PDA

View Full Version : We don't need no stinkin' science



Apostasius
9 Nov 2005, 12:17 AM
Okay, I have a dead horse that needs beating.

Kansas School Board OKs Evolution Language (Again!)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate

Why not teach alchemy for chemistry, astrology for astronomy, flat earth science for geology, or psychic phenomena for physics? Fuck it. Let's just teach pseudoscience instead of science.

This shit is really starting to piss me off.

So, what do you think?

Is the US becoming hostile to science?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/28/science.debate.reut/

___________________
From:
http://pewforum.org/surveys/origins/#3

Divided Over Evolution

Most Americans believe that God was responsible for the creation of life on earth but divide on the question of whether and how life has changed since the creation. Overall, 78% say God created life on earth, while 5% think a universal spirit or higher power was responsible for the creation.

Despite this broad agreement regarding the origins of life, the public is deeply divided on precisely how life developed. A plurality of Americans (48%) say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, but nearly as many (42%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. The latter group is often called "creationist" because this view is seen as consistent with a literal reading of the Bible's account of creation.(1)

There is further division among those who agree that life has evolved over time. Of those who say that living things have evolved over time, roughly half (26% of the public overall) accept the Darwinian account of evolution, saying that evolution has occurred through natural processes such as natural selection. But nearly four-in-ten of those who believe in evolution (18% of the public as a whole) say that evolution was guided by a supreme being for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today, a view that is consistent with some aspects of what has been called "intelligent design."

Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are most distinctive in their support for the creationist position. A large majority of white evangelicals (70%) say that living things have always existed in their present form. In contrast, most white mainline Protestants (60%) and white Catholics (61%) believe that living things have evolved over time, while only 32% and 31% of mainline Protestants and Catholics, respectively, accept the creationist account.

But both mainline Protestants and Catholics are divided over the nature of the evolutionary process. Three-in-ten mainline Protestants (31%) say evolution occurred through natural selection, while 24% think evolution was guided by a supreme being. Among white Catholics, 28% subscribe to natural selection and the same number believe evolution was guided by a higher power. In contrast, most seculars (56%) accept the idea of evolution through processes such as natural selection.

These differences of opinion carry over into politics as well (see detailed tables on pp. 22-23). Nearly six-in-ten conservative Republicans believe that living things have always existed in their present form, while just 11% say that evolution occurred through natural processes. Among liberal Democrats, by contrast, only 29% hold the creationist position, while a plurality (44%) accepts the natural selection theory of evolution.

Age, gender and education are also strongly related to views about the development of living things. College graduates are twice as likely as people who did not attend college to accept the natural selection theory of evolution (40%-18%). Nearly half of women (47%) say that living things have always existed in their present form, while only 36% of men share this view. Half of Americans ages 65 and up subscribe to the creationist position, compared with only 37% of Americans under age 30.

Many Think Scientists Disagree about Evolution

There is no public consensus about how scientists view evolution. Opinions about what scientists believe are strongly associated with one's own beliefs on the subject. Most Americans (54%) think that there is general agreement among scientists that evolution has taken place, but a substantial minority (33%) says that no such scientific consensus exists. By an 82%-13% margin, those who accept natural selection theory see a scientific consensus on this issue. Among those who take a creationist position, a 46% plurality thinks the scientific community is divided over the evolution question.

While most people who accept evolution believe there is a scientific consensus on the topic, they themselves express less certainty about how life developed on earth than do people who believe the creationist account. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of those who take a creationist point of view say they are very certain about how life developed. By contrast, those who believe in evolution are less certain of their views * just 32% say they are very certain.

People who take the Bible literally are much more convinced of the accuracy of their views of the development of life on earth (69% very certain), compared with those who don't take the Bible literally.

Reflecting this, a plurality of the public overall (42%) says that their religious beliefs have had the most important influence on their opinions about the development of life. This number rises to 60% among people who accept the creationist account. By contrast, a plurality of those who accept evolution says that their education is the most important source (47%); this number is 60% among people who believe that evolution proceeds through natural selection.

Evolution in the Schools

Even though nearly half of Americans believe that humans evolved over time, this poll and many others have shown that substantial majorities of the public favor adding creationism to the public school curriculum. In the current survey, 64% support teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, while only 26% oppose this idea. But significantly fewer people say creationism should supplant evolution in the curriculum: 38% say creationism should be taught instead of evolution (49% disagree).

