smooth wombat writes "As a follow-up to a recently posted Slashdot article, Reuters UK has an article which poses the question: is the U.S. becoming hostile to science? From the article: 'Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation,' said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3. Cornell acting President Hunter Rawlings, in his state of the university address last week, spoke about the challenge to science represented by intelligent design which holds that the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists is fatally flawed. Rawlings said the dispute was widening political, social, religious and philosophical rifts in U.S. society. 'When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers,' he said." What is your take? Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? Log in/Create an Account | Top | 863 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 863 comments 0: 854 comments 1: 680 comments 2: 445 comments 3: 92 comments 4: 51 comments 5: 40 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. (1) | 2 Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Insightful) by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday October 28, @06:55PM (#13900811) Yes. Any other stupid questions?! [ Reply to ThisRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by conJunk (Score:2) Friday October 28, @06:56PM Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Interesting) by shanen (462549) on Friday October 28, @07:21PM (#13901075) (http://shanenj.tripod.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 30, @10:52PM) No, but what America does have is a situation where a small group of fanatics who do oppose science are successfully gaming the system to attack science. Part of their hypocrisy is that they do not attack all science, but only certain parts that they disagree with. For example, they want bigger and better bombs, the better to kill their enemies with, but they *absolutely* do NOT want better understanding of biology where it conflicts with their other beliefs.Fortunately for science, though unfortunately for America, attacking science produces negative dynamic stabiity. You can't disrupt one part of science without disrupting *ALL* parts of science. The inevitable result is that, in the long term, the societies with the best science will wind up with the biggest and best bombs, too. (Unfortunately, in the short term, you might wind up dead due to the bad science...) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by hyperquantization (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:27PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by aconbere (Score:2) Friday October 28, @08:41PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by hyperquantization (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:08PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by hyperquantization (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:27PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by TapeCutter (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:11AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by aconbere (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:32PM Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful) by RichardX (457979) on Friday October 28, @08:43PM (#13901756) (http://www.worldcomm...o?teamId=855RSMBR9N1) I'm flabberghasted.Can you think of any useful applications for any aspect of biology?If so, there's your answer.All biology is connected to evolution.That's a bit like saying "Can anyone think of any useful applications for all this processor and microchip stuff? What does it really give us? Sure, computers and faxes and the internet are handy, but do we really need to know about all this microchip and transistor stuff?" [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by hyperquantization (Score:3) Friday October 28, @08:52PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Chrax (Score:2) Friday October 28, @08:56PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Xeriar (Score:3) Friday October 28, @10:59PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by penguinoid (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:36AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Chrax (Score:3) Friday October 28, @08:53PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Lucractius (Score:3) Friday October 28, @08:58PM Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful) by MrKahuna (789335) on Friday October 28, @09:01PM (#13901859) Well, without evolutionary biology we would all be blissfully unaware of the possiblity of avian flu mutating from a bird-to-human virus to a human-to-human virus. We'd just be scratching our heads wondering why an especially virulent flu started speading around the world. Evolutionary biology allows scientists to think about how the "here-and-now" might look in the future and to be able to prepare for it.I wouldn't be so annoyed with the intelligent design croud if they didn't take advantage of the advances made by the very theories they declare to be invalid. So if all the fundamentalists want to show that they really believe in what they say they do, then they should give up vaccinations because modern virology is rooted in evolutionary biology. I don't expect that to happen because that would require a faith that I frankly don't think most of them are actually capable of.For another view this is a good read:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biolo gy.html/ [talkorigins.org] [ Reply to This | ParentSilly boy, The intellegent designer did it. by spaceturtle (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:08PMRe:Silly boy, The intellegent designer did it. by MrKahuna (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:32PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Laser Lou (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:45PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by DynamiteNeon (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:15AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:5, Insightful) by emarkp (67813) <emarkp@nOsPam.yahoo.com> on Friday October 28, @08:45PM (#13901768) Part of their hypocrisy is that they do not attack all science, but only certain parts that they disagree with.You'll support this now with some scientific data that proves they're the same people, right?From what I've seen, those opposing evolution are mostly responding to strident atheists who are using evolution to attempt to claim that science has disproved God. Those anti-religion atheists belong in the same category as the anti-science theists. Science doesn't prove or disprove God. Good scientists and good theists know that. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by dlockamy (Score:3) Friday October 28, @09:11PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Chrax (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:45PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Broken_Ladder (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:03AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by ScrappyLaptop (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:30AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Broken_Ladder (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:46AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Broken_Ladder (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:16PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Broken_Ladder (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:19PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by jrockway (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:08AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Rohan427 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:21PMevolution is a FACT by Broken_Ladder (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:38PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Jonathan (Score:3) Saturday October 29, @12:04AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by TapeCutter (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:31AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by NoData (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:36AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by emarkp (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:50AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Broken_Ladder (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:08AMRe:evolution is a FACT by Doctor Faustus (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:33AMRe:evolution is a FACT by Broken_Ladder (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:41AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by emarkp (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:37AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority (Score:4, Insightful) by terjeber (856226) on Friday October 28, @09:30PM (#13902019) hose opposing evolution are mostly responding to strident atheists who are using evolution to attempt to claim that science has disproved God I do not think I have ever met a single atheist that say says science disproves God, not even Dawkins. What an atheist says is that we should relate to God in the same way we relate to other pretty unlikely fixtures of our lives, such Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and little green men under your bed - too small to see. In other words, there is no compelling data that suggests that there is a God, so it makes no logical sense to think there is.Science can not prove that there is no God, science can likewise not prove that there are no blue swans with yellow spots or a Tooth Fairy. You can't prove the non-existance of something.Those opposing evolution today are those who would like to see Intelligent Design taught along side of Evolution, which is an absurd notion. Evolution is a theory, on a macro scale it is not proven, but it is a theory, and more, it is a scientific theory. A scientific theory has some special properties, that is why it is scientific and not just a theory. Intelligent Design on the other hand is not a scientific theory, there is nothing scientific at all about that theory, and if it should be taught in schools, it should be taught along side of other religious notions such as Christianity, Islam and Astrology. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by einhverfr (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:50PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by sumdumass (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:14PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by arminw (Score:3) Friday October 28, @11:13PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by ScrappyLaptop (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:22AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by slavemowgli (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:57PMRe: Bringing Galileo to His Knees by s388 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:59PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Thangodin (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:06PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by emarkp (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:18AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by Chrax (Score:3) Friday October 28, @10:37PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by einhverfr (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:46PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by kpharmer (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:38PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by einhverfr (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:09AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by kpharmer (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:25AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by einhverfr (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:52AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by einhverfr (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:27PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by bmgoau (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:46PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by arminw (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:29AMObSimpsons Quote by Skater (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:02PM Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority (Score:5, Insightful) by fyngyrz (762201) on Friday October 28, @09:09PM (#13901901) (http://www.blackbeltsystems.com/ | Last Journal: Monday July 25, @02:20PM) No, but what America does have is a situation where a small group of fanatics who do oppose science are successfully gaming the system to attack science.Small? Stats: 80% plus of americans (including our current elected leader) hold one (or more) superstitions as the basis for the formation (and often more) of the world and universe. 50% (more, actually, because there are many at the center of the curve) of Americans have an IQ of 100 or under. They wouldn't know science from sophist nonsense if you gave them a roadmap, a GPS, and a seeing-eye dog. They don't know what theory is, what it means, or what it implies. This is not their fault, at least in my view; it is the fault of the educational and political system, mainly. In a system that does not protect its citizens, why would we not expect them to turn their eyes to Zeus or the constellations?Religionists (and some cosmologists, sad to say) are constantly self-reinforcing the proposition(s) that things happen(ed) by what amounts to magic, and that science is merely the bastard stepchild of some supernatural entity's imagination, a descriptive convenience, no more.When fervent assertions that entirely lack evidence in the form of objective fact form an important, or the important, part of your thinking, how are you going to be able to discern the difference between convincing reality and this conviction without any reality at all?Yes, there might be one person doing the main attacking; but mark my words, there are hundreds of mute, average or below average folks standing quietly in the wings behind that person, urging them on, funding them, and so forth.As science knowledge expands, the cracks between the known parts get thinner and thinner. These are the dark places where religion and superstition live. But people cherish those thoughts; we have to expect that as those superstitious ideas are squeezed into the light (which generally speaking, kills them) the holders of those ideas are going to react.This is where "intelligent design" came from. it is purest sophist nonsense with no objective fact backing up the assertions is makes, trying to hide the idea of a god under a cloak that they cry as loudly as possible "is science" when in fact it is not. Nothing testable is put forth. It's just more hand-waving. I expect the light will kill it shortly. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority by HanzoSpam (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:51PMRe:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority by raoul666 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:06PMRe:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority by fyngyrz (Score:3) Saturday October 29, @12:08AMRe:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority by njyoder (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:49AMRe:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority by ScrappyLaptop (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:56AMRe:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority by Penguinoflight (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:49PMRe:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority by fyngyrz (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:34AMRe:Anti-Scientists ARE a Majority by ZombieRoboNinja (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:13AMDon't take this the wrong way... by Grendel Drago (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:18AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.why does this sound so familiar? by kpharmer (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:32PMRe:why does this sound so familiar? by JonathanBoyd (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:12PMRe:why does this sound so familiar? by roadkill-maker (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:49PMRe:why does this sound so familiar? by hedrick (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:32PMRe:why does this sound so familiar? by kpharmer (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:25PMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by heelios (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:16AMRe:Anti-Scientists are NOT a Majority by magnumquest (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:37AM Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Interesting) by networkBoy (774728) on Friday October 28, @06:58PM (#13900845) (http://www.networkboy.net/) +1 insightful, -1 Troll, +1 underrated, -1 flamebait, and +5 right (unfortunately).-nB [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by c0d3h4x0r (Score:1) Friday October 28, @07:03PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by clem (Score:1) Friday October 28, @07:26PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by eric76 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by JWW (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:06PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Friday October 28, @09:17PM Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Insightful) by Seumas (6865) on Friday October 28, @07:02PM (#13900873) The problem with science being eroded and derided in this country is largely due to the same constructs that affect voting and politics. Think about it.And there's not really a lot you can do about it. There are few things more addictive and difficult to argue with than religion, because you're not talking about sense or reality or science or rational thought. You can't scientifically argue with people who only can respond with "well, there must be a creator, because I feel it in my bones" - or people who can't possibly conceive that evolution doesn't in any way rule out there still being a creator.Ignorance is hard to fight. Ever been around an extreme racist and tried to convince them why they're ignorant, stupid and wrong? Then you know what I mean. :/ [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Insightful) by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Friday October 28, @07:44PM (#13901287) people who can't possibly conceive that evolution doesn't in any way rule out there still being a creator.Evolution in no way rules out a creator. In the sense of Intelligent Design I would agree that it does. Why does no one ever attempt to explain that God created man using evolution as a tool? Whatever happened to the divine clockwinder theory? Why does no one view god as the collected set of mechanics that the universe runs under? That certainly fits the bill for omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.The argument "because you say that god created man, and I have proof supporting evolution, that proof also supports the lack of a god" is not really a strong one. [ Reply to This | Parent religion accepting evolution (Score:4, Informative) by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000.yahoo@com> on Friday October 28, @08:00PM (#13901436) Why does no one ever attempt to explain that God created man using evolution as a tool? Pope John Paul II did accept that "God" made man using evolution. Here's his Magisterium [cin.org] Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man. He delivered the Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996. Of course other Christians don't have a good opinion of Catholism or the Pope, some even believing they're devil worshippers.Falcon [ Reply to This | ParentRe:religion accepting evolution by coaxial (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:44PM Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Insightful) by Coryoth (254751) on Friday October 28, @08:10PM (#13901518) (http://jedidiah.stuff.gen.nz/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 03, @02:42AM) Why does no one ever attempt to explain that God created man using evolution as a tool? Whatever happened to the divine clockwinder theory?People do, but that doesn't mean it gets any acceptance from certain groups. One of the fundamental issues is that a lot of christians believe humans have a soul and that animals do not. For that to be true you need some divine intervention in the evolutionary process to grant humans a soul once they become human. My understanding is that even the Catholic church, which accepts evolution, holds that such an intervention occurred. Once you have to believe that God has some active hand in the evolutionary process it's not much of a stretch to accept a few more fiddles along the way and thus you get Intelligent Design: the belief that evolution occurs, but with ongoing active tweaking by some external entity.Basically it comes down to egocentrism - the desire to believe that humans are somehow special and separate from other living entities. To believe that you really need to believe that there was some active intervention to set humans apart. This really has little to do with religion necessarily (though most religions tend to grant humans such special status and hence have some explaining to do), but rather a general unwillingness to accept ourselves as simply a part of nature.In practice humans are really only very subtley different from other animals. Every time someone claims to have some defining property that sets humans apart from animals (self awareness, tool use, awareness of mortality, language, social learning, etc.) we find new examples of animals that do the same. Tool use is now widely noted across the animal kingdom, and self awareness, and awareness of mortality are reported for a variety of animals. At least some level of language has been noted amongst various animals, and efforts to teach great apes more advanced languages have been remarkably successful. We really don't give animals anywhere near enough credit.Jedidiah. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Irish_Samurai (Score:2) Friday October 28, @08:33PM Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Interesting) by RWerp (798951) on Friday October 28, @08:53PM (#13901820) "One of the fundamental issues is that a lot of christians believe humans have a soul and that animals do not."I'm a Christian and I believe animals have a soul, too. Only theirs is pure. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:13PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mclaincausey (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:11PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by gordo3000 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:29PMGenocide != predation by mclaincausey (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:23PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by modecx (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:47PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mclaincausey (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:57PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Coryoth (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:40AMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by HungWeiLo (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:31PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by ModMeFlamebait (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:32PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by terjeber (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:42PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by utexaspunk (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:00PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by radaway (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:58PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Limecron (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:46PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Limecron (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Funny) by rubycodez (864176) on Friday October 28, @10:21PM (#13902229) and more importantly, it's surrounded by tasty meat. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by einhverfr (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:38PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by jerald_hams (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:02AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Salandarin (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:42PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:14PMGod as computer =P by plasmacutter (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:19PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by EntropyEngine (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:17PMWhat you can do about ignorance. by aphor (Score:2) Friday October 28, @08:34PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by sexyrexy (Score:3) Friday October 28, @08:36PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Seumas (Score:3) Friday October 28, @08:59PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by LordKazan (Score:3) Friday October 28, @09:36PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by c_forq (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:50PMThat's not science. by David Rolfe (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:31AMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by raoul666 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:14PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mclaincausey (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:17PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Smallpond (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:05AMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mclaincausey (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:27AMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:31PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by JudgeFurious (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:07AMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Crystalmonkey (Score:1) Saturday October 29, @12:51AM Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Interesting) by einhverfr (238914) <einhverfr AT hotmail DOT com> on Friday October 28, @09:11PM (#13901906) (http://www.metatrontech.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 23, @01:15AM) The real issue is that there needs to be an acknowledgement in a systematic search for truth. I am a firm believer that one needs to treat science as a form of systematic philosophy. After all that is what it is and aside from the uninformed who think that data implies theory, all theory is inherently philosophical in nature (see "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg for more on this link).But part of the problem is that revealled religions are inherently opposed to such approaches. After all what good is systematic philosophy when the Bible is your ultimate authority? Because of the fact that systematic philosophy, where nothing is beyond questioning/revisiting, will always exist in opposition to authority-based religion, where the basic tenants of the religion are expected to be taken on the basis of faith.This tension is what most of these arguments about intelligent design, etc. are really about. Science is a darned good methodology as far as it goes, but most of the questions as to the nature of spirituality are really beyond it. This is because science as a general rule, in attempting to ascertain those truths useful in engineering fields, does not admit to the study of the human condition in its entirity. I.e. science does not imply materialism, though such trends are common in our modernistic way of thinking.The question few people want to have asked is "can systematic processes be used to determine religious or spiritual truth?" People who hold one book (whether the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or something else) as the unquestionable authority on these matters are threatened by this because they are afraid of being wrong. And yet, throughout some periods in history, such methodologies were used by many in this area.For example, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe (and before that in the Islamic world, though this fell out of fashion there in the 13th century), such attempts were made. The basic framework in both these areas was based on the writings of Plato and commentary of later writers. They sought to find the unifying principles behind all religions (Henry Agrippa discusses Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Classical beliefs in his De Occulta Philosophia, though most of his Islamic sources were heavily influenced by Classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato). The fundamental idea that we are religious beings was so self-evident to them that they didn't bother to question it. Such philosophers of this sort included Theostratus Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, H.C. Agrippa, Albumassar, and many others.Personally though I think that they got the model wrong in many areas I think that they did show that it is possible to take such an approach however, and personally I think that such discussion would ultimately help everyone, especially once one makes the leap from the sort of attempt at a universal theology that those such as Agrippa attempted to create to something more along the lines of structuralism in Linguistics.But in the end, science belongs in science classes, and areas that are beyond science (including intelligent design) could be tought I guess in philosophy or theology classes. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mclaincausey (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:24PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by einhverfr (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:22PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mclaincausey (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:29PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:42PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by einhverfr (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:46AMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by bergeron76 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:31PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by sveinungkv (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:47PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by msuarezalvarez (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:15PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Seumas (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:18PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by mrchaotica (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:51AMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by spatenbrau (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:36PM Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:4, Informative) by chimpo13 (471212) <gorn@nokilli.com> on Friday October 28, @07:24PM (#13901099) (http://nokilli.com/rtw/ | Last Journal: Monday September 05, @05:12PM) No, we use that for RU-486. Sure, it's legal, but try getting it filled [dailystar.com]. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Informative) by TexasDex (709519) on Friday October 28, @08:38PM (#13901720) (http://www.texasdex.com/) Sorry but I have to corrent this misinformation:RU-486 is a drug that will induce a chemical abortion any time during the first trimester, after the fetus has already implanted in the womb. It is an abortion.Emergency contraception, also called the "morning after pill" or "plan B", is taken withing 5 days of unprotected sex (rape, failure of contraceptives, drunken one-night-stand, etc) to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. This is in fact a form of contraception, albeit not one that should be used on a regular basis, because it is only partly reliable, and has rather heavy side effects from the large doses of hormones it contains.They are not the same thing! Practically no pharmacy in the U.S. stocks RU-486 (it is supplied directly by abortion clinics), but it should be entirely reasonable to expect them to have the morning after pill. Should. Plan B is even considered safe enough for over-the-counter sale in many countries (in the U.S. it's OTC sale was blocked by the FDA solely for political reasons; after all, this is Bush's FDA we're talking about). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by PopCulture (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:20PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by jd142 (Score:2) Friday October 28, @08:33PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Seumas (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:09PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Malleus Dei (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:14PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Agarax (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:17PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by MightyMartian (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:16AM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? (Score:5, Funny) by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Friday October 28, @07:06PM (#13900925) (http://jjjiii.livejournal.com/) Is it? I say we reserve judgement until I've had time to collect, validate, and interpret some data on this... [ Reply to This | Parent2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Yes but why and how. . . by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Friday October 28, @07:14PMRe:Yes but why and how. . . by hunterx11 (Score:3) Friday October 28, @09:13PMStory by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Friday October 28, @07:16PM Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II (Score:5, Interesting) by saudadelinux (574392) <rolandjdevnull@yahoo.com> on Friday October 28, @07:20PM (#13901059) (http://www.metawire.org/~lark) Let's face it, there's always been an anti-intellectual streakin the US, and now, these Bible-thumping ignoramuses are strengthening it.These are the people who want to bring back Old Testament style theocracy, and think that it jibes with the Constitution. Check outthe Christian Reconstructionist [wikipedia.org] article on Wikipedia. Ultramontanes of the highest order.Although I live in DC, I don't worry about Islamist terrorists as much as these folks taking over. Islamist terrorists could cause nasty infrastructural and personal damage, but these people, given a chance, will do everything they can to ensure nothing that conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible gets taught, women have no reproductive rights, gay people are executed for something they can't help being, etc., etc. They'll warp the laws to a viewpoint no one's held in 2,000 years - there's been progress since then, but they don't want it.If they had their way, the only science that would go on would be to prove absurd things, like Moses really parted the Red Sea, instead of say, forensic ethnobotany to show how people ate. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II (Score:5, Funny) by jcr (53032) <jcr@id[ ].com ['iom' in gap]> on Friday October 28, @08:00PM (#13901437) (Last Journal: Saturday September 03, @10:27PM) Let's face it, there's always been an anti-intellectual streak in the USThis is by no means confined to the USA. Pol Pot made a point of killing anyone who wore glasses on the assumption that they were intellectuals.-jcr [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by TheDugong (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:34PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by jcr (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:13PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by Buzz_Litebeer (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:53PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by jcr (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:59PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by slavemowgli (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:55PMThe scary thing... by Grendel Drago (Score:2) Saturday October 29, @12:12AMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by dubl-u (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:02PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by terjeber (Score:1) Friday October 28, @09:51PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by ksheff (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:18PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by TheDugong (Score:2) Friday October 28, @08:37PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by deaddrunk (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:05PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by Coryoth (Score:3) Friday October 28, @08:48PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by MBGMorden (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:09PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by azote79 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:22PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by dbIII (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:39PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by Fallingcow (Score:2) Friday October 28, @10:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by azote79 (Score:1) Friday October 28, @10:31PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by Straker Skunk (Score:2) Friday October 28, @11:12PMRe:Prepare For The Dark Ages, Part II by uncqual (Score:1) Friday October 28, @11:51PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.No... by SuperKendall (Score:2) Friday October 28, @07:24PMRe:No... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 28, @07:47PMWelcome to the church of Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 28, @07:33PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by JayBean (Score:2) Friday October 28, @07:41PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Artraze (Score:1) Friday October 28, @07:43PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by John_Booty (Score:3) Friday October 28, @07:58PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by Irish_Samurai (Score:2) Friday October 28, @08:28PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by ksheff (Score:1) Friday October 28, @08:29PMRe:Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science? by coastwalker (Score:2) Friday October 28, @09:19PM