••can ye pass the acid test?••

ye who enter here be afraid, but do what ye must -- to defeat your fear ye must defy it.

& defeat it ye must, for only then can we begin to realize liberty & justice for all.

time bomb tick tock? nervous tic talk? war on war?

or just a blog crying in the wilderness, trying to make sense of it all, terror-fried by hate radio and FOX, the number of whose name is 666??? (coincidence?)

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

right to junk


it's ironic that the right wing—which made "junk science" a household term to attack everything from evolution to global warming to embryonic stem cell research—is in reality THE great purveyor of junk science.

as atmospheric carbon gases grow, nearly all the world's glaciers are receding [the one on mt.kilimanjaro is 85% smaller than 90 years ago and will be GONE in 10-15 years], storms are growing in intensity [i've heard only the strength not the number of hurricanes will grow, but if tropical storms get stronger more of them will become hurricanes], the great lakes thaw an average of 3 weeks earlier in the year than a century ago [the average rate of change is 2 days per decade, but it's been rising], and malaria-carrying mosquitos kill off bird populations further up hawaiian mountain slopes every year, but the "right" still says we have no evidence of global warming or—if it is happening—no evidence that it's man-made. some even claim global warming may be good, as it caused greater food production, leading to longer life spans than 100 years ago [ignoring technological advances in health care, energy, agriculture, refrigeration, plumbing, sanitation, &c]. that's junk science.

a housefly's brain contains 100,000 cells. embryonic stem cells come from groups of 50-200 cells which have no heart, no bone, no brain, no nervous system, but which the "right" (including g w bush) calls "human beings" with rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, privacy, and—[oops! strike that last one: the "right" doesn't recognize a constitutional right of privacy]. they go on to say government also shouldn't fund the research because the research so far hasn't cured a single disease. [but how could it if the research is incomplete?] that's junk science.

the "right" is coming around to the view that all life had a common ancestor but evolution must be guided—à la "intelligent design"—not random or chance—as in darwin's theory—and claims that the existence of a cosmic designer should be taught in science classes along with darwin as a competing theory of equal stature. that's junk science, too. [see earlier post]

real science is based on the scientific method, a rigorous use of observation, reason, and experiment to solve problems. "intelligent design" is based on false reasoning. it is neither science nor religion, but it promotes a religious faith-based view of the world rather than a scientific evidence-based view.

why do religionists want to invent a pseudoscientific theory? few, if any, scientists try to disprove religious beliefs, let alone invent a scientific religion. even scientology was founded by a science-fiction writer, not a scientist.

most scientists would likely say science can't prove or disprove matters of faith, because almost all the lore is anecdotal and not quantifiable, so it can't be turned into analyzable data.

nonetheless, more than a few religionists seem to think science conflicts with their faith.

if religion is an important part of their lives, that dissonance must produce a fair amount of anxiety.

2 comments:

  1. It's because the right think that the American Economy is more important than the safety of the world.

    Fools.

    And on Intelligent Design:
    NO scientist accepts this as a valid theory. EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT SAYS THAT IT IS BOLLOCKS. It's just a way for the religious right to get their views into schools and indoctrinate the minds of young people. They are trying to decieve people into thinking that there is controvorsy when there is none.

    ReplyDelete
  2. thanx 4 comments, buddy.

    u'r generally right on the money n make a real contribution 2 this blog.

    ReplyDelete