What Leftists Really Mean by Science Education

I’m tired of hearing about stupid America. Americans might be stupid, but not for any of the reasons cited by liberals. Leftists like to bemoan the dismal state of “science education,” but their only real gripes are the existence of “climate deniers” and creationists. Meanwhile, they have no concern for the actual standards of education in general, or science education in particular, and they continue to pump billions of dollars into an autocratic educational system that has proven effective at none of its stated goals.

In the US, literacy in all subjects has suffered extraordinary declension since the advent of “free” public schools. This is undeniable. So America isn’t stupid because of a few creationists. It’s easy to blame religious people and conservatives, of course. They certainly exhibit some of the most obnoxious behavior in ’Merika™. But let’s look at the real problem here.

For one, stupid conservatives are generally products of the liberal education system. Ideologically consistent conservatives don’t send their kids to government schools. Which means that if anyone is to blame for the dismal state of education, it’s leftists and big government elitists. The flat fact is that private and home schooling are cheaper and more effective than public school. Even in science education.

But there is a big difference between science education and science indoctrination. Science education needs to be about the process and methods of science more so than about the philosophical assertions made by scientists. And this is where things get really sticky. I’ll have to start by quoting from one of the aforementioned bemoaners, Jonathon Gatehouse:

Last week, [South Carolina’s] education oversight committee approved a new set of science standards that, if adopted, would see students learn both the case for, and against, natural selection.

 

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world. But in the United States, reconciling science and religious belief remains oddly difficult. A national poll, conducted in March for the Associated Press, found that 42 per cent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” confident that all life on Earth is the product of evolution. Similarly, 51 per cent of people expressed skepticism that the universe started with a “big bang” 13.8 billion years ago, and 36 per cent doubted the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.

 

The American public’s bias against established science doesn’t stop where the Bible leaves off, however. The same poll found that just 53 per cent of respondents were “extremely” or “very confident” that childhood vaccines are safe and effective. (Worldwide, the measles killed 120,000 people in 2012. In the United States, where a vaccine has been available since 1963, the last recorded measles death was in 2003.) When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain. (The good news, such as it was in the AP poll, was that 69 per cent actually believe in DNA, and 82 per cent now agree that smoking causes cancer.)

There are so many problems with this manipulative drivel. Let’s begin with the too-broadly labeled “evolution.” Natural selection is not the same as “evolution.” Like many Darwinist believers, Gatehouse pretends like the truth of natural selection is a sufficient condition for the truth of “evolutionary theory.” The word “evolution” is a catchall, improperly defined and bounded. Natural selection is a very simple and obvious process that no creation scientist would ever think to deny—it means that the members of a population that survive are the only ones that pass on their traits, and their children are more likely to survive in their parents’ environment since they, naturally, have their parents’ “survival-favoring” traits. No brainer. Natural selection does not generally produce new species, and it has never produced a new family (or kind) of animal. Even the most diehard proponents of “evolution” understand this. Just listen to this quote from the Darwinists over at the Discovery Channel:

But natural selection doesn’t lead to the development of a new species. In most cases, the process simply allows a species to better adapt to its environment by changing the genetic make up from one generation to the next.

In fact, long before Darwin, Christians understood the necessity of a theory like natural selection to explain how migration, breeding, and environment could produce such rapid speciation after Creation—and especially after Noah’s Flood. We didn’t know the mechanism until Gregor Mendel (who, by the way, was an Augustinian friar) founded the science of genetics. But, then again, neither did Darwin. Contrary  to Gatehouse’s implication, and the erroneous understanding of only the most science-ignorant Christians, natural selection is in no way incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis and six-day Creationism.

Because a variation of species is not a variation of kind. All of Darwin’s finches were still finches at the end of the day. Maybe even different species of finches, if you want to be generous. But they certainly weren’t in a different class, order, or family column. All inter-breeding only ever narrows the available genetic material. It can’t expand it. There has not been even a single instance where natural selection has been shown to increase or augment the available genetic material. Natural selection has produced thousands and thousands of new, and ever more exclusive, species. But it has never and can never produce a new kind. Which means natural selection is entirely inadequate to explain the existence of all life on earth.

Gatehouse, like so many of his cronies, commits a classic fallacy (of composition). It runs like this:

  1. Natural selection is a necessary part of evolutionary theory.
  2. Natural selection is true.
  3. Therefore, evolutionary theory is true.

Not so fast. Natural selection does not prove evolutionary theory. Animals adapt to their environments over the course of their generations because the ones that can’t survive in their environments aren’t alive to breed, but that doesn’t prove that inanimate matter gave birth mysteriously to self-replicating organisms that eventually “evolved” into humans. In other words, it doesn’t prove that natural selection is adequate to explain the origin/existence, and not just the continuation, of all living things.

Natural selection is science. It’s observable, repeatable, and in the present. Macro-evolution, also known as “evolutionary theory,” is not science. It’s speculation on science, also known as “philosophy” or “religion.” As such, it has no more place in science education than creation theory does. It is a philosophical foundation for interpreting science. It is not science in itself. Gatehouse should know this. But, as he so aptly points out, science education just isn’t what it used to be.

But it’s not just on the issue of evolution that Gatehouse’s gripes are off-base. His whole argument falls to pieces once you really start considering it. Consider his dig at the anti-vaccination crowd. Did you know that over half of the deaths from measles last year were in India? It’s true that the average citizens of India don’t have vaccines. But you know what else they don’t have? Clean water, good food, underground sewage systems, space to stretch their legs … you know, pretty much all the things they would need to resist disease. Again, his argument is fallacious (post hoc ergo propter hoc). Just because vaccines are available in all industrial countries and industrial countries tend to have a lower incidence of disease, that doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccines themselves are alone, or even primarily, responsible. Good hygiene and good nutrition are arguably much more important for the termination of disease.

I find it ironic that a person decrying the stupidity of America should be so prone to informal fallacy. Forget science education. We apparently have major problems in logic and critical thinking as well.

