Bridging the science gap

Laurent Colvin, Davis, California — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:21:30 GMT

For a guy who want to include science so much he seems to be ignoring some good research on healthcare reform. Go to http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf

Bridging the science gap

John — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:50:28 GMT

If the public was created by a God, but many scientists came from apes. Who do you think is the wiser of the two groups?

Bridging the science gap

Laurent Colvin, Davis, California — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:17:31 GMT

Dear John, (I don't think I've ever written a Dear John letter before), why couldn't God have used evolution to create man and everything else? And don't say, "Because it doesn't say that in the Bible." Human beings wrote that piece of art, and the oldest known copy doesn't even include mention of the resurection. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/24/online.bible/ . I think religion could stand a bit of evolving if it is going to stand the test of time, not to mention facts.

Bridging the science gap

Laurent Colvin — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:21:15 GMT

By the way, there is evidence to show that the universe itself evolved. So that wasn't a typo. http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/12/16/darkenergy.jpg

Bridging the science gap

Jon — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:46:11 GMT

To Laurent: I think Obama knows about single-payer and it's benefits. He mentioned that it would be best if we were starting from scratch, but he just doesn't have the audacity to make a hard core push for it in the current situation.

To John: scientists evolved from apes when selective pressures caused them to develop bigger, better brains through the generations, so perhaps the scientists are wiser?

Bridging the science gap

ApeMan, Yonkers, New York — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:54:24 GMT

People didn't just come from apes, biologically speaking, they ARE apes.

Bridging the science gap

john — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:43:20 GMT

To Jon:
Since the public cannot offer any evidence, are you proposing that
Evolutionist has factual evidence to support ape to man evolution?

Bridging the science gap

sreve smyth — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:12:47 GMT

I have a feeling that this guy is smart enough to grasp most anything...it concerns me that he actually spoke favorably about the possibility of an Anthropogenic Shield to darken the Sun's rays RE The Climate Crisis...let's hope he doesn't have some frustrated mad scientist streak...he is definitely of a curious and intensely active mind...
hope it doesn't spiral evolution* in on itself under pressure...
high hopes...no expectations...

term comes to you compliments of Alan...his precise explanation made the concept instantly real...pretty cool, eh?
thanks, Alan...

Bridging the science gap

12/12,Spencer,Ind. — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:07:47 GMT

Very interesting article, the demographic data at Pew was awesome. The 41% of Scientists that don't believe in god probably know they will never be able to prove conclusively so what's the point. Blind faith is not a good quality in a scientist, tends to compromise the work. The majority (<69%) obviously believe there are too many things that could have gone wrong and nothing we see today would be here (different fundamental forces aka weak, strong, EM, gravity).

Bridging the science gap

john — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:36:48 GMT

Since (??) % of scientist do not believe in evolution (smaller brains and less developed) and scientist who have a submissive gene, goes along with the ones with the big brains for fear they will be view as evolving like the former.

Does the public believe in god because of religionist (brain in early growth) or in spite of the religionist who also has evolved a submissive gene?

Is the public wiser than both groups?

Bridging the science gap

Laurel Kornfeld — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:31:44 GMT

The ultimate outcome of the Pluto debate does make a difference in people's lives. The science quiz you mention illustrates this. The question of whether or not Pluto is a planet is not a multiple choice yes or no question; it is an essay question. Both answers can be considered correct if they are supported with valid arguments. Quizzes like this convey the message that Pluto is not a planet because a group of scientists said so. There is no mechanism for those who disagree with this decision to answer and still be marked as correct. The important lesson here is that it is not a decree by a person or group of people that makes something true; it is the strength of the arguments supporting a position that validates that position. Just reverting to teaching kids that the solar system has eight planets results in kids not being taught about Pluto at all or, as Dr. Mark Sykes reported, being taught that Pluto is an asteroid. What is taught and how that is taught matter, and the IAU decision only brought a step in the wrong direction--away from teaching how to think and towards a more authoritarian teaching of what to think.

Interest in an issue like Pluto can make a difference in people's lives. It can be a jumping off point for a lifelong interest in astronomy. And I may be the only person for whom this is the case, but the Pluto debate has certainly affected my life profoundly. It is because of Pluto that I began studying astronomy, got involved with a local astronomy club and, as stated before, plan to write a book of my own.

