An anti-science bias the underwrites the thinking of some contemporary and self-described social conservatives---both secular and religious. And this is nothing new. History shows us that anti-science bias permeates the history of social conservatism. Why? What motivates this anti-science bias? To what larger agenda and purpose is it attached?
I dunno about other conservatives, but I'm not at all anti-science. I am, however anti-unproven-theory, opposed to the so-called "science" that runs on wild supposition and conjecture without any common-sense basis for its theories. Plus, that type of "science" leaves out the fact of human error in soooo many cases.
You mean like Intelligent Design, Expanding Earth, and Ancient Astronauts? Yeah, you're right there.
More like evolution, expanding Earth, and ancient astronauts
Thanks janesix for correcting him/her...
I'm pretty sure Zelkiiro wouldn't want to be seen as upholding Intelligent Design!
Except evolution isn't wild conjecture or supposition--scientific theory is just a step below a scientific law. You know what else is a scientific theory? Heliocentrism (the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun), light waves, the Big Bang, cells, and the theory of relativity.
Intelligent Design, however, consists entirely of conjecture based on a fairy tale.
Please, show me your missing link. Then I promise I will never again doubt your theory of evolution.
Just -a- missing link? Why, here's plenty!
And every year we find more. Oh, and we've also observed ring species, atavisms, and adaptive mutations in numerous species, and all three are exactly what we should be finding in the evolution of life.
Sorry. Afarensis isn't EVEN CLOSE to a missing link.
If anything, these huge differences are closer to proving intelligent design than Darwinian evolution.
You (foolishly) assume there is only one missing link. We have plenty more links to find before the chain is complete.
Don't you understand how evolution works? It's extremely gradual. As in, you could live for thousands of years and never see a single change. There is not, and never has been, a single missing link. We're going to find more Afarensis, and then some Afarensis with slightly straighter backs, and then some Afarensis with slightly smaller jaws, and so on before we hit the next stage. And repeat ad nauseaum.
Yes, I know how evolution "supposedly" works. I am not an imbicile, and I have in fact studied evolution quite extensively. Which is why I dismiss it as wrong. Yes, we evolve from lower species, but not slowly. We evolve in huge leaps about every 13,000 years. The mold is made, so to speak, before the next evolution comences.
There will be another one very soon. We will see the biggest change in about 150 years from now.
Why does proof of evolution hinge, for you, on some "missing link" that is not at all part of the science of evolution, but part of the popular folklore of the late 19th century?
I am not understanding what evolution is discarded and deemed, by you, to be false and not provable simply because there is no fantasy create, no hybrid ape/human imagined by 19th century folklorists.
Can you explain this?
Do you really believe that evolution did not and is not happening?
I am really trying to understand this as I lived in a sort of bubble for some 57 years not really understanding and/or grasping that some people really believe the Bible is literally true.
I am really trying to understand why you reject science claiming there is not adequate proof to support it and yet embrace the Bible as literally the word of god when there is no proof of its authorship by a god or of the existence of a god. Your beliefs are a matter of faith not fact.
I am sincere in this.
Hmmm...I was thinking more along the lines of The Bible and its wild stories and impossible narratives, but let's not forget UFOs and aliens at Roswell, New Mexico.
Science is not a function of so-called "common sense". Science is a function of research, experimentation, data collection, analysis of data. In fact, a great deal of scientific fact is counter-intuitive or counter-"common sense".
If we operate on "common sense", then the world is flat, the sky is pigmented blue, and the Earth is the center of the universe.
There are people who view science and/or any scientific implementation is totally against the so-called preordained order of things. They are of the school that there is a natural order and the latter should NEVER to be interferred with under any circumstances. They see science inquiry as playing God and assuming divine ownership which to them is akin to blasphemy or worse. Just, look at the contention between creationsim, so-called intelligent design, and evolution-the battle is forever ongoing. Then, look at the issue surrounding stem cell research; although there are benefits to this type of research, many people are morally against it for one reason or another.
It is not an anti-science mentality, but a thoughtful rejection of bad or unproven ideas being taught as fact that is the real issue...
Bad or unproven ideas?
Even though the evidence for these theories is everywhere?
As it relates to the Big Bang, I'm not sure that there is any question that the Universe rapidly expanded from a tiny point within a few seconds. The problem with the Big Bang is that scientists don't actually think it was a Big Bang. It was a joke phrase coined by a scientist at a press conference and the name stuck. Technically, it is a theory of rapid inflation that could have been caused by a couple of different mechanisms.
