What's Happening



collapse/expand topics back to Main/ScienceIsBad

06:08:54 AM Dec 6th 2013
edited by
04:27:23 PM Sep 3rd 2012
There seems to be a bit one-sided on this page with no "No Tropes are Bad" feeling at all. Yes, many Science is Bad" tropes are due to lack or research and ignorance, but science is not always right and some Science is Bad tropes are applied justly.
08:21:50 AM Sep 4th 2012
The policy in question is Tropes Are Not Bad.
04:38:07 PM Aug 25th 2012
Could Real Life examples be allowed if they are people or groups who think Science is Bad?
02:42:35 AM Aug 26th 2012
11:43:34 PM Apr 2nd 2012
Can we add a "Playing With" sub page? I don't know how to and I have a few good examples.
08:32:51 PM Jun 17th 2014
08:51:26 PM Mar 8th 2012
Is there any reason the Dune books have never shown up here? While the point is never very directly made until the books and subseries in question have become questionably canonical, the trope shows up time and again in ways that go beyond simply Rock Beats Laser. On the one hand, the setting is designed to showcase both alternatives to technological development and the scientific method - even support of intuition as superior to rational thought (although the fact that all forms of human "computation" come off as intuitive may just be a limitation of the writing). On the other, tool use and science is repeatedly presented as the soft, lazy alternative to real progress and human evolution. And it doesn't help that everything recognizable from today's scientific fields seems in this universe to be the secretive and proprietary domain of some morally suspect group trying to rule humanity.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
04:08:07 PM Apr 2nd 2012
edited by Stoogebie
Why does not believing in evolution make someone anti-science? In fact, I read in a secular science textbook that there isn't any concrete proof of evolution being "proven" and it is just a theory. There are some things evolution cannot explain, such as the very basis of recreating life (without the use of cloning or junk science).

Also, I'm pretty sure Stein meant "evolutionary science", not just science as a whole.
03:29:54 PM Nov 3rd 2012
See Gravity Is Just A Theory to find how you are, at the very least, misinformed.
03:53:53 AM Dec 21st 2012
edited by AbraSliver
  • Give the name, edition, date, publisher, and all other identifying information for the textbook. If we aren't able to verify the claim you make, why should we believe it?
  • "Only a Theory" (Kenneth Miller), "Just a Theory" (Moti Ben-Ari), and "Top Ten Myths About Evolution" (Cameron Mc Pherson and Charles Sullivan) are good places to explain your ignorance with regards to what a scientific theory is.
  • Evolution only deals with the divergence of life from the original organism/species. Hence why Darwin titled his book "On the ORIGIN OF SPECIES..." and not something else. The origin of life is being handled by a collection of NON-MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE hypotheses under the collective name of "abiogenesis."
    • Most of the hypotheses aren't in any way "junk science" and in fact are based on well-observed phenomenon and well-recorded observations and inferences. Even more, these observations are generally made outside of the field of biology or on the very edges of biology and hence aren't being made-up by people wanting to support the evolutionary worldview. They are as unbiased as Creationists can ask for, and yet they are ripe for plausible valid explanations for naturalistic origins of life while incompatible with Creationist explanations.
    • Almost none of the explanations excludes any other. Comets could have provided some amino acids and nucleic acids and phosphates and lipids, while hydrothermal vents provided some more, and God's cum provided the rest. And if this insults you, what else would God be doing for about 9 billion years other than masturbating? He can't complain about humans turning against him because humans don't exist yet!
      • They all mix in either atmospheric or aqueous environments and produce a strand of "genetic material" (any of a multitude of nucleic acids could have been the first) as well as various proteins (both of these are highly favorable processes in a thermodynamic sense as they release water to the environment and so would happen even if God had died from his masturbation. The genetic material could self-replicate or interact with neighboring proteins to replicate.
      • At the end, we have 3 non-exclusive ways to get the stuff, 2 ways (let's assume exclusive) the stuff can interact to form larger things, 6 non-exclusive larger things we can make from the interactions, and two non-exclusive ways the larger things can count as life.
      • This means we have (6 x 2 x 21 x 3) = 756 different combinations just to begin with. 756 different ways life could have formed without Creationism being true. And this only allows for the GENERALIZED ORTHODOX explanations, not the fringe or specified proposals. I mean, perhaps nucleic acids were NOT first, but instead it was a family of self-replicating proteins. Or five different protein families and 10 different nucleic acids and 20 lipids and 100 sugars all essentially competing as "genetic material" until eventually RNA formed and "won the pot."
    • The objections to these 756+ hypotheses are the opposite of the hypotheses. Instead of being based on scientific knowledge and inference of known mechanisms and reactions and conditions, they flat-out ignore anything that disagrees with them.

  • There is no line between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" that isn't an arbitrary construct created by humans for the purpose of making our studies easier. The ONLY line that can be drawn is enforced sexual separation. But this can be determined by many layers of criteria that are independent of the other layers.
    • If two species can produce a hybrid species, are they the same species or still two different species?
      • If we give the second answer, then we have the creation of a third species and hence we have undeniable "macroevolution."
      • If we give the first answer, then why is it that Lions and Tigers are the same species, but not Lions and Leopards? The only valid reasoning would be that the determinant of whether two populations are of the same species is the extent of genetic differences between the two genomes. But if this is the case, then we necessarily posit the genetic SIMILARITY as coming from a common ancestor that NECESSARILY experienced SOME "macroevolution" in becoming TWO DISTINCT SPECIES (the "lion/tiger" species and "leopard" species) instead of REMAINING ONE SPECIES.

Either way, we must admit macroevolution as a fact.
08:09:50 AM Oct 12th 2013
You know sometimes when I look at those confused youngearthers and designers I thank God for being a catholic. While in some respects consevative (restraint rather then contraception) pope is at least willing to consider evidence and change dogma accordingly. For those interested: Humani Genesis or half dozen speaches of popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI. On the other hand lots of youngearthers and creationists already believe tha pope is devil incarneted so rather not.
12:35:13 PM Jan 21st 2011
The current page image falls under Poe's 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
01:28:33 AM Sep 29th 2010
Then what are they lying about, why is the speaker getting "pissed", etc.?
back to Main/ScienceIsBad

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy