Proud to be a Pennsylvanian

[Boxlicker101]

Rob, I'm certainly not painting all Christians as evil. Some of my best friends are Christians.

But one cannot just write these people off as stupid. That underestimates them at the same time it forgives them their trespasses. They are smart enough to get rich in the business world. They are smart enough to gain control of the Republican Party. They are smart enough to gain control of the Legisilative and Executive branches of the American government.

They are plenty smart enough. What they are, Rob, is EVIL!

I would also not describe all Christians as evil. To use an example, Jimmy Carter is a Born-again Christian but not an evil man, and there are many more, less well known. My brother is one. However, the fanatical Christians who are so influential in the Republican Party are evil. You may say they have not done very much, and that may be true. All the same, the German Nazis in 1930 were not looked on as evil. They were just a political party; their evil nature did not become apparent until they got to a position where their true colors could come out. I believe that, if the Christian fundamentalists in the US had the opportunity, they would be as bad as the Nazis.

Perhaps Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans would be their role model.

 

[thebullet]

Well said, Boxlicker.

Of course the vast majority of Christians are normal people. Most Christian sects are founded in the teachings of Christ, which makes them excellent sources of spiritual, moral, and ethical support for their congregations.

It is the authoritarian, puritanitcal extreme Christians that are dangerous. The teachings of Christ are secondary or unimportant to them. They see things in black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. There is no middle ground and they are the moral compass of the world. That wouldn't be so bad if their compass weren't so totally fucked up.

Still I would have absolutely no problem with them if they would just shut the fuck up and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

 

[Alex756]

Absolutely yes, we should!

Who decides which religion is the "right" one, hmmm?

While I have no problem with Christians (REAL Christians), I would be highly pissed to have my children taught their doctrines in school.

How would you like it if it was from the other side? I don't know if you're Christian or not, but if you are, what if I wanted to teach YOUR children what I believed, as part of their science curriculum? Wouldn't you object?

Should we rewrite history to lose all reference to the persecution many of the scientists that developed the bomd escaped? Should we strip them of their heritage so that there is no mention of religion in the sciences? Can we discuss plato without the prime mover? Can we discuse Aristotle without his beliefs?

I am not saying a religion is RIGHT I am saying religion and other social preasure affect the developement of theories. When discussing the technological advances of south west native pottery should we strip THAT of all its religious connotation.

There is a differnce between endorsing a religion and admitting that religions, plural, have affected many many scientists and developers of impressive technology.

Religions and persecution have had a lasting and profound affect on science and technology.


*shrug*


~Alex

 

[R. Richard]

OK, you belive in "intelligent design." An intelligent designer created life according to a complex pattern. Said intelligent designer was obvously a god.

Then answer me this: "Why did your intelligent designer/god allow some of his intelligent design to cease to exist?" I am, of course, talking about the species that have become extinct. If you do not believe in fossil record, no problem. There are species that have become extinct in fairly recent times. The passenger pidgeon, the elephant bird, many flightless birds on Pacific islands, the solenondon. Why did your intelligent designer/god create species, only to let them die out? If your intelligent designer/god did not foresee the extinction of some of the species created, then your intelligent designer is not an all seeing god.

Please furnish an answer. TIA!

 

[thebullet]

I am not saying a religion is RIGHT I am saying religion and other social preasure affect the developement of theories. When discussing the technological advances of south west native pottery should we strip THAT of all its religious connotation.

Alex, I'm having trouble deciding if you are serious about this or you are just throwing up arguments as they pop into your head.

Assuming you are serious:
Apples and oranges. Certainly the study of south west native pottery or similar artifacts should include the religious connotations that are associated with the making of the pottery. It's one part of the whole.

How does that equate with the teaching of science. Why does whether Newton or Darwin or Einstein or Oppenheimer were or were not religious men matter to the teaching of the science/mathematics they helped develop? Your view of science is slightly askew. We are not talking about teaching the history of science, which is an entirely different topic and where Darwin's or Oppenheimer's religious views might have some validity (though I doubt it).

