What in creation ... ?
You can't interject faith into study of life without becoming unscientific
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/perspecti...7410.xml&coll=1
EMLYN KOSTER
Ten years ago, Carl Sagan shared his view that "our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works."
This year, 80 years after the prosecution of John Scopes for teaching evolution at a Tennessee school, the debate between scientific knowledge and religious belief over the origins of life has roared back into the news. Reporters from around the globe are in Harrisburg, Pa., covering what is anticipated to be a landmark case. It raises the question of whether evolution should be taught in ninth-grade biology classes in nearby Dover as an entirely natural process or if the students in those classes also should hear about an intelligent force that, from time to time, has intervened in the process.
This is not a new argument. Nor is it new that scientific research frequently refines our understanding of age-old questions, including those that give us a more detailed grasp of how life has left a record of its past existence and led to today's biodiversity.
Before entering the field of natural history museums and science technology centers, I was a geologist. I had a childhood fascination with the change, after storms, in the shape of sea cliffs near where I lived, and the fresh supply of fossils I could find.
Looking back, the late 1960s and early 1970s were a great time to pursue geology at high school and university, because several major questions were being resolved. Applying World War II technology to locate submarines, geologists suddenly had complete ocean-floor maps. Teaching textbooks could barely keep up with the new understanding that the distribution and cause of volcanic eruptions and major earthquakes are tied to the dynamic boundaries of giant plates that compose the Earth's crust. Geologists determined the rates of plate motion to be just inches per year -- so slow, yet capable of opening up a 3,000-mile-wide ocean over 100 million years. Such a time span is a mere 2 percent of the dateable 4.6-billion-year age of the Earth.
Geologists then realized the implications of continental movements for how ocean currents, climate, landforms and life's ecosystems have changed over time.
This revolution in thinking led to what is widely called the unifying theory of plate tectonics. A theory in science is a structure of interrelated ideas to explain one or more phenomena in the natural world. The huge Indonesian earthquake and resulting Indian Ocean tsunami of last Dec. 26 were explained by news media within the framework of our understanding from scientific research.
It is the very nature of science to add insight and knowledge as new research re-examines previous research. This applies as much to the processes at work in the Earth's crust as it does to the process of, and evidence for, the evolution of life on Earth over the eons of geological time. As humans, we are certainly the most complex beings to have ever inhabited this planet: We think, we imagine, we question, we study, we debate and develop our opinions.
Science has never claimed to know everything. What we can clearly see from the history of scientific research is that the frontiers of knowledge have relentlessly edged forward, sometime as newsworthy leaps but usually as small steps that are out of public view at conferences and in journals. Sometimes, because of better analytical tools, new research may completely replace what earlier work had concluded. As an example, before it was established how continents move, the jigsaw fit of the Atlantic coastlines of South America and Africa had been interpreted as evidence that the area in between had sunk to become new ocean floor rather than the result of one larger continent breaking into two and slowly drifting apart.
At this time of seemingly contradictory reports of evidence and viewpoints about life itself, dictionary definitions of science and religion are worthwhile material for reflection. Science is a method-driven activity based on replicable observations, experimental investigations and theoretical modeling. Religion is a belief in, and reverence for, a supernatural power at the individual or institutional level.
Creationism and intelligent design are not new ways of thinking. Their first use dates back to when the idea of evolution was in its early stages, most famously by Charles Darwin. As recalled last month in the New York Times Magazine by William Safire, creationism was coined in 1868 to oppose Darwinism, and intelligent design, in its current sense, was first used in 1903. These two religious concepts are markedly different. Creationism, which arose in its current context in the 1970s, rejects the evidence of the fossil record and the vastness of geological time and, instead, takes a literal belief that the Earth was created according to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Intelligent design, which has intensely re-entered the news this year, accepts scientific interpretations of fossils and geological time but attributes the most complex, and as yet incompletely understood, parts of the evolutionary record, including its beginning, as moments of possibly supernatural intervention.
The record of ancient life is understandably incomplete. Its so-called "gaps" are the result of the varying nature of environments in which life occurs and whether or not conditions are right to bury and preserve an organism. Galleries in natural-history museums present evidence from the fossil record, and their text panels may include explanations of how new discoveries are shortening and sometimes eliminating the gaps.
In general, it would be beneficial for those engaged in science to spend more time explaining their work to society. For their part, science museums and science centers try to build a stronger public grasp of science, and in particular to support schools in the teaching and learning of science. These institutions do not -- nor should they ever -- ask visitors to leave their religion behind as they enter. Concerned perhaps that they may add to controversies, institutions that exist to link the public with science seldom speak up.
Earlier this year, several science museums in Southern states were in the national eye for their position not to show IMAX films that state or imply the process of evolution. It is worthwhile noting that the word "museum" stems from the Greek Mousieos, meaning "of the Muses." The Muses were Greek goddesses inspiring the reflective pursuit of the arts and sciences.
Science and faith need not be at odds, but they do need to be kept separate. It is vital that science be taught and understood as science based on a globally accumulating body of knowledge. It is equally critical that faith be taught and understood as belief, recognizing that religious views on scientific subjects vary among nations as well as over time. Perhaps this is why news reporters from around the world are following the court case in Pennsylvania with such interest.
Emlyn Koster is president and CEO of Liberty Science Center.
Full Version: Faith can't be in study of life and be scientific
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Energy Independence, Environment, Science and Technology > Energy, Environment, Science and Technology Issues Archive
Bush is known for not being accountable.
One way to avoid accountability in areas is to deny the rationality and logic of science...
So, Bush and the Republican party --- in order to avoid accountability have refused to answer to science and in doing so have become part of the Republican effort to dumb down this nation which has contributed to the decline in competitive advantage.
Published on Monday, July 5, 2004 by the Boulder Daily Camera (Colorado)
Bush's War on Science
by Gov. Howard Dean M.D.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0705-04.htm
I write this week's column as a physician.
The Bush administration has declared war on science. In the Orwellian world of 21st century America, two plus two no longer equals four where public policy is concerned, and science is no exception. When a right-wing theory is contradicted by an inconvenient scientific fact, the science is not refuted; it is simply discarded or ignored.
Egregious examples abound. Over-the-counter morning-after contraceptive sales are banned, despite the recommendation for approval by an independent panel of the Food and Drug Administration review board. The health risks of mercury were discounted by a White House staffer who simply crossed out the word "confirmed" from a phrase describing mercury as a "confirmed public health risk." A National Cancer Institute fact sheet was doctored to suggest that abortion increases breast-cancer risk, even though the American Cancer Society concluded that the best study discounts that. Reports on the status of minority health and the importance of breast feeding are similarly watered down to appease right-wing ideologies.
What about global warming? After withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty, the Bush administration distanced itself from a climate report the Environmental Protection Agency wrote, because it affirmed the potential worldwide harm of global warming, the existence of which Bush had denied. The global-warming section of the 2003 EPA report on the environment was extensively rewritten, then dropped entirely.
Fighting HIV? Bush's initiative to help fund HIV efforts in Africa was trumpeted by the press, while the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control quietly removed information on the benefits of condoms and safe sex education from domestic HIV Web sites.
Presidential scientific commissions have long enjoyed relative immunity from politics. Presidents of both parties have depended on impartial, rational advice from such groups for decades. Yet under the Bush administration, there has been a concerted effort, led by Karl Rove and other political ideologues based in the White House, to stack these commissions with Republican loyalists, especially those who espouse fundamentalist views on scientific issues.
Recently, a scientist and a bioethics professor were dismissed from the blue-ribbon Council on Bioethics when they disagreed with the Bush administration's proposed ban on new stem-cell line development to cure a variety of diseases. In a similar vein and an unusual move, the nomination of public-health experts to a CDC lead paint advisory panel were rejected by Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, and replaced with researchers with financial ties to the lead industry. The Union of Concerned Scientists, with 20 Nobel laureates and several former scientific advisers to Republican presidents, has issued its scathing Report on Scientific Integrity condemning these practices.
