My blog about science illiteracy two days ago has fomented a mini-tempest--and some thoughts.
Thanks to all for your comments on my blog, "216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate." Thanks even to those who blasted me--it's always great to have a vigorous debate. (I encourage readers to peek at the comments at the bottom of that February 21 blog.)
It's remarkable to me that a blog about millions of people being unable to competently read and understand a newspaper article about science has engendered a discussion about religion and about the definition of a "theory" when applied to evolution. The blog does mention evolution, noting that 40 percent of Americans do not agree with the theory. In fact, the United States ranks 27th out of 28 industrialized countries in terms of the number of nonbelievers in Darwin's theory. Number 28 is Turkey. Given the overwhelming proof in favor of evolution, perhaps more education would bring the U.S. more in line with the rest of the world. I realize that some readers don't agree with the theory, but I for one am convinced--so are most scientists and the overwhelming majority of people in the developed world. Perhaps we have been indoctrinated and don't know it, but I don't think so. The evidence speaks for itself.
The blog, however, was actually about the findings of a political scientist in Michigan who says that millions of people in America, Europe, and Japan don't have a baseline knowledge of the simplest scientific facts. This might include, for instance, people who don't know what DNA is, or ozone.
So what does this have to do with religion? Not much, except that a number of readers interpreted my brief mention of evolution as an attack on the literacy of those who do not believe in evolution. I did not mention creationism or any other alternative to evolution, and I never discussed Christianity or those Christians who believe in creationism (which, by the way, a minority of Christians do).
But since evolution has been brought up, I would second those readers who pointed out that theories such as evolution and heliocentricity have held up for more than a century. They continue to amass proof and are as solid as any scientific theories can be--as any scientifically literate person should know.
As NIH geneticist and born-again Christian Francis Collins wrote in his book The Language of God, one answer in this age-old debate between science and faith is to follow the philosophy of Augustine and most Christians: that faith and science are separate. They are two different paths to the truth, say Collins and many others throughout history.
But back to the original point. Before we get too hung up on interpretations of science and religion and definitions of concepts such as "theories," shouldn't we first agree that when 216 million Americans know almost nothing about DNA, something needs to be remedied?
Read my interview with Francis Collins in Discover magazine.
For even more on Collins and the issue of religion and science, check out my book Masterminds: Genius, DNA and the Quest to Rewrite Life.
Info about the book and articles on this topic, and much more, is available on my website.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Macro-evolution has no scientific data to uphold it, it is based upon inference, speculation, and gross interpolation.
In fact the more data comes in, and the more scientist understanding of biological science increases the bigger holes appear in evolution to the point of out right contradiction. Yet despite this institutionalized dogmatic materialist philosophy is so heavy a foundation that science is scarified instead of questioning this belief system.
Sadly you too are indoctrinated by the same Western secular education system that I was put through, though I have had the good fortune of being smart enough to actual question the material objectively rather than be spoon-fed it.
So like one Microbiologist scientist famously said, "Break the shackles of Darwinist Evolution" I think you could do well to learn about the current debate (or the lack of it, since Darwinist are employing every moment to avoid it)
Is it a surprise that much of what you was taught at a secular system (evolution) has nothing to do with science and is instead based upon Materialist philosophy, after a 100 years its no surprise that scientist have run away from one religion only to accept another one (atheism).
And the funny thing is that modern Western science has its roots from the East, the Islamic Civilization gave birth to modern science and it, unlike in the Christian world was not one of contradiction between science and religion it was one of Conformation.
"The West has progressed because it abandoned their religion, the East stopped progressing because it stopped applying their religion”
Macro-evolution is such a stain on science that it’s a real embarrassment and utter shame. But there is hope, some are smart enough to question, dare enough to question the dogma.
Anhar Hussain Miah
Kb_hojo@hotmail.com
Anhar
02/23/2007
Posts:14
In the mainstream biological community there is no debate about the validity of evolution anymore.
gabrielg01
02/23/2007
Posts:402
If you will read "The Icons of Evolution" you will learn that what evolutionist are ignoring right now is that the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. In fact it contradicts it. They pick and choose only supportive evidence.
If we evolved, then over the centuries there would have been more and more and more species since we supposedly evolved from one single lifeform in a mudhole somewhere. However the fossil record is just the opposite. In the Cambrian age there was an explosion of specie populations. Prior to that there were none. Since the Cambirian age the number of species has actually declined.
In addition, there has not been sufficient time since the big bang for the natural evolutionary process to have evolved all the species that exist now. Read the book.
rick2653
02/24/2007
Posts:6
The fact is that the fossil record for evolution will ALWAYS have gaps and holes in it. One cannot find fossils for each step along the evolutionary process, and especially for all the species.
The evolution doubters will always be safe in their ignorance. They can always find gaps to point to. And even if a gap is filled, they can just move on to point to another gap.
The most powerful proof for evolution does not come from fossils. It comes from molecular biology.
gabrielg01
02/24/2007
Posts:402
That has to be THE single biggest falsehood I have ever heard, nothing could be further from the truth, molecular biology is the very field that much of macro-evolutions biggest negative data is coming from. And again I suggest you clarify you position when you talk about evolution, because it has two very different parts to it, one (biological fact) which I myself and virtually everyone else agrees too, it’s the other part (cells to man) that’s the contention.
If "Icons of Evolution" is pseudo science then that ranks a lot higher than macro-evolution as suggested by Lord Solly Zuckerman (Famous Evolutionist). When asked about macro-evolution and where it ranked in terms of “scientificness”. He said that at the top end you have physics and chemistry, then biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end, i.e. the most "unscientific," are extra-sensory perception-concepts such as telepathy and "sixth senses"-and finally human evolution aka macro-evolution.
