Subscription Center
Aug 29, 2008 01:29 PM | 60
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain today surprised the nation by picking first-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. At 44, Palin is three years younger than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama; she is the mother of five, including a son who is in the Army and a baby born in April with Down syndrome.
By choosing Palin, McCain is clearly hoping to appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters, including women who have been slow to warm to Obama. But it's a big question mark whether they will cotton to Palin's conservative leanings: She is antiabortion and an advocate of drilling offshore as well as in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
"We are ready for that gas to be tapped so we can fill a natural gas pipeline," Palin said during her state of the state address in January 2007. "I promise to vigorously defend Alaska's rights, as resource owners, to develop and receive appropriate value for our resources."
She added: "The amount of oil currently flowing through the Pipeline is less than half of what it was at its peak. We must look to responsible development throughout the state. . . . From further oil and gas development, to fishing, mining, timber, and tourism, these developments remain the core of our state. We provide stability in regulations for our developers.
Before defeating former two-term Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles in 2006, Palin was mayor of the little town of Wasilla, as well as chairman of the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's oil and gas resources.
McCain, an opponent of opening ANWR, earlier this year said that he was willing to "go back and look at it again," setting off waves in the enviro world.
“My position has not changed,’’ McCain told The New York Times. "People have said to me, ‘I’m going to bring you new information about ANWR, how environmentally we can make it safe. I’ll be glad to accept new information, but my position has not changed.’’
McCain did, however, switch gears on offshore drilling.
“One reason why I’m now far more in favor of offshore drilling is the price of oil,’’ he told the Times. But he said he did not believe the price was high enough to justify changing his position on drilling in ANWR.
Oh, by the way, Palin is also in favor of teaching Creationism in schools.
Tags:
John McCain,
Alaska,
Sarah Palin,
vice-president,
ANWR,
Arctic National Wildlif Refuge
More News Blog:
Next: Are UFOs lighting up the skies over Australia's outback?
Previous: World's largest machine--the electric grid--is old and outdated
See what we're tweeting about
Myrmecos 10 Astounding Arthropods You’ll See at BugShot/Belize. Plus, a Zombie Fungus. http://t.co/sjLUVr8eA0
DrJudyStone Fascinating: A Bitter/Sweet Shift in Cockroach Defenses http://t.co/Q7TyCkkywS #genetics Implications for #malaria DrJudyStone Nauseating: Eight Men Consider House Bill To Restrict Women's #Reproductive Rights (PHOTO) http://t.co/TysshGuhAY
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
60 Comments
Add CommentThat last comment about advocating "Creationism" was very disingenuous. If you read the article you could see what she really said was that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
Read it yourself, Lisa.
"Disingenous, my a**. Read the entire article--clearly, she said she favored the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, and then backed off, somewhat, in a later interview. This is the typical tactic of creationists/IDiots, when directly confronted--she provided the dog whistle to the faithful, who then forgive her when she has to water down the statement later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact." Another coded phrase which keeps her on the good side of the ID crowd, but they know what it means.
"Healthy debate is so important ..." OK, so in science class spend what, two minutes, explaining why ID is not science and move on--I think that's fine.
Bottom line--Palin is no friend of good science education and, unless she comes out will a clear statement about such, I know enough to see a sleight of hand when it happens.
Either Palin supports good science teaching or she doesn't.
The following opinions are as objective as I can make them; after a > 10 year sub-career of teaching Physics and moreover, Astronomy/Cosmology in public high schools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism can be taught in private schools of any ilk, ie: Catholic Parochial schools, Christian (conservative or not) private schools, etc.
The U.S. Constitution is founded on "Separation of Church and State".
We all learned that in 10th grade "Civics" class.
Creationism COMES FROM certain church "theologians" and/or educators.
It has NOT come from the objective historical cause/effect study of living organisms via fossil and skeletal remains of now extinct animals and plants.
The solar system, more specifically the Sun, has been in existence for ~ 4.5 Billion years. The Earth, as a dynamic offshoot of the formation of our star the Sun, has about another 4.5 Billion years to go before the Sun distends into a Red Giant star and "encompasses/swallows up" the Earth and all the other x number of planets in our local Solar system.
Men and Women have "arrived"/evolved very late in the game.
The Western civilizations on this earth "believe" (or NOT) in God, or in Eastern religions, a creator by another name. There is nothing wrong or missing from what we call "Science". It is our best guess which is oftern "corrected" by more accurate study as to the "How we got here?" question. Creationism is based on religious "beliefs", not on observable evidence. Therefore it has NO basis to be taught in Publicly funded schools in the United States of America. It is NOT acceptable as an "alternative" science.