Is it any wonder that these outrages have been perpetrated on an unsuspecting public and an enfeebled press? Not when you consider that this is an administration that has put forth deliberately misleading proposals like the Healthy Forests Initiative, which removes barriers to clear-cutting, and the Clear Skies Initiative, which weakens existing safeguards on mercury, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants dumped into the air by power plants. When the oil industry writes national energy policy and the HMOs and drug companies draft our Medicare legislation, who is looking out for truth, scientific integrity and the public interest?
Will it be long before a prominent panel of fundamentalist theologians, conservative columnists and a few token scientists take up the question of whether the theory of evolution should be banned from the nation's classrooms? Stay tuned. In George Bush's America, ignorance is strength.
Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy for America, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive and fiscally responsible political candidates. Email Howard Dean at howarddean@democracyforamerica.com.
One way to avoid accountability in areas is to deny the rationality and logic of science...
So, Bush and the Republican party --- in order to avoid accountability have refused to answer to science and in doing so have become part of the Republican effort to dumb down this nation which has contributed to the decline in competitive advantage.
Published on Monday, July 5, 2004 by the Boulder Daily Camera (Colorado)
Bush's War on Science
by Gov. Howard Dean M.D.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0705-04.htm
I write this week's column as a physician.
The Bush administration has declared war on science. In the Orwellian world of 21st century America, two plus two no longer equals four where public policy is concerned, and science is no exception. When a right-wing theory is contradicted by an inconvenient scientific fact, the science is not refuted; it is simply discarded or ignored.
Egregious examples abound. Over-the-counter morning-after contraceptive sales are banned, despite the recommendation for approval by an independent panel of the Food and Drug Administration review board. The health risks of mercury were discounted by a White House staffer who simply crossed out the word "confirmed" from a phrase describing mercury as a "confirmed public health risk." A National Cancer Institute fact sheet was doctored to suggest that abortion increases breast-cancer risk, even though the American Cancer Society concluded that the best study discounts that. Reports on the status of minority health and the importance of breast feeding are similarly watered down to appease right-wing ideologies.
What about global warming? After withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty, the Bush administration distanced itself from a climate report the Environmental Protection Agency wrote, because it affirmed the potential worldwide harm of global warming, the existence of which Bush had denied. The global-warming section of the 2003 EPA report on the environment was extensively rewritten, then dropped entirely.
Fighting HIV? Bush's initiative to help fund HIV efforts in Africa was trumpeted by the press, while the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control quietly removed information on the benefits of condoms and safe sex education from domestic HIV Web sites.
Presidential scientific commissions have long enjoyed relative immunity from politics. Presidents of both parties have depended on impartial, rational advice from such groups for decades. Yet under the Bush administration, there has been a concerted effort, led by Karl Rove and other political ideologues based in the White House, to stack these commissions with Republican loyalists, especially those who espouse fundamentalist views on scientific issues.
Recently, a scientist and a bioethics professor were dismissed from the blue-ribbon Council on Bioethics when they disagreed with the Bush administration's proposed ban on new stem-cell line development to cure a variety of diseases. In a similar vein and an unusual move, the nomination of public-health experts to a CDC lead paint advisory panel were rejected by Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, and replaced with researchers with financial ties to the lead industry. The Union of Concerned Scientists, with 20 Nobel laureates and several former scientific advisers to Republican presidents, has issued its scathing Report on Scientific Integrity condemning these practices.
Is it any wonder that these outrages have been perpetrated on an unsuspecting public and an enfeebled press? Not when you consider that this is an administration that has put forth deliberately misleading proposals like the Healthy Forests Initiative, which removes barriers to clear-cutting, and the Clear Skies Initiative, which weakens existing safeguards on mercury, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants dumped into the air by power plants. When the oil industry writes national energy policy and the HMOs and drug companies draft our Medicare legislation, who is looking out for truth, scientific integrity and the public interest?
Will it be long before a prominent panel of fundamentalist theologians, conservative columnists and a few token scientists take up the question of whether the theory of evolution should be banned from the nation's classrooms? Stay tuned. In George Bush's America, ignorance is strength.
Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy for America, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive and fiscally responsible political candidates. Email Howard Dean at howarddean@democracyforamerica.com.
August 26, 2005
http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
The Republican War on Science
by Chris Mooney
BUZZFLASH REVIEWS
--> Get Your Copy Here <--
America has long prided itself on its dynamic industrial and scientific innovation. We boasted of our investment in research to produce new technology, products and medical breakthroughs, because we were a country always moving forward. Born of a revolution that rejected the stultifying constraints of Monarchist governments, we were unleashed to invent a future without constraints.
So historians, in a few years, may look back on the era of right wing Republican rule and wonder how we became saddled with a government that is intent on moving the nation backwards instead of forwards. It's as if you were a passenger in a car speeding down the expressway at 60 miles per hour and suddenly the driver threw the gear into reverse.
In this fascinating dissection of the "The Republican War on Science," author Chris Mooney skillfully explores what is behind the GOP attempt to turn a country on the cusp of innovation backwards into the Middle Ages of skepticism about science and evolution. Mooney guides the reader through this unfathomable undertaking that is an organized Republican effort to undo our national heritage of innovation and scientific advancements.
--> Get Your Copy from BuzzFlash.com <--
There are really two main forces at work in the Republican right, which has reached its pinnacle of power in the reign of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay. On the one hand, you have the extremist religious "base" that supports Bush no matter what his latest egregious failure or betrayal is. To them, science is an enemy because it, ipso facto, deals with discoveries, research and explanations of life and the world that conflict with literal interpretations of the Bible. Forget about the canard of "Intelligent Design," which is just another Frank Luntz euphemism -- in this case for creationism. The religious right fully endorses the war on science because science is born of human research, and human research inevitably comes into conflict with the fundamentalist interpretation of divine intent.
The second major camp behind Bush's war on science is the corporate world, particularly the depletable natural resources companies who are championed by Dick Cheney. They believe that science gets in the way of their pillaging and plundering the environment for a quick profit. If science proves, as it has, that global warming is accelerating rapidly, then what good is it? It will only lead these companies -- headed by big Republican contributors -- to a short-term reduction in profits. Or so they believe.
In Bush's world, as with the war in Iraq and economic forecasts, science is only of value when the books are cooked on research so as to support a specific Bush policy that either endears him to the fringe religious right or to the "loot and pollute" corporations.
In a tragically ironic way, these two Bush groups of supporters synergistically support each other. Because if the earth's environment is truly being destroyed by unfettered industrial pillaging, it might only hasten the Armageddon so ardently anticipated by the holy rollers. Who cares what happens to our planet, if "good Christians" will soon meet in heaven?
Bush is certainly a man with a lot of wars on his hands. But Mooney's book reminds us that the Iraq War shouldn't overshadow the severe damage that the Busheviks are doing to America's extraordinary heritage of scientific accomplishment. With a few more years, they will grind it into dust.
This is an Administration that wants us to return to a period before the Age of Enlightenment, which some might call the "Dark Ages
http://www.buzzflash.com/reviews/05/08/rev05080.html
The Republican War on Science
by Chris Mooney
BUZZFLASH REVIEWS
--> Get Your Copy Here <--
America has long prided itself on its dynamic industrial and scientific innovation. We boasted of our investment in research to produce new technology, products and medical breakthroughs, because we were a country always moving forward. Born of a revolution that rejected the stultifying constraints of Monarchist governments, we were unleashed to invent a future without constraints.
So historians, in a few years, may look back on the era of right wing Republican rule and wonder how we became saddled with a government that is intent on moving the nation backwards instead of forwards. It's as if you were a passenger in a car speeding down the expressway at 60 miles per hour and suddenly the driver threw the gear into reverse.
In this fascinating dissection of the "The Republican War on Science," author Chris Mooney skillfully explores what is behind the GOP attempt to turn a country on the cusp of innovation backwards into the Middle Ages of skepticism about science and evolution. Mooney guides the reader through this unfathomable undertaking that is an organized Republican effort to undo our national heritage of innovation and scientific advancements.
