Rick Santorum attacks "science dogma"

[Dcdrac]

just a conjecture here, the US is losing its lead in technology and science or it is arguable that it is, but that said could there be a correlation between the rise of militant religion and this decline?

 

[cwalner]

just a conjecture here, the US is losing its lead in technology and science or it is arguable that it is, but that said could there be a correlation between the rise of militant religion and this decline?

There is obviously a correlation as the two have coincided. However, as skeptics love to point out correlation <> causation.

It has definitely been postulated that the rise in religion has caused the decline in science, but AFAIK there has been no major study to prove/disprove this.

 

[keale]

just a conjecture here, the US is losing its lead in technology and science or it is arguable that it is, but that said could there be a correlation between the rise of militant religion and this decline?

There was a show on NPR that talking about the shortage of US born students seeking upper level degrees in the sciences. I believe they said that the majority of the students at major universities were foreign nationals.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, at least he didn't take his dogma on a trip, strapped to the top of his car.

You win the thread.

 

[RandFan]

...and that's why things remain at a stalemate. Ever hear the axiom that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? You can't call the majority of Americans idiots but expect them to change their minds about their most foundational beliefs to match your way of thinking.

I don't think we are at a stalemate. I think we are seeing a backlash that is the religious storm before the calm.

 

[RandFan]

Santorum's dogma.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have no problem with science teachers teaching the scientific evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the evidence, though?

Much like Global Warming, the evidence is flimsy and patchy at best, but that's not what they want. They want the non scientific evidence taught.

 

[marplots]

I have no problem with science teachers teaching the scientific evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the evidence, though?

That's going to be a problem for the religious. Once we get religion into a science class, religion is going to take a drubbing.

However, for equality's sake, I'd like to see a bit more science taught in Sunday school.

 

[Puppycow]

...and that's why things remain at a stalemate. Ever hear the axiom that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? You can't call the majority of Americans idiots but expect them to change their minds about their most foundational beliefs to match your way of thinking.

People like Santorum have always viciously attacked the theory of evolution no matter how politely you put it. At the end of the day, if evolution is correct, then creationism, i.e., their religion, cannot be correct.

 

[SezMe]

Comfort no(w) concedes that it proves no such thing and that he was being absurd.

Is my edit correct? If so, I was not aware of that. Got milk a link?

 

[shadron]

Ray Comfort apologized for his banana video; apparently he was remorseful for the 1 million distributed copies of teh argument passed out as leaflets to other followers after it was pointed out that the banana only existed in the way it was because of recent hybridization and artificial evolution. His apology is here, but if you follow it you'll immediately notice a problem with it. http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/04/apology-for-banana-illustration.html

This is a video from Comfort's Living Waters ministry that refers to the apology, such as it is.

 

[RandFan]

Is my edit correct? If so, I was not aware of that. Got milk a link?

Your edit is correct.

http://truth-saves.com/ray-comforts-evolving-banana-lie/

source

In a video titled "Ray Comfort apologizes for banana illustration" from "Living Waters" Ray attempts to divert people away from his now publicly exposed false banana claims by saying, "My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified by hybridization, however, the truth remains that God gave man the knowledge and ability to modify it, so that it perfectly fit into his hand. He did the same with big dogs so that they could fit into our car and with wild cats, so that they are perfectly fit for the wife."

The article does a nice job of showing the nonsense of his "apology".

 

[OCaptain]

People like Santorum have always viciously attacked the theory of evolution no matter how politely you put it. At the end of the day, if evolution is correct, then creationism, i.e., their religion, cannot be correct.

Well, can you blame them? You still put "theory" in its name, yet you treat it like it's an immutable law (like the conservation of matter). Why IS that "theory" still in there, by the way?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, can you blame them? You still put "theory" in its name, yet you treat it like it's an immutable law (like the conservation of matter). Why IS that "theory" still in there, by the way?

laws and theories are basically the same thing

my understanding is that its mainly a matter of what it was called when it was published. in the 17th and 18th century it was customary to call them "laws" like the law of conservation of mass, or newtons law of universal gravitation

by the late 19th century it was more customary to call them "theories"

 

[RandFan]

Well, can you blame them? You still put "theory" in its name, yet you treat it like it's an immutable law (like the conservation of matter). Why IS that "theory" still in there, by the way?

You mean like why is "theory" still in "theory of gravity"? Germ Theory?

The classical definition of theory isn't "guess" or "speculation" or "hypothesis".

Scientific theory.

 

[RandFan]

laws and theories are basically the same thing

my understanding is that its mainly a matter of what it was called when it was published. in the 17th and 18th century it was customary to call them "laws" like the law of conservation of mass, or newtons law of universal gravitation

by the late 19th century it was more customary to call them "theories"

A law is a proposition, hence there is not a "law" of thermodynamics. There is a thermodynamic theory that is comprised of multiple laws.

 

[OCaptain]

laws and theories are basically the same thing

my understanding is that its mainly a matter of what it was called when it was published. in the 17th and 18th century it was customary to call them "laws" like the law of conservation of mass, or newtons law of universal gravitation

by the late 19th century it was more customary to call them "theories"

While it may be the same to those on the inside, those on the outside see those words as having distinct, and mutually exclusive meanings.

Might it help close the misunderstanding gap if theories-by-name-only were to have their names changed to laws to eliminate the confusion? I mean, if they mean essentially the same to those working in the fields, you lose nothing, but gain much in the eyes of the remaining 98% of the world.

Just a thought.

 

[RandFan]

Might it help close the misunderstanding gap if theories-by-name-only were to have their names changed to laws to eliminate the confusion?

Laws and theories are very different things. A law is a single proposition. A theory is a comprehensive explanation composed of laws, precepts, facts, etc.

Changing names would require educating everyone as to what those words mean and even that would not guarantee the words would be used.

There is a simple answer, educate people.

 

[OCaptain]

Laws and theories are very different things. A law is a single proposition. A theory is a comprehensive explanation composed of laws, precepts, facts, etc.

Changing names would require educating everyone as to what those words mean and even that would not guarantee the words would be used.

There is a simple answer, educate people.

ok, so who's volunteering to do the education?

 

[RandFan]

ok, so who's volunteering to do the education?

JREF, NCSE, Richard Dawkins Foundation, etc.. And I think we are making progress. It's slow at the moment but that is the way things go. It took time to change perceptions about women and minorities. It will take time for this also.