'Praise Darwin, Evolve Beyond Belief' billboards go up

Darwin was religious according to the conventions of his day.

I don't think he'd be particularly pleased to have his work dragged into a debate on the side of the atheists.

I also find it displeasing because it simply perpetuates a rather pointless and pathetic polarity, between Darwinism and religious fundamentalism. If you don't find Darwin's theory particularly satisfying, and I don't, then it means you're lumped in with people who think God Put Dinosaur Bones In The Ground To Fool Idiots.

And, really, those of a scientific persuasion need to wake up to how much of what they accept as fact is based on faith. A more clear-cut example of this than the debate around Darwinism is the inability of people of a "scientific bent" to come to terms with evidence that the speed of light is not perhaps the constant we've all been taught.

Or perhaps the fact that clear evidence for ESP and an interaction between consciousness and matter has been around for years now in the work of the Princeton Consciousness Project.

Those who think of themselves as scientists are all too slow to renounce their own comforting beliefs in the face of new evidence that "doesn't make sense" in terms of the old paradigm.

I find the orgy of smug self-congratulation surrounding Darwin's anniversary poor scholarship and even poorer taste.

reply to post by Aermacchi

WOW!
You said it!

Looks like the Darwin billboards were only the beginning of an extensive campaign series,
kudos to FFRF

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, long noticed for the irreverent billboards it has placed around the country, is turning closer to home for its latest campaign. The Madison-based group is putting six different signs in Madison Metro buses beginning Friday the 13th, with quotes on atheism from five historical figures and one current author.

source: www.madison.com...

[edit on 12-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by Terapin

A number of Popes have embraced the teachings of evolutionary biologists and the Vatican has stated that there is no conflict between Evolution and God.

A number of popes also embraced the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth ...

External Source.
Geocentric model
Two common observations were believed to support the idea that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. The first is that the stars, sun, and planets appear to revolve around the Earth each day, with the stars circling around the pole and those stars nearer the equator rising and setting each day and circling back to their rising point. The second is the common sense perception that the Earth is solid and stable; it is not moving but is at rest.

In light of this, what a Pope happens to embrace or not has no bearing whatever on the argument of whether the diversity of species originated via intelligent design or via random evolutionary mutation coupled with natural selection.



reply to post by The All Seeing I

... in 1992 the Catholic Church officially apologized to Galileo, who died in 1642, which would make it 350 years too late.

reply to post by projectvxn

I believe in evolution because I have bothered to look at the facts surrounding the theory.

Which facts might those be ?

And yet, as a man of science it is difficult for me to ignore the notion of God ... Such a perfectly created universe.

I'm wondering if a an even better way to say this is, "And yet, as a man of science it is difficult for me to ignore the notion of intelligent design ... [and] a perfectly designed universe."

You need to look up the word theory. It isn't a "guess" it is a collection of data that explains a hypothesis.

Consider the following two definitions -

External Source.
In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

External Source.
Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.

Hence, contrary to your claim, a theory is indeed most definately a guess.



reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Science is accurate enough to convince [creationists] to fly in planes, have life saving surgeries, (even though things can sometimes go wrong in both) use electricity, computers, etc., but when it comes to evolution all of a sudden science is just this horribly flawed and inadequate thing.

Evolution is just a guess, just like intelligent design is a guess. Both theories are on absolutely equal footing. I am not following your point here ...

And, to be perfectly honest, do you not admit that part of the Intelligent Design agenda is to prevent its being taught in schools?

IMHO, ID proponents would simply like equal instructional time for their favorite theory of the origin of species. After all, their tax-dollars are funding the educational system too. If they can win their ballot initiative by a democratic majority then it would make sense that the system is functioning as intended by the founding fathers ... where is the problem here ?

... anyone who really loves science accepts its limitations, doesnt mind that it is a language of probability ...

Ok ... how does this make adherents of evolution different in any respect from the adherents of intelligent design ? Please explain it to me !

Science can rule out creation as stated in the Bible literally. It simply did not happen that way, in that time frame.

Consider the following scenario - many, many, many years ago perhaps, let us say hypothetically that the planet Earth's rotation was much slower than it is today. Maybe it took thousands of our modern years for the Earth to complete a single revolution around its axis. This means that in a most literal sense a single day back then would have lasted literally thousands of our modern years ... just a thought - but that's ok since we're only talking hypotheticals here in any case ...

