Science in Texas

[wiffleball 4,790]

It's really getting out of hand. There is a very strong anti-science movement out there which is largely based around evangelicals and their opposition to evolution. This has begun to bleed over to other sciences, and could have very negative impacts to science and research funding in the near future. It's easy to pawn this off as just a bunch of dumb hicks, but I think it's a much larger phenomena.

 

Still, that quote's classic:

 

"We believe in God!"

 

Belief in God in no way means you have to blindly reject science.

 

You're right. What amazes me is how the Right Wingnuts spend half their time talking about the Religous Fundamentalists infiltrating schools and governments, but as long as its CHRISTIAN Fundamentalists doing the same thing, they're okay with it.

[akaoni 0]

You're right. What amazes me is how the Right Wingnuts spend half their time talking about the Religous Fundamentalists infiltrating schools and governments, but as long as its CHRISTIAN Fundamentalists doing the same thing, they're okay with it.

 

 

Matthew 7:1-5

 

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[gocolts 300]

It's really getting out of hand. There is a very strong anti-science movement out there which is largely based around evangelicals and their opposition to evolution. This has begun to bleed over to other sciences, and could have very negative impacts to science and research funding in the near future. It's easy to pawn this off as just a bunch of dumb hicks, but I think it's a much larger phenomena.

 

Still, that quote's classic:

 

"We believe in God!"

 

Belief in God in no way means you have to blindly reject science.

The problem is science changes all the time. It changes so much that it can be difficult to keep up with. Science is always saying "We now know this". Then a year or two latter, they say "We didn't know about X so we now know this". Science is almost laughable at times.

 

Look at Pluto. How long did science know it was a planet??? Then they said it was not a planet. Then they went back and said it is a planet.

 

They have no idea what they are talking about. Science is just a bunch of guesses and theories that change constantly.

[Frank M 181]

The problem is science changes all the time. It changes so much that it can be difficult to keep up with. Science is always saying "We now know this". Then a year or two latter, they say "We didn't know about X so we now know this". Science is almost laughable at times.

 

Look at Pluto. How long did science know it was a planet??? Then they said it was not a planet. Then they went back and said it is a planet.

 

They have no idea what they are talking about. Science is just a bunch of guesses and theories that change constantly.

 

The moon reflecting the light of the sun is fact.

 

But don't let that kind of stuff get in the way of your preconceived notions.

[Blitzen 0]

The problem is science changes all the time. It changes so much that it can be difficult to keep up with. Science is always saying "We now know this". Then a year or two latter, they say "We didn't know about X so we now know this". Science is almost laughable at times.

 

Look at Pluto. How long did science know it was a planet??? Then they said it was not a planet. Then they went back and said it is a planet.

 

They have no idea what they are talking about. Science is just a bunch of guesses and theories that change constantly.

 

As scientific knowledge grows, so does understanding. When a hypothesis fails, it is generally because it is being replaced with another one that better explains reality. Churches should try that. It actually is a good thing not to keep people thinking like folks in the Middle Ages.

 

Oh and your comment about Pluto is ridiculous. It's not like it appeared and disappeared. This is a simple debate over a definition.

[schaef2k 0]

The problem is science changes all the time. It changes so much that it can be difficult to keep up with. Science is always saying "We now know this". Then a year or two latter, they say "We didn't know about X so we now know this". Science is almost laughable at times.

 

Look at Pluto. How long did science know it was a planet??? Then they said it was not a planet. Then they went back and said it is a planet.

 

They have no idea what they are talking about. Science is just a bunch of guesses and theories that change constantly.

 

If that's your view of how science works then you know nothing about it.

 

If science is so wrong how do we live in this wonderful work of PCs, cell phone satellite TV and so forth? How did they figure out how to make this stuff work?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If that's your view of how science works then you know nothing about it.

 

If science is so wrong how do we live in this wonderful work of PCs, cell phone satellite TV and so forth? How did they figure out how to make this stuff work?

 

McGyver re-runs.

