Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 20
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The primary reason why Americans reject evolution in such numbers is that we collectively have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works. Moreover, we have a profoundly false view of the history and philosophy of science.

Also, our democratic ideals have imbued us with the bizarre notion that the opinions of anyone off the street are just as good as those of any scientist.

We are suffering a mass delusion due in part to the active creation of ignorance.

People who believe themselves to be "smart" and "well-educated" have deluded themselves into believing that they are eminently qualified to reject the collective, nearly unanimous informed opinions of 10s of thousands of the worlds very best scientists, in favor of the mindless rants of a very vocal minority who collectively constitute AT THE VERY BEST utter mediocrity in research.

They believe that they have done sufficient research that they can make that call, but the fact is that none of them would even recognize real research.



.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Surely any bright Anons who wishes to post more than once could adopt a pen name. For example, I would register as Anon de Canada. Actually, not a bad name.
==================================================================

You ask about "group consciousness": "Though is this hypnotism?"

IMO, hypnotism, like its predecessor 'mesmerism'--named after Dr. Franz Antoine Mesmer of Vienna--ought to be relegated to the archaic category, if not dropped.

Keep in mind: Braid coined his word out of the Greek for sleep, 'hypnos'. The deep meditative, or trance, state is more related to waking up than it is to sleeping.

Ellis, did I tell you that when I first started using what I now call 'pneumatherapy'(in the 1960's)--that is, awakening the power of the human spirit (pneuma) and teaching people how to use this power in healing their minds (psyches) and bodies (somas)--that by Ontario law, the use of hypnotism was confined to medical doctors, regardless of what they knew about it?

This was obviously a bad law, which did nothing promote public good. With the help of others, including medical doctors, I was able to persuade the authorities to change the law. The authority who interviewed me, after I gave him a demonstration of the role "hypnosis"--the use of words to achieve realization and increase faith and trust--plays in pneumatherapy he quickly agreed: "We would have to pass a law against the use of public and private prayers and meditation."

The law got changed.

Last edited by Revlgking; 12/22/08 06:43 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend


We are suffering a mass delusion due in part to the active creation of ignorance.


That would be hypnosis of ego. Evolution of Man is linked to the macrocosmic expansion of creation. The ego clings to the idea that it is the center of the universe and it's beliefs and opinions are all that matters (or is real).
Even Science is influenced by the restrictions of ego.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
The primary reason why Americans reject evolution in such numbers is that we collectively have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works. Moreover, we have a profoundly false view of the history and philosophy of science.

Also, our democratic ideals have imbued us with the bizarre notion that the opinions of anyone off the street are just as good as those of any scientist.

We are suffering a mass delusion due in part to the active creation of ignorance.

People who believe themselves to be "smart" and "well-educated" have deluded themselves into believing that they are eminently qualified to reject the collective, nearly unanimous informed opinions of 10s of thousands of the worlds very best scientists, in favor of the mindless rants of a very vocal minority who collectively constitute AT THE VERY BEST utter mediocrity in research.

They believe that they have done sufficient research that they can make that call, but the fact is that none of them would even recognize real research.


I can't think of anything I'd rather do than agree with every word you've just written. If fact, I once did. But I can't now. For one thing, (I'm not going to attempt a list. It would be too long and redundant.) how many truly revolutionary ideas have come from people/scientists who went against this "collective, nearly unanimous informed opinions..." group? I can't think of many that weren't.

I once worked with a PhD geophysicist who was converted, after 15 years as an successful explorationist, to a young-earth Christian. At every level of education, I've encountered the same failures of logic that I've encountered with the nearly completely uneducated. I don't believe in your "active creation of ignorance." We don't need one. Ignorance is ubiquitous. It's an unavoidable aspect of the human mind and where it shows up in any given mind is as random as the location of an electron while it's speed is being measured. It's surely genetic, or maybe I should say congenitally set as there is no predicting where the ignorance will show up. It depends on how the brain wires its self after gastrolation. No amount of education or training can change it once wired. Just look around. No matter how educated and inventive we've become, we can still become so enraged over a perceived minor verbal insult that we kill each other over it. This is hard-wired and has remained unchanged since before we evolved "intelligence". Ignorance is not going away. It will be there, on the street and in the labs at MIT (or wherever) as long humans exist as such.


Last edited by Iztaci; 12/22/08 07:57 PM.

