Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Defend Science
reavo
Member Posts: 2,173
Defend Science
IN THE UNITED STATES
TODAY SCIENCE, AS SCIENCE, IS UNDER ATTACK AS NEVER BEFORE.
The signs of this are everywhere. The attacks are coming at an
accelerating pace, and include frequent interventions by powerful
forces, in and out of the Bush Administration, who seem all too willing
to deny scientific truths, disrupt scientific investigations, block
scientific progress, undermine scientific education, and sacrifice the
very integrity of the scientific process itself -- all in the pursuit
of implementing their particular political agenda. And today this
dominant political agenda is profoundly allied and intertwined with an
extremist (and extremely anti-science) ideological agenda put forward
by powerful fundamentalist religious forces commonly known as the
Religious Right. These fundamentalists now have extensive influence and
representatives in major institutions of the U.S. government, including
Congress and the White House. This itself goes a long way towards
explaining why science itself is under such unprecedented attack.
It is commonplace under the current Administration for the government
to deny funding, censor scientific reports, or in other ways undermine
scientific research which might turn up facts which they don't want to
hear; to manipulate, distort, or outright suppress scientific findings
they find objectionable; to attempt to reshape government scientific
panels to obtain policy recommendations on issues ranging from health
to the environment, based less on actual scientific findings than on
the requirements of the Administration's agenda.
The situation is so serious that more than 6,000 scientists have
already signed the "Restoring Scientific Integrity" statement of the
Union of Concerned Scientists, which denounces the Bush Administration
for "abuse of science"; and Scientific American published an editorial
under the title: "Bush-League Lysenkoism: The White House Seeks to Bend
Science To Its Will."
CONSIDER THIS:
* Particular Christian fundamentalist "moral codes" are increasingly
imposing restrictions on what kinds of questions can be investigated by
scientists and what kinds of answers scientists can come up with.
HIV-prevention studies have come under attack for even attempting to
study prevalent sexual practices. Funds have been cut and researchers
have faced intimidation and harassment from fundamentalists inside and
outside of government who insist that scientific study of HIV/AIDS
begin and end with the demand for "abstinence-only" programs -
regardless of the human and social cost. Research into human sexuality
in general has been suppressed and faulty studies and outright
disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms and other birth
control methods have been promoted and disseminated by the
Administration. The Department of Health and Human Services is known to
have deleted from its web site scientific health information which
conflicted with the Administration's "abstinence-only" approach to sex
education...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
* Entire new fields of scientific inquiry, like stem-cell research,
with potential for path-breaking medical breakthroughs, are denied
federal funds because of fundamentalist religious objections...THIS IS
NOT ACCEPTABLE.
* Scientists whose findings conflict with corporate interests or
policies of the Bush Administration face threats of retaliation or
denial of funding. There have been "gag orders" forbidding government
scientists from talking publicly about important scientific questions
and, at times, even mentioning terms like "global warming." In studies
by government scientists on global warming and its potentially
devastating consequences for the planet and humanity, titles of reports
have been changed and whole sections deleted by high political
officials. There are repeated efforts by government officials to
over-rule scientists on such things as which plant and animal species
to include on the "Endangered Species" list, which natural habitats are
in critical need of preservation, how to set air and water quality
standards, and so on...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
* In a practice many have denounced as "Scientific McCarthyism,"
scientists who are candidates for scientific advisory boards and panels
have been asked how they voted or whether they support particular
policies of the Administration, and some have been denied appointments
because of their political views...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
* Official government-run bookstores at the Grand Canyon have carried
books promoting as fact the literalist Biblical notion that the Grand
Canyon was formed only a few thousand years ago by "Noah's Flood," in
direct contradiction to the overwhelming geological evidence and
scientific consensus that the Grand Canyon contains rocks that are
billions of years old and that the Canyon itself was carved out by a
river, over a very long period of time, millions of years ago...THIS IS
NOT ACCEPTABLE.
And that is not all: Here we are in the 21st century, and the head of
the government himself, George W. Bush, refuses to acknowledge that
evolution is a scientific fact! THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The President claims: "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still
out on how God created the earth," and then sits smugly by while
Creationists carry out an assault against evolution in classrooms,
museums, libraries, government bookstores, and even IMAX movies and
science theaters.
