Trouble ahead for science

AMERICAN science is in trouble, and if you wonder why, just go to the movies. Popular culture is gradually turning against science, and Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled," is helping to push it along.
more stories like this

"Intelligent Design," the relabeled, repackaged form of American creationism, has always had a problem. It just can't seem to produce any evidence. To scientists, the reasons for this are obvious. To conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Intelligent Design is nothing more than a "phony theory." No data, no science, no experiments, just an attempt to sneak a narrow set of religious views into US classrooms.

Advocates of Intelligent Design needed a story to explain why the idea has been a nonstarter within the scientific community, and Ben Stein has given it to them. The story line is that Intelligent Design advocates are persecuted and suppressed. "Expelled" tells of this terrible campaign against free expression, and mocks the pretensions of the closed-minded scientific elite supposedly behind it.

>>>>>>

Despite these falsehoods, by far the film's most outlandish misrepresentation is its linkage of Darwin with the Holocaust. A concentration camp tour guide tells Stein that the Nazis were practicing "Darwinism," and that's that. Never mind those belt buckles proclaiming Gott mit uns (God is with us), the toxic anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, the ghettoes and murderous pogroms in Christian Europe centuries before Darwin's birth. No matter. It's all the fault of evolution.

Why is all this nonsense a threat to science? The reason is Stein's libelous conclusion that science is simply evil. In an April 21 interview on the Trinity Broadcast Network, Stein called the Nazi murder of children "horrifying beyond words." Indeed. But what led to such horrors? Stein explained: "that's where science in my opinion, this is just an opinion, that's where science leads you. Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/

Tyrants do not tolerate other brands of truth well.

There are so many great science programs on cable now that it's impossible to ignore.

Almost everyone is laughing at Ben Stein and his surrogates.

For instance, the History channel's offerings on the black holes, the bermuda triangle, "exotic" animals like Bigfoot... The educational potential of television has never been fully realized, whereas its use in promoting all kinds of irrational ideas dominates ("Wanna buy a magnet for your back pain?")

and UFOs are all just hallucinations that have been around since mankind's earliest times.. all just total rubbish....What is rubbish is the thought that they don't exist IMO...How arrogant..Mankind is all alone in the Universe...

Or older people who have too much time on their hands.

:shrug:

I live near WPAFB in Ohio. When I was a teenager I saw a UFO my grandfather and my aunt claim to have seen one as well.

in quality but there is an abundance of religious programming that is anti-science at core.

How often could a kid watch a quality science program on TV? Once a week? Once a month? Back then, PBS was the only choice.

Today, there's a good science program on almost any time on any day. Get a Dish, you'll change your tune.

The nazis felt everyone else was inferior and were simply "assisting" "natural law" or whatever the bollocks excuse was. "Darwinism" is a hoax anyway; Darwin himself probably had no social life and made it big by pandering outside of the box... :evilgrin:


And, yeah, a loose association can be no different than a total misrepresentation, no argument there.

curtesy. Unfortuantely science in America is being passed by by the Europeans according to a doctor I spoke with yesterday. Republicans can't use it to explain their religious based ideas. Why can't God be considered the most advanced scientist?

As long as ID is presented as a theory and not a law. The creator does not have to be a judeo christian one. Evolution or change is obvious however, the scientists have never been able to explain or reproduce how probiotics became living organisms. Children should be exposed to both ideas.

It is a bullshit idea made up by lunatics who don't even begin to understand the idea of science.

Evolution, on the other hand, IS a theory.

Look before you leap says I.

There are pleny of viable explanations and even experiments which have gotten close. Here's a good summary on various theories and experiments, even including the untestable hypothesis of the ID people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Gotta love wikipedia.

And a scientific theory has to follow certain rules. Not last among which is that it has to be disprovable to truly be a scientific theory:

-----------

A successful scientific inquiry may culminate in a well-tested, well-documented explanation (theory) that is supported overwhelmingly by valid data, and often has the power to predict the outcome of certain scenarios, which may be tested by future experiments. There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.

Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:

Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.
The Scientific Method in Earth Science
The classic scientific method where a convenient laboratory experiment may be devised and observed often cannot be done in the earth sciences. This is because most of earth and geological phenomena are too big (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions) or too slow (mountain building, climate change) to be observed easily or replicated; the earth itself is the "laboratory." Also, because many of the events analyzed by geologists occurred long ago, they often "working backwards" - that is, they start with the conclusion (a rock or fossil), and try to work out the sequence of past events that occurred over geologic time.

Limitations of the Scientific Method

The scientific method is limited to those phenomena which can be observed or measured. For example, what existed prior to the Big Bang and the known universe is outside of the realm of science to investigate.

Science is good at explaining "how things work" but not necessarily for explaining "why do such things exist" or "for what purpose." (Science does not really explain why the Universe exists.)
-----------------

http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm

Children can be exposed to any ideas you like in your own home so long as you're not beating them or touching their bathing suit areas. Personally I don't want my children exposed to anyone's fairy tales but my own, unless of course they are explained to be fairy tales.

I used to love the Greek version of creation when I was a kid! And of course I've always had a certain fondness for the Hindu version... that whole sea of milk thing with the serpents is just plain cool!

Anyways ID is NOT i repeat NOT science. It is untestable, and therefore it is philosophy and should never be put in the same category as science. That is the problem. If you want to teach it in a "creation myths" class please feel free! It could stir the creative juices of countless children!

I have no problem with creation myths being taught in a philosophy class. However, *sane* people don't try to claim that philosophy is in any way, shape, or form related to science. Creationists, however...

Hand Grenades and Horseshoes. When has life been created in a laboratory and who repeated the experiment? Your right ID is not a science but a philosophic answer to a question that will enevitably arise when discussing the origin of life. Until life is created by man, ID and evolution both require a certain amount of faith. Either faith in science or faith in god.

Your argument is completely irrelevant.

Next question.

Can life be created by man from none living compounds.

Sequencing dna is not the same thing as creating a lifeform. This link only states that the dna of an existing organism was sequenced. The human genome has been sequenced but scientists have yet to create a living human from the sequenced DNA.

Says the guy who thinks that ID is compatible with evolution, and doesn't believe in random mutation.

"but scientists have yet to create a living human from the sequenced DNA."

Geez, move the goal posts much.

:shrug:

You said the word believe which ilustrates my point exactly. ID/Creationism require no more faith than believing in godless evolution. You have faith in your aiethism.

There's a difference between the vernacular use of the word "believe" and religious faith.

I believe I've got about two bucks of change in my pocket. That's got nothing to do with religious faith.

"ID/Creationism require no more faith than believing in godless evolution."

"godless evolution" is supported, proven, by vast amounts of scientific evidence.

Creationism is refuted by scientific evidence. It doesn't require faith, it requires denial and ignorance.

It's the intellectual equivalent of holocaust denial.

When it comes to the origin of life you either believe it was random(which has not been proven in a lab) or you believe an intelligent being was involved. Honestly, I have little faith and am not sure which belief is true. It could go either way. That is why(referring to original post) both sides should be taught. I guess I have less faith than atheists(which you refuse to say whether you are or are not).

I somebody asks me what time it is, and I say "I believe it's about 4:30" did I just commit a spiritual act?

Of course not. So quit playing dumb.

"When it comes to the origin of life you either believe it was random(which has not been proven in a lab) or you believe an intelligent being was involved"

Here's a picture of a rock.



It's out in the middle of a field.

So how did it get there?

Well, I could say maybe it was pushed there by a glacier or a flood.

Or I could say God put it there 6,000 years ago when he created zebras and unicorns and hobgoblins.

One of those is a valid line of thought. One of them is not.

The rock in the field was obviously deposited by a glacier and it was definitely more than five thousand years ago. Could god be responsible for glaciers? Show me life created by man in a lab and I will concede. Otherwise god is just as likely as anything else. Are you an atheist?

"The rock in the field was obviously deposited by a glacier and it was definitely more than five thousand years ago."

Well then you're in direct conflict with I.D.

"Could god be responsible for glaciers?"

Well then you're just arguing for a "god of the gaps."

Where are my keys? Did God take them? Oh, no, they fell behind my sofa cushions. God caused my keys to fall behind the sofa cushions.

answer my question, are you atheist? You can't prove god didn't take your keys. Admit you are a faithful atheist.

You can't prove the universe wasn't created by a time traveling Wedgewood teacup.