Support for teaching creationism along with evolution is quite broad-based, with majority support even among seculars, liberal Democrats and those who accept natural selection theory. At the same time, not all creationists believe that creationism should replace evolution in the schools: 32% of those who subscribe to the creationist view do not think it should be taught instead of evolution. These findings strongly suggest that much of the public believes it is desirable to offer more viewpoints where controversial subjects in the schools are concerned.

White evangelicals and black Protestants are the only religious groups expressing majority support for teaching creationism instead of evolution in public schools. Majorities of mainline Protestants, Catholics and seculars oppose this idea. Politically, a majority of conservative Republicans favor replacing evolution with creationism in the classroom, but support for this proposal falls below 40% for all other political groups, including moderate and liberal Republicans. Regionally, only among Southerners does a plurality (45%) support replacing evolution with creationism in the schools.

But there are also inconsistencies in peoples' responses that point to confusion regarding the meaning of terms such as "creationism" and even "evolution." For example, among people who oppose teaching creationism either along with or instead of evolution, 27% personally take the creationist position on human origins. Similarly, 19% of people who think creationism should be taught instead of evolution nevertheless personally believe in evolution through natural selection.

Who Should Decide What Is Taught?

Large majorities of Americans believe that parents, scientists and science teachers and school boards should all have a say in how evolution is taught in public schools, and these majorities are found among all religious groups and people on both sides of the question of how life developed on earth. But there are deep divisions in the public about who should have the primary say on how evolution is handled. Overall, a plurality of the public (41%) says parents should have the primary say, compared with 28% for scientists and science teachers and 21% for school boards.

A majority (54%) of those who accept creationist accounts support giving parents the primary say on how evolution is taught. Among those who accept the theory of natural selection, however, nearly half (47%) support giving scientists and science teachers the primary role in how evolution is handled in public schools. Evangelical Protestants are most in favor of parents having the primary say on this issue (59%), while seculars are most supportive of trusting scientists and science teachers with these decisions, with 41% expressing this view.
_________________

These statistics are mind-stabbingly depressing.

_________________

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onionmagazine_1020.article.jpg

I don't really have a point. This is just a damn rant.

eyebyte_atWork
9 Nov 2005, 12:24 AM
Love that image - and I hear your rant

Claverhouse
9 Nov 2005, 01:40 AM
Moved to Science.


Mainly because it is science and belongs with all it's numberless little brothers on evolution versus creationism; but partly because the title's funny in Science.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif


Yeah, she is hot.

Zephyrus055
9 Nov 2005, 02:04 AM
One of these days, we will need an atheist emperor who sends all children to boarding schools.

knome
9 Nov 2005, 12:45 PM
Damnit. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813/)

:banghead:

NoahFence
9 Nov 2005, 02:45 PM
Let's see if I got this straight...

Not only is it a sin to say there is no proof God made Creation...it's also a sin to try to understand that Creation in any way at all.

BIOLOGY?!? OMG!! You mean my 11 year old son might learn that LUNGS are used to BREATHE!?!?!??!!?

Architectonic
9 Nov 2005, 02:50 PM
Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Or is it that the universe is so complex that most people can't understand anything more than to simply call it intelligent design?

Zephyrus055
9 Nov 2005, 08:46 PM
Or is it that the universe is so complex that most people can't understand anything more than to simply call it intelligent design? Bravo! *clap clap*

Crazy
9 Nov 2005, 09:16 PM
Why is it so difficult to teach both theories in school. They are only theories after all.

Hypnos
9 Nov 2005, 09:53 PM
Why is it so difficult to teach both theories in school. They are only theories after all.
Agreed. Evolution, being a falsifiable theory being widely-accepted in the community (moreso than, say, global warming), should be taught in science class, and creation myths like intelligent design should be taught in history/literature/philosophy/religion classes.

That's how I learned it. Gilgamesh rocks!

tinribz
9 Nov 2005, 09:58 PM
Its like a disease, and it has already crossed the Atlantic. I had never heard of anyone questioning evolution till a few months ago. Someone at work came out with the 'it's only a theory' premise. I was dumbfounded, it was like hearing them say they believed the world was flat.

Next it was things like 'how come parrots are multi coloureded, surley they should be camaflaged', sigh.

Now I hear these ill informed looney debates everywhere. I find it really disconcerting.

