Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

I see that the "Culture Wars" are still ongoing in the USA. We have some of the best graduate schools on the planet and among the least scientifically literate folks in the Solar System. From the clip files of April 21 NCSE newsletter:

Quote:

BIG BANG a BIG QUESTION FOR MOST AMERICANS

By SETH BORENSTEIN and JENNIFER AGIESTA
— Apr. 21, 2014 11:59 AM EDT

“Science ignorance is pervasive in our society, and these attitudes are reinforced when some of our leaders are openly antagonistic to established facts,” said 2013 Nobel Prize in medicine winner Randy Scheckman.

WASHINGTON (AP) — While scientists believe the universe began with a Big Bang, most Americans put a big question mark on the concept, an Associated Press-GfK poll found.

Yet when it comes to smoking causing cancer or that a genetic code determines who we are, the doubts disappear.

When considering concepts scientists consider truths, Americans have more skepticism than confidence in those that are farther away from our bodies in scope and time: global warming, the age of the Earth and evolution and especially the Big Bang from 13.8 billion years ago.

Rather than quizzing scientific knowledge, the survey asked people to rate their confidence in several statements about science and medicine.

On some, there's broad acceptance. Just 4 percent doubt that smoking causes cancer, 6 percent question whether mental illness is a medical condition that affects the brain and 8 percent are skeptical there's a genetic code inside our cells. More — 15 percent — have doubts about the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines.

About 4 in 10 say they are not too confident or outright disbelieve that the earth is warming, mostly a result of man-made heat-trapping gases, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that life on Earth evolved through a process of natural selection, though most were at least somewhat confident in each of those concepts. But a narrow majority — 51 percent — questions the Big Bang theory.

Those results depress and upset some of America's top scientists, including several Nobel Prize winners, who vouched for the science in the statements tested, calling them settled scientific facts.

"Science ignorance is pervasive in our society, and these attitudes are reinforced when some of our leaders are openly antagonistic to established facts," said 2013 Nobel Prize in medicine winner Randy Schekman of the University of California, Berkeley.

The poll highlights "the iron triangle of science, religion and politics," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

And scientists know they've got the shakiest leg in the triangle.

To the public "most often values and beliefs trump science" when they conflict, said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the world's largest scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Political and religious values were closely tied to views on science in the poll, with Democrats more apt than Republicans to express confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth and climate change.

Confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth and climate change decline sharply as faith in a supreme being rises, according to the poll. Likewise, those who regularly attend religious services or are evangelical Christians express much greater doubts about scientific concepts they may see as contradictory to their faith.

"When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can't argue against faith," said 2012 Nobel Prize winning biochemistry professor Robert Lefkowitz of Duke University. "It makes sense now that science would have made no headway because faith is untestable."

But evolution, the age of the Earth and the Big Bang are all compatible with God, except to Bible literalists, said Francisco Ayala, a former priest and professor of biology, philosophy and logic at the University of California, Irvine.

Beyond religious belief, views on science may be tied to what we see with our own eyes. The closer an issue is to ourselves and the less complicated, the easier it is for people to believe, said John Staudenmaier, a Jesuit priest and historian of technology at the University of Detroit Mercy.

Marsha Brooks, a 59-year-old nanny who lives in Washington, D.C., said she's certain smoking causes cancer because she saw her mother, aunts and uncles, all smokers, die of cancer. But when it comes to the universe beginning with a Big Bang or the Earth being about 4.5 billion years old, she has doubts. She explained: "It could be a lack of knowledge. It seems so far" away.

Jorge Delarosa, a 39-year-old architect from Bridgewater, N.J., pointed to a warm 2012 without a winter and said, "I feel the change. There must be a reason." But when it came to Earth's beginnings 4.5 billion years ago, he has doubts simply because "I wasn't there."

Experience and faith aren't the only things affecting people's views on science. Duke University's Lefkowitz sees "the force of concerted campaigns to discredit scientific fact" as a more striking factor, citing significant interest groups — political, business and religious — campaigning against scientific truths on vaccines, climate change and evolution.

The AP-GfK Poll was conducted March 20-24, 2014, using KnowledgePanel, GfK's probability-based online panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. It involved online interviews with 1,012 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points for all respondents.

Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods and were later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn't otherwise have access to the Internet were provided with the ability to access the Internet at no cost to them

As the man said, "Just because the entire county believes in bigfoot doesn't make him real"

3 Replies

@farmerman,

People in general rely upon free-to-air for most of their input, don't they?

It's the reason I won't watch a minute of it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I am not sure, fm, that intelligent people would be delighted to have been sent that newsletter. It does rather underestimate the audience it is aimed at.

Do scientists only believe the universe began with the BB? I understood that they know.