No, Mr. President, the verdict is NOT out on evolution. EVOLUTION IS A
FACT -- IT IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-ESTABLISHED AND WELL-DOCUMENTED
FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. TO DENY AND ATTACK EVOLUTION IS TO
DENY AND ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FACTS ABOUT ALL OF NATURE
AND REALITY AND ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL FOUNDATION STONES OF ALL OF
MODERN SCIENCE.
Evolution is not a matter of "controversy" in the scientific community:
It is recognized as a fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists
in the U.S. and throughout the world. Evolution is just as
well-established as the fact that the earth goes around the sun -- a
scientifically-demonstrated truth which, several centuries ago and for
some time, was also opposed and even viciously suppressed because of a
religious inquisition, resulting in great harm to science and to
humanity. We cannot, and will not, allow the same kind of thing to
happen with the scientific fact of evolution.
Therefore, we, the undersigned scientists and members of the scientific
community, are issuing this urgent call to everyone in society to take
up the challenge to DEFEND SCIENCE.
To be clear: Many who continue to hold religious beliefs can and should
rally to this call to DEFEND SCIENCE. This is not about science trying
to destroy religion. It is about defending science from a specific
right-wing political agenda which, coupled with a fundamentalist,
Biblical-literalist religious ideology, is setting out to implement a
program that will fundamentally pervert and undermine science and the
scientific process itself.
Individual scientists may be atheists or agnostics, or may hold various
religious beliefs; and their politics range over the full spectrum of
political views. But one thing the overwhelming majority of scientists
have in common is their understanding that, when conducting scientific
investigation and applying the scientific method, it is essential to
use as a starting point previously accumulated scientific knowledge --
the storehouse of well-established scientific evidence about reality
which has previously been arrived at through concrete and systematic
scientific observation and experiment and has been subjected to
rigorous scientific review and testing. This is what we scientists
stand on as our foundation when we set out to further investigate
reality and make new discoveries. This is how science has been done and
how it has advanced for hundreds of years now, and this has allowed
science to benefit humanity in countless ways.
Genuine science never proceeds from, or uses as its starting point, any
set of subjective "beliefs," "opinions" or "faith-based edicts" handed
down by religious or secular authorities and proclaimed to be beyond
human questioning, testing and investigation. To bring into the
scientific process assumptions, religious or otherwise, which were not
arrived at by scientific methods, and which by definition cannot be
tested by scientific methods, would destroy science as science.
In conclusion: We must refuse to accept a situation where scientific
inquiry is blocked or its findings ruled out of order unless they
conform to the goals of the government, to corporate interests and to
the ideology of religious fundamentalists; where dogma enforced by
governmental and religious authority takes the place of science; where
the scientific approach of seeking natural explanations for natural
phenomena is suppressed. We must insist on an atmosphere where
scientists are allowed to seek the truth, even when the truth conflicts
with the views and policies of those in power, and where the scientific
spirit is fostered, where science education and the popularization of
the scientific method are valued, where people are encouraged to pursue
an understanding of how and why things are the way they are; where all
that has been learned by humanity so far, all that has repeatedly been
tested and found to be true, serves as the starting point for further
investigation of reality.
IT IS UP TO US. IT IS TIME TO TAKE A CLEAR AND DECISIVE STAND IN
DEFENSE OF SCIENCE. THIS IS OF CRUCIAL AND URGENT IMPORTANCE NOT ONLY
FOR SCIENTISTS BUT FOR PEOPLE THROUGHOUT SOCIETY, FOR HUMANITY AS A
WHOLE AND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
IN THE UNITED STATES
TODAY SCIENCE, AS SCIENCE, IS UNDER ATTACK AS NEVER BEFORE.
