EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Education Meets Evolution (Again)
"Darwin’s theory, like all other attempts to explain the origin of life, is thus far merely conjectural."
— Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz, Evolution and Permanence of Type (1874)
It’s time for an update on the progress of evolution. Oklahoma and Tennessee are in a closely matched race to put a new law addressing this contentious issue on the books but who will win cannot be known at this time. Missouri is in third place. New Hampshire? and Indiana hoped to be part of the race but their efforts were sidetracked so they’re out of the running for 2012.
Mugs depicting the evolution of man are pictured at British naturalist Charles Darwin's home, Down House, in Bromley, Kent. While the rest of the world feted the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth Thursday, US scientists were forced to defend the theory of evolution from a skeptical public and a concerted attack campaign. (AFP photo)
Oklahoma and Tennessee’s legislators’ most recent attacks on evolution started in each state’s legislative session in 2011 and were carried forward into this year’s sessions. House Bill 1551 that has passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives and is now before the Oklahoma Senate’s Education Committee has the catchy name of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act. (Bills that want creationism taught often include the word “Scientific” in their titles to give added luster to their efforts.) Its sponsors are opposed letting teachers teach science exclusively as it is commonly accepted by those knowledgeable in the field. The Bill says its purpose is to “create an environment within public . . . schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions. . . and respond appropriately to differences of opinion about controversial issues. . . . Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.” One of the scientific theories proponents of the Bill think should be thought is “creationism.”
“Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education” commented on the proposed legislation saying: “Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy [about evolution] is just plain dishonest. . . .” With respect to the bill’s reference to the “weaknesses” of evolution the scientific group describes them as “phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don’t like evolution.” Their comments were seconded by Douglas Mock, a Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma who said: “Wrapped in the deceptive language of promoting critical thinking, they aim to get the nose of a malodorous camel (pseudoscience) inside the tent of science. . . . The low scientific literacy of our citizens is a serious concern that’s not helped by adding fake controversies.” Although it cannot be said with certainty that the bill will get through the senate and be signed by the governor, the odds would seem to be in its favor. The Oklahoma legislature was one of the first states in the country to refer to voters for approval a resolution known as “Save Our State.” It was passed by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters and it forbids Oklahoma courts “from considering or using Sharia law.” (A temporary injunction was issued against its enforcement within a few days of its approval by voters and on January 11, 2012 the injunction was made permanent by the United States Court of Appeals in Denver.) If Oklahomans can take a stand against Sharia that had never been used in its courts, it seems like a good bet its Senate and governor will have no trouble taking a stand against evolution that its action suggest has little effect in Oklahoma.
On March 19th, four days after the Oklahoma House approved HB 1551 and sent it off to the Oklahoma Senate, the Tennessee Senate passed Senate Bill 893 that is with one minor exception, a virtual carbon copy of the Oklahoma statute. The Tennessee legislation was attacked by the Tennessee Science Teachers Association as being “unnecessary, anti-scientific , and very likely unconstitutional.” Having passed the Tennessee House it is now before the Republican controlled Senate where its approval seems assured. Tennessee’s governor has not indicated whether or not he will sign the bill. He told The Tennessean that he intended to discuss the legislation with the Tennessee Board of Education before deciding whether or not to sign the Bill. As he explained to the newspaper: “That’s why we have a state board of education.” There are no reports on whether the Oklahoma governor feels the need to consult with any professional or can rely on the proven good sense of the legislators.
Missouri is the other state that is currently contemplating enhancement of its curriculum by introducing alternative theories about how it all happened. Rick Brattin, a new member of the Missouri House has introduced House Bill 1227. The Bill would require “intelligent design” to be taught in the schools. Explaining the reason for this legislation, Mr. Brattin told the Kansas City Star that “ the jury is sill out on evolution.” (He did not say to which jury he was referring.) He expressed dissatisfaction that “our schools only teach that we emerged from primordial ooze. I think students should get both sides of the issue and get to come to their own conclusions.” The Bill has been referred to the committee on Elementary and Secondary Education.
Given the history of these kinds of bills and the climate of the states in which they’re being considered, it is not unlikely that all three bills will become law. When they emerge they will be covered with some kind of ooze. Probably not primordial, since everyone knows there’s no such thing.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
97 Comments so far
Show AllScience is a high bar which few seem willing to attempt.
After a brief flowering, science appears to be giving way to the lowest common denominator - superstition, sometimes called religion.