How is this article a scientific article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWERE IS THE SCIENCE, SCIAM?
Not Tarded says, "were (sic) is the science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe concern over drilling in the ANWR is of great scientific interest. As is her views on Creationism. She is also in line to the "throne", and could have a huge influence on government research funding.
Geez. Why must a science magazine be pidgeon-holed and silenced.
>How is this article a scientific article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>WERE IS THE SCIENCE, SCIAM?
It's highly relevant to science.
By teaching creationism as equal to evolution, we equate untestable dogma with testable theory, and therefore blur the most fundamental scientific principle, which is to rely on evidence. Teaching creationism devalues the scientific method. If kids can't distinguish between arguments based on assertion from those based on evidence, how can they form intelligent opinions on scientific issues like global warming, or for that matter almost any complex issue?
Unfortunately, I'm not sure when the people learn about how Palin feels about creationism, that many minds will change. If that's true, chalk it up at least partly to poor science education.
It's hard to say what these politicians really believe, as what they say mostly takes into account the voters that they are appealing to. I was under the impression that most Americans believe in creationism. Unfortunately, that is a product of our poor educational system. I don't think you'll find too many politicians knocking it out of fear of alienating voters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting string. Straight away, I must agree with "Not Tarded," when I ask the inherent worth in this article. Nevertheless, the very fact of it's presence and the apparent existence of the motivation to publish it, might say something about how inseparable philosophy, religion, politics, and science really are. As a practicing physicist, don't subscribe to creationism, intelligent design, etc. However, I also recognize that the realms of the aforementioned "entities" have been blurred by all parties throughout history. I don't need to remind folks that unethical things have been done in the name of the entire spectrum of the science-to-religion rainbow. To say that science class will be completely void of theological discussion is not only delusional, but daft. Much of science derives motivation to answer the very same questions that novitiate true theology, philosophy, etc. Contrariwise, to say that we should not strive to remain true to a scientific method and instead act on pure faith is just as silly. As an aside, if you think that you aren't acting on faith as a scientist, your are mistaken. Moving foreword, when we are talking about raising children, I would expect and hope that this debate continue to progress into something more sophisticated or mature. Remember that all of us continue to exist on answered questions and unquestioned answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPS - when you use language like "idiot" you do yourself and your argument a disservice. There have been foundational scientists, philosophers, etc. throughout history that have huge advancements in knowledge that have made odd mistakes of blurring the (supposedly different) disciplines...many of which would make your IQ seem like the word you've chosen to use. Let's progress to becoming adults.
I think we should all try to be intelligent about this kind of matter. Lets us take an enlightened approach to this kind of subject. We certainly do not want an educated person in America to respond to the question "what is the Intelligent Design Theory?" With the answer "I don't know". A better answer is "it is, in my opinion, an unscientific theory that a lot of people strongly believe in". If we are all going to have a reasoned debate, then all of us should be adequately educated about the matter to make informed decisions and opinions. Somehow, our children need to learn what the debate and the fuss is all about. Refusing to teach them the debate is an absurdity. The Intelligent Design debate must be taught in a class about history, history of science (with possibly other scientific mistakes), comparative religions, current events, scientific analysis, scientific method, or in the science class as a counter point to what the scientific method really is or is not. Students will clearly understand the scientific method better if they see what it is not. The teacher should put up on the board a list of points and counterpoints about why it is scientific or not. A good scientist is not afraid of questions and answers. A good teacher should respond to appropriate questions with the answer "Mainstream scientists think the Intelligent Design theory is non scientific because it does not seem to fit very well with evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old, and that biological evolution is well documented in the fossil record, and in biological studies. Etc. Creationists object to these scientists and attempt to refute them with their own scientific analysis that the mainstream scientists have rejected." We might make it optional for the teacher to state something like "Some creationists believe God created all of existence exactly the way it is. If this is true, there will be no way for science to prove it one way or the other. This does not devalue the work of scientists or theologians in any way. In any case we all need to find a way to work together in productive peace. This subject has created a lot of strife and stress amongst the believers and the nonbelievers. It needn't be, as there are a lot of good people on both sides of this debate. Some people, unfortunately, cannot see both sides. Many people believe that this lesson is not appropriate for a public school. What do you think and why?" Is this not a more enlightened approach? John Marcus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans came from Adam and Eve! Not monkees! Evolutun is Satan's lie. If you love the Baby Jesus, then you'll vote for Mc Cane. We don't need no lies in our school!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm voting for McCane so when my children grow up, they won't burn in Hell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou points would be well taken if the SCIENCE were discussed in this article, but I could have read this (and have) in a variety of other news sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you might PERCIEVE science in the article, there really is none. Except for a single mention of ANWR and Creationism.