Does smoking on its own cause cancer? What sort of smoking? Would banning smoking give society cancer? Why is tobacco not banned if it causes cancer? Does mining cause cancer? Stone cutting.? Traffic fumes.? Sexual frustration? (According to Reich). Welding? Exposure to chemicals?

There is a gigantic financial interest in banning, or reducing, tobacco consumption. And that of alcohol. The money saved is freed up for soft furnishings or investment in banking and lots of other products.

Does the genetic code determine who we are. Is nurture not a factor?

Quote:

When considering concepts scientists consider truths,

I bet a non-smoker wrote that as with the use of "really good" twice in a short paragraph. Is it even true? Which scientists? What is truth? It is a famous question.

Not only has the NCSE been dumbed down but it evidently anticipates that its subscribers have too. If it directed that childish drivel at me my subscription would cancelled forthwith.

There is no triangle of science, religion and politics. So there is no iron and there are no legs. The article even says so when it rabbits--"Political and religious values were closely tied to views on science in the poll".

Quote:

Those results depress and upset some of America's top scientists,

Aaaah!! Bless the little dears. Pass them the pharmaceuticals.

Quote:

"Science ignorance is pervasive in our society,

Amazing!! What a surprise. What is scientific ignorance? Not being like us brainboxes I suppose.

Quote:

It makes sense now that science would have made no headway because faith is untestable."

What's does that mean? I don't expect everybody to agree with Spengler's thesis but I do expect that people addressing the public on these matters have some familiarity with it rather than confining their curiosity to Comic Cuts.

The respondents may well have been selected randomly, assuming we suspend all doubts, but those quoted have certainly not.

I trust you feel suitably fulfilled fm as a member of a superior elite. It can make people feel dizzy and disoriented if they look down from a great height. What a pity there have to be elections eh? Scientists must loathe and detest elections in which the expression of pervasive ignorance is all there is.

1 Reply

@spendius,

good. when NCSE was first printed it was by scientists FOR scientists. The poor HS teachers were second class citizens. "Dumbing Down" as you say, is merely better writing. If we continued to think that jargon laced, obscure writing is the best way to teach biology and evolution, there would be an even ;lesser percentage of those who understand and accept the data.

As far as "believe" , its only so if there were no evidence. What the article asserts is that, despite the evidence, people "believe" something else.

BTW a small article cannot spend its spunk reviewing EVERY cause of lung cancer. The cause they developed has strong scientific and statistical correlation.

Youd have had to work as a journalist to understand "word economy"

2 Replies

@Builder,

re you talking about TV signals?. The "INNER FISH" miniseries was on PBS (which broadcasts its basic signal in HD)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

is merely better writing.

That was one of the worst writing performances I have seen recently coming from a supposedly reputable source. It was dire fm. I felt like I was being chucked under the chin.

I know what economy means. Cheap shagging. Which is something you seem to be objecting to.

And I know more about journalists than journalists do.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Anybody who finds themselves depressed and upset by the results of that straw poll, the provenance of which we know nothing, should join an Introduction To Science class at their local adult remedial centre.

That might straighten them out.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

And I know more about journalists than journalists do.

Except for the writing part , and the collecting news part, and the word economy part, and the deadline part, and the editing part.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

You missed "facts" part. Mr. Green

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Except for the writing part

Journalese.

Quote:

the collecting news part,

Knocking on doors, waiting around, tapping phones.

Quote:

the word economy part

See Acronym thread.

Quote:

the deadline part

Clock watching.

Quote:

the editing part

See job on NSCE handout. Which ended up spiked.

Quote:

"facts" part.

Reading tickers and screens.

I can do getting pissed in Fleet Street pubs.

The war zone guys are the flagships.

1 Reply

@spendius,

They are sandwich board men truth to tell.

Still--I can see your point fm. They have all sold out to your side. And for the same reasons you have. Having lost their cool.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

See job on NSCE handout. Which ended up spiked.

Did you post a "job" on NCSE here? . I believe that all your genome has done for you is to swap out any skills for self esteem.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Did you post a "job" on NCSE here?

Yes I did. It was a bit perfunctory I know. I do have other things to do. On wages 2,000 words would have been a piece of piss.

The fact that you didn't appreciate it is neither here nor there in respect of whether it was a "job". That you think it is of consequence is like a self-inflicted torpedo amidships. You are operating that censorship which Prof. Gray predicts science will inevitably do.

Shame on you!! I hope your fans take note. If they don't we're all fucked.

You used that tired old washed out trick of "did somebody say something?" when stumped. Being such a fast learner.

I heard a football journalist on TV say "the ball rifled into the corner of the net just out of reach of the goalie's despairing fingertips." I was reading that once a week at 10.