Manysummits
======
Science has become the Medusa, originally a beautiful, popular young woman praised by all, who then lay with Poseidon (a devil image) in the very Temple of Wisdom in which she was supposed to be a priestess. In response, Wisdom herself (Athena) gave her snakes for hair, turned her into a monster that turned people to stone, and eventually had her beheaded by Perseus.
And that really does describe what has happened to much of modern science, now the handmaiden of the neoliberals that destroy the Earth ...
RVingRetiree
Science has not become anything more than is always was - a search for truth in the natural world.
That scientists may become, advertently or inadvertently, agents of destruction, is to say little, for are not all humans subject to this in all walks of life?
=========
"Science has not become anything more than is always was - a search for truth in the natural world."
That's the PR campaign, but not the reality any longer. You imply the human corruption can be separated from the "science". That's not realistic in practice, particularly when an institution has become as large and highly funded as modern science. It becomes more defined by the corruption than by its ideals. I wish that weren't true, but it is ...
RVingRetiree
Again, I think you confuse science and the practice of institutions, run by fallible humans.
Science is the search for new knowledge - that is what it is. You can of course make up any definition for science you please, but what have you accomplished by this tactic?
You can call a horse a dog, but it remains a horse.
=========
And you can idealize "science", but that doesn't mean you'll find that ideal realized in practice. You've abstracted "science" into an ideal realm that we don't inhabit, unfortunately. In the context of the myth, you still seek the beautiful, popular, young Medusa. If you personally wish to try to uphold that ideal and practice high standards, or encourage others to do so, that's admirable, but don't attribute those standards to much of the real world institution, or its output ...
No different then religion then. The exploration of the Spiritual is also headed by fallible Human beings so why are you so willing to dismiss it as superstition?
GwNorth
I would have thought the answer self-evident - obviously another human being (me), has shown himself to be fallible.
Science is based on empirical evidence, subject always to being dis proven by better empirical evidence. Individual scientists, being human, may at times fall into the trap of being or seeming to be dogmatic, but dogma has no place in the practice of science.
Spiritual personal belief, and especially institutional religion, is not based on empirical evidence as defined by science, and is frequently dogmatic by decree - quite the opposite of science.
==========
A meaningless distinction. Science can not define the Spiritual because science flawed in that regard yet you want the Spiritual to follow the rules of Science.
The rules of Science by defintion define the PHYSICAL world so how on earth must the Spiritual follow its rules? It absurd.
To suggest Dogma has no place or role in Science is another fallacy. Dogma is as prevalent in Science as it is in Religion.I can as easily state DOGMA has no place in the Spiritual and would be equally correct. DOGMA comes from Humans not from the Spiritual.
The Spiritual is not merely a "personal belief" It exists outside the person.
Thank you, GW North. I tire of the authoritarians who spit on any doctrine or approach they don't personally understand or endorse. And they are CLUELESS as to their own rigidity. For my calling up the patriarchal roots of these belief systems, Michael D. inverted that honest (albeit feminist) line of questioning into the tired right wing ruse of "hating men." I lost respect for his posts after that.
GW: "The spiritual is not merely a "personal belief" it exists outside the person." "Belief" requires no proof of existence in or outside of a person. Belief is a psychological condition whose content contains no verifiable truth outside that condition.
Scientific inquiry attempts to substitute belief with knowledge. Institutional religion, nationalism and capitalism are examples of the destructive nature of reinforced belief structures. A scientist is not encouraged or forced to "believe" anything. What would be the point?
Not the point I was making. I never stated that Science was a belief. Where did I state that?
"The Spiritual is not merely a "personal belief" It exists outside the person."
Sez you.
Yes sez me.
So whats YOUR problem? You are free to disagree and it makes no difference in the world. NONE.
"No different then religion then. The exploration of the Spiritual is also headed by fallible Human beings so why are you so willing to dismiss it as superstition?
"
Because those who explore religion rarely admit that they are fallible and wrong.
That there are several hundred if not thousands of religions and Churches and faiths of different kinds suggests to me a large degree of "fallibility".
"That there are several hundred if not thousands of religions and Churches and faiths of different kinds suggests to me a large degree of "fallibility".
"
How often have you heard leaders, or committed adherents of the many religions admit that fallibility?
ShadowDancer
You are conventionally religious, believing in prophecy and the Creator. In this you have much company, even amongst the turtles who arrived on the scene many centuries ago.