Your point?

is a "faithful atheist"?

and why did i bother to post to an impossible-to-reason-with fundy?

never mind, anything you'll say is biased by your need for "beliefs".

Do you honestly think otherwise?

Then stop acting like one.

is that that line of reasoning is not falsifiable. There is nothing that a scientist can do to prove that a god was not responsible for glaciation. This is where science and faith depart. Scientist do not entertain theories which can not be proven false. Yes, the theory of evolution is falsifiable, but in the case of evolution the bulk of scientific, peer-reviewed data points to the theory of evolution as the best explanation of how the planet has evolved and is still evolving. Indeed, evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

I recommend you read "Defending Evolution" by Alters and Alters. I also urge you to visit the following link and bone up on critical thinking. http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

or... it *could* have been put there by a meteor...

The state of life as we know it is the best argument against "intelligent design". One would think an "intelligence" (as defined by proponents of ID) would do a better job.

But that assumes that god has good intentions. That may not be the case if he exists.

That reminds me of the early Christian gnostic sect (declared heretical) Basically, they thought the God of the OT was a delusional mad scientist, who was fucking up left and right. Maybe they had a point.

Logically it is all supposition.

The idea of the existence of, or the workings of, any diety is not falsifiable, not subject to proof, merely faith.
For many, faith is enough.

The response to "falisify" that a diety does NOT exist is trying to prove a negative and not to be taken seriously.

Faith has its own set of psychological conditions-- possibly even requirements-- that have more to do with sociology and culture.

What created him?

As said before, I don't think anybody has a problem with letting intelligent design be taught along side other creation MYTHS in a philosophy classroom. In a science class, however, it does not belong.

Being an atheist has nothing to do with it.

I'll say it again: the origin of life is not something addressed by the theory of evolution. Can you wrap your mind around that?

Pathogens have evolved in the last few decades to cope with drugs like antibiotics or drugs against HIV. So we have in vivo proof of random mutations leading to natural selection because the antibiotic resistant bacteria multiply while those which are not die off. We also have computer simulations to practice evolution. In fact there is an entire field called genetic algorithms which uses natural selection and random mutations to design new inventions. If you want a new radio antenna you plug the specifications of what you want into a supercomputer and you create a few hundred antennas. You randomly mutate all of them and let the 'best' ones mate. Then you do it again for the next generation. After 100 generations or so you have evolved a radio antenna that fits your goals.

As for an intelligent being, my concern is what mechanism is used to drive evolution? Evolution is driven mostly from random mutations to genes and mating patterns which are affected by endless variables. To me, saying that an intelligent designer is controlling evolution is like saying this designer can somehow manipulate our chromosomes while we are in interphase to cause the 202,198,214th base pair to change from a T to a G. I don't see what mechanism causes this. Either the designer controls mutations that occur during interphase or it controls our mating patterns. Neither sounds realistic without a mechanism or at least evidence that it actually happens. You don't need a mechanism to believe something works (we didn't know why aspirin killed pain until long after we started using it) but at least we had evidence it worked. With ID we have neither a mechanism or evidnece that it actually occurs.

I'm not totally going to write the idea off. Retropsychokinesis has shown that consciousness can affect the going ons of random subatomic particles.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/

So it is possible in a way I guess, but I still see no evidence. Nobody knows how to test for an idea like this.


Another major issue that bothers me personally is how inefficient evolution is. It is normal to look at how complex life is now and think that it may've been designed, but it took 4 billion years to get to this point. I think for the first 3.2 billion years of life there was nothing more complex than a single celled organism. Multicellular life only existed in the last 600 million years.

Corn is evolved from something totally different, something 10x smaller. But with intelligent design (via agriculture and selective planting and breeding) we created modern corn.



I think foxes can be turned into dogs with 20 generations of selective breeding. So my problem is why is evolution so inefficient? Why has humanity been plagued with a host of diseases that humans have cured in roughly 200 years? The majority of diseases are now curable or treatable that pre-industrial age humans had no defense against.

I read in national geographic once that up to half of all humans that have ever lived have died from malaria. But we now have many treatments for malaria that came up in the last 100 years. So if we are designed intelligently why are we so vulnerable to malaria, and why were we with our limited monkey brains able to find cures in 100 years that evolution couldn't find in a hundred million years? The closest 'cure' for malaria evolution made was sickle cell anemia. If there is a designer it is either grossly incompetent or totally amoral.

