I am a Deist. That means that I believe in God whole-heartedly but reject all religious dogma. My beliefs are a combination of certain elements from Hinduism, Sufism, and Buddhism and I try to pray and meditate daily and abide by a belief in karma. During the day I am a Fellow at the Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. I study the oldest life on Earth (dating back to ~4 billion years) in order to unlock the secrets of life, how it began, and how it evolved until the present. I am an example of how one can embrace God and still believe at the same time that scientific explanations should always trump religious ones.
Over the last two days Deepak Chopra has been making arguments that basically support “Intelligent Design” on the liberal Huffington Post blog (which is an excellent website). Such an embarrassing event can occur when you have too many bloggers in one space and can’t keep track of it all. I am not a Deepak Chopra reader. I find his writings too…elementary. I don’t begrudge anyone that does enjoy his writing though. We all have different tastes is all. Chopra however has a lot of people that listen to him and take his words as “gospel.” That is why I was pained greatly to read his post. Here are some “scientific questions” he poses in order to demonstrate an openness to divine intervention:
1. How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that no “missing link” can fill.
Wrong. It is the rock record that is incomplete. Tectonic activity is continually resurfacing the Earth and destroying the rocks containing fossils. Nature does not take “creative leaps.” The biggest such “leap” occurred around 535 Ma at the Cambrian boundary and over the last 40+ years the “gap” has been slowly filled in with solid fossil evidence showing gradual evolution.
2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations — those that lead to new species — and so few negative ones?
Because organisms with negative mutations die out sooner making their preservation potential less. Only a tiny fraction of dead life survives the fossilization process without being destroyed. That’s why you don’t find dinosaur bones in your backyard.
3. How does evolution know where to stop?
Evolution never stops. Many prokaryotes (single-celled life) have remained virtually “un-evolved” for close to 3 billion years. This is because they are generalists that are suited for life in extreme environments and because they reproduce asexually which allows for less mutation. Give them an environment extreme enough though and they will either evolve or die. Evolution doesn’t stop at some perfect “design.”
I am going to stop here. Rest assured that I could systematically de-bunk every pseudoscientific point Chopra makes and I don’t even have my Ph.D. yet. Maybe Razib and his pals at GNXP want to take a shot at swatting down a few more (although I fear I’d be insulting their intelligence with such an easy task).
As you can imagine HuffPost readers let him have it in the comments following his post. In fact he had to write a follow-up post containing seven more fundamentally flawed arguments:Reviewing the negative reactions to yesterday’s post, I was struck that both “secular humanists” and fundamentalist become extremely emotional when the debate on evolution is brought up. However, new ideas are attacked with emotional vehemence some times and then turn out to be right.
Yes, its always easy to counter a rational attack with a wave of ones hand and then point to some historical examples of “persecuted ideas,” as if his argument has anything in common with them.
If you are opposing my comments with passionate vehemence, I’d suggest that you are not friendly to the open discussion of evolution, no matter which camp you belong to.
This coincidentally is almost verbatim what IDers say. Also let’s clarify. There is NO SUCH THING as “Intelligent Design.” Years ago the Creationists realized that the word “Creationist” was a conversation stopper. They then repackaged it and came up with a new word that was easier to swallow. Their PR people are brilliant.
There is also some poetry thrown into Chopra’s rebuttal in-case real scientists are still angry with his arguments:
You and I are such islands, and there is no reason on the face of it why we don’t blow away and disperse in waves of radiating heat the way a rock cools off after a hot day, the same way a star eventually expends its heat and dies.
Chopra promises to answer his thirsty minions in his next post which I eagerly await:
In my next post I will offer a picture of how these questions might be answered.
A picture is after all worth a thousand words.