The common idea is to say that this or that person, this or that group, "worships" this or that idea, or this or that god, or this or that idol or symbol.
But the idea that the human being should not "worship" at all is not in the vocabularly of the conventionally religious, is it?
I do not worship God, nor gods, nor science, nor logic, nor intuition - nor do I believe in divine or human prophecy.
Many of the people whom you refer to as 'the tribes' also think as I do, and not as you do - is this not also true?
What real difference is there between you and I - other than your beliefs and my uncertainties.
How sure are you that you are right and I am wrong?
I was opposed to the insanity of nuclear anything from the summer I researched the peaceful atom in the year 1978, and this was entirely based on my personal grasp of science and of human nature.
I would like to see us grapling in earnest with a mission to the Moon and to Mars and to the Kuiper belt - rather than studying superstitious prophecies of the Hopi or the 'revelatory' religions known to us as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to name but a few.
What are you personally for, ShadowDancer - where would you like to see us head - if not into the past?
=======
Regarding this quote:
"I would like to see us grapling in earnest with a mission to the Moon and to Mars and to the Kuiper belt - rather than studying superstitious prophecies of the Hopi or the 'revelatory' religions known to us as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to name but a few."
You create your own either-or axis. Either one is a MAN of science, or else an advocate of all things patriarchal (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). These institutionalized religions you lump together with all OTHER spiritual approaches. What gives YOU the authority to cast all mystical conjecture aside as if the ONLY basis for defining things as thus and so belongs to white men? Please.
Science AND patriarchal religion are BOTH authoritarian bastians designed by male elites. True, the scientist questions his model; yet results are often conditioned by the consciousness (or limited perspective) that the scientist brings to his experimental model(s). Science, to its credit, is far more apt to correct itself when it confronts new data and evidence. In that, it trumps religious orthodoxy which remains COMPLETELY stuck in the past, therefore causing the SPIRITUAL RETARDATION of millions of persons.
Ironically, while you set them up as contrasts, both systems (science AND patriarchal religions) both agree on one thing: throwing out the EVIDENCE of those experiences (and models) that lie outside of their own established parameters. Thus Hopi prophecy, the revelations of a truly gifted psychic, the Mayan prophecy, added to the visions of Hindu seers... all are tossed off when they should not be! (And just as these threads are FULL of climate change deniers and nuclear power shills, there are some here to specifically oppose ANY discussions of prophecy in this tell-tale year: 2012. I am pretty sure that's why I have experienced routine campaigns of character assassination.)
The OPEN mind should hold no prejudices. It should be willing to study things before casually dismissing them. Having seen PLENTY of evidence of the veracity of my field, needless to say, when castigations are thrown my way by those who have never studied the subject, I feel contempt. The contempt is based on the state of our world, MY world, too... since much that's been done unto Gaia has been done in the name of either patriarchal science (genetic engineering that renders seeds sterile and artificially induces a more rapid rate of adaptation in dangerous weeds, plus weapons' designs, killer rays, etc.) or patriarchal religion with holy wars staining time all down the centuries.
YOU'D THINK WITH THESE RESULTS, THE BASTARDS WOULD TURN THE STEERING WHEEL OVER TO OTHERS! Their claims to being right are shams!
How dare anyone demand that all thought conform to the very areas that have led US to the abyss... ecologically, economically, politically, socially, and SPIRITUALLY.
When Humanity finishes the birth of the next epoch--that of Aquarius, rebels, iconoclasts, inventors, innovators, and those who espouse formerly unpopular Truths will be held in HIGH esteem... and the liars, obfuscators, defenders of a status quo built on dangerous illusions will see THEIR world crumble.
Watch for falling debris.
Sorry, Siouxrose, but the "fact" that science was largely developed by white men and can be used for devastating purposes does not make it any less truthful. It is still, and always will be, the closest means humanity has to determining the truth about how the cosmos functions. Religion, from white-male Christianity to the new-age-gender-friendly stuff you embrace, is still absolute nonsense, no doubt of emotional significance to its believers (which is a reflection of its fabricated, imaginary nature) but useless as a measurement of truth. I agree with much of what you post here in CD, but science is the only way out of the abyss, even if much of the technology developed by science may lead into it.
