Slashdot Mirror
Evolution Endorsed by Steves
Genrou writes "National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has started an interesting and unusual project. Project Steve gathered about 220 scientists - almost all holding PhDs in all areas of science, and inlcuding two Nobel prize winners, eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, and several well-known authors of popular science books - signed a statement on the importance of teaching evolution and against intelligent design. The unusual part is that all of them are named Steve. Eugenie C. Scott, the executive director of NCSE, explained: "Creationists are fond of amassing lists of PhDs who deny evolution to try to give the false impression that evolution is somehow on the verge of being rejected by the scientific community. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Hundreds of scientists endorsed the NCSE statement. And we asked only
scientists named Steve -- who represent approximately 1% of scientists.""
In fact, this list was made not for this purpose, but as a joke on what creationists use to do - to collect signatures of people who doesn't believe in evolution in a (vain) effort to make it less popular.
NCSE is doing that exactly to prove that this kind of list doesn't prove anything. If creationists can gather a lot of signatures saying that evolution is not good, scientists can do the same in favor of evolution (and they - as a homage to Stephen J. Gould), only receive signatures from Steves.
Not much more than that.
Anyone who sailed far distances where there were moutains You can see the land apear to sink below the horizon. (Thus the earth must be curved.)
... singular (haha, stupid black hole joke)
I'm not too sure on wheter one can see a ship "sink" beneath the horizion though before it's lost sight of.
Likewise one can gather the "shape" of the earth by observing lunar eclipses.
As far as scientists... *shrug* depends on what you mean. There were certianly emperisists. And there were definitly those who aproached things with somthing similar to the scientific method.
Aristotle for instance... indeed zoological clasificaions are a reminante of his science.
Though if you mean more the paradigim in which science tends to work...for instance, the idea that a few fundemental "external" forces can account for the actions of an object rather than the inherient "internal" properities of that object (the differnce between us explaining an arrow's flight as a result of air reistance, gravity and inertia rather than airstotle's explainination of the arrow having the properities of "swiftness" and "heaviness").
I find the similarites between Plato and Airistotle arguing over the valdidty of the forms with prominant physicsts arguing over the valdity of the "big crush" quite
Ultimatley I'm not sure the *True* validity of anything. In all honesty I think we pick a paradigm and go with it, part out of stuborness (or an unwillingnes.. or even an inablity to think outside the box) but a great deal due to the results it brings us.
In this time and this place, science (as we know it) meets some of our deeper goals and desires... not sure what those might be in a 100 years though.
Sorry. Went off on a tangent there just putting some thoughts down to clarify them later to myself. Wasn't an argument against your post, since I agree with it anyways =]
No kidding, because that's abiogenesis and is not covered by evolution.
You wouldn't understand the non-simplified explanation. What do you want? A free education at a tertiary level until you can understand the science? Be serious. Sometimes you have to accept that you're not going to be given everything on a silver platter. Invest your own time and effort to understand it or shutup.
And this really sums you guys up. You complain about the simplified explanations but you have neither the experience nor the education to understand the non-simplified explanations. When the (late great) biologist Dr Gould tries to explain it in terms that even a layman can understand... you incredibly claim he's wrong!
You can't be convinced. This is why I don't bother with debate. There's no sense debating because you demand the impossible: you want to be given the non-simplistic explanation but you don't want to invest the time and effort to understand it.
Liar.
It is impossible to interpet these two claims of yours as anything other than you are a creationist. Unless you've somehow devised a new form of ID which doesn't involve creation!