Anhar Hussain Miah
kb_hojo@hotmail.com
(any unsolicited mails will be ignored, full transcripts may be kept as records for legal purposes)
Anhar
02/24/2007
Posts:14
Then about 200 years later, molecular biology was born, and now the same old problem could be re-examined through the lens and methods of this new science. Surprise, surprise, (barring some minor errors, which were to be expected) the structure of the old phylogenetic trees was accurate.
This is the perfect validation of a scientific theory. When you can validate old data, with completely new, independent methods that is the ultimate proof. People who cannot grasp this simple concept, should not be debating science.
Sadly, comments like above make the point of David Ewing Duncan's article about scientific ignorance.
gabrielg01
02/24/2007
Posts:402
I would suggest that you do concise research upon any given subject matter before making such bold statements as these, again you are regurgitating mainstream stereotypes than actual scientific data. Popular held myth is that the current fossil records somehow validate the “Tree of Life” and that molecular biology proves that macro-mutations occur.
However both these “Popular” myths are totally incorrect and does not reflect actual scientific data.
The modern scientific data on the fossil records, almost all of the major living animal phyla appear in the fossil record during the Cambrian Period they appear suddenly and fully formed. This data directly contradicts the Darwinian predictions of a “Tree of Life”. These are not “minor errors” these are out right contradiction, the use of molecular biology only further deepens the fatal fundamental flaws, since the DNA comparisons show that totally unrelated (in terms of evolutionary links) to be homologous in term of DNA and vice versa.
It is depressing that you insinuate that I’m scientifically ignorant, yet the only ignorance has come about from your replies and from the original article by David, you have demonstrated a complete lack of any understanding of evolution. All I have heard is popular “laymen” stereotypes from you.
Having won my formal debate on the topic macro-evolution against a Learned (PhD) evolutionist, I think I have the right to participate in evolutionary debates, it would be totally illogical to not understand both “Sides” of the topic. I had to undertake careful research into the arguments and counter- arguments as well as counter – counter – arguments. It would be foolish and detrimental to do so otherwise if one is to debate upon any such topic.
I genuinely hope that you go and do some real research on this topic than just expose your limitations here, I really do not need to do anything since the real data speaks for itself!
But if your going to dogmatically follow evolution as if its some kind of scared order by all means go ahead, but please don’t call it what it is not and that’s science.
Anhar Hussain Miah
kb_hojo@hotmail.com
(any unsolicited mails will be ignored, full transcripts may be kept as records for legal purposes)
Anhar
02/25/2007
Posts:14
To say that the phylogenetic trees are not valid is like denying Newton's laws in physics. You can do it, but you'll be considered nuts.
The issue of Cambrian explosion does not affect the validity of the phylogenetic trees. These trees/maps (based on mol. biology data now) nicely recapitulate the evolutionary distance between species. We share 98%-99% of our genes and other DNA with the great apes, and the further one moves along the tree, one finds a progressively increasing difference at the molecular level.
The Linnaean taxonomy, the Darwinian phylogenetic trees, and the modern molecular data all dovetail perfectly well at the conceptual level. That is why these theories are accepted, not because there is a coterie of evil biologists who conspire against the world.
gabrielg01
02/25/2007
Posts:402
(a*) “To say that the phylogenetic trees are not valid is like denying Newton's laws in physics”
They are not even in the same class, to treat these two, as being at the same level is preposterous. Newtonian physics is observable, testable, and repeatable. The phylogenetic trees on the other hand is a Darwinian prediction that is not, I REPEAT not backed by the fossil records, furthermore molecular analysis utterly contradict the Darwinian model.
(a) “Cambrian explosion does not affect the validity of the phylogenetic trees”
False, it does invalidate it, since it runs CONTRAY to what is predicted by Darwinist evolution, trying to put a spin on this issue can not negate the seriousness of the problem, furthermore its does not bridge the fatal flaw in Darwinian evolution model.
(b) “based on mol. biology data now) nicely recapitulate the evolutionary distance between species”
The spread between species solves nothings, the bigger issue of molecular homologous between completely unrelated evolutionary links is a very severe problem, this means the “Tree of Life” is totally false, the molecular data simply does not support it, the “spread” is meaningless in this context.
(c) “We share 98%-99% of our genes and other DNA with the great apes”
This is factually incorrect, for a number of reasons
(1) The chimpanzee genome was incomplete at the time if analysis, therefore the 98% figure is unreliable.
(2) More recent analysis have revealed that the genetic difference is more than 3 times than old figure, it is closer to 95% then 98.5%
(3) The fact that the same area of studies also revealed that the results place the chimp closer to man than the gorilla, while others, for instance a recent study suggest that the ape line branched from the human line before splitting itself into proto-chimp and proto-gorilla.
(4) DNA similarities are very misleading, take for example that Human DNA is also 75% similar to worms of the nematode phylum, also that man and chicken are also close relatives followed by crocodile.
(d) “That is why these theories are accepted, not because there is a coterie of evil biologists who conspire against the world.”
The reasons these theories are accepted is not because of the modern scientific data, the data Strongly refutes it. The reason is Institutionalized dogma, many scientist are far too specialized in their particular field and assume that negative data in their field does not affect other areas of research.
Furthermore, for over nearly 150 years, Western science has been indoctrinated into materialist philosophy and thus falsely assuming that only naturalistic explanation is valid for it to remain within the sphere of science. How ironically circular this line of reasoning is clear to those who can see it from the outside.
It has been this false assumption that is keeping Dogmatic Darwinism in science, when in fact when one takes a close look at Darwinian evolution it is has nothing to do with science, scratch the surface and below it is just empty materialist philosophy masquerading as science.