JOSH: In spite of the insulting, condescending tone of your post, I'll answer it. There are some things science can do well, in the manner of replicating results. Where science is short-sighted is in that it proceeds from some very specific assumptions. Every once in a while a genius comes along who upsets the former rigid orthodoxy with a discovery that's truly worth having. And I will certainly give science credit for that. Many speak of the wonders of modern medicine. Now whether it's a totally good thing, that a psychopath like Dick Cheney can acquire another heart is up for grabs. Science has given the world genetic engineering which, New Age or otherwise, I see that as a Great Evil. And science split the atom in the "gift" that keeps on giving. For every plus science has delivered, it's also delivered a curse. This is largely because science has been put in service to Mars rules, the male-dominant society and its pattern of war. Long ago the balance which would have governed our sphere far more wisely was lost when WOMEN were removed from all seats of power, and equal sources of spiritual authority. I REFUSE to let the dominant males in this forum continue in that legacy. They pretend it never happened, that what I speak of--although documented in MANY significant books--never took place; or they'll act like it doesn't matter. BULL SHIT!
And another thing regarding the way you rigid authoritarians use the canard "New Age" in a fashion meant to rob it of any spiritual integrity, I have news for you... Astrology is anything but new age. It goes back MANY centuries as do many of the spiritual insights presented under the banner of "New Age."
Science works best with the tangible world and measurements therein. Quantum physics is tossing aside plenty of heretofore presumably solid theories about how our world works. Particles do things they are "not supposed" to do.
I stand on what I posted... and that is, it is largely white male elites who PRESUME to speak for all. From their male-headed churches to the male bastions of academe, as is the case in any hierarchical structure--like U.S. corps, MIC & government (all increasingly related), the only women who make it to the top are those who gain approval due to their loyalty to the PRE-EXISTING agendas and status quo. That freezes off change and innovation in the way of anything that would challenge the established orthodoxies.
Those of Indigenous backgrounds, herbal healers, medicine men and women, mystics, and visionaries are NOT confined in what they see, do, or know by the parameters drawn up by earthbound souls. This is what I mean about the arrogance that pretends to speak for all... and just as the 2 established political parties insult and degrade any who seek to step away to establish other more creative alternatives, those of us who don't grant our fealty either to science OR patriarchal, institutionalized religion... and search for new approaches to the great mysteries that are a legacy to us all, are treated (as these threads so OFTEN show) with similar hostility.
The new tactic is to accuse those who are under attack, of being guilty of the methods of their attackers. Like the new guy "Kanary" suggesting that anyone who questions the fundamentalist Christian worldview is guilty of the same sort of prejudice as is seen on the Right. As if those RESISTING the Christian Theocracy cannibalizing their precious liberties are equivalent to those acting covertly to STEAL these under the cover of law. A sinister merger between church and state is going on... slowly. From the burned/banned books in Arizona to the campaign to restrict women's access to birth control. This shit is TERRIFYING. Tolerance of "other" when OTHER wants to wipe you out is not a sane strategy... but it happens to be very useful to those who want carte blanche in establishing THEIR right wing agendas.
It is THAT mindset that claims witness to all that is, and pretends to speak for all. I will not go along... and I could CARE LESS if you agree or otherwise with ANYTHING that I post. I do not NEED your validation. VERY FEW people on C.D. are as well-read on the subjects I speak about as I am. And contrary to the right wing demogogues, all opinions are NOT equal.
We're in agreement on many things. For one, I agree that the prehistoric/mythic record strongly suggests that a patriarchy replaced a matriarchy long ago. Whether that matriarchy was a relative golden age is in dispute, however. I don't think women are naturally gentler, wiser, or more sensitive than men. Less warlike? Probably. But I've noticed a tendency for women to be crueler than men, more vindictive. You may argue that this is a result of women playing the game in a system rigged by men, and you may be largely right, but I don't think the evidence supports the notion that men and women are wholly conditioned cultural creations; rather, we are not tabula rasas, and biological/hormonal differences play a role.
You see genetic engineering as a Great Evil. I see the exploitation of this science by the current moral mindset as the Great Evil, not the tech itself. Splitting the atom seems more troublesome to me, because its applications are all too dangerous and damaging in the long term when practiced on our human scale. But the knowledge of nuclear fission/fusion? Indispensible to our understanding of the cosmos.