If you would like to learn more about the truth then here are some links:
aybe Razib and his pals at GNXP want to take a shot at swatting down a few more (although I fear IÂ’d be insulting their intelligence with such an easy task).
i don’t want to give ammunition to those who think browns are idiots 🙂 people might be interested in pz meyers response. the problem with people like chopra though is that he reflects the mainstream view of things like evolution in many ways.
how many people knew that ‘survival of the fittest’ predated origin of species (popularized by herbert spencer, who preferred lamarckism over more orthodox darwinism).
Deepak Chopra should not have not done it. I guess he is an idiot.
I am spiritual but not religuous. However, I respect religuous people and appreciate their faith.
One should never mix science and religion. Age of earth is my backyard (I know some of the other SM readers too). I’ll let you guys know when I write something and link to one of the latest Science issue on “intelligent design”.
Kush
PS: I am glad for your public-service. Thanks
Razib……if you need help with geochronology, tectonics, paleontology, uniformatinism, rock record, stratigraphy, please let me know.
I do this for living. My knowledge of biology is rudimentary but not age of the earth.
btw, didn’t chopra say some nutty things about quantum mechanics awhile back? i think this is par for the course for him.
Kush:
I’m sure that Razib would put up a good guest post on the geological angle on evolution.
Abhi:
Good post, btw. W.r.t. this:
Maybe Razib and his pals at GNXP want to take a shot at swatting down a few more
The whole thing is shot through with the self-righteous retardation of the invincibly ignorant, but this one jumped out at me:
AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH. One would think a Nobel Prize would be enough to bring recognition to this field:
http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html
That’s introductory bio stuff, RNA world stuff, that I learned back in high school. If the Chopras of the world have their way, though, a future high school student won’t.
I’m sure that Razib would put up a good guest post on the geological angle on evolution.
email me if you want to guest post. i don’t know jack about rocks-i’d be interested 🙂
Razib,
I’ll email you tomorrow. I was thinking on incorporating latest Science and Nature articles and build a short synthesis on “what does the rock record really tell us”. They are other SM readers who very knowledgeable about earth too but I cannot speak for them for such an effort.
He is doing big disservice to South Asia,India and Hinduism by opening his mouth on things he doesn’t know.
“I am going to stop here. Rest assured that I could systematically de-bunk every pseudoscientific point Chopra makes and I donÂ’t even have my Ph.D. yet.”
I don’t have any expertise in this controversy, but I do know a little bit about both the history of, and the philosophy of science. It seems to me that sectarian battles and contention among competing truth claims are the norm in science.
In my view, to stigmatize an opponents proposition/s with the prefix “pseudo” adds nothing to your position. For a reader/listener keen to the tactics of argument, it probably earns a negative point. Better to let the merits of the record and your neutral (as much as possible) presentation alone – without stooping to sloganizing or (worse)peroration.
In reference to the Ph.D.: do you need a fancy-pants degree to expose error? Or is this more about claiming authority or earning approval from the current circles of power?
I like to give SM writers hard time as anyone else.
Please be assured Chris, whatever little Abhi has said is grounded in robust observations. He knows the current ideas based on observations and hypothesis testing. He made some excellent points.
I’m obviously no scientist, but I am a fundamentalist Christian. There is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Creationism sincerely believes in the Biblical record of how the world came into being while Intelligent design simply states that there are reasons that this world is so dang complex and that chance isn’t one of them..
I now open myself up to cross-examination and points of clarification may GOD have mercy on us all..
Fellow LD’ers WOOOT!
What?? Death creates fossils rather than the time/reason for death. And of the tiny that survived fossilization, what is the percentage that have undergone negative mutation? If that percentage is significantly negligible/low, your argument falls apart.
And dont you think “random mutation” is more voodoo than deriving (or at least attempting to) a pattern/model to that randomness?
Great post Abhi, another reason why I’m addicted to Sepia Mutiny.
Chopra’s popularity is unfortunate, and is probably an outgrowth of the 1970’s western Hippy romaticization of the “wise and mystical guru of the East,” conveniently packaged for mainstream America.