Henry Ford made the Model T Ford. Can we look at the Model T Ford by itself and learn all we need to know about it as a machine without knowing that Henry Ford himself was a fascist and virulent anti-semite? Does Mr. Ford's Jew baiting have any relevence to the study of the automobile he built, except as an interesting human interest story?

Alex, you are comparing apples and oranges. Religion has absolutely no place in the teaching of a scientific ciriculum.

One more time: if it can't be tested, it isn't science. Is that a difficult concept to understand?

 

[Alex756]

OK, you belive in "intelligent design." An intelligent designer created life according to a complex pattern. Said intelligent designer was obvously a god.

Then answer me this: "Why did your intelligent designer/god allow some of his intelligent design to cease to exist?" I am, of course, talking about the species that have become extinct. If you do not believe in fossil record, no problem. There are species that have become extinct in fairly recent times. The passenger pidgeon, the elephant bird, many flightless birds on Pacific islands, the solenondon. Why did your intelligent designer/god create species, only to let them die out? If your intelligent designer/god did not foresee the extinction of some of the species created, then your intelligent designer is not an all seeing god.

Please furnish an answer. TIA!

Personally, I don't believe in intelligent design. It is interesting from both a historical and philosophical perspective though since its more scientific versions are often not answered by the rest of the scientific comunity.

To address the extinction question.

extinction does not remove the possibility of there being an unknown force behind evolution. Very few theories of ID do not accept and acknowledge extinction. In fact the early ID people were trying to explain when the mass extinction of antideluvial creatures happened. Extinction is a cornerstone of many of these theories.

The question that the ID peole raise that I have the most problem answering from an evolution standpoint is simple. How did the human eye develope, or any eye.

The process of light sensitive cells forming a retina is easy enough. But look at the complexity of the eye. The structure of the internal fluid, the lense, the muscles to control that, it is something that id NOT represented in a half way there form. Parts of it the evolution can be laid out, but the actual developement of the eye is a HUGE step. How did random mutation cause something that complex? Forming a round hollow thing with a fluid in the middle and a light receptive membrane and .... its mind numbing.

Now I personally think there is an explanation, but is that explanation a random mutation, or was there a pre disposition to the genetic code to for THAT mutation. The later is the ID approach.

ID is something I take very seriously because it is something very hard to debate against, especially when the pro ID side is someone who has more of the facts of it than I do. This is why I say creationism is not ID, afterall, doesn't even Physics have that moment of "Please do not look behind the curtain" What caused the big bag after all. ID does not necessarily say ANYTHING touched the universe after that moment, but that there was something at that moment that set things up in such a way that the genes would fall relatively as they have. It loaded the dice so to say.

Maybe as we learn more about the mechanics of genetic mutation evolution without a design will take on a stronger stance, I personally think thats what will happen. But I don't know that.

~Alex

 

[Alex756]

Alex, I'm having trouble deciding if you are serious about this or you are just throwing up arguments as they pop into your head.

Assuming you are serious:
Apples and oranges. Certainly the study of south west native pottery or similar artifacts should include the religious connotations that are associated with the making of the pottery. It's one part of the whole.

One more time: if it can't be tested, it isn't science. Is that a difficult concept to understand?

How are we going to test the big bang? I think its a concept that is much more complicated than you are giving it credit.

Why should the science and technology of pottery be treated different then the science and technology of electro plating?

The point is science is not this cut and dried, this is RIGHT and everything else is myth. Science and technology did not develope in a vacume. What would literature look like without understanding the writers? What would Psychology look like without understanding the people that developed the theories?

By limiting what we know we are hurting ourselves. The greeks knew the world was round, but that knowledge was thrown out the window as wrong. Look at how long it took for that to resume being scientific thought?

~Alex

 

[thebullet]

Alex, I really don't understand you. Help me understand. How does knowing about Newton's religious beliefs effect one's understaning of 2 + 2?