Sadly, and the single most devastating part is that, Western Secular Education systems have indoctrinated generations into thinking and accepting something that has nothing to do with science.
You can go regurgitating false Darwinian Claims all you like, however these will not change actual scientific data.
You have failed to refute my original posts, instead you are only displaying your limited understanding of the field, you can carry on with this line of posting inaccurate falsehood all you want however this will not yield any positive outcome on your behalf.
The clear facts of the matter is presented to you, you can remain in denial and keep rehashing Darwinian claims all you want OR you could if you have the wisdom and intelligence to start to question the very premise that you hold to be true, after all that’s what real science is about, questioning. Because at the moment you are merely accepting without understanding the reason as to why you are accepting it.
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
02/25/2007
Posts:14
If there are 200 million like these, Jesus help us! I don't know whether to cry or to laugh...I give up - there is no point in talking to lunatics.
gabrielg01
02/25/2007
Posts:402
If there are 200 million like these, Jesus help us! I don't know whether to cry or to laugh...I give up - there is no point in talking to lunatics.”
No I am perfectly sane and psychological well balanced, however you resorting to mere “argumentum ad hominem” is a classical sign of one incapable of refuting an argument.
I am not here for the sake of winning points and winning debates (I’ve enough accolades as is), I am here to stress the factualness and to clarify information in a time when an actual information war is being fought as we speak.
Its not a case of you laughing or crying, it’s a case of you actually engaging you mind to look at information that is presented to you in the most objective way possible and then to draw conclusions based upon that. This is opposed to just rephrasing mainstream stereotypes without critical analysis. That is a serious problem since it becomes a belief system and that’s exactly where Darwinism draws its strength from, not from empirical data but from individuals who do not engage there minds to be critical, rational, and logical and objective.
Let me stress again, I have no personal agenda, I’m not here to win points, you do not need feel that some how being incorrect about certain things means that you are valued with any less respect.
I fully respect everyone I engage with, I extent the same courteous manner in cyber space as I do in real life. For that matter I hope that I have not offended you that is not my aim.
I have an analytical approach, that is why I am open to new information, it is for the same reason I need not “defend” anything for if its truthful then it will defend itself, falsehoods on the other hand always needs defending.
I am human and thus prone to error like the next man, and I have the honesty and courage to admit if I’m wrong (I’ve done this many a times before).
So take this opportunity and make it a positive one, whereby you can go look into a topic from a new angle with greater objectivity rather than just mere unconditional acceptance. You have absolutely nothing to lose, but only to gain clarity on the issue.
On the other hand you can purse a line of defending something you don’t really know about why you’re defending it. It’s entirely up to you, you have my email from my last posts, if you need anything its open for you.
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
02/25/2007
Posts:14
A) new discoveries bring about a crisis in the discipline because the old paradigm cannot explain the new observations&data.
B) the new paradigm completely replaces the old view (ex. replacement of the earth-centric view by the heliocentric view).
First, there is no crisis in biology. The current evolutionary paradigm works like charm. All new data has supported evolution, and biologists are perfectly happy working within the confines of the evolutionary paradigm. Biologists are happy as a clam with evolution theory.
But suppose by 'reductio ad absurdum' that there was a crisis in biology. Then what would be the non-evolutionary paradigm for biology? Creationism? The biggest joke.
There is no scientifically valid competing paradigm to evolutionism. The solution to this imaginary problem makes itself.
Back to the beginning: there is no crisis in biology, which makes the whole discussion useless, aside from its pedagogical aspects.
Thomas Kuhn also said that there are always "rogue" (for lack of a better word) practitioners of science who do not accept the mainstream paradigms, but that these people do not count. So it does not matter how scholarly or how open minded one is. One can produce a lot of scholarly-looking garbage. In order to count, one has to contribute within the existing paradigm, or offer a workable alternative paradigm.
Evolution-doubters do not offer anything valid as an alternative paradigm, that's why they do not count in mainstream biology.
gabrielg01
02/25/2007
Posts:402
First of all science has its limitations, it works only within the natural domain i.e. those that it can measure and quantify however beyond this it can not comment thus it becomes something that is beyond its scope. This does not make it non existent, it just means that one now needs to go to a higher source of knowledge, after the natural sciences comes philosophy.
However other philosophies also exist such as Materialism, which is the root foundation of Atheistic belief system.
Now science is meant to be non biased, since it is out of its scope(read above), however as I have already said many times before science has been literally hijacked by Materialist philosophy. Where by only naturalist explanations are some how the only valid ones, however anyone who is logically minded can see the fallacy of this. Since this line of thinking is based upon a biased foundation it can not be said to be non biased and objective.
Furthermore, due to this Institutionalised indoctrination within science, Darwinist Evolution (Macro) has been readily used and now being defended NOT because it is based under scientific procedures but because it undermines the Materialists philosophical beliefs.
In science when data does not fit the model, you either change the model, or if the data is severe sometimes the entire model has to be rejected, and new ones have to be sought that better fit the data.
With evolution, not only has the data not fit the model, but many, many times before Hoax/faked data has been introduced (see the examples in history). Now if this was to happen once then it may be forgivable and one could blame it on one bad individual, however it is not a “one off case”, in fact it has happened many times by different individuals. What this demonstrates is clear, when someone has to invent lies in order to sustain his or her “model” you can see that this is an act of desperation.
Science indeed has limitations one needs to be aware of this fact, also in science one has to “follow the evidence” now if this evidence leads you away from one direction towards another why would you object to that? Of course the only people who will object are those whom have a belief system that will be undermined by it.
So to answer you question, Science does always need an alternative theory, because science has its boundaries, sometimes some questions are beyond its boundaries, in these cases one has to move up to the next level of knowledge. You question is fundamentally flawed:
(a) You assume that the science has no limitations, thus can explain every facet of nature. Thus you view that all questions can be answered. You neglect the fact that some questions cross those boundaries because they determine the nature of nature itself.
