Best
527 Comments
Post
  • #4
    !
    Clearly this opinionated article is bent on attacking science from a religious perspective (again). To me, people like this are very insecure and feel science is a direct attack on and conflicts with their religious beliefs. Science is a threat to mainstream beliefs. This is an age old, centuries old conflict.

    There is no science class, field of science or scientist that develops a hypothesis and sets out to prove or disprove God. Because the ability to prove God through scientific approaches is impossible. In my mind, science is silent on God, but religion on science...is a different matter.
  • #71
    !
    @NormalFlora This is when toeing the party line and selling magazines to your base audience takes precedence over common sense. Remember the theme of the GOP: "Spread the fear!"
  • #136
    !
    @MellowGuy I am "religious" being a Christian. That doesn't make me a radical, brainwashed cultist just because I believe in theology and have faith in it.
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    !
    I simply do not understand the war between science and religion. Nothing I know of science from the Big Bang to evolution threatens my belief in God, quite the opposite. I can not believe God is the fairy tails in the bible but the being behind scientific fact yes. Even the bible when taken from a no literal perspective supports science. for example. Let there be light could easily describe the first moment of the big bang from a layman's perspective. Why are the ultra religious so insecure.
  • #54
    !
    As a catholic and a scientist, I have stated this countless times. The sequence of creation highlighted in Genesis is exactly the same as science predicts by cosmology and evolutionary theory. When read in the proper context they fully support each other. Where religion focuses on the What's and Why's, Science focuses on the How's.
    Unfortunately, the Science/Religion discussion in the public forum is conducted by the extreme elements from both sides, resulting in an arrogance of certitude.

    From the religious, who think the earth is 5000 yrs old, and that man and dinosaurs walked the earth together; and by high profile athiest scientists, who are so blinded by their own credentials, that they become bigoted and closed minded to any other possibilities.
  • #64
    !
    @JackinVienna "high profile athiest scientists, who are so blinded by their own credentials, that they become bigoted and closed minded to any other possibilities. "

    You mean they won't acknowledge them because there is no evidence that supports those 'possibilities'? That's not being 'bigoted' or 'closed minded', it's the crux of being a scientist.
  • #118
    !
    I think there is much insecurity on both sides. I've seen many that claim to follow science become rather riled up when others don't believe as they do.
  • #127
    !
    @JackinVienna @Speedieg

    Thank you both! 100 vote ups for both of you!

    I've said this on other threads... The priest I had for theology in college (Catholic college...theology was a core course for everyone) brought up the issues between creation and evolution with this theory: They both could be right. Nowhere in the Bible does it say HOW God created; only that he did. For all we know, evolution could be the tool He used to create life.

    And your observation on "Let there be light" would most certainly be the Big Bang.

    I read somewhere that Humanity has gained more knowledge in the past 100 years than we have in the last 10,000. Seeing back to the beginning of the universe with the ALMA radio telescope array, or creating "God particles" in the large hadron collider at CERN allows us a glimpse of how the universe was created.
  • #130
    !
    @JackinVienna As an atheistic scientist I have no problem accepting evidence which forces a modification of or event contradicts the current scientific understanding. However, the mere suggestion of some alternate proposal absent any empirical evidence in support of it will be met with disregard. Observe, devise experiments. At least produce a robust theoretical framework which suggest something like the Higgs boson or dark matter and a clue about how it might be found. It may be possible that aliens are visiting the Earth, yet we have not a shred of empirical evidence in support of it, only anecdotes.
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    The anti-intellectual movement from the right is getting a little old. Many regressives still believe that man has no impact on climate change, oil is an unlimited resource and the world is 6000 years old, despite the strong evidence from the scientific community that each of those is false.