There are theories suggesting that our Universe is merely an instability bubble in the overall vastness of space or that our Universe was created by interacting with another membrane in the fabric of spacetime.
If you're truly interested in learning more, I suggest reading about Quantum Mechanics. It's truly amazing stuff.
When people learn things and become smarter, they become harder to control.
Businessmen, politicians, and the Church absolutely despise those people.
Of course, why do churches, governments, and corporations are afraid of people who speak out against their insidious practices? Why do such institutions advocate blind obedience? They want to maintain their AUTHORITY to emotionally, mentally, and/or psychologically subjugate people to their wills-it's ALL BIG BUSINE$$ after all!
If you don't believe evolution is true, then surely one flu shot is good enough. I mean, it's impossible for life forms to change, right?
Surely you jest.
I get a flu shot every year NOW; didn't used to; I get one now because I developed a disease called rheumatoid arthritis, which comes from an immune disorder; and the medicines that I have to take also lower my immune system, so it's best to try to avoid viruses etc. That's not "evolution"! It's simply a disease, ya know, a disease; those are common among humans. I haven't evolved into some other species or anything. LOL. There are often lots of changes in humans' health status; as people age, or as their bodies weaken for whatever reasons. But that's nowhere near being "evolution"!
Tell ya what-----just as soon as you witness a human turning into an ape or some other species, you let me know; I'd like to film that for posterity; the little ape-people who are to come in the next generations would like to see their ancestors in full action mode, evolving, for themselves I'm sure! LOLOL.
Hey----janesix!-----you got your camera ready too?? hahhahaa
You have just demonstrated that you have no grasp of evolutionary theory. Neither do you want to know. Your preconceived conclusions about evolution and steadfast refusal to put your faith to one side and look objectively at the subject demonstrates that you are in fact anti-science.
AHHAHAH oh my you really don't understand what is happening at all.
The reason you need a new flu shot is because the influenza virus changes continuously (evolves) and thus you need different protections against new strains of the virus.
It's utterly tragic that you don't know this stuff, high school level biology, without knowing it human mortality would be much much higher.
You can actually watch the virus evolve, it changes to suit it's environment etc.
Kelkiiro, you stated, "Except evolution isn't wild conjecture or supposition--scientific theory is just a step below a scientific law. You know what else is a scientific theory? Heliocentrism (the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun), light waves, the Big Bang, cells, and the theory of relativity." The fact of a Heliocentric solar system, the existence of cell and the existence of light waves are not theories, but proven facts, the intricacies of which are still being explored, but facts none the less.
Evolution and Intelligent design are not, either one, a theory. They are models, as a theory can be duplicated and falsified and we can not recreate "in the beginning" regardless of what that beginning looked like.
Can you clearly and concisely explain spontaneous generation, which is needed for evolution to even start...ex nilo, nilo?
Cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists, including those working for NASA and CERN and several major universities and private research companies, have demonstrated the Big Bang as fact. Others have demonstrated Einstein's theories as fact as well.
The most prevalent evidence or proof of the big bang is the radio wave which we have all heard as static on a radio and/or "snow" and static on a television.
I strongly suggest reading Simon Singh's BIG BANG and Stephen Hawking's A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME for wonderful and accessible discussions of the known facts and evidence.
Have read A Brief History of Time and others, they are full of theories. But, they are theories and some are more plausible than others. There is not consensus, even among Big Bag theorist, and even if their was, consensus is not proof. There at on time or another a consensus on an Earth-centric universe, that maggots spontaneous came from garbage, that blacks were inferior to whites etc...consensus is not proof. The white noise is theorized, by some, to be a residual background "sound" of the big bang. Again, this is theory (or model, to better explain it) and not a proven fact.
You need to use the word "some" in-front of words like scientists, researchers etc, as not all agree with your statements.
Furthermore, in one of your later posts you talk about the need for new vaccines to fight the next generation of viruses as they adapt. Adaptation within a kind is not evolution to a new kind. There is no proof of one kind of animal changing into, regardless of time, a separate kind. Viruses are viruses, peppered moths are peppered moths, finches are finches...etc.
Finally, if you take the evolutionary model back far enough, you would need to explain spontaneous generation. How does inanimate material suddenly become a living cell that can reproduce into a living cell?