You are simply flawed in your understanding of the attributes of science.
Simply put Evolution (Macro) is not a workable model, the data does not support it, any supernatural (Super + Natural) explanations are NOT scientifically invalid (due to non biased neutrality), however since these are beyond the scope of science it is therefore better studied in its own field.
Again I ask you to take this opportunity and turn it into a positive step were by you can increase your knowledge, and engage you mind objectively rather than keep defending something this is not defendable.
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
02/26/2007
Posts:14
mihirinamdar
02/26/2007
Posts:1
Anhar
02/26/2007
Posts:14
gabrielg01
02/26/2007
Posts:402
And scientifically that is totally valid since this happens to be beyond its scope yet can not comment due to non biased neutrality. Science can not prove the existence of a creator since it is the philosophical realm (and beyond its scope), but at the same time it can not Disprove the existence either since again its beyond its scope. The two disciplines do not contradict each other, they can run to complement each other perfectly well, they have done so and continue to do so.
Of course like I said in my original post, in the West Science and Religion fell out, in the East however religion gave birth to modern science and has never fell out. You would do well to take a look at the enormous contribution that Islamic Civilization made to modern sciences (Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Medicine, Astronomy, cosmology, Chemistry etc). However this is almost willfully concealed in Western History, in fact a large portion of the true history (i.e. the Islamic Civilization) has been “taken out” after around 1924 whereby it was rewritten to cater for certain wider political agendas. It is not an understatement to say that the Islamic Civilization gave birth to the modern Western world as you know it today, without it much of what the West takes for granted (in some cases as its own) is in fact actually due to the Islamic contribution.
It has already been explained to you, you have failed to refute my original post, but then that’s not surprising when a sequence of factually correct rational is demonstrated it follows that it remains valid.
Information can cause drastic changes in people’s perspective, some people however are not capable of observing new information and tend to hold onto the old values that they are use to since it offers them re-assurance by way of familiarity.
Its akin to a frog who has lived his whole life in a well, and one day when another frog from the outside jumps down the well and tells him that his well is but a small part of the world. That frog is unable to cope with this new information because it means his understanding and values have to be redefined in terms of this new information. Instead the frogs replies that there is no outside “world” and that the well is all that is. It is not because the frog is arrogant its because deep down he does not have the courage to re-evaluate his own foundations, he would rather ignore it and pretend that’s it is fine then to question it.
I would like to think that you could take the leadership and courage to be better than that frog. But if your incapable to handle new information, if you feel that you need not question your foundations in fear of some deep rooted insecurity than that’s ok, I’m not condemning you nor I’m I taking a personal stab at you. I just hope that perhaps you can learn be wiser than the frog in my little analogy.
I have given you the information, now its up to you what want to do, you can keep on trying to debate with me. I do not mind one bit, I will simply pick your statement with a fine comb and expose your errors as I have in my last posts. OR you could just take my advice and expand your knowledge and start to question things which you never thought off, take a closer look at things realize that there is more to it than what you imagined there to be.
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
02/26/2007
Posts:14
Science is a self-contained construct. It can only validate things in its own confines, and with its own tools. If some phenomena are beyond the reach of science, they may or may not be true - science cannot validate them. There may be pink unicorns flying around in some distant galaxy, but there is no way for us to tell whether such a statement is true or not. It's a useless statement.
The supernatural is also not acceptable for a scientist because it is an easy copout from the questions. The raison d’être of science is to push the boundaries and uncover new knowledge. There was a time when all today's scientific knowledge was a mistery, and it was in the domain of the "supernatural". If our predecessors settled for the "supernatural" explanation, there would be no progress made. One can excuse oneself from any question by invoking the "supernatural": ..."hey I don't know why this reaction works, it must be the supernatural forces"...
Finally, there is nothing wrong with a scientist being humble enough to recognize the current limitations, and say "I don't know". But one must leave it at that, and not invoke supernatural things. Otherwise one is not a scientist anymore.
gabrielg01
02/27/2007
Posts:402
“The supernatural is also not acceptable for a scientist because it is an easy copout from the questions”
That is a sole perspective of the individual scientist may or may not agree to a supernatural cause, however that would be down to personal philosophy, however you would be wrong to say that Science itself does not allow it, since that would indeed be wrong, because science can not invalidate them, however you have to understand that the upper boundary is the point where science ends and philosophy starts. And this is crucial not because we are talking about gaps in knowledge of the unknown Natural world (because all of these can and is explained by nature, hence working within the scope of science). But we are asking the fundamental question of Nature itself, to try and say that this can be answered by nature is a logical impossibility, it’s a logical fallacy known as self referencing or “Circular Reasoning”. Put simply you can not explain the existence of nature by using nature itself (did you understand this point?) this is a very crucial point.
There is two more points I would like to point out, firstly the fallacy of the concept of “God of the Gaps” this argument suggests that lack of knowledge (natural) is filled with God (Supernatural) Explanations, hence “God of the Gaps”. However this line of thinking is deeply flawed for anyone who has studied basic logic. The premise is actually invalid because it mixes two difference spheres and assumes them to be the same thing, which they clearly are not. They then follow this false line of thinking and then conclude that these two negate each other, i.e. that as one expands the other diminishes (and vise versa). But this conclusion is a false one, because one is assuming that the Supernatural sphere is the same as the natural or is at least a part of the natural sphere. Hence they say that when there is a natural unknown it is explained with the supernatural since it is contained within the natural sphere (this is false, due to the false assumption). The Supernatural is not part of the same sphere nor is it included in it, this means when one is dealing with natural unknowns then this should be explained with the natural because it is within its sphere. But when we go beyond the natural sphere and we are asked to answer the original or nature itself then we can only answer this with the supernatural, and no contradiction occurs.