Considering how limited humans are in intellect, and how few devote themselves to scientific R&D you still have to stand in awe to all the achievements humans have made in the last 100 years. And a good deal of these advances were not made by natural selection. Alot of our medicine is lifted from other organisms, but alot of our medical ideas and medicines are totally manmade too.

IT never was and never had been. It's time to drop your religious non-sense and read a fucking book.

Thank you.

evolution does not describe how life began nor was it ever intended to describe the origin of life.

And you don't have to be an atheist in order to subscribe to evolution. There are many, many Christians and theists out there that are proponents of evolution. Opponents of evolution, on the other hand, are a vocal minority.

True, we don't know how life began on Earth. However recently I read an article on Slashdot about how organic compounds came to Earth via asteroids. So life beginning without a deity isn't so far fetched after all. And when scientists are able to create new life in a lab, then creationists will try to disprove the work and brand the scientists involved as satanic. Which is why I would be surprised if scientists ever got a grant for such research in the U.S.. It's all so very sadly predictable.

Furthermore creationism or intelligent design is a religious belief that employs faulty logic:

Science: testable idea -> test -> gather data -> form conclusions based on data -> submit study to journal where others test your conclusions and methodology.

Creationism or ID: God did it-> mold facts to or only recognize facts that support the original idea.

There is zero science backing up creationism/intelligent design whereas there are reams of evidence supporting evolution.

If creationists want their ideas taught in a science classroom, then the burden of proof is on them to prove it scientifically. If you can't, then those ideas are best taught in a religious school, the home, or in church where they belong. There is no scientific controversy when one side can't even put forth a scrap of scientific evidence.

Truth be told, creationism/intelligent design is simply a device fundies are using to get a foothold into the public schools. Since they can't force everyone to pray, now they are trying to slip religion in through the backdoor.

Science doesn't work that way. You might as well say "The tooth fairy did it!"

You can't fill the hole created by your knowledge with nothing. Are you atheist?

:rofl:

How did the universe come to be? Are you athiest, it's a simple question?

Are you not an atheist?

"Darwinism" aka science = all living organisms evolved via natural selection from a common ancestor.

"Intelligent design" = God created living organisms in their present form.

Perhaps you're confusing "ID" with something else.

Have you ever considered that god created organisms in their present form through the process of natural selection. Humans cannot possibly know how god actually works in the universe. Does god have a magic wand? Keep in mind that I am agnostic and do not necessarily agree with the christian conception of creation.

then he didn't create them in their present form.

Duh.

duh!

It's caused by the breaking and formation of chemical bonds.

Which are subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Which means it's random.

None of this matters to ID though. Since ID says there is no natural selection, and things never evolved.

You argue that it can be random but you have no argument to prove that it is not. Another leap of faith towards science.

"You argue that it can be random but you have no argument to prove that it is not."

Why would I want to argue that it is not random? It isn't.

as hard as it is not to (because I want to, also), do not argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. No matter what you tell this guy he will say that questions we have not answered yet (due to our lack of understanding at present) automatically prove that a god has to exist:eyes:

I see it's explained elsewhere in depth so I'll give you the simple version.

In science, a theory is the explanation for all observed phenomena. Any observation that contradicts the theory invalidates it. In over 150 years of biological research, and perhaps a million observations and experiments, not one, I'll repeat that, not one has contradicted Darwin's Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. A scientific "law" is usually the part of a theory which can be expressed mathematically. Also to be a theory, it must be falsifiable. That is, there must be a way of proving it false. That lets god out.

--IMM

ID IS NOT SCIENCE! It is not testable by the scientific method. Evolution is. Get a fucking clue.

At best, it's a guess. At worst, it's faith.

Sid

You cannot distinguish between a theory and a law. Laws are mathematical proofs. Theories are general explanations of multiple science topics all woven together that allow predictions to be made. It isn't the same as a hypothesis.

My impression is that Stein has no problem with solid science, like evolution, but happens to believe in intelligent design.

Am I wrong?

You can't believe in both.

--IMM

Intelligent design comes in different flavors. A number of scientists believe totally in all aspects of science but that some greater force set it all in motion.

