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)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Interesting)
-nB
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
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.
religion accepting evolution (Score:5, Informative)
Why does no one ever attempt to explain that God created man using evolution as a tool?
Pope John Paul II did accept that "God" made man using evolution. Here's his Magisterium [cin.org] Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man. He delivered the Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996. Of course other Christians don't have a good opinion of Catholism or the Pope, some even believing they're devil worshippers.
FalconRe:religion accepting evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
But that's exactly why Catholicism is so close to paganism. Catholicism is, as you say, the original Christian religion that spread across Europe during the declining years of the Empire. In doing so, it co-opted a lot of pagan belief structures into itself. For instance, AFAIK there's no reason to think Jesus was born in December at all - Christmas is a rebranded pagan solstice festival. Easter? Take pagan springtime rituals focussed on the rebirth of the dead world, add the resurrection of Christ, cook at gas mark 8 for forty minutes or until well done. And as for the elevated importance of Mary in Catholicism: well, she combines the traditionally separate roles of nurturing mother goddess and chaste virgin goddess into a single icon.
Not to mention that a lot of Catholics in the English-speaking world are descendants of the Irish. The Church in Ireland went its own way for a long time before Rome finally managed to assert its authority there, and a lot of relics of the old Celtic Christian church still survive.
So your roommate was partly right. Catholicism is very close to paganism, and ironically, the fossils of ancient paganism that survive in Christianised form in Catholicism are probably still more authentic than what passes for paganism among the teenage-witch crowd.
And if one wishes to make a nasty retort to people who point out the Church's pagan heritage and think they've somehow scored points by doing so, it's quite easy to draw up an argument comparing fundamentalists to Pharisees, and literalists (who seem to worship the text more than the deity) to idolaters...
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:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christian and I believe animals have a soul, too. Only theirs is pure.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Interesting)
But part of the problem is that revealled religions are inherently opposed to such approaches. After all what good is systematic philosophy when the Bible is your ultimate authority? Because of the fact that systematic philosophy, where nothing is beyond questioning/revisiting, will always exist in opposition to authority-based religion, where the basic tenants of the religion are expected to be taken on the basis of faith.
This tension is what most of these arguments about intelligent design, etc. are really about. Science is a darned good methodology as far as it goes, but most of the questions as to the nature of spirituality are really beyond it. This is because science as a general rule, in attempting to ascertain those truths useful in engineering fields, does not admit to the study of the human condition in its entirity. I.e. science does not imply materialism, though such trends are common in our modernistic way of thinking.
The question few people want to have asked is "can systematic processes be used to determine religious or spiritual truth?" People who hold one book (whether the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or something else) as the unquestionable authority on these matters are threatened by this because they are afraid of being wrong. And yet, throughout some periods in history, such methodologies were used by many in this area.
For example, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe (and before that in the Islamic world, though this fell out of fashion there in the 13th century), such attempts were made. The basic framework in both these areas was based on the writings of Plato and commentary of later writers. They sought to find the unifying principles behind all religions (Henry Agrippa discusses Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Classical beliefs in his De Occulta Philosophia, though most of his Islamic sources were heavily influenced by Classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato). The fundamental idea that we are religious beings was so self-evident to them that they didn't bother to question it. Such philosophers of this sort included Theostratus Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, H.C. Agrippa, Albumassar, and many others.
Personally though I think that they got the model wrong in many areas I think that they did show that it is possible to take such an approach however, and personally I think that such discussion would ultimately help everyone, especially once one makes the leap from the sort of attempt at a universal theology that those such as Agrippa attempted to create to something more along the lines of structuralism in Linguistics.
But in the end, science belongs in science classes, and areas that are beyond science (including intelligent design) could be tought I guess in philosophy or theology classes.
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.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Informative)
RU-486 is a drug that will induce a chemical abortion any time during the first trimester, after the fetus has already implanted in the womb. It is an abortion.
Emergency contraception, also called the "morning after pill" or "plan B", is taken withing 5 days of unprotected sex (rape, failure of contraceptives, drunken one-night-stand, etc) to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. This is in fact a form of contraception, albeit not one that should be used on a regular basis, because it is only partly reliable, and has rather heavy side effects from the large doses of hormones it contains.
They are not the same thing! Practically no pharmacy in the U.S. stocks RU-486 (it is supplied directly by abortion clinics), but it should be entirely reasonable to expect them to have the morning after pill. Should. Plan B is even considered safe enough for over-the-counter sale in many countries (in the U.S. it's OTC sale was blocked by the FDA solely for political reasons; after all, this is Bush's FDA we're talking about).
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.
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.
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Funny)
Story (Score:4, Insightful)
Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's face it, there's always been an anti-intellectual streak in the US, and now, these Bible-thumping ignoramuses are strengthening it.