The signs of this are everywhere. The attacks are coming at an
accelerating pace, and include frequent interventions by powerful
forces, in and out of the Bush Administration, who seem all too willing
to deny scientific truths, disrupt scientific investigations, block
scientific progress, undermine scientific education, and sacrifice the
very integrity of the scientific process itself -- all in the pursuit
of implementing their particular political agenda. And today this
dominant political agenda is profoundly allied and intertwined with an
extremist (and extremely anti-science) ideological agenda put forward
by powerful fundamentalist religious forces commonly known as the
Religious Right. These fundamentalists now have extensive influence and
representatives in major institutions of the U.S. government, including
Congress and the White House. This itself goes a long way towards
explaining why science itself is under such unprecedented attack.
It is commonplace under the current Administration for the government
to deny funding, censor scientific reports, or in other ways undermine
scientific research which might turn up facts which they don't want to
hear; to manipulate, distort, or outright suppress scientific findings
they find objectionable; to attempt to reshape government scientific
panels to obtain policy recommendations on issues ranging from health
to the environment, based less on actual scientific findings than on
the requirements of the Administration's agenda.
The situation is so serious that more than 6,000 scientists have
already signed the "Restoring Scientific Integrity" statement of the
Union of Concerned Scientists, which denounces the Bush Administration
for "abuse of science"; and Scientific American published an editorial
under the title: "Bush-League Lysenkoism: The White House Seeks to Bend
Science To Its Will."
CONSIDER THIS:
* Particular Christian fundamentalist "moral codes" are increasingly
imposing restrictions on what kinds of questions can be investigated by
scientists and what kinds of answers scientists can come up with.
HIV-prevention studies have come under attack for even attempting to
study prevalent sexual practices. Funds have been cut and researchers
have faced intimidation and harassment from fundamentalists inside and
outside of government who insist that scientific study of HIV/AIDS
begin and end with the demand for "abstinence-only" programs -
regardless of the human and social cost. Research into human sexuality
in general has been suppressed and faulty studies and outright
disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms and other birth
control methods have been promoted and disseminated by the
Administration. The Department of Health and Human Services is known to
have deleted from its web site scientific health information which
conflicted with the Administration's "abstinence-only" approach to sex
education...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
* Entire new fields of scientific inquiry, like stem-cell research,
with potential for path-breaking medical breakthroughs, are denied
federal funds because of fundamentalist religious objections...THIS IS
NOT ACCEPTABLE.
* Scientists whose findings conflict with corporate interests or
policies of the Bush Administration face threats of retaliation or
denial of funding. There have been "gag orders" forbidding government
scientists from talking publicly about important scientific questions
and, at times, even mentioning terms like "global warming." In studies
by government scientists on global warming and its potentially
devastating consequences for the planet and humanity, titles of reports
have been changed and whole sections deleted by high political
officials. There are repeated efforts by government officials to
over-rule scientists on such things as which plant and animal species
to include on the "Endangered Species" list, which natural habitats are
in critical need of preservation, how to set air and water quality
standards, and so on...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
* In a practice many have denounced as "Scientific McCarthyism,"
scientists who are candidates for scientific advisory boards and panels
have been asked how they voted or whether they support particular
policies of the Administration, and some have been denied appointments
because of their political views...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
* Official government-run bookstores at the Grand Canyon have carried
books promoting as fact the literalist Biblical notion that the Grand
Canyon was formed only a few thousand years ago by "Noah's Flood," in
direct contradiction to the overwhelming geological evidence and
scientific consensus that the Grand Canyon contains rocks that are
billions of years old and that the Canyon itself was carved out by a
river, over a very long period of time, millions of years ago...THIS IS
NOT ACCEPTABLE.
And that is not all: Here we are in the 21st century, and the head of
the government himself, George W. Bush, refuses to acknowledge that
evolution is a scientific fact! THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The President claims: "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still
out on how God created the earth," and then sits smugly by while
Creationists carry out an assault against evolution in classrooms,
museums, libraries, government bookstores, and even IMAX movies and
science theaters.
No, Mr. President, the verdict is NOT out on evolution. EVOLUTION IS A
FACT -- IT IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-ESTABLISHED AND WELL-DOCUMENTED
FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. TO DENY AND ATTACK EVOLUTION IS TO
DENY AND ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FACTS ABOUT ALL OF NATURE
AND REALITY AND ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL FOUNDATION STONES OF ALL OF
MODERN SCIENCE.