And don’t even get me started on Gatehouse’s comments on global warming, climate change, climate disruption, whatever. This is just another classic case where science is whoring itself out to ideologues and politicians. A rise in global temperature has been detected over the past few years. So what? The really important issues attending that are: Are our measurements accurate? Is this a unique occurrence in history? And are we the one’s causing it? Environmentalists answer yes to all three questions. But the science and logic don’t support that conclusion necessarily. You could also get the evidence to answer no to those questions. And if that’s what the federally-funded institutions of “Science” were telling you to do, I guarantee that’s what you’d do.

Anyway, the bottom line is that Gatehouse’s real beef is not with the state of education, per se. He’s right about the fact that America is stupid. But he, and Bill Nye, are wrong in the substance of their criticism. It’s not about teaching the right things. It’s about teaching the right way. In all of education, actually, a shift needs to be made away from teaching what to learn to teaching how to learn. Whether you teach him evolution or creation, a child is well-educated if and only if he fully comprehends how to retain the knowledge he has, acquire new knowledge, and integrate his new knowledge with the old in a cohesive and consistent system of understanding. This is how to learn. Not what to learn.

But our civil government refuses to let go of the reigns of power. They don’t want kids exploring ideas for themselves. They don’t want people creating cohesive systems of understanding. People who can think critically are dangerous to the system. So in some sense, the government education system is doing its job. It’s making it easier for the civil government to control us. Big Brother wants to tell us all exactly what to believe.

Ironically, Gatehouse’s real gripe is not one of education; it’s one of belief. Gatehouse is Canadian. He trusts his civil government, and doesn’t understand why “arguments from authority” don’t work on people from the States. He hates that stubborn Americans just won’t believe what the government tells them to. But that is and has always been the best part of America. May it prosper long after Black Friday and pink flamingo lawn ornaments have gone the way of the Dodo.

168 responses

    • WOW…you’re a REAL scientist….dude….800-1000 words in the article and YOU remember only three words? ‘After Noah’s Flood’ ? Wow…like…dude..you like need to work on your reading comprehension.

  1. If anyone really desired to know more about the beginning of our universe, and how closely the progression is tied to the story in the Bible they should read a couple books by Prof. Gerald Schroeder. He has over 50 years experience in real science – working in nuclear and physics and quantum mechanics areas, and over 30 years in study of ancient Hebrew scriptures, with the assistance of the works of several pre-modern-science rabbi’s and commentators. Genesis and the Big Bang really shows the links between proven science – such as in accelerator labs – and the bible narrative. The Hidden Face of god shows him delving into molecular biology and the extreme intricacy of the human body – and things like DNA – nerves, cells, etc. I think until you understand some of this you are really missing out on knowing something of our world and life on it.

          • Comments about my education of lack of it are not proof. I just asked what proof you know about that is definite proof of your statement.

          • To debate whether evolution is true or not is absurd. If you don’t believe it to be true then their is nothing even theoretically possible that could prove to you it was so their is no point in arguing about it. I do however understand why Christians have fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution. They have no choice. Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the remains of the son of god.

          • So – you don’t have proof. You seem pretty hostile to the idea of Christianity – and I wasn’t talking about Christianity – I was talking about the source and development of human life.

          • If you’re not a Christian & you STILL reject evolution then you’re a retard.

          • You never have “facts”…..why? Because there is no scientific proof that there is no God and Evolution is pure theory—-which makes YOU a retard—huh. Look up the word “theory”.

          • Well I have to hand one thing to you
            In that remark to egalicki there is certainly no evidentiary support of intelligent design

          • That’s because he/they can’t provide an answer.

            You can’t prove either creation or ‘evolution.’ You CAN, however, show that evolution (the way the article uses the word) is not possible.

          • You are so ignorant—Evolution is a theory and not proven…..all good Scientists know that fact. Great minds, like Dr. Berlinski, an agnostic Jew, claim Evolution is junk Science.

          • You so ignorant you don’t even understand the meaning of the word theory in scientific terms! Look it up before you continue to make yourself look like the fool you obviously are.Just like falling is a fact and gravity is a theory that describes why you fall, organisms evolving and speculating are facts and the theory of evolution explains why. If you are willing to deny evolution, why not gravity, germs, atoms, electricity, etc. They are all theories too.

          • I took clases on the Philosophy of Science and classes on Quantum Mechanics.

            You are SO INCREDIBLY dumb, “thinking” that the the “Laws” of gravity” are a “theory. LOLOLOLOLOOL
            You HAD to be raised in the publik school indoctrination system, where the brainwashing
            eliminates all Wisdom and posits misinformation and lies, as the foundation of Truth.

            You have no ability for critical thinking–none. Your foundation of Thought, consists of “thinking’ that male body parts belong in anal cavities. And what “feels” good, is good. (No Reason or Logic allowed).

          • Now I know that God instructs us not to take pleasure in certain things but at this I must confess (although I am not Catholic) that I am LMAO

          • Gravity is not a theory, Bob. You should check these things out before you make certain comments.
            Universal gravitation is a law of mechanical physics, founded by Sir Isaac Newton (a Christian).

          • We can deny evolution because it is a theory (and not a very good one at that).
            We don’t ‘deny gravity’ because it is a demonstrable law.
            We don’t ‘deny germs’ because they are observable.
            We don’t ‘deny atoms’ because we can prove their existence through testing and mathematical formulae.
            We don’t ‘deny electricity’ because it effects are in continuous use across the globe.
            BTW – none of these are theories either, they are proven laws, objects and forces.
            I told you what would happen if you kept smoking that crap, and it’s begin to be obvious you haven’t heeded my warnings. Your brain is melting for all the world to see.
            What a pity.

          • Of course I am. After all who would believe such nonsense like evolution (except everyone on earth with a IQ above plant life)?