This was an introduction to a candidate, not a scientific discussion...
"I'm voting for McCane so when my children grow up, they won't burn in Hell"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if they are sinners? You can vote for the devil if you want, but that won't stop your kids from rotting in hell if they grow up like most american kids...
Mrs. Palin is quite obviously the oil lobby's choice. Everything else about her selection for VP is just as obvious. I guess this election'll be a true political IQ test.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only drilling she is OPEN to is from her husband, 5 kids 6th on the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMrs. Palin's selection as VP is as clearly motivated as is Erik Prinze's support of the war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess this election will be a very stark political IQ test. ...even more so than the usual.
John, do you happen to be the same John Marcus of the Physics Department at the University of Cincinnati? Whether or not you are, I would love to see your idea put into practice, but worry that it might be turned on its head in some places and result in students coming away feeling that that the scientific evidence and method itself is flawed. What do you think?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot Tarded, I've been following your dissatisfaction with the recent string of "headlines" from sciam.com. Keep in mind that both this and the David Duchovny story are not actual news articles, but are rather posts from the "60-Second Science Blog." Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that this blog is an outlet for the Sciam staff to voice their opinions about anything, as in an editorial section, rather than the real science news which is displayed on the main page.
As for In love with Jesus, are you serious, or is this some kind of joke? From what I have seen in the region in which I live, it could be either.
MarcusJohn, scientists do not regard ID as non-scientific merely because it conflicts with known facts about the age of the earth, evolution and the fossil record, though any of these alone are enough to expose the silliness of ID. Rather the reason that scientists regard ID as "non-scientific" is that it presents no testable hypothesis. Science, by definition, follows the scientific method: Observation, hypothesis, testing, theory, peer review, refinement of the theory. ID starts from a theory, attempts to retroactively find facts to fit the theory, has no method for objective testing of that theory, and has no rigorous peer review doctrine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilarly, veracity, science is not a matter of "faith". These are the kinds of rhetorical games that people pushing ID use to try and place ID on equal footing with scientific theories, when it simply is not.
MarcusJohn, scientists do not regard ID as non-scientific merely because it conflicts with known facts about the age of the earth, evolution and the fossil record, though any of these alone are enough to expose the silliness of ID. Rather the reason that scientists regard ID as "non-scientific" is that it presents no testable hypothesis. Science, by definition, follows the scientific method: Observation, hypothesis, testing, theory, peer review, refinement of the theory. ID starts from a theory, attempts to retroactively find facts to fit the theory, has no method for objective testing of that theory, and has no rigorous peer review doctrine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilarly, veracity, science is not a matter of "faith". These are the kinds of rhetorical games that people pushing ID use to try and place ID on equal footing with scientific theories, when it simply is not.
I should clarify: Known facts about the age of the earth and the fossil record show how silly traditional or "young earth" creationism is. ID attempts to avoid conflict with these scientifically established facts, but is unscientific because of the reasons I mentioned above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Proven" theories went by the wayside throughout the years. The earth is flat. Gravity does not exist. Quarks? String Theory? More than three dimensions? Nano technology? No one knows the origin of our species, nor the reason we are here. Until then, ALL hypothesis is theory. Proven scientific theories are only proven until the base line changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am by no means religious. I am just advising the minds of the world to be open and accepting as new and unbelievable discoveries rock the very foundation of what we believe to be FACT. To sum up. There are no facts.
theonlybiker11 - huh?! No, I would recommend to you Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong". Sometimes old ideas may be replaced by radically new ideas, but often it is the case that what was, based on the available evidence, believed true, before new discoveries, still works out as a good approximation for some purposes or for some subset of reality. Over the course of an hour's walk, a geopotential surface will seem nearly flat. Newtonian mechanics, without relativity or quantum mechanics, works just fine for many purposes. This works another way too: the underlying physical laws of fluid mechanics, which are known, may be simplified to give approximate equations that are easier to work with - but the result depends on the situation one is approximation. The 'quasi-geostrophic' approximation works well at describing much of the less intense, larger scale motions of the atmosphere, but has trouble with fronts, intense cyclones, and fails completely in tornados. If it's true that the laws of aerodymics say a bee can't fly, it's probably because the specific versions of laws being considered were formulated for larger objects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists figured out the Earth may be a lot older than 10,000 years before they figured out that it was ~ 4.5 billion years old. The later number does not invalidate the claim that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.