Evolution is not a matter of "controversy" in the scientific community:
It is recognized as a fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists
in the U.S. and throughout the world. Evolution is just as
well-established as the fact that the earth goes around the sun -- a
scientifically-demonstrated truth which, several centuries ago and for
some time, was also opposed and even viciously suppressed because of a
religious inquisition, resulting in great harm to science and to
humanity. We cannot, and will not, allow the same kind of thing to
happen with the scientific fact of evolution.
Therefore, we, the undersigned scientists and members of the scientific
community, are issuing this urgent call to everyone in society to take
up the challenge to DEFEND SCIENCE.
To be clear: Many who continue to hold religious beliefs can and should
rally to this call to DEFEND SCIENCE. This is not about science trying
to destroy religion. It is about defending science from a specific
right-wing political agenda which, coupled with a fundamentalist,
Biblical-literalist religious ideology, is setting out to implement a
program that will fundamentally pervert and undermine science and the
scientific process itself.
Individual scientists may be atheists or agnostics, or may hold various
religious beliefs; and their politics range over the full spectrum of
political views. But one thing the overwhelming majority of scientists
have in common is their understanding that, when conducting scientific
investigation and applying the scientific method, it is essential to
use as a starting point previously accumulated scientific knowledge --
the storehouse of well-established scientific evidence about reality
which has previously been arrived at through concrete and systematic
scientific observation and experiment and has been subjected to
rigorous scientific review and testing. This is what we scientists
stand on as our foundation when we set out to further investigate
reality and make new discoveries. This is how science has been done and
how it has advanced for hundreds of years now, and this has allowed
science to benefit humanity in countless ways.
Genuine science never proceeds from, or uses as its starting point, any
set of subjective "beliefs," "opinions" or "faith-based edicts" handed
down by religious or secular authorities and proclaimed to be beyond
human questioning, testing and investigation. To bring into the
scientific process assumptions, religious or otherwise, which were not
arrived at by scientific methods, and which by definition cannot be
tested by scientific methods, would destroy science as science.
In conclusion: We must refuse to accept a situation where scientific
inquiry is blocked or its findings ruled out of order unless they
conform to the goals of the government, to corporate interests and to
the ideology of religious fundamentalists; where dogma enforced by
governmental and religious authority takes the place of science; where
the scientific approach of seeking natural explanations for natural
phenomena is suppressed. We must insist on an atmosphere where
scientists are allowed to seek the truth, even when the truth conflicts
with the views and policies of those in power, and where the scientific
spirit is fostered, where science education and the popularization of
the scientific method are valued, where people are encouraged to pursue
an understanding of how and why things are the way they are; where all
that has been learned by humanity so far, all that has repeatedly been
tested and found to be true, serves as the starting point for further
investigation of reality.
IT IS UP TO US. IT IS TIME TO TAKE A CLEAR AND DECISIVE STAND IN
DEFENSE OF SCIENCE. THIS IS OF CRUCIAL AND URGENT IMPORTANCE NOT ONLY
FOR SCIENTISTS BUT FOR PEOPLE THROUGHOUT SOCIETY, FOR HUMANITY AS A
WHOLE AND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Comments
While I disagree with a few of your minor points such as the subject of stem cell research...the problem with the overall claim is that christians want to put a stop to scientific progress...this is simply not the case. What the "religious right" is trying to do is not "stop science" as it is put in your post, but rather draw the line of what should be considered moral and ethical in the scientific community. Case in point: fetile stem cell research...the "reglious right" has attempted to put a stop to this, not because they are against scientific progress, but because it uses unborn fetuses to do, something considered by many to be unethical. Your post fails to mention that the main stream right is actually PRO stem cell research when it is not of the embryonic variety...and actually, to the best of my knowledge; adult stem cells have proven to be more usefull in testing.