When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Ignorance is ubiquitous. It's an unavoidable aspect of the human mind and where it shows up in any given mind is as random as the location of an electron while it's speed is being measured. It's surely genetic, or maybe I should say congenitally set as there is no predicting where the ignorance will show up. It depends on how the brain wires its self after gastrolation. No amount of education or training can change it once wired. Just look around. No matter how educated and inventive we've become, we can still become so enraged over a perceived minor verbal insult that we kill each other over it. This is hard-wired and has remained unchanged since before we evolved "intelligence". Ignorance is not going away. It will be there, on the street and in the labs at MIT (or wherever) as long humans exist as such.

Just as ignorance is tuned within the circuitry of the intellect and emotional body, so is the refinement possible to expand the intellect beyond ignorance. If the DNA contains the potential for ignornace so does it contain the potential for genious and or liberation from ignorance.
It's the reason so many turn to spirituality for some kind of freedom from fear, and release from the ideas of inevitable process that we are destined to incorporate ignorance into humanity by default.
Balance can be achieved in a humility that lay beyond egoic impressions and the creation of evolution from a point of reference in some outward identification of the source of humanity that is speculative at best and demeaning to our very nature.

There is within us all a greater experience of humanity than the current ideals of cellular identification and the belief in random chance that is evolution.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Whenever atheists are presented with the reality that undirected evolution is impossible, they either disappear or spout illiterate nonsense.
No one can dispute that the universe and its inhabitants were finely tuned. I can envisage natural selection and random mutation figuratively "having a meeting" to design the eye, because these forces were created just as gravity was.
"Anonymous" is, in all likelihood, here, if he/she/it exists at all, because of a 23rd chromosome being x or y, and a complex reproductive system that could not have evolved by tiny steps over eons of time.
Atheists are in a state of denial because paradoxically they hate the creator in whom they do not believe.
If a creationist said that Science killed, because it invented weapons such as the A Bomb, atheists would scoff and rush to the defense of Science. Yet, they blame religion for wars. Religion and Science are inanimate and therefore incapable of killing. Humans kill, and multiple millions were killed by atheists in the name of hate or race.
One now discredited evangelist put it best: If you believe you evolved from a rock, you could not be that stupid, you had to be taught.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
C M wrote
"One now discredited evangelist put it best: If you believe you evolved from a rock, you could not be that stupid, you had to be taught. "

........and your point that this somewhat obtuse statement illustrates is.......?

Last edited by Ellis; 12/22/08 10:23 PM. Reason: whatever...
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Quote:
Ignorance is ubiquitous. It's an unavoidable aspect of the human mind and where it shows up in any given mind is as random as the location of an electron while it's speed is being measured. It's surely genetic, or maybe I should say congenitally set as there is no predicting where the ignorance will show up. It depends on how the brain wires its self after gastrolation. No amount of education or training can change it once wired. Just look around. No matter how educated and inventive we've become, we can still become so enraged over a perceived minor verbal insult that we kill each other over it. This is hard-wired and has remained unchanged since before we evolved "intelligence". Ignorance is not going away. It will be there, on the street and in the labs at MIT (or wherever) as long humans exist as such.


Just as ignorance is tuned within the circuitry of the intellect and emotional body, so is the refinement possible to expand the intellect beyond ignorance. If the DNA contains the potential for ignornace so does it contain the potential for genious and or liberation from ignorance.
It's the reason so many turn to spirituality for some kind of freedom from fear, and release from the ideas of inevitable process that we are destined to incorporate ignorance into humanity by default.
Balance can be achieved in a humility that lay beyond egoic impressions and the creation of evolution from a point of reference in some outward identification of the source of humanity that is speculative at best and demeaning to our very nature.

There is within us all a greater experience of humanity than the current ideals of cellular identification and the belief in random chance that is evolution.

Ignorance isn't "tuned in" to anything. Ignorance is not a thing; it's the absence of a thing. Knowledge. You cannot tune a non-thing. Sounds like you're trying to compare ignor-nace with gen-ious. I ain't gots no idea what neither of them things is but dey don't sound lak dey otta be in the same chewin o'the fat.

DNA "contains" the potential for ignorance? How can DNA "contain" a "potential". Gift wrapped in a glycoprotein fabric with a nucleotide bow? DO NOT OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF DRUIDS!

"It's the reason so many turn to spirituality for some kind of freedom from fear, and release from the ideas of inevitable process that we are destined to incorporate ignorance into humanity by default."