--> Get Your Copy from BuzzFlash.com <--
There are really two main forces at work in the Republican right, which has reached its pinnacle of power in the reign of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay. On the one hand, you have the extremist religious "base" that supports Bush no matter what his latest egregious failure or betrayal is. To them, science is an enemy because it, ipso facto, deals with discoveries, research and explanations of life and the world that conflict with literal interpretations of the Bible. Forget about the canard of "Intelligent Design," which is just another Frank Luntz euphemism -- in this case for creationism. The religious right fully endorses the war on science because science is born of human research, and human research inevitably comes into conflict with the fundamentalist interpretation of divine intent.
The second major camp behind Bush's war on science is the corporate world, particularly the depletable natural resources companies who are championed by Dick Cheney. They believe that science gets in the way of their pillaging and plundering the environment for a quick profit. If science proves, as it has, that global warming is accelerating rapidly, then what good is it? It will only lead these companies -- headed by big Republican contributors -- to a short-term reduction in profits. Or so they believe.
In Bush's world, as with the war in Iraq and economic forecasts, science is only of value when the books are cooked on research so as to support a specific Bush policy that either endears him to the fringe religious right or to the "loot and pollute" corporations.
In a tragically ironic way, these two Bush groups of supporters synergistically support each other. Because if the earth's environment is truly being destroyed by unfettered industrial pillaging, it might only hasten the Armageddon so ardently anticipated by the holy rollers. Who cares what happens to our planet, if "good Christians" will soon meet in heaven?
Bush is certainly a man with a lot of wars on his hands. But Mooney's book reminds us that the Iraq War shouldn't overshadow the severe damage that the Busheviks are doing to America's extraordinary heritage of scientific accomplishment. With a few more years, they will grind it into dust.
This is an Administration that wants us to return to a period before the Age of Enlightenment, which some might call the "Dark Ages
If this was merely an ideological battle with no casualties it would not be a problem, but the end result is that Americans are not being educated in a manner or developing technology at a rate that is necessary to compete effectively in the global marketplace.
This is a significant problem if we are to maintain our dominance as a global leader in technology and market share...
In 2008, we will have had 16 of the last 24 years of Republican domination of the White House.
By ignoring science and makinig results debatable rather than the foundation for future action --- we have begun a process which mortgages our future to those nations who have not been so foolhardy in their reserach and development efforts.
CHRIS MOONEY: White House creates science crisis
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005 03:18 PM (PDT)
http://www.thenewstribune.com/24hour/opini...-11395156c.html
(SH) - Today we are facing a full-fledged national crisis over the role of scientific information in public policy-making. It's a subtle crisis in some ways, often obscured by the complexities of scientific disputation. But it is a crisis nonetheless, one that threatens every one of us because it affects not only public health and the environment, but the way we treat knowledge itself in American society.
The crisis is a direct consequence of continuing and well-documented misuses and distortions of scientific information by the Bush administration on issues ranging from global climate change to embryonic stem-cell research. The extensiveness of the administration's abuses, combined with the fact that it refuses to acknowledge or apologize for its offenses, leaves us with a deep conundrum:
How do we ensure that scientific knowledge and expertise play an appropriate role in helping to inform national policy decisions? And what are the consequences when one ideological movement, or one presidential administration, or one political party, shows a systematic willingness to undermine, misappropriate and abuse scientific and technical expertise?
This is a question that cuts to the heart of the role of science in a democracy. None other than George W. Bush himself may have put it best when he declared, with a deer-in-the-headlights look during his first public appearance following the Asian tsunami catastrophe, "I am not a geologist, as you know."
Although I suspect that Bush's wisdom here is merely accidental, he's really on to something. For while we don't generally want our elected leaders to be scientists - Israel's 1952 offer of the presidency to Albert Einstein being an exception to the rule - we do want the two camps to communicate honestly and forthrightly.
In essence, then, the much-discussed "politicization of science" really amounts to a strategic attack of the necessary channels of communication between technocratic experts, who know a great deal about the workings of nature, and democratically elected leaders, who must often tap into technocratic knowledge if they are to guide us wisely.
Unfortunately, under the Bush administration, the once cooperative relationship between scientists and our political leaders has thoroughly deteriorated. Many scientists feel they have received the back of the hand from this administration - and not just when it comes to the requests for funding of basic research in Bush's budget.
Far more outrageous are the following: Reports of a former oil industry employee editing climate change reports from the White House. The president lending his endorsement to the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" alongside evolution in public school science classes. The resignation of a senior Food and Drug Administration expert due to continual politicking over the approval of Plan B emergency contraception (the "morning after" pill) for sale over the counter.
And these are just the most prominent case studies from the past several months. Choose a different time period and you will have a different set of examples - and that's precisely the point. Science is being used repeatedly as a political football by the Bush administration, and the particular issue almost doesn't matter - so long as it's of consequence to some interest group that the administration is committed to appeasing.
The most prominent such interest groups are religious conservatives and regulated industry. These two interest groups want very different things - economics, morals - but their desires frequently stray into scientific areas. For instance, religious conservatives want to challenge the way that evolution is taught in public schools, while business interests such as tobacco want (or at least, wanted) to challenge scientific studies suggesting health risks from smoking.
Catering to these constituencies, as the Republican Party has increasingly done, has inevitably led politicians and political appointees to humor what essentially amounts to their scientific lobbying. This has happened even as such lobbying has itself become state of the art, encompassing think-tank driven campaigns that skew what's actually known on hot-button scientific issues with big political ramifications, such as evolution and especially global warming. Both of these trends have converged under the Bush administration, a fact that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis over the politicization of science.
Indeed, there are many good reasons for thinking that, although all politicians to some extent use science selectively, the Bush administration is significantly different than other administrations when it comes to the cavalier treatment of science - and that, in fact, it's much worse.
First, we have the testimonials from individuals who actually served in these previous administrations - former Nixon and Ford administration Environmental Protection Agency administrator Russell Train, himself a Republican, for example. These people say they've never seen anything like what we're seeing now, and that's one powerful piece of evidence.
We also have the simple fact that no similarly broad-ranging crisis over the political abuse of science arose during previous administrations. While the relationship between science and politics did become contentious during other presidencies, the tension generally arose over specific issues, such as the "Star Wars" program during the Reagan years, rather than over the government's entire approach to science across a sweeping array of issues.
Now, thanks to all of these tactics and abuses, and the political structure that has grown up to support them, we are facing a crisis.
Unfortunately, it's a crisis that's only recognized by one side of the political spectrum, which has now begun to call for good government-style reforms designed to safeguard the role of legitimate scientific expertise in informing government decision-making, to protect that expertise from manipulation and abuse, and more generally to restore a spirit of candor and collaboration between the scientific community and our elected officials.
For example, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., have proposed legislation to bar political litmus tests for advisory committee membership, extend whistleblower protections to government scientists who allege abuses, and much else.
Such reforms should be coupled with attempts to restore the government scientific advisory apparatus itself: Bring back the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, dismantled by the Gingrich Republicans, and strengthen the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
But still, that's not enough. Scientists need to continue to fight back against misuses of science, and that includes getting into the trenches and battling those who would spread nonsense to our children in schools. The university community in this nation, too, needs to band together to defend the integrity of science, something we haven't seen happen yet.
There ought to be a scientific integrity movement on campuses, a natural venue for defending the scientific process and the value of inquiry.
Ultimately, all of this energy should translate into political action itself: If conservative Republicans have a bad record on science, we need to call them out on their abuses and support candidates (Democrat or Republican) with better records.
In the long term, all of these strategies must combine if we are to reverse the trend of science abuse and restore scientific integrity to the political process and to society at large.
Chris Mooney is the author of "The Republican War on Science," published this month by Basic Books. He is Washington correspondent for Seed Magazine.
