jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (93 posts)

Science in the 21st Century

  1. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 4 years ago

    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?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You mean like Intelligent Design, Expanding Earth, and Ancient Astronauts? Yeah, you're right there.

        1. janesix profile image61
          janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          More like evolution, expanding Earth, and ancient astronauts

          tongue

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks janesix for correcting him/her...
            I'm pretty sure Zelkiiro wouldn't want to be seen as upholding Intelligent Design!   lol

            1. Zelkiiro profile image85
              Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                roll

              2. janesix profile image61
                janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Please, show me your missing link. Then I promise I will never again doubt your theory of evolution.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                  Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Just -a- missing link? Why, here's plenty!
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

                  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.

                  1. janesix profile image61
                    janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry. Afarensis isn't EVEN CLOSE to a missing link.

                    If anything, these huge differences are closer to proving intelligent design than Darwinian evolution.

                2. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol
                  I'd like to see that too.

                3. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  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?

                  1. janesix profile image61
                    janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                    you guys can't even agree among yourselves

                    funny

            2. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to 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.

          2. gmwilliams profile image83
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, NEXT!

            1. janesix profile image61
              janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Don't you have something expensive but ultimately useless to buy, to make yourself feel important?

          3. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
            Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution is pretty much fact......

        2. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to 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.

      2. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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.

    2. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    3. Mitch Alan profile image86
      Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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...

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago

    When people learn things and become smarter, they become harder to control.

    Businessmen, politicians, and the Church absolutely despise those people.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image85
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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!

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly GM but that's not to say a belief in god is bad but those who don't question their faith and follow blindly are just sheep. I think that goes with any ideology.

  3. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago

    Relevant:

    http://cdn.meme.li/instances/400x/22452042.jpg

    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?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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"!
      Good grief!
      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

      1. Disappearinghead profile image85
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. gmwilliams profile image83
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ON TARGET, can't educate some people no matter how intelligently the facts are presented!

          1. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly.

            Sad, but true.

      2. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +1

    2. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly...thanks!

  4. Mitch Alan profile image86
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    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?

    1. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Mitch Alan profile image86
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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?

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Mitch Alan profile image86
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            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?

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
              Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
                  Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, there's probably a non-God answer because the evidence points to the fact that everything in nature can happen on its own.

                  1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ex nilo, nilo....out of nothing, nothing.

              2. Silverspeeder profile image60
                Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                    Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So why did birds evolve then?

          2. Mitch Alan profile image86
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
              Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                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)...

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
                  Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think skepticism matters and is the stuff of intellectual progress...smile

      1. janesix profile image61
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Is that why Newton, Kepler and many many other were into mystysism and the occult? It wasn't science they were trying to advance.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What?

          1. janesix profile image61
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They were interested in the truth. Scientific progress was a result of direct intervention by God. And they knew it.

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Precisely.

                1. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

        2. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          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.

        3. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Read Newton's PRINCIPIA and then ask yourself if he was a scientist or a spiritualist or occultist.

          1. janesix profile image61
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He was both

  6. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 4 years ago

    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.

  7. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 4 years ago

    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.

 
working