    But but but all scientists are liberals. Wrong. Just because they are the most educated that we have doesn't always mean they are liberal. Most do not care either way. Conservatives either have an agenda when they can't see these issues, or are just too brainwashed to comprehend them. They don't only try to hold back society, they hold themselves back from understanding the world. Too bad for them.
  • #45
    !
    "Other than being a scientist,' he says in one image,'I'm not any other kind of -ist. These -ists and -isms are philosophies; they're philosophical portfolios that people attach themselves to and then the philosophy does the thinking for you instead of you doing the thinking yourself.' Translation: All of my political and moral judgments are original, unlike those of the rubes who subscribe to ideologies, philosophies, and religious frameworks. My worldview is driven only by the data."

    Yes, lets not have original thoughts based upon actual data...so, I guess, they want unoriginal thoughts based upon BS?
  • #212
    !
    Just as you lump all those folks together as 'regressive', that's as inaccurate as the bias in this article.

    But, Imagine the radical Bible Thumper who would say things like " This is, then, how I look at God. I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty.”

    yeah...that's a quote from Arno Penzias..... The Scientist who basically proved the Big Bang (and won a Nobel for it).

    No one is 'anti science'...... Unless science is right 100% of the time....and it isn't
  • #216
    !
    @drpeeper No, it isn't right 100% of the time, but when we have lots of evidence that points to something and then a group of people that follow a political agenda deny it, not because they have strong evidence to show the opposite, but because they are afraid that big business will be impacted, it should be easy to see why that can quickly and easily be discredited.

    I trust scientists, who research these types of topics for a living, more than I trust conservative media, who has no science background whatsoever. For me, this is very simple common sense.
  • #218
    !
    @Now_What So then you don't trust the big corps /gov't faking climate change data. All for a political and profit agenda. Great we agree.
  • #220
    !
    @drpeeper Yup, we are on the same page in trusting the science community that favors man-made climate change as being likely more that any media source, conservative or liberal, correct.
  • R Load more replies

  • #49
    !
    I can remember when being educated, informed, and capable of independent thought were attributes to be lauded. These days it seems that there are those who think being a programed moronic bobblehead is the epitome of being "American".
    Unfortunately, those who founded this country, those who founded many of the philosophies our laws are based on would disagree.
    Why? Because they were all intelligent, educated, independent thinkers.
    And yes, those who allow philosophy and religion or party affiliation to be the sole determination for their political views are not very smart. And they are EXTREMELY jealous and belligerent of and to those who are.
  • #131
    !
    @Yank For your information, climate change is all about science, observation, experiment and theory. Geology, oceanography, glaciology, meteorology, climate, solar physics, radiative transfer, atomic physics etc. are all sciences which contribute to our understanding of what drives a global warming/cooling and climate change.

    How can you have such a strong opinion on something you obviously know little about?
  • #147
    !
    @Russell797 so how accurate have the predictions been? How many competing predictions are there for them to pick and choose? How often have predictions been modified?

    Like I said the Cult of Climate Change.
  • #152
    !
    http://www.lightbearers.org/why-it-matters/

    Romans 5:12 says that death entered our world through sin. The entrance of sin into Planet Earth is described in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and subsequently suffered its penalty––death. Now, instead of the clear biblical teaching that death was a result of humanity’s sin, revisionists are presenting death as a means through which God creates! Sounds like Satan, who is ever trying to misrepresent the character of God, has accomplished a double-whammy with this deception: 1. God creates through means of suffering, violence, catastrophe and death; 2. Death is not the result of sin, but rather the means for an upward evolutionary trajectory.(It is unclear to me how evolutionists––theistic or otherwise––fit entropy into this allegedly upward trajectory.)

    Before we begin the second point, let’s think about the character of God in terms of “creative process.” Suppose God did indeed create over millions of years. At what point in the process did moral consciousness evolve? At what point was humanity deemed morally responsible? And at what point in primordial history did God let us know that He is a God who cares and can be trusted? And even if we could establish a point in time when God “got around” to communicating His love to minds which could respond, whatever took Him so long? Again, the character of God is severely maligned in “deep time” theories.
  • R Load more replies

  • #41
    !
    It seems that they don't thwart it as much as they distrust it. Liberals seem to love it because it allows them "justification" for more government, more control, and more oppression.