This is a significant problem if we are to maintain our dominance as a global leader in technology and market share...
In 2008, we will have had 16 of the last 24 years of Republican domination of the White House.
By ignoring science and makinig results debatable rather than the foundation for future action --- we have begun a process which mortgages our future to those nations who have not been so foolhardy in their reserach and development efforts.
CHRIS MOONEY: White House creates science crisis
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005 03:18 PM (PDT)
http://www.thenewstribune.com/24hour/opini...-11395156c.html
(SH) - Today we are facing a full-fledged national crisis over the role of scientific information in public policy-making. It's a subtle crisis in some ways, often obscured by the complexities of scientific disputation. But it is a crisis nonetheless, one that threatens every one of us because it affects not only public health and the environment, but the way we treat knowledge itself in American society.
The crisis is a direct consequence of continuing and well-documented misuses and distortions of scientific information by the Bush administration on issues ranging from global climate change to embryonic stem-cell research. The extensiveness of the administration's abuses, combined with the fact that it refuses to acknowledge or apologize for its offenses, leaves us with a deep conundrum:
How do we ensure that scientific knowledge and expertise play an appropriate role in helping to inform national policy decisions? And what are the consequences when one ideological movement, or one presidential administration, or one political party, shows a systematic willingness to undermine, misappropriate and abuse scientific and technical expertise?
This is a question that cuts to the heart of the role of science in a democracy. None other than George W. Bush himself may have put it best when he declared, with a deer-in-the-headlights look during his first public appearance following the Asian tsunami catastrophe, "I am not a geologist, as you know."
Although I suspect that Bush's wisdom here is merely accidental, he's really on to something. For while we don't generally want our elected leaders to be scientists - Israel's 1952 offer of the presidency to Albert Einstein being an exception to the rule - we do want the two camps to communicate honestly and forthrightly.
In essence, then, the much-discussed "politicization of science" really amounts to a strategic attack of the necessary channels of communication between technocratic experts, who know a great deal about the workings of nature, and democratically elected leaders, who must often tap into technocratic knowledge if they are to guide us wisely.
Unfortunately, under the Bush administration, the once cooperative relationship between scientists and our political leaders has thoroughly deteriorated. Many scientists feel they have received the back of the hand from this administration - and not just when it comes to the requests for funding of basic research in Bush's budget.
Far more outrageous are the following: Reports of a former oil industry employee editing climate change reports from the White House. The president lending his endorsement to the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" alongside evolution in public school science classes. The resignation of a senior Food and Drug Administration expert due to continual politicking over the approval of Plan B emergency contraception (the "morning after" pill) for sale over the counter.
And these are just the most prominent case studies from the past several months. Choose a different time period and you will have a different set of examples - and that's precisely the point. Science is being used repeatedly as a political football by the Bush administration, and the particular issue almost doesn't matter - so long as it's of consequence to some interest group that the administration is committed to appeasing.
The most prominent such interest groups are religious conservatives and regulated industry. These two interest groups want very different things - economics, morals - but their desires frequently stray into scientific areas. For instance, religious conservatives want to challenge the way that evolution is taught in public schools, while business interests such as tobacco want (or at least, wanted) to challenge scientific studies suggesting health risks from smoking.
Catering to these constituencies, as the Republican Party has increasingly done, has inevitably led politicians and political appointees to humor what essentially amounts to their scientific lobbying. This has happened even as such lobbying has itself become state of the art, encompassing think-tank driven campaigns that skew what's actually known on hot-button scientific issues with big political ramifications, such as evolution and especially global warming. Both of these trends have converged under the Bush administration, a fact that goes a long way towards explaining the current crisis over the politicization of science.
Indeed, there are many good reasons for thinking that, although all politicians to some extent use science selectively, the Bush administration is significantly different than other administrations when it comes to the cavalier treatment of science - and that, in fact, it's much worse.
First, we have the testimonials from individuals who actually served in these previous administrations - former Nixon and Ford administration Environmental Protection Agency administrator Russell Train, himself a Republican, for example. These people say they've never seen anything like what we're seeing now, and that's one powerful piece of evidence.
We also have the simple fact that no similarly broad-ranging crisis over the political abuse of science arose during previous administrations. While the relationship between science and politics did become contentious during other presidencies, the tension generally arose over specific issues, such as the "Star Wars" program during the Reagan years, rather than over the government's entire approach to science across a sweeping array of issues.
Now, thanks to all of these tactics and abuses, and the political structure that has grown up to support them, we are facing a crisis.
Unfortunately, it's a crisis that's only recognized by one side of the political spectrum, which has now begun to call for good government-style reforms designed to safeguard the role of legitimate scientific expertise in informing government decision-making, to protect that expertise from manipulation and abuse, and more generally to restore a spirit of candor and collaboration between the scientific community and our elected officials.
For example, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., have proposed legislation to bar political litmus tests for advisory committee membership, extend whistleblower protections to government scientists who allege abuses, and much else.
Such reforms should be coupled with attempts to restore the government scientific advisory apparatus itself: Bring back the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, dismantled by the Gingrich Republicans, and strengthen the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
But still, that's not enough. Scientists need to continue to fight back against misuses of science, and that includes getting into the trenches and battling those who would spread nonsense to our children in schools. The university community in this nation, too, needs to band together to defend the integrity of science, something we haven't seen happen yet.
There ought to be a scientific integrity movement on campuses, a natural venue for defending the scientific process and the value of inquiry.
Ultimately, all of this energy should translate into political action itself: If conservative Republicans have a bad record on science, we need to call them out on their abuses and support candidates (Democrat or Republican) with better records.
In the long term, all of these strategies must combine if we are to reverse the trend of science abuse and restore scientific integrity to the political process and to society at large.
Chris Mooney is the author of "The Republican War on Science," published this month by Basic Books. He is Washington correspondent for Seed Magazine.
Published October 5, 2005
Faith and science both of equal value
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...mplate=printart
I have two friends who had car trouble. Steve went outside one morning and his car wouldn't start. He knew from experience that the most common reason for this is a dead battery. He called me to come over and give him a jump. Sure enough, his car started. His hypothesis was now elevated to a theory, so he bought a new battery on his way home.
My other friend, Valerie, had a minivan that wouldn't start. She passionately explained to the van how important it was to start, promised it an oil change, and even gave it a whack on the hood. She eventually called my wife for a ride.
Steve, probably without realizing it, was using the scientific method. Valerie's superstitions might have been comforting to her, but they have had a lower success rate. The goal of science is knowledge which is predictive, and that can ultimately create a successful intervention.
We take the fruits of modern science for granted most of the time. As an example, insulin was unknown before 1921, when it was discovered by two Canadians. Banting and MacLeod were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1923 for the remarkable curative effects their discovery had on terminally ill diabetes patients.
Before 1982, insulin needed to treat diabetes was extracted from pig and cow pancreas. In 1978 a team at the University of California, led by Herbert Boyer, learned how to insert a human gene in bacteria to mass-produce insulin, which today is plentiful and inexpensive. This was the first of a long list of genetically engineered products that have improved the quality of modern life.
Recent dramatic developments in biological science have brought us tantalizingly close to a cure for the Alzheimer's disease that killed my father, and the cancer that took my mother. All we need to do is to allow science to follow the facts in its investigations.
The theory of evolution predicts that organisms that have a short life cycle and produce many offspring will evolve most quickly in response to environmental stress. We see this prediction validated in new strains of influenza, insects that adapt to pesticides, and bacteria such as methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Our understanding of how these organisms are evolving is our best weapon to minimize their impact on humanity.
There is an important area of human interest in which science is totally incompetent. Science has proven itself incapable of formulating meaningful values for humanity.
The same inexorable laws of physics will work just as diligently to destroy a city with a nuclear weapon as to light up that city with nuclear-generated electricity. The social Darwinism of the 19th century suggested isolating, sterilizing and even eliminating the weak and infirm.