Expanding the knowledge of the natural does not and logically can not diminish or in anyway invalidate the Supernatural, put simply the supernatural is not an explanation for the NATURAL it’s the explanation of NATURE itself, two very different contexts.
Science can explain the NATURAL, but it can not explain the NATURE itself (as explained before due to self-referencing).
Now that is cleared up my next point was that, Supernatural and Natural are not two contradictory spheres, because supernatural is an EXTENSION of the natural, The Natural is the science part and the super is the philosophical part. And they complement each other perfectly. Having knowledge of one does not diminish the other and vice versa.
It is for this reason that because these two spheres are not contradictory, it does not mean that science will somehow stop progressing. In fact it was due to the Islamic Civilisation that modern science was born, things where however very different in the West, while in the East it was the “Golden Era” of Innovation and knowledge and enlightenment, the West was at the same time in its “Dark Ages”. Like I already pointed out in my original post the West and the East have experienced two different version of Science. But you do not seem to understand that difference, and your entire perspective is underpinned from the Western perspective and Western cultural train of thoughts. In the East religion pushed for knowledge and did not hinder it (unlike in the West).
To Conclude Western Science (originally Islamic Science) has been injected recently (since French Enlightenment) with materialism, hence Darwinist Models have been raised up high not because they are scientific (the negative data does not support it) but because it fulfils its Atheistic belief system. It is for this same reason that the Darwinists model is so vigorously defended to the point where one can see numerous examples of Evolutionary Fraud that has been committed, the drastic measures would not have been taken if actual supporting data existed.
Science is about asking questions not defending models! But Darwinian evolution is based upon a belief system and not science hence it is being defended.
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
02/27/2007
Posts:14
GaryB
03/01/2007
Posts:64
Why must you people repeated parrot false statements without proper knowledge and qualifications to back them, I have repeatedly explained and shown you these false stereotypes to be nothing more than empty mainstream regurgitation’s.
You should also know full well that without these massive contributions the Modern Western Civilisation would cease to exist.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
03/02/2007
Posts:14
Do I need to point out that science is science and can not and should not be divided to Greek, Chinese, Islamic or whatever ? It is childish to claim that "my country's science" is better then "your country's science."
Now, I've read your arguments against evolution. I'm not in position to validate or disprove those arguments, but according to the vast majority of scientists (or the vast majority of those who do not live in theocratic countries) agree that Evolution is correct.
That being left aside, I would love to hear your scientific proof(s) of whatever alternative theory you believe in.
ventsyv
03/02/2007
Posts:5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution
neilrieck
03/01/2007
Posts:19
stephen-smit...
02/26/2007
Posts:1
Ok, Stephen Smith, I apologize for my simple grammatical mistake, If you want to make simple personal attacks that’s fine. I’ll still forgive you.
Of course do you realize that English is not my first language, its my 5th language. So Stephen Smith how many native languages do you speak?
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
02/26/2007
Posts:14
infidel2
02/26/2007
Posts:2
“Darwin's theory has never been proven false. A theorem on the other hand is a conclusion that is proven true and can never be proven false. A theory relies on numerous tests because the form of logic is inductive”
Fasle, the modern scientific data from many different braches ranging from fossil records to Molecular biology has shown numerous flaws as well as fatal contradictions to the model of Darwinian Evolution.
However Darwinian supporters rather than abandon the model have only changed it over time. First there was Darwin’s original model, that was scraped and in the late ‘40s –‘50s the new revised “Neo-Darwinism” also known as “The Modern Synthesis”. This has also undergone a major collapse and is now called “Evolutionary Development”. What this shows is that Darwinian Evolution is actually a dogma and not real science, real science requires that when the evidence is against the model, better models have to be sought that better describe the data.
“What has the EAST brought?”
Mathematics did not arise from the West, The most ancient mathematical texts available are from ancient India circa 1500BC-500 BC (Rigveda - Sulba Sutras) and ancient Egypt in the Middle Kingdom period circa 1300-1200 BC (Berlin 6619), Mesopotamia circa 1800 BC (Plimpton 322).[1] If you real the full article, it clearly states that the Major contributions was made by the Islamic Civilization.
Are you aware that the numbering system that you are using is Arabic numerals?
Are you aware that the Algebra comes from Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi , he was also amongst the first to invent the Zero.
Are you aware that Universities and Hospitals was first arose in the Islamic Civilization (Baghdad, modern day Iraq)?
Are you aware that the following words(very small sample) are all from Islamic Science:
alkali, algebra, alchemy, alcohol, Aldebaran, Altair, Algol, alembic, algorithm, almanac, Almagest, through to zenith and zero.
Are you aware that the Modern Scientific method was first developed in the Islamic Civilization (IC)?
Are you aware that much of what Da Vinci and Newton “Discovered” was actually from IC?
Here is a link to give you an Idea of what IC actually contributed vs what is taught:
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/sciencehistory.htm
Further here are some books for your reference:
Science and Civilization in Islam (Paperback)
by Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Author)
The Arabian Connection: A Conspiracy Against Humanity (Paperback)
by Kasem Khaleel
To Conclude, The technological advancement made in the Western Word would not have happened if the contribution to Humanity from the IC were removed, we would still be in the “Dark Ages”.
Please in future do your research, before making comments. An unqualified assertion does not reflect well on the individual making that comment.
Until you can learn to make qualified statements please to not waste you’re time and effort posting. Making unqualified statements only exemplifies your total lack of comprehension on the subject matter or in the worse case you level of immaturity.