You say, "Those of Indigenous backgrounds, herbal healers, medicine men and women, mystics, and visionaries are NOT confined in what they see, do, or know by the parameters drawn up by earthbound souls." Their imaginations are not confined by official spiritual parameters as set by organized religion and political circumstance; absolutely true. More power to them--to us, that is (I have my own mystic/visionary proclivities, as filtered through my philosophy and my fiction). But you sound as though these non-"earthbound souls" are therefore not restricted by the physical limits of nature. If you don't mean that, then I am sorry I misread you. But if you include in the "arrogance that pretends to speak for all" things like gravity, astrophysics, electromagnetism, biology, and evolution, then I think you are wrong. We human beings are capable of imagining anything, and we are capable of ruling out of bounds those imaginable things that threaten our sense of order and importance. But we are all "earthbound" in the strict sense of being physical beings (or non-physical, if you prefer, as regarded on the quantum level--and isn't that interesting?) and mental beings. We are not spiritual beings--spirit is just an imaginary conceit, IMO.
As for astrology, I know that is not "new age" but rather quite ancient (although faddish in our own time). I also know that it is a human creation, an imposition of meaning upon chaos. You don't need my validation, no, but no matter how well read you may be on the subject, please don't pretend that it is a science rather than a complex mythology--it's made up, not discovered and tested and falsified. I am well read on astronomy--on the reality of the cosmos--and I know the difference. As you say, "all opinions are NOT equal." How true: some are backed by evidence.
We certainly agree that the opinions (and projection of belief into law) of fundamentalist Christians are the real enemy here, the attacks on contraception and banned books that you mention being good examples. You bet that shit is terrifying. Call it intolerance of tolerance--the attitude that my opinion must rule over all else. I suppose where you and I disagree is that you seem to see science as an opinion on the same (though not equal) level as religious belief. You know what I think of religious belief, from yours to the Christians; where you and I are one is that we do not impose upon others (speaking our opinion is not the same as imposition). So we are on the same side after all, in spite of our differences.
Which leads me to wonder: when you say "I could CARE LESS if you agree or otherwise with ANYTHING that I post" do you mean by this hostility that you are only shouting into a void? When I blog/comment, I want to be heard, and I do care whether others agree or disagree with me. That's what makes for discourse. You make a statement, and thereby invite others to answer you. But if you don't care about that, why write at all? If you really want to be a lonely soloist, a team of one, why bother to have a voice?
Speaking in purely physical terms and assuming the position that this purely a mechanistic Universe and that we all came about due to some chemical reaction and little more and accepting the premise advanced by Science that even our thoughts are not but Chemical reactions that evolved out of primeval matter, your opinion is immaterial is it not?
In such a universe there can be no right and no wrong, no such thing as morality, no good behaviour and no bad and the Atheist is really no different then the right wing fundamentalist, the progressive no different then the Conservative. There is in fact no truth and no lie. They are all mechanistic functions following the immutable laws of physics and of science.
If it all just comes from the same STUFF then why even critique War.? Why see what is just? War and peace come from the same thing do they not and merely reflect that same material universe. As does justice and injustice, cruelty and kindness, hate and love. Why the concern that in this mechanistic universe some believe in a creator? Is this just not a function of that same Universe that sees one group of a species drop Nuclear weapons on another?
We all die and we will all be extinguished so in the scheme of this great clockwork Universe that follow to the letter the laws of Physics and of matter who are you or anyone to critique ANYTHING that happens in it?
If the spiritual only a conceit of mans and that your OPINION then it an opinion that in truth has absolutely no value as does every thought opinion and belief that enters your mind (or anyone elses) due to those chemical reactions that arose from the big bang.
"Speaking in purely physical terms and assuming the position that this purely a mechanistic Universe and that we all came about due to some chemical reaction and little more and accepting the premise advanced by Science that even our thoughts are not but Chemical reactions that evolved out of primeval matter, your opinion is immaterial is it not?
In such a universe there can be no right and no wrong, no such thing as morality, no good behaviour and no bad and the Atheist is really no different then the right wing fundamentalist, the progressive no different then the Conservative. There is in fact no truth and no lie. They are all mechanistic functions following the immutable laws of physics and of science."
*yawn* Did you just steal this argument from some Religion for Dummies text? The argument that religious belief is necessary for morality, was argued, and shown to false and wrong, thousands of years ago. Your arguments read like those of a HS freshman writing an essay on religion 30 minutes before it is due.
"We all die and we will all be extinguished so in the scheme of this great clockwork Universe that follow to the letter the laws of Physics and of matter who are you or anyone to critique ANYTHING that happens in it?"
Uhh, just because we all die, and will be extinguish, does not mean that we cannot criticise what happens, since you know, before we die, we LIVE.