          • So all you can do is call me names? You don’t have proof of your statements’ validity do you? I should let you know I think the universe is 15 billion or so years old and the earth is several million years old – and humanoids have been roaming the earth for hundreds of thousands of years – and I don’t subscribe to the silly 6,000 year life of the earth – among other things – but I still don’t think someone – no matter who they are – making a statement – is proof of anything – even a consensus is not proof. Only proof is proof.

          • If you’re still looking for proof for evolution you don’t understand the meaning of the word proof. I’m curious, exactly what would prove to you evolution was true?

          • If you can’t prove it is true and I can’t prove it is false – then you are taking it on the basis of faith. And I take it on the basis of things proven in laboratories, such as Los Alamos, Sandia, Livermore, Rochester, Oak ridge, etc, and in the areas of molecular biology and statistics and mathematics, and cosmology.

          • heh come on you say potato he says patoto
            the terms critical thinking and science can have different meaning to different people can’t they? 🙂

          • Dr. Berlinski states that evolution is “Junk” science and he is a brilliant, agnostic Jew. Ha! Some of the best scientific minds of all time were and still are profound Christians, some even Creationists. Christian Worldview created the Age of Reason and the US Constitution.

            Godlessness–Atheism—is living off the fumes of the Christian cultures, and the Scientific Method Christians created, and are destroying all cultures with their Marxist ideology which literally threw out Science and Reason for Ideology–(and destroyed Natural Law Theory where Common Sense/Reason originate).

            Their irrational utopianism to make every human being exactly the same so everyone is interchangeable—even men and women—for their NWO of total slavery–is bizarre. Now we have boys considered “Rational” who claim to be girls in boys bodies. This is insanity, as is homosexual “marriage” which destroys Logic and meaning of the very word with thousands of years of Tradition.

            How rational is it to say two men marrying is the same thing as Natural marriage of one man and one woman. Just straight biology would be enough to convince any Rational person of the Truth and how insane and vile homosexual acts are. Promoting Vice in Just Law is unconstitutional anyhow.

          • Susan, you seem to place great store in the church of Rome. Pope John announced in 1996 that Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

            You are fixated on Homosexuality. I have no idea why any human being would be attracted to the same sex, I personally find it repulsive, but it is pretty clear that some people are wired that way. I do not think it is a “Choice”.

            We have some old friends that had three boys all good kids. They are older now. The oldest and the youngest are married and have families. The middle one is very gay. He actually got “Married” but is now “Divorced?” Like I said, I have a hard time with it too. He is a really nice young man, though.

          • I believe you are right, Leijona. Sexual perversion is no more a choice than is murder, theft, covetousness or anything else like those. Social constraints may inhibit many people from indulging themselves in the things they secretly want to do, but the drive (wiring) is still there.

            All these things are the products of a heart separated from God. The only solution to that problem is faith in Christ and the new birth. Religion won’t do it, it takes relationship with God through Christ.

            http://www.truthanchor.com

          • Wow
            That’s pretty cool
            someone who understands
            NWO = slavery
            cool
            of course I prefer the terminology internationalist elites because I think that tags them better
            but cool!

          • If you are referring to the fossil record – that is inconclusive. If you are referring to the age of the earth – possibly 5 billion years – humanoids roaming the earth possibly 100 million years – the start of and development of human life – no proof for the start for either point of view – for random reactions of inert materials to produce life – statisticians say there isn’t enough time in the age of the universe, about 15 billion years – let along within the age of the earth only about 5 billion years.

          • If you mean that there are gaps in the fossil record, of course there are. Some species do not fossilize, and it takes pretty exacting circumstances for a fossil to be created. You can have a 1000 piece puzzle and be missing a few pieces. That does not mean that you cannot draw a fairly accurate conclusion as to what the finished picture is, though. It is called Logical Deductive Reasoning. Try it, you might like it.

          • Yeah, I know Bob. I guess I just really have a hard time with people that can simply ignore all the knowledge that we have learned through Logical Deductive Reasoning. Lets face it, since the proliferation of the PC and the use of the internet, knowledge has spread like wildfire, and it will continue to do so. This threatens many establishments that are built on foundations of sand.

            Taking the wide view, we are only talking about from circa 1984 (GUI) to 2014 which is really less than the blink of an eye. By the way, I was serious re the Grand Canyon. I flew through it, and was simply blown away. Most people have absolutely no concept of its size. (277 Miles Long, 18 Wide, and over a mile deep in places)

            Really worth seeing.

          • Interesting you mention the grand canyon. Did you know the elevation of the top of the canyon where the colorado river enters the canyon is lower than the top of the canyon where the river exits? So the colorado river ran uphill for millions of years? Don’t think so. You belittle people that hold a different view than you do – that doesn’t support your position. Attack the facts – the data can speak for itself. God created everything. The facts back Him up.

          • The Grand Canyon is found in the US state of Arizona.

            Many people consider it to be one of the seven wonders of the natural world.

            The Grand Canyon is 277 miles (446 kilometres) in length.

            At its widest point the Grand Canyon stretches 18 miles (29 kilometres) across.

            At its narrowest point it stretches 4 miles (6.4 kilometres) across.

            The Grand Canyon is around 6000 (1800 metres) feet deep.

            The Colorado River runs through the Grand Canyon, it has been eroding its steep sides for millions of years.

            The different types of rock visible in the Grand Canyon make it an important site for geological research.

            The rock found at the bottom of the Grand Canyon (schist) is around 2 billion years old.

            The rock found on the upper rim (limestone) is around 230 million years old.

            American Indians have been living in and around the canyon for thousands of years.

            John Wesley Powell led the first expedition down the
            Grand Canyon in 1869. He was the first to use the name “Grand Canyon”
            after it had previous been known as the “Big Canyon” or “Great Canyon”.

            The Grand Canyon became a national park in 1919.

            It was the 17th national park to be established in the United States.

            While the Grand Canyon is neither the widest, longest
            nor deepest canyon in the world, it is an extremely popular tourist
            destination with around 5 million visitors enjoying its immense beauty
            every year.

            As well as sightseeing, hiking and rafting are also popular in the area.

            Overnight camping in the Grand Canyon requires a permit from the Backcountry Office.

          • A lot of people don’t seem to understand reason and logic creationists don’t have any monopoly on it.
            Non-Christian by a 20% to 30% over Christians believe that there are aliens from other planets walking around on this earth.
            I for one would like to meet all these aliens.
            I would like to attend an alien funeral and see an alien grave yard.
            No body ever seems to be able to introduce me to any of all these aliens.
            No body even seems to know where the heck an alien grave yard is.
            After all these millions of years these aliens are supposed to have been hanging out around here you would think someone could show me just one single alien grave yard or something.
            Oh, well I guess I am just too logical and reasoning to understand or believe in these aliens without any hard scientific evidence.
            P.S.
            Oh yeah and if someone does come up with this alien or alien graveyard or alien anything to help prove to me that these aliens have been around for millions of years seeding us, and messing with our dna, and F-ing with our destiny, and all those things well maybe that would be actual proof of intelligent design or creationism of some kind huh.
            Not the kind I believe in but wouldn’t it?

          • I said give me hard cold scientific evidence.
            How is that not logical?

            Wow it would be interesting to hear your explanation of why my comment has no logic.

          • Not do evolutionists. Best guess can only say, “we believe”. My belief is as valid as yours. Neither can be proven- nor dis-proven. Two religions.

          • That is called guessing – that is not proof or science. Anybody can guess. Science is based on repeatable observable ‘experiments’. There are pieces missing and they may never be found – and if they are they may indicate a different ‘plan’ that what the guessers are guessing. Have you looked into molecular biology at all? Just curious.

          • No, only as it applies to roofing products like Asphalt, and Coal Tar Bitumens, polymers etc. LOLOL

            My sister has taught Biology in HS for many years though.

            I’m sure there are pieces that will never be found. The concept of “Preponderance of Evidence” is completely disregarded by creationists, but science marches on, and the gaps disappear, or get smaller.

            We shall see, time will continue to close the gaps.

          • Until pieces are all completely filled in it is still guessing – any piece can and might show a different story than the guesses.

          • Reason is thrown out the window by many people creationists don’t have any monopoly on it.

          • “We shall see, time will continue to close the gaps.”

            Not sure about the rest of what you wrote, but I do think that one sentence of yours is dead-on.

          • And when your missing a lot of pieces you could make a lot of mistakes
            Just sayin

          • So, we just change the facts to fit the hypothesis. Very scientific.

            Actually, there are NO evolutionary species fossilized- zero, zip, zilch. get over it. Evolution is as proven as creation.

            >draw a fairly accurate conclusion<
            IOW, best guess.

          • And, these POSSIBILITIES become fact because, “WE BELIEVE.” Sounds to me like the religion of scientists.

          • See that is their new mantra for everything “it is established fact”
            They don’t know it yet but hell is too.
            I would guess that it could be quite a shock if when you first open your eyes that is what you see.

      • Creationism is not against science as much as it is against leaving
        out all the details that don’t fit into its limited world view…

        • Creationism was a very simplistic Myth that was related by illiterate elders to try to give illiterate, albeit inquisitive children a story about how they got here.

          We clearly know different now, but incredibly, some people are still stuck on the story.

          I mean, even Pat Robertson says “You have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to think the world is 6K years old”

          • Pat Robertson called Ken Ham, the six day creationist, crazy!

            For Pat Robertson to call someone crazy means they have to be really, really crazy…
            Google Ken Ham. He believe the Noah’s Ark was not only real, which it may have been,

            but that every animal in the world somehow found their way to it. How exactly did the

            platypus get there and how did it get back?

            How did all the millions of insects get there?
            He’s a real drag on society and the right-wing-nuts that believe in his rhetoric are also

            bathing in a deep lake of blind and murky thoughts.

          • Yeah, Thats what I thought. The pot calling the kettle black does not quite go far enough. The amazing thing about Ham is that he actually gets air time. Of course, so did Tiny Tim for a spell. I do not know why people simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that we are evolved from the Ape. All you have to do is go to a Yankees/Boston game when the pseudo-jocks get drunk, and there’s your proof. LOLOLOL

          • 1. Ken Ham believes the current earth system was created about 6k years ago, and I believe he is correct.
            2. Pat Robertson believes the earth is much, much older than that, and I believe he is also correct.
            3. Not ‘every animal in the world’ was on the ark, just the various ‘kinds’ of animals as mentioned in this article)..
            4. Pangaea is a fact, established in the Bible thousands of years before ‘scientists’ discovered that truth (hence location-specific animals).

            http://www.truthanchor.com

          • A puzzle with the wrong picture on the box will not help you assemble it properly, will it… Now I do believe that G-d created the Universe and influences its outworking, but, He also invented time and there fore was not in a hurry to make it all happen in 6 days as Ken Ham conjures inside his blindness.

            The universe is created from the top down.

            Consciousness created matter. Matter can not create consciousness…

      • Comprehensively: according to understanding. Again, consensus- IOW, “we agree.” Like all of thirteen “scientists” agreed with Al Gore on global warming before it became “scientific fact”. But, 30,000 disagreed- oops.

      • NOT TRUE! SCIENCE HAS BEEN DEBUNKED BY IT’S OWN RULES- THE RULES OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, NONE OF WHICH WERE FOLLOWED ON THE ROAD TO EVOLUTION.

        You must have been absent that day.

  2. Mr. Minkoff, The prime source of ‘proof’ for the existence of your storybook hero is the storybook itself. The Bible is given the special privilege of confirming its own truth! It’s true because it says it’s true. Now, if someone came to you & said that Batman is true because it says so in this comic book + we have testimony from Robin “the boy wonder” would you think that person had a problem with logic and critical thinking? Here’s the question religious people we have to answer. Can religion survive for very long by arguingthat empirical evidence is fiction? Can it successfully argue that the science which has produced huge technical understanding and improvement in quality oflife is at the same time fundamentally flawed?