Chopra’s popularity is unfortunate, and is probably an outgrowth of the 1970’s western Hippy romaticization of the “wise and mystical guru of the East,” conveniently packaged for mainstream America.
Can I just say that your Sitayana is great for puncturing that kind of thing? I think that a certain degree of ribbing of religious tradition is useful…
Oh, and, if you’re feeling really brave, I’d suggest project #2: The Quran from Aisha’s standpoint. Though you might need to hire bodyguards. I’m serious.
I feel like everyone’s declaring their allegiances before saying their piece, so I’ll do the same. I’m an atheist. (Thank God for atheists!) I’m also a scientist and science journalist. Anyway, I have a few mildly related things to say.
I have no problem with Deepak being popular, he was one of the first brown faces to be widely recognised stateside. I’ve realised there are a lot of differences between the UK and America since I’ve frequented SM, and here’s one – thinking Chopra is setting back the ’cause’ of Desis, or giving us a bad name. Would Americans assume that all brown people think the same way simply because one high profile one says so? An honest question, I’m not poking fun.
Secondly:
I disagree. I think it’s fun. Having just said I’m an atheist, I’m also fascinated by religion. I regard it as history – a reflection of what people thought at the time. On a similar theme to this post, the creation of the universe, it’s very interesting to read Hinduism’s beliefs as to how it all began and compare to the Big Bong. I mean Big Bang.
On a more serious note, I despise the attempts to undermine bona fide science and I am truly sad that some kids in America are being schooled in dogma as opposed to Darwinian science. I will continue to prefix it with pseudo-.
You know, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who believes in ID. I’m surprised Tony Blair hasn’t embraced it more wholeheartedly.
We had some discussion between scientist parents on this. We concluded that a national debate on this was pointless. I don’t know if anyone remembers, but early 90’s Eric Lerner and others were going around talking about how Big Bang never happened and the opposite point of view was being suppressed. Thankfully the overwhelming burder of evidence has finally killed that sort of nonsense. But when it was rife, astronomers would organize debates, write letters, speak to schools, etc. I was present when my thesis advisor (David Spergel) had a public debate with Eric Lerner. We thought he floored him. Various students raised many excellent points. I mean it was easy, the guy didn’t know about error bars. When we walked out, the humanities students said, “you guys were so mean to that poor fellow”. They totally bought the notion that we were deliberately suppressing someone just by being more articulate and louder.
This is a losing battle. As long as scientific research stays rigorous, sooner or later the weight of evidence will overwhelm any such nonsense. Its best to just wait it out.
BB — who is to blame for the sad state of science in American public schools? You could say the kids are innocent victims of an evangelical political agenda, but then again, I read this great quote in a Barbara Kingsolver short story once, told from the point of view of a high school biology teacher, where she says something like “Some students were OK, but most were just waiting for me to start talking about apes so they could stop listening.” I’d say the parents are definitely part of the problem, feeding kids similar crap at home. If the adults were better-educated, they’d be up in arms fighting the school districts and textbook companies peddling this rubbish.
Oh, hell yes! And those who see through his gauzy charlatan preachings then tend to lump alll Indian teachings on religion/spirituality/etc in one big ball of bullsh*t.
Frakly, it’s not just Americans. I’m embarrassed to say one of my uncles is a huge fan. He’s a effn nuclear engineer and he was completely into Chopra for a while. ugh.
abhi, the problem with science is that it doesn’t provide society or humans with a methodology or structure that shows them a path of life, purpose, or simply, what to do.
and i think that’s really behind the success or appeal of Chopra, he provides a concrete, practical way of living that, obviously, people have found to be working. so the dude does have something to him, as opposed to his attempts at higher science.
i guess in the end, one can argue the effect his work with people is far more engaging and worthwhile than the “truth” that science pursues. i use quotations for truth, due to the relative nature of it in the context of science. what seems to be one thing today, is potentially a half-truth tomorrow.