There actually are pro-Pluto groups although I don't know that they could be considered lobbyists, as they have not spent money to influence politicians. However, as a participant in this loosely-organized movement, I can say with certainty that we have used the Internet to combat the IAU decision, present the reasons why it is wrong, and advocate people taking action to get it overturned and/or ignoring it altogether.

Bridging the science gap

Doctor Peoughd — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:20:56 GMT

Many years ago, the US decided we "looked bad" in the face of the world because a smaller percentage of our population had college degrees when compared to other countries in the world. So...US colleges created the Bachelors in Business Administration; and started handing out diplomas like snot rags at a congestion convention. The curriculum of that degree amounts to no more than a repeat of a high school diploma. The holders of that degree have no skills or knowledge and behave like seventh graders. Yet US businesses put these turds into management positions. As a result, childish politics and false diplomacy reign supreme in US business. They think Newton's laws are negotiable. Science and the US will continue to fail until all business degrees are rescinded. And all business majors taken out of management positions

Bridging the science gap

Dan, MT — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:54:19 GMT

Laurent:
Your link did not provide any information on the lack of the resurection story in the "oldest known copy" it actually reported containing the entire gospel of mark which includes the resurection story(even if it does not include vs 16:9 on). As for the bible being a piece of art written by humans I assume this means you infering that it should not be accepted as an accurate historical document. In fact the bible may be one of the most accuratly recorded ancient works. By this I mean its Textual reliability. Whether or not it is the word of god is up to the reader but trying to cast doubt on its textual reliability is a bad argument. For more info see http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

As for this article let us not forget that scientists are not infallable and as the above study shows they hold their own unique worldview and like it or not this affects how they interperate their data. I think better communication between scientists and the public is a noble and worthy cause. No one benifits from ignorance.

Bridging the science gap

Frank Comeau — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:05:45 GMT

Like the science/public divide in general, the evolution/creation question haunts us yet because we're overdue for a quantum leap in our own evolution. The gamut of human experience - education, politics, international, social, and interpersonal relations, etc. is approaching but hesitant to step over a threshhold. We're an issues pregnant species. We're passed the rise and fall of civilizations. The question now is the birth or the still birth of Civilization.

Bridging the science gap

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:17:53 GMT

Evolution-deniers, Global Warming-deniers, and other crackpots assert that they "love" science and that they are following "the true scientific path." Meanwhile, nearly every sentence they utter demonstrates unequivocally that they do not understand the history of science, nor its methods, philosophy, facts, theories, or laws.

Carl Sagan suggested an epitaph for planet Earth might be something like, "They accepted the products of science; they rejected its methods." Creationists (whether of the young-earth or intelligent design variety) selectively apply scientific principles that they don't understand, but are convinced they do.

Bridging the science gap

Dan Gilbert — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:17:17 GMT

Spencer, not believing in something for which there is no evidence is one hallmark of a good scientist. "Blind faith" would be a trait of the god-believers... which is fine as long as it doesn't influence the science.

Bridging the science gap

Chad — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:52:23 GMT

If you don't understand evolution ... please stop commenting on it!! If you don't believe evolution, well there's no talking to you. I find it interesting (and terribly sad) that NO WHERE in this article is the correlation of *faith* and the lack of belief in science represented. Could it be that we truly can't educate the population until we drop superstition and fear?

Bridging the science gap

Alan Howe, Arlington, Virginia — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:57:22 GMT

I often tell my friends "Epistemology matters!" If we are going to believe anything, we ought to do so for good reason. Since the introduction of the scientific method, we have had an improved rationale for our beliefs. We have progressed dramatically because of that.

However, too many opt for belief over knowledge. So, we have Creationists who point to the mountain of evidence supporting the belief in Evolution and claim to see holes. Their irrational response is then to embrace a belief that is comprised almost solely of those holes. They reject all evidence to the contrary to embrace the Bishop of Usher's estimation that the Earth is just over 6,000 years old. They build museums and produce television shows to teach children that humans and dinosaurs lived together. Does that matter? Well, ask yourself which group will be the first to, say, cure cancer? How far will a belief that Adam and T-Rex were neighbors get graduates from Bryan University? Belief over knowledge is an insidious threat to our nation.

