Corrupted Science Revealed

It's hardly just climate change. The Republicans are also the party promoting things like "intelligent design" and creationism instead of evolution, working against stem cell research, and working to weaken pollution controls in favor of industry, often through dubious scientific arguments or the supression of science data that would contradict their position.

The Republican War on Science [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227732881&sr=1-4[/ame]

 

You got me on that one. I am a strict evolutionist and am embarrassed the party generally espouses "intelligent design" and other such silly theories

How so? It has been the Republican's party policy only not to support public funding of such research. Laws are not in place that generally limit such research at a private level. This is a decision by the party to limit government spending (of which they have not been successful at during the last eight years in many other areas; straying woefully from their traditional core conservative fiscal values). This kind of research is best handled at a private level. The rewards of breakthroughs are great and offer great incentives at the private level as opposed to inefficient, wasteful government research.

A subjective call at best. Pollution controls are subjective set at arbitrary levels. A balance must be met. A 100% non emission policy would essentially shut down the US. We would become a third world country at a non competitive level with the rest of the world. Life would be more miserable than that in Sudan. On the other hand lack of any policy on pollution would quickly vault the US at the top of the world in manufacturing but at a great destructive expense to the environment. So a balance must be met. That's where the political parties differ.

Give me a break. As if only one party is guilty...

Rick
#4 2006

 

It's not just ecologists versus big business. Most all groups skew, slant, and 'find' their own 'absolute-facts'. For instance, take the age old debate of an athiest's science versus the religionists. Stars being 'millions' of light years away, turn on the speed of light not varrying over all of time and under all conditions ... and radio active particles in rocks that eventually turn to lead over 'millions' of years, turns on that rate of decay happening at the same rate over all time, and over all conditions. And where's THAT proof? These scientists have 'faith' that such things are absolutely so, without proof ... faith ... the very thing they claim they're not relying on. But yea, all grops tend to do this. We tend to be able to always prove our side.

 

Quiz time,

At a national debate, which parties candidates, when asked if they believed in evolution, had a majority of it's presidential candidates hold up their hands to signify that they DID'NT believe in evolution?!


One could argue (not I!) that what ever side is in power, slants the results, but it is clear, since the early 1980's that the Republicans have waged a war on science and intellectualism. The net result of this has been, if not a gutting of, at least a quashing of, all kinds of science and the regulation that comes from it to protect the health the the planet and it's inhabitants!

Viking31, I agree that some balance is required and the zero emissions are not possible, but when it is a case of the corporate bottom line, or the health and safety of all of us,, the current administration has been almost exclusively in favor of the former. (I know, I know, the Clinton Admin was no paragon of virtue either, but on balance, the GOP has done a far poorer job. It is not without irony that Nixon was the father of the EPA).
The bottom line is that the environment should take precedence over "the economy". We are now paying the price for a generation of over indulgence and the planet can't take much more!

Icarus

 

I think overall Bush was stupid and Al Gore should be the president right now. We wouldn't have to worry about global warming anymore because he would have fixed it by now instead of fighting a war that just kills innocent people in Iran.

Seriously though, I think our educational system is pretty good, but I have a lot of hope that Obama will make it stronger with all of his plans that he has to help us out. Finally we can get rid of all the jerks in the government that think global warming is a joke - It's happening now, and not enough people care. We need to save as much of the planet as we can, and by driving a hybrid I'm trying to do my best. I even keep all my reusable bags in my prius, so it's double friendly to the environment. People need to back off of those that are proving global warming is real, because they're only making things worse!

 

the decision to increase the NIH budget through 2003 FY was done under the clinton administration. once future decisions were in the hands of bush, from 2003-present the NIH budget hasn't even kept up with inflation. i guess we can be glad that bush didn't go and reverse that decision.

no, science has not been a priority in the last several years. period. and that includes science education under nclb, and the promotion- the outright promotion of teaching creationism/id alongside scientific theory.

 

The Kansas Board of Education and The Creation Museum are but two examples...

 

A human protected by high technology during the first lunar landing, demonstrates knowledge developed through study of the natural sciences.

 

I read that article and did not find one occurrence of the words "conservative", "right wing", or "Republican" for that matter. Are you implying that Christian religulous Democrats and Republicans are in a vast divide over the belief of Creationism? Are Democratic Christians on a whole less believing in the literal Bible than Republican Christians?

It follows that those that are less educated (as Democrats are) believe as a higher percentage in simpleton theories such as Creationism. It is the ignorant and less educated that rely on "supernatural forces" and such to explain things which they do not understand or comprehend.