    • While religion is based on faith, others treat it as fact. One Christian neighbor next door insists that the age of the earth is 40,000 yrs. old. How they managed to pass high school is a mystery.

      • I believe it’s either 4 billion years old or 7000. Those are the two correct answers, one supported by scientific observation, the other supported by the claims of the YECers.

  3. “that doesn’t prove that inanimate matter gave birth mysteriously to self-replicating organisms that eventually “evolved” into humans.”

    Evolution and natural selection have absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life. Get over it. Why keep conflating two totally different issues?

    Evolution is the nonrandom selection by the environment of radon variation in a population of organisms.

    And, the Big Bang “Theory” never happened. We live in a steady state electric universe and the Earth is indeed 4.54 billion years old.

    • uh, uh.. it ain’t no a steady state Universe… It started small and grew and is growing. As a matter of fact, it is accelerating…

    • Sorry Charles, but the universe is expanding. It is not steady state.

      Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Université catholique de Louvain. He was the first known academic to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble’s law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom or the “Cosmic Egg”

      Note that Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest, lending credibility that all religions are not equal in their ability to recognize the truth. The Catholic church also recognizes the validity of evolution.

    • Evolution is a species response to a change in its environment. If the species does not change in order to cope with its environment, it dies out (Extinction)

      Pre-Humanoids walk on all fours. Tall grasses populate the great plains of Africa. Humanoids stand on back legs to see further (Access threat, look for game) Humanoids develop ability to walk upright.

      PS That’s why we have so many back problems. We were originally designed to walk on all fours. (Better Weight Distribution)

      For some reason, some people feel it is demeaning to belong to the family of life on earth. I for one, do not. I feel that it brings us closer to other species. Anyone who owns a dog, or a cat believes that these creatures have emotions. You have to be blind to think otherwise.

      What a Beautiful Day it is here on the east coast today! Enjoy it!

  4. Ever get the feeling we are living in SODOM or GOMORRAH as the Angels of God seek a few good men? Complete with in your face Sodomites!

    VILE LIBERAL SCUM are Communist agents who are in reality the ENEMY WITHIN! Communist Party USA = Democrat Party

    • Science takes no prisoners.

      It is not emotional. It is self purifying.

      If someone proves through peer review that a fact is a fact then it takes the place of the previous evidence.

      Religion rarely does this as is very easily seen in the Muslim ideology.
      Stupidity. as is your greatest gift, is its own self-extinguisher…

      • Well, through scientific method Evolution cannot be PROVEN. Consensus of like minded individuals in NOT PROOF of anything whatsoever. All it means is some group of individuals agree. THAT”S IT. So much for Peer review.

        Your FAITH in evolution and Communism is just another RELIGION not FACT.

        LIBERALS are the very definition of STUPIDITY.

        • You really don’t understand how science works. They just don’t sit around and come up with stories. They test and test and test each and every point the someone theory brings up. IT AIN’T POLITICS WHERE A GUY LIKE RUSH LIMBO SAYS SOMETHING AND YOU FOLLOW LEMMING-LIKE BEHIND HIM! If there was no proof that scientific methods work then this thing you are writing on would not exist.
          By the way, I believe in an infinite and perfect G-d that does not need to fool

          His children by creating an ancient looking Universe
          Prove to me that Noah’s Ark existed, without just using the Bible, or that Adam and Eve were the first human beings or that the Universe was created in 6 days. how were days measured before the Earth was form, anyway?

          • And they tested evolution. They dipped up primordial soup and tested it. Cow pies. Your “proof” does not exist, by the scientific method.

          • Yes there are mysteries that science hasn’t solved, but just saying G-d did it and leaving all the other detail out is a foolish disrespect for G-d and His ways. Do you believe in the 6day creation story or are you more enlightened. Pat Robertson call Ken Ham crazy… Now that’s what I call crazy…..

          • Your denial of God is telling. You apparently believe in fairy tales told by sophists to distort and deceive.Consensus of like minded individuals remains consensus. Not Proof of a damned thing.

          • Did you notice that I wrote …G-d? Well did I you? Science is a system where we discern truth. And you believe that believing in what the Bible says about the Universe is all truth you need because you think it says so is foolish. It’s like using an old map in a growing city to find your way. Yes, some of the roads are the same, but it doesn’t show all the new roads and new towns that weren’t there before. The belief in G-d and the reasoning of science are not exclusionary.

          • The old map in a growing city Analogy is great! Well Said, and very appropriate! Exactly what the Bible does. It describes places, and features which still exist ie Mt. Ararat, and the simple mind says “see, the mountain is still there, so the story must be true”!

            Well Done.

          • What a failure of reasoning! Did any really find PROVEN existence of the ARK… NO, they did not.
            Though I believe in G-d and the angel through my own experiences, is there any real poof of them either…
            No there is not.
            In the story of Adam and Eve there is mention of a place called the “Land of Nod”. Who’s Nod.
            Why would there be a place before people that had a name unless someone else named it.
            Check out the Urantia Book…. http://WWW.Urantia.org and search through it.

            Urantia Book,
            http://higherdensity.wordpress.com/jesus/

          • Science is a method developed by men to establish TRUTH. Evolution cannot be proven using the Scientific Method and yet you believe it to be TRUE. Why? Both are RELIGIONS and you refuse to acknowledge it. One must be spiritually aware to know the TRUTH of GOD.

            Who is the FOOL? The one who is so BLIND they refuse to SEE or the one who seeks the TRUTH and finds it?

            It is extremely FOOLISH to believe you know it all when clearly YOU DO NOT!

          • Read above my explanation. Creation has happened but science must be respected.Blind faith is empty of details and very shallow…

          • You blind faith in your RELIGION of Evolution cannot be proven using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and you KNOW IT. Therefore it remains something you BELIEVE not FACT. Hence RELIGION.