Humanity that is advised by faith seeks to nurture and aid the less fortunate. It is not science that moves us to write a check to Convoy of Hope when we see the desperation of hurricane victims, it is our values which spring from what we believe.
Science and faith must play their own roles in shaping the public consciousness of America. Each should respect the vital role of the other.
Faith and science both of equal value
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...mplate=printart
I have two friends who had car trouble. Steve went outside one morning and his car wouldn't start. He knew from experience that the most common reason for this is a dead battery. He called me to come over and give him a jump. Sure enough, his car started. His hypothesis was now elevated to a theory, so he bought a new battery on his way home.
My other friend, Valerie, had a minivan that wouldn't start. She passionately explained to the van how important it was to start, promised it an oil change, and even gave it a whack on the hood. She eventually called my wife for a ride.
Steve, probably without realizing it, was using the scientific method. Valerie's superstitions might have been comforting to her, but they have had a lower success rate. The goal of science is knowledge which is predictive, and that can ultimately create a successful intervention.
We take the fruits of modern science for granted most of the time. As an example, insulin was unknown before 1921, when it was discovered by two Canadians. Banting and MacLeod were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1923 for the remarkable curative effects their discovery had on terminally ill diabetes patients.
Before 1982, insulin needed to treat diabetes was extracted from pig and cow pancreas. In 1978 a team at the University of California, led by Herbert Boyer, learned how to insert a human gene in bacteria to mass-produce insulin, which today is plentiful and inexpensive. This was the first of a long list of genetically engineered products that have improved the quality of modern life.
Recent dramatic developments in biological science have brought us tantalizingly close to a cure for the Alzheimer's disease that killed my father, and the cancer that took my mother. All we need to do is to allow science to follow the facts in its investigations.
The theory of evolution predicts that organisms that have a short life cycle and produce many offspring will evolve most quickly in response to environmental stress. We see this prediction validated in new strains of influenza, insects that adapt to pesticides, and bacteria such as methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Our understanding of how these organisms are evolving is our best weapon to minimize their impact on humanity.
There is an important area of human interest in which science is totally incompetent. Science has proven itself incapable of formulating meaningful values for humanity.
The same inexorable laws of physics will work just as diligently to destroy a city with a nuclear weapon as to light up that city with nuclear-generated electricity. The social Darwinism of the 19th century suggested isolating, sterilizing and even eliminating the weak and infirm.
Humanity that is advised by faith seeks to nurture and aid the less fortunate. It is not science that moves us to write a check to Convoy of Hope when we see the desperation of hurricane victims, it is our values which spring from what we believe.
Science and faith must play their own roles in shaping the public consciousness of America. Each should respect the vital role of the other.
On the scientific method
Sunday, October 2, 2005
http://ydr.com/story/letters/87742/
Part of the scientific method is that a hypothesis must be disprovable. Can anyone demonstrate how to disprove intelligent design? If you cannot disprove it, it is not scientific. End of story.
People are confused because “science” has become a buzzword and people think it means “true.” It doesn’t. “Science” means following the scientific method.
Do you believe in gravity? Einstein showed there is no gravity, instead space is warped by mass, causing a sliding effect of other masses. One day that will be disproved and replaced by another theory.
Saying G-d is scientific is to say G-d is disprovable and this is an insult to religious people.
Science does not aim to replace articles of faith with new articles of faith. Science does aim at studying the world without preconceived notions such as intelligent design or that gravity is a fact. An article of faith is something you believe despite a lack of evidence.
You may know a murderer who lived happily ever after, and yet you may still hold your article of faith that murder is wrong, despite the evidence to the contrary. Similarly you might look at the situation in Iraq, and still somehow cling to the idea that there must be intelligent design in the universe.
Please, if you do not know what science is, or if you think scientific truths are synonymous with religious truths, immediately call the college or high school you graduated from and tell them they failed you.
JOSH LIEBSCHUTZ
ASHEVILLE, N.C.
Sunday, October 2, 2005
http://ydr.com/story/letters/87742/
Part of the scientific method is that a hypothesis must be disprovable. Can anyone demonstrate how to disprove intelligent design? If you cannot disprove it, it is not scientific. End of story.
People are confused because “science” has become a buzzword and people think it means “true.” It doesn’t. “Science” means following the scientific method.
Do you believe in gravity? Einstein showed there is no gravity, instead space is warped by mass, causing a sliding effect of other masses. One day that will be disproved and replaced by another theory.
Saying G-d is scientific is to say G-d is disprovable and this is an insult to religious people.
Science does not aim to replace articles of faith with new articles of faith. Science does aim at studying the world without preconceived notions such as intelligent design or that gravity is a fact. An article of faith is something you believe despite a lack of evidence.
You may know a murderer who lived happily ever after, and yet you may still hold your article of faith that murder is wrong, despite the evidence to the contrary. Similarly you might look at the situation in Iraq, and still somehow cling to the idea that there must be intelligent design in the universe.
Please, if you do not know what science is, or if you think scientific truths are synonymous with religious truths, immediately call the college or high school you graduated from and tell them they failed you.
JOSH LIEBSCHUTZ
ASHEVILLE, N.C.
Conversing about faith, science
By Christopher Marcisz, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Saturday, October 01
WILLIAMSTOWN — Few debates in current American life can electrify and polarize people like the intersection of religion and science. One need look no further than the ongoing debate over the teaching of evolution to see how it strikes a raw nerve for many people on both sides of the issue.
But with the help of a $15,000 grant and the support of Williams College, Williams Chaplain Richard Spalding and emeritus physics Professor Stuart Crampton are working to get an honest and respectful conversation between faiths and science started in North County.
Last week was the first meeting in the creation of what they are calling the North Berkshire Center for Religion and Science. It will begin with a series of weekly meetings between faculty members and members of the clergy in Williamstown, and which will later include faculty seminars and other programs.
Eventually, they hope to add public lectures to the program, and to include more students and eventually community members in the process.
Both men said the idea for the group stems from conversations they had through the years.
"I was intrigued by the quality and depth of Stuart's reflections on the relationship of science and religion," Spalding said.
Crampton, whose professional specialty is the physics of atomic clocks and whose wife is an Episcopal minister, said religion has always been a part of his life.
He recalled that while studying at Oxford University early in his career, he participated in a discussion group run by a chaplain, and the other participants found in strange a scientist would want to do so. "I thought it was odd of them to think that," he said. Later, he would make friends with seminary students who would insist the realms of science and spirituality would remain separate.
"I got interested in the question but I didn't do much about it for 20 years," he said, until he retired and began to again consider the issue.
In their application for a grant from the Metanexus Institute — a Philadelphia-based educational center that works to "advance research, education and outreach on the constructive engagement of science and religion" — Crampton and Spalding explained their belief that what they want to do will benefit both.
"Our goal is to increase understanding of religion, science and (the relationship of science to religion) within our communities and through that understanding enrich religious experience and tolerance of other religious points of view among those practicing religion and others not practicing religion," they wrote in their proposal.
But while many details of how they will approach the subject will be worked out over the coming year, they know very well what they do not want.
The issue of religion and science appears
most clearly in the case of whether to include mentions of "intelligent design," which questions the theory of evolution's ability to account for the complexity of life on earth without the intervention of an unnamed intelligent force, in public schools along with the generally accepted Darwinian theory of natural selection.
Last Monday, a federal court in Pennsylvania began to hear arguments in a case brought by parents who object to a decision by school board members to include intelligent design in the curriculum.
Spalding said there is much to be learned by "sitting down and wondering about these things together," but that the current debate appears to be little than political opportunism serving only to advance political interests.
"I don't think this conversation has anything to do with the origins and destination of the universe," he said.
Crampton worried about the "pent-up energy" and divisiveness of the debate.
"On the bright side, it will lead to a greater understanding of science," he said. "Scientists will find themselves articulating their positions much better, and I think that will be a good thing for science in general."
The fierce feelings that the debate raises shows how tricky the topic of science and religion can be for honest discussion, but that done right it can help people to find common ground.