When one is dealing with evolution, as soon as Intelligent Design is inserted into the mix, that is when it ceases to be science.

Let's try a straight comparison:
Evolution: Testable
Intelligent Design: Not Testable

Evolution: Can be proven or disproven through the application of the scientific method
Intelligent Design: Must be taken on faith since proof or disproof is impossible

Alex, do you see a pattern developing?

 

[Alex756]

Alex, I really don't understand you. Help me understand. How does knowing about Newton's religious beliefs effect one's understaning of 2 + 2?

When one is dealing with evolution, as soon as Intelligent Design is inserted into the mix, that is when it ceases to be science.

Let's try a straight comparison:
Evolution: Testable
Intelligent Design: Not Testable

Evolution: Can be proven or disproven through the application of the scientific method
Intelligent Design: Must be taken on faith since proof or disproof is impossible

Alex, do you see a pattern developing?

Without being snarky.

The concept of force at a distance was grounded in Newtons belief of a higher power. This force at a distance made all of Newtonian physics possible. Isn't that amazing? that a force can act at a distance without anything connecting it? This was completely unheard of! If you read Newton's notes from his time at Trinity (I'll leave off the religious aspects of that school) the metaphysical and religious motivations for how he developed his theory are very clear. There is a great book called 'Newton's trinity Notebook' out there is you are interested in reading. very insightful commentary on the book as well as a wonderful translation of the Latin, I don't know about anyone else but my Latin is very rusty.

The only pattern I am seeing is the firm belief on your part, which was once also my part, that ID was creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is interested in the mechanics of how species mutate and change. It is interested in how extinction happens. Newton's initial theory in essense IS a theory of ID as it stands in the publication of 'On Species' He intentionally left huge blanks in the WHY allowing for there to BE a why.


~Alex

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Everyone that is against intelligent design seems to be under the perception that our science is infallible, flawless, and has all of the answers.

Did you know that it's scientifically impossible for a bumblebee to fly? By our scientific laws, a bee doesn't have enough wing area to lift the mass of it's body. I guess someone forgot to tell the bee it can't fly according to what we know about science.

Alfie wrote: IF you have no problem with intelligent design being taught along side evolution, then you don't realize that Evolution is science and intelligent design is not science. If Intelligent Design is taught at all, it should be in a religion course, not a science course.

Wildcard KY, I recommend you rethink your position. Do you really want to make our schools even worse? Do you want to pull some religious slight of hand on our children, having this religious concept taught by an authority figure such as the science teacher under the guise of science? Do you want to pull the rug out from under the biological sciences by denegrating the concept upon which most of biology is based?

Several points with this.

1. Why does anyone that doesn't have a problem with intelligent design have to be part of the religious right? I'm agnostic.

2. Why do you insist on only one theory being taught? What's wrong with presenting kids with all of the opinions and letting them make their own choices? I prefer my children (I have 5) to be free thinkers and form their own opinions based on all available information and perspectives. It's all part of that free will thing that I'm really fond of.

3. Why do people like you automatically infer that intelligent design must be christian creationism? What if we are of intelligent design, but perhaps our primordial genetically engineered seeds were planted by an alien race?

4. I don't believe I'll rethink my position. I think my position is by far the most open minded. It lets everyone hear every side of a concept and make up their own minds. I would respectfully suggest that you re-think your position and be open minded enough to allow for all possibilities, and allow free will and freedom of opinion to run it's course.

 

[R. Richard]

To address the extinction question.

extinction does not remove the possibility of there being an unknown force behind evolution. Very few theories of ID do not accept and acknowledge extinction. In fact the early ID people were trying to explain when the mass extinction of antideluvial creatures happened. Extinction is a cornerstone of many of these theories.

The question that the ID peole raise that I have the most problem answering from an evolution standpoint is simple. How did the human eye develope, or any eye.