So, 43 seconds, your contention is that people are sheep and want to be lead?
I do, but then I have a problem with “ID” being popular too. Stupid, but probably inevitable.
I don’t think he’s setting back the ’cause’ of Desis. I just think mainstream America wouldn’t have given two hoots about him had he not been brown and had an “exotic” name. Chopra has certainly capitalized on this. It is unfortunate – there’s that word again – that race and exoticism have ANYTHING to do with the discourse of ideas. I’d prefer that ideas were evaluated on their own merits, and not given more or less credence according to their proponents’ ethnicity.
Being in the UK, you may be unaware of the embarassing chapter of American history known as the Great Hippification. This was an attempt to meld predominantly Christian-influenced whitebread American culture with the “inscrutable” Philosophies of the East, yielding such enduring tomes as “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters” (which I learned is abhorred by physicists at CERN when I briefly worked there). Instead of justifying any stupid idea with Biblical scripture, it became chic to justify any stupid idea with “Eastern Philosophy.” Granted, many non-stupid ideas were dispersed this way too.
I guess I’m just ranting. Something about the Hippy worship of all things “Asian” bugs me. I’ll try to find a more articulate explanation why. I think there are many great things about various Asian strains of art, literature, and philosophy, (gc – I genuinely love the Ramayana) but that’s because they’re great on their own merits, not because they’re “Eastern.”
Yup.
I didn’t really know anything about Deepak Lamb Chopra until just now. I read what raz was referring to – the quantum physics business and even the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. He’s bonkers! But I still think that if he’s helped certain people by being a ‘lifestyle guru’ or whatever, that’s cool with me. The fact his quackery has done so well is due to the fact it’s in America.
But Wiki does say this corker:
My main bone of contention is his spelling. His son is Gotham, right? Unless he’s a big fan of Batman, why the hell didn’t he spell it Gautam? Chump.
Nina P, I know what you mean exactly. Have you read Karma Cola by Gita Mehta? I think you’ll love it.
He is a chump. But a shrewd, huckster-y chump. His sagacity has spawned a spirituality/lifestyle empire that encompasses his whole family. (Like Dr. Phil’s son on that house AND personality AND relationship makeover show. He’s qualified for any of this..HOW, exactly? )
Have you read Chopra’s daughter’s ‘poetry’? vomit.
“So, 43 seconds, your contention is that people are sheep and want to be lead?”
cicatrix, if you had a remote understanding or sense of history, you would observe this as well.
then again, given your posts, in LTTE threads, that totally distort Ceylon’s history, i would doubt it.
Hrmm, apparently you have not seen X-MEN. Don’t you know every few millenia nature takes an evolutionary leap? I’m hoping my children have a super healing factor and/or telekineses. Here’s to Deepak Chopra for keeping science alive! 😉
not at all 43 seconds. I have understood it well by observing the SL Tamils who allow the LTTE to lead them, sheeplike.
Y’ll… dont just rant ‘if’ ID is BS or not – like polititians. Rather take aim at “what/why” he says – like educated people.
There is one book of Chopra’s I like (The Return of Merlin, which stays firmly away from science).
The trouble, at least in this country, with setting up a debate between any scientific theory and pseudoscientific idea is that most people do not know what makes science science. So “science” just becomes a matter of what scientists are willing to say.
Three things make science:
1) Hypothesis testing through a data set that was not used to develop your hypothesis in the first place.
2) Repeatability. Your ideas/ experiments/ calculations are laid in a way that one can repeat it.
3) Peer-review. Clearly laying out its fragility too.
Science does have it prejudices, etc. Sometimes, it makes major mistakes like Lord Kelvin’s calculation of age of earth. He did not incorporate the presence of radioactivity in the earth- it was not discovered at the time calculations were made.