Epistemology matters!

Bridging the science gap

Fisher — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:48:29 GMT

I'm hoping that science gets its due. Get over the creation debate already...

Bridging the science gap

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:50:16 GMT

Great article Alan, and very controversial. It's a pity that so many uneducated people favor religion over science to explain why we're here.

We've seen what the ugly religious war on science has done to our secular democracy the past 8 years. I'm glad that President Obama is bringing real science back to the White House to replace the phony faith based nonsense that pushes nothing but great right lies.

Global warming is a real problem and only science will help us overcome it. The same with energy as our country has fallen far behind on fusion power research. Then there population control where we're overpopulating our planet and now we're seeing how by deforesting our forests we're accelerating the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide because we're deforesting the very thing that naturally cleans carbon dioxide from our air and creates oxygen, our true gas of life.

In Real Science We Trust!

Bridging the science gap

Mark, KY — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:01:49 GMT

The answer is obvious John. Science has increased humanity's comfort and life span. It also has the capability to provide advance warning of disasters. Religion has caused human sacrifice, genocide, and war. Science has increased the destructive power of war, but has never been the reason for it. Everybody is evolved from apes, creationists just refuse to admit it by ignoring a vast majority of teh scientific evidence and twisting what they can. The power and curse of humanity is the power to strongly believe without evidence.

Bridging the science gap

Mike, Long Island, NY — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:16:43 GMT

I think it's telling that many of the responses to this article strayed instantly to the religion vs. science pseudo debate. Very telling of some of the public's feelings towards science and why I believe so many discount science out of hand without really understanding it.

Any attempt to bring science to the forefront in people's lives will be met with accusations of arrogance levied at the scientists. The scientists will naturally reply with derision at the ignorance of their accusers, and in twenty years we'll be having this discussion all over again about why scientists can't seem to get their points across.

The best way to counter this cycle is to teach children and teach them early about science. Not just the discoveries but the process.

Bridging the science gap

Laurent Colvin, Davis, California — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:56:28 GMT

Dear Dan MT, The link I provided is good: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5749555/Worlds-oldest-Bible-published-in-full-online.html And what it says is, "It offers different versions of the Scriptures from later editions of the Bible, (notably in St Mark's Gospel which ends 12 verses before later versions, omitting the appearance of the resurrected Jesus Christ.)" But that is not the point. I do consider the Bible to be a good historical record (for some things) but I don't think that the anti-scientific interpretations by some should find their way into our school systems. If schools wish to provide a primer on comparative religions that would be fine. But for teachers to want to present creationism as a scientific theory only demonstrates their ignorance and denigrates our whole education system.

Bridging the science gap

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:59:32 GMT

No wonder we are behind many other countries in terms of education. Some people here don't understand that faith and policy based on that can't be sponored by the government. Schools should be teaching science that is based on facts.

Bridging the science gap

Rakesh Sharma, San Mateo, California — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:39:23 GMT

We're a young 15,000 year old civilization. Religion has old roots. More ever, practicing science is more demanding than religion (intellectually, materially). So, I think it is natural that we're struggling to pick science over religion.

I wonder a million years from now, how the figures will be.

Bridging the science gap

JG — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:28:21 GMT

What the general public really dislikes is that science values Truth higher than public opinion. Public Opinion can sincerely believe that 2+2 = 8, but it won't make it true. Public Opinion can sincerely believe that the big bang never occurred, but it won't make it true.

The problem is that when emotions and intuition trump reason and intellect, what matters most isn't whether something is true or not, or at least close to truth. NO, what matters most is how you feel about something and whether you expressed your opinion sincerely.

In this outlook when an opinion is shown to be false or ill-informed people take it personally, as if a scientific theory has a personal vendetta against one person. So, I say to the general public: Just as in the Godfather; it's not personal, it's simply science.