The process of light sensitive cells forming a retina is easy enough. But look at the complexity of the eye. The structure of the internal fluid, the lense, the muscles to control that, it is something that id NOT represented in a half way there form. Parts of it the evolution can be laid out, but the actual developement of the eye is a HUGE step. How did random mutation cause something that complex? Forming a round hollow thing with a fluid in the middle and a light receptive membrane and .... its mind numbing.

Now I personally think there is an explanation, but is that explanation a random mutation, or was there a pre disposition to the genetic code to for THAT mutation. The later is the ID approach.
~Alex

The development of eyes by living creatures is actually fairly simply explained by a well known circumstance. In same cases a river or stream will flow for part of its length above ground and part of its length below ground. In the below ground portion of the river are found blind fish. The fish not only have no use for eyes in the total darkness in which they live, but would find the useless eyes a real handicap in the dark. Thus, the fish either do not have eyes or the eyes are covered with skin and are of no use whatsoever for seeing anything. It is fairly obvious that the covered eyes are on the way to being evolved out of existence. The evolving of a an eyeless fish is the reverse of a creature developing eyes. Apparently the marvlous development of an eye can be fairly quickly reversed when the eye is no longer of practical use.

 

[Alex756]

The development of eyes by living creatures is actually fairly simply explained by a well known circumstance. In same cases a river or stream will flow for part of its length above ground and part of its length below ground. In the below ground portion of the river are found blind fish. The fish not only have no use for eyes in the total darkness in which they live, but would find the useless eyes a real handicap in the dark. Thus, the fish either do not have eyes or the eyes are covered with skin and are of no use whatsoever for seeing anything. It is fairly obvious that the covered eyes are on the way to being evolved out of existence. The evolving of a an eyeless fish is the reverse of a creature developing eyes. Apparently the marvlous development of an eye can be fairly quickly reversed when the eye is no longer of practical use.

Getting rid of an eye is easily explained. Its as easy as a tailless cat mutation to NOT develope something. But a partial tail is useful so evolution can slowly account for that. A partial sack of fluid in the skull is not useful. We can see in the fossil record certain animals developeing longer and longer tails, a short one was useful and it grew and grew.

But there is no gradual progression TOWARDS eyes, we have cells that can sense light. Then we have eyes. Nothing in between, even the most primitive eye is extreamly complex compared to light sensitive cells.

It is honestly one of the hard questions for Evolution. going from having an eye to gradually having less and less of one conserves resources for cave fish, but going from no eye to eye, the intermediate steps serve no known function. Perhaps there is one, I don't know, no one knows. Those intermediate steps would consume recources with no gain to the organism though.

~Alex

 

[SeaCat]

(Completely tongue in cheek here.)

Oh quit you whining people. we all know the ones who complain about things like having sex outside of marriage are sinners. We also know that things like AIDS and HPV are Gods punishment for sinning.

Bah, even the Cat can't keep a straight face. (He can't even type, too much beer.)

These people think that sex is a way to control people. Who abstains completely from sex? If you have sex for anything other than procreation then you are commiting a sin of the flesh and need to be absolved. (Absolved by the same ones who commit the sins of the flesh with underage children.)

If you enjoy sex then in their eyes you shall join me in hell. If you enjoy sex with more than one partner then you shall be placed in the deepest pit in hell, unless of course you have sex with your local priest, in which case your soul will be saved.

To the people in charge sex is nothing more than a control. If they can make you feel bad about doing something that feels good then they have control over you. If they can make you feel guilty about it so much the better.

Wake the fuck up people. Wake up and smell the musky smell of sex without guilt. It's time to take your lives back. It's time to enjoy life without benefiting those who would play games with you.

Cat

 

[cantdog]

Getting rid of an eye is easily explained. Its as easy as a tailless cat mutation to NOT develope something. But a partial tail is useful so evolution can slowly account for that. A partial sack of fluid in the skull is not useful. We can see in the fossil record certain animals developeing longer and longer tails, a short one was useful and it grew and grew.