Nope all of those models are theories. Nothing scientific is ever more than a theory, it's still called the theory of gravity. Evolution is just as much theory as a heliocentric model, both can be observed to be true very easily, both can be watched happen (evolution in bacteria and viruses, the other via a telescope) and both can be shown to occur by a huge number of effects. Hell DNA evidence by itself would be more than enough to prove evolution, we can trace our own evolution through our genome and junk DNA.
Gravity is not a theory. There may still be some questions to the how mass is effected by and "causes" gravity, but the fact of gravity is not in question. The Earth has been proven to circle the sun and therefor it is not theory, but a proven fact.
Change within a kind, such as the adaptive change in viruses, is not proof of one kind changing to another different kind of animal. It can be speculated that, with enough time, these changes could change one animal into another. That is only speculation, as it is not observable, testable or backed up with available facts.
Similar "code" by way of the DNA only shows that similar features are coded similarly. It shows, if anything, a detailed code and intelligent design. You wouldn't look at a computer programs, that was written in a unique code and say that the code just came together in the computer by themselves. Even if you were to believe that we evolved from lower primates and lemurs, then from reptiles, amphibians, fish and single celled organisms, you are left a bigger problem. If you take the evolutionary model back far enough, you would need to explain spontaneous generation. How does inanimate material suddenly become a living cell that can reproduce into a living cell? Remember it would have to be able to reproduce a reproducible reproduction of itself...and do it in the first try.
Gravity and the Earth revolving around the Sun are still considered theories by scientists.
And you do realize that DNA can be mutated or corrupted over time? That kinda ruins the grand plan a bit.
If you have mutated DNA will that mean you will evolve into another animal in a million years? Or will your offspring just carry the mutation and not turn into winged humans?
Yes, if you're a creature that has a mutation or any other change in your DNA, you would be on the path toward evolving into a different creature.
And yet, there is no conclusive proof of this ever occurring...only speculative conjecture using the circular logic model. The assumption is made that there must be a "non-god" answer because some do not want there to be a God (read up on Huxley and others). Once God is artificially removed from the equation, then the order of events must be made to fit that narrative.
1. If no God, then must happen by "natural" processes.
2. If we don't see evolution between kinds happening, then it must take a long period of time.
3. If it takes a long period of time, then we must substantiate "old ages".
4. Assign "ages" to levels of geologic strata.
5. Assume that lower levels are more primitive and further "down" the evolutionary tree.
6. Make assumptions based on "lesser" animals as to their position on evolutionary tree.
7. Ignore lack of conclusive facts, adhere to continually disproved "cases" and ignore the issues of spontaneous generation.
8. Embrace evolution as a smooth proven theory when it is a sloppy model at best.
9 Conclude that there is no God and repeat process.
No, there's probably a non-God answer because the evidence points to the fact that everything in nature can happen on its own.
ex nilo, nilo....out of nothing, nothing.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
"What you believe does not change what IS,
But, what IS, should change what you believe."
You are neglecting the fact that just because a "scientist" says something or even a general consensus is formed, that does not make something a fact. Your point is taken, but I don't think you fully understand it.
It was scientifically accepted at one time that the earth was the center of the universe, that maggots spontaneously sprang from rotting materials, that cells, as we know them, could not exist etc etc. These were views held by scientist of their day. They were wrong. So, yes, truth does not change regardless of what we believe or understand.
AND, you still have not addressed any of the specifics that I have mentioned...???
I've actually addressed everything that you have mentioned.....
Among a few things you have not address, and arguably the pivotal one, is that of spontaneous generation.
Nor have you addressed the understanding of the difference between the Law of something existing and the the Theory of why.
+1 the God of the gaps, the ancient Greeks believed a god pulled the sun across the sky, now we know that is not true so it becomes a more difficult concept attributed to divine intervention.
Which we KNOW for a fact is false at a quantum level. We can now observe at a quantum level that matter can be created and destroyed randomly.
In other words that quote is definitely false and demonstrably false.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/a … dmore.html
So why are there no flying humans then? Surely if there has been enough time to evolve into what we are today there must have been time for DNA to mutate and give us flying humans or humans with gills.
First off no, there has not been time to evolve everything that can be evolved, obviously or viruses etc. would not continue to evolve visibly and all the time.
Second I highly doubt that being able to fly would be in our best interests, the laws of physics would require us to radically change our bodies, our bones have to become thin and hollow, our brains could not be as large etc. etc. in other words if flying was so great as an evolutionary tool it would be the birds, not humanity/bacteria who are the most successful species.