"If the spiritual only a conceit of mans and that your OPINION then it an opinion that in truth has absolutely no value as does every thought opinion and belief that enters your mind (or anyone elses) due to those chemical reactions that arose from the big bang."
Wrong. The value of the opinion is that those opinions affect us while we live. There is no need for some "afterlife", no matter how desperately humans might wish not to be extinguished, for opinions and life, while we live to have value.
In fact, it is the opposite. BECAUSE there is no "afterlife", is PRECISELY why life, why justice injustice, love, cruelty, kindness, is VERY VALUABLE (to humans). They are to be value, to be critiqued, to be cherished, PRECISELY because there is no creator, no afterlife. THAT IS why they are valuable.
>>In fact, it is the opposite. BECAUSE there is no "afterlife", is PRECISELY why life, why justice injustice, love, cruelty, kindness, is VERY VALUABLE (to humans). They are to be value, to be critiqued, to be cherished, PRECISELY because there is no creator, no afterlife. THAT IS why they are valuable.
Thats just your OPINION, You have no scientific proof of it. You rely on faith alone.
Yawn
If you believe an afterlife exists then you have an obligation to prove it if you want anyone who doesn't already believe in it to take the assertion seriously.
"Thats just your OPINION, You have no scientific proof of it. You rely on faith alone."
Err yes. That is my opinion. Just like you know, your rantings here on religion are opinion. That is PRECISELY the point. ALL religion is opinion. To you, life, love, hate, kindness, cruelty, matters, only if there is a creator, an "afterlife". To me, life, love, hate, kindness, cruelty, matters PRECISELY because there is no creator, no "afterlife". Your opinion matter to your life. My opinion matters to mine. You see the problems with your religious arguments? Personal opinions, relevant to your personal life.
Why do these people hate evolution? Maybe they could get together with those who are flat earthers. That ought to be a real hoot.
Speaking for those who really deep down believe all out in evolution, I have to say no human being regardless of atheist or theist can be without morality. Please! Do read about the late and great Jean Paul Sartre, a one time leader of the French resistance. We are part of something bigger than ourselves no matter people choose to put it in their own words. The old people only pursue their self interests/"There is no such thing as socieity" mind set has already done enough harm to the human race. Let's not make it any worse with all this sophistry about "morality not existing." That gets to be so tiresome and even a bit cliche as well a bit plattitudinous to get right to the point.
As Socrates once said of the sophists "They claim to know everything about everything, but really know nothing about anything." "The mechanistic" Now do tell us all as we wait with baited breath how many galaxies and solar systems are in this universe? We won't bother to inquire as to the names of all the planets, solar systems, and galaxies, but "knowing it all" means as Confucius might add "knowing it all." "To know what you know and to know what you don't know is true knowledge"-- same philosopher!
>>Science works best with the tangible world and measurements therein. Quantum physics is tossing aside plenty of heretofore presumably solid theories about how our world works. Particles do things they are "not supposed" to do.
There are a number of clear examples of this exisiting in fields.
Scientists have detected an anomlay in 7 of the probes sent into space. the speed of the probes seem to vary for no known reasons. The laws of gravity and netwonian mechanics do not account for this fluctuation in speed. The best they can surmise is that the flow of time fluctuates in various regions of space dependent upon the existence of planetary bodies. This rate of time flow can surge up and down.
A Drug compnay in Sweden discovered that when granules of Copper suspended in a saline solution they fluctuated based upon the position of Venus in the skies. The other planets did not seem to have any effect on the solution they could see. Interestingly the ancients related Copper to venus.
It long known that the position of the planets in the skies affects radio waves,
Scientists studying the fossil record found that there was an explosion in new animal/plant species every 26 million years. This is not a minor spike but a dramatic one and they found it occurs without failure going back 540 million years. . Furthermore they found another series of spikes that happen every 64 million years. The one sees a dramatic in species every 26 million and the other sees a dramatic evolutionary upgrade in said species (such as development of eyes...etc).
The SCIENTISTS themselves suggest this as to do with the Earths Movement through the milky way and the galactic arm in which the Earth resides. Others have claimed this suggest the earth has a Companian star which causes these spikes.
Scientists have also graphed out the physical , chemical and biological reactions og given objects over a period of time the reaction of them or "fingerprint" is different dependent on their location in space time AND THAT these reactions repeat in cycles as they occupy the same position in space time. See the Cycles research Institute for more on this and the work of Professor Schnoll.