These are the people who want to bring back Old Testament style theocracy, and think that it jibes with the Constitution. Check out the Christian Reconstructionist [wikipedia.org] article on Wikipedia. Ultramontanes of the highest order.
Although I live in DC, I don't worry about Islamist terrorists as much as these folks taking over. Islamist terrorists could cause nasty infrastructural and personal damage, but these people, given a chance, will do everything they can to ensure nothing that conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible gets taught, women have no reproductive rights, gay people are executed for something they can't help being, etc., etc. They'll warp the laws to a viewpoint no one's held in 2,000 years - there's been progress since then, but they don't want it.
If they had their way, the only science that would go on would be to prove absurd things, like Moses really parted the Red Sea, instead of say, forensic ethnobotany to show how people ate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
The scary thing... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II (Score:5, Interesting)
On that general front you might want to keep an eye on the Constitution Restoration Act 2005 [wikipedia.org], which basically seeks to bar the Supreme Court from hearing any case that seeks "relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government".
The practical implications should that actually get passed are, well, rather interesting. One is left wondering exactly how different this is from the Iraqi constitution's reference to the Koran being "a sovereign source of law" (at least it become "a" rather than "the"). It is a long way from making the US a practicing theocracy, but it does go a long way toward laying some necessary groundwork to make such a thing possible.
Jedidiah.
Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II (Score:4, Informative)
Have you actually been to a muslim country? or any of the ones you list above? or in fact out of your state? The muslim countries you see on TV (Iran, Saudi, Kuwait) are not typical in any respect whatsoever. I know from experience that the Indonesians (the most populous muslim country on earth) have no problems partying, drinking, etc and I believe the Turks, the Malaysians and swathes of central asia have a similar outlook on life. No, the countries you hear about on TV all have fundamentalist governments or clergy. Now the strange thing about fundamentalists is that whatever creed they follow they all end up believing the same thing, so your christian fundamentalist gubment would not be very long in banning abortion, homosexuality, drinking and partying (in that order). (In fact that would make a good "fundmentalist test" for any government: US gets 1 point, Western Europe gets 0, Saudi Arabia gets 3, the old Afghanistan got 4).
Christianity is already marginalised in most western european nations (Italy being the exception. Britain in particular is full of empty and abandoned churchs), but strangely they are not currently under the control of, or about to fall to Islam. That is beacuse it's not christianity per se that has been marginalised, but the whole idea of religion. Most British people would consider anyone who went to church regularly a fanatic. Simple common-sense tells you that Islam is not about to sweep across Europe.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This phrase clearly does TWO things
1)It says the US Congress cannot setup a national Religion.
That phrase says no such thing. Do you recall the reason that your nation exists? In large part it was because England wanted rid of their fundamentalists and other religous agitators who were banned (lucky for them they weren't catholic, they were usually simply killed and were banned from travelling to the colonies). That phrase is part of the constitution as a direct response to the banning of new religions in England; essentially the founding fathers thumbing their nose at their former mother country.
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
Re:yes and no (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't want to say that the USA is a bad place for a scientist to live and work in - but I don't want to say that it's a good place, either, because I simply don't have enough experience to compare it with other countries in the world. And without that data, neither should you.
Sound logic, with which I fully agree. Now let's invert it slightly: in fact, you know nothing about me, or on what personal experience ("the data") I might be basing my positive opinion about working as a scientist in the US. I could be a 23-year-old first-year grad student or I could be a 55-year-old ex-chairman of a department spending a year in Washington running a division at NSF. (And if you think only young people read
Your trivia questions are fun! Let me try:
Countries in Africa: Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Morocco, Chad, Kenya, Zaire, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nigeria, Mali, Liberia, Niger, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Botswana, Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, South Africa, Lesotho, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Benin, Togo, Swaziland, Uganda, Tanzania, and Rwanda.
Hmm, that's all I can remember right now. Assuming no mistakes, I got 30 out of the 50 you say there are. Do you suppose the generic African can name 30 out of 50 of the United States? Just curious.
Name and title of the head of state of Uraguay. Bzzt. Don't know. Can I use a lifeline?
If I give you a map of the world without any borders etc. drawn on it, would you be able to show me the location and shape of Myanmar? No problem. I had a graduate student who fled Burma after her father was killed in the street by government thugs.
What's really ironic about this, of course, is that you are exhibiting exactly the same kind of behaviour that you decry in other US-Americans...
First of all, duh. I'm American. Second, I didn't decry it. I merely explained it. Like any personality trait, it's got its benefits and drawbacks. American amateurism is a pain when they distrust experts they shouldn't, yes. But it's an advantage when they distrust experts they should.