"I think finding things that people agree on can bring together people with different religious experiences," Crampton said.
But with that in mind, Spalding said it is a fine line to encourage people to find their own connections, and presuming to tell them what they may not choose to see.
"It's not appropriate to say to people who don't agree, 'but you agree,'" he said.
Spalding said that, early on, the project worked to find that spirit, which can hopefully be expanded. In particular, he said he hopes to include more students, some of whom he said deal with what he called the "alienation between the discipline of science and the disposition of spirituality."
"I hope part of this work is to reconcile that alienation," he said.
But until then, Spalding said that the groups will begin with people who know one another well.
"This is volatile stuff," he said. "Starting with a circle of trust is important."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Marcisz can be reached at cmarcisz@berkshireeagle.com or at (413) 664-4995.
By Christopher Marcisz, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Saturday, October 01
WILLIAMSTOWN — Few debates in current American life can electrify and polarize people like the intersection of religion and science. One need look no further than the ongoing debate over the teaching of evolution to see how it strikes a raw nerve for many people on both sides of the issue.
But with the help of a $15,000 grant and the support of Williams College, Williams Chaplain Richard Spalding and emeritus physics Professor Stuart Crampton are working to get an honest and respectful conversation between faiths and science started in North County.
Last week was the first meeting in the creation of what they are calling the North Berkshire Center for Religion and Science. It will begin with a series of weekly meetings between faculty members and members of the clergy in Williamstown, and which will later include faculty seminars and other programs.
Eventually, they hope to add public lectures to the program, and to include more students and eventually community members in the process.
Both men said the idea for the group stems from conversations they had through the years.
"I was intrigued by the quality and depth of Stuart's reflections on the relationship of science and religion," Spalding said.
Crampton, whose professional specialty is the physics of atomic clocks and whose wife is an Episcopal minister, said religion has always been a part of his life.
He recalled that while studying at Oxford University early in his career, he participated in a discussion group run by a chaplain, and the other participants found in strange a scientist would want to do so. "I thought it was odd of them to think that," he said. Later, he would make friends with seminary students who would insist the realms of science and spirituality would remain separate.
"I got interested in the question but I didn't do much about it for 20 years," he said, until he retired and began to again consider the issue.
In their application for a grant from the Metanexus Institute — a Philadelphia-based educational center that works to "advance research, education and outreach on the constructive engagement of science and religion" — Crampton and Spalding explained their belief that what they want to do will benefit both.
"Our goal is to increase understanding of religion, science and (the relationship of science to religion) within our communities and through that understanding enrich religious experience and tolerance of other religious points of view among those practicing religion and others not practicing religion," they wrote in their proposal.
But while many details of how they will approach the subject will be worked out over the coming year, they know very well what they do not want.
The issue of religion and science appears
most clearly in the case of whether to include mentions of "intelligent design," which questions the theory of evolution's ability to account for the complexity of life on earth without the intervention of an unnamed intelligent force, in public schools along with the generally accepted Darwinian theory of natural selection.
Last Monday, a federal court in Pennsylvania began to hear arguments in a case brought by parents who object to a decision by school board members to include intelligent design in the curriculum.
Spalding said there is much to be learned by "sitting down and wondering about these things together," but that the current debate appears to be little than political opportunism serving only to advance political interests.
"I don't think this conversation has anything to do with the origins and destination of the universe," he said.
Crampton worried about the "pent-up energy" and divisiveness of the debate.
"On the bright side, it will lead to a greater understanding of science," he said. "Scientists will find themselves articulating their positions much better, and I think that will be a good thing for science in general."
The fierce feelings that the debate raises shows how tricky the topic of science and religion can be for honest discussion, but that done right it can help people to find common ground.
"I think finding things that people agree on can bring together people with different religious experiences," Crampton said.
But with that in mind, Spalding said it is a fine line to encourage people to find their own connections, and presuming to tell them what they may not choose to see.
"It's not appropriate to say to people who don't agree, 'but you agree,'" he said.
Spalding said that, early on, the project worked to find that spirit, which can hopefully be expanded. In particular, he said he hopes to include more students, some of whom he said deal with what he called the "alienation between the discipline of science and the disposition of spirituality."
"I hope part of this work is to reconcile that alienation," he said.
But until then, Spalding said that the groups will begin with people who know one another well.
"This is volatile stuff," he said. "Starting with a circle of trust is important."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Marcisz can be reached at cmarcisz@berkshireeagle.com or at (413) 664-4995.
so lets ask the obvious question shall we?
Why do republicans hate thing like math and science?
And yet they are hog wild over intangible things like god and what not?
are they really trying to dumb down this country? if so why?
i'm a little lost, ok i have proof that they are doing this but i just can't figure out why!
Why do republicans hate thing like math and science?
And yet they are hog wild over intangible things like god and what not?
are they really trying to dumb down this country? if so why?
i'm a little lost, ok i have proof that they are doing this but i just can't figure out why!
hay you want ID
here you go!
UFO-spotters tell tales of the extra-terrestrial
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051005/od_nm/...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
LIMA, Peru (Reuters) - One minute Jonathan Reed was hiking with his golden retriever in a forest in Seattle. The next, his pet was being torn apart by a "gray" -- an alien being with an elongated head, smelling of rotting fruit.
ADVERTISEMENT
A scene from a sci-fi film? No, maintains Reed, a former child-developmental psychologist who says he took the alien home and lived with it for nine days in which it communicated via telepathy and was able to pull thoughts from his mind.
Reed and others -- including Uruguayan Rafael Ulloa who says aliens in spaceships spirited away people from New York's twin towers in the September 11, 2001, attacks -- gather in Lima this week for a world extra-terrestrial congress.
Peru has long been a mecca for mystics and there have been abundant reports of flying saucers, especially over the southern town of Chilca. Some locals reckon aliens imbued mud springs there with special curative and fertility powers.
The congress, organized by the Alfa y Omega group that believes a fleet of UFOs will fly to Earth at the end of the world and Christ could use one for his second coming, during its October 6-9 run will pore over photos and grainy films of bright flashes and spooky shapes they say point to alien life forms.
Retired U.S. air force Lt. Col Donald Ware, 69, told a news conference Tuesday his first contact with aliens was in 1953, when he saw seven spacecraft flying over Washington,
D.C.
He spotted no signs of extra-terrestrial life during his service, but said he had seen alien craft eight times since retiring in 1982.
'DETECTING THE VISITORS'
Seeing isn't always believing. Wendelle Stevens, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, said he believed in aliens after having investigated 100 cases, despite never having seen any himself.
Stevens, thought to have the largest archive of photographs of alleged UFOs in the world, says he worked from 1947-49 in Alaska with B-29 planes fitted with special scientific instruments to "detect the visitors."
His work there began the year the U.S. military is believed by some to have hushed up two purported crashes of alien spacecraft within a month. The Air Force denies the stories.
Stevens, who said he did not believe in aliens before his work, said it was his job to debrief the crews of the B-29s and recounted how "the radio frequency spectrum went completely haywire ... and the temperature in the airplane increased. (The crew) looked out and there's a disc next door," he said.
He said the crew shot photographs with four different types of camera, but the military suppressed the pictures. No Air Force spokespersons could immediately comment on his remarks.
One of the most unusual testimonies comes from Reed on his 1996 experience with the alien he came to call Freddie.
Reed, who says he has a bracelet belonging to the extra-terrestrial, said Freddie had skin "almost like that of a pig." It breathed and had red blood, but did not speak. Tests showed he had 46 chromosomes, like humans, but 9 were different and resembled those of dolphins and sea turtles, Reed added.
Aliens enthusiasts and UFO spotters are used to raised eyebrows, ridicule and worse. Reed says he was shot after his alien encounter and blames a "government faction which doesn't want this information out."
But his close encounter with the alien with slanting eyes and a slit mouth "proved to me we are living in a much bigger universe," he said.
from the looks of it these guys have more proof that these guys exist than the Creator!
here you go!