To say that the Republicans and conservatives in general are represented by kooky Evangelicals and other like types is simply an oft quoted media slur which in and of itself has become fodder for and by the media to perpetuate ad nauseam such statements.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Science always strives to disprove itself, it is not based on impulsive opinion. The journals such as Nature and Science are published weekly. Peer review is critical to robust and credible science. This article only reveals the lack of critical thinking by the author, not the ongoing process of science.

The concept of evolution is nonbelief. No credible person believes in evolution, it is based on testable, falsifiable evidence. We accept what we cannot disprove and we keep testing. Of course, every credible politician should clearly state they do not believe in evolution. Intelligent Design is an act of faith, based on belief, not testable, falsifiable evidence. ID is repeatedly discredited, as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover (see the NOVA program, "Judgment Day"). The ID folks keep coming back with their wedge strategies and politicians and the media don't get it.

 

Creation science, ID, and all that stuff is NOT SCIENCE!

It belongs in the journal of Irreproducable Results, along with such theory that the the earth's crust is collapsing due to the weight of all the National Geographic Magazines sitting around in peoples basements!

Icarus

 

More corrupted science from the Bush administration:

AP:
Report: Endangered species decisions tainted
A high-ranking interior official tainted nearly every decision made on the protection of endangered species over five years, a new inspector general report finds, concluding she exerted improper political interference on many more rulings than previously thought.

The Interior Department last year reversed seven rulings that denied endangered species increased protection, after an investigation found that MacDonald had applied political pressure in those cases. The new report looked at nearly two dozen other endangered species decisions not examined in the earlier report. It found MacDonald directly interfered with at least 13 decisions and indirectly affected at least two more.

MacDonald, a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences, resigned in May 2007. Department employees reported that they used her name as a verb - encountering political interference from senior managers was called "getting MacDonalded." [more at link]

 

Or the theory of 7 meter sea level rise by Algore.

 

that is the point, we didnt listen to Carter and now we are paying for it BIG TIME... it will take 20 years to dig out of the hole we are in now.

 

Corrupted journalism revealed.

 

My only question is: Why is this a debate? It's like two firemen arguing if a house is, indeed, on fire just because flames are climbing up the walls and smoke is pouring out the windows. Instead of wasting hours on it, why don't they just try to think of a way to put out the fire?

 

Wow...I'm really unimpressed with that statement. Not as a reflection on your intelligence, Icarus, but on the complete misunderstanding of the cohesion between science and religion in the world as a whole. First off, don't confuse Young Earth Creationism with testable scientific theory which would include ID. There are far more holes in evolution that continue to evolve (pun intended) as science itself evolves. ID does NOT discount the merits or obvious scientific proof of evolution. Second, don't confuse the Book of Genesis as a scientific piece of literature when the translation most read is at best a corruption of the original Hebrew. It is a very different piece of literature in its original and was never intended as a scientific textbook. That being said, however, the Book of Genesis is the only piece of ancient literature that accurately describes how the earth evolved from one period or epoch to the next. I could go on, but I'm sure the ante has been raised on my part and I will have to make defense of my statements...let the fun begin!

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)

 

I may read the Bible as literature, as allegory, as metaphor, but the difference is between belief which by it's nature is unprovable, or science that by it's nature can be tested with controlled experiments. Do I know with absolute certainty that it snows because of a confluence of observable events? No. Do I know that there is some magic being throwing snowballs down from the sky? No. But at least I can reproduce and study the events of weather and understand the causes and effects of weather rather than blindly believe in the other.

I won't argue in this forum the nuance of philosophy and religious belief. There is value to many in both discussions, but you can't convince me that the world was built in 7 days, ~4000 years ago.

Icarus

 

The earth created in six days (remember, He rested on the seventh day)? Wow, that’s crazy talk! Who could possibly believe a book that states the earth is created in six days when all of science (that is testable and measurable and provable) claims not only did it take a few billion years for life to develop, but that the earth itself is approximately 4.5662 billion years old (1) and the universe is 13.73 billion years old (2). But yet, any devout Christian or Jew will tell you that the Bible is infallible, so what gives? Is it part truth, part fiction, or just a bunch of stories that we have to pick and choose which is which?

The Bible itself states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard (3).” That’s a powerful invitation and an exhortation to employ what we observe through nature and science and learn about God and how he works; how he created what is observable and what is testable.
But bear with me a bit and I will convey a few other statements from the Bible that we may ponder its scientific merit before taking an exegetical approach to that seemingly preposterous story of the earth and all that is in it being created in six 24-hour days.