They evolved to fit an evolutionary niche. Obviously it was a successful one because they are amongst the last of the dinosaurs. But not as successful as humans whose physical shape and diet allowed them to become intelligent, give live birth, raise children and use their opposable thumbs which are probably our largest evolutionary advantage.
They also evolved to fit their particular circumstance, perhaps they lived in a highly wooded area and started out by jumping and eventually gliding from tree to tree before flying.
On the other hand human predecessors perhaps lived in a savanna where gliding was pretty useless but being able to stand up and see over the grass was really useful and where having a large brain was a more useful development for getting food than gliding.
But aren't there obvious advantages to humans being able to fly?
Even if macro-evolution existed, that's not how it works...
Advantages and disadvantages too, all birds have tiny brains, fragile bones and short lifespans for example because they have to be light to fly. We would have to be incredibly different to be able to fly.
Of course this neglects to explain ostrich, emu, kiwi and penguins...
Actually no it doesn't at all. Penguins adapted for movement in water rather than flying. Emu's and Ostriches used the light way their bones were built to travel very fast on land without the energy expenditure of takeoff and Kiwi's simply had no predators and as such dispensed with their ability to fly since it had no purpose because their food lived on the ground and flight costs energy. Plus all of those were able to get bigger than they would otherwise.
I like that you mention Ostriches however because it gives me an opportunity to pull out my old bio studies at uni and talk about Vestigial structures, like the wings on Ostriches, ostriches don't use their wings except for mating rituals for which it makes no sense to have them proving their descent from other birds who did use their wings.
More conclusive still are the pelvic bone structures of whales which don't need or have hind legs, and yet they still have the gene paths for legs and the bone structure that once supported them before they became marine animals, interestingly whales/dolphins have been found with hind legs/flippers and genetic examination of those individuals show it was due to an activation of those dormant genes in the whale's DNA.
Please explain why if whales did not evolve from something else they have the bone structures for appendages they don't have or need and the genetic path for legs.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation explains THAT objects attract based on mass etc. The fact of gravity is not a theory. As I previously stated the exact, down to the subatomic level, of WHY it works is a theory. There is a difference between a Law and a Theory.
The same holds true for the Heliocentric understanding of the solar system. The Sun IS at the center and the earth DOES orbit it, not the other way around. The Theory, tied to the previously mentioned gravity, is the WHY it does this, not whether it does this.
The "fallen nature" of creation fits perfectly with mutations and other destructive changes WITHIN a kind. So the "grand plan" is not put off by, but rather expected in the Creation MODEL.
And, the question of spontaneous generation, though asked a few times in this thread, remains unanswered.
Actually, the reason why Einstein became such a famous scientist was because he understood that Newtonian physics STOPPED explaining why things happened at such a small scale.
And no, they are still theories. In the scientific community, there is no such thing as a "fact". Something can be proven to a high degree of certainty, but nothing is ever considered more than a theory.
As for "spontaneous generation" and "fallen nature", read more about chemistry and quantum mechanics. You'll find that it's perfectly plausible for something to seemingly come from nothing.
In the scientific field there are two terms used for the topics we are discussing. Laws and Theories. Both are used for different things. You are still obviously confusing the difference between the FACT that thing DO HAPPEN and the THEORY of WHY they HAPPEN.
It is not, as explained by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation explains, a question of whether gravity exists. What is in question, is exactly how gravity works...especially on the subatomic level. It is, in fact, interesting that all of what we think we know breaks down as we approach the beginnings. Whether it be the beginning of time (Big Bang), the beginning of mass (subatomic existence) or the beginning of life (spontaneous generation)...
Which, of course, is the work of a God that you think is hiding something from us?
BTW....gravity, still a theory.
As for time......there is a large debate in the scientific community as to whether time exists at all or whether it is merely something that humans use to keep events logically organized.
As for how life begins......scientists actually have been able to create amino acids and other building blocks of life in a lab.
Per your amino acids...read up on those experiments in detail and not just the headlines. They were created (using intelligence) in a lab under conditions that could not exist in nature to produce them. They had to be immediately removed from the "creation" scenario or they would break down. It is another case (one on many) where half of the story is not the whole story and selective reporting and my 8 step description is verified. Do some more homework on that topic. It actual does more to explain intelligent design, than random and spontaneous generation.
And, you can take your argument about there being no Law of gravity with Newton and the scientific community at large. You are still confusing WHETHER something exists and WHY and HOW it works...two different things.
That couldn't be further from the truth.......