[davebg 0]

The problem is religion never changes. It seems to have difficulty trying to keep up with the knowledge and facts that humans learn as they and their understanding of the universe evolves. Religion is always saying "We know this", despite the fact that they offer no proof other than some scripture written by anonymous people who were likely less educated than today's average HS freshman. Then a few hundred years later, when things like church attendance is down, they say "We reinterpreted what the omnipotent being we worship said." Religion is laughable.

 

Look at the pedophelia mess. How long did the Church know its preists were raping children??? Then they said we're sorry. Then they went back and said you're going to have to sue us to get us to come clean.

 

They have no idea what they are talking about. Religion is just a bunch of guesses and theories that were invented to explain some medieval boogeyman.

fixored

[supermike80 1,906]

So it's ok that religion does these things? Because it's happened in the past it's ok now?

 

Facts are facts, the US is behind many other countries in math and science and confusing our youth with the notion that creation is on equal footing with other sciences is helping to further this.

 

When Jim Bob gets to college they are not going to be asking creation questions in biology 101. It is a disservice to him to allow this to be taught earlier in his schooling.

 

Yes I think it's absolutely acceptable now because it has been done in the past, and has not stopped the forward progress of science. I think the documented historical record of a program's success is a great barometer of it's future ability to succeed. Children today have access to an unbelievable amount of information, MUCH more than children in past days, so just because a school teaches something, that does not make it the only source available. I agree, facts are facts, and the US is struggling in math and science, but putting the responsibility for this on the shoulders of schools teaching creationism is a invalid conclision IMO.

 

So Jim Bob does not get asked creationism questions in college level biology. What's your point? Are you saying if by some chance he does not learn a biology nugget because that time was taking up in HS teaching creationism, he now has no capacity to learn it in college? Since college is a learning environment, and they will not be asking creation questions, then he should be able to learn the other scientific theories for the function of life on this planet right? Your argument is not valid.

[gocolts 300]

The moon reflecting the light of the sun is fact.

 

But don't let that kind of stuff get in the way of your preconceived notions.

I never disputed that.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Oh and your comment about Pluto is ridiculous. It's not like it appeared and disappeared.

 

Like say the Catholics and , "Limbo".

 

 

I can appreciate what RP's saying, really. There's something to be said for the constancy of religion. It's true, ever abiding policies that have been with us for generations.

 

Like the fact that the sun revolves around the earth. It's a shame they're not still killing people who question that.

 

Like their stance on interracial marriage.

 

Like their stance on menstruating women.

 

Like their stance on say, handling the skin of a pig.

 

Like their stance on tomatoes (yes, tomatoes).

 

Yep. Religion. Rock Solid.

[gocolts 300]

If that's your view of how science works then you know nothing about it.

 

If science is so wrong how do we live in this wonderful work of PCs, cell phone satellite TV and so forth? How did they figure out how to make this stuff work?

I never said they don't get it right. I simply said science always seems to change it's mind on things. Like how they know what is at the center of the earth. How in the fock do they know what is there, when they have not been there, or even drilled far enough to have proof of what is there??? It is just a guess. There are countless things the science community has changed it's stand on over the years.

[parrot 789]

I hate how science always changes explanations when new evidence comes up. You should just stick with what you already know, even if it's completely wrong.

[gocolts 300]

I hate how science always changes explanations when new evidence comes up. You should just stick with what you already know, even if it's completely wrong.

Not me. I'm glad they don't do that. That is stupid, and not at all what I'm talking about.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Like how they know what is at the center of the earth.

 

 

You prefer, say, Hobbits over the ridiculous theory of magma?

[akaoni 0]

The problem is science changes all the time. It changes so much that it can be difficult to keep up with. Science is always saying "We now know this". Then a year or two latter, they say "We didn't know about X so we now know this". Science is almost laughable at times.

 

Look at Pluto. How long did science know it was a planet??? Then they said it was not a planet. Then they went back and said it is a planet.