Kush,
Then there is “theory” – which is true until proven wrong. In many cases, theories are just a set of proof’s which may not even be ‘testable’. And most theories have critiques and loopholes that appear to fail them but may not “proove” the theory wrong.
43 – I agree with you on your post – just a correction – science does provide society with structure – so does religion. The core of each is the same – call it axioms, call it faith.
I dont disagree with the textbook samplings – reflects your individual quests respect that – but see… the inquisitive types drill deeper into more and more and if they dont become a professional student, they take a stance and say – I know this is the absolute, inviolable, invariate truth – and build a life on that stance. Or… you can cut to the chase … and say I dont need to know anything more than I need for my line of sight objectives and get into the game sooner… Either way, it all comes together, no?
Hammer_Sickel your argument is backwards in this case. It is IDers that are politicians (many of them really are). Real scientists despise “debating” with politicians. I haven’t seen a single “rant” from a scientist in this thread, but I have already seen some handwaving by the other side.
Yes, the old argument that everyone on the losing side of this debate keeps in their hip pocket. Fortunately, as I pointed out in the post, these “theories” are testable. New techniques are being developed all the time adding more proof on the side of evolution. There has not yet been one single testable fact uncovered to bolster the ID side of the argument.
You might want to read this post on pharyngula countering the charlatan Chopra.
hahah, okay whatever cicatrix, whatever you say.
anyway, getting back to the discussion. i think we can take for granted that collectively, society seeks leadership, thus the creation of religion and political ideologies.
but with regards to the following Chopra has amassed, i think there’s a lot to be said and recognized about what he delivers to his “people”. and i think its all connected to the delusion more and more people are facing with their religions, where faith in God is placed higher than individual transformation.
while Dr C is being dismissed as a hack… just wanted to add a point in his favor… based on what I saw in an interview between he and Dennis Miller I chanced in to, one sad lonely night in a Kansas motel. call him a huckster, call him a fool, but he is a far smarter man than I. Scientists work problems in a vacuum, theorizing, testing etc… this guy was doing it live and walked away with an acknowledgement of grudging admiration from Miller and the audience..anywya…
Sorry but that statement is B.S. I hate how our society has turned scientists into these “mysterious black boxes.” If people are too lazy to learn about science than how does it become the scientist’s fault. Many science budgets are based on tax-payer or public money. You can’t get more open than that.
abhi, unfortunately, that is the nature of man. the vast majority of humankind, myself included, are incapable of processing all the information that science spews and processes. so despite all the “truths” that science can provide us with, it fails the common man in providing something tangible and meaningful.
Abhi, not trying to be a fence-sitter since I’m pretty clearly pro-evolution and scientific knowledge..but I think society has turned scientists into these “mysterious black boxes” because science has moved far beyond what can be taught in high school or even basic college.
Newtonian Laws are disproved, atoms smashed, strings now wriggle…people are confused, and all these pop-science segments only the news just add tothe confusion – Blueberries are good! All berries cause cancer! Drink more wine! etc…all “according to leading scientific journals” of course.
Is this (the withdrawal from science and embrace of fuzzy creators) a symptom of an increasingly specialized society? I dunno…
that should’ve been:
pop science segments ON the news
I really want scientists to be sexy or complete loonies like Dr. Strangelove (I that one is one of my top 10 movies).
That is how I will marry a Bollywood/ Hollywood actress one day. I am serious.
PS: I think scientist do a bad job in educating people. I will do my bit.
Science = Tangible.
How about photoelectric effect, atomic theory, oil exploration, medicine, airplanes, trains, cars, computers and algorithms? In this modern world, almost everything is linked to science, directly or through engineering.
Kush
There is thing one should remember in science – scientists are contrarians. They work on principle of exclusion most of the time. However, once a while, wonderful thing happens when Einstein or Chandrashekhar’s ideas are proved independently 60 years after they were formed.
Sometimes, theories and hypothesis are disproved. Sometimes, they are proved beyond doubt. If you notice quite often nobel prizes are shared by people – one who formed the idea and the one who proved it independently.