Everything used in the Miller-Urey experiment contained chemicals found on Earth and they weren't "taken out of the creation process so they wouldn't break down"
Again, deny science all you want.......are you afraid of actually learning something? Or is blindly following a book easier than thinking?
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ … iment.html
Again, you are using old data...exactly like I said happens in my 8 steps.
Don't feel bad, most people have been duped by old (and incorrect) information such as this, the peppered moth etc. It's very common, that is why I am passionate about it. Good science versus bad science.
But then the article links to a Wikipedia article(really?) that says nothing of the sort. In fact, most of the sources used for the article claim that there could have been more hydrogen in the Earth than previously thought. After adjusting for the effects of volcanoes, there were actually more molecules created in the experiment.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch … iller.html
Again...and there are more if you choose to research.
The first, whether linked to Wikipedia or not, was on the Princeton site and this one is from Duke.
And, They did use a cold trap, as I previously asserted. This enabled the organic material to be scooped out and preserved.
I never said there was no law of gravity.....you were claiming that science is based on bad assumptions masqueraded as facts.
I was merely stating that scientists only ever consider something a theory regardless of how well proven it is.
So yes, there are laws of gravity, but the way it works (including what we know and don't know) is still classified as a theory.
You stated "BTW....gravity, still a theory." So, yes you did deny that gravity is a Law.
I never claimed that science is based on bad assumptions masqueraded as facts...Quote me back to me...
I have said, here and other places, that SOME scientists and SOME theories are using bad science. The argument is against bad science, not science. Understanding the difference and understanding that just because a scientist says something, does not make it true. There are countless examples of this.
Science is important and should be explored.
What Newton described happening was a Law.
Gravity itself is a theory.
Correct, indeed if tomorrow the voyager or Hubble was to discover a planet where gravity was not present then that would make it an invalid theory as a universal. In scientific terms nothing CAN EVER proceed past the point of theory.
Nor should it, declaring something more than a theory make sit harder to abandon if evidence presents itself that proves it incorrect.
I would also add that we understand evolution much better than we understand gravity, the causes of which are very murky and currently very much within the realms of theoretical quantum physics (i.e. the distortion of the space time continuum) .
I think the balance is not too far off where it should be in terms of prestige versus skepticism -- on the understanding that a lot of people will always believe just what they want to regardless.
I think skepticism matters and is the stuff of intellectual progress...
Is that why Newton, Kepler and many many other were into mystysism and the occult? It wasn't science they were trying to advance.
They were interested in the truth. Scientific progress was a result of direct intervention by God. And they knew it.
Some of them saw it that way, some didn't and some pretended too because permanent academics posts at that time often required membership of the priesthood.
Interests in things like alchemy were hidden by Newton because the church might disapprove and defrock as a response--thus the scientist would lose his livelihood.
For the record: Newton refused clerical appointment as he was an avowed non-trinitarian and was never ordained a priest in the Church of England.
Newton's alchemy was not unknown in his lifetime, and in fact, alchemy was a popular passtime of most intellectuals, scientists, and clerics.
It wasn't *just* science they were trying to advance.
They very much, and very clearly, wanted to advance science. But they had other interests.
Read Newton's PRINCIPIA and then ask yourself if he was a scientist or a spiritualist or occultist.
FACT: Viruses mutate and therefore evolve over time requiring that flu vaccines are changed to meet the mutations and evolutions of the viruses. If this is not done the vaccines will be useless.
Back to the original question: What agendas and purposes motivate anti-science bias?
This bias extends well beyond evolutionary theory. This bias extends to other sciences---including but not limited to climate science, cosmology, astronomy, geology.
by Zelkiiro4 years ago
...while real in the presence of sort-of philosophical drivers, is, nonetheless, a philosophy of ignorance."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw&t=00m19sAn extremely interesting and enlightening look at...
by mathsciguy6 years ago
I pondered a while trying to decide where to put this topic, but I think this is an appropriate forum for it. I had noticed in researching for myself a little bit about the ID movement that most of the articles...
by Jesshubpages5 years ago
Evolutionists and the Atheist claims that man and all other things are product evolution. If evolution is a fact, If it is true, Where is the missing link?
by countrywomen8 years ago
To discredit evolution one of the common questions raised was the absence of the "missing" link and this scientific discovery may strengthen the theory of evolution.
by Ron Karn6 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
A new thread prompted by by a current discussion. Is Darwinism a scientific explanation, or just another belief system?Bbrerean, Wilderness, and EncephaloiDead have been going round and round in a debate relating to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.