The Bible also talks of time having a beginning (4), which we know before the Big Bang there was no time. The Bible also speaks of the universe having a beginning (5); the universe was created from that which was invisible (6); and the universe is expanding (7), all three of which are proponents of the Big Bang theory. One can also conclude from Biblical statements the creation of matter and energy in the universe has ended(8) and that the universe is winding down and will eventually wear out(9). But wait, there’s more! We can deduce that the number of stars is practically countless (10); every star is different (11); Pleiades and Orion are gravitationally bound star groups (12); and, the earth is controlled by the heavens (13). There are yet numerous other Biblical statements that coincide with well proven scientific proofs concerning cosmology, earth sciences, and biology, all of which are observable and testable. But what about that Genesis “story”?

If it is to be claimed by me as a Christian that the Bible is infallible, the Genesis story must present itself in a way that is not contradictory to all the scientific data that has amassed and the very statement God makes in Psalm 19:1-3. For the sake of brevity I will only touch upon the six 24 hour days
In Hebrew the word for day is yom,. The problem with this simple translation is that it does not include every translation for this simple yet diverse word, yom. Yom actually has several translations according to the context in which it is used. Yom “…has three main meanings; daylight portion of a solar day (i.e., sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour solar day, or a long period of time. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew definitions list definitions referring to long periods of time such as ‘year,’ ‘lifetime,’ and ‘time, period (general)’.” (14) Even in today’s modern English we have this use of the word “day”; the day of the dinosaur, or, back in my day. But, one may argue, there is still an inconsistency with the Genesis story because it states, “…and there was evening and morning a day. Clearly this would bring us back to the definition of a 24 hour day. The words “morning” and “evening” also have different translation according to the context in which they are used. Boqer can be translated as morning; dawn; early; or morrow (15) and erev may be translated as dusk; night (16). “‘Evening’ has the additional meaning of ‘ending’ and ‘morning’ and ‘erev’ has the meaning of ‘dawning’ or ‘beginning’. The order of ‘evening morning’ is not insignificant. Each day described in Genesis 1 is completed by ‘evening’ (ending) juxtaposed with ‘morning’ (beginning). So, the usage fits the interpretation of the ending of one day and the beginning of the next. (17)” So, armed with both modern scientific theory and laws, and a more thorough understanding of three pivotal words in Genesis, we can give the text a richer and more scientifically plausible interpretation. We must also take into context that the Genesis creation is scientifically accurate in its procession creation; creation of the universe and our earth, Day 1 (or Period 1); separation of waters in the atmosphere and liquid water, Day 2; oceans and dry land appearing through tectonic activity and then the creation of plants, Day 3; the appearance (not the creation of, there is a different Hebrew word used here that means “let there be”)of the sun, moon, and stars due to atmospheric changes allowing clouds to form instead of one large water vapor canopy, Day 4; the appearance of water animal life, birds, and land-dwelling animals, Day 5; an additional appearance of land animals and last, human beings, Day 6.

“…and there was an end and a beginning, a first period(epoch).”

So, in conclusion, I believe we must take a deeper approach to the understanding of Biblical language and its application in the context of scientific evidence. Did I change the meaning of the Genesis story? No. I have simply, as so have others far more advanced in their understanding of Hebrew and science than I, used more appropriate translations of the original Hebrew text. Could God have created everything in six days? Sure He could have! What would be impossible for a Being that can design the laws of physics and take a point of energy so infinitely small and dense and allow it to expand into everything we see and don’t see? The overwhelming scientific evidence points to a God that works through naturalistic laws, is extremely patient, and, orderly. It is far more a miracle to me to understand the universe starting as a Singularity and for everything to be based upon one particular element, i.e. hydrogen into the bizarre and fascinating universe we live in.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard (3).”


1. C. J. Allegre, G. Manhes, and C. Gopel, “The Age of the Earth,”
Geochemica et Cosmo chemica Acta 59 (1995), 1445-1456
2. “New Image of Infant Universe Reveals Era of First Stars, Age of Cosmos, and More,” http;//www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html
3. Psalm 19: 1-3
4. 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:7
5. Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5
6. Hebrews 11:3
7. Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:1
8. Genesis 2:3-4
9. Psalms 102:25-27
10. Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22
11. 1 Corinthians 15:41
12. Job 38:31
13. Job 38:33
14. Richard Deem, “Does the Bible Say God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days,” http:// godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
15. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, H1242, 23
16. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, H6053, 91
17. Richard Deem, “Does the Bible Say God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days,” http:// godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
Other great reading: Why the Universe is the Way It Is, by Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Astronomy, University of Toronto; Origins of Life, Fazale Rana, Ph.D., Chemistry, Ohio University, and Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Astronomy University of Toronto; Reasons To Believe: Frequently Asked Questions

 

Your analogy is flawed and assumes AGW does indeed exist which is the crux of the argument. You say the house is on fire; I say it's not. You say that if the house is on fire you could put it out; I say even if I was to believe it was on fire to put it out would be akin to putting out a forest fire (which BTW was caused by nature) with a garden hose.

Rick
#4 2006