Posted on 10/16/2005 12:02:32 PM PDT by gobucks
Natural history museums around the country are mounting new exhibits they hope will succeed where high school biology classes have faltered: convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science.
Snip
"I think everyone is realizing that we need to be doing a great deal more. We just haven't made the effort to communicate evolution to people in terms they can understand. Evolution is exciting," Diamond said.
snip
"One of the big misunderstandings, I think, is that a lot of people have stopped realizing that science is a secular activity," said Lance Grande. Field's $17 million, 20,000-square foot, "Evolving Planet" exhibit is slated to open on March 10, 2006.
snip
"In many ways, I blame science itself in that we have done a terrible job of explaining what science is," said Leonard Krishtalka of ... Kansas in Lawrence.
"I would imagine to non-scientists a lot of science and technology sounds like so much magic," he said. "Is it any surprise that so many people are choosing one kind of magic over another kind of magic?"
In an effort to deepen visitors' understanding of evolution, the Field Museum has designed "Evolving Planet" to showcase dinosaurs without allowing them to overshadow everything else. In past evolution exhibits, McCarter said, people "whipped through the origin of life, and everything before the dinosaurs, to go look at the dinosaurs. And by the time they got done looking at the dinosaurs, they were so tired that they whipped out."
This time, he said, "we're using the dinosaurs as kind of the marquee to draw them in and saying, this is a very complicated story, which you've got to dig into over a long period of time."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I do understand scientific theory. I can see how a variation in a population can occur, or why an electric motor spins. I know that systems tend to degrade from more complex to less complex and slow down. Never quite could get an handle on more complex systems evolving thru pure chance - Guess that makes me a bad person in your eyes.
Most scientists could give a rat's ass whether their university is liberal or conservative. And, after 40 years as a scientist, the great majority of scientists I've encountered are actually conservatives.
You are bound and determined to fit science and scientists into your preconceived mold, even if there's not a good fit.
This is also typical of those who are creationists or ID proponents: that is, to them, scientists are either 1. Atheists, 2. Liberals, 3. outright Marxists or 4. rigidly dogmatic.
Like those who argue that way about creationism or ID, you are wrong about your presumptions concerning scientists.
And the most elemenary and basic definition of science is...?
Oh please...give me a break.
Sure, no problem. It would just help the public understand what the scientist are up to.
So, to say that the battle between ID proponents and evolutionary scientists is nothing more than a cultural war (which you have asserted) miss-characterizes science.
The scientist have to stop what they are doing and confront the ID proponents, mostly for self preservation, that is to secure their funding, their funding being generally provided by the public. Public funding leads to cultural issues.
Off the top of my head is discovery. To learn new things and explain old things.
Then they wouldn't be scientists.
They might resort to hiring PR firms.
It is absolutely true that if we evolved as popularly claimed, then there are no moral absolutes and we are an accidental mish-mash of carbon. At least on the detestable left wing web sites they (usually) don't pretend that you can keep your Christianity and be an evolutionist. (I chose the former, for what it's worth...)
Good try, but many endeavors fulfill that definition.
Science is a method, the scientific method,(as opposed to the philosophic method, for example) of understanding the physical universe.
The scientifc method is based upon systematic, empirical observation and the data generated by such observations are organized into testable hypotheses. The hypothesis are tested, again, by the scientific method.
For those scientists here at FR, Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive.
Are you familiar with the guy who was fired by Scientific American for being a Christian? The Scientific Community (as represented by Scientific American) introduced me to the concept of politics and science.
Yes there is the method, where you make a prediction, see if you are right, and then be able to repeat it. Repeating it is key, in repeating you can start to explain. I actually like science, the math just wasn't my friend. Read a book by Einstein once where he would explain things, and carry on apologizing every time he would use an equation.
No, I'm not. Are you not referring to the guy at the Smithsonian. I gave up, as have many scientists, on Scientific American---they appear to have adopted an activist-leftist bias. A far better one that actually does represent scientists, is The American Scientist.
There are two keys: Replicability and Empirical observation.
I read that, at first, Einstein had trouble with math.
I've been reading these posts and I'm just surprised it isn't somewhat apparent what Mrs Mark was saying. My understanding of her posts was that the actual scientific validity of the TOE or ID is irrelevant. They are essentially stand-ins for different positions in what she terms the 'Culture Wars'. Makes sense to me. I think you were are talking past each other.
Yes we were talking past each other, because (and the point I was trying to make) ID and science are not comparable positions each at the opposite end of the spectrum.
It is not the goal of science or scientists to do anything but science, that is: not to challenge ID, nor to support it, nor to fight it in a war of cultures.
Science's goal is to achieve understanding of the physical universe via the scientific method, and that's it---end of story. When and if scientists become cultural activists, they cease to act as scientists. That's because such activity is not part of the definition of science.
Attempts to equate science and ID as being nothing but two opponents in a "cultural war" distorts the definition of science beyond recognition.
You are wrong.
If you could separate the "Science" from the "Scientific Establishment" I would say the battle is more with the Scientific Establishment as they are part of the establishment of the liberal universities, that tend to follow the liberal line on all the issues.
Wrong again. And again. And yet again. Wrong three times in one sentence - is that a record for you?
You mean like the Pope did?
(I chose the former, for what it's worth...)
That's worth a handful of pig snot in a discussion about science.
Didn't they already do that in Kansas?
Some Moslem fundamentalist testified in the "hearings"
Nothing in your post indicates that you understand science.
A bit of technology, yes, but not science.
Oh, yes, and how do you thing variations occur in populations?
Ok, you are right, the universities are not controlled by the liberals. They are all ran by conservatives. There is no such thing as a liberal in Ann Arbor or Berkly. You are right, I am setting the record for being wrong. Everyone interested in promoting ID as a way to combat what is perceived as the moral culture slipping away, really longs to live as monkeys in the trees, just as our ancestors did.
You are certainly a wise person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.