Now IF human beahviour is little more then a Chemical reaction and GIVEN it has been demonstrated chemical reactions can be affected by the location of planetary bodies , it absurd for anyone with an OPEN mind to dismiss Astrology out of hand.
If the movement of the moon through the skies can see clams inside a sealed container change their behaviour as the moon passes overhead then one can NOT make the claim there no way planetary bodies can change behaviour.
"Now IF human beahviour is little more then a Chemical reaction and GIVEN it has been demonstrated chemical reactions can be affected by the location of planetary bodies , it absurd for anyone with an OPEN mind to dismiss Astrology out of hand."
No, really it isn't.
Your post here displays the classic problem of those who rant about science. Do scientists know everything (about the material world)? Of course not. That doesn't mean that one should keep an "open" mind about astrology. There is absolutely no evidence to show that "astrology" is anymore true than say, "Chinese astrology", or any other form of "astrology" from any particular culture. THAT is one of the biggest problems of "astrology", similar to religion. What says Christianity is anymore true than Hinduism or Buddhism? What says that "astrology" is anymore true than "Chinese astrology"?
What you have done here is nothing more than throwing shit at the wall. Looking desperately for some pattern in shit / tea leaves / entrails.
"If the movement of the moon through the skies can see clams inside a sealed container change their behaviour as the moon passes overhead then one can NOT make the claim there no way planetary bodies can change behaviour."
The problem isn't so much whether astronomical bodies, such as the moon, can change behaviour per se. Even if astronomical bodies can change behaviour, where is the evidence that astronomical bodies change behaviour the way "astrology" claims? None. "Astrology" is the imposition of human hopes, human beliefs, human fears, and not even universal human hopes, beliefs, fears, but particular cultural views onto the stars. It is a desperate human need to look for patterns everywhere in the hopes that those patterns have relevance to short insignificant human lives.
I
"Now whether it's a totally good thing, that a psychopath like Dick Cheney can acquire another heart is up for grabs. "
So, tell me: the next time you get sick, will you back up your mouth with your actions? Don't use medicine.
"VERY FEW people on C.D. are as well-read on the subjects I speak about as I am."
Sure. Go on read up on feminism then. Because you are not well read. AT ALL. You're decades stuck in the past.
Sioux. "Religious orthodoxy that remains completely stuck in the past" Of course, that does not include Hopi, Mayan and Hindu prophecies, which are rooted in ancient, undeniable truths. Alas.
Shadow:
I would prefer to explore than destroy - and who knows what we will find on other worlds?
Natural resources for sure - no different in essence from finding a new valley full of wildlife and edible plants.
Insane people are indeed destroying the world = but not all people are insane.
=======
Shadow - I agree with much of your post.
Mistakes have been and are being made, and destruction is one result, but not the only result.
Our common ancestors found out how to use and set fires long before the Hopi were even a dream of a dream - and in one sense that was destructive. But fire tolerant plants thrived - for them we were a godsend. Much depends on your point of view.
Your ancestors walked or paddled or sailed into North America and extinguished most of the megafauna - but the buffalo and antelope and magpie thrived - again - much depends on your point of view.
Before you "advise" me of anything at all - be assured I consider advice and criticism different forms of arrogant criticism - from an adolescent personality.
===============
"Before you "advise" me of anything at all - be assured I consider advice and criticism different forms of arrogant criticism - from an adolescent personality."
Michael,
Could you explain the above quote? Exactly who is the adolescent personality you are referring to? ShadowDancer?
Thomas Gilbert-
Sincr you think that you're thinking so much, think about this: stop using all the things that science has brought. Yes that includes no longer posting on cd.
1. My ancestors did not come from Europe.
2. Strictly speaking, ALL of our ancestors, mine, and yes yours too, came from AFRICA.
3. Are you going to back up your talk with actions? Stop using the discoveries and applications of science. Stop posting on CD. No? Hypocrite.
Shadow, for many years I was a lover of science, still do love to learn about new discoveries. In college, I believed, like many science would find a solution to man's many problems. What I did not understand is the insane nature of those who had the means to apply it, nor the atheistic worship of its method. They believe that there is no creator, so I guess they believe they created themselves. Too much intellectualism leads to imbalance and madness. The intellect is not the king of the universe, awareness is, and only awareness and presence can bring balance. Science and thought is only a tool, and without a heart it must lead to destruction, both of the self, and this beautiful mother earth that gave rise to it. I love your posts and perspective.