Likewise, you could figure out that humans evolved from primates without having to know what exactly our closest extant relatives are.
Right now, I can't tell you whether the temperature change from doubling CO2 will be closer to 2 deg C or 4.5 deg C, but I know it's likely to be near that range. Even if I were an expert on the matter, I probably couldn't say for sure for each location on earth whether it will be wetter or dryer, but I know things will change, and there are some general patterns that make sense to expect.
(PS I recently heard that Sarah Palin doesn't believe global warming is manmade. I would like to know if that's true, and how true? That concerns me a lot - more than her feelings and thoughts on evolution - (the later may signify a lack of understanding of that issue but the courts would protect us from any consequences if she decided to make policy out of it (which she might not do anyway?).).
If an elephant is 75% covered by a tarp, you likely can still figure out that it's not a monkey.
How many grains of sand must a person count on a beach before s/he figures out that s/he has a lot of sand (As opposed to a "Hot Crustacean Band"! :)
"PS I recently heard that Sarah Palin doesn't believe global warming is manmade"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've heard that too--kind of unfortunate that the governor of a state which easily feels its effects feels that way.
I have also heard that she apparently tried to sue the Bush Administration for putting Polar Bears on the endangered species list. I guess it interferes with the taping of Alaska's oil.
I suspect that they might try to tout that as her being a party bucking, anti-Bush maverick.
I must say that if creationists want alternative views to evolution to be debated in science classrooms around the country than we should allow scientists into churches to present the theory of evolution. Most people I present this option to think it is crazy. That is because it is crazy. Just as crazy as holding church in a science classroom. Think about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is not the theory that humans came from monkeys it is the theory that over time organisms change in response to their environment. Have you ever heard of drug resistant diseases? Look it up. These are bacterias and viruses that have EVOLVED a defense against the medicine we give people and can therefore spread more easily. That is a great example of evolution. And if you knew anything about your candidate other than he is against satan, you would at least know how to spell his name.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSarah Palin is Scary, what will happen to U.S. Constitution and Science??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissexypalin_com
Let's get real for a few minutes. I do believe in creation, its just that it didn't literally happen 7,000 years ago. Can anyone say Big Bang? As a species, we distinguished ourselves from all others when our ancestors asked Why? We have an obligation to teach our children about cultural differences even if that means we compare religions in our public school system curriculums. The more we understand the greater our chances are of discovering our common interests and needs. Withholding information is the same thing as lying! That single practice is at the root of too many of our problems. We can continue to evolve or we can stick our heads in the sand and become extinct& its our God given choice!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for me I find Sarah Palin refreshing and I intend to vote for her! Yeah I know that means I have to vote for McCain as well. The other choice is to vote for old school politics as usual with Biden on the Dems ticket. Damned if we do or dont& but the good news is we all get another shot at this in four years. Unfortunately none of the above is not an option.
The article on which you're basing the claim that she is in favor of teaching creationism in schools" is 2 years old. She won that election did she not?--did she try to pass a bill introducing creation science in schools? If not then I agree the comment is disingenuous. She expressly stated that she would not be looking to appoint religious people or creationists to the school board. This is not about science and it is devolving into crude & biased name-calling. please utilize the thousands (millions?)of political sites for such comments instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisABOUT the closest most Americans will ever get to a polar bear are those cute, cuddly animated images that smiled at us while dancing around, pitching soft drinks on TV and movie screens this holiday season.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is unfortunate, because polar bears are magnificent animals, not cartoon characters. They are worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat. But adding polar bears to the nation’s list of endangered species, as some are now proposing, should not be part of those efforts.
To help ensure that polar bears are around for centuries to come, Alaska (about a fifth of the world’s 25,000 polar bears roam in and around the state) has conducted research and worked closely with the federal government to protect them. We have a ban on most hunting — only Alaska Native subsistence families can hunt polar bears — and measures to protect denning areas and prevent harassment of the bears. We are also participating in international efforts aimed at preserving polar bear populations worldwide.
This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.
The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears’ habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat and is well aware of the problems caused by climate change. But we know our efforts will take more than protecting what we have — we must also learn what we don’t know. That’s why state biologists are studying the health of polar bear populations and their habitat.