ID is not science and several court cases have proved it.

External Source.
Innocence Project
An Innocence Project is one of a number of non-profit legal organizations in the United States and Canada dedicated to proving the innocence of wrongly convicted people through the use of DNA testing ...

As of February 1, 2009, 232 defendants previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing.

Obviously legal fact has no equivalency whatsoever with scientific fact. So, the mere fact that a legal court has ruled on a scientific issue has no bearing whatever on the truth or falsehood of a scientific theory. Hence, pointing out that courts have ruled in favor of the truth of evolution has no bearing on the actuality of the scientific truth of evolution.

Some people on this board who claim to love science and support it ... do make a mess of explaining evolution sometimes.

Yes, I would agree!



reply to post by melatonin

I'll bash pseudoscience cheerleaders with the most appropriate 'weapon'.

Wouldn't it be better to participate in dialogue with others of differing viewpoints on an equal basis of mutual respect and open-mindedness ?

Originally posted by converge
reply to post by sezsue

 

The natural process we call Evolution is a fact. Darwin's theory addresses this process, not the origins of life in the Universe, you seem to be confusing the two.

By the way, not sure why you wrote theory within quotes. A scientific theory is not an uninformed opinion or a hunch.

It is in this case and it wouldn't be the first time Science has come up with such theory because of a "hunch" or gut feeling.

Evolution is NOT a fact! It is a "Scientific Fact" and that is still up for debate too. Why so many Darwinists keep heading off the "origin" as if going backwards beast to beast as far back as they possibly can doesn't look like what it most certainly is! Present state to origin and that is the only direction I see it go. The only reason Darwinists make this argument is because it takes us to the place they can't go and fear to tread.

Evolution is a game of arm chair quarterback in a game where the score has been tied since 1859, their is no end in sight and all the players that know the rules of the game to find out how to win lived so long ago they are dead.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Looks like the Darwin billboards were only the beginning of an extensive campaign series,
kudos to FFRF

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, long noticed for the irreverent billboards it has placed around the country, is turning closer to home for its latest campaign. The Madison-based group is putting six different signs in Madison Metro buses beginning Friday the 13th, with quotes on atheism from five historical figures and one current author.

source: www.madison.com...

[edit on 12-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]

So this isn't really about the billboards and the intent of same, it is obvious you got a problem, or issues other than what the billboard is about.

This is just another thread to stir the pot, rile things up and actively dis-believe God. What did you forget to dis-believe again?

Looking at posts like this one with all those little sayings or I guess your answer for ATS having "Bumper Stickers" .

Then they wonder why we associate Darwinists not just WITH Atheism, but AS Atheism

PS, Tell Richard Dawkins, he is the most unpleasant character in all of reality. He is also unqualified to speak for religion as an expert, he is merely a Biologist and has never been much of an expert in the field of Theology or Philosophy. He is quite simply just another Atheist with a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind. It has always amazed me someone getting so angry at God or about anything for that matter, that one doesn't believe in much less going on a mission to tell everyone about it.

You don't believe in God OK OK we get that but what he doesn't seem to get is, WE DO! And if he, or anyone else doesn't like it.

Too bad.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
[It is in this case and it wouldn't be the first time Science has come up with such theory because of a "hunch" or gut feeling.

Many revolutionary ideas start off as hunches or gut feelings as you put it, but the scientific theories, the models, that try to explain the natural world are based on concrete evidence and data. If the evidence and the data doesn't match up with the theory, if the model doesn't predict and account for the observations, then it is wrong and it is not accepted.

Many of these theories you apparently frown upon so much are basis for what allows you to be typing in your computer right now, with people all over the world. Are electrons based on just a 'theory' too? On a hunch or gut feeling?

You talk as if people accepted these theories because science is like a religion. There is no blind faith in these matters, thousands of people work, have studied and tried to prove and disprove these things, and just because you don't understand them or don't believe in them it doesn't mean they aren't real or right.

But it all comes down to this: you have no problem with certain aspects of science, after all, you are using a computer right now. I'm sure you also have a cell phone, or a TV and perhaps even cable TV or satellite access. Guess what? Those things are possible because of science, theories and models, and people who think and create them.

But your computer doesn't question your faith or beliefs, does it? So it's OK to accept those things, take them for granted and as reliable. But when it comes to things like Evolution, or cosmology then it's all just a theory, and scientists are nothing but flawed people with big egos making sh*t up as they go along.

