A War On Science - SBS 8:30 28th Jan 07

CoombellKid · #1 27-01-2007, 08:21 PM

The title says it all, Yup you probably guessed it.

Now this thread will probably be locked

why because I'm a nobody : )

regards,CS

matt · #2 27-01-2007, 08:35 PM

Aw, come on Rob.

Talking like that has a tendency to invite trouble and become a self-fulfilling prophecy

But thanks for the heads-up. Could be interesting given the recent lengthy debate here, which wasn't shut down.

No-one will be upset by you alerting us to something interesting, surely???

Doug · #3 27-01-2007, 09:25 PM

thanks for the info and maybe a little 'reverse psychology'?

cheers,
Doug

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #4 27-01-2007, 10:37 PM

A War On Science
Alternate title
Return of the Dark Ages

CoombellKid · #5 28-01-2007, 07:38 PM

Sorry folks, it's on SBS not ABC

regards,CS

matt · #6 28-01-2007, 07:40 PM

Thanks

Just in time

h0ughy (David) · #7 28-01-2007, 10:06 PM

OK I watched it. Seemed to try to bring out the issues in an intelligent and diverse manner.

matt · #8 28-01-2007, 10:09 PM

Recorded it.

Will watch later

avandonk · #9 29-01-2007, 04:17 PM

There is only one issue. There are people pushing a faith based belief system and calling it science. They are quite entitled to whatever delusions they wish to have but don’t pass it off as science to other people poorly equipped to make any evaluation of what they are claiming.
Again anything that cannot be tested as to its veracity is not science.

Bert

CoombellKid · #10 29-01-2007, 08:06 PM

Well it has cemented my views, and I know which side of the fence I sit on.
I also tend to think some those arguing for the ID side were just jumping on
a bandwagon for 15 seconds of fame. Interesting to see 2 minites into the
show we saw GW's face pop up. To see the way these fanatics use the bible
as though god himself wrote it, where in reality it was written by man and
possibly one mans point of view or interpretation of. Like David Attenborough
said to explain the unexplianed with or via some supernatural power or god per
say... explains nothing.

regards,CS

matt · #11 29-01-2007, 08:27 PM

Just finished watching it too.

I was struck by the same comment by Attenborough, Rob.

That while science and Evolution can explain 95 percent of who we are and how we got here with proof and science to back its findings, Intelligent Design explains nothing.

It is only a matter of time before the remaining 5% is pieced together and then there will be no shadows for religio-pseudo scientists to hide in.

Doug · #12 29-01-2007, 09:02 PM

Drat! I missed it; too busy watching Eta Carina.

CoombellKid · #13 29-01-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

It is only a matter of time before the remaining 5% is pieced together and then there will be no shadows for religio-pseudo scientists to hide in.

I think that’s what scares any non-evolution believing religion the most. The
very fabric of their beliefs being undone to a fallacy. And in the words of Bert
who mentions above we were all "people poorly equipped to make any evaluation" at
some stage during the last 2000 or so years.

regards,CS

netwolf · #14 29-01-2007, 11:07 PM

If Science as it is today, only deals in teaching facts and not the Scientific method then there needs to be a war on science. What needs to change is that we need to show kids how the method works and how the theories come about. If we teach them the method and not preach it as a Gospel, then we can entrust the next generation to continue the long tradition of Science.
What is fact today becomes tomorrows history, and evolves into a new and current theory of the subject.

The smallest particle is an atom, The smallest particle is a electron, The smallest particle is a quark... and so on and so forth.

There are 8 planets, There are 9 planets, There 10 planets, there to many to count, there are different types of planets so many of these and so many of those. Publishers of Science books must be rolling in money.

I recall the old Physics joke, about a vistor to university being shown there most prized possession. And there in a glass cabinet for all to see was the Physics test paper. The guest ask will not the kids learn the answers, the lecturer responded well you see the answers change every year.
I recall my dean of engineering's ideal test was an open book were you could bring anything you wanted, but you would still find it hard to pass the test if you did not understand the core of it.

Instead if it was taught as a method then we would not have to rewrite textbooks every time a so called scientific fact changes. And we don't have to be concerned by theories that are little out there from our point of view, because students will have the tools to critically assess them. This is the key folks give the children to become critical thinkers not an encyclopedia of information that becomes outdated. There are no absolutes in Science only possibilities.

Regards
Fahim

g__day (Matthew) · #15 30-01-2007, 12:29 AM

ID is bad psuedo-science being used to push a religious view point out of the faith arena by disguising it as science.

They want to pick on evolution and true scientific process, fine, I'll mention one point of their historic faith - the flood in Noah's time. Not where the water came from, not where it went, but how much moved in the alotted time span and the energy required to do this amazing feat. Put simply you'd need 10 ^ 26 joules of energy to do the job; by a few very simple calculations!!! That's the equivalent of unleashing an atomic bomb the size of Nagaski, on every square kilometre of the Earth's surface, every fourteen minutes, for one year...

Now nowhere in the Earth's make up do we see that energy signature from an event 4,200 years ago... I wonder why?

ID shouldn't pick fights with scientists, and especially not mind bogglying dumb fights. I'm glad the supreme court kicked in to scupper IDer's plans before Bush jet propelled them a step closer to reality.

maksutover · #16 30-01-2007, 07:47 PM

Hi all
I feel like i should give my opinion. Im not for/against ID or Evolution, although im studing science at uni. But the belief in the creator for me is imperative! Not a god of the gaps as some like to say, but a thing of absolute beauty! A lord of absolute love and mercy, and which all i see is his signs.
Recall the story of the group of fish who went to the wise fish on the other side of the ocean, so he could expain to them where WATER is.
"Show me where water is not, and ill show you where it is!" he said. I say the same about the lord, show me where IS NOT, and perhaps we can discuss we IS !

Regs,
Mak.

matt · #17 30-01-2007, 07:50 PM

Eh?

Rodstar (Rod) · #18 30-01-2007, 09:36 PM

Haven't we gone down this path already on another thread, and pretty much said everything that needs to be said (on both sides)? That is, other than the show itself, of course, although, again, that seems to be raising the same issues.

matt · #19 30-01-2007, 09:42 PM

I suspect you are right, Rod.

Although people might like to offer their opinions of the show and how it treated the issue/s.

The difficulty is separating comment on the show from going down the path of ID Vs Evolution which as you say, is now a well-worn track

avandonk · #20 31-01-2007, 01:15 AM

Could we please get this right. Science has nothing to say about any God. It cannot prove or disprove any existence of a faith related construct.
The trouble seems to be that simplistic dogma arising from some fundamental faiths whose leading practitioners then impose rules on the real world and when disproved by science seems to put doubt in the original faith. It does not put doubt in their faith, only in their self assumed power over others. The people promulgating these real world rules see their power threatened by science.

It is about power not faith.

Bert