Bridging the science gap

john — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:41:01 GMT

Mark: The question is not who is the smartest but who is the wiser.
Certainly religionist make a mockery of the concept of a god and
fail to teach people common morals, instead becoming involved in
things they know very little about, basing there believe on a bias
premises. Same with evolutionist who sat around in a group,
mentally masturbating calling anyone that does not agree with
them stupid, glossing over their own errors and setbacks. Case in
point, Birds comes from dinosaurs. I hope you are up to date on
these points.

The public as a group live for pleasure, nothing wrong with
that,real science help them to enjoy life, if you can afford it. So the
public likes the science as long as things a going well and
oblivious of what's going on around them. So that leaves use with
the politics and scientific community who now are arguing about
health care global warming.

What wonderful environment we live in all due to fact we have
evolved bigger brains. We can kill more people now than every
before.

Scientist my not be responsible for our social order but they are
more than willing to contribution to its demise all in the name of
science.

Many of the public would like to live a nice peaceful life with their
families and could care less about pluto being a planet or not, the
quality of our life does not depend on the size of the universe.

Evolutionist would like to keep the public ignorant teaching
children their doctrine.

Although this may not be true of true science, where is the
evidence that they have helped with the social order of things
and how are they going to save the whole universe?
What have you personally done?

I read the article, I believe it is about religion, ignorant public,
smart science, and evoloution.

Bridging the science gap

thebob.bob — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:39:57 GMT

The bigger issue is how to undo the damage done by 30 years of anti-science rhetoric by the Republicans. By politicizing science, portraying it as anti-religion (Science doesn't care about Religion) and reducing Science funding, Republicans are responsible for the loss of an entire generation of Scientists.

Just like the Communists supported Lamarckism because it fit their ideology, so Republicans refused to have the government fund science because of their pro-business, pro-evangelical ideology. They'll even support the ignorant faith-healing evangelical beauty queen from Wasilla to lead the USA in the 21st century!

The war on science continues in the ignorant minds of the far right.

Bridging the science gap

Mike P, Miami FL — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:27:53 GMT

Forty-one percent of the scientists said they didn't believe in the existence of God or a higher power.

So 59% of Scientists believe in God or a higher power and 96% of non-scientists. So the greater percentage of both groups! Another example of how journalists skew data in their reporting.

Bridging the science gap

Wayne, Kansas City, MO — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:34:55 GMT

You don't have to look any further than the vast majority of comments left after science (or so they are categorized) articles online to see a divide. The general public, especially the average moron posting on here (perhaps that includes me for trying to rebut), would far rather jump on a perceived slight to their religion than discuss actual science.

It seems interesting that these people are that insecure in their faith that they seem so determined to try to convince others. Most of them don't even know what they claim to believe, but they know when they're offended! Truly sad and unreal.

Bridging the science gap

m cho morton illinois — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:47:38 GMT

perhaps the scientists need to make sure their own houses are in order before criticizing other opinions. From stem cell research (obama now fund embryionic scr but cut adult scr?) to global warming (warming is also detected on the other planets in the solar system) to string theory (numerous legit scientists question why it doesn't make better predictions), to alternatives to darwinian evolution (they are proponents of evol but have serious concerns over dogmatic following of strict de). There are legitimate scientistst that have other theories but if they are not part of the "approved" they are ostracized. Researchers and theoriticians are human too and are driven by the same forces, notoriety, grants, peer approval/pressure. Make sure when you read of "science fact/theory without a doubt" or "most scientists (most pc?) that you do your own research too. "Peer approved"s not always what is apparent.

Bridging the science gap

sheikh, dalton, ga — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:43:03 GMT

Religion (christanity) lost its battle against science when it rejacted evolution. becouse it is being tought in every school in america and parents who tend to believe that their childeren are getting religion from some "unknow sourse." science will become a "religion" for many children and eventually religion will take a back seat. science is tangable and religion will never be, unless the bible, quron, and others are right and Jesus (pbuh) will return to set thing straight. In the history of the world God continues to hide in the furthest reaches of our ignorance!!!! life still goes on!!!!

Bridging the science gap

JD, Spencer, IN — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:51:42 GMT

Probably my favorite quote of all time comparing scientists mind frame to that of a zealot.