Evolution is a fact, scientific or otherwise. And what do you even mean by it is a "scientific fact"? Don't you even realize that a "scientific fact" is the same as to what we commonly call fact?

The problem is not science, or scientists, or theories or even Darwin and Evolution, the problem is that this particular thing conflicts with your personal beliefs, or perhaps you don't even understand what Darwin's theory is about.

No one is forcing you to accept or understand Darwin's theory of Evolution, or even that Evolution, the natural process, is a fact. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, as did the people 500 years ago who still thought the Earth was flat.

Aermacchi, if you would have taken the time to read the article, you would have noted:

That the group is using the signs on buses in Madison is also reflective of its own history. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is believed to have placed the first anti-religious sign in the country on a Madison bus in 1983, after putting a halt to a Madison Metro practice of giving free ads to the Knights of Columbus to promote Christmas.

Believers have been pushing their ideals on the rest of the world since the bible came into being. It's about time the secular world starts pushing back. If they don't stand up for themselves, and don't proactively educate the public on who they are and what they represent, then who will?



[edit on 12-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]

The only reason religious leaders such as the pope are accommodating to theories such as evolution is because they are losing the followers they had for so long.

While many parents nowadays may still believe in the religion heavily (Church, Religious Classes etc), children all over think the detailed provisions of religions are complete jokes.

It saddens me to see such a fake image such as The Vatican represent Christianity. The proof got to heavy on their shoulders so they finally had to give in or they would look like 18th century nut cases.

The only good thing religion has done was bring about ancient texts/words such as The Ten Commandments.

Go Science!

I will only respect Christianity in present day once people stop following some random guy around.

I do not want to come off the wrong way either. Many Christians are nice - but my beef is mainly with the pope etc.

I don't understand why you Christians are so damn upset about this, but get pissed if anyone says to take down a billboard with Jesus on it.

You can either complain about everything, or nothing. Either both sets of beliefs and convictions can be displayed publicly, or NONE OF THEM CAN. You can't have only your side getting advertisements, that's hypocrisy!

Allow me to say something that will nullify the entire discussion, and then be subsequently ignored:

The scientific method relies on concrete evidence to function. To be very, very specific, you can only draw scientific conclusions about something if you have concrete, positive evidence. In this case, "positive" can be understood as "confirmational." In other words, you can only draw a reasonable conclusion about something that is THERE. A conclusion based upon an absence of something is worthless, unscientific, and embarassing.

Imagine yourself in a dark office. Everything is dark. You can't see anything. You think to yourself, "Well, I can't SEE a desk, so CLEARLY there isn't one." How much good is that conclusion?

The only scientific thing you can do in the face of a lack of evidence is revise your hypothesis.

EDIT: I just remembered, this is my first post on ATS in five years.

[edit on 2/12/09 by Sled Driver]

[edit on 2/12/09 by Sled Driver]

Originally posted by converge
Many revolutionary ideas start off as hunches or gut feelings as you put it, but the scientific theories, the models, that try to explain the natural world are based on concrete evidence and data. If the evidence and the data doesn't match up with the theory, if the model doesn't predict and account for the observations, then it is wrong and it is not accepted.

If you believe that load of crap I got a bridge Ill sell you. Who told you this stuff? Where did you get this idea from?

The reason I ask is I like to give ignorance the benefit of the doubt but I won't make that gesture to willfull ignorance.

Never mind that Haekle's tweaked and doctored embryo's saved Darwin from the same fate lamarkism fell. Never mind sawing and screwing lucy's pelvis to fit the scientists idea of what HE WANTED us to think was the latest missing link. never mind that these scientists used manufactured evidence as proof prima facie in a court of law with Piltdown man in the scopes trial. Never mind it took 45 years to figure that one out! Nevermind these scientists would believe in another misssing link and fabricated an entire skeleton and molded facial features around a a fake skull using clay calling it colorado man all for what??

Because someone found an extinct pigs tooth thats what!

The Scientific Method would trap evolution in the same logical fallacy for assuming the consequent as ID does or creationism but they refuse to go there while they use this "slogan" as an excuse for debating us as if we don't have an argument.