But there is no gradual progression TOWARDS eyes, we have cells that can sense light. Then we have eyes. Nothing in between, even the most primitive eye is extreamly complex compared to light sensitive cells.

It is honestly one of the hard questions for Evolution. going from having an eye to gradually having less and less of one conserves resources for cave fish, but going from no eye to eye, the intermediate steps serve no known function. Perhaps there is one, I don't know, no one knows. Those intermediate steps would consume recources with no gain to the organism though.

~Alex

It's not so difficult. Light sensitive patches on critters will be useful. Any sensory organ is useful, and a light sensitive patch on the surface of a creature is a sensory organ. Improvements of whatever sort to a sensory organ are clearly improvements.

But that doesn't mean they are selected for. A wide range of forms can be all doing fine, throwing their genes into the next generations with no comparative advantage. It is a challenge to the organism, environmental, ordinarily, which suddenly sets up a situation where one form is enabled to reproduce while its neighbor is not.

But seriously, no one starts an eye as a useless sack of liquid. You are inventing a difficulty. Your "where does the eye begin" problem is ancient history. In fact, eyes developed in different forms, independently, in several different types of organism. None of them immediately, all gradually. This argument comes back over and over, but it really is one of the easiest to demonstrate a gradual evolution, especially since there are numerous parallel gradual evolutions in various phyla.

I don't know who gave you the idea this was an unsolved problem, but they gave you bad scoop.

 

[thebullet]

Wildcard KY wrote:
2. Why do you insist on only one theory being taught? What's wrong with presenting kids with all of the opinions and letting them make their own choices? I prefer my children (I have 5) to be free thinkers and form their own opinions based on all available information and perspectives. It's all part of that free will thing that I'm really fond of.

3. Why do people like you automatically infer that intelligent design must be christian creationism? What if we are of intelligent design, but perhaps our primordial genetically engineered seeds were planted by an alien race?

Response to 2: You obviously do not understand the problem. We do not object to 2 different theories being taught if there were 2 different and relatively equal scientific theories involved. But there aren't. The 'theory' of evolution is all but proven fact. the 'theory' of intelligent design is no theory at all. It is merely a way of saying that things happened because God made them happen. A scientific 'theory' must be amenable to analysis: scientific testing for validity. Evolution is subjected to such scrutiny constantly. To date, evolution has ALWAYS held up successfully to scientific scrutiny.

There is no such validity testing for the 'theory' of Intelligent Design. There is no testing done. There are no way to make measurements and compare them against other measurments. It is all a matter of faith. Therefore it IS NOT a scientific theory.

If you want your children to be free thinkers, then give them legitimate choices. Don't hold up Intelligent Design as a shining example if you wanting your children to have free will. That is no choice at all. It is the functional equivilent of primitive man (if you believe that primitive man existed), looking at the stars and declaring them to be campfires of the dear departed.

One more time: evolution is testable - that makes it science. ID is not testible - that makes it religion. You are asking your children to equate apples and oranges and telling them they are both apples.
______________________________________________________________

response to 3: Why do people automatically infer that intelligent design must be christian creationism? Because ID was first brought to you by the same enlightened thinkers who brought us Christian Creationism! When it became evident that creationism was a loser, the christian right backed off, repackaged it in a more attractive set of wrappings, and placed it back out here as "Intelligent Design".
And people like you, Wildcard, fell for it. There is a sucker born every day.

 

[thebullet]

Alex: I really don't mean to be offensive, but you take things too much on faith (I guess if you didn't you wouldn't believe in ID).

If you are using the eye as a shining example of the product of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, then you are reading the wrong blogs. The evolution of the eye is well documented in evolutionary history, as is the evolution of the other sensory organs.

For example, many of the bones of the ear developed from the jaw bones of primitive reptiles as they evolved into primitive mammals. The eye, of course, goes back much farther in evolutionary history. Light sensitive patches were evolving in multicellular creatures back in the beginning of evolutionary time.

