I have had similar experiences. More telling, I had a student tell me
after taking my intro class where we deal with evolution, that we
biologists always SAY there's mountains of evidence that support
evolution, but we never actually SHOW it to the students.
At first I thought he was just tuning
Ecologgers,
A couple of words on this thread.
First to paraphrase Winston Churchill - Peer-review is the worst sort
of review we have - except for all the others.
Second, freedom of speech unfortunately means that complete idiots or
those with which you disagree completely get to say what
Hello all,
As cynical as this may sound, I tend to agree with the person who said
that people will believe whatever they want, regardless of the information
available. The problem here is perception, and perception is shaped first
by parents and family. In the case of religious folks (a
I'm not sure it's the scientists' fault. Many minds are made up before we
get a chance to actually teach the public.
We have a major public relations problem. Science offers everlasting doubt.
Religion offers everlasting life. Some can handle the former, others deeply
desire the latter. Most
Scientists argue Evolutionary theory all the time in scientific journals.
Gould's theory vs Knoll's theory vs.
People find holes in some of the evidence (for the mechanisms of evolution,
not for evolution, itself) and discuss them in a scientific context.
It already happens. So play
In response to David's comments, I think the assumption that most
individuals enter
our education system with their minds already made up about evolution (or
any idea for that matter) is false. It may be true for some but believing
that it is true for the majority undermines the entire point
of
There is considerable agreement among scientists about evolution. It's
there if you want to see it. If you don't want to see it, you won't. Are
you recommending that we all filter our work through some kind of thought
police to ensure we present the correct message?
The scientific community
To lighten up this discussion a bit, and slightly off-topic, the chorus I
sing in will soon be doing a concert of Ralph Vaughan Williams pieces, and
our conductor did some research for the program notes and learned:
His mother was an heiress to the Wedgewood manufacturing fortune; his
great
If you go to the IJCR website you will see that the institute is an
accredited graduate school for science educators. I won't bother posting the
full accreditation page here, but the following should be enough to scare
most of you:
The ICR Graduate School was approved by the State of
Okay the point is, this IS going to happen so, WHEN it is published it is
going to further confuse the public who already have a justifiably shaky
opinion of science due to the very anemic defense that scientists
themselves have offered in the past on this and other issues related to
credibility.
Uh, Jim, do some research before you accuse others of being somnolent. I
happen to be the Virginia coordinator for the AIBS/NCSE Evolution List
Server Network
(http://www.aibs.org/mailing-lists/the_aibs-ncse_evolution_list_server.html)
.
The ICR has done this before -- the old journal was just
Ho Boy. Here we go. This is a potential source of evidence for many school
board discussions on whether to teach creationism alongside science. (I
wonder why they consider astronomy an appropriate field for the journal?).
Jim! You are good to bring this up. We should all take a lesson from the
Get to know me better before accusing me of being blasé' on the subject.
Read my posts, too. I haven't argued AGAINST more public outreach, and I
think my running (hosting) of the Virginia list in the AIBS/NCSE network
shows that I do more than just talk about the problem.
The topic was
I think there is a legitimate concern about a journal presenting itself as
scientific and peer-reviewed, regardless of whether the typical news junkie
will ever read it. Many people, our current President among them, may hear
in the wind about a peer-reviewed article that proves a biblical
Thank you for your good work, David.
I certainly agree that these journals have been around a long time. But
your contention that their impact is nil only pertains to the scientific
field. I have heard parroted findings from the institute in Ohio, Arcata,
and Napa. They are issuing talking
Have you seen this? A peer reviewed journal for young earth creationism!
Please tell me that someone out there is preparing some stiff opposition to
this.
When this thing gets off the ground it will do a pretty good job of
undermining scientific method and credibility. This may be even worse
I doubt it will have much effect at all. ICR published a similar journal in
the past. Now they'll have a new name and new volume numbers, but nothing
new to say.
Dave
--
David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court
17 matches
Mail list logo