UFO-spotters tell tales of the extra-terrestrial
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051005/od_nm/...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
LIMA, Peru (Reuters) - One minute Jonathan Reed was hiking with his golden retriever in a forest in Seattle. The next, his pet was being torn apart by a "gray" -- an alien being with an elongated head, smelling of rotting fruit.
ADVERTISEMENT
A scene from a sci-fi film? No, maintains Reed, a former child-developmental psychologist who says he took the alien home and lived with it for nine days in which it communicated via telepathy and was able to pull thoughts from his mind.
Reed and others -- including Uruguayan Rafael Ulloa who says aliens in spaceships spirited away people from New York's twin towers in the September 11, 2001, attacks -- gather in Lima this week for a world extra-terrestrial congress.
Peru has long been a mecca for mystics and there have been abundant reports of flying saucers, especially over the southern town of Chilca. Some locals reckon aliens imbued mud springs there with special curative and fertility powers.
The congress, organized by the Alfa y Omega group that believes a fleet of UFOs will fly to Earth at the end of the world and Christ could use one for his second coming, during its October 6-9 run will pore over photos and grainy films of bright flashes and spooky shapes they say point to alien life forms.
Retired U.S. air force Lt. Col Donald Ware, 69, told a news conference Tuesday his first contact with aliens was in 1953, when he saw seven spacecraft flying over Washington,
D.C.
He spotted no signs of extra-terrestrial life during his service, but said he had seen alien craft eight times since retiring in 1982.
'DETECTING THE VISITORS'
Seeing isn't always believing. Wendelle Stevens, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, said he believed in aliens after having investigated 100 cases, despite never having seen any himself.
Stevens, thought to have the largest archive of photographs of alleged UFOs in the world, says he worked from 1947-49 in Alaska with B-29 planes fitted with special scientific instruments to "detect the visitors."
His work there began the year the U.S. military is believed by some to have hushed up two purported crashes of alien spacecraft within a month. The Air Force denies the stories.
Stevens, who said he did not believe in aliens before his work, said it was his job to debrief the crews of the B-29s and recounted how "the radio frequency spectrum went completely haywire ... and the temperature in the airplane increased. (The crew) looked out and there's a disc next door," he said.
He said the crew shot photographs with four different types of camera, but the military suppressed the pictures. No Air Force spokespersons could immediately comment on his remarks.
One of the most unusual testimonies comes from Reed on his 1996 experience with the alien he came to call Freddie.
Reed, who says he has a bracelet belonging to the extra-terrestrial, said Freddie had skin "almost like that of a pig." It breathed and had red blood, but did not speak. Tests showed he had 46 chromosomes, like humans, but 9 were different and resembled those of dolphins and sea turtles, Reed added.
Aliens enthusiasts and UFO spotters are used to raised eyebrows, ridicule and worse. Reed says he was shot after his alien encounter and blames a "government faction which doesn't want this information out."
But his close encounter with the alien with slanting eyes and a slit mouth "proved to me we are living in a much bigger universe," he said.
from the looks of it these guys have more proof that these guys exist than the Creator!
QUOTE(shah269 @ Oct 5 2005, 01:44 PM)
so lets ask the obvious question shall we?
Why do republicans hate thing like math and science?
And yet they are hog wild over intangible things like god and what not?
are they really trying to dumb down this country? if so why?
i'm a little lost, ok i have proof that they are doing this but i just can't figure out why!
Why do republicans hate thing like math and science?
And yet they are hog wild over intangible things like god and what not?
are they really trying to dumb down this country? if so why?
i'm a little lost, ok i have proof that they are doing this but i just can't figure out why!
I believe they do want a dumb society.
It is not in our long term national security interest as we lose our competitive advanatage -- but science and logic stand in the way of their agenda...
Pushing the interests of big oil --- is in conflict with global warming realities...
Pushing contraception stops the spread of AIDS and stops unwanted pregnancies...finally Pat Robertson supports contraception --- but the right wing still prefer abstinence education -- rather than abstinence plus education...
Its crazy...
They see military science as the only viable alternative to maintaining our dominance foolishly ignoring the economic and market dynamics which really fuel global prestige and dominance now...and those factors are buttressed by a strong technology basis...
Religion is irrational --- technology rational --- and while they can coexist --- the Republican party knows that to promote coexistence would be to rebuff some of their more ardent supporters...
Their biggest slap in the face to science is arguing with results == and suggesting that some results are "bad science" which is crazy...
Jay Ambrose: Unintelligent about the concept of intelligent design
By JAY AMBROSE, speaktojay@aol.com via SHNS
October 2, 2005
http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnis...4125489,00.html
The nitwit fundamentalists are at it again, say all kinds of supposed sophisticates about the trial in Dover, Pa., that is testing whether it is legally permissible to teach students about intelligent design theory along with evolution in public schools.
I think these sophisticates are half right — evolution ought to be taught without the intrusion of broader speculations — but that some of them are also half-educated, or at least so closed-minded that the light of some very real possibilities never shines into their minds.
Many, for instance, seem to have absolutely no idea of what intelligent design theory is.
Some confuse the overwhelmingly demonstrated fact of evolution with the idea of natural selection, which in some details is not nearly so demonstrable. More than a few insist that evolution makes the whole question of God null and void. It does not.
It is my strong sense that the people most squeamish about evolution would most likely have kept their seats — as they have done with only sporadic exceptions for the past three quarters of a century and more — if it were not for some philosophical materialists like Carl Sagan and the intently anti-theistic Richard Dawkins who have insisted the natural world sums up the entirety of existence. That's it, folks, they have told us. There can be nothing more. What you see or methodically deduce from what you see is what you get.
They were thus poke, poke, poking at those who believed differently, especially when some of this school also averred that evolution was a definitive proof of blind force in the universe and thereby dispelled any claim to an omnipotent, omniscient God.
As obviously adept as some of these materialists are at science, they just as obviously cut philosophy class. There they might have learned that there are all sorts of issues that the intellectual tools of the scientific trade cannot begin to explicate. They might even have learned about the faults of the logical positivism, which says nothing is real that cannot be empirically confirmed. Only the physical need apply, in other words.
But wait, some skeptics asked of that mode of thought, what do we then conclude about mathematics? It is not a physical thing. We cannot see it or hear it or bump our toe against it. Many who had subscribed to positivism had to concede the point: The immaterial not only can but certainly does partake of reality.
Those having a barrel of yuks at the idea of intelligent design, as if it were a last-minute concoction of brain-dead creationists, must also have skipped a few crucial lectures in philosophy. The concept has an intellectual pedigree going back to the ancient Greeks. It is essentially the notion that the universe is rationally ordered and must thus have rational origins. One of its 18th century expositors, William Paley, said by way of analogy that if you found a watch in a field you would assume it was created by an intelligent mind. Paley's name is worth bringing up because one of those who admired his writings was a young Charles Darwin.
An older Darwin decided Paley was wrong. It seemed to him you could not square Paley's conclusions with his own conviction that the environment determined biological survival in accordance with well-adapted traits that would then be passed on to future generations, reshaping species over time.
The scientific basis for the idea was nowhere near as well-developed when Darwin proposed it as it is today, but even today, there are those who make interesting arguments that natural selection cannot account for certain biological facts pertinent to the question, even if it explains most of them.
While the theory of natural selection may overcome such problems, it remains quite impossible to show that an unseen God did not establish the principles of natural selection to get where he wanted to go or that he did not step outside natural selection to nudge things to his preferences here and there. And while the philosophical theory of intelligent design may fail to overcome some of its problems, it seems to me difficult — if not impossible — to deny its resonance.
I do think it would be a mistake to teach the idea in public high school because it would be impossible to do so without explicit debate about God, and philosophical explorations of this sort are generally put off until the college years of greater mental maturity. But I also think it would be a gross error to teach evolution as if it rules out any dimension of existence beyond the material and natural. That is a legitimate concern.