Look at it this way: if Americans were not as willing to entertain the opinion of reg'lar joes as much as the opinion of "experts," discussion fora like
Think about it...
Dude, not only have I already thought about, but if you read the last line of my post you'll see I made an ironic self-deprecating joke about it. Sheesh.
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...)
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)
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)
thanks
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: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: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: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]
Silly boy, The intellegent designer did it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Informative)
1: Partial linguistic reconstruction of dead languages by examining genetic data.
2: The yearly flu vaccine. This would be utterly impossible without evolutionary theory.
3: Genetic algorithms for computing. For many problems, they are the fastest way of finding and appropriate solution.
4: Gene therapy.
5: Radiation therapy.
6: Cancer research and cures.
7: Bacterial synthesis.
8: Nanotechnology.
Just off the top of my head. Evolutionary theory (it's a theory, not a hypothesis, because it has indeed been proven), is of great import in a vast quantity of fields. Creationism and intelligent design teach no more than astrology, alchemy, and phrenology teach. They are useless, and in some cases even damaging.
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:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, 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: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: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: 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:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:4, Interesting)
And this is where strident atheists, like Richard Dawkins, take their starting point. Religion now discourages the entire scientific enterprise, and has done so ever since it became abundantly clear that science provides physical explanations with no need of the divine. As a biologist specializing in evolutionary theory, Dawkins has no doubt encountered no end of people who take offense at his work for no other reason than superstitious bias. To any scientist dedicated to free and open enquiry, this is profoundly disturbing.
Carl Sagan called science "a candle in the dark" dispelling the shadows of the "demon haunted world." It is that darkness that gave the Dark Ages their name. The purpose of ID isn't just to challenge evolution, but to initiate a campaign to undermine the materialistic worldview and replace it with a magical worldview. ID proponents call this strategy "The Wedge." Darwin is only the beginning; their goal is nothing less than the destruction of the entire scientific worldview, and they have stated this quite clearly [antievolution.org]. This is a long term strategy, embarked on decades ago. It is not a response to militant atheists. Militant atheism is a response to an existing offensive.
We simply cannot support this many people on the planet, nor meet the challenges now facing us, without science. The consequences of this flight into fantasy will be the deaths of billions of people, and quite possibly, the extinction of humanity. This attempted retreat into a childlike world of magic and supersition is nothing less than a wholesale attack on truth, and upon the very means by which truth may be discovered.
The prophets and philosophers on whose visions we have built our culture had a word for such an attack on truth. They called it evil.
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: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: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:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with intelligent design is not that it is implausible, but that it is completely untestable. An intelligent entity could have done anything it wanted to, so you can't apply tests to the theory. As a result, intelligent design becomes a "theory of the gaps," such that wherever we find something unexplainable you can say, "Well, maybe an intelligent being created it."
Another thing about irreducable complexity is that it's rather hard to actually prove something is irreducably complex. Darwin himself had trouble thinking of how the eye could have originated, but now I believe scientists have discovered a pretty good understanding of what sort of pathways it might take to get to the eye. Similarly, just checking Wikipedia shows that the evolution of the flagella [wikipedia.org] is a well studied concept. (Huge page of cites was moved onto the talk page.)
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:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've decided that if there is this push to "teach the controversy" surrounding ID vs Evolution in Science classes, why aren't people pushing to "teach the controversy" between the Bible and Science in Theology or Religious classes?
I can see it now...
"And then Moses parted the sea. At this point I must mention that there is very little scientific proof that Moses, indeed any man, has the ability to part a sea. In fact it is almost universally accepted that it is not possible for any man, now or ever, to have been able to part any sea without some form of construction works. If you would like any further information on this you can read almost any science book ever written."
We should also push for stickers to be placed on the cover of every bible that reads "There is controversy over the content of this book. For further information see...."
After all, if we don't teach kids the controversy, we are doing them a disservice and failing them in their education.
Shitdrummer
Do like the british do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Supposedly Britian has a somewhat separated office of science within their government to make decisions that impact circumstances on environment, wildlife and global warming... much of these decisions take more than four years to measure for results, so they're obviously going to be ignored by any U.S. president whose voters believe otherwise. The British government appoints the person in charge of that much like we do the supreme court and federal reserve chairman, which is supposed to keep it relatively non-partisan.
I say we follow the British lead on matters like this. Of course it would have no effect on creationism/ abortion/ etc regulation, but its a start. As far as science in general, the United States is by far the leaders for scientific paper production, measured by citations. However, this number taken per capita or divided by the GDP of the country in question has always put the U.S. far behind in research, primarily to European countries. I'm not sure if this number has declined in the past few years having had a strong religious president.
Mostly, I think, the scientists just keep quiet and do their job of saving lives and advancing technology and let the naysayers bicker on the internet...