Anhar Hussain Miah
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mathematics
Anhar
02/27/2007
Posts:14
As to the fossil record, the cambrian explosion, and attacking evolution because it changes I think you don't understand science as well as you purport. First off the fossil record.. If you accept the commonly held belief on how they form then you know they will never give us a clear picture of any epoch in earth's history. They are just very rare and special glimpses into the past that hint at micro evolution may extend to macro evolution. The cambrian explosion attacks always seem to assume current rates of change are the norm and that "evolution" has some sort of speed limit. We don't know and until we understand cell biology well enough to describe cells as the intricate systems they are you can't say what is possible. And finally attacking a scientific theory because it is refined or changed based on new discoveries is to try and turn science into dogma. I dislike many religions not because of they say but because they came to have the "one book" that describes the "truth" and resist change. Even worse some folks take it so seriously they attack other believers of the same faith because they can not agree the the correct intererpitation of said "truth". I'll take the book that calls a theory what it is. If you can't falsify it its not a real theory.
As to the lack of good education science or otherwise. I would like to blame it on our culture's fasination with instant gratification and entertainment icons. But it is more complicated than that. And I have no answers.
Gurthang
03/01/2007
Posts:20
“But I have to cry foul of your categorization of Egyptian and Indian discoveries are you put it as "Islamic".
Please specify exactly which parts you think I mis-credited with clear citations and supporting evidence and I will indeed promptly retract those specifics, if this is not the case then please to not distort my words and attempt to put false words into my mouth.
“The cambrian explosion attacks always seem to assume current rates of change are the norm and that "evolution" has some sort of speed limit”
However rates of evolutionary change, have little to do with the fact that almost all of the major living animal phyla appear in the fossil record during the Cambrian Period they appear suddenly and fully formed. No amount of changing evolutionary rates changes this fact. The data is simply contrary to the Darwinian predictions.
“And finally attacking a scientific theory because it is refined or changed based on new discoveries is to try and turn science into dogma.”
Well there is a difference in refining a model and rejecting it, in this cause the model is dogmatically held onto in spite of the fact that the data is totally contradictory. Minor changes to models happens when the data does not quite fit the model i.e. it close and hence minor changes increases that accuracy. However when multiple sets of data is totally negative then minor changes is an invalid approach, under scientific methodology the model would be rejected. However this is my point that it Institutionalized dogma is keeping the model alive, Darwinism is so vigorously defended with such zeal, for this reason I find that Darwinian evolution to be the biggest shame of science because it simply is not science yet it falsely purports to be.
I do not need to falsify the theory, the modern scientific data is doing that for me!
I am now going to sign off this thread, this is taking more of time then I can spare at the moment. I will not respond to any further posts.
You can still reach me at my email address:
kb_hojo@hotmail.com
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
03/02/2007
Posts:14
but I'm not sure you're an American.
durs
02/27/2007
Posts:30
Moreover, it is simply untrue that all fossil records have gaps -- many micro fossils show a continuous grade of change -- condonts for example of a given period (and color from millions of years of cooking) are used to find likely sites for oil exploration.
There are many many bad "designs" in life that seem ... well just to have happened. Hamsters, rabbits having to eat their excrement due to inefficient digestive systems so they have to eat their food twice on up the the problematic human back.
GaryB
03/01/2007
Posts:64
Ok, this is the Darwinian argument from Morphological Homology, without going into details, it can be briefly dismantled as follows:
Some fallacies:
(a) Homologous organs appear in creatures that belong to completely different phyla, among which no evolutionary links can be established.
(b) The genetic DNA between some creatures that have homologous organs is completely different.
(c) The embryological development of homologous organs in different creatures is completely different.
“You have to truly have blind faith not to see that we evolved”
Incorrect against all the modern scientific data that negates it, you would have to have blind faith to believe in evolution, and in fact that is exactly what Darwinist ask there followers to do, as one famous Darwinist said “It requires a leap of Faith”
“Moreover, there's plenty of time”
Yet Cyanobacteria at around 3.8 Billion years ago (80% of earths lifetime) remains unchanged from its oldest form, why does this organism show NO evolution whatsoever despite a massive geological time frame?
“Moreover, it is simply untrue that all fossil records have gaps”
No, the fossil records always show the “Nodes” and never have any of the predicted “Intermediate forms”, put simply the fossil data shows organisms that appear suddenly and fully formed with no intermediate forms on either side of the “Node”
“There are many many bad "designs" in life that seem ... well just to have happened”
The classical “Bad-Design” argument, this one is very simple to refute with out going into detail, the word is very relative and highly dependent on ones perspective, it is not a quantifiable or measurable unit, and as such not even a scientific argument.
The “Design” equivalent in Darwinian terms is known as adaptation, however no one would say that a “Bad Adaptation” exists, since according to Darwinian evolution natural selection would remove any “Bad-adaptation”. Therefore it is logically unequal to state that one the one hand the very same organism is adapted but yet is an example of “Bad-Design”. If it is an example of “Bad-Design” then it also has to be referred in Darwinian terms as Bad-adaptation also, otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest.
I am now going to sign off this thread, this is taking more of time then I can spare at the moment. I will not respond to any further posts.
You can still reach me at my email address:
kb_hojo@hotmail.com
Anhar Hussain Miah
Anhar
03/02/2007
Posts:14
Yet Cyanobacteria at around 3.8 Billion years ago (80% of earths lifetime) remains unchanged from its oldest form, why does this organism show NO evolution whatsoever despite a massive geological time frame?"
Aha, here you show your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not required to happen nor does it happen at a constant rate. Any organism has an accumulation of traits selected for by natural selection. Thus, just because an organism has been around that long and is unchanged does not mean it has never evolved. Any harmful mutations have been selected against; beneficial, selected for.