As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis.
NYT-op ed Jan 08
truncated by Sci Am
N. Vavilov - I somewhat agree that perhaps her personal views (which could be just ignorance on her part - as opposed to a lack of logic) on evolution vs creationism/vs ID may not - just by itself - directly be a threat to public policies, but it is still discomforting (what else does she believe? who does she tend to believe?) - it's one thing that would make me less inclined to vote for her. But as I said above, her views on global warming (and drilling in ANWR, too) have more direct implications to the potential consequences of her being elected - except, of course, that there is still McCain too (what has he thought lately? The sound of revving engines is the sound of freedom? Jon Stewart would say otherwise).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisN. vavilov - Why would it be a bad idea to list polar bears as endangered? While they may spend time on land, do they not generally need the sea ice for hunting? We pretty much know what's going to happen to sea ice - it's just a matter of connecting the dots now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan polar bears adapt to land living and/or short swims near shore? Can they adapt to the food they would find? Would they find food? (Would the survivors just 'evolve back' to a different variety of Grizzly?)
Is there something about the bureaucracy you're worried about - that it would interfere with efforts to save the polar bears that might work?
Is it that the only way to save polar bears is to do something to mitigate global warming (a good idea for many other reasons)? ---(I actually somewhat agree that the Endangered Species Act is not the best way to address global warming - but I find it a disingenuous argument from an administration that prefers not to bother with the best ways to deal with it, and would prefer not to acknowledge it - when Bush ran in 2000 he criticised tax credits for solar cells, and said about global warming - we need science - but we already had a level of 'actionable inteligence' on the matter.)
Why oh why are evolutionists so antagonistic of ID? They call ID proponents IDiots and say it isn't science. Like Evolution is? It's filled with may have happeneds, could have beens, and might have dones that are taught as fact to our kids when the fact is they dont KNOW. Evolutionists completely disreguard that evolution is mathmaticly impossible, violates the laws of physics, and is also unprovable. I admire evolutionists in the reguard it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in ID. Reguardless, how about toning down the acrimony and engaging in actual discussions rather than leaping to hate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 I would love it if a scientist came to my church to discuss evolution
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 Your referance to evolved bactiera doesn't hold water because they are still bacteria and not an albatross. Adaptation does not prove evolution.
The choice of Sarah Palin isn't at all surprising viewed in the context of money-dominated politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMcCain hit a gusher in June when he proposed ending a ban on offshore drilling. The Big Oil money totaled $1.1 million in June alone, most of it after he called for an end to the ban, the Washington Post reported.
After has plan for a gas-tax holiday was greeted with ridicule, the GOP presidential nominee needed a way to bond with his base among America's largest corporations.
Off-shore drilling was one way, an Alaskan governor who supports drilling offshore in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is another. Open season on polar bears would be a fitting third. Way to go, John!
The choice of Sarah Palin isn't at all surprising viewed in the context of money-dominated politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMcCain hit a gusher in June when he proposed ending a ban on offshore drilling. The Big Oil money totaled $1.1 million in June alone, most of it after he called for an end to the ban, the Washington Post reported.
After has plan for a gas-tax holiday was greeted with ridicule, the GOP presidential nominee needed a way to bond with his base among America's largest corporations.
Off-shore drilling was one way, an Alaskan governor who supports drilling offshore in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is another. Open season on polar bears would be a fitting third. Way to go, John!
Do you know how much money from "big oil" Golden boy Barack Obama has pulled in? around $900,000. Ooo McCain got 200k more. Definately shows how he's in thier pocket since that 200k goes such a long way during a campaign. Drilling in ANWR will have 0 ecological effects on the region with modern drilling practices unless there is a spill. As along as the drilling company meets the current federal guidlines for spill response, even a spill would have negligable effect on the region. Yes the immediate area around the drill site will be impacted and yes if there is a spill, even with an adaquate spill response the immediate area will be impacted. The place they are talking about drilling though is a wasteland. and a 5r mile area of wasteland being impacted is a small price to pay for immediate relief from foriegn oil. Yes Immediate, not 5- 10 years. As soon as they hit oil and put it in the pipeline to our existing and underutilized oil refineries we will see the benifits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTelrunya - you are correct that the evolution of bacteria over a short time period is not the same thing as the evolution over billions of years to mammals, primates, humans (and many many many other things), but overall it sounds like you just haven't studied evolution - it certainly doesn't violate math or physics, and while it can't be 'proven' in it's entirety, there are enough experiments and observations to confirm it can and is happening, and in fact it would be hard to imagine how it wouldn't happen, I think - anyway, what can be proven in it's entirety? If I were in front of you, left, and came back again, wouldn't you just assume I still existed in the interim or would you wonder if God had destroyed and then recreated me (you really can't prove it either way - even if you had videotape of me from the time in question, how do you know how it was actually made)? The arguments supporting ID don't hold water - they are generally based on misunderstandings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis is in reply to that "untestable doctrine" comment. its hogwash. ill say how soon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatrick 027:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, you are as correct as any scientist ever can be by using the collective reasoning you have expressed.