Alex, you cannot look at an organ or an organism and state: that could not have developed without Intelligent Design unless you are ignorant of the evolutionary background of that organ or organism. Evolutionary history is well documented and is better documented every day.

Again, no offense intended, but you are using your own ignorance for your reasoning behind your belief in Intelligent Design. But Alex, just because you don't know the facts, doesn't mean there are no facts to know. It merely means you are ignorant of the facts.

It's a weak basis upon which to form an argument.

 

[thebullet]

Wildcard KY wrote:
Everyone that is against intelligent design seems to be under the perception that our science is infallible, flawless, and has all of the answers.

Did you know that it's scientifically impossible for a bumblebee to fly? By our scientific laws, a bee doesn't have enough wing area to lift the mass of it's body. I guess someone forgot to tell the bee it can't fly according to what we know about science.

Wildcard, please show where those who opposed intelligent design state that science is infallible. Come on, Wldcd KY, ANYWHERE! We are not saying that science is infallible. We are saying that science is TESTABLE. If you cannot understand the difference, then please: stick with intelligent design because all you are capable of understanding is "It's magic, God did it".
No offense intended.
____________________________________________________________
As for bee flight: Christ almighty Wildcard, are you still using that old urban legend as some sort of God proof? Get with it please! It was never considered to be scientifically impossible for bees to fly. Bee flight just couldn't be explained AT ONE TIME by the currently available understanding of aerodynamics.
As a short hand way of saying that we didn't AT THAT TIME understand the aerodynamics of bee flight, someone stated that it is scientifically impossible for bees to fly.

Wildcard, your use of a tired old and long ago disproven urban legend as if it were scientific fact shows that you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Sorry, Wildcard. At 2AM in the morning, I get testy. I apologize.

 

[TheEarl]

Bullet: Why can't ID be tested?

If, as Alex is saying, the idea of genetics being predisposed towards a particular pattern is built into DNA, then surely that can be tested and proved/disproved when our methods of examining genetic material become more advanced?

It's not what I believe, but an interesting thought.

The Earl

PS. Just to satisfy my own curiousity, how do bumblebees fly? I've never found anyone who knows.

PPS. While we're on interesting facts: A duck's quack doesn't echo. And no-one knows why. But ducks weigh the same as witches, so...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Bullet: Why can't ID be tested?

If, as Alex is saying, the idea of genetics being predisposed towards a particular pattern is built into DNA, then surely that can be tested and proved/disproved when our methods of examining genetic material become more advanced?

It's not what I believe, but an interesting thought.

The Earl

PS. Just to satisfy my own curiousity, how do bumblebees fly? I've never found anyone who knows.

PPS. While we're on interesting facts: A duck's quack doesn't echo. And no-one knows why. But ducks weigh the same as witches, so...

This is something that I googled:

Ivars Peterson

"Like the bumblebee, they said it could never fly."

This statement appeared a few years ago in Popular Science, starting off an article about drag racing.

Indeed, the venerable line about scientists having proved that a bumblebee can't fly appears regularly in magazine and newspaper stories. It's also the kind of item that can come up in a cocktail party conversation when the subject turns to science or technology.

It's even the title of a book, Bumblebees Can't Fly by Barry Siskind, which offers self-help strategies for staying productive in busy, changing times. And Robert Cormier echoes the same idea in the title of his teen book The Bumblebee Flies Anyway.

Often, the statement is made in a distinctly disparaging tone aimed at putting down those know-it-all scientists and engineers who are so smart yet can't manage to understand something that's apparent to everyone else.

And the morals drawn from the tale are many, including the notion of persisting with a new idea in the face of dogmatic adherence to old standards and maxims.




A bumblebee and a swallowtail butterfly share a thistle.
John & Karen Hollingsworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service




Obviously, bumblebees can fly. On average, a bumblebee travels at a rate of 3 meters per second, beating its wings 130 times per second. That's quite respectable for the insect world.