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - Albert Einstein from Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997)

Bridging the science gap

a p garcia — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:58:24 GMT

Global warming has shown me how LITTLE SCIENCE the average person knows-let scientist study science without undue pressure from science deficient politicans, the unscientific idiots from the public.

Bridging the science gap

Jose Nose — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:21:34 GMT

John Said
"If the public was created by a God, but many scientists came from apes. Who do you think is the wiser of the two groups?"

The apes did not created GOD, man did (create god)

and following the scientific method, you make two statements, but prove none. That is no science is playing with words and using a colorful twist of tongue to get away with what you want to be the truth

Bridging the science gap

John, — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:43:48 GMT

Wayne makes an interested point, believes that are not well grounded
and sustained by factual data, causes ones to get offended when called into question, this is true of many people and when challenged resort to calling into question the IQ of another person. It seems this is particular true of evolutionist and religionist. Certainly nothing wrong with making a defenses of ones believes, but should at least have a basic understanding of the subject.

This blog is not about the theories of science, but a conception of
it and the uneducated public.

Bridging the science gap

Po Pofla, Massachusetts — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:11:35 GMT

I am sadden to read some of the comment on this page. The issues around science and it's impact on the wider society are much more complex and subtle than many (including the authors and cited works) seemingly want to admit. From the perspective of 30 years experience in science and technology, I can unequivocally say that no political party is free of Luddites in their ranks, nonetheless both parties also have people that are deeply ethical with a deep concern for the future of humankind and life on this planet.

As citizens, we all need to listen to peoples fears or objections to some scientific research and not try to take away their voice or demonize and ridicule their convictions. As scientist sometimes we are so focused on the problem or project or the deadline that we never have time to question what are the larger implications and possible missuses of our research. I have three times in my career turned down projects assignments that I strongly felt were unethical.

When I was a young scientist I trained myself to always listen to other peoples opinions, even if I thought their arguments were spurious and not pertinent to the issue at hand. In fact I went out of my way to elicit their opinions. I looked for that nugget of truth that may expand my prospective and wider my understanding, to truly think outside the box, the box of my own personally perspective, prejudice and scientific myopia.

Bridging the science gap

John, — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:25:00 GMT

Po Pofla, thanks for your comments, for me it is a fresh breath
of air. It help me to see I should be kinder in my comments.

Although I have no hope in the religious systems of thing or any other system controlled by humans including commerce, politics and science, to bring an end to world problems, the evidence is in, but I do have hope.
Thanks once again for your comments.

Bridging the science gap

Scott, AZ — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:32:05 GMT

I love it when the religio-nuts come out of the cracks in the walls and post messages on these articles, completely embarrassing themselves. The fact you're on a computer, logged onto the internet and communicating with people all over the world is a testament to the progress that science has provided us.

Put it this way, in a few thousand years, or millions(depending on how successful we are as a species), when humanity goes extinct, religion will die with it. Scientific principles, however, will never die. Some cosmic architect didn't design you to be more special than any other lifeform in the universe. That's arrogance at its highest form, and a childish form of self-help.

Bridging the science gap

Toni Bourlon — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:57:50 GMT

Wow, all the responses are based on creationism or global warming. Here's the thing: I don't have a scientific background, I have a liberal arts degree. Talk all you want about global warming or evolution, I won't understand it. If I take YOUR word for it, I would only be "parroting the talking points" of others. Also, it bothers me that 41% of scientists don't believe in God. Is that because they studied science, or did they study science BECAUSE they don't believe in God. Now THERE's a question that should be answered. I would like to believe that some people are naturally more sceptical and prone to NOT believe, and they may be more inclined to study science than someone who is more accepting. However, if the reverse is true, if studying science leads one to NOT believe in God, well I think that's going to be a problem. But either way, most of us just aren't inclined to be scientists. I have to take a statistics class for my Masters, and I'm not looking forward to it. I just don't have that much of an analytical mind, and I truly think most people are not so analytical.

Bridging the science gap

L Nettles — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:09:46 GMT

I believe evolution is a fact. I don't believe AGW is a fact and I don't believe Chris Mooney truly understands science as he is willing to believe extraordinary things without extraordinary proof.