            Prove to me EVOLUTION is FACT!

          • No one can prove anything. One can only disprove. You ain’t done that, yet. Frustrating, ain’t it, how you know there is no God, but facts won’t bear you out. Outrageous. Your religion does NOT top mine.

          • Corny…. You’re a poppy headed doofice because you don’t want to study what G-d created and just assume that the Bible has all the details inside. It is the truth about the spiritual Universe and our relationship to G-d, but there is almost nothing about the discoveries of modern science. It doesn’t even mention all the planet’s because no one knew they existed at the time. It doesn’t explain gravity or how the sun shines or how the computer you are using works. To be willingly blinded by those you are told to trust like Ken Ham is the antithesis of G-d’s gift of intelligence and discernment….

          • The truth is your BF can’t be proven. And. liberals always oppose the truth. Socialism, liberalism Democrat is all lies, and can’t stand in the light of truth. Truth will destroy the lies.

          • And those of your ilk are blind lemmings being led by the nose to your slaughter by those who sold their souls to the money gods like the Koch Bros. If you are so filled with faith and trust and the love of G-d then why do you seem so worshipful of weaponry. 200,000,000 guns is not enough? You have all the guns, we don’t… Oh ye of little faith. You seem so filled with fear and loathing. What fools you are to believe that a man who will be played $400,000,000, Rush Limbo, by the antipatriotic international corporations has no inkling of the truth that your live dwell upon.

          • As opposed to “those of your ilk (who) are blind lemmings being led by the nose to your slaughter by those who sold their souls to the money gods like” George Soros.

            I just thought of something else. Look up “Pascal’s Wager”. Which side would you rather be on????

          • Good Grief. You need to educate yourself. I just took a Philosophy of Science class and the professor stated that there is faith in science (like in ALL ideologies/theologies). Normal Science is all about consensus—(group think). Paradigm shifts are rare and those who “think” outside the box are persecuted and demeaned. If you “think” that science is NOT political, then you are truly dumb.

            The hockey stick (peer-reviewed) graph proves how scientists are bought and controlled just like your friendly politician. Corporations and governments fund and control medical “research” and block people who do not come to the “Right” conclusion or prove their products “safe”. You haven’t watched Ben Stein’s movie, have you?

            Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        • Religion is the very definition of belief by consensus. There is no describable proof that we, as humans can experience with our senses.

          It is based on Faith, Fear, and Hope. These emotions cannot, however be ignored by humans, as they are an intrinsic part of our thirst for meaning while we occupy this planet.

          • Evolution is exactly the same thing and don’t tell me it is a proven fact. According to the Scientific Method Evolution cannot be proven a FACT of LIFE. Science tells us things exist that we humans cannot see. Ever hear of Dark Matter?

            Religion and Evolution are FAITH BASED Belief systems. Climate change is based upon FEAR as well.

      • >If someone proves through peer review that a fact is a fact then it takes the place of the previous evidence.<

        And scientific fact CHANGES! IOW, it ain't proof. It's common opinion, like global warming.

        • Steven Hawking changed his mind about how Black Holes work when an experiment was presented to that proved him wrong. This exactly the opposite of those like Ken Ham that will not let any amount of evidence to change his mind and cure his self deceptive world view. Science is constantly evolving our understanding of the Universe. Experiments and peer review constantly up grade our knowledge. Trying to fit all the wonders of creation into a limited, but absolutely profound writings in the Bible is a fools deed. Religion is about whys of G-d and the soul, science designed to study the whats and hows. G-d created the Universe and us, and we are here to honor and respect His creation as it really is and not to just believe the stories that were given to us when we were too young and too ignorant to discern the ways of science and the profundity of His Universe.

          • I might not agree with some of your politics (see a few posts above,) but I do like your thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned responses, as well as the civil tone you maintain.

            I can’t speak for the others here, but I do appreciate it, and I’ve enjoyed reading what you’ve said thus far.

          • Thank you very much for you thoughtful words. This is discussion and not repetition without understanding how knowledge evolves. I am as much against atheistic science as I am against fantastical and magical religiosity where everything in the universe can be found within the very few pages of an ancient yet inspired text. G-d is so much more profound then could ever be described. They find an ancient map an try to navigate a modern city with it. There are some original streets, but the old map could never imagine an airport or even a railroad. G-d wants us to go out, as did the wayward son, to explore the world and return with a much greater appreciation for his father and all he taught him. His father cellebrated with great fanfare his return. We Jews have always been taught to question everything even the Rabbis. That is why we have people like Einstein and Mel Brooks. Oppression breeds creativity. To believe without question is self defeating.

        • Common opinion is what you use…The scientific community uses a much deeper set of tests and theories that
          are used and then retested over and over again by others who redo these experiments…
          ——————————————–

          Carl Sagan’s Bullshit Detection Kit

          by Barry Ritholtz – May 26th, 2014, 5:00pm

          As per our earlier discussion, here is Carl Sagan.

          He argues having a finely honed bullshit detector
          isn’t merely a tool of science — rather, it contains invaluable tools of
          healthy skepticism that apply just as elegantly, and just as
          necessarily, to everyday life. By adopting the kit, we can all shield
          ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation.

          The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark has Sagan sharing nine of these tools:

          The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new
          ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives
          examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although
          tentative, acceptance. If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy
          baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that
          can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

          1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

          2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

          3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have
          made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a
          better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at
          most, there are experts.

          4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be
          explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be
          explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically
          disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that
          resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
          hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if
          you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

          5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s
          yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself
          why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if
          you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

          6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure,
          some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to
          discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative
          is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in
          the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

          7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

          8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

          9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle,
          falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth
          much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is
          just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger
          Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our
          Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to
          check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to
          follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get
          the same result.

      • If someone proves through peer review that a fact is a fact then it takes the place of the previous evidence.