Another problem is that what many are calling science these days isn't really science at all, or rather, it's not very good science. Case in point: the big bang theory. The Big Bang theory is taught as sceintific fact in many places, when I was in high school it was presented to me as scientific fact, and that it was believed to be true by all but the most extreme creationists. I have since learned that this is of course not true, and that a large portion of even the science community does not support the big bang theory. This is not the limit to where our schools teach scientific theory as fact though, things like evolutionary theory, darwinism, and a number of other things that are indeed THEORY are presented as facts to students..and it should not be this way.
The area that I have highlighted is what I believe is the biggest problem today in how we educate our young people...and why "science is under attack"...nobody(in their right mind) wants to put a halt to scientific research, it's simply a matter of attempting to draw ethical lines SOMEWHERE, and to make sure that students are being presented with facts as facts, and theory as theory.
Note that I'm not saying that nobody is saying to stop scientific research, that isn't my point...because I am sure that there are a few people scattered few and far between that would like that for whatever reason...my point is simply that we need to get back to teaching religion as religion, science as science, and theory as theory...sometimes the two intertwine, and that cannot be avoided if we want to have well rounded people(sorry Galileo)
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
YES SIR, ALLCAPS. THE POWER OF YOUR ROMANESQUE DECLARATION COMPELS ME.
The term you(and so many others( are confusing it with is Hypothesis.
Ohh and on another note, If this continues in the US it just means that Other Institutions around the world will get to cherrypick the cream of US talent, leaving the US to go the way of the Middle East. (The arabs once led the world in mathematics, medicine and early science. Now look at it, Religion owns most of the nations, the only thing they have of any worth is their Oil and their history/culture)
You have no understanding
of what theory means in a scientific context. The fact that the Earth
goes around the Sun is stil a theory, within a scientific context.
I know the difference. A theory has evidence behind it and is based on experimentation, while a hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation.
It doesn't change that theory /= fact, and anything, not just evolution, being taught for what it isn't is pseudoscience.
The very word "theory" is used seperately in scientific context and in casual context. Theories in science can be tested, and have held up under all testing to date.
The trouble is when science conflicts with faith. Most science has no trouble with faith. Gravity, motion, basic physics. All things that are fine and dandy, and the religious can see as obvious truth. In their mind, it's that way because it's the will of their deity, and that's quite fine too.
Evolution is a problem, because it contradicts some religious texts, such as the Bible. Sure, it could have been made that way by God, but that would contadict the Bible, and faith would be shaken. It could still be there, but wouldn't there be deep questions? Even if we observed fast paced evolution, it would remain a theory, although it would be an even stronger theory than it is now.
Scientific theory is tested through observations and experiments that can be reproduced. Science has brought us many advances in life, tangible results. For this, we continue science, so it may be applied for tangible results which we may use or deny ourselves.
Religion is a matter of faith. The belief is its own reward. The process of coming to belief is rooted in things such as literature and philosophy, both important for people to learn. If a parent wishes to raise their child religiously, that is great. If they wish to shut out all possibility of questioning that religion, the motivation is questionable. Anyone who cannot bear to question their own religious beliefs is not faithful in the first place. Science is based upon questioning itself constantly.
The soundbite logic of "Theory is not fact" is no more sensible than "We can't prove God so he doesn't exist." I hope you see my point with that, whether you agree or disagree with the rest of my statements above.
While some religious extremists are total basket cases, I don't think evolution or creationism should be taught in school. I think they should both be presented in a theoretical light and they should be addressed beside one another since neither one of them are proovable (yet).
I think that the big bang and gravity should be taught though. These theories have a significant amount of scientific backing and are almost to the 'fact' state if it weren't for a few calculations that go wack when you try to critically analyze them. Stephen Hawking really knows what he's talking about with the big bang, and I'm convinced that it took place. Gravity is just pretty obvious. I just can't wait for the day that they are able to find exceptions.
I'm not Christian, either, so honestly I'm not concerned about the origin of our species. I'm willing to accept anything with sufficient proof. I just hate to see this kind of evolutionist dogmatism invading SCIENCE, of all things.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
However, empirical research has been done using observation to come to the conclusion of evolution and the Big Bang. We cannot reproduce these events precisely, for obvious reasons such as time and human capacity.