My point, as you have so clearly splayed and decimated, is just a comment about differing opinions, and leaving the options open if a truly shocking 'discovery' appears.
I am just as opposed to creationism being taught under the auspices of science, in a school. I just don't see the harm, or should I say the damage that would be done by teaching it, and other folkways/mores which shape societies and laws in a humanities class.
btw, great response!
At the Republican National Convention, Sen. Fred Thompson said of Palin: "She has run a municipality and she has run a state. And I think I can say without fear of contradiction she is the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field-dress a moose. With the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the interest of historical accuracy, here is a list of other major party nominees who I'm fairly certain could have field dressed a moose:
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
William Henry Harrison
Zachary Taylor
Ulysses S. Grant
And I'm sure that Bill Clinton could undress a moose.
It does not need to be as divisive as it seems to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience explores "Creation."
If you take scientific theory to the origin, You get gas. A violent fart from, shrug, somewhere. You can't get something from nothing. If, "God", light, truth, whatever sound you wish to associate with the concept,. Evolved life on this Inconsequential little planet from single cells, or, brought the universe into existence from somewhere outside, as science most assume. Study it. Learn as you are programmed to. Search for the truth in this mirage. Smart people will learn the truth as pertains to this physical realm. You are still ants. Very smart ants, discussing how the hell the table was made.
The mechanisms of life are not the end result. Reverse engineering will never make you the creator. Play nicely boys. Love your neighbor as yourself. (Not you suicidal, angry fools.)
Love the truth and search for it,
Remember.
Zantax, Prilozac.
Your colony is thriving in spite of the hungry, murdered, oppressed and forgotten.
Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Take care of the widows and orphans. And keep looking for me. I'm here.
Truth
outhere - the sentiment at the end is very nice, but:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You can't get something from nothing. If, "God", light, truth, whatever sound you wish to associate with the concept"
Where did God, light, truth, whatever, come from? Because as you said, you can't get something from nothing. ... OR can you?
(The idea of never something from nothing is, I think, largely inspired from the physics of this universe (quantum fluctuations aside - actually there may be a way to incorporate them into the notion - quantum fluctuations couldn't happen without the spacetime and physics we have or some other such version of it). What if there were 'somewhere' nothing? If there were nothing then there could be no physics, as that would be something? If there are no rules, then what prevents something from 'happening'? What if 'nothing' is inherently unstable and is always breaking down into somethings?)
"Search for the truth in this mirage. Smart people will learn the truth as pertains to this physical realm. You are still ants. Very smart ants, discussing how the hell the table was made.
The mechanisms of life are not the end result. Reverse engineering will never make you the creator."
Scientists generally would acknowledge as much about 'very smart ants', and not becoming the creator* (well, not THE creator as such - there is an idea that over time we might develope the power and knowledge such that we create the universe, thereby explaining how we got here - well, 'sort of' (there's a quantum mechanical Copenhagen interpretation four versions of the anthropic principle blablabla...) - see David Darling, "Equations of Eternity" - although also note the Everett Interpretation, 'parallel' universes - great article in Scientific American a few years back on that (Max Tegmark?)).
It is also true that we sense and percieve is in a sense something of a mirage - in the sense that the actual sensation of 'blue' is something that occurs in the mind, somehow with a neural correlate in the brain (Francis Crick, "The Astonishing Hypothesis") that is reacting to signals from the eye caused by the arrival of some photons whose wavelengths fell within a particular range (or else, by the activation of the same neural correlate or some part of it? by other activity within the brain, such as during remembering or visualizing, imagining, etc, or by some optical illusion that either 'tricks' the eye ('after image'?) or some part of the brain into activating that same neural correlate, etc...
