Advertisement

Archive for Monday, April 3, 2006

Professor to speak on ‘Science Under Attack’

April 3, 2006

Advertisement

Lawrence M. Krauss, a physics professor at Case Western Reserve University, will speak about evolution versus intelligent design and other topics at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Dole Institute of Politics.

His lecture is titled "Science Under Attack, From the White House to the Classroom: Public Policy, Science Education and the Emperor's New Clothes." It will be the first in a four-part series titled "Science, Education and the Public."

Krauss will address how educators and policy makers can react to attacks on science.

Comments

gr 8 years ago

"see www.dictionary.com for definitions."

Yep, wonderhorse, you sucked me in.

The question was, what is YOUR definitions since you seemed to have a different idea than the body of the article.

(Since you are missing it, the post had to do with the name calling I expect and the other "myth")

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

"I also fail to see what "Big Bang and other accidents" has to do with science?"

I believe it is called "hypothesis". It can graduate to "theory" as more proof is discovered. Or maybe a book can be discovered that covers creation. Oh, forgot, we've got one (or two, or twelve or however many).

0

moderator 8 years ago

Suggested reading: The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney.

0

Curious 8 years ago

You made me laugh. Thank you for the smile o I also fail to see what "Big Bang and other accidents" has to do with science?

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

"Once upon a time, thousands, no hundreds of thousan.....no not long enough, millions.......no still not enough time, Billions.....nononononono ZiLliOns......oh good grief....INFINITY.....there was nothing.

And this nothing accidentally exploded. BANG it was an accidental BIG BANG.

From this Big Bang came chaos.....as all explosions do ???

But accidentally, from this chaos came order. Though there is no proof that order has EVER come from chaos.

In this accidental order there developed a planet, accidentally. This planet accidentally found itself in just the right spot to sustain life. Not too close, not too far away from the sun.

Now on this planet there were some chemicals found, accidentally.....ssssshhhh don't ask where they came from, remember we are talking faith."

I fail to see what this has to do with evolution.

0

gr 8 years ago

"There is a fossil record that is observable. Please don't bring in missing links"

Yep. I see a fossil. You see a fossil. What of it? If you look at the facts, it doesn't say anything. The problem is the "conclusions". All one can conclude is that animals that lived before have died and become fossilized by some process. Missing links is only an issue if you try to draw "conclusions". That's when the fantasies begin. Which fantasy should you believe? Your choice, but it's not science.

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

gr

As you said, the theory of evolution. What is your problem with the "theory of evolution"? There is a fossil record that is observable. Please don't bring in missing links--the world is large and we can't possibly have dug up all of the fossils in existence. Not to mention the fact that fossil development is a very complex process that didn't/couldn't have occurred with every dead creature. On the other hand, one can look at the extant fossile evidence and draw logical conclusions.

0

gr 8 years ago

Now I expect the name calling to start. This statement I found has a humorous view on the issue:

" When they begin to lose the debate, they start to insult and lowrate. They tell me I believe in a myth, a story, a fantasy.

Let me show you faith.

Once upon a time, thousands, no hundreds of thousan.....no not long enough, millions.......no still not enough time, Billions.....nononononono ZiLliOns......oh good grief....INFINITY.....there was nothing.

And this nothing accidentally exploded. BANG it was an accidental BIG BANG.

From this Big Bang came chaos.....as all explosions do ???

But accidentally, from this chaos came order. Though there is no proof that order has EVER come from chaos.

In this accidental order there developed a planet, accidentally. This planet accidentally found itself in just the right spot to sustain life. Not too close, not too far away from the sun.

Now on this planet there were some chemicals found, accidentally.....ssssshhhh don't ask where they came from, remember we are talking faith.

Now these accidental chemicals SOMEHOW got mixed together.......who knows how? But they did and then don't ask what the chances are that a powerful source comes along and ZAPS these defenseless chemicals....cause we are talking accidents and faith.

From this accidentally zapping of chemicals, we got life. Though Miller even admits that his experiment was a failure, it is still taught in high school science books as proof of evolution.

This accidentally single cell life was brainlessly minding it's own business in the middle of all these accidents and WHAM trips over on what would one day be it's face, because it had evolved a foot..............

And they say I believe in myths. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does for me to believe that In the Beginning, God created the heavens and earth.

Holland "

"It is the Same science, just DIFFERENT beliefs."

0

gr 8 years ago

wh - maybe you had this definition of science in mind:

"3. An activity that appears to require study and method"

or how about:

"5 Science Christian Science."

But, I choose:

"1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

  1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Noting it says "and" and not "or".

phenomena " 1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. 2. pl. phenome*nons 1. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel. 2. A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See Synonyms at wonder. 3. Philosophy. In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. 4. Physics. An observable event."

Assuming you aren't using "marvel" or philosophy for evolution, I'm picking up on "observable event".

Evolution "3. Biology. a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

  1. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"

As stated in those definitions, I don't see much to disagree with for the most part. However, is that what you, and others, really mean?

"theory of evolution
n : (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals"

There's the problem. Still not seeing that evolution as science. Maybe a hypothesis or a conjecture. And, "taking more classes" isn't going to change those definitions. Science is based upon observing, and repeating experiments.

You must admit, that evolution of life as meant, cannot be observed nor repeated. If evolution is subject to science, is it possible for evolution to be disproved? If so, what evidence would disprove it?

0

gr 8 years ago

wh - since you are saying different than what the article said, maybe you would like to define what science is, what evolution is, and how the two relate.

badger - attacks on science? what "attacks" other than on the evolutionary theory belief?

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

Yep, toleration is a word. I find myself agreeing with a bunch of people that I normally don't agree with. I am very tolerant of religion--I just don't want to see it taught as science.

0

badger 8 years ago

I'd love to be in Kansas for this.

Wonderhorse is right. The attacks on science go far beyond the recent attacks on the evolutionary theory of the origin of species.

Hey, xeno? I'm not really sure 'toleration' is a word. Perhaps it should be, though.

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

gr

No, ID vs science. "Evolution" is only a small part of it.

0

gr 8 years ago

wh - ID vs. "evolution"

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

I'm amazed that a real scientist would address ID vs. science. The two are not comparable. I'm glad he used the title "...the Emperor's New Clothes...."

0

xenophonschild 8 years ago

Not long after the state board's position came out, I got an email from a former college roomate, from West Virginia no less, asking if I could help find work for an acquaintance of his, a fundamentalist preacher who routinely handled snakes in his church, in the Kansas public school system. Yeah, I'm all for toleration, just the Catholic Church tolerated Angelo Bruno five hundred years ago.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years ago

I think you and xeno keep your tolerance in the same place, erichaar.

0

erichaar 8 years ago

Tisk, tisk, Xeno. Where's your tolerance?

0

xenophonschild 8 years ago

Go get'em, Krauss. Insist that the born-again idiots keep their pathetic religion out of our science.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.