Science changes with time but the methodology of science is timeless.
Regarding evolution, look at how life evolves at mid-ocean ridges at a very short time due to extreme environment.
You guys are missing the big picture:
You can’t be a God-man without a good sex scandal.
He got the Weekly Standard to retract statements; beat a sexual harassment rap; but couldn’t prove blackmail by a former employee.
What do I take out all of this: NEVER pay a pro with plastic. That would the EIGHTH law of spirtual success.
More: His son was named Guatam, after the Ascetic One, but changed it to Gotham when he too entered the mediapolis. I was always thought I would name my first born Staten Island to pay homage to the forgotten boro. Represent
yer on tangent – my comment was scientists work as if they were playing chess – the problem’s static – it doesnt bite back – that’s the smarts of Dr C – in that he manipulates a multivariate entity with an innumerable number of counterpoints in real time
the challenge is with the language. English (or whatever) can not cope with the communication needs.
Let me put it to you this way. scenario A: Ten bottles. Nine with water. One with poison.
scenario B: Ten bottles. Each filled – nine parts water, one part poison.
Often times newspapers report scenario A – drinking from the bottle has a 10% probability of leading to death. The report is read as scenario B.
Ok. I have a couple of questions about the whole evolution thing:
As to fossil gaps, stating that it is not fossil gaps but rather gaps in the rock record :
Is this the reason that there is no completely fossilized record of an evolutionary being ? I completely understand the problems in fossilizing, (and finding) one celled organisms. But what about the trilobites ? the seperate periods of dinasuar development, and let alone the number of species alive today. None of whom have a complete fossil record. Now I understand the earth goes through changes. However it does seem somewhat odd that of all the species alive, and dead that no species thus far have an evolutionary map.
Second : I have a question as to how certain traits such as flight, or metamorphasis (such as a catapillar to a butterfly) could develop through survival of the fittest principles.
I really find such questions kind of disconcerting. Now it should be said, I am not a creationist by any means. However, I cant seem to reconcile the current evolutionary models with questions that I have. Got any ideas ?
For starters. This is a very easy read. Only high-school background needed.
Source: Science, July 1, 2005. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/89
Note: Reproduced from the original source.
How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
Carl Zimmer* For the past 50 years, scientists have attacked the question of how life began in a pincer movement. Some approach it from the present, moving backward in time from life today to its simpler ancestors. Others march forward from the formation of Earth 4.55 billion years ago, exploring how lifeless chemicals might have become organized into living matter.
Working backward, paleontologists have found fossils of microbes dating back at least 3.4 billion years. Chemical analysis of even older rocks suggests that photosynthetic organisms were already well established on Earth by 3.7 billion years ago. Researchers suspect that the organisms that left these traces shared the same basic traits found in all life today. All free-living organisms encode genetic information in DNA and catalyze chemical reactions using proteins. Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, it’s hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But it’s just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup.
Experiments now suggest that earlier forms of life could have been based on a third kind of molecule found in today’s organisms: RNA. Once considered nothing more than a cellular courier, RNA turns out to be astonishingly versatile, not only encoding genetic information but also acting like a protein. Some RNA molecules switch genes on and off, for example, whereas others bind to proteins and other molecules. Laboratory experiments suggest that RNA could have replicated itself and carried out the other functions required to keep a primitive cell alive.
Only after life passed through this “RNA world,” many scientists now agree, did it take on a more familiar cast. Proteins are thousands of times more efficient as a catalyst than RNA is, and so once they emerged they would have been favored by natural selection. Likewise, genetic information can be replicated from DNA with far fewer errors than it can from RNA.
Other scientists have focused their efforts on figuring out how the lifeless chemistry of a prebiotic Earth could have given rise to an RNA world. In 1953, working at the University of Chicago, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that experiments could shed light on this question. They ran an electric current through a mix of ammonia, methane, and other gases believed at the time to have been present on early Earth. They found that they could produce amino acids and other important building blocks of life.