"“Moreover, it is simply untrue that all fossil records have gaps”
No, the fossil records always show the “Nodes” and never have any of the predicted “Intermediate forms”, put simply the fossil data shows organisms that appear suddenly and fully formed with no intermediate forms on either side of the “Node”"
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But "gaps" in the fossil record are constructed by humans. When people look for intermediate forms, they are looking pointlessly, because everything is an intermediate form. Good evolutionary biologists can identify ancestors and descendants of other fossil creatures, which are themselves descendants and ancestors.
"“There are many many bad "designs" in life that seem ... well just to have happened”
The classical “Bad-Design” argument, this one is very simple to refute with out going into detail, the word is very relative and highly dependent on ones perspective, it is not a quantifiable or measurable unit, and as such not even a scientific argument."
The “Design” equivalent in Darwinian terms is known as adaptation, however no one would say that a “Bad Adaptation” exists, since according to Darwinian evolution natural selection would remove any “Bad-adaptation”. Therefore it is logically unequal to state that one the one hand the very same organism is adapted but yet is an example of “Bad-Design”. If it is an example of “Bad-Design” then it also has to be referred in Darwinian terms as Bad-adaptation also, otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest.
I think that's why he put "design" in quotation marks. That's a lot of fancy language for being nitpicky. Anyway, harmful characteristics aren't immediately selected against, and some characteristics are cumbersome but altered through natural selection. See Stephen Jay Gould's "The Panda's Thumb."
"So Stephen Smith how many native languages do you speak?"
Argumentum ad verecundiam, anyone?
seaj11
03/05/2007
Posts:1
You ask a valid question; paraphrased, "Shouldn't we be concerned with American's (or for that matter, the world's in general) lack of credence, knowledge and understanding about matters scientific disturb us?
My answer is that until science can deal with facts, irrefutable, demonstrable and repeatable facts, people have little reason to regard the moral, philosophical and predjudiced beliefs of people trying to pass themselves off as scientists.
Which real science would you have them understand? You mention ozone. Is ozone a science? Is ozone a field of study? Is ozone a theory? The answer to all those questions is no. So what is it that distrubs you? Or, what is it about ozone that you believe should disturb us? The truth is, nothing. Ozone is not the subject. The fact that people do not understand chemistry may be what bothers you. Perhaps it is that they understand chemistry, but they do not understand the environmental science that creates, destroys and distributes ozone in the atmosphere?
Now I suspect to that last question, you said yes! That's it!!
The problem is, that last question is not science. We have spent almost 100 years monitoring the effect, we have no baseline and understand very little about what actually happens. There are volumes published, tomes of reference and statistical data, satellites orbiting and collecting data daily. Airplanes flying up and capturing air samples. On and on and on we go. Once we put all the data in one place and have the best minds in the world go over the data, we come up with three, four or maybe five major opinions, and several dozen minor opinions. Then we move into the postulate, theorize, experiment and conclusion phases. The results are: nothing to date has ever happened according to any idea put forward. Each and every test came out different than expected. Some are closer than others, but from year to year vary so widely that the best term to express the results are "unexpected". This is with four supercomputers performing teraflops of operations in modeling the ozone hole and we still know nothing. Is this the science you want lay people to embrace? They are better off knowing nothing. Any decision maker will tell you, without facts, you want to keep the ideas off the executive’s desk.
You want people to know ozone is O3, and ionizing molecule and perhaps it may play an important role in some process somewhere that we don't yet understand? Why? They don't need to know that anymore than they need to understand relativity, string theory or the chaos theory of the universe. It is worthless to those not in the field. They are all "theories" with no real value.
You want to talk about people "building things", you don't do it with theories. You do it with technology. When someone turns a theory into a technology, then we have entrepreneurs that are more than capable of exploiting and expanding the science.
The real question you should ask is when are scientists going to abandon social engineering, politicking, and power mongering and generate some science that people can believe as truth instead of personal preference?
1611kjb
02/23/2007
Posts:3
The perfect example in this regard is mathematics. The leading mathematicians are always "out there", thinking up the most abstract and obscure theories. And these math theories are always self-centered: they are not dependent on applicability at all. They are not even dependent on other sciences' laws, such as the laws of physics or chemistry. Math is the most independent science of all, The Queen of all sciences.
Even though mathematicians don't care about applicability, sooner or later math knowledge will be used in physics, chemistry, biology etc. There is a very long lead time though - sometimes it can take several hundred years for the rest of world to catch up to math, and use it.
This just comes to prove that practical applicability cannot be taken as the measure of scientific validity. Science can be valid even if it is useless (for the moment).
Care should also be taken to differentiate between "mature theories" and "budding theories". These latter ones are the theories in their experimental stage, and there is no guarantee that in the long term they will work out. They may be discarded, if enough proof cannot be found to support them (ex. string theory).
People should read (and re-read) Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". You will discover how scientific theories can evolve. Yes, 'Evolution' applies even to scientific theories too.
gabrielg01
02/24/2007
Posts:402
SidSid
02/24/2007
Posts:1
We need radical change in Education. Parents, not government, should choose where and how their children will be educated. Unfortunately, those in control who have an interest in perpetuating dogma will always oppose a free marketplace of ideas.
rnarlock
02/24/2007
Posts:4
ray88838
02/24/2007
Posts:1
It is religion that opposes the free marketplace of ideas. The religious dogma is exactly that - a dogma. Religious zealots want to "debate" science, yet their own dogma(s) is(are) non-debatable. Smacks like hypocrisy to me.