Many of these theories you apparently frown upon so much are basis for what allows you to be typing in your computer right now, with people all over the world. Are electrons based on just a 'theory' too? On a hunch or gut feeling

Since when did criticizing evolution mean a contempt for Science in general? This is another tactic I see often used by Darwinists.. They like to ride on the coat tails of other REAL Science discoveries in a virtue by association fallacy the reverse is of course guilt by association but the fallacy is a fallacy nevertheless.

You talk as if people accepted these theories because science is like a religion. There is no blind faith in these matters, thousands of people work, have studied and tried to prove and disprove these things, and just because you don't understand them or don't believe in them it doesn't mean they aren't real or right.

First of all, Religious faith is NOT blind but I won't make the effort to persuade you, it is something that requiers the act of coming as a child, that means letting go of the dogmas of your materialism.

I have read ALL of dawkins books Ken Millers Books and have forgotten more dialogues on this topic than you will ever have so disagreeing with it doesn't mean I don't understand it as if YOU could make it sink past this memeplex virus in my "xtian" malformed mind.

No but I will tell you this, the rest of that post sounds just like the last time a Jehovahs Witness came to my house and said a similar statement.

But it all comes down to this: you have no problem with certain aspects of science, after all, you are using a computer right now. I'm sure you also have a cell phone, or a TV and perhaps even cable TV or satellite access. Guess what? Those things are possible because of science, theories and models, and people who think and create them.

First and foremost, Ill ask you again to please READ MY POST!

I never said I have a problem with Science, I have a problem with unproven aspects of evolution merged together as one and assumed as one with the other.

secondly, the idea that mans intelligence coming up with so many products and services I take for granted are the same ones YOU take for granted any more or any less than anyone else. What is so ironic is the amount of innuendo made in the connection to scientific intelligence and its coordinating patents, inytellectual property etc. all given the proper respect it truly deserves but when I say a humming bird is an example for intelligent design, OH NOOOOO that is BUNK! No that is dumb luck that made that! That was random mutation and natural selection while scientists looking feverishly for a dino to feathered fossil finding so many and using so many that have been found to be frauds, it has become an INDUSTRY in China to make them.

Never mind that same humming bird was the template for such designs as the harrier fighter jet and even velcro was a copy from nature's plant life.

So when the Bible says "there is nothing new under the sun" it makes sense to me because there is nothing we intelligently made that wasn't copied from something else you would have us believe was happenstance and that includes things we still don't have the capability to understand much less the technology make.

But your computer doesn't question your faith or beliefs, does it? So it's OK to accept those things, take them for granted and as reliable. But when it comes to things like Evolution, or cosmology then it's all

No, and I am just speaking for myself but you are right about all that except for the part where you get to evolution being just theory, you see I don't even give it that much credit. I think it is an Atheistic Philosophy masqureading as science to indoctrinate kids in making God irrelevent or marginalized.

The problem is not science, or scientists, or theories or even Darwin and Evolution, the problem is that this particular thing conflicts with your personal beliefs,

EXACTLY! Now you are getting it ! save for the part about it being a problem. I don't have a problem with not believeing it but YOU sure seem to think I do to the extent I must be too stupid to understand it.

No one is forcing you to accept or understand Darwin's theory of Evolution, or even that Evolution, the natural process, is a fact. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, as did the people 500 years ago who still thought the Earth was flat.

funny, if they had read and understood the Bible they would have known the earth isn't flat. I guess some may make the "deliberate mistake" of taking metaphores like four corners of the earth to mean we lived on a square plane but I am usually wise to that kind of thing like I am euclidian geometry and explaining the technical term for "circle" and its contextual sub categories, you know shape, orb etc.

but they can google that one,,

themselves.

Originally posted by sadisticwoman
I don't understand why you Christians are so damn upset about this, but get pissed if anyone says to take down a billboard with Jesus on it.

You can either complain about everything, or nothing. Either both sets of beliefs and convictions can be displayed publicly, or NONE OF THEM CAN. You can't have only your side getting advertisements, that's hypocrisy!

Who is upset I couldn't care less what Atheist's do I just think it's about time they start getting identified for what they are really selling


Religion, Theirs

Originally posted by AermacchiWho is upset I couldn't care less what Atheist's do I just think it's about time they start getting identified for what they are really selling


Religion, Theirs

To a point, I stand behind this. The ideology that FFRF (sp?) and others like them (Richard Dawkins et al.) are pitching stinks of a religion. An atheistic religion, to be sure, but it carries the markers of something based not entirely on reason.

