As new study by the respected Pew Research Center shows a striking disconnect between the views of scientists and the public on basic scientific questions. In eight out of thirteen science-oriented issues, there was a 20 percentage point or more difference between the two groups on issues like genetically modified food, global warming, or evolution.
Take the question of whether it is safe to eat genetically modified foods. Some 88 percent of scientists felt that such foods are safe while only 37 percent of the public held this view. Fifty-seven percent of the public viewed genetically modified foods as unsafe.
The figures on evolution are equally amazing. Some ninety-eight (98) percent of scientists found the evidence clear that humans evolved over time. Indeed, there is yet another discovery supplying a link in that evolution this week (and again offering obvious proof that the Earth is far old than a few thousand years old). However, only 65 percent of the public believe in evolution.
Another question looked at whether those polled views foods grown with pesticides to be safe. Sixty-eight (68) percent of scientists said yes while only 28 percent of the general public agreed.
Another topical question (given the measles outbreak this month) was whether mandatory childhood shots are valid: 86 percent of the scientists favored such shots while only 68 percent of the public did.
On global warming, 87 percent of scientists said global warming is mostly due to human activity while only 50 percent of the public agreed.
It is worth noting however that the numbers appear to be shifting in favor of science on evolution, global warming and the like. It will be interesting to see how fast this gap closes in the coming years.
Hmmm……..so David, what are your qualifications to make such assumptions? 😀
“I could while away the hours, conferring with the flowers…”
AnneMarie Dickey wrote: “If you mean to discredit it, you have a steep hill in front of you which would entail the complete destruction of chemistry, physics and geology as we know them.”
This comment shows that you accept scientific claims based upon a popular scheme rather than critical, rational thinking based upon empirical observations. One does not have to destroy chemistry, physics, or geology to challenge the assumptions of radiometric dating. One can merely be transparent and acknowledge its basic assumptions. Nothing is wrong with evaluating the likelihood of its assumptions being true. Most likely the end result will be a willingness to adjust estimates based upon new evidence.
nneMarie Dickey: “we know the Earth must be older than 4.4 billion years since we can provably demonstrate that sediments have material that old in them.”
We know it only when we accept certain assumptions inherent in the dating method. There are rocks in Hawaii that were known to be only 150 years old but dated to billions of years because the assumptions were violated. So scientists regularly disregard data that does not fit their preconceived notions. Spectacle halos in the Colorado plateau establish the sediments were deposited in a matter of a few decades based upon radiometric decay, but other publications of the strata claimed they were millions of years apart from each other. It would be nice to have an independent empirical clock that was not tied to radiometric decay in some way. We don’t really have evidence whether or not the decay rate has been constant because our powers of observations don’t go back that far.
AnneMarie Dickey wrote: “YEC claimants have yet to present anything to peer review in any publication that actually challenges the fundamentals of evolution theory.”
First allow me to say that I am an old earth creationist based upon rational thinking. I am not in the YEC camp. Nevertheless, that does not mean that they do not have something to offer in the way of healthy skeptical thinking about what the data actually prove. In way of disclosure, my formal education concerns the ecology and evolution of vertebrates.
Your statement about YEC claimants is very disturbing. You are spouting false scientific dogma. Following are a few scientific publications by a fellow geologist who is a “YEC claimant”:
Gentry, R.V. 1967. “Extinct Radioactivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochroic Halo.” Nature 213, 487.
Gentry, R.V. 1968. “Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos.” Science 160, 1228.
Gentry, R.V. 1970. “Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?” Science 169, 670.
Gentry, R.V. 1971a. “Radioactive Halos and the Lunar Environment.” Proceedings of the Second Lunar Science Conference 1, 167. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gentry, R.V. 1971b. “Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity.” Science 173, 727.
Gentry, R.V. 1973. “Radioactive Halos.” Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347.
Gentry, R.V. 1974. “Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective.” Science 184, 62.
Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin’s Comments on “Spectacle Haloes.” Nature 258, 269.
Gentry, R.V. 1979. “Time: Measured Responses.” EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474.
Gentry, R.V. 1980. “Polonium Halos.” EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514.
Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
Gentry, R.V. 1984a. “Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective.” Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division. American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38.
Gentry, R.V. 1984b. “Lead Retention in Zircons” (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No 12, 92.
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. “Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos.” Nature 244, 282.
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. ” ‘Spectacle’ Array of 2l0Po Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma.” Nature 252, 564.
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. “Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification.” Science 194, 315.