        DEAD WRONG. Peer review is NOT science. If the fact is not proven by METHOD, it is not science. If you need a degree to understand WHY something is true, that is itself evidence that whoever is making the claim CAN’T prove the claim.

      • It takes the place of the previous fact, until it is dis-proven- IOW, science does not rely on facts, but on faith. They have their own faith-based religion.

        • Science changes as new information becomes available. Religion does not change because it is based on the supernatural, and ancient myths.

      • Comparing Christianity to islam is ridiculous. The prior created the US Constitution stemming from Common Law, the Magna Carta, and creating the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment and a flourishing Western Civilization. Islam should be compared to Marxism–which does not believe in Free Will and Individual Natural Rights from God, which comes from only from Christianity which formed the most perfect “Justice” (virtue) System in the history of man.

        There is no more “perfect” or more “Just” system than one based on the Reasoned Christian Theology which never allows ANY human beings of being stripped of dignity and worth–even the unborn. This Theology is proven supreme by not only history, but by Reason (since the scientific method was invented by Christians).

        The US Justice System is based on Christian Ethics because it is based on Natural Law Theory (St. Thomas A.) which is the basis of Common Sense and the US Constitution, because of Lockean philosophy which comes from Thomism.

        All ideology is based on Faith. ALL. That Islam and Marxism/Atheism throws out Natural Law (bases of our Civil Rights) makes those ideologies antithetical to our Constitution. There is a Reason Christians founded the USA. Islam and Marxism kick out Individual Natural Rights for Collective Rights, which means they can treat human beings as a Means and kill whomever they “feel” is necessary for the good of the whole. Individual Rights were developed by Christian Theology and is the only “Just” system for cultures—for ALL people, not just the rulers.

        • Carl Sagan’s Bullshit Detection Kit

          by Barry Ritholtz – May 26th, 2014, 5:00pm

          inShare2

          Email This Post

          Print This Post

          As per our earlier discussion,
          here is Carl Sagan. He argues having a finely honed bullshit detector
          isn’t merely a tool of science — rather, it contains invaluable tools of
          healthy skepticism that apply just as elegantly, and just as
          necessarily, to everyday life. By adopting the kit, we can all shield
          ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation.

          The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark has Sagan sharing nine of these tools:

          The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new
          ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives
          examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although
          tentative, acceptance. If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy
          baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that
          can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

          1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

          2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

          3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have
          made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a
          better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at
          most, there are experts.

          4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be
          explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be
          explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically
          disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that
          resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
          hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if
          you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

          5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s
          yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself
          why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if
          you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

          6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure,
          some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to
          discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative
          is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in
          the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

          7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

          8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

          9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle,
          falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth
          much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is
          just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger
          Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our
          Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to
          check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to
          follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get
          the same result.

    • Good men?? You mean like Lott who offered his two virgin daughters to be gang raped by the entire town before taking them into a cave getting drunk & having sex with both of them?

      • You judge Lot by standards of today. In ancient times women bore children when nature prepared them for it. You even got the story wrong, his daughters are the ones getting him DRUNK. God respected them for their decision to ensure Lot having descendants to this day in the World.

        Sophism is distortion of the facts.

      • Lot did not offer his daughters. They got him drunk and offered themselves. Too bad, Americans can read, but don’t. They just condemn the Bible because some government tells them to- political shills.

        • You missed half the story. Lott offered his daughters in place of the visiting angels in the Bible. The whole story is hogwash anyway, so why argue which version of vaporware is true? It is just more of the bent “morality” placed in a book by neurotic old perverted men.

    • No, we are living in Rome circa 300 AD as the old pantheon of Gods gets supplanted by a new religion and the old people are cursing and screaming about it.

      Have a nice day!!

      • You must be referring to Catholics and Protestants as present day sects all except one spring from the Council of Nicea formed by Roman Emperor Constantine. It is not recorded, to my knowledge, the number of Christian sects of the era., I do know a committee of men in the council of Nicea through consensus patched together what they perceived as proper from all the available sects of Christianity and destroyed all of them they deemed enemies.

        One Christian Church was formed by God Himself in the Latter Day of Time. ONLY ONE! You judge Christians based on a committee of men doing what they thought the Emperor wanted of them. You owe it to yourself to seek God and the Truth.

        Try to have a nice day!

          • We are living in the LAST DAYS OF TIME presently. Obama wears the MARK OF THE BEAST. EVIL is more powerful than ever before and we are shortly going to experience Global War and Destruction on a scale never before known in Earth’s history. So bad that men will die of fear, the Sun will darken, and the moon turn to Blood.

            Your Choice of course, Choose EVIL or GOOD. There is no other choice available.

          • I wonder how many pairs of magical underwear he has. I live near Palmyra where Mr. Smith “found” the gold tablets that, for some reason were never showed to anyone. You believe in something never “proven” to even exist?

          • No. Smith was obviously a charlatan, yet people actually buy into his drivel. Hence the word “Construct”

          • Where is this proof now? Why are there no Blacks in leadership when Jesus would have been so much more inclusive. The Bible was against having many wives but the Mormons disregarded this teaching.

          • Every book of mormon has the testimony of three and then eight witnesses you can read for yourself. God’s curse on Cain included his descendents until only a few years ago. There were few to no Blacks in Israel during the time of Jesus Christ. Sheba a black women visited King Solomon as described is the Torah. She bore him a son who visited him later, This son returned to land of Sheba taking Jewish Priests with him. After that Black Jews existed that remained unknown to Jews until a few years ago as you may know.

            Today God has removed the Curse placed upon Cain and Blacks do hold the Holy Priesthood today. If you know your bible Abraham had FOUR WIVES, LOT had THREE. Only after EVIL men distorted the ideology of marriage did the notion of one woman and one man become fashionable. Today Muslims have many wives which seems to matter not to you.

            Only men who could afford to care for many wives and children are commanded by God to create children to serve the Will of God.