    Only a couple of people on here really hit the realities of this.@TheSaltMiner is the main one. I'll have to look up another person that had a pretty good response on the notion of WWIII being about remaining global resources due to climate change, which basically puts into words what we are seeing right now, although minimally in the media.
  • #44
    !
    @Food4thoughts There is no doubt there is some crazy town that comes out of some conservatives mouths. But in an almost even crazier way it has to happen. Climate change is a massive scale problem that goes so far beyond the US and our citizens. It is a problem that we have no real control over as much as some want to try to create the illusion that we do.

    And again I wish this site had a search feature where you could read a person's comments on a search term, but @@TheSaltMiner talks about the true reality of the phenomenon. This is the reality that the left would completely ignore and focus on, "See! Now everybody agrees it's a huge problem. We must fix it!" But they can't. No one can without a global reconstruction. We must do more than the next guy... But only a little. It can't be so much that it destroys our people or our economy as many of these policies are already doing.

    That doesn't mean that as individuals we shouldn't do everything in our power that we WANT to do to conserve. But legislation is the wrong way. As someone else most eloquently put it, everything the US touches (referring to other nations) crumbles. It's just as true domestically.
  • #46
    !
    @Firestorm
    Pressure from all sides can change attitudes. More efficient technology on renewable resources through research is the end game. Not WW3
  • R Load more replies

  • #78
    !
    Another shade of Rubio. Telling the weak minded that they are victims of science and they're eating it up.
    NOBODY is stopping ANYBODY from believing what they want to.
    SCIENCE is NOT shutting down churches.
    COSMOS is NOT a "war on christmas."

    What a bunch of fish flopping around on a beach.
  • #31
    !
    How dare Tyson try to teach people of our modern understanding of science! What is he some kind of communist!....
    This article is ridiculous, so acording to this brilliant author we should have deminized Galileo and we should have stuck to the incorrect idea that the earth was the center of our solar system? Haha. There is something truely ominous about people being so openly against learning and knowledge.
  • #52
    !
    @Gtiallday the church DID demonize Galileo. He was tried for espousing heliocentrism and sentenced to house arrest for the last 9 years of his life. The church LITERALLY imprisoned a scientist for stating that the planets revolve around the sun and not the Earth.
    The ONLY redemption we have today is the church no longer has the political and legal power to do that any longer.
  • #62
    !
    @russgus2000 - Indeed. In this day and age, a single church leader would have to consult with their entire congregation before condemning someone.

    But as you stated, the church was practicing political power, not religious stringency. Their motives for condemning Galileo were far more secular than religious...

    And we should be careful to judge all religious people based on the mean and selfish acts of their ancestors... otherwise, none of us have clean hands.
  • #75
    !
    @russgus2000 actually he attempted to provide his own interpretation of the bible, and that was why he was imprisoned. People didn't like his heliocentric ideas, but when he started self interpreting the bible it became a violation of law.
  • #174
    !
    "There is something truely ominous about people being so openly against learning and knowledge."

    Now imagine them in congress...

    All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.
    Paul Broun

    Todd Akin, a Tea Party Republican six-term U.S. Congressman who is now running for the U.S. Senate from the state of Missouri, says that women’s bodies know if they are “legitimate rape” victims and automatically can just “shut down” a resulting unwanted pregnancy — so there’s no need to even discuss abortion in cases of rape.

    As ThinkProgress notes,“almost 58 percent — of congressional Republicans refuse to accept it [global warming].

    Lamar Smith (R-TX)- Smith, the current chair of the (House Science Committee), has publicly criticized scientists and journalists who are “determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming,”

    Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)- Sensenbrenner is a well-known climate change truther who has asserted that Earth has been cooling over the past 10 years, that Mars has been warming at a similar rate to Earth, and that global warming will help crop yields go up, making it “easier to feed 7 billion people,” among other flagrant falsehoods.