Originally posted by Sled Driver
Allow me to say something that will nullify the entire discussion, and then be subsequently ignored:

The scientific method relies on concrete evidence to function. To be very, very specific, you can only draw scientific conclusions about something if you have concrete, positive evidence. In this case, "positive" can be understood as "confirmational." In other words, you can only draw a reasonable conclusion about something that is THERE. A conclusion based upon an absence of something is worthless, unscientific, and embarassing.

Imagine yourself in a dark office. Everything is dark. You can't see anything. You think to yourself, "Well, I can't SEE a desk, so CLEARLY there isn't one." How much good is that conclusion?

The only scientific thing you can do in the face of a lack of evidence is revise your hypothesis.

EDIT: I just remembered, this is my first post on ATS in five years.

[edit on 2/12/09 by Sled Driver]

[edit on 2/12/09 by Sled Driver]

You haven't nullified anything and I think the idea of the "scientific method being some step by step protocol all of science agrees to let alone be naive enough to include the steps in there peer reviews is ,, well,,


naive

Originally posted by AermacchiYou haven't nullified anything and I think the idea of the "scientific method being some step by step protocol all of science agrees to let alone be naive enough to include the steps in there peer reviews is ,, well,,


naive

Hint: When you make a contention in a debate, it's helpful to your case to provide some evidence that supports your conclusion.

Also: The scientific method isn't perfect, but it's the most reasonable way we have of amassing, collating, analysing, and drawing conclusions from data collected from our surroundings. There are other ways to conduct an analysis of the natural world, some of them pretty effective, (for example, collecting monumental amounts of data then running them through analytical algorithms) but the scientific method is the standard.

Originally posted by converge

Evolution is a fact, scientific or otherwise. And what do you even mean by it is a "scientific fact"? Don't you even realize that a "scientific fact" is the same as to what we commonly call fact?

You remind me of the parable of the candle

by Garth Wiebe

Chris and Lucy entered a building looking for Manuel. In a room they found a note and a lighted candle. Chris looked at the note and read it aloud:

'Hi! It's 2:30, and I'm leaving to run some errands. I'll be back in a couple of hours. BTW, the electricity is out, so I lit a candle for you. — Manuel.'

Then Lucy said, 'I know how we can find out how long it's been since he left! Look, the candle has been burning since he lit it and has a significant amount of wax that's melted and dripped down. If we figure out what the rate is which the wax is melting and measure the amount of wax that has thus far dripped, we can work backwards to find out how long it has been since he left.'

Chris said, 'Why waste your time? The note says he left at 2:30.' Lucy said, 'Don't believe everything you read.' Chris replied, 'Look, I've known Manuel for a long time, and this is his handwriting. Don't be ridiculous.'

Lucy replied, 'Ah yes, but what does he mean by "2:30"? A note like that is subject to interpretation. Suppose he was talking about another time zone or something.' And so a short philosophical argument ensued about the note. However, Lucy prevailed and insisted on performing the measurement and calculations.

A few minutes later, Lucy announced: 'Well, I've got bad news for us. Based on the amount of wax that has melted and the rate at which the wax is melting, I can confidently tell you that it has been at least one whole day since this guy left. He was probably talking about 2:30 yesterday. And since he said that he'd be back "in a couple of hours", we can assume that something happened to him and he's not coming back at all. So much for your "note".'

Just then, Manuel walked in. Lucy said, 'Are you this guy "Manuel"? What took you so long?' Manuel replied, 'What are you talking about? I left you guys a note saying I'd be back in a couple of hours. It hasn't even been that long.' Lucy said, 'Never mind the note. I measured the amount of wax that has dripped off your candle, and the rate which the wax was melting. I know you've been gone since yesterday.'

Manuel replied, 'First of all, that candle isn't burning anywhere near as brightly as when I first lit it. Second of all, I didn't light a new candle, but a used one. And thirdly, I used another candle to light this candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one.'

Lucy said, 'So you set up that candle to deceive us, to make it look like you left the room over a day ago, when in fact it's been less than a couple of hours.' Manuel replied, 'Look, I left you a note telling you when I left. I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left.

I put the candle there so you guys would have some light.'