By JAY AMBROSE, speaktojay@aol.com via SHNS
October 2, 2005
http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnis...4125489,00.html
The nitwit fundamentalists are at it again, say all kinds of supposed sophisticates about the trial in Dover, Pa., that is testing whether it is legally permissible to teach students about intelligent design theory along with evolution in public schools.
I think these sophisticates are half right — evolution ought to be taught without the intrusion of broader speculations — but that some of them are also half-educated, or at least so closed-minded that the light of some very real possibilities never shines into their minds.
Many, for instance, seem to have absolutely no idea of what intelligent design theory is.
Some confuse the overwhelmingly demonstrated fact of evolution with the idea of natural selection, which in some details is not nearly so demonstrable. More than a few insist that evolution makes the whole question of God null and void. It does not.
It is my strong sense that the people most squeamish about evolution would most likely have kept their seats — as they have done with only sporadic exceptions for the past three quarters of a century and more — if it were not for some philosophical materialists like Carl Sagan and the intently anti-theistic Richard Dawkins who have insisted the natural world sums up the entirety of existence. That's it, folks, they have told us. There can be nothing more. What you see or methodically deduce from what you see is what you get.
They were thus poke, poke, poking at those who believed differently, especially when some of this school also averred that evolution was a definitive proof of blind force in the universe and thereby dispelled any claim to an omnipotent, omniscient God.
As obviously adept as some of these materialists are at science, they just as obviously cut philosophy class. There they might have learned that there are all sorts of issues that the intellectual tools of the scientific trade cannot begin to explicate. They might even have learned about the faults of the logical positivism, which says nothing is real that cannot be empirically confirmed. Only the physical need apply, in other words.
But wait, some skeptics asked of that mode of thought, what do we then conclude about mathematics? It is not a physical thing. We cannot see it or hear it or bump our toe against it. Many who had subscribed to positivism had to concede the point: The immaterial not only can but certainly does partake of reality.
Those having a barrel of yuks at the idea of intelligent design, as if it were a last-minute concoction of brain-dead creationists, must also have skipped a few crucial lectures in philosophy. The concept has an intellectual pedigree going back to the ancient Greeks. It is essentially the notion that the universe is rationally ordered and must thus have rational origins. One of its 18th century expositors, William Paley, said by way of analogy that if you found a watch in a field you would assume it was created by an intelligent mind. Paley's name is worth bringing up because one of those who admired his writings was a young Charles Darwin.
An older Darwin decided Paley was wrong. It seemed to him you could not square Paley's conclusions with his own conviction that the environment determined biological survival in accordance with well-adapted traits that would then be passed on to future generations, reshaping species over time.
The scientific basis for the idea was nowhere near as well-developed when Darwin proposed it as it is today, but even today, there are those who make interesting arguments that natural selection cannot account for certain biological facts pertinent to the question, even if it explains most of them.
While the theory of natural selection may overcome such problems, it remains quite impossible to show that an unseen God did not establish the principles of natural selection to get where he wanted to go or that he did not step outside natural selection to nudge things to his preferences here and there. And while the philosophical theory of intelligent design may fail to overcome some of its problems, it seems to me difficult — if not impossible — to deny its resonance.
I do think it would be a mistake to teach the idea in public high school because it would be impossible to do so without explicit debate about God, and philosophical explorations of this sort are generally put off until the college years of greater mental maturity. But I also think it would be a gross error to teach evolution as if it rules out any dimension of existence beyond the material and natural. That is a legitimate concern.
Why teach creationism in a science class? That's ridiculous. It's not science. It's an article of faith incorporated from the belief that the Bible is the literal history of how & who made Adam & Eve and their following generations.
Here's an idea:
Offer an elective additional class......call it History of Societal Development or Philosophy of Governments or something. Show how the belief in God, or Allah, or Buddha and the teachings of Mohammed and Jesus and many other prophets have influenced the evolution of societies around the world. The belief in a higher power than mere humanity assuages the grief felt in losing loved ones, and diminishes the fear of dying. It doesn't give anyone the right to force me to accept that belief.
Then, if students wish to believe that creationism is more plausible than the science taught in the other classes, let them. That's what education is all about. Teaching what really is, warts and all, should be the goal of our educational system, not favoring one belief over another.
Here's an idea:
Offer an elective additional class......call it History of Societal Development or Philosophy of Governments or something. Show how the belief in God, or Allah, or Buddha and the teachings of Mohammed and Jesus and many other prophets have influenced the evolution of societies around the world. The belief in a higher power than mere humanity assuages the grief felt in losing loved ones, and diminishes the fear of dying. It doesn't give anyone the right to force me to accept that belief.
Then, if students wish to believe that creationism is more plausible than the science taught in the other classes, let them. That's what education is all about. Teaching what really is, warts and all, should be the goal of our educational system, not favoring one belief over another.
QUOTE(grammydidi @ Oct 7 2005, 08:49 AM)
Why teach creationism in a science class? That's ridiculous. It's not science. It's an article of faith incorporated from the belief that the Bible is the literal history of how & who made Adam & Eve and their following generations.
Here's an idea:
Offer an elective additional class......call it History of Societal Development or Philosophy of Governments or something. Show how the belief in God, or Allah, or Buddha and the teachings of Mohammed and Jesus and many other prophets have influenced the evolution of societies around the world. The belief in a higher power than mere humanity assuages the grief felt in losing loved ones, and diminishes the fear of dying. It doesn't give anyone the right to force me to accept that belief.
Then, if students wish to believe that creationism is more plausible than the science taught in the other classes, let them. That's what education is all about. Teaching what really is, warts and all, should be the goal of our educational system, not favoring one belief over another.
Here's an idea:
Offer an elective additional class......call it History of Societal Development or Philosophy of Governments or something. Show how the belief in God, or Allah, or Buddha and the teachings of Mohammed and Jesus and many other prophets have influenced the evolution of societies around the world. The belief in a higher power than mere humanity assuages the grief felt in losing loved ones, and diminishes the fear of dying. It doesn't give anyone the right to force me to accept that belief.
Then, if students wish to believe that creationism is more plausible than the science taught in the other classes, let them. That's what education is all about. Teaching what really is, warts and all, should be the goal of our educational system, not favoring one belief over another.
I agree with this.
I agree with this, but I would make it mandatory and expand it into something like "Philosophy, Society and Critical Thinking Skills." Students would explore various ideas about God, government, ethics etc. Emphasis would be placed on their relevance to American history and government. They would be taught how to analyze these ideas and apply them to current issues.
I want it to be mandatory because it is as critical as the three R's.
I want it to be mandatory because it is as critical as the three R's.
QUOTE(grammydidi @ Oct 7 2005, 05:49 AM)
Why teach creationism in a science class? That's ridiculous. It's not science. It's an article of faith incorporated from the belief that the Bible is the literal history of how & who made Adam & Eve and their following generations.
Here's an idea:
Offer an elective additional class......call it History of Societal Development or Philosophy of Governments or something. Show how the belief in God, or Allah, or Buddha and the teachings of Mohammed and Jesus and many other prophets have influenced the evolution of societies around the world. The belief in a higher power than mere humanity assuages the grief felt in losing loved ones, and diminishes the fear of dying. It doesn't give anyone the right to force me to accept that belief.
Then, if students wish to believe that creationism is more plausible than the science taught in the other classes, let them. That's what education is all about. Teaching what really is, warts and all, should be the goal of our educational system, not favoring one belief over another.
Here's an idea:
Offer an elective additional class......call it History of Societal Development or Philosophy of Governments or something. Show how the belief in God, or Allah, or Buddha and the teachings of Mohammed and Jesus and many other prophets have influenced the evolution of societies around the world. The belief in a higher power than mere humanity assuages the grief felt in losing loved ones, and diminishes the fear of dying. It doesn't give anyone the right to force me to accept that belief.
Then, if students wish to believe that creationism is more plausible than the science taught in the other classes, let them. That's what education is all about. Teaching what really is, warts and all, should be the goal of our educational system, not favoring one belief over another.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.