Main Science Is Bad Discussion

archived discussion

macroscopic

topic

12:07:21 AM Sep 18th 2010

I really, really, really don't want to get in an Edit War over an ICP song of all things, but I looked up the lyrics:

"And I don't wanna talk to a scientist

Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed"

What else could this mean?

To anyone who agrees with me, I'm not putting it back myself. I can't bring myself to care whether an ICP song is listed here or not. But based on just reading the lyrics I do believe it's an example.

SomeGuy

02:01:10 PM Sep 18th 2010

That's actually a better page quote than what's on there right now. Replacing and moving the other two to Quotes Wiki.

128.227.2.220

03:52:06 PM Sep 27th 2010

They're not saying that science is bad. The song is about disillusionment over disenchantment, not a put down of science, or saying that science is bad.

macroscopic

01:28:33 AM Sep 29th 2010

Then what are they lying about, why is the speaker getting "pissed", etc.?

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

Darthmat

topic

03:26:14 PM Jan 9th 2011

28 Days Later? If not definitely in the film, because the animal-lovers released the primates, then certainly in the comics.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

AnonymousMcCartneyfan

topic

12:35:13 PM Jan 21st 2011

The current page image falls under Poes Law. For a moment, I thought it was a cover for a real Scientific American magazine. For a second moment, I thought it was a cover for an April Fool's issue of that 'zine. For a third moment, I was alarmed when I saw the dateline said "August."

Good thing I have AltTags on...

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

71.80.226.45

topic

06:54:25 PM Apr 7th 2011

The expelled documentary isn't saying that science is bad but macro evolution could be a faulty idea.And many creationists support science but not macro evolution.Just because one disagrees with one section of what the science community believes doesn't mean they will reject all science.Yes, some creationists are nuts but others are more studied.The creationist standpoint is about how we came here and what is our orgin.I feel the creationist bashing is very annoying and obnoxious.No creationists believe that the earth is flat.Also not all creationists believe that Charles Darwin was a spawn from hell; some believe he was a smart man that lost his faith due to personal,spiriual,and scientific reasons.Some creationists just believed he made a mistake writing about evolution.We believe a lot of his stuff about micro-evolution is right.While other creationists due demonize him; they do derserve flack for it.Besides the theory of macro-evoltion tends to be fautly with alot holes that have yet to be explained.I am great for what technology and science brings because I believe God created us to be smart creatures who strive to protect,nurture,and have dominian over the planet.

MagFlare

06:22:10 AM Apr 21st 2011
edited by MagFlare

So the naturalist whose work led to the founding of modern biology might have simply been wrong rather than a demon-possessed Satan worshiper? That's, er, nice of you to admit.

However, you seem to have this notion that what you call "macroevolution" can be excised cleanly from the body of scientific knowledge without impacting anything else. It can't. No theory is an island; discarding a conclusion means denying the reliability of all the scientific fields that point unequivocally toward that conclusion. Even more than that, it means denying the testimony of our own eyes: speciation has been witnessed in both the lab and in nature, so if science can be trusted at all then macroevolution is true.

And if you think that Expelled's position isn't anti-science, you should see Ben Stein's interview with Paul Crouch on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Stein equates science with Nazi death camps. He doesn't even bother to qualify that as "evolutionary science" — just "science."

jazzflower92

01:51:01 PM May 1st 2011

You might want to see that documentary again.I think the problem is that we believe two different things about the world.I see through a Christian Creationist view and others see it through an evolutionary naturalistic view.I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway.Yes, I believe species can go off into many different variants but I don't believe one species can turn into another different one. One thing is you need new info in order to create an entirely different animal.Most of all mutations can be harmful rather than helpful and often mutants tend to die out younger.That's what I am saying that there is a lot of holes in the macroevolutionary theory.Like I said about Darwin's theory it had some sound ideas but alot of it might not be right.

MagFlare

10:32:33 AM Jun 7th 2011

One thing is you need new info in order to create an entirely different animal.Most of all mutations can be harmful rather than helpful and often mutants tend to die out younger.

So what you're saying is that there'd have to be a mechanism for generating variation in a population and a means of weeding out unfavorable mutations?

Holy cow, you've just invented the theory of evolution by natural selection! Admittedly, you came to this conclusion about a century and a half after Darwin did, but better late than never, right?

BlueChameleon

06:34:17 AM Jun 13th 2011
edited by BlueChameleon

"I see through a Christian Creationist view and others see it through an evolutionary naturalistic view." Well, some people see through rose-tinted glasses, but that doesn't make their sight any better.

"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven, and tell you why, but I'm not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show On Earth by R. Dawkins, Why Evolution Is True by J. Coyne and The Problems Of Evolution by M. Ridley. The last one in particular tackles the controversy of macroevolution, and I think you'll find it wasn't what you thought it was.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

Sikon

topic

01:21:24 AM Jul 7th 2011

Removed Mass Effect. It's not "science is bad" so much as "certain unethical science organizations (*coughcerberuscough*) are bad". In fact, scientists not affiliated with Cerberus or similar extremist groups are typically shown to have a sense of ethics (Mordin, for example), and the setting contains plenty of examples of science actually improving the quality of people's lives — such as Casual Interstellar Travel, advanced medicine, harmless cybernetics, omni-gel, etc.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

What's Happening

Troperville

Tools