Eileen
9 Nov 2005, 10:36 PM
A world history teacher at the school where I teach apparently got in hot water for daring to say that human life originated in Africa and spread out (led to a conversation where a kid accused him of saying that we descended from apes, and he corrected him by saying that no, we and apes have common ancestors blah blah blah). Kids walked out (though to clarify the severity of the situation, the kids run the school where I teach, this guy's a first year teacher, and so kids walk all over him all the time), parents called (now that's unusual at my school) and the principal and he had a long conference. The principal told him his job could be on the line but then recanted because as it turns out, it's not against the law to teach WORLD HISTORY.

Sigh.

Zephyrus055
9 Nov 2005, 10:44 PM
Creationism vs. Science = False dichotomy. The two can co-exist - evolution does not disprove creationism, although I still think creationism and christianity are absurd.

Apostasius
9 Nov 2005, 11:33 PM
On a plus note:

'Intelligent-design' school board ousted in Penn
http://tinyurl.com/bggn7

And for anyone who gives a crap... A ruling in the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial will be given sometime before the end of the year.

Information pertaining to the trial:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/

Biff_Loman
10 Nov 2005, 01:42 AM
These sentiments have been around for a long time. So: why are the fundies starting to win now? What pressures are driving people to think so. . . unscientifically?

Hypnos
10 Nov 2005, 02:30 AM
These sentiments have been around for a long time. So: why are the fundies starting to win now? What pressures are driving people to think so. . . unscientifically?
It's not they're winning now, but they're trying to stop the losing. While religiosity seems to be running high, it's mostly bluster on wedge issues like gay marriage and science education. The US has never been as diverse, progressive and atheistic as now, taking the country as a whole.

sbw
10 Nov 2005, 06:58 AM
The US has never been as diverse, progressive and atheistic as now, taking the country as a whole.

thank god for that.

*rips bong, sodomizes bi-racial boyfriend, waits for lightning bolt*

Scott

panda
10 Nov 2005, 07:03 AM
thank god for that.

*rips bong, sodomizes bi-racial boyfriend, waits for lightning bolt*

Scott
:rofl:

RottenApple
10 Nov 2005, 07:15 AM
thank god for that.

*rips bong, sodomizes bi-racial boyfriend, waits for lightning bolt*

Scott

HAHAHA ... oh man ... I actually have tears in my eyes.

Geek Engineer
12 Nov 2005, 03:05 AM
What can I say.. "Scotty beam me up there isn't any intelligent life here anymore!!!" *shaking head sadly*

I have always thought that creationism and science can work together as long as you are willing to be flexible with the interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately, there are people out there (I know one of them) that believe the earth was created in 7 days period!! However, science is the ultimately the search for the truth. Yes, I think the science we know today can be in need of revision from time to time, but these are things that are well thought out and based on well established facts and data. Now they just want to throw all the progress we have made to satisfy some religious need to equate science to religion. This could be the beginning of a sad time for humanity, but I sure hope this doesn't become a trend.

sbw
12 Nov 2005, 05:27 PM
What can I say.. "Scotty beam me up there isn't any intelligent life here anymore!!!" *shaking head sadly*

I have always thought that creationism and science can work together as long as you are willing to be flexible with the interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately, there are people out there (I know one of them) that believe the earth was created in 7 days period!! However, science is the ultimately the search for the truth. Yes, I think the science we know today can be in need of revision from time to time, but these are things that are well thought out and based on well established facts and data. Now they just want to throw all the progress we have made to satisfy some religious need to equate science to religion. This could be the beginning of a sad time for humanity, but I sure hope this doesn't become a trend.

yeah, the hardcore fundies truly believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, in spite of fossil records and carbon dating and whatever else...it's just a good thing that such people never find their way into positions of power. oh, wait.

Scott

Geek Engineer
12 Nov 2005, 10:39 PM
yeah, the hardcore fundies truly believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, in spite of fossil records and carbon dating and whatever else...it's just a good thing that such people never find their way into positions of power. oh, wait.

Scott

Ha Ha Ha.. Good one..

Yeah this (EnTJ?) guy is sort of one of my friends at work and he is a member of some weird Christian sect. I think they take the bible absolutely letter for letter with no flexibility in interpretation. I also have been told that they still treat women like they did 200 years ago or something like that, but I haven't observed it personally to know for sure. He is a good guy I just don't agree with him at all in respect to some things like this.