I'm afraid the motive of what is called 'science' is a big fat paycheck, ShadowDancer. The engineering that follows discoveries--with perhaps a few exceptions--is to bring more misery to all the creatures of this earth. The more you step out of the madness, the more you realize it is madness, and have less to talk about with others. Many are disturbed by the world they participate in and help create--they believe that by applying insane solutions within an insane system you can bring sanity. When accepting applications at the door there is a sign: "Insight and 'truth' not wanted!"
Ha, ha, Shadow! And then he told Pat to commit himself.
I'm afraid the motive of much of life is a big fat paycheck, ie material motivations. So, saying that the motivation of science is a big fat paycheck, is like saying that water is wet. VERY insightful.
Why don't yourself where your mouth is? Don't use the discoveries and applications of EVIL SCIENCE.
Shadow: Thank you for your poetry, humor, and capacity to weave complex observations and insights together. Poor Michael Desaultes thinks by silencing prophecy, all the bad news will just disappear. Maybe he'll get discovered by one of the agents of the new Happiness Studies teams... those prepared to make the world's problems about individual ATTITUDES rather than WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON. Just another paste-up job... presented as basis for solid academic credentials.
I am a scientist. I am also Dianic Wicca, with great respect for the work of Marija Gimbutas.
Science is not a philosophy, or an orginization or a belief system. It is a process developed by the grandmothers to make it possible for them to find sustinance for their children and grandchildren in a material world. Observe. Think. Test. Re-do.
That's it. But it made possible agriculture, dyes, medicines, and even ways to make poisoned plants into safe food. To diss science is to diss the ability of the ancestors to wake up in new territory and be able to feed and clothe themselves.
The great contribution of the 'scientists' of the seventeenth to nineteenth century was not that they discovered the scientific method. They didn't, any more than Columbus discovered America. What they did was, finally, at great risk, overcome a culture that went berserk in the presence of grandmother practicality. Galileo's crime was not that he developed mechanics. It was that he went against dogma by drawing the moon...which dogma said was perfect...with it's imperfect craters.
ShadowDancer,
I was hoping you would show up. Thank you...
Thomas Gilbert-
You people who insist on defaming all who have spiritual beliefs just slay me.
You are NO different from the fundies who target Islam with their fundie bigotry.
Not one iota different.
But, carry on, and in your fundie atheist way, call me names now. SOP.
Kanary
There is a differnece between spiritual belief and religion.
Spiritual belief is personal - the why is not answered by either religions or science - for the first pretends to know, which is dogma, and the second acknowledges the limits to our understanding, which is why science seeks always to further knowledge.
I am neither an atheist nor religious - I hope there is some inscrutable reason for this universe or mutiverse, but this is not the same as dogmatic belief in the patently untrue.
===========
Actually, you are quite wrong in your first sentence. Many (if not most or all) spiritual beliefs are quite communal.... that is how the human species has always lived.
Just for one example....indigenous people of the Americas have personal spiritual practices, yes. But to make the ridiculous claim that they have NO communal, no group practices is absurd. Again, that is the western, Rugged Individualist, mind speaking.
I'm sure it has been explained to you over and over and over and over that not all religious practices are FUNDIES. Yet, there is a group of you who will continue to rail against what you know to be a false assumption, and THAT is what bigotry is all about. YOUR dogma is that you KNOW there is no deity or deities. You have no proof of that, either, so you are just as dogmatic.
Interesting that those of you who are making vicious claims against all others who practice their religion and spiritual beliefs don't see just how like the fundies you are. Using the same methods as those you despise bonds you to them.
Kanary
And how do you know how the human has always been?
I flat out tell you what I understand, and what I don't - and you flat out deny that I am telling the truth.
Indiginous peoples, which includes all seven billion of us, for we are all indigenous to Earth, believe many things, perhaps as many things as there are individuals.
The mind always seeks to simplify - to classify - but this is a survival tool, and does not accurately depict the minutae of reality.
You say "Your dogma", but you do not in fact know what my dogma is - because in fact I am not dogmatic, but open to new ideas and especially to new empirical evidence.
Obviously, as I explained in my answer to ShadowDancer, you are not really open to the possibility that not all humans are dogmatic - in anything.
This is unsettling - for it leaves one in the curious position of not knowing, when we would all very much like to know.
But as my favorite western singer Ian Tyson sings:
"Wishin' don't make it so."
=========