            Far from disregarding the teaching of MEN. God commanded Latter Day Saint to establish the marriage of more than one wife again upon the Earth.

            You apparently are unaware of the Council of Nicaea were a committee of men made up the Christian Faith by consensus of like minded men. By 300 AD the original teachings of Jesus Christ were lost to men. Jesus Christ was married himself and had many wives as well. People exist today who are His descendents. I actually met one such individual.

        • You keep using the term “Latter Day of Time” yet you refuse to explain it. Maybe because it makes no sense whatsoever? Do you know how many people have raved about messianic times throughout history? The world has weathered Hitler, and Stalin, Pol-pot, Saddam Husein, Talleyrand, and a multitude of other despots. Obama ranks pretty low on the “worst ever” scale, if you ask me.

          The council of Nicaea was one of the worst cases of censorship ever perpetrated by human beings. As a result, we lost about 60 Gospels of people that might have shed significant light on the life of Jesus of Nazareth

  5. Discrediting science by religion is as old as the hills. Early astronomers who said that sun is center of the solar system were charged with crimes against religion. Today, the targets are stem cell research, evolution, natural selection, human history, the age of the earth, etc.

    If it weren’t for religion we would have a cure for cancer by now. At least the churches can’t shut down physics & astronomy anymore. BTW, the earth is 4 billion years old.

    • First, evolution is not science. The scientific community requires that the experiment be done three times and compared with control samples outside the actual experiment each time. No experiment in actual evoolution can ever be produced. IF it happened at all, no one was there to run controls.

      Second, like all other science, they use “best evidence”. And as new evidence comes in, the conclusions are changed to fit “newer evidence”.

      Third, in different areas of the world, layering suggests different scenarios. This is explained away by suggesting there was a cataclysmic event that reversed large areas of layers. IOW, if the evidence doesn’t fit, alter the evicence.

    • Several cures for cancer have been proven. The scientific community refuses to accept them because a billion dollar industry would collapse.

      Hopi Indians cured cancer before Europe knew America existed. Squaw tea.

      • The reason this country has gotten so much worse over the past 30 years is that people like you used to be receiving treatment for mental illness. Today instead of taking medication you are running around the Internet making wild accusations and running as Tea Party candidates.

        • Were you aware that adults don’t actually make a practice of hurling epithets and insults at people
          they’ve never even met? Were you not brought up well?

  6. Exactly – evolutionists have to take it on faith just as creationists do. The big problem is neither takes the time to study in depth the other’s data. If they would they would find they are not really very different.

          • REAL science can only validate facts and offer observational confirmation of processes. Those things abound in the creation/evolution controversy because when God set up the universe He set it up with LAWS (not theories) to enable things to function properly. These LAWS (and their subsequent results) are plain for all to see – conveniently mentioned in God’s Word. What you DO with the information, via interpretation, makes all the difference.

      • sounds like you are stuck back in the age of Galileo
        Science / Christianity
        Christianity /Science
        Not a bipolar world
        That is just in your head

  7. See, the problem is that all of these Republican scientific theories- that gay is a choice, that the earth is 7000 years old, that global warming is a hoax, that LGBT people are child molesters- they’re all associated with each other in the minds of the public. And with 57% of the country supporting gay marriage and the SCOTUS lining up a court ruling on this, the GOP’s science about gays is about to get tossed on the junk heap of history- right next to phrenology and flat-earthism.

    And the problem is that global warming denialism and young earth creationism might get dragged along with the false science against homosexuality.

    You guys are so screwed. Nobody young believes the Republican propaganda about homosexuality or global warming denial. And all of these young people will be voting for decades.

    • I have been trying to place you. You’re talking points sounded familiar. You’re that freedom from religion nut case from Madison!

      • I write my own talking points. And I have no problems with religion until it starts destroying the planet or denying civil secular rights to people who do not follow the religion. If you aren’t trying to deny global warming or attack gay people I don’t have a problem with you and your religious beliefs.

        • You have to keep up to date. The name has been changed to, last I heard, climate change.

          It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

          Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36
          percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja

          • I’m going off the term you guys use. The only hoax going on is the claim that lots of scientists dispute global warming.

            I studied STEM in undergrad as well as grad school. In undergrad, about a decade ago, some profs still had some doubts about AGW. Two years ago when I graduated, few had any doubts.

            Head to a school like Princeton, MIT, Stanford, even the fairly conservative UChicago, and everyone is discovering more evidence for global climate change.

          • How many hours a day do you spend looking in a mirror and admiring yourself.

            You haven’t proven, nor backed up a single word you have said.

            As for climate change, I can just picture you and labobfromnyc sitting in Mexico City thousands of years ago saying that you agree with al gore that when the glacier melts in Chicago, they were going to be in trouble. Then you spent the rest of the day putting diapers on dinosaurs!

            I’m not impressed.

    • The liberal theory is that there is a gay gene, but they can’t find it. Right!

      If there were a “gay gene” it would die in ONE GENERATION because true “gays” don’t reproduce. They don’t breed.

  8. The “major problems in logic and critical think” cited in the article are with the morons teaching science fiction (evolution) instead of science (the methods of discover and validation).
    It seems to be a government-on-down kinda thing.

  9. Whoever it was on here that prescribed the site Traders Superstore I need to say much appreciated. You are correct they have been exceptionally useful to me in figuring out how to exchange. I now have trust that I can stop my employment and exchange full-time. Exchanging is not as hard as I thought it was however it serves to gain from the ideal spot.

  10. The only thing the government ever seems to be able to do right is prosecute a war, and it is such cluster f***k to begin with, no one would know if it was being done well or not! It’s not too late-RISE UP AND REESTABLISH THE REPUBLIC1

  11. The thread here is the same as always. Scientists use one consensus, calling it fact, until it is proven wrong. Then the facts change. IOW scientific “fact” is accepted on belief- IOW, religion. My religion is as provable as yours.

Leave a Reply