How did this business of proving that a bumblebee can't fly originate? Who started the story?

One set of accounts suggests that the story first surfaced in Germany in the 1930s. One evening at dinner, a prominent aerodynamicist happened to be talking to a biologist, who asked about the flight of bees. To answer the biologist's query, the engineer did a quick "back-of-the-napkin" calculation.

To keep things simple, he assumed a rigid, smooth wing, estimated the bee's weight and wing area, and calculated the lift generated by the wing. Not surprisingly, there was insufficient lift. That was about all he could do at a dinner party. The detailed calculations had to wait. To the biologist, however, the aerodynamicist's initial failure was sufficient evidence of the superiority of nature to mere engineering.

Some accounts associate the story with students of physicist Ludwig Prandtl (1875–1953) of the University of Göttingen in Germany. Others identify the researcher who did the calculation as Swiss gas dynamicist Jacob Ackeret (1898–1981).

However, another thread of evidence points to French entomologist Antoine Magnan. In 1934, Magnan included the following passage in the introduction to his book Le Vol des Insectes:


Tou d'abord poussé par ce qui fait en aviation, j'ai appliqué aux insectes les lois de la résistance de l'air, et je suis arrivé avec M. SAINTE-LAGUE a cette conclusion que leur vol est impossible.


Magnan's reference is to a calculation by his assistant André Saint-Lagué, who was apparently an engineer.

What isn't clear is how this brief note in a scholarly book made its way into popular culture and how it came to be associated specifically with bumblebees.

Whatever its origins, the story has had remarkable staying power, and the myth persists that science says a bumblebee can't fly. Indeed, this myth has taken on a new life of its own as a piece of "urban folklore" on the Internet.

In some sense, the story has done its share to inspire further research. In recent years, scientists have tackled the problem of insect flight from a number of different angles and gained new insights into the complexities of powered flight.

Some of these researchers inevitably refer to the "bumblebees can't fly" story in their own remarks to the press and even in published reports, while pointing to the "new, improved" model to describe insect flight.

The persistence of the bumblebee myth also highlights a misunderstanding about science, models, and mathematics. The real issue isn't that scientists can be wrong. The real issue is that there's a crucial difference between a "thing" and a mathematical model of the "thing."

The distinction between mathematics and the application of mathematics often isn't made as clearly as it ought to be. In the mathematics classroom, it's important to distinguish between getting the mathematics right and getting the problem right.

It's quite possible, for instance, to calculate correctly the area of a rectangular piece of property just by multiplying the length times the width. Yet you can still get the "wrong answer" from a practical point of view, maybe because the measurements of the length and width were inaccurate or there was some ambiguity about the plot's boundaries or shape.

The word problems typically found in textbooks often serve as rudimentary models of reality. Their applicability to real life, however, depends on the validity of the assumptions that underlie the statement of the problem.

So, no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee.

Insect flight and wing movements can be quite complicated. Wings aren't rigid. They bend and twist. Stroke angles change. New, improved models take that into account.

Originally posted: March 29, 1997
Updated: Sept. 11, 2004

 

[thebullet]

Hey Earl: Would you stop listening to urban myths!!

Of course a duck's quack echos. I saw a whole show on Discovery or NGS or something that spent time dispelling such myths.

The duck goes 'quack' and the echo also goes 'quack'.

End of story.

BTW: Boxlicker, thanks for the reference on bees. I just don't get people like Wildcard who actually believe that science - that can place a person on the moon, or give a formerly impotent man a perpetual boner - couldn't prove how a bumblebee flies.

People will believe any fuckin' thing. That's why Intelligent Design is being taught in Kansas.

 

[rgraham666]

Good one box. A very nice exposition of the limits of science.

Wildcard, I never said science is infallible. In fact, to be science it has to be fallible. You have to be able to envisage a piece of evidence that would prove the theory it's being compared against untrue.