Today, many scientists argue that the early atmosphere was dominated by other gases, such as carbon dioxide. But experiments in recent years have shown that under these conditions, many building blocks of life can be formed. In addition, comets and meteorites may have delivered organic compounds from space. Just where on Earth these building blocks came together as primitive life forms is a subject of debate. Starting in the 1980s, many scientists argued that life got its start in the scalding, mineral-rich waters streaming out of deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Evidence for a hot start included studies on the tree of life, which suggested that the most primitive species of microbes alive today thrive in hot water. But the hot-start hypothesis has cooled off a bit. Recent studies suggest that heat-loving microbes are not living fossils. Instead, they may have descended from less hardy species and evolved new defenses against heat. Some skeptics also wonder how delicate RNA molecules could have survived in boiling water. No single strong hypothesis has taken the hot start’s place, however, although suggestions include tidal pools or oceans covered by glaciers.
Research projects now under way may shed more light on how life began. Scientists are running experiments in which RNA-based cells may be able to reproduce and evolve. NASA and the European Space Agency have launched probes that will visit comets, narrowing down the possible ingredients that might have been showered on early Earth.
Most exciting of all is the possibility of finding signs of life on Mars. Recent missions to Mars have provided strong evidence that shallow seas of liquid water once existed on the Red Planet–suggesting that Mars might once have been hospitable to life. Future Mars missions will look for signs of life hiding in under-ground refuges, or fossils of extinct creatures. If life does turn up, the discovery could mean that life arose independently on both planets–suggesting that it is common in the universe–or that it arose on one planet and spread to the other. Perhaps martian microbes were carried to Earth on a meteorite 4 billion years ago, infecting our sterile planet.
Well, that’s whack too. The scientific foundation that is taught in school might be static, but scientists do NOT work as if a problem is static. You wouldn’t have bridges that remain standing if engineers didn’t consider a multitude of factors. Any science graduate student worth a damn has to consider a number of complexities in real time if they ever want to finish their thesis.
I’m not sure if Abhi was referring to that particular phenomenon dhaavak. That sort of misrepresentation has been around for donkey’s, as someone in the medical world I’m sick of the latest wonder drug/killer drug/one-a-day wonder/carcinogenic cucumber etc etc. The media love to dramatise.
But what is a newer phenomenon has coincided with a zealous religious agenda in America – scientists are, as Abhi put it, regarded with suspicion. I do wholly accept that there are some unscrupulous scientists out there – it’s remarkable how researchers working for pharmaceutical companies ALWAYS seem to find their drug is great – but most science is nothing more than people interested in finding out answers.
I don’t buy the too much info argument cica. Newton’s laws haven’t been ‘disproved’, they just don’t apply in extreme situations. What I mean is the science of day to day living is the same, nothing has changed in the last few decades – but with advances such as cloning, stem cell research and anything else that gets the bible belt’s heckles up, science has been maligned.
This is so weird, I had this exact conversation with somebody famous the other day. I’m not going to name-drop, so I shan’t say any more! But she agreed that the public’s knowledge of science is not improving. Why that is, well who knows? We have more scientific TV than ever before.
Andrew Jackson, I don’t mean to sound like a jerk but I truly didn’t understand the first part of your question so I am skipping to the end.
As for the quote above, you say you can’t “reconcile,” but tell me honestly, have you searched for the answers to the questions you are asking me, and if so which “evolutionary models” are your refering to? I’ll bet you the answer is no. You want me to answer your questions, and I most easily could because the examples you cite have already been explained pretty well in the literature. What you are saying though is that until someone just gives you the answer (which entails you not having to go to the library or do any work) you will be “disconcerted.” I applaud your curiosity but I wish that you wouldn’t feel disconcerted a priori.