just the product of different moralities.
However, whilst they can't be called objectively evil (of course it's fine to say "I consider their attitudes evil"), it seems fairly evident that they were, on the whole, rather stupid. If nothing else, creating an environment where killing is the norm puts even the leader at risk - if someone's spent the day killing Jews, why shouldn't they top Hitler (who had Jewish blood)? If you kill all the bureaucrats, starve the populace and ban technology, you shouldn't be surprised if your pseudocommunist regime doesn't have a long shelf life. If you create an atmosphere in which only the biggest bastards can survive, you're not going to be able to sleep at night without at least one eye open.
I mostly consider stupidity the best metric for morality. In my experience, sociopathy is far less effective than ethical behaviour in building the sort of environment I would want to live in, hence I go with the latter as a rule of thumb. It could be argued that the purpose of society is to create an environment where this is the state of affairs.
I give God his due honour by accepting that he is the one should should define morality, rather than a much lesser being such as myself, but I have a responsibility to follow it.
Why do you consider it God's "due honour" to define your morality for you? What does "lesser being" mean in this context? I'll accept that we're less powerful than God, and have less processing power and experience, but you'll need to talk me through why this should mean that His morality is necessarily superior to ours. For example, I doubt either of us have ever nuked a town [gospelcom.net] - isn't that an immoral act by almost anyone's definition?
It's a lot harder to follow someone else' morality than one I make up, twist to suit my circumstances and which requires no accountability.
In my experience, it's easier to follow someone else's morality than come up with a self-consistent one of one's own. I know it took me several years of hard thought and debate before I was satisfied that I'd covered all the major bases. But this is a subjective issue and also somewhat irrelevant - the difficulty or otherwise of following a moral code doesn't indicate the value of that code.
One day I will be accountable before God.
So you follow His rules because one day He'll be in a position to punish/reward you based on this? Very moral
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
its unfortunate that we have executed so many people without eye witnesses to the crimes. I mean, that means that we can never be sure if they did it, right? no matter how much evidence is put up in support of it, it would be wrong to convict on such weak grounds.
Hell, while we are at it, I think all history classes need to be thrown out, right? No one alive today actually saw the civil war occur so we shouldn't teach about it. I mean hell, soon enough one can easily make the argument that the holocaust didn't accur by your standards. But then again, we are going to have to close every church out there because all they have ever done is teach things that could never be seen(or heard, or touched, or interacted with). It would be a shame if we let people be 'educated' by such frauds, wouldn't it?
The theory of evolution predicts what types of fossils we will find and gives them rough ages given a certain predecessor and a modern member of the same genus. So it gives predictions on what are the most likely fossils to be found and unfortunately for those still stuck in the science of the 1850's(because it seems those are the fossil records creationists are looking at since its all they ever refer to), it's actually been quite accurate.
Of course, scientists have been at odds with religion ever since science became modern(probably a good 400 years ago). It seems the church just takes a lot longer to evolve(no pun intended) than the scientific community. The religious community finally accepted that the earth was neither the center of the universe nor flat. And while not as dramatic, finally gave its seal of approval on attempts to make a true vacuum. It just requires more evidence and time. And luckily, real scientists will always be happy to continue giving snippets of evidence until the next breakthrough. That is how the community works.
The real fight right now is to see if in a science class, real science will be taught. Scientists don't go running into every church pointing out gross contradictions in the bible and historicallly inaccurate statements that fill it. IF you want to believe it, go ahead. But keep such "evidence" out of the science classroom. Scientists set there standards on what is to be accepted as true and we don't parade around calling it a religion, or worse yet, christianity. That would be disrespectful. So why not stop parading around religion and calling it science, because its not by any measuring stick.