    Sensenbrenner also rejects the fact that genetics influence weight, telling the obese to “Look in the mirror because you are the one to blame.” Along the same hypocritical lines, Sensenbrenner opposed First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” anti-obesity campaign due to her “large posterior.“

    Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)- Rohrabacher is arguably Congress’ least-informed member when it comes to climate science, strenuously arguing that climate change and global warming are either a hoax or a massive conspiracy perpetrated by scientists and liberals.

    Most notably, Rohrabacher has claimed that “CO2 is irrelevant,”“polar bears are not becoming extinct,” and that “dinosaur flatulence” may have caused past climate changes.

    Mo Brooks (R-AL)- Brooks is another climate change truther — having argued that global warming is an “aberration” and “guesswork speculation”— with an interesting twist: His district is home to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

    Perhaps that is why Brooks co-signed what ThinkProgress labeled an “Abandon Earth letter,” which argued that “Space is the ultimate high ground,” and that ” we can reorient NASA’s mission back toward human spaceflight by reducing funding for climate change research.”

    More Evidence Republicans Are the Anti-Science, Pro-Theocracy Party
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/07/1267... #
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    !
    Just went on the N.R site. Their survey I glanced at had three negative answers no way to vote positively. No wonder the conservatives don't see reality. People don't limit yourself to this Bull. Try the BBC or NPR's All things considered. Keep reading your trash if you can't handle reality, but for the sake of future generations educate yourselves with more than one view. If nothing else you will benefit by knowing you enemy better.
  • #76
    !
    I watched Cosmos 30 years ago and it did not have the slant the current one does. Instead of teaching evolution and environmentalism he goes out of his way to push an agenda.
  • #98
    !
    @Placratotle because the climate change alarmists have been so truthful? Because equating global disasters (that happened with out man interfering) to climate change is truthful?
  • #107
    !
    @Placratotle - A truthful agenda? We don't know everything there is to know, so how do we know we are telling the truth?

    We can have an honest agenda, but truth is based on the faith that someone has the truth.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Is this what the new generation is going to be about now? People are going to attack people that are smart and have proven themselves? Would it be better if we never went to school or never get educated. Would it make these clowns happy?
  • #488
    !
    Well yea, the republicans are becoming the Taliban of America, if it were up to them all science would be based on the bible. Most girls wouldn't go to school since their place is taking care of the home and the men. Abortion, welfare, all of those socialists programs would be done away with ... all in the name of pleasing their god. Nor would this be the first time this occurred in history.

    Spain was the superpower of the world some 500 years ago when Charles V decided it must not please god to have so many infidels like the Jews and the Muslims amongst "gods people". So he gave them an ultimatum, convert to Catholicism or leave ... with the inquisition to drive home the point. So the Muslims with their knowledge of farming and irrigation left and the land no longer produced its former abundance. While the Jews took with them their knowledge of banking and commerce so that when the gold ran out ... Spain was soon broke. Leaving the great banking houses to be set up in Paris and London rather then in Lisbon and Madrid.

    So Spain like Rome a thousand years earlier passed into the history books as a once mighty empire, tho for the life of me ... I can't recall what happened under Constatine around 313 AD that soon led to the demise of the Roman Empire a little over a century later?
  • #40
    !
    Organized religion has had thousands of years to solve the world's most vexing problems and made no progress. Science has had a few hundred and made our lives much easier and helped in our understanding of the universe significantly. There is no debate as to which is more useful.
  • #59
    !
    "Organized religion has had thousands of years to solve the world's most vexing problems and made no progress." You need a history lesson to go with your science lesson... Up until just recently, ONLY the religious solved scientific mysteries.
  • #65
    !
    @Rattrap - How can you accuse ALL religion of being anti-science? You know that's not true. Only certain religious groups are anti-science. Religion itself, as a whole, believes that science confirms what they believe about God.

    Religion gives billions of people meaning and purpose. It gives people the motive to be honest, work hard and care for their neighbors. How can you say that is not useful?