1 Reply

@spendius,

When I think about it, fm, I could probably manage a few closely written pages just on the word "Jennifer".

0 Replies

@farmerman,

RE: 'Science ignorance is pervasive in our society'
FM, how did you come to know that s.th. that you read somewhere is 'science'. How do you check up whether it is valid scientific evidence and scientifically justified inference ... or it is some invalid & pseudo-scientific arrangement ... presented as truth of the last resort and 'established fact'. To validate such things you should be at the level of the author ... at least.
Newton's physics has been 'established fact' for decades. Nowadays we don't even know whether the laws of physics (as we know them) are valid for the whole universe or not.
How did you come to know that the evolution is truth of the last resort, has always existed and can change the genetics of the species to such an extend that it can transform (somehow?) one species into another ... when you cannot even explain how the tube worms have evolved on the bottom of the Atlantic (at a depth of 3.5 km) ... and from what? How have they succeeeded to change the energy processes from one mode into another ... owing to the natural selection ... and how long will they survive on the sun ... not to speak that a few decades ago the 'established fact' has been that life cannot exist in the ocean at such a depth.

2 Replies

@Herald,

science has always concluded based upon best facts. Newtonian physics has come under question because some better conclusions have been made involving forces and systems of which Newton wasn't even aware.
His universal Gravitation equation is still valid, Its used all the time and is taught in schools.
Evolution has always been a "best conclusion" . A phenomenon , whose theory fits all the evidence weve found and IS NOT NEGATED by any evidence.
That means that all the evidence supports evolution and None of the evidence refutes it.
Unlike religious Creationism, only a few hunks of evidence support and a whole lot refutes.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

not to speak that a few decades ago the 'established fact' has been that life cannot exist in the ocean at such a depth.

Really? how do you know this? I think you just made that up? I know for a fact that there was a fear that the deep oceans supported more alien life and "monsters"

0 Replies

@farmerman,

What scientific facts support the ever burgeoning influence of the ladies fm? You have raised evolution to the status of a personal shibboleth for your own reasons. And betray its principles all day long.

Hardly anyone gives a damn about the subject but the ever burgeoning influence of the ladies is the hottest of hot button issues every day of the year. And no scientific facts are in play.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

... science has always concluded based upon best facts.

Maybe you have in mind the science between 6 c. B.C. and 16 c. A.D.
Now follow this:
6 c B.C. - Pythagoras makes math calculations and argues the flat shape of the Earth.
4 c B.C. - Aristotle - stars seen in Egypt cannot be seen in the northern regions - hence the Earth is most probably not flat.
3 c B.C. - Eratosthenes - the summer solstice in Syene casts zero shadow, while the test pole casts some shadow in Alexandria - conclusion: the Earth is any other shape, but flat
16 c. A.D. - Giordano Bruno & Copernicus go to the stake for claiming that the Earth is not flat.
O.K. maybe it's true that the Inquistion of the Middle Ages is an ugly caricature of science (and religion), but even more true is that it is the official authority at the time being ... to pronounce on the issue.
Question:
- Where is the 'always' in this case
- Where is the 'upon the best facts'
- Where is the scientific conclusion

farmerman wrote:

Newtonian physics has come under question

If the Newton physics has come under question (sooner or later), how can you be so sure that the evolution will never come under question?

farmerman wrote:

Evolution has always been a "best conclusion". A phenomenon

Claiming that s.th. is the 'best conclusion' on the grounds of a single example is, mildly said irresponsible ... if it is not a masterpiece of ignorance.
In order to have best you should have at least three conclusions (if they are two it is said better, not best). Where are your other two explanations of the evidences (for the appearance of life on the Earth)?

farmerman wrote:

... whose theory fits all the evidence weve found and IS NOT NEGATED by any evidence.

Verification & validation is not always done only by evidences. A contradiction in the self is also negation - it is impossibility to exist in the physical world.
FM, at first you make some invalid assumptions (that the biosphere of the Earth has had somehow all kinds of bacteria 3.8 Bya) and after that on the grounds of the invalid assumptions you make super-valid conclusions - Green Algae & Cyanobacteria enter ... out of nowhere, operating on bio-code with unidentified origin ... How does that happen, FM? ... and all these you call 'evidences' .. evidences for what, FM?

farmerman wrote:

That means that all the evidence supports evolution and None of the evidence refutes it.

How did you come to this conclusion ... & where will you calssify the tube worms in your theory of the things ... based on 'all' evidences?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Giordano Bruno & Copernicus go to the stake for claiming that the Earth is not flat.

I don't think Copernicus went to the stake H. I have read The Sleepwalkers and I don't recall that. He published posthumously I think.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know