It's a reworking of "scientific creationism" and is a direct refutation of evolution by natural selection.

This is like having a discussion on Newton's laws of motion and then saying "no, no, I mean Orville Newton's laws of motion."

The main tenet of ID is that you have to start from complexity. Where'd that come from?

--IMM

became popular. I'm currently reading The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby, and it's enlightening.

If the stats she quotes in the beginning of the book are true, it's damn scary stuff. To wit:

"To cite just one example, Americans are alone in the developed world in their view of evolution by means of natural selection as "controversial" rather than as settled mainstream science. The continuing strength of religious fundamentalism in America (again, unique in the developed world) is generally cited as the sole reason for the bizarre persistence of anti-evolution. But that simple answer does not address the larger question of why so many nonfundamentalist Americans are willing to dismiss scientific consensus. The real and more complex explanation may lie not in America's brand of faith but in the public's ignorance about science in general as well as evolution in particular. More than two-thirds of Americans, according to surveys conducted for the National Science Foundation over the past two decades, are unable to identify DNA as the key to heredity. Nine of ten Americans do not understand radiation and what it can do to the body. One in five adults is convinced that the sun revolves around the earth. Such responses point to a stunning failure of American public schooling at the elementary and secondary levels, and it is easy to understand why a public with such a shaky grasp of the most rudimentary scientific facts would be unable or unwilling to comprehend the theory of evolution. One should not have to be an intellectual or, for that matter, a college graduate to understand that the sun does not revolve around the earth or that DNA contains the biological instructions that make each of us a unique member of the human species. This level of scientific illiteracy provides fertile soil for political appeals based on sheer ignorance."

I have a problem with this, quite seriously; that level of ignorance is apalling.

White House speechwriter to lame character actor to purveyor of ridiculous agitprop. How long until we find Stein in a chicken outfit hawking McNuggets?

We seem to inhabit the only industrialized country on the planet where pluralities buy into ideas like evolution is "controversial", global warming is a "hoax by big science", and homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice". Coincidentally, we're also one of the few that don't have universal health care, we spend more on our military than the rest of the world COMBINED, and we have the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

Science? We don't need no steenkin' science. We have a mass media that tells us what we want to hear and shows us what we want to see, and we have a big benevolent Skygod who forgives us on a weekly basis for doing all the things we know are wrong, no need to apologize to anyone ever. There's no room for science in American minds.

:thumbsup:

science will persevere, with or without the participation of the US.

Sid

is on the rise and won't back down! But there are so many who will continue to think it's all bunk, because they are slaves to the constant flow of medical myths and pharmaceutical subliminal ads, and truly can't get it out of their heads, that if it's synthesized, it's okay, because the doc says so! Don't get me started.

for dosing. there are bad drugs out there as well... but many if not most drugs are naturally occurring substances. The benefit is that they are tested for counterindications and for dose. With herbs and plants you get different doses and no one knows if I take some of your herbs and an aspirin if my head is going to explode.

There is much good in modern medicine as well. People have had herbs for a very long time without living past 20 years old :eyes:

in a most ironic fashion.

;)

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

Not to mention a mess of a movie. how much money has it made anyway? It's not playing anywhere near me. I think the only people seeing it are the brainwashed cretins churches bus in to see it.

But I take the larger point about science. We are in trouble. There is a huge brain drain away from the science in colleges because most people feel it is no way to make money. College has now been marketed as a "get a good paying job" training program rather than a place to learn valuable skills.

I also think far too many people in this country believe all kinds of woo-woo nonsense because nobody teaches them how to think critically. Science on tv is for "geeks", not "hotties". And then there is the religion factor. Too much religion in this country and that affects our ability to do train new generations in science. And then there is the overall Republican War on Science.

It has made almost $7,000,000 already. That's awful for a mainstream movie, but very good for a documentary. On the plus side, I don't think it did anywhere near as much business as the producers thought, but we underestimate its appeal at our own risk.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

This is hardly confined to one end of the political spectrum, which is terribly depressing.

SSDD

Science's future looks just fine to me. Mythbusters is a huge hit.

Where science ought to be under attack is in the area where science is a tool used and subverted by capitalist interests to justify an agenda that's not even remotely in the public interest.

...creating doubt.

They are manufacturing a population of voters, who are not just ignorant of science, but militantly so.