 

They have no idea what they are talking about. Science is just a bunch of guesses and theories that change constantly.

 

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word: "Theory" in a scientific setting. A theory is not just a guess, a theory is a hypothesis which has been tested and found to have been confirmed by reproducible experiments. Now does this mean that every theory will end up being 100% true? Of course not, but in many, if not most cases theories are pretty much accepted as fact. That doesn't mean that there isn't more work to do in certain areas, but it does mean that the general argument has been tested enough that it can be accepted as true. Evolution is one such theory. It's not a guess or a matter of faith, it's an idea which has been examined and tested repeatedly. There may be discoveries from time to time which make people reevaluate specific hypotheses (the recent story about finding the bones of two different pre-human hominids who possibly co-habitated is one), but this does nothing to disprove evolution.

 

Your Pluto example is particularly ill-suited to support your contention that science is just a bunch of guesses. Pluto went from being called planet to being a called dwarf-planet as a matter of classification and definition. It's not like we suddenly discovered that Pluto had somehow less "planetness" but rather that they wanted to classify it more accurately. That says nothing about science. It's more a question of taxonomy than science per-se.

 

Regardless, this is just the kind of complaint that some institutions in our country have attempted to encourage. For example oil-related industry has taken a page from the Big Tobacco playbook in past years in an attempt to sow doubt concerning man's impact on the environment in terms of global warming. Similarly, the Discovery Institute and other "Intelligent Design" proponents have attempted to inject creationism into public schools' curriculum clothed in pseudo-scientific terms. They claim there's a controversy and that should be taught in biology classes. But Intelligent Design is not a scientific hypothesis or concept because it can not be tested; it cannot be proven or dis-proven. But in the end, they think that if they develop enough doubt regarding science, then people won't know the difference and they'll have their foot in the door.

 

We see this also in the Bush Administration's blatant disregard for any sort of scientific credibility by their repeated use of political appointees with no scientific background in science oriented positions like NASA, and their attempts to stifle science that doesn't support their political positions. For them science is not about furthering knowledge, but rather pushing forward a political agenda. This is where the real problem lies. This is what is truly laughable, not science.

 

edited for spelling errors, many spelling errors

[parrot 789]

Not me. I'm glad they don't do that. That is stupid, and not at all what I'm talking about.

It's not? You're critcising the fact that prevailing scientific thought sometimes tends to change over time. Now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think, generally, that happens because scientists learn some new things that they actually allow to help shape their view.

 

Pluto is different of course. It was redesignated because scientists changed their definition of what constituted a planet, not because there was some glaring thing about Pluto of which they were unaware.

[parrot 789]

You prefer, say, Hobbits over the ridiculous theory of magma?

[Rybo5 0]

You prefer, say, Hobbits over the ridiculous theory of magma?

 

You dumbass. Everyone knows that underground is where Satan lives.

[schaef2k 0]

I never said they don't get it right. I simply said science always seems to change it's mind on things. Like how they know what is at the center of the earth. How in the fock do they know what is there, when they have not been there, or even drilled far enough to have proof of what is there??? It is just a guess. There are countless things the science community has changed it's stand on over the years.

 

Are you serious? It's just a guess?

 

I'm not going to teach you scientific method since you should have learned how that works in middle school but to say "it's just a guess" really shows your lack up understanding of how basic science works.

 

What is in the center of the earth? Sure nobody has been there but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence of what is there.

 

Hint: Why do we have a magnetic field around the earth? Why is it a powerful as it is? Why does it flip north and south every few 100,000 years? How do we know that it does this?

 

Find the answer to these questions and it will bring you to a conclusion. When you have that conclusion you can then get everyone in the scientific community to try to prove you wrong and after everyone fails repeatedly you can be pretty damn sure what is in the center of the earth.

 

Or you can choose to believe the devil lives there ready to damn your soul for eternity.