    Science is more than physics or astrology. And religions have historically been the frontiers of other very useful sciences, like medicine and geology... not to mention that we still base our own scientific discoveries on the discoveries supported and sponsored by religion, and tested by people who adhered to a religion.
  • #82
    !
    @DogLady_1 Religion is nothing more than man's way of dealing with Mortality. Being self aware means that you are also aware that you will die, and that frightens the pants off people to the point where they choose a comforting myth over scary facts!
  • #92
    !
    @Placratotle - Can you cite some source that proves that people are religious because they think facts are scary?

    When it comes to spirituality, I believe that there are three basic kinds of people: Those that live in fear of death. Those that live in fear of life. And those that live for the love of life.

    People who adhere to a religious faith can fit into any of those categories, or even all of them... Atheists can too.

    You can't really stereotype like that and expect to remain accurate in your assertions.
  • R Load more replies

  • #19
    !
    Spirituality is about one's relationship with his concept of God. I believe in God, 1st Cause, Higher Power, however one names it. Science is about knowledge that can be verified. For that reason I rejected the criticism.
  • #122
    !
    The war on science continues from the conservative religious right just as it has for centuries by the traditionalist who are threatened by knowledge other than the dogma they profess to. Nothing new here. Just the latest instalment.
  • #97
    !
    He's black and he talks about science? What's not to hate for conservatives? The right is afraid that some of their brainwashed little sheeple might get away from them and start to listen to reason, that is why they hate him.
  • #70
    !
    No, science doesn't have all the answers, far from it. But the methodology to get answers sure beats blind faith. One of my majors in college was Western Philosophy, and while I found it quite fascinating and a great starting point for pondering ageless questions like the Purpose of Life, etc., you can't get definitive answers to imponderables, not through any particular religion, ethos, or epistemology. In the end, just as it is with religious belief, you finally have to decide that this or that religion or philosophy is good enough for you personally and decide to live by it; but in science we get answers to other kinds of questions that religion or philosophy are ill-equipped to even consider.
  • #133
    !
    @DogLady_1 Blind faith, as opposed to faith? Where one doesn't question anything about his/her beliefs, be it religious or let's say a company he/she works for. But for this particular article, a blind faith in the truth of his/her religion or belief system. For example, I have faith in science in general but not blind faith in it. I also have no faith in my ability to understand "string theory." People with plain faith will jump out of the way of a train because they believe the science behind the idea that two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time. Someone with blind faith, who might have been told that he/she would be protected and could survive being hit by a train would not jump out of the way.
  • #154
    !
    @DogLady_1 I have faith that the Sun will appear to rise in the east tomorrow morning because for as long as I can remember it always has. If I am to believe in God what track record do I have to justify my faith? None. It would be a blind faith.
  • #161
    !
    @Russell797 And "appear" to rise is exactly that, since those who know a smidgen about astronomy know that the sun appears to rise because of the earth's rotation. Those who don't question their bibles have blind faith that the sun revolves around the Earth and that it rises and sets.
  • #182
    !
    @rondonaghe I would disagree with your faith examples: if a person "believes in science" it is due to a track record of having benefits also if a person is jumping out of the way of a train on the basis of evidence it is by definition not faith.
  • R Load more replies

  • #22
    !
    Just another Christian poofing science? Just another week thinker. No facts, just another conservative attempt to stay stuck in one time in history.
    Evolve! Advance! Progress!
    God is too great to fit in your little books!!!
  • #7
    !
    That entire article is just another conservative whiNing like a child. not once in that whole article does the writer address a real scientific claim , because he isn't able.

    Justy another weak minded religious freak.
  • #143
    !
    "It's not that Cooke is against science per se.
    But he seems particularly riled up at what he infers is these individuals' disinterest ... in organized religion as a way to confront the world's most vexing problems."

    "...riled up at what he infers..."

    Can you see how weak a statement that is?

    His outrage isn't about reality, but about his own feelings.

    Talk about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps...
  • R Load more comments...
Post