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976b. “Evidence for Primordial Superheavy Elements.” Physical Review Letters 37, 11.
It really isn’t fair to claim that publications like these do not exist. It will become exceedingly rare to get many new publications like these in science anymore, however, because the peer review process increasingly makes sure to censor them in order to maintain orthodoxy in science.
Perhaps you should point me to the profit motive you seem to assume for geologists and climate scientists
Really?
My mistake I didn’t realize only the oil industry funded science to serve their own ends.
http://www.trevorcaswell.com/ramblings/differences_between_hybridization_and_genetic_modification/
@DBQ, gmo is Frankenfood. What you were talking about is hybridization.
AnneMarie Dickey wrote: “The age of the universe does not constrain evolution…”
Ugh. I was hoping you would be an honest geologist. Evolutionary theory requires time. LOTS of time. If the earth were demonstrated by a trusted empirical clock to be 100,000 years old, evolutionary theory would crumble. There would simply not be enough time for it to work. Surely you know this.
Nick:
I will admit that one must always beware of “hired guns” who have a PhD in chemstry etc and work for an industry that peddles a product. Money does corrupt, and in the case of selling food additives (or whatever), you can often find someone whose financial needs outweigh their academic integrity.
In those cases…gather the data, write the paper and get it published in an appropriate peer reviewed journal. Get other scientists to review and replicate your findings. Take that to the FDA and congress.
That is how science is supposed to work.
When science delves into the question of origins, they really follow a paradigm of what they expect to find based upon their secular or agnostic leanings. Confirmation bias kicks in and the evidence they look at all supports whatever it is they expect to find.
One of the most classic cases of projection I have seen.
First off, science has little to no interest in the realm of religious doctrine and theology. It simply falls outside our perview. Religion is not falsfiable (IE you cannot present or construct a field test to demonstrate would would or would not happen if God or some other supernatural being is real). That is not to say that many scientists are automatically atheists or agnostic. I am not, and many other people in science have sincere religious convictions.
Scientists gather data, analyse, and then make a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested against a predicted outcome.
You assume (based on what…I have no idea) that science works in a completely opposite fashion which utterly negates the scientific method.
I have no idea how you run things in your professional capacity, but you are sadly misinformed on how we run things. What are your qualifications for making these accusations, if I might ask?
AnneMarie Dickey wrote: “One of the most classic cases of projection I have seen.”
It has nothing to do with projection. That assertion just makes you feel better about yourself.
AnneMarie Dickey wrote: “First off, science has little to no interest in the realm of religious doctrine and theology. It simply falls outside our perview [sic].”
For most, perhaps, but not all. There are some scientists who are very much interested in religious doctrine and theology. Galileo and Newton are two good examples from the past. Nevertheless, the dogma you just spouted off is simply a scientific shield of sorts to keep scientists from engaging with historians and theologians about evidence. Furthermore, some scientists are actually very upset with the religious for keeping the general population from overwhelming accepting their theories of origins. Douglas Futuyma is one evolutionist that comes to mind, coming out with a book in the early 1980’s entitled, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. He and other evolutionists argued that we have to engage the creationists using rhetoric if we are going to win this battle about who has the truth about origins.
AnneMarie Dickey wrote: “Religion is not falsfiable (IE you cannot present or construct a field test to demonstrate would would or would not happen if God or some other supernatural being is real).”
One can argue that science is not falsifiable just as easily as arguing religion is not falsifiable. An entire discipline like religion or science is not a monolith, so of course, they are not falsifiable. When Karl Popper proposed falsifiability as a way that scientific theories work, he was talking about specific theories which made predictions of the data that could falsify the model. For example, he pointed out Einstein’s theory of gravity predicting light would be affected by gravity that could be observed at the next solar eclipse by observing a star whose apparent position appeared to shift during the eclipse. His risky prediction was confirmed, and all the naysayers of his theory suddenly found themselves paying more serious attention to his theory.
Young earth creationism probably satisfies this test of falsifiability better than any of the creationist theories. These creationist theories posit that the earth, moon, sun, and stars have their origin less than 10,000 years ago. My goodness, most scientists, as you point out, accept radiometric dating, and if you accept radiometric dating, then all those YEC theories have been falsified by the empirical data. End of story.
AnneMarie Dickey wrote: “You assume (based on what…I have no idea) that science works in a completely opposite fashion which utterly negates the scientific method.”
I simply assert that the ideals of science are not always in play, especially when it comes to evolutionary research that depends upon many assumptions and are not easily tested in the laboratory.