[schaef2k 0]

Yes I think it's absolutely acceptable now because it has been done in the past, and has not stopped the forward progress of science. I think the documented historical record of a program's success is a great barometer of it's future ability to succeed. Children today have access to an unbelievable amount of information, MUCH more than children in past days, so just because a school teaches something, that does not make it the only source available. I agree, facts are facts, and the US is struggling in math and science, but putting the responsibility for this on the shoulders of schools teaching creationism is a invalid conclision IMO.

 

So Jim Bob does not get asked creationism questions in college level biology. What's your point? Are you saying if by some chance he does not learn a biology nugget because that time was taking up in HS teaching creationism, he now has no capacity to learn it in college? Since college is a learning environment, and they will not be asking creation questions, then he should be able to learn the other scientific theories for the function of life on this planet right? Your argument is not valid.

 

You are expecting children to figure out for themselves if they are being taught incorrect information at school? Come on, I'm sure in 7th grade you had the intellectual capacity to evaluate the quality of your education and the drive to find the information on your own if the school didn't provide it.

 

That is just ridiculous.

 

I'm not in favor of teaching our children BS and then letting them get into higher education only to find out that what they've been taught is wrong. Why not teach them the correct information in the first place?

 

How can you say this doesn't harm their education? Gocolts is a perfect example.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I'm not in favor of teaching our children BS and then letting them get into higher education only to find out that what they've been taught is wrong. Why not teach them the correct information in the first place?

And exactly who supplies this "correct" information? Isn't this the sort of straight line, rigid thinking that you have been preaching against all day?

[rallo 136]

Bill Nye > Mr. Wizard

 

TAKE IT BACK!!!!!!

[schaef2k 0]

And exactly who supplies this "correct" information? Isn't this the sort of straight line, rigid thinking that you have been preaching against all day?

 

In the case of science curriculum, certainly not the church. And no that's not what I've been "preaching" about.

 

Read the entire thread and maybe you'll figure out what I'm "preaching" about.

[DBZFan2K 0]

Beakman>>>>>>Bill Nye

 

The one...

 

The only...

 

The Beakman!

[rallo 136]

Beaker and Dr. Bunson honeydew >>>>>> ALL

[TimmySmith 2,782]

In the case of science curriculum, certainly not the church. And no that's not what I've been "preaching" about.

Read the entire thread and maybe you'll figure out what I'm "preaching" about.

Oh yes, how "ignorant rednecks" have less of a right to voice their opinion than the intelligensia. Lest I forget about your support for open Bible interpretation in public places so long as it is used belittle those who believe in God. I got it.

[Snoopy1 0]

Oh yes, how "ignorant rednecks" have less of a right to voice their opinion than the intelligensia. Lest I forget about your support for open Bible interpretation in public places so long as it is used belittle those who believe in God. I got it.

 

 

Way to use their voice..."I believe in God", boo and storm out of the room.

[supermike80 1,906]

You are expecting children to figure out for themselves if they are being taught incorrect information at school? Come on, I'm sure in 7th grade you had the intellectual capacity to evaluate the quality of your education and the drive to find the information on your own if the school didn't provide it.

 

That is just ridiculous.

 

I'm not in favor of teaching our children BS and then letting them get into higher education only to find out that what they've been taught is wrong. Why not teach them the correct information in the first place?

 

How can you say this doesn't harm their education? Gocolts is a perfect example.

I am absolutely, completely and totally saying children should figure out for themselves if they are being taught incorrect information. What are they, drones? Machines? To not question what you read or learn shows no intelligence whatsoever. You are acting like the only thing they will be taught is creationism, when that is one of two theories. And the 7th grader will be able to access both schools of thought and be able to make his or her own intelligent decision. Come on--your argument sucks.

[akaoni 0]

I am absolutely, completely and totally saying children should figure out for themselves if they are being taught incorrect information. What are they, drones? Machines? To not question what you read or learn shows no intelligence whatsoever. You are acting like the only thing they will be taught is creationism, when that is one of two theories. And the 7th grader will be able to access both schools of thought and be able to make his or her own intelligent decision. Come on--your argument sucks.