Incorporate a non-thing into humanity? You might incorporate air, you know, the stuff your above paragraph is made of, by injecting it via certain orifices in your body. But then air is something. Ignorance is nothing. Nada. Zip. Squat. Along with being grammatically impossible, your statement is nonsense.

"Balance can be achieved in a humility that lay beyond egoic impressions and the creation of evolution..."

Ignoring the grammatical violations that would be obvious to a fifth-grader... "creation of evolution"? Good grief, TT, you've outdone yourself. You've transcended the infinite in a point of outward cellular identification to a new paradigm of non-random chance and non-chance randomness that we are destined to free ourselves from fear and egoic perchance and the evil emotional body.

"There is within us all a greater experience of humanity..."


Within us all? You got some toads in your pocket, TT? If my experience gets any greater, I'll have to change my shorts every hour. What could be greater than knowing your incredible tutelage is just a mouse-click away 24/7?


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: curtis mohommed
Whenever atheists are presented with the reality that undirected evolution is impossible, they either disappear or spout illiterate nonsense.
No one can dispute that the universe and its inhabitants were finely tuned. I can envisage natural selection and random mutation figuratively "having a meeting" to design the eye, because these forces were created just as gravity was.
"Anonymous" is, in all likelihood, here, if he/she/it exists at all, because of a 23rd chromosome being x or y, and a complex reproductive system that could not have evolved by tiny steps over eons of time.
Atheists are in a state of denial because paradoxically they hate the creator in whom they do not believe.
If a creationist said that Science killed, because it invented weapons such as the A Bomb, atheists would scoff and rush to the defense of Science. Yet, they blame religion for wars. Religion and Science are inanimate and therefore incapable of killing. Humans kill, and multiple millions were killed by atheists in the name of hate or race.
One now discredited evangelist put it best: If you believe you evolved from a rock, you could not be that stupid, you had to be taught.


I don't know if this was prompted by my posts or not. If they were and you assumed me to be an atheist, it's just another of the wild, wild generalizations you splattered so generously all over your post. I don't know if undirected evolutions is possible or not but I am sure, by the undirected shotgun barrage you've just released, that you don't either.

"If a creationist said that science killed..." What creationist? Are they identical? "... atheists would scoff and rush..." Also identical? What happened? Did God create but two types of individuals then clone them so He'd only have to deal with two groups, each with identical views?

"Atheists are in a state of denial because paradoxically they hate the creator in whom they do not believe."


You are not describing a paradox here. You are spouting what you defined in your opening sentence. Illiterate nonsense.

Can one OD on discredited evangelism?


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
CM----Only someone who was able to hate on the flimisest of reasons would suggest this ridiculous idea, and incidently it makes as much sense as loving something simply because you believe it. Such silly nonsense!

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940


"Whenever atheists are presented with the reality that undirected evolution is impossible, they either disappear or spout illiterate nonsense."
This isn't about atheism. It's about science and evolution. But since you bring it up, you are the one who is spouting nonsense. There is no evidence that undirected evolution is impossible. You are citing urban legend as if it were fact.


"No one can dispute that the universe and its inhabitants were finely tuned."
Of course they can. That's why the vast majority of real scientists accept the reality of evolution.


"Atheists are in a state of denial because paradoxically they hate the creator in whom they do not believe."
Assertions are not facts. I know this is a mystery to you.



"If a creationist said that Science killed, because it invented weapons such as the A Bomb, atheists would scoff and rush to the defense of Science. Yet, they blame religion for wars."
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Sagan had it right. Our obit will read "They accepted the products of science; they rejected its methods." Nothing to do with evolution.

"Religion and Science are inanimate and therefore incapable of killing. Humans kill, and multiple millions were killed by atheists in the name of hate or race."
Questionable. Nothing to do with evolution.

"One now discredited evangelist put it best: If you believe you evolved from a rock, you could not be that stupid, you had to be taught."
Reasonable people do not look to evangelists for advice about science.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted By: Iztaci


Ignorance isn't "tuned in" to anything. Ignorance is not a thing; it's the absence of a thing. Knowledge.

No its an absence of experience in Truth that is not relative to belief and theory. Ignoring the subtle which is present but not believed often drives the mind further away from truth into superstition based on what aint real aint what I can't see and comprehend based on what I been told, Jethro.
Quote:

DNA "contains" the potential for ignorance? How can DNA "contain" a "potential". Gift wrapped in a glycoprotein fabric with a nucleotide bow? DO NOT OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF DRUIDS!