Re:Do like the british do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do like the british do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Three words.. (Score:4, 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.
Another Intelligent Design theory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another Intelligent Design theory (Score:3, Informative)
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design.
Correction: there are no theories of ID. ID is not falsifiable, nor is it repeatable, hence not a theory.
Re:Another Intelligent Design theory (Score:4, Funny)
But who created the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Re:Another Intelligent Design theory (Score:5, Funny)
Of Course Not! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:No, no, no (Score:5, 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.
what's to ask? (Score:5, Interesting)
Shouldn't we be asking Slashdot something like, "How do we stop the insanity?"
Seems like that could be more productive.
Re:Pay attention to the comments that will appear. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would we want to end it? There's nothing inherently bad about believing in ID. If you want to think God did some stuff, go for it. Knock yourself out, man. Maybe you're right. All we have to do is convince them that teaching religion in science classes is counterproductive. And to that end, it is just as counterproductive to go around saying that we want to convince them that ID isn't true. It makes them cranky.
Unfortunately, the only way I know to teach them that you shouldn't teach religion in science classes is to get them to think that some time in the future it could just as easily be someone else's religion and it's a bad precedent. But Christians feel a little invincible at the moment, so that's not going to work.
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".
science and religion (Score:4, Informative)
If you notice the Catholic folk hasn't spoke out against science in a LONG LONG time.
Actually the Catholic Church, in the person of Pope John Paul II, has said "God" used evolution to create life on earth. Magisterium [cin.org] Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man.
FalconOf 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."
Re:Of course it isn't (Score:3, Funny)
More than Anti-Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More than Anti-Science (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a funny thing, but with television, radio, imusic, internet, etc. etc. etc. you see people with less time they actually devote to thinking for themselves.
I'm some damn radical because I read books, which stir my imagination and inspire ideas, rather than having my ideas told to me.
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.
Animal Rights Movement (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.)
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?
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.
Science apparently has no place...... (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder if there's a scientific reason for that?
my take? (Score:5, Insightful)
My take is that I should learn to speak chinese.
Education in general is suffering (Score:5, Interesting)
Derek
Not as bad as the article says (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, this looks like a poll tweaked for contraversy to me. The 2nd answer presupposes the third; thus 45% of Americans think that humans evolve from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and a large portion of those believe that God wrote the rules that caused the evolution. The Big Bang itself is not only consistent with this point of view- it provides some proof of it. Something happened at planck time that changed the laws of the universe from a set of random variables effecting every particle differently, to a set of constants that all of our laws of physics are based upon. And not easy numbers either- really messy numbers that if they were even
So while our dearly stupid evangelical leaders may be going the wrong way, the American People as a whole seem to be as pro-science as ever.
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.
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)
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.
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 vs. controversial science (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Re:Well, I'm pro-science, but does that matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
>
> As opposed to hundreds of millions non-americans fighting for reason..?
Group A: A fundamentalist theocracy of 237,500,000 people who reject the physics underlying radioactive decay, and who also reject the notion that DNA can, with suitable cleverness, be manipulated into new and useful forms.
Group B: A technologically-advanced splinter group consisting of 12,500,000 potential nuclear and biogenic weapons engineers.
When push comes to shove, Side A may have 20 times as many rifles, pointy sticks, and fists, but my money's still on Side B.
Note to the folks in Group A: If you think I'm only making fun of you, there's also...
Group C: A different fundamentalist theocracy whose population ranges from around 500,000,000 to 1,500,000,000 people, most of whom think the world would be a better place if everyone in both "Group A" and" Group B" were either assimilated or exterminated.
Just a friendly reminder to the "Group A" crowd. Most of us in "Group B" would be pretty happy to coexist with y'all in "Group A", but if y'all actually win your little war and manage to wipe us out (despite your renunciation of nuclear physics, geology, biology, and genetic engineering), you're going to find yourself in a pretty serious vortex of suck when "Group C" comes a-knockin' on your door.
Just sayin'.
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.
You don't know Darwin's work. (Score:5, Informative)
And we have found fossils of transitional forms.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm [origins.tv]
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: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.
What else would a transitional form look like? (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so its not like modern scientists or Darwin were ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species. Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.
Oh, and How many missing links do you want [slashdot.org]? How many more well-referenced testable and falsifiable evidences for macroevolution [talkorigins.org] can scientists put together while we all wait for IDers to put together one? How many times will creationists in this Slashdot thread say that scientist are ignoring a creationist claim when in fact its been answered so many times they made a FAQ [talkorigins.org] (or sometimes Slashdotters'll use something from the list of claims that a major creationist group asks people to stop using [answersingenesis.org])? It'll be interesting to watch this thread and see the last question being answered.
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.