And Alex, science, so far as I know, never says 'Don't look behind the curtain'. In the Big Bang scenario you stated physicists are not saying 'don't look behind the curtain', they're saying 'we currently can't look behind the curtain'.

And the Big Bang, as I understand, is being questioned. I gather cosmology is looking for evidence of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', that is matter and energy hypothesised about but not yet discovered. If found, this will affect the current theory of the universe's creation.

And what little I understand of the 'superstring' hypothesis shows that it deals with what happened before the Big Bang.

Intelligent design is not currently a science. So it has no place in the science classrooms of our public school system.

The people who are trying to put it in the classrooms are not doing so for reasons of 'equal time'. They have a very precise political reason for doing so.

By introducing ID, they are calling all of science into question. Once science is undermined, so is much of the rest of the foundation that our society rests on. Once that is undermined, the people behind ID have a replacement available.

You can see a working example of it in Iran.

 

[Guest]

Intelligent design is a new label for creationism. This has been a very sneaky way for "believers" to shove that agenda forward.

Scientists know they do not have all the answers. In fact, they understand how little information they really have.

But Intelligent Design? It isn't a hypothesis. It isn't a theory. It hasn't been tested. It can't be tested. It's completely based upon - "I personally cannot explain how it happened. Therefore it was some higher power. And that negates every other argument."

I'll take that with my Bible, please. At home, at church, saying a bedtime prayer. It has no place in a lab. And religion has NO PLACE in public school.

And this is from someone who currently lives in Kansas, and whose husband is a science teacher. My husband spends one day out of the entire curriculum touching upon evolution. One day. There isn't time to do further study, what with the No Child Left Behind standards being what they are.

He's already said if forced to discuss creationism alongside evolution (although his school district is NOT moving in that direction) he'll bring up alternate theories. Buddhism, for one. Native American culture. He'll attempt to give every single creation story a plug.

I'm hoping for some Greek mythology tossed in. Why not? Same difference.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

PS. Just to satisfy my own curiousity, how do bumblebees fly? I've never found anyone who knows.

That thing about scientists "proving" that bumblebees can't fly is pure bullshit. If you apply the kind of aerodynamic theory that we use in designing airplanes to bumblebee flight, then yes, you're going to come up short. That's supposed to be the "proof."

But bees don't operate like airplanes. They move their wings. If you apply the correct aerodynamic model to bee flight, then you can explain it just fine.

See, that's how science works. If there's a discrepency between theory and reality, then the theory is wrong. Corrections and adjustments are made, and science marches on. We don't just throw up our shoulders and invoke a higher power or divine intelligence. That might be tempting. Hell, it might even be true. But it's not science.

Maybe ID is true too, but it's still not science because it can't be challenged or tested or comapred to known theories to see if it's consistent with what we already know.

What ID comes down to when all is said and done is this: "We don't know how this happened, therefore God must have done it." End of discussion, end of inquiry.

If that's your idea of science, then Kansas wants you.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There is a differnce between endorsing a religion and admitting that religions, plural, have affected many many scientists and developers of impressive technology.

Religions and persecution have had a lasting and profound affect on science and technology.


*shrug*


~Alex

If you're talking about the history of science, then of course you have to bring in the historical contest in which it developed, which certainly includes religion.

But if you're talking about science itself, then the historical context is totally irrelevent. The fact that Newton was an alchemist and thought that his work on biblical prophecy was his most important contribution has nothing to do with the Laws of Motion or the calculus.

This gets my back up, because it reminds me so much of the way the Nazi's characterized Einstein's theories as "Jewish science," and, lucky for us, rejected them out of hand. As if Einstein's religion affected the validity of his theories.

 

[TheEarl]

Bullet: Why can't ID be tested?

If, as Alex is saying, the idea of genetics being predisposed towards a particular pattern is built into DNA, then surely that can be tested and proved/disproved when our methods of examining genetic material become more advanced?

It's not what I believe, but an interesting thought.

The Earl

The Earl