How can a seed from a tree contain a potential tree? Plant it nourish it and you get a tree.
DNA contains all the building blocks for the human mechanism. nourish it by feeding it sh*t and you get a sh*tty human. You should be familiar with that idea, you tend to speak of sh*t often enough. What you give your attention to multiplies itself in personality and belief.
Quote:

"It's the reason so many turn to spirituality for some kind of freedom from fear, and release from the ideas of inevitable process that we are destined to incorporate ignorance into humanity by default."

Incorporate a non-thing into humanity? You might incorporate air, you know, the stuff your above paragraph is made of, by injecting it via certain orifices in your body. But then air is something. Ignorance is nothing. Nada. Zip. Squat. Along with being grammatically impossible, your statement is nonsense.

If Jethro don't 'sperience it, it aint possible, 'cause Jethro know everthang real.... crazy
Quote:

"Balance can be achieved in a humility that lay beyond egoic impressions and the creation of evolution..."

Ignoring the grammatical violations that would be obvious to a fifth-grader... "creation of evolution"?

Exactly. Who created the idea of evolution? Did it create itself to reveal itself in words and definition for man to stumble upon or did man surmise its owm beginnings under the headings and definitions of evolution? Now then Who decides when the only answer has been determined and when will that be?
Quote:
Good grief, TT, you've outdone yourself. You've transcended the infinite in a point of outward cellular identification to a new paradigm of non-random chance and non-chance randomness that we are destined to free ourselves from fear and egoic perchance and the evil emotional body.
WTF are you ranting about?
Quote:

"There is within us all a greater experience of humanity..."


Within us all? You got some toads in your pocket, TT? If my experience gets any greater, I'll have to change my shorts every hour. What could be greater than knowing your incredible tutelage is just a mouse-click away 24/7?
In most cases an open mind, but in your case there may be no cure for what nails you to the cookbook version of reality.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
'how many truly revolutionary ideas have come from people/scientists who went against this "collective, nearly unanimous informed opinions'

This is a half truth. LOTS of people have disagreed and continue to disagree with the dominant paradigm. The vast majority of them are wrong. And the ones who were right demonstrated such complete understanding of their subject - including the theories they were supplanting - that few of them were doubted to be brilliant even when they were wrong. Comic book history of science tells us that 'people' scoffed at Galileo and Columbus and Einstein. Those who assert this are just wrong. Nobody who understood what was going on scoffed at these guys - even when they disagreed with them.

I can think of one tragic case that meets this criteria - Ignaz Semmelweis. However, in this case one has to cheat - like a creationist. The people who persecuted and ridiculed Semmelweis - and who were probably ultimately responsible for his death - were not scientists: they were doctors. Of course, when creationists compile their list of "scientists who disagree with evolution" they list a bunch of MDs, vets, and engineers, as well. They gotta scrounge pretty low to inflate the list. The followers who aren't prone to doing homework are not likely to notice (or even care).

Anyway, that's a major difference between these the real scientific revolutionaries and the creationist pretenders.

As for your geophysicist friend, there are people who abandon reason the world over and join cults - $cientology, Hare Krishna, the religion of the week.


Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Look up Robert Proctor at Stanford. Agnotology. There is genuine ignorance and their is cultivated ignorance. Creationism is a prototypical example of the latter.

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 12/23/08 01:48 AM.
D
David, Humanist
Unregistered
David, Humanist
Unregistered
D
The world is not flat. The world is not the center of the universe. Fish did evolve legs. Dinosaurs did roam. Man did evolve from apes. Man did create global warming. Nuclear weapons will make the world flat.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
The world is not flat. The world is not the center of the universe. Fish did evolve legs. Dinosaurs did roam. Man did evolve from apes. Man did create global warming. Nuclear weapons will make the world flat.
Nuclear weapons may clear the landscape but if it isn't flat already they won't make what isn't flat, flat. cool And my greatest greatest greatgrandparents were not apes nor were they exclusively indigenous to this planet.. wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Look up Robert Proctor at Stanford. Agnotology. There is genuine ignorance and their is cultivated ignorance. Creationism is a prototypical example of the latter.