The physicist Richard Feynman points out this example in the measuring of an electron:
========
“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn’t they discover the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of–this history–because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong–and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.”
========
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html
AnneMarie Dickey wrote: “I have no idea how you run things in your professional capacity, but you are sadly misinformed on how we run things. What are your qualifications for making these accusations, if I might ask?”
I devoted a decade of my life to research and teaching biology. My specialization was on the ecology and evolution of vertebrates. I published, reviewed manuscripts for publication, and presented my research at scientific symposia. These days I earn a living as a software developer, primarily because my thinking did not conform to the orthodoxy of science. As I am sure you must know, the higher up in science you go, the less objective and the more political it becomes. Let’s just say that I was encouraged to become an independent thinker, but then I became too independent in my thinking. If you ever saw the Ben Stein movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” that pretty much describes my scientific path. So now I work with computers where logic works perfectly and earns me a comfortable living.
DBQ, We are dying from trans fats because learned and august scientists were telling us that they were much better than butter, coconut oil etc. Remember the science group that had the expose on movie theater popcorn using coconut and other tropical oils and how it was killing us. Well, coconut oil is right up there w/ olive oil as a healthy fat. Naw, they’re never wrong. This was within the last couple decades. What about Eugenics? That was a science/social movement not that long ago.
Grants! The profit motive for climate scientists feeding the Evangelical Church of Global Warming is govt. grant money. Want the dollars, sing from the Global Warming hymnal. That was easy.
Interesting how JT links to an article allegedly “offering obvious proof that the Earth is millions — not a few thousand — years old.” The problem is that the article did no such thing. It was about a skull dated to 55,000 years old, which was interesting because of its association with Neanderthals, a race not considered directly in our evolutionary line, but a contemporary that apparently interbred with us. At one time science claimed Neanderthals were a “missing evolutionary link.” Then when it became clear that it was a contemporary, it became its own separate clade. Now the article he links to makes it even WORSE for evolutionary theory. The article hypothesizes that Neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens 50,000 years ago. In other words, they are not even a separate species, but a separate race, like black men are from asians, or the pygmy tribes in Africa are a separate race from Anglo-Saxons.
So JT proposes a new article that this week supposedly supports evolutionary theory, when in fact that article does just the opposite and actually aids the religious theories about origins.
This is the problem with evolutionary theory. People want facts, and they want to base their opinion on facts. When science delves into the question of origins, they really follow a paradigm of what they expect to find based upon their secular or agnostic leanings. Confirmation bias kicks in and the evidence they look at all supports whatever it is they expect to find. Then they are frustrated that their story does not resonate with everyone. Since I was in graduate school studying evolutionary biology, this was always a huge frustration. Why does the general public not believe our evolutionary story? It was then that several scientists decided to engage in a rhetoric campaign against religious ideology. That is when they departed from science based upon empirical observation and began to establish a scientific dogma that nobody in the sciences were allowed to violate. This was when they began to use the courtroom to establish evolutionary theory as the only theory allowed to be taught in public schools. It has been those in authority against Galileo all over again. It took many hundreds of years for Galileo to be vindicated against the authorities who wanted only their favorite theory taught. It may be many hundreds of years before the truth about evolutionary theory becomes mainstream in science.
david – I breezed by an article that was positing that a certain percentage of the population carried Neanderthal genes. So, calling someone a ‘Neanderthal’ might be accurate. 😉
I second that. Kahn Academy is a good resource.
Scientists used to think that illnesses were caused by bad humours Many people died by being treated using these wrong theories.
No. The idea of “humours” is a pre-scientific notion based on Greek and Egyptian philosophy. Science in the 19th century dispensed with the theory of humours, although the terms still show up from time to time in medical terminlogy.
How are we to always know which scientist is bought off versus just following what the data shows?
Perhaps you should point me to the profit motive you seem to assume for geologists and climate scientists (about 98% give or take) who publish regarding causation anthropogenic global warming being real?
I’m confused as to what is in for us in the science community here. We will suffer along with everyone else with respect to economic woes associated with chages from a fossil fuel economy. Of course, on the other hand, we would really like our kids to have a viable and healthy biosphere to grow up in, so there is that.
If you want to accuse us of being capitalism hating “libtards” who want to destroy America, Mom and apple pie in order to bring about our new Marxist clean energy paradise (with obligatory statues of Robespierre, St Just & Danton for kicks), then I would love to sell you some Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil.
Truthteller
Haven’t the scientists always been right?