 

The correct response to this argument is that neither creationism nor intelligent design are science of any kind and therefore have no place in a science classroom or curriculum.

[Frank M 181]

I am absolutely, completely and totally saying children should figure out for themselves if they are being taught incorrect information. What are they, drones? Machines? To not question what you read or learn shows no intelligence whatsoever. You are acting like the only thing they will be taught is creationism, when that is one of two theories. And the 7th grader will be able to access both schools of thought and be able to make his or her own intelligent decision. Come on--your argument sucks.

 

You are smart enough to know that creationism isn't science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. It is absolutely untestable and as such, cannot be interpreted as science.

[schaef2k 0]

I am absolutely, completely and totally saying children should figure out for themselves if they are being taught incorrect information. What are they, drones? Machines? To not question what you read or learn shows no intelligence whatsoever. You are acting like the only thing they will be taught is creationism, when that is one of two theories. And the 7th grader will be able to access both schools of thought and be able to make his or her own intelligent decision. Come on--your argument sucks.

 

Creationism isn't even a theory genius. That is my entire point. Creationism is not science that is why it has no place being taught in science class. If it can be validated by scientific method (the basis of science) I would support it being taught in science class.

 

So at the age of 8 you were able to discern when you we being taught incorrect information? Right

 

Your argument is nonexistent.

[schaef2k 0]

Oh yes, how "ignorant rednecks" have less of a right to voice their opinion than the intelligensia. Lest I forget about your support for open Bible interpretation in public places so long as it is used belittle those who believe in God. I got it.

 

What are you even talking about?

[davebg 0]

Oh yes, how "ignorant rednecks" have less of a right to voice their opinion than the intelligensia.

Yes, when it comes to science "ignorant rednecks" DEFINITELY have less business voicing their opinion compared to the itellectual community.

[wiffleball 4,790]

What are you even talking about?

 

 

He's not sure, but he's on a roll...

 

 

 

 

(It's just one of Rusty's aliases anyway)

[Frank M 181]

I never said they don't get it right. I simply said science always seems to change it's mind on things. Like how they know what is at the center of the earth. How in the fock do they know what is there, when they have not been there, or even drilled far enough to have proof of what is there??? It is just a guess. There are countless things the science community has changed it's stand on over the years.

 

It's stunning to me that there are people in the world who think like this.

[Super Cubs 154]

If science is so wrong how do we live in this wonderful work of PCs, cell phone satellite TV and so forth? How did they figure out how to make this stuff work?

 

Hello

 

July 8th 1947

 

Roswell New Mexico

 

 

 

But seriously if Bill Nye had used common sence and instead of science. He would have never brought up the Bilbe verse and just stated the facts. He most likely would not have had any problems.

[gocolts 300]

It's stunning to me that there are people in the world who think like this.

Well I'm not stunned that you will believe anything told to you. I actually challenged my 5th grade teacher when he told the class what was at the center of the earth. I simply asked him "How do they know what is there??? Who has been there???? Have we drilled that far yet???" From that point on the teacher always said "THEY THINK that this is at the center of the earth." It is just a theory. Just like they knew there was no water on Mars. Then they found water. I love science. It was always one of my favorite subjects. But there is constantly new info that comes out and changes what they KNEW.

[Frank M 181]

Well I'm not stunned that you will believe anything told to you. I actually challenged my 5th grade teacher when he told the class what was at the center of the earth. I simply asked him "How do they know what is there??? Who has been there???? Have we drilled that far yet???" From that point on the teacher always said "THEY THINK that this is at the center of the earth." It is just a theory. Just like they knew there was no water on Mars. Then they found water. I love science. It was always one of my favorite subjects. But there is constantly new info that comes out and changes what they KNEW.

 

 

You know, nobody here needs any more proof that you are an idiot, yet you consistently provide indisputable evidence.

 

I don't expect you'd believe any of this, since "nobody's been there", but there are plenty of ways to determine what's at the center of the earth:

 

It's not Zion, no matter what Neo says