Then their are those that need a candle,,

to see the sun

Originally posted by Sled Driver

Originally posted by AermacchiYou haven't nullified anything and I think the idea of the "scientific method being some step by step protocol all of science agrees to let alone be naive enough to include the steps in there peer reviews is ,, well,,


naive

Hint: When you make a contention in a debate, it's helpful to your case to provide some evidence that supports your conclusion.

Also: The scientific method isn't perfect, but it's the most reasonable way we have of amassing, collating, analysing, and drawing conclusions from data collected from our surroundings. There are other ways to conduct an analysis of the natural world, some of them pretty effective, (for example, collecting monumental amounts of data then running them through analytical algorithms) but the scientific method is the standard.

I cited many examples of how the Scientific method is meaningless. It is only as accurate as the science is honest and in this case, evolutionary science has the prestige of a used car salesman

Originally posted by AermacchiI cited many examples of how the Scientific method is meaningless. It is only as accurate as the science is honest and in this case, evolutionary science has the prestige of a used car salesman

Such examples are meaningless. One of our creations only being as good as what we put into it? That's a fundamental part of the human condition, hell, it's axiomatic: hardly worth mentioning.

Originally posted by Sled Driver

Originally posted by AermacchiI cited many examples of how the Scientific method is meaningless. It is only as accurate as the science is honest and in this case, evolutionary science has the prestige of a used car salesman

Such examples are meaningless. One of our creations only being as good as what we put into it? That's a fundamental part of the human condition, hell, it's axiomatic: hardly worth mentioning.

Are YOU a Scientist sled??? Please share with me your staggering insight into the mystical majesty that is the scientific method ( lots of oooh's and aaah's) The idea that anyone even believes such a "just so" sound byte whenever they want to assume they win an argument merely by suggesting the scientific method is what keeps science above reproach let alone my valid criticism is indicative of your REAL LAB time but if you insist, Ill bring you up to speed.

Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method
Author: Henry H. Bauer


Paper
978-0-252-06436-4
$22.00
Pub Date: 1994
Pages: 192 pages




What is science? Is social science a science? Why are more and more so-called scientific discoveries being exposed as outright frauds? Henry Bauer tackles these and many more intriguing questions that are emerging from within the academic and scientific communities and attracting attention from the popular media and the general public.
Whether one is a specialist or generalist, scientist or humanist, thinker or activist, it is important to understand the place of science and technology in modern life. Popular views about the nature of science and scientific activity contain serious misconceptions that were discarded decades ago by most historians and philosophers of science. The perpetuation of these misconceptions usually surface in the form of frustrating and unproductive discussions about everything from setting policy and defining technical matters to whether one individual's point of view is "right" because it is supported by "scientific facts."
According to Bauer, the most serious and widespread misconceptions are that "science" can be discussed as though all sciences share a great deal in common and as though "the scientific method" characterizes all sciences. "Science," argues Bauer, "can be understood only if one recognizes it as a quest by fallible human beings who have evolved ways of interacting that help them gain relatively objective knowledge." In other words, science is a social activity, not simply the result of impersonal methods.
Concern has recently arisen over the quality of American education and our declining scientific and research orientation. Debates are emerging about what direction public universities should be taking as we head into the twenty-fist century. Why and to what extent should society support basic scientific research? What should everyone in a democratic society know about science? This book will help readers come to an informed understanding about the place of science and technology in today's world.
"Provocative. . . . Bauer argues that science does not proceed by the scientific method. If it did, experiments would inspire hypotheses which would then be tested until they generated reliable theories. As Watson and Crick's work [on DNA] shows, an elegant idea is often a headier lure than mere facts."--Newsweek

"Sound, sensible . . . and very easy to read. . . . I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who hasn't yet heard that the scientific method is a myth."--Science

"This is a book that every science teacher should read and consider. It will certainly affect their views of what science really is and influence their teaching."--The Science Teacher

"Bauer has undertaken to examine some widely held misunderstandings about how scientists work. . . . In describing these myths and exhorting his readers to abandon them, Bauer provides an excellent account of the main processes of modern science."--Journal of Scientific Exploration
Henry H. Bauer, professor of chemistry and science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, is the author of The Enigma of Loch Ness: Making Sense of a Mystery and Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy.

After you read the book, and several more I could Recommend about the "so called" Scientific method" you can tell me what were the steps Dawkins took using the scientific method to theorize his meme BS.

This I would LOVE to hear.

and just for your own amusement,

what came first, the Protein

or the DNA?



[edit on 13-2-2009 by Aermacchi]