PS - As for the comment on education - you people conveniently forgot to mention that, there is also non-religious private education too, which is the best form of education available in America today.
gabrielg01
02/24/2007
Posts:402
The point is, in a free marketplace of ideas there is no need to use the power of government to supress any set of ideas that poses a threat to the established dogma. It is in religious education, ironically that this is so. They are not afraid of evolution the way evolutionists are intent on censoring any scientific critique or alternative.
By the way, it is not only the religious who don't buy evolution. Ask anybody who has adopted Ayn Rand's atheistic philosophy of Objectivism and they will tell you that evolution is unscientific.
Reasonable people should be given all sides and left to decide for themselves. That happens less and less in government schools. If you want scientific literacy, let parents decide where their kids go to school.
rnarlock
02/24/2007
Posts:4
Personally I feel most public schools fail because rahter than teach our children how to learn, thinking critically, and be healthy productive members of our society they focus on rote memorization and standardized test scores.
Gurthang
03/02/2007
Posts:20
Summing, I agree, the American Education system can and must do much better. Per latest issue of Time Magazine, I see Harvard is changing its basic cirriculumn to address this problem.
Better late than never I suppose......
naturlm
02/26/2007
Posts:10
Again, I still don't understand your reasoning when you say "Given the overwhelming proof in favor of evolution, perhaps more education would bring the U.S. more in line with the rest of the world." Yet many European countries, with MUCH higher acceptance of evolution, actually did WORSE on this science literacy test. There is no mystery here. Europe is largely atheist; what else are they going to believe? The only alternative is creation by God. So, OF COURSE Europe has swallowed evolution, hook, line, and sinker. And OF COURSE they never want to hear any criticism of evolution. And OF COURSE they laugh at the idea of creation science. But American Christians and Turkish Muslims have what they consider to be a perfectly viable alternative, which has the distinct advantage of allowing a straightforward interpretation of Genesis. So, OF COURSE they are going to demand a much higher standard of proof for evolution. And OF COURSE they want to hear a full and open debate of any and all criticisms of evolution. And OF COURSE they want to see the claims of creationism investigated scientifically. Why is this so hard to understand? It's not rocket science; it is basic human nature.
You'd be surprised how many fundamentalists don't have a fundamental problem with evolution. If you really think it is true then here is what you should do: Teach, don't indoctrinate. Debate, don't polemicize. Respect, don't ridicule. Admit failures, don't cover them up. Welcome creation scientists as colleagues, or at least as valuable gadflys; don't write them off as religious kooks. And question your own motives, not your opponents'.
In the end, truth will win. People are always smarter than surveys make them out to be.
dmm
02/27/2007
Posts:192
OK, so we have alien engineers ... lord only knows why the spent such cleverness on intestinal worms. But who designed them?
GaryB
03/01/2007
Posts:64
Poor design? The complex design of the human eye is actually reason to question evolution.
Here is what Darwin said about it...
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus for different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree".
I really can't stand the way you supporters of evolution just ignore what doesn't neetly fit into your beliefs. Evolution(macro-evolution) is not science, it is not testable to the degree that it is falsifiable. That is a qualification often made by scientists when it is used to discredit something like itelligent design, but rarely applied to what is already accepted by science.
ps. dummy!
MikeySparks
03/02/2007
Posts:5
gabrielg01
03/03/2007
Posts:402
I reply: The only reason one would think that is so that one could set up a straw man which one could then easily knock down during a debate and claim victory. You are insisting that God would obviously want to create a sword that can penetrate any shield, and also a shield that can resist any sword. Your insistence is irrational; it is no wonder that God (assuming God's existence) would refuse to play along.
Has it ever occurred to you that God (assuming God exists) might not have an equal interest in every organism? Does an author of a novel have an equal interest in every character, location, and event in the novel? If a novel were written like an 800-volume encyclopedia, would we not declare the author to be an incompetent boor? Would anyone read it? COULD anyone read it?
Also, contrary to your claims about the eye, the human vision system is an astounding feat of engineering. We still cannot make a mechanical/electronic vision system with the full combination of attributes of human vision: speed, sensitivity, dynamic range, color range, color discrimination, pixel count, field of view, depth of field, data rate, etc.
dmm
03/05/2007
Posts:192
PS: And stop pretending to understand what good wants...stop athropomorphizing God!
aymeric
03/07/2007
Posts:19
True, very few people could say what DNA is. But most probably know that DNA testing can convict you of a crime, or establish paternity, or show your chances of getting certain diseases.
Et cetera for all the other questions. Isn't that enough for the average Joe? Most Americans also couldn't locate Iraq on a map, but that doesn't invalidate their thinking about the war.
dmm
02/27/2007
Posts:192
Cliff
03/03/2007
Posts:1
Take Hurricane Katrina, a thinking person would realize that it was caused by climatic conditions [possibly made worse by global warming], but Pat Robertson claims it was punishment from god for a Gay Pride Rally. The South East Asian Tidal Wave elected similar response from religious leaders.
Religion is the opposite of reason and logic. The more you believe in it the less you are concerned with empirical evidence and logic.
Some last words to consider: Remember Galileo Galilei!
jmaximus9
03/04/2007
Posts:83
One is that half the stuff you read in the papers is really advertising disguised as news, its called PR.
The second goes with this, the government(s) do the same thing but distort the meaning of words with Orwellian skill. Everybody recalls President Clinton's famous line: that depends on the meaning of 'is'?
The third is really a limitation of storage. We are bombarded with ever increasing amounts of information every second. No one person can be expected to be abreast of every latest development in science.
Information overload...
jmaximus9
03/04/2007
Posts:83
All I can say is that God created evolution.
PS: I never have understood why people are so against one scientific theory? Why is it so hard to understand that we are no better than animals...just look at two people having passionate intercourse and you can very clearly see that we are;)
aymeric
03/04/2007
Posts:19