Is US becoming hostile to science?

Reuters ^ | 10/28/5 | Alan Elsner

[gondramB]

You said that so much more better and more gracefuly than I could have...

[durasell]

The line that is most often used in NYC public schools and universities is: "Old Jewish men training Indian and Chinese immigrants how to win the next generation of Nobel prizes..."

So, no, the U.S. isn't becoming hostile to science, but third and fourth generation Americans are steering clear of it.

[ml1954]

"To have antagonism between science and religion is crazy...

Taken in context, this is called hypocrisy.

[ml1954]

You want to teach me there's no God!

Teach me about your God.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Teach me about your God.***

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=John+1&section=0&version=esv&language=en

[ml1954]

Why should I believe this?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Why should I believe this?***

Did you finish reading it?

[ml1954]

Yes. And I've read it before.

[Archon of the East]

I agree and that is not really what I'm getting at. My point is simply some of the stuff they pass off as fact is really no more factual, provable or "scientific" than ID. As for evolution it is scientifically the best explanation but certainly not an absolute fact or proved. Now I know some will dispute that but I challenge them to prove it. We are in a heap of post modern trouble in part because we have lost the ability to ask or discuss the essential questions of life in any meaningful public forum. Its actually quite pathetic IMO.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Yes.***

So you read the whole Gospel in 15 min?

[ml1954]

It took just a few minutes to read the link you posted.

[Sloth]

In the past five years, the scientific community has often seemed at odds with the Bush administration over issues as diverse as global warming, stem cell research and environmental protection... This was dramatically illustrated in the case of Terri Schiavo earlier this year

This article (predictably) defines leftism as 'science.' Global warming & many other "environmental" concerns are actually backdoor socialism -- while the stem cell & Schiavo matters concerned ethics, not science at all.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***It took just a few minutes to read the link you posted.***

Actually, I meant the whole Gospel. Sorry for not being clear.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&version=47

(Use the next chapter button.)

[Jorge]

How totally insecure evolutionists are portrayed in this article.

I graduated first in my college class with a perfect 4.0 GPA and believe 100% in Creationism and think evoltution is stupid.

The idea that being pro-creationist means one is none-scientific is absurd. The most brilliant people I know are creationists.

[ml1954]

I have already read the entire gospel. I appreciate your honest effort. And I respect what you believe.

[Jorge]

ID is as much a theory as pyramid power and zero point energy machines, except it is even less subject to falsification. Basically, it's thus far an intellectually bankrupt, scientifically worthless, often outright mendacious collection of nonsense being used by the deceitful to gull the ignorant.

ROFL! This is a parody to make evolutionist look like foolish bags of wind, right?

[Whitewasher]

Junk science, junk scientists and the advancement of such clap-trap needs to go.

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** I appreciate your honest effort. And I respect what you believe.***

No problem friend.

If you have not read them in a while, perhaps you might find time to do so again. You may be suprised what you come across in them. I constantly am.

[El Cid]

Interesting.
Amongst the reasons that Reuters highlights to demonstrate America's (or at least those unenlightened Republicans) antipathy towards science:

* They don't buy into the Global Warming crisis;
* They raise questions about the ethics of harvesting stem cells from aborted babies.
* They're against 'environmental protection'(?) ... I presume this has something to do with opening up ANWAR.
* They raised questions about the ethics of denying food and water to a living human being.

Sure -- count me as hostile to 'science' (so-called) then ...

[Right Wing Professor]

1. It is not deterministic because that would not account for chaos effects.

You misunderstand chaos. Chaos does not eliminate determinism, it amplifies very small effects. Moreover, quantum systems seem to be far less likely to show chaos than classical systems.

My statement is simply that science cannot exclude the existence of of a higher power guiding things. You seem to think I said I can prove there is a higher power and that is not at all what I said

If a higher power is guiding things, it must invovle a suspension of or alteration in physical laws.

A larger point is that by making statements that are false that the universe is deterministic and that God is excluded then you are, rather ironically, making the same mistake of giving up that ID people are prone to make and also playing into their hands strategically - just like them you seek to cast this as science versus religion when there is no conflict for reasonable, logical men.

There is nothing false about the statement that the universe, as current physics understands it, is deterministic. Ignorance on your part does not constitute a falsehood on my part. I'm sorry you don't like the physics, but it isn't my problem to adjust science to accomodate whatever compromise you seem to deem necessary between science and religion.