Regarding the Big Bang, we have observed light, matter, and motion in order to understand what would have been far before our time. We are not the demons of Laplace, and as such, it is likely impossible that we will ever know the precise conditions at the moment of existence, whether it begins with our universe or goes far beyond. At the same time, we could disprove this theory, or fail to disprove it.
Evolution and the Big Bang are not at that point, yet observations have backed these theories up before. If you wish to state that there is "controversy" or that it is "Uncertain but believed", that is certainly reasonable within itself. Of course, that has in the past only led to pitching "Intelligent Design" or creationism as an alternative, which not only are not empirically tested, they cannot be.
As falsifiability is key to scientific theory, you would mean to say we could falsifiably test the existence of God? How we would go about such a thing is completely beyond me, but when we are capable of even testing this, then it could be put forth as a theory. Unless the existence of God is truly testable through experiment at this point in time, I believe that would leave it firmly a matter of faith alone, not faith backed with empirical observation.
Complaint about teaching evolution or the Big Bang as absolute fact has basis. At the same time, it is a theory that can be tested through repetitive observation, and has not been proven false. If creationism can undergo the same scrutiny and not be falsified, then we will have another theory on our hands.
When a religion such as Christianity can present to me any evidence of their belief that will stand up to scientific scrutiny, then I will consider what they have to say. Until then, I'm just not persuaded.
I'm actually driven away by the idea that someone can consider a belief more important than scientific research intended to help people. And to think that someone can use the government to push their belief system onto others who are living in the here and now studying and learning from the realities around us is actually insulting to me as an American.
Take your belief and act upon it as a scientist would. A belief by a scientist is his hypothesis. A scientist then takes that hypothesis and puts it forth to his peers who proceed to tear it apart. That's science. If a scientists belief cannot be ripped apart it begins to take on more and more of a factual appearance. And each and every test that shows it repeatable and unwavering builds upon its merits more and more.
And if anyone expects me to actually be persuaded by the whole, "but it's a belief" argument, then all I can say is that is fine for you. But do not take your belief that is unproven and not even observable in the real world and expect people to feel it's okay to have it pushed upon them. Reality is real. It's not a unsubstantiated and unprovable belief. I believe there is a fountain of eternal youth on the dark side of the moon. Does that make it real?
Gravity is a scientific law. Evolution is a scientific theory.
Of course I don't understand what any of that has to do with the original post. The way I see it, it's not anyone's intention to "hold back" science. Christians just think that particular things the scientific community is attempting to do are immoral. You want things to change? Actually vote for someone who doesn't follow the "religious right", but I'm frankly tired of hearing people incessantly bitching about the policies our government deals out, when they couldn't even bothered to go out and vote. Not really speaking to anyone in general though.
Question one's faith, reflect upon it, but scientific testing removes the aspect of faith and turns it solely into a belief. That one would consider this belief important, even moreso than facts, is fine when applied to oneself. Applying it to others is problematic, very much so.
As long as religion does not ask to be placed in the realm of science, I would not ask it to be held scientifically. In fact, I would rather it not be so. This leads to Pascal's Wager, where religious belief could lead to infinite joy if he's right, and a bit of time and effort if he's not, whereas lack of belief leads to a bit of time and effort if he's right, and infinite sorrow if he's not. Logically, this looks great. However, it is an affront to the concept of faith, vital in any religion, whether it be faith in a deity, faith in others, faith in onself, or faith in the world.
I can tell you mean no harm against religion, so please do not take offense at this. Rather, I simply mean to say that faith is fine to have, as long as it is recognized as such, while science is recognized for what it is.
Ah, reverse intolerance.
The perfect way to get the opposing side to compromise with you, I’m
sure.
You know, I’d think more people would benefit from the
simple act of humbling themselves a bit.
Theist and atheist alike. I mean,
we can’t really expect everyone to think like we do. You respect beliefs founded on empirical
evidence and experimentation. That’s
great. Not everyone feels that way, and
I’m sure that the majority of theists would have very little desire to “persuade”
you of anything, let alone discuss their beliefs with you casually, if you’re
going to take such an elitist stance.