Of course, technically speaking, none of this c
... none of this can be proven, and you don't know that I'm even a real person. You might be in 'The Matrix'. It's possible that you're the only conscious entity and the rest of 'us' only appear similar to you. You don't really even know that you were conscious two seconds ago - memories of that could be an illusion created by the memory in your brain - you need not have been conscious for their creation. I am speaking not of consciousness in the observable medical sense of the word, by the way...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, for what science can't answer (or effectively question), we have philosophy, with which we can consider and reason at least.
First of all, special interests butter both sides of their bread. Always have. The telling thing about Big Oil's contributions to John McCain is the quid pro quo it suggests: the timing just doesn't look right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to drilling in ANWR or anywhere else, don't get the impression that I'm against drilling for that oil.
That oil has been down there a long time. How long? 60 million years? 120 million years? Something like that. Since the dinosaurs roamed the earth, in any case.
So, what's the all fired rush to get it out of the ground today? Don't you think the technology for extracting that oil would be safer, more efficient and cheaper in a couple of hundred years?
A couple of hundred years is barely a blink of the eye in geological terms. Almost certainly civilization will need it more then than now.
So, do Sarah Palin, the Bush administration and the big oil companies have the planet's best interests at heart when they want to extract ANWR and offshore oil today instead of waiting a fraction of a geological heart beat to do it right? Or are they maybe being self-serving and don't care a hoot for the fragile arctic, global warming or our society's petroleum addiction?
First of all, special interests butter both sides of their bread. Always have. The telling thing about Big Oil's contributions to John McCain is the quid pro quo it suggests: the timing just doesn't look right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to drilling in ANWR or anywhere else, don't get the impression that I'm against drilling for that oil.
That oil has been down there a long time. How long? 60 million years? 120 million years? Something like that. Since the dinosaurs roamed the earth, in any case.
So, what's the all fired rush to get it out of the ground today? Don't you think the technology for extracting that oil would be safer, more efficient and cheaper in a couple of hundred years?
A couple of hundred years is barely a blink of the eye in geological terms. Almost certainly civilization will need it more then than now.
So, do Sarah Palin, the Bush administration and the big oil companies have the planet's best interests at heart when they want to extract ANWR and offshore oil today instead of waiting a fraction of a geological heart beat to do it right? Or are they maybe being self-serving and don't care a hoot for the fragile arctic, global warming or our society's petroleum addiction?
Science, walks into a field. Turns over a stone. Grabs the bugs scurrying for shelter. Takes the bugs apart, analyzing, why do they run? Studies the light, the dampness, the startle factor, what the hell were they eating anyway? On and on depending on the technology and time in which the "Science" is performed. Formulates a theory and proclaims, "I know this rock and why it is here". (There are many stones.) God bless the curious. (That's in the Bible. Outthere 6-47)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSometimes being scientific is a good thing. Sometimes being a cave man is a good thing. Sometimes being an airhead is, well, someone will turn that stone over and discover how it came to be. Why? That's another issue.
We still need to "Love our brother as ourselves. And, not think of ourselves more highly than we should.
The challenges we face as a self serving species are plenty.
Share the tit. Have faith. ( Kinda like the stock exchange. Though they seem to have very little faith at times.)
Science will discover heaven if given enough time.
Curious men will turn over every stone, Its their nature.
We are not the sum of our parts.
All of our parts,
Have made us something more.
I won't vote for a Bible-Thumper; modern Western Mythology says to expect the End soon...these people plan to make it happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI won't vote for a Bible-Thumper; these people believe the End is near, and will do their best to bring it about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you comment about Sarah Palin and her views on offshore drilling, also remember that Obama believes we will be independent in 10 years. How can that be possible? Also, if we don't teach multiple views in the classroom, we are lying to our students. They don't have to believe Creationism, but they should definetly be granted the privilege of being exposed to it regardless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I am 16 and an avid Creationist. i would have to argue the statement dougout made, "By teaching creationism as equal to evolution, we equate untestable dogma with testable theory, and therefore blur the most fundamental scientific principle, which is to rely on evidence. Teaching creationism devalues the scientific method. If kids can't distinguish between arguments based on assertion from those based on evidence, how can they form intelligent opinions on scientific issues like global warming, or for that matter almost any complex issue?" I would say as an ex-kid and logical thinker that Evolution is not based on evidence anymore than Creationism is. And quite frankly their is not enough tangible evidence to be convinced about either. But for me, Christianity and the Bible has been capable of answering every question proposed in my mind and provided other-worldly evidence as well. While evolution has blaring gaps and weakness in every aspect of its core theories and far too may unexplainable phenomena without an all-powerful source. Also, how can kids form any opinions when they are only confronted with one possible solution for a problem. Their opinions would all be the same, and they would likely reach the same conclusions on most problems. Application of the Scientific Method brought me to the answer of Creationism; others would see different if Creationism was mentioned in school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a couple hundred years we'll look back on today as the dark ages. Given the advances in scientific discovery and technology, we won't need, want, think about oil. It will be very ancient history in 1st grade.The bottom line is, two thumbs up for the naturaly curious. Two for the those with faith in something other than self serving humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do seem to need extremists however.
