"I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe that permits the evolution of molecular machines as complex and subtle as we"-Carl Sagan
Why do people need god? This more than just a test to see if anyone is reading, its a serious inquiry.
Thanks!
Thursday 22 April 2010
Monday 22 February 2010
ID in 2011!
The main reason I bring up to people about why Intelligent Design (creationism for short) isn't science is a very simple one; science doesn't campaign. It never has, and although a great effort is put forth to bring science into the public eye, it doesn't enter legislation.
1. The main reason that ID has resorted to using government power to get its ideas into textbooks is because they have made the shift from a scientific idea to a philosophy. They lost horribly in the scientific arena, and now they move on to the political arena, knowing that the quality control and testing standards there are much less rigorous.
2. Evolution, as an idea and a scientific principle, entered the textbooks because it is an accepted scientific theory, much the laws of Pythagoras in geometry or Newton in physics. It never tried to sneak untested material into the academic standards, and although there was much controversy involving the early teaching, i.e. the scopes trial, scientists never put stickers in books and they never tried to circumvent the scientific process in order for their opinions to be heard.
3. The scientific method is the best and most rigorous testing process known to man, it destroys hypotheses and ruins years, decades of research and commitment, all in the name of pursuing the truth. Evolution as a concept to explain biodiversity passed this test, and creationism didn't. If life were simple, we wouldn't even be talking about it, but because of the way ID is intertwined with people's deepest beliefs, we have to keep kicking it down again and again. The proponents of ID want their hypothesis to be directly inserted into schools without any scientific grounds, the main motive being to influence young people with religious ideals.
Please comment and tell me what you think! I might follow up on this one soon.
1. The main reason that ID has resorted to using government power to get its ideas into textbooks is because they have made the shift from a scientific idea to a philosophy. They lost horribly in the scientific arena, and now they move on to the political arena, knowing that the quality control and testing standards there are much less rigorous.
2. Evolution, as an idea and a scientific principle, entered the textbooks because it is an accepted scientific theory, much the laws of Pythagoras in geometry or Newton in physics. It never tried to sneak untested material into the academic standards, and although there was much controversy involving the early teaching, i.e. the scopes trial, scientists never put stickers in books and they never tried to circumvent the scientific process in order for their opinions to be heard.
3. The scientific method is the best and most rigorous testing process known to man, it destroys hypotheses and ruins years, decades of research and commitment, all in the name of pursuing the truth. Evolution as a concept to explain biodiversity passed this test, and creationism didn't. If life were simple, we wouldn't even be talking about it, but because of the way ID is intertwined with people's deepest beliefs, we have to keep kicking it down again and again. The proponents of ID want their hypothesis to be directly inserted into schools without any scientific grounds, the main motive being to influence young people with religious ideals.
Please comment and tell me what you think! I might follow up on this one soon.
Monday 25 January 2010
Alternative Theories?
As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the fact of evolution, but I have many friends and family members that are critical of the theory, and instead side with a creationist view. The thing that bothers me the most about creationism is that it presents no proof for its own hypothesis, and that it's only defense against scientific scrutiny is trying to cut down a more likely explanation. Every piece of evidence for creationism I could find was an argument against evolution, not something supporting their ideas.
Even if some new piece of evidence completely falsified evolution, as unlikely as that is, it doesn't make creationism any more true, nor can we accept it then as a prominent explanation for biodiversity. In science, we must assume a natural explanation for natural phenomena unless given proof of a supernatural presence. If evolution were eliminated, biochemists and biologists would begin working on alternate naturalistic hypotheses, and would not resort to the supernatural even though their predominant theory had been proven false.
I like to see people questioning evolution on scientific grounds, but I don't think an intellectual can make the leap from doubting evolution to a supernatural conclusion. The burden of proof is on the doubters to prove that there is a supernatural power, and that it is responsible for the diversity we see in our current environment. Anyone who does this, in my mind, is someone who places their ideology over the scientific process.
Tell me what you think!
Even if some new piece of evidence completely falsified evolution, as unlikely as that is, it doesn't make creationism any more true, nor can we accept it then as a prominent explanation for biodiversity. In science, we must assume a natural explanation for natural phenomena unless given proof of a supernatural presence. If evolution were eliminated, biochemists and biologists would begin working on alternate naturalistic hypotheses, and would not resort to the supernatural even though their predominant theory had been proven false.
I like to see people questioning evolution on scientific grounds, but I don't think an intellectual can make the leap from doubting evolution to a supernatural conclusion. The burden of proof is on the doubters to prove that there is a supernatural power, and that it is responsible for the diversity we see in our current environment. Anyone who does this, in my mind, is someone who places their ideology over the scientific process.
Tell me what you think!
Thursday 7 January 2010
Check out this site!
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html
I am really getting sick of this anti-vaccine bullshit, and this site does a great job debunking these
ideas in depth.
Tell me what you think!
I am really getting sick of this anti-vaccine bullshit, and this site does a great job debunking these
ideas in depth.
Tell me what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)