I suppose I’m just one of those people that just “drive” you
away though. I see the importance in
science, and think of it as one of the greatest examples of everything that
humans have accomplished throughout our creation, but I’d place my beliefs
before it easily. The eternal before the
temporary right? I suppose I just object
to this statement…
“Take your belief and act upon it as a scientist would.”
No. I’m not a
scientist. I’ve always found the
subjects of biology and chemistry to be insanely boring, and I have very little
interest in applying any sort of “logical” scientific method into my
faith-based belief. It’s frankly silly,
when I believe my supernatural creator can defy the very laws He placed upon
the earth. Intelligent design was always
a horrible idea in my opinion. Science
and religion don’t mix . I have several
beliefs substantiated by science, and several substantiated by the Bible, and
some of them contradict each other.
Thanks a lot southern public schools.
I don’t really understand how pushing your agenda onto us,
is any different than us doing the same to you.
Like I said, it’s all politics.
You want change, go vote. Rally
up your atheist brothers and overthrow this silly American theocracy. You might want to be quick about it though,
because those crazy Christians keep whining about their silly little Armageddon.
Also- I do vote, even in a state where the margin of victory for most national candidates is in the double digits, and the first isn't necessarily "1". Registered independent if you're curious, I've had disagreements with both sides.
Ah, reverse intolerance.
The perfect way to get the opposing side to compromise with you, I’m
sure.
You know, I’d think more people would benefit from the
simple act of humbling themselves a bit.
Theist and atheist alike. I mean,
we can’t really expect everyone to think like we do. You respect beliefs founded on empirical
evidence and experimentation. That’s
great. Not everyone feels that way, and
I’m sure that the majority of theists would have very little desire to “persuade”
you of anything, let alone discuss their beliefs with you casually, if you’re
going to take such an elitist stance.
I suppose I’m just one of those people that just “drive” you
away though. I see the importance in
science, and think of it as one of the greatest examples of everything that
humans have accomplished throughout our creation, but I’d place my beliefs
before it easily. The eternal before the
temporary right? I suppose I just object
to this statement…
“Take your belief and act upon it as a scientist would.”
No. I’m not a
scientist. I’ve always found the
subjects of biology and chemistry to be insanely boring, and I have very little
interest in applying any sort of “logical” scientific method into my
faith-based belief. It’s frankly silly,
when I believe my supernatural creator can defy the very laws He placed upon
the earth. Intelligent design was always
a horrible idea in my opinion. Science
and religion don’t mix . I have several
beliefs substantiated by science, and several substantiated by the Bible, and
some of them contradict each other.
Thanks a lot southern public schools.
I don’t really understand how pushing your agenda onto us,
is any different than us doing the same to you.
Like I said, it’s all politics.
You want change, go vote. Rally
up your atheist brothers and overthrow this silly American theocracy. You might want to be quick about it though,
because those crazy Christians keep whining about their silly little Armageddon.
I'm not intolerant of religion. I go to church myself. But I don't consider it scientific. I consider it just a way of trying to explain why we're here and what happens after we die. A philosophical challenge at best.
There's nothing scientific about beliefs. Science is a completely seperate thing based on reality. Using something that is based on suppositions and fantasy to decide what we need to do in reality is no way to try to regulate science.
Okay, I think I get what you're saying reavo, but your complaint isn't really about religion at this point. I don't think anyone is against stem cell research because they're Christian directly. It's because they see it as murder, and they believe murder to be morally wrong. I'm sure there are atheist that feel the same way, although I haven't personally ever heard anything of the such.
I do believe that personal morals should be able to dictate what science can legally due though. I don't want any "Weapon X" programs going on.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Most science doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny? Test a hypothesis to be false, change it to see if something was wrong and test again. Once it's a theory, it's been tested. If it reliably tests false then, it's got a flaw and scientists research what's wrong with it and if any part of it still holds true.
As for the semantics, that's what you highlighted. That's the crux of your argument, and needed to be addressed. You emphasize theory, and in this argument, anti-evolutionists are quick to use "theory" as a bad word. I conceded your point in that theory is not explicit fact, and continued to argue that theory is tested and scientific theories have produced plenty of tangible results. Tested theory holds academic value, and is open to being disproven. Is there any more heart of the matter that I have missed?
