I can always tell when an opponent of Darwin's "theory of evolution" has never read Darwin, because they try to claim that Darwin's "theory of evolution" means that "evolution is a theory." Unfortunately for them, the phrase "Darwin's theory of evolution" does not mean evolution was Darwin's theory. Scientists recognized evolution long…
So here's my question: creationists (a subset of Fundamentalist Christians) claim that life on earth is too "irreducibly complex" to have arisen spontaneously, without an "intelligent designer," so how do they explain the existence of God, who is, presumably, infinitely more "complex" than any life on earth? Was God designed by…
Because the people at the top of our government are responsible for making decisions that could cost the lives and ruin the health of millions of citizens, they should be equipped with the best information and the best expertise. Unfortunately, the White House has decided to muzzle experts and choke off critical debate on numerous topics of critical national significance. Why?
The Administration’s political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists. The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups.
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.htm
It’s gotten so bad that prominent Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner has called the president’s science adviser a “prostitute”:
The United States has been engulfed by a kind of “science war,” one pitting much of the nation’s scientific community against the current administration. Led by twenty Nobel laureates, the scientists say Bush’s government has systematically distorted and undermined scientific information in pursuit of political objectives. Examples include the suppression and censorship of reports on subjects like climate change and mercury pollution, the stacking of scientific advisory panels, and the suspicious removal of scientific information from government Web sites.
The list goes on and on:
Young rocks impersonating old rocks. My favorite program was the hike to the base of the falls. Layers of rock are like chapters in a history book and this canyon, carved so deeply, told an ancient story. Standing at the bottom, calling out over the roar of the falls, I…
You’ve just noticed several people carrying signs that say “Down with Ice Cream.” You approach them to ask what is so bad about ice cream. After listening to them for a few minutes, it becomes clear to you that there is a misunderstanding. To them, the phrase “ice cream” actually means kicking dogs. They are against kicking dogs.
“Oh, you mean that you’re against kicking dogs?” you ask.
“Down with ice cream!” they nod.
It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation without a common understanding of the words being used. “Evolution” is a good example. When I hear someone speaking disparagingly about evolution I can trigger the following exchange:
Q: What’s so bad about evolution?
A: It’s just a theory (#1) that says that everything here is just an accident (#2) and that people came from monkeys (#3).
Zero for three, every time. In short, most people who “oppose” evolution are against something other than the scientific theory of evolution. Further, most anti-evolutionists I’ve encountered don’t know what scientists say about evolution and don’t care [Good places to learn what scientists think would be here and here.]
The irony is that most people who oppose evolution are not opposed to any of the major facts upon which evolution is based (e.g., that random mutations occur, that some of these mutations make organisms more likely to survive long enough to bear offspring, or that a parent’s traits tend to be passed on to its children). In fact, opponents don’t usually …