Hardly. They have been wrong on many things. Wrong over and over and over. This is the nature of science. Theory and hypothesis until you get it right.
Oleo margarine presumed to be good for you when it has been proven not to be and butter, which is a natural substance is better for you. Not to mention that a high carb diet is likely responsible for the obesity epidemic.
Further list of foods that science had determined that were bad when they are now shown to have positive effects or that the bad effects are not actually bad at all.
Coffee. Red wine. Salt. Protien. Saturated fat…to name just a few.
Scientists used to think that illnesses were caused by bad humours Many people died by being treated using these wrong theories.
Just look at the quackery and wierd things that science foisted on the public because they thought they were right and they were wrong. People died. http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm
We were supposed to be entering a big ice age back in the 1970’s. We were all going to freeze in just a few years…..didn’t happen.
DBQ – it has been raining in Phoenix all day. Can we count that as part of the new ice age. It is 56 degrees outside. That is cold for this time of year. 🙂
TJ Justice
Kahn Academy
@AnneMarie: you should read Darwin. In virtually every analysis he posits eons and eons of time in order for it to make any sense. Beyond that, huge amounts of time are required for the random mutation process essential to macro-evolution. If the earth were only, say, 100 million years old as opposed to 4.5 billion, everything that’s been said by evolutionists about how random changes came about would have to be discarded. You’re just being obtuse.
There is no basis to conclude that the earth is 4.5 billion years old other than that it is the half life of U-238, the exact same device you’re using to measure the earth’s age. Even if you accept the U-238/Pb-206 methodology – I don’t, but that’s not the point – you would have to concede that the earth could be infinitely OLDER than 4.5 billion years, because it wouldn’t be possible to measure anything more using that method.
As far as K40-Argon, I’m nowhere near the student of that, but the idea that you have a billion year old rock with an intact “chamber” of isolated K and argon such that you can know that all of the argon present was the product of the decay of the K40 is fatuous on its face. And since the half life of K40 is only 1.25 billion years:
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html
obviously that method cannot confirm an age of 4.5 billion years.
For your last point, I am the only person I am aware of that has suggested that the extreme expanses of time posited by evolutionists are inconsistent with observable rates of change:
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/evolution-is-as-evolution-does/
The basis for the assertion is, as you might expect, observation that is as available to you as it is to me. Are there problems with this argument? Yes. The observation I am talking about is extremely imprecise. But there is merit, too. We’re not having a debate between 100,000 years old or a million years old. For that some precision is necessary. Rather, we are having an argument over whether the earth is 4.5 billion year old, upon which the entire theory of macro-evolution is predicated. All I have to do to punch a fairly big hole in that is show that the 4.5 billion year figure has no real support (check) and cite evidence suggesting – not nailing down a figure, just suggesting – a much smaller number. 100 million years would indeed be a much smaller number, but way too much based upon observable rates of change, which suggest, at least to me (but I also think to anyone else without ideological blinders) maximum ages in the millions, or at most tens of millions of years.
JMRJ – Darwin returned from his voyage on the Beagle with three notebooks of stuff that DID NOT fit with his theory of evolution.
I don’t have any issues with genetically modified foods as long as they are not “frankenfood”. (Combining plant and animal genes in ways that could never occur in nature into frankenstien plants or animals.)
Pretty much all of our domesticated crops are a result of being genetically modified. Mendel and his famous “pea experiment” is a type of genetic engineering. http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/mendelexperiments.html. Apples, strawberries, wheat, potatoes, tomatoes all genetically altered from their wild ancestors.
The Incas and other native american tribes did extensive genetic modifications of plants. Corn, as we know it, which is their invention, cannot even grow in the wild or without human intervention.
Roses, tulips, daisies and other ornamental plants. All genetically modified.
Dogs, cats, horses, sheep, pigs…..ALL have been genetically engineered. Not into frankenstein dog/pig or cat/sheep crosses. But into different breeds than found in the wild.
This is just engineered evolution. Quicker than letting nature take its course and coming up with the results that are the most beneficial for productivity and hardiness.
No big deal.
Global warming is a direct result of the Earth moving closer to the sun. Ebola is a direct result of doctors without borders. Science has its fringes such as Scientolgy. Religion has its fringes such as 8th Day Dog Adventism. Those who have Faith believe in God. Those who are dyslectic believe in Dog. Bears which leave the North Pole and head for the South Pole are bi polar. There is no such thing as a “mad scientist”. When science combines with mad Islamic bi polar dog hating alababas running nuclear reactor plants in Iran, the world will come to an end.