Converse- Ugh. What's worse, Oklahoma doesn't allow minor third party candidates on the ballot as a protest vote. If my presidential vote won't have influence anyway, I'd rather do my part to get some third party guy enough support to take a cut of the campaign funds next time around and get some real competition going. At least my vote felt more useful in state questions and some local elections. Hooray for veteran housing benefits and education fund earmarking from lottery proceeds.
Most science doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny? Test a hypothesis to be false, change it to see if something was wrong and test again. Once it's a theory, it's been tested. If it reliably tests false then, it's got a flaw and scientists research what's wrong with it and if any part of it still holds true.
As for the semantics, that's what you highlighted. That's the crux of your argument, and needed to be addressed. You emphasize theory, and in this argument, anti-evolutionists are quick to use "theory" as a bad word. I conceded your point in that theory is not explicit fact, and continued to argue that theory is tested and scientific theories have produced plenty of tangible results. Tested theory holds academic value, and is open to being disproven. Is there any more heart of the matter that I have missed?
Converse- Ugh. What's worse, Oklahoma doesn't allow minor third party candidates on the ballot as a protest vote. If my presidential vote won't have influence anyway, I'd rather do my part to get some third party guy enough support to take a cut of the campaign funds next time around and get some real competition going. At least my vote felt more useful in state questions and some local elections. Hooray for veteran housing benefits and education fund earmarking from lottery proceeds.
/sigh
my point was not that I had not used the incorrect word, but rather harping on something so semantical is a very elementary way to debate...it's like taking one of George Bush's speaches and focussing on nothing but his stammering..hell, it's worse, because I used theory in a way that most people would understand.
Anyways...what I mean by science not standing up to scientific scrutiny is the very stuff that I was talking about in my origional post, things like the Big Bang theory, things like evolution...they don't stand up to scientific scrunity in the purest sense because they cannot be proven or even tested...so how can we really call that science? The big bang doesn't even tell us anything about how all life began, because it fails to explain what caused all that matter to be created in the first place.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm sorry reavo, but whoever wrote this article is talking out their ass. It's political bullcrap to be sure.
A little background, I've been studying science in one form or another for almost 10 years. I hold memberships in the IEEE and a number of other scientific organisations. I deal with science on a daily basis and in my spare time I help teach high school / college students on matters of science and technology.
First of all, attacking the president for not believing in evolution is hypocritical and stupid. It doesn't matter if he doesn't believe in evolution. He's not trying to force you to believe otherwise, despite what you may think. He's allowed to hold whatever belief he wants. If he wants to believe that the earth was created 5,000 years ago and everything that points otherwise is just trickery, that's his decision. That's freedom of religion, or don't you want that type of freedom in your country?
The bit about scientists all using a specific set of knowledge and not using other beliefs as foundations for scientific theory is also bullcrap. It's perfectly reasonable to use religious or other non-scientific ideas as a basis for a new hypothesis. It may be far harder to achieve solid results but it's just as valid as building upon prescribed knowledge. In fact, that's how some breakthroughs are made. Current knowledge says that 'free energy' is an impossibility, a myth and a farce. Still some scientists pursue that idea anyways, and one company even claims to have succeeded (though they have still yet to show hard proof). Science isn't about following the exact same method as everyone else, it's about the pursuit of knowledge and a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
The main place where the arcticle loses sensibility is the issue of funding. I hate to dissapoint the writer, but the government doesn't OWE you money for experiments. If the government doesn't want to pay for stem cell research, then it doesn't have to. Same with corporations and the like. It's their money, they can do what they want with it. If a company is funding you, and they don't like what you are finding, then they are perfectly within their rights to cut off the money. They don't have to pay for your experiments if they don't want to. If you wanna do a study, go find someone else who will pay for it. Use your own money. Don't cry because someone else won't give you any.
In the end, this article is little more than a thinly veiled political attack; an evolutionist trying to attack the current administration. Apparently because this evolutionist thinks he/she should be in charge of who gets government funding.
Shame on you reavo, I thought you knew better than to post bunk like this.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000