OK, I agree there are those two types of ignorance and, of course, I agree that creationists are an examples of the latter. In the vast majority of cases. Many were cultivated by fundamentalist parents and friends but, some were just born idiots. And, I'll give you a point on your comment that I'm only half right in the statement to which you referred. But, when you talk about "scoffing", you're referring to someone else's comment, not mine. I said many of the great discoveries were made by those who "went against" the conventional wisdom of their time. And scoffing was not and is not exactly rare in elite scientific circles. Due to my experience in geophysics, Alvarez pops into my mind. He was virtual run out of the discipline for his idea that the K/T Boundary was the result of a big-assed rock from outer space. Continental drift? That one still crops up. Arizona crater? That one got pretty damned hot. I knew, very well, a scientist who was ridiculed internationally for his ideas that amplitude versus offset calculations could provide enhanced definition in seismic data. Thirty years hence, AVO is now standard throughout the industry. And fraud was not that rare. Fraud that made it all the way to the textbooks like the Piltdowners and Sigmund Freud.

To get any further in this discussion, you and I would have to agree on some terms. And some rules of logic. First, and we may agree on this, I don't consider paleontologists, psychologists, geophysicists, MDs, geologists - the list is lengthy - to be scientists. I consider them to be professionals who are extensively trained to use the tools developed by scientists. I was one of those. Scientists are the ones who develop those tools. Many discoveries have been made by scientific experiments conducted by people like me but only by using the tools developed by scientists.

As for logic, proof via negation is a logical fallacy. You aptly pointed it out to Curtis Mohomed and then committed the same proof by negation fallacy when you argued there was no proof that directed evolution was impossible. A meaningless and unnecessary statement. As for your reference to "real" scientists, I'm reminded of the all too common retort of many fundamentalists: "Well, 'real Christians' know better than that." When you pin them down, "real Christians" are the ones who agree with them.

Last: As for your geophysicist friend, there are people who abandon reason the world over and join cults - $cientology, Hare Krishna, the religion of the week.

What's this? Argument by agreement? It's what I said.

I doubt we disagree on much of any substance. You pointed out some things I could have said better and you were correct. I'm just trying to return the favor.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Scientists often scoff at each other's ideas, even in a mean-spirited way on occasion. But that doesn't necessarily mean they think the other guy is an idiot. My daughter is reading a debate between Gould and Morris right now in which they are ridiculing each other, but are also talking about they think the other guy should be nominated for a nobel prize. Each of these guys knows very well that the other guy actually understands the situation.

"there was no proof that directed evolution was impossible. A meaningless and unnecessary statement."
This is at the core of why evolution is real science and creationism is not. Evolution is falsifiable, but not falsified.
Moreover, numerous creationists assert like Curtis, that evolution is refuted by 1 and/or 2 laws of thermodynamics, probability, information theory, string theory, fossil record - and a number of other things. These statements are contrary to fact. Evolution is not refuted by any known scientific principle.

"You pointed out some things I could have said better and you were correct. I'm just trying to return the favor."
I appreciate that. The whole "scoffing" thing needs better explication than I have offered in either the previous post or this one.

The comment about "real scientists" is only superficially like the similar one made by Christians against their brothers. I thought I made this clear. If you look up bios on the creationists' own websites, you find that many of them have degrees from diploma mills, or degrees that are not in science. Many have published very few scientific papers.

YECs aren't alone. There used to be a list of "100 scientists who do not accept evolution" that was put out by the discovery institute. The list is up close to 1000 now, I think. But you look at the list and it includes vets, medical doctors, engineers, etc. I don't have a problem with vets and doctors or even engineers. Some few of them really ARE scientists - but one is not a scientist by virtue of simply having a degree in one of those areas or even practicing it.

Here's a video on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=channel_page


Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2
H
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2
Tutor, Your greatest greatest greatest grandparents were aliens? On what planet did they evolve? Um, no. I beg you to take a biology or genetics course. Your ancestors came out of africa. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You are still as special as you always thought you were. Oh, and, of course, I wasn't suggesting that nuclear weapons would actually flatten the physical world. But New York will be flat. And so will just about every major city.

Last edited by humanistdavid; 12/23/08 05:19 AM.
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2
H
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2
If by "comic book understanding" of science means "religious" or "fairy tale" understanding of science, then you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, you are also right about our democratic ideals. A democracy is only as good as how educated its citizens are. Look to Iran as a clear example. Our focus must be education.

Page 5 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 20

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5