Comments on: Marrying Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy http://scienceprogress.org/2007/10/marrying-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Some bumps in the road « A Man With A Ph.D. http://scienceprogress.org/2007/10/marrying-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-2269 Some bumps in the road « A Man With A Ph.D. Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:26:18 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/marrying-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy/#comment-2269 [...] I understand the principles behind all of this and recognize the extreme scientific importance of such a database. But I do not believe the average person does. In 1988, 21% of the people surveyed thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. Similar numbers were seen in 1999. Only 47% of the people answered correctly said that it takes a year for the Earth to go around the Sun. Only half the people in one survey understood probabilities (which explains the popularity of lotteries). This is from last year: [...] [...] I understand the principles behind all of this and recognize the extreme scientific importance of such a database. But I do not believe the average person does. In 1988, 21% of the people surveyed thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. Similar numbers were seen in 1999. Only 47% of the people answered correctly said that it takes a year for the Earth to go around the Sun. Only half the people in one survey understood probabilities (which explains the popularity of lotteries). This is from last year: [...]

]]> By: Richard Desper http://scienceprogress.org/2007/10/marrying-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-65 Richard Desper Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:00:31 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/marrying-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy/#comment-65 Hmm. The first comment I read at this website admonishes "science" to avoid "the terminology of 'evolution'". This does not bode well. Mr. Oberholtzer: asking biologists to avoid "the terminology of evolution" is like asking physicists to avoid "the terminology of gravity". If you do not understand that basic fact of biology then you have no understanding of the field of evolution whatsoever, self-professed expertise notwithstanding. Hmm. The first comment I read at this website admonishes “science” to avoid “the terminology of ‘evolution’”.

This does not bode well.

Mr. Oberholtzer: asking biologists to avoid “the terminology of evolution” is like asking physicists to avoid “the terminology of gravity”. If you do not understand that basic fact of biology then you have no understanding of the field of evolution whatsoever, self-professed expertise notwithstanding.

]]> By: Dennis L. Oberholtzer http://scienceprogress.org/2007/10/marrying-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Dennis L. Oberholtzer Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:44:55 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/marrying-scientific-knowledge-and-public-policy/#comment-32 I am one of those few people who have studied evolution and the Judeo-Christian Bible to an indept degree. I hold no bias, even though I can mathematically show evidence for the existence of a Creator/existent "God". But I find both Biblical interpretation by all faiths to be very inexact in interpretation; and I find astronomy theory very inaccurate to the point that it cannot substantiate evolutionary theory. Science is better off avoiding the terminology of "evolution". Another problem is Geology,and it should be put in the context of "mineral formation", rather than put in terms of ages which only contradict itself. Minerals were formed through the heating and cooling of atoms smashing together and depositing, which have nothing to do with "ages". I am one of those few people who have studied evolution and the Judeo-Christian Bible to an indept degree. I hold no bias, even though I can mathematically show evidence for the existence of a Creator/existent “God”. But I find both Biblical interpretation by all faiths to be very inexact in interpretation; and I find astronomy theory very inaccurate to the point that it cannot substantiate evolutionary theory.
Science is better off avoiding the terminology of “evolution”. Another problem is Geology,and it should be put in the context of “mineral formation”, rather than put in terms of ages which only contradict itself. Minerals were formed through the heating and cooling of atoms smashing together and depositing, which have nothing to do with “ages”.

]]>