I gave up a long time ago trying to argue it with him as he wouldn't move a millimeter on the subject. Also, most times when the subject came up the this other Christian girl at work would also be there and they would both just gang up against me.

Geek Engineer
15 Nov 2005, 02:41 AM
I saw this article in EE Times today and it reminded me of this thread.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173602087

Hypnos
15 Nov 2005, 03:00 AM
I saw this article in EE Times today and it reminded me of this thread.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173602087
Man, EEs sound like bitches. Oh, and there's downward salary pressure from PhDs and Masters holders.

Oh, and we should outsource as much as possible. If those Jesus freaks want jobs, they can move to India :D

Heather Harrison
15 Nov 2005, 03:11 AM
Interesting article...

There are many reasons why engineering isn't more popular, and the article touches on some of it. Many industry-wide, structural problems (i.e. drab cubicle jungles, long work weeks, and male-dominated environments which are not too inviting to women) help explain it, and perhaps the problems in the larger society that we are discussing here are contributing to this.

I am becoming increasingly disturbed at the anti-science views of much of the public in the U.S., and of the current administration. When people routinely ignore well-accepted and well-tested science in favor of their own misguided opinions or their superstitions, it means nothing but trouble. When people have no respect for science and the scientific method, how can they go into engineering and become competent? Science is at the core of engineering and technology.

Previously, when societies have turned their backs on science and knowledge, in favor of superstition, it has taken centuries to recover. Just think of western Europe after the Roman Empire crumbled. People regressed to a lower level of technology, and most learning stopped (although, paradoxically, the religious institutions that contributed to this decline also preserved knowledge in their monasteries). I can even see the decline in such simple, everyday items as coins. Compare a coin from 100 C.E. with one from 1100 C.E. One would think that 1000 years would result in improved processes for making coins. This is not the case - the older coin is technically far more advanced. If we follow the path of superstition and ignorance, we risk the same decline and stagnation. Only this time, we will simply be overrun by stronger powers who choose not to go the same direction.

I hope the more rational people in our society will ultimately win this battle, but I fear they will not. They are rather complacent, while the nuts are driven by mad passion to win at all costs. I'm not very optimistic.

Heather Harrison

Geek Engineer
15 Nov 2005, 04:13 AM
Interesting article...

There are many reasons why engineering isn't more popular, and the article touches on some of it. Many industry-wide, structural problems (i.e. drab cubicle jungles, long work weeks, and male-dominated environments which are not too inviting to women) help explain it, and perhaps the problems in the larger society that we are discussing here are contributing to this.


I most definitely agree with your there. That also reminds me the meeting with our new VP. He was saying he didn't think we had enough women in engineering. He sort of shut up after saying it realizing he could get himself in trouble, but at least he is honest.


I hope the more rational people in our society will ultimately win this battle, but I fear they will not. They are rather complacent, while the nuts are driven by mad passion to win at all costs. I'm not very optimistic.

Exactly what I was thinking Heather. If thing go the way they seem to be one day I fear we will wake up and find we are just another country with no real power, leadership, or influence. Countries like China and India will be the the ones who will progress and become more powerful. I hope I am wrong, but lately it just seems to be slowly headed this way.

This is the last draw I'm runing for President!!!! Ha Ha Ha....

Heather Harrison
15 Nov 2005, 04:40 AM
China and India are doing a lot of things right. They understand the value of education, and they aren't letting superstitions get in the way of science. There also seem to be a lot more women in those countries going into the sciences, while our society seems to discourage women from these fields. We are, therefore, wasting a lot of potential. When I was in college, many of the women were from China or India, and I still visit my alma mater on occasion, and I see a lot of Chinese and Indian women, but very few others. They get educated here, and most of them go back home and build the industry in their countries.

I just don't see how we can compete with these countries when they encourage technological development and we descend into superstition. It's true that those societies have their own superstitions and backward beliefs, but government policy is working against backward thinking, while our government wants to drag us far back into the past. One day, probably not too far in the future, we will be a third-world theocracy, and China and India will be the world leaders.

Heather Harrison

aether
15 Nov 2005, 05:36 AM
I believe that it all boils down to economics! Kansas needs those families that believe in intelligent design to move to their state! There is demand for these sort of schools and people will move. I read somewhere that people are looking to the midwest for "morals" and "family values" which are not available in places like California.

Claverhouse
15 Nov 2005, 06:31 PM
China and India are doing a lot of things right. They understand the value of education, and they aren't letting superstitions get in the way of science. There also seem to be a lot more women in those countries going into the sciences, while our society seems to discourage women from these fields.
In China at least, there are a lot more females going into state orphanages: 95% of entrants are baby girls. The East has always had far less regard for females than the West, or other places, like India.


Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

Heather Harrison
16 Nov 2005, 01:59 AM
That is true, generally. These societies, at present, are split. There is a very large lower class which holds onto traditional attitudes which devalue females, but judging from the large percentages of women studying in technical fields, the middle and upper classes (the only ones likely to pursue such an education at all) have moved a considerable distance from these ideas. This increasing split in these societies may end up being their weak point, but if they use ruthless methods to keep the underclass in line, they might succeed in making it work.

Heather Harrison

euterpenc
16 Nov 2005, 02:30 AM
If the goal of science is truth, why can't people accept the neccesity of religion? It's the truth. I think most of you give science a bad name. Your judgements are second hand, and the objectives of them are to prove YOUR view of reality, and not truth. You guys certanly put your subjectivity into it.

Most importantly, regardless of whether you're creationist, scientist, or indifferent, people only learn when they WANT TO. You can't force people to learn. If kids really want to learn about something, then they will read, study, and experience it. A teacher is useless without students who are willing to learn. Shoving data into children's heads won't bring anyone anywhere. The people who help us progress scientifically and religiously are doing that because THEY WANT TO, not because data was FORCED into their heads.

Geek Engineer
16 Nov 2005, 04:37 AM
If the goal of science is truth, why can't people accept the neccesity of religion? It's the truth. I think most of you give science a bad name. Your judgements are second hand, and the objectives of them are to prove YOUR view of reality, and not truth. You guys certanly put your subjectivity into it.

Zeitgeist you make some fair and valid points here. I would rather say that science is the "search" for the truth. It is not the absolute truth and we are consistently updating and refining our understanding of the world as new facts and/or experiments come along to change our view on how the universe works. Some sort of religion is necessary for most people in general. I don't want to necessarily stop them in there pursuit of what they call their truth in life.

It just that a book written many hundred of years ago touched and possibly altered by who know what shouldn't be taken at 100 percent face value. Granted there are a lot of Christians who I know don't take the bible that literally, but unfortunately there are some that do. Personally, I think it is unfortunate that it was written in the bible that it cannot be changed or altered. I truly believe if there is a god that this was a totally false statement added in at the last minute by some "SJ" (in my opinion) to say that a religion can't be changed or can be proven wrong in some areas as knowledge increases. Unfortunately, I am sure that is what makes it popular amongst the masses is that the Bible is this unchanging law of the universe.

So where do we draw the line at what is religion and science? Science most likely will not be able to prove that some sort of god exists or not, but it will be able let us manipulate and control the world around us to the highest possible extent allowed by this universe's laws. To me this intelligent design is a theory just as evolution is. However, to me it is a theory trying to prove that there "must" be a god by exclusion of all other logical possibilities based on what we observe today. Evolution makes no such claims that there is a god or not, it is a just theory that best fits the facts and physical data we currently have available to us. I think too many Christians have taken the bible too literally and science has since proven some of the bible to be inaccurate or totally wrong. I think this scares the crap out of some Christians, because it shakes at the core foundation of there beliefs.



Most importantly, regardless of whether you're creationist, scientist, or indifferent, people only learn when they WANT TO. You can't force people to learn. If kids really want to learn about something, then they will read, study, and experience it. A teacher is useless without students who are willing to learn. Shoving data into children's heads won't bring anyone anywhere. The people who help us progress scientifically and religiously are doing that because THEY WANT TO, not because data was FORCED into their heads.

I agree. You can't make people want to believe in a god and/or pursue science if they don't. But a child is a sort of different in a way. They are an empty book to a certain degree and can be pushed in one direction or another to a point. Obviously, if the parents are hard core Christians he child will probably be completely brain washed to the point that when they get to school they will be totally biased anyway. The same could be said for the opposite situation. To me things are going in the direction favoring religion right now and that isn't necessarily a bad thing if it is progressive and open minded, but lately things seem headed towards the more "SJ" like, oppressive, and close minded religion.

Well I hope that makes sense this is a challenging subject to debate..