The left.
The right.
The well intended in the middle.
The fools in the left, right, middle?
And,,,,,, Dandunn.
Don't vote or not vote for a "Bible thumper". On that issue alone. It's minimal.
They are as diverse as the those searching for a clue as to, "How the hell does this work".
Grant and allegroassai -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf students in science class are to be exposed to evolution and creationism/ID as theories with equal standing, why should it stop there? Anyone should be able to make something up and force it into the classroom regardless of evidence.
Grant - evidently you haven't been taught enough about evolution to really understand what it is and why it's such a solid scientific theory.
I don't have a problem mentioning ID and creationism in a science class but only in order to dispel the misunderstandings (this isn't generally what people mean when they say they are in favor of teaching both or teaching 'the [pretend] controversy')
They don't teach that the sun goes around the earth, or that the moon has no craters, or that Io and Ganymede don't exist, anymore in astronomy classes. Why shouldn't students be exposed to these ideas? Well, of course, to varying degrees they may be exposed, because sometimes a science class starts out with a history of the science. It is hard to fit creationism/ID into that context, however, but it could be mentioned there, I suppose.
Pity poor Grant. Only 16 and already a closed mind. Extrapolating a theory from data he doesn't have. But he has faith, albeit misplaced faith. Put that faith in science -- in facts, not myths -- and the truth will make you free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this discussion has been going on, the satirical publication The Onion did a piece, "Evolutionists Flock to Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain."
DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.
“'I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits,' said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed “Scopes Monkey Trial” and is widely considered one of Darwinism’s holiest sites. 'Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested.'”
"Added Freiberg, 'Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!'”
It's here:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
Truth through satire? Why is it that Americans are not willing to scoff at religion when it affects our freedoms -- be they the freedom of scientific inquiry or the freedom to walk down the street without having a bomb go off in our face?
Simply stumbling on theonion article which was pointed out made following this whole blog worth my while...priceless. It is indeed truth through satire, but it will simply be written off by many as blasphemy, irrespective of whether they understand the satire or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, politicalscientist, for pointing out the article. I'm now going to go email it to everyone I know!
Best regards.
test
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the "Last Poets" said - "The White Man has a God Complex", and you science-is-my religion types are the worse. I appreciate science as a tool to serve mankind. But you science-is-my religion types get testy when it's pointed out that your religious beliefs (the Big Bang & Evolution) are challenged. Be Honest, Science's uses include proving things true and false. Stop being dishonest about these things. When science proves a point, you trumpet it; when science disproves a point, you hide and cover it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSociety pays a heavy price already for the "Science-is-my-Religion" crowd. Let's add it up - the Hadron Collider, Hubbel Space Telecscope, Neutrino Detectors, Space Probes, huge radio telescopes listening for signs of intelligent life out summary in deep space -- proving that their "Big Bang" theory of the Universe is true, all praises due to the great God Evolution.
Science is a useful tool for searching and probing. And so is the Human Being. There are realities into which science has no entry such as the Great mysteries of Life, Death, Spirit, Soul, and Love. Of course, Science can comment, as long as it realizes that its comments are simply guesses, to be thrown in the hopper with everyone else and with equal value.
And show a little humility, you Science-is-my-Religion Types. Dark Matter.
Dark Matter. Dark Energy. Need I say any more?
Wow, do these people just hang out here waiting to jump in with this drivel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Until then, ALL hypothesis is theory", "To sum up. There are no facts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are you even doing on this site? I suggest that you research the definitions of hypothesis and theory as you have no idea of what you are talking about.
You've reguritated some terms you've obviously seen in magazines and the internet without any understanding, hoping to sound intelligent.
I have no doubt that certain Repubs. had big-time $$$ invested in ANWR. I have even less doubt that the reason Ms. Sarah was selected was to make "dog-gone" sure that their investments paid off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no doubt that certain Repubs (ie. Rudy) had big-time $$$ invested in ANWR. I have even less doubt that the reason Ms. Sarah was selected was to make "dog-gone" sure that their investments paid off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this