What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
226 Comments
- mcbarron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17No scientist "dogmatically" believes theories. But science represents our "best guess" based on reams and reams of recorded knowledge, observational data, logical reasoning, and many many great minds thinking and re-thinking a given question. It's not fact, but it's as close as we can get (until a better "fact" is accepted by the scientific community).
- machinelou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11What's screwed up here is the popular use of the idea "truth" (or fact) as evidenced by Mr. Deutsch, our own Zorn, and probably both democrats and republicans alike (including many scientists). This idea is responsible for serious misunderstandings of what science is and what theories do for science.
To say that a theory is either true (factual) or false is over simplistic in a way that is analogous to a 3-year-old's tendancy to put characters in a film as either "good" or "bad". First of all, to be a scientist, you've got to assume that there really is a world out there to study. This can't be proven in any conventional sense of the word "proven". It simply relies on the scientist's persuasive argument that it might be a good idea to behave as though there is a world out there.
Second, it can be successfully argued that well-proven theories turn out to be "false" under some conditions. Does this mean that they are not true? For example, the ptolemaic theory actually did a pretty decent job at predicting the positions of the stars. In addition, the coprenican system, even when it was accepted, could not predict the positions of the stars any better. Would that mean that the coprenican system was false? Clearly, notions of truth and fact are not useful at characterizing theories or chosing which of two theories is more useful.
Different theories may different kinds of utility. For example, consider a cartoon-ish map of disney world, one that is drawn completely out of scale (as they usually are). This map might be helpful at getting you from Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to Tomorrow Land, so in a sense, it is useful. On the other hand, consider a topographic map that contains much more precision. It would be completely useless at helping you navigate back to your SUV parked in the Donald Duck Section.
The Big Bang is useful because it combines other pieces of information about the universe that we have good reasons for trusting. For example, it provides an account for why the universe appears to be expanding as evidenced by phase shift. Compared to intelligent design, the big bang is much more testable, doesn't appeal to supreme beings or magic, and is in agreement with a lot of other phenomena that scientists agree on. - Midnightbrewer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Science does not preclude religion, or vice-versa. You cannot treat science as a religious belief (if, for no other reason, that saying, "I believe in the power of my coffee maker" sounds a bit silly, albiet well-deserved. I mean, that's where the *coffee* comes from.) You also cannot treat religion as science. Most religions agree that the entire point is that the existence of God, Buddha, the afterlife, or whatever you happen to believe in is inherently unprovable, and so must therefore be taken on faith.
People should not be afraid of science, nor fear that science precludes God. My advice on that point would be to spend some quiet time examining your own faith rather than confusing *how* things work with *why* things work. On the other hand, nobody should try to espouse science as a religion; as stated above, science is a description of processes that happen whether you believe in them or not, like gravity.
Finally, something the pro-ID people should remember, when trying to pawn off creationism as a theory, is that theirs is not the only "theory" in terms of the supernatural, either. If we're going to be completely fair, then we have to teach the Buddhist, Hinduist, Shamanist, Shintoist, and others as well.
I like the separation of church and state. Let's keep it that way. Thank goodness I live in wonderfully Shinto-Buddhist-but-mostly-agnostic Japan. - Zorn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@ artifez. You don't understand the meaning of the word 'theory'. A theory (like that of electricity) is a body of rational, testable explanation. Theory does not mean 'guess', 'hypothesis' or opinion. Just what do you think the difference is between having an 'opinion' and the weight of scientific and philosophical consensus over a period of time? And remember, science is self-correcting. If one scientist gets it wrong, others correct him or her. And also—just because original causes may not yet be fully understood does not therefore warrant the adoption of patently irrational explanations.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Blah, the "big bang" theory is a theory, not proven."
What alternate, testable theory do you provide, then? No scienctist dogmatically believes in the big bang, but won't abandon it to 2000 year old fairy tales. - Bromskloss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Is advocating Big Bang to go against the conception of a creator? Why would that be so?
- Soave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Um. I fail to see what the big deal is. So he's trying to make NASA clearly state that the Big Bang is just a theory. Until it's 100% proven, get over it.
- wingm8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I still don't see how intelligent design is incompatible with evolution, the big bang, and a host of other scientific concepts. What I mean is that it's not one or the other.
- TimmyK., on 10/12/2007, -3/+6A Bush appointee who is totally unqualified for his job, AND a religious wacko working to undermine the integrity of the organization he was assigned to?! NO. I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THIS.
Seriously this is not protecting religious freedom, it is trying to force religion, ONE PARTICULAR religion, on everybody. This is totally UNAMERICAN. People have to start calling these scum bags, including Bush and all of his horde, on how UNAMERICAN what they are doing is. Forcing one religion on us goes against everything this country was supposed to be, yet the same ***** who claim that they are the most patriotic are trying to do just that. - vermin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Every time there's an intelligent design story on Digg I always laugh to myself at those who would discount the value of knowing a creator created the Earth and our universe. I also have to laugh at those Christian's who believe the creator is their god, because CLEARLY it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster who created everything, as per our great scriptures. Pastafarians unite!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8First "Activist Judges".... now, continue down the prim rose, yellow bricked path with our spiffy new neo-con shades (why? because the future is so bright!) to discover "Activist Scientists".
...imagine the surprise when we discover the *EVERYTHING* can be politicized, including "science". - sdresser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Big Bang theory does NOT go against reiligion! If a creator DID create the universe, how would it have probably happened? With a BANG! Everyone reading this needs to read the book, or watch the special, "The Priveleged Planet."
- bryan8m, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Cache: http://www.badastronomy.com.nyud.net:8090/bablog/2006/02/04/outrage-at-attacks-on-nasa-science/
- raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12There is science behind the big bang theory (matter is moving away from a single point being one of the more notable).
There's 0 evidence behind "Intellegent Design". Nothing at all.
That is why the big bang theory is a working theory, when ID is nothing but religious bantering.
Even the Roman Catholic Church doesn't buy into ID, it's just to far for an organization that believed Galileo was an incarnation of the devil for his thoughts on the universe.
Digg for showing how science is being tainted by politicians - noodhoog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Dugg because it's on Bad Astronomy. Phil Plait kicks ass
- vladharkonen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Wizard of ID at work .. what a hoot ..
seems that some folks in the current administration can't remember, that NASA's role isn't to literally discover WHY .. but for the most part to discover HOW ..
anything beyond that simply makes their folks sound even more clueless than even I give them credit to be. - burrito4891, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9I'm SO tired of frightened conservatives limiting the progress of our country and species. I cannot wait till Liberals take back control of this country.
- Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I really enjoy science.
I don't enjoy it when people present information as factual data though. It's one thing to identify and present a scientific detail but a whole other issue when the same document adds this to a distant theory and presents it as confirmed data.
I guess what I mean is its a case of one taking a small portion of a much more significant topic and adding just the right blend to make it look and sound as though the bigger concept is definite. I personally don't see how asking the scientific community to identify theory from tangible findings is an anti-science move. If this was any other case other than contributing factors in the origin of man we would not settle for anything less than factual data otherwise the results would be inconclusive.
Every time I see documents on this I can't help but question why people can't accept that science and God would be in direct relationship to each other instead of engrossing ssystems. Including the big bang theory.
Regardless when you really thing about it, science is merely people (men and women) like ourselves led by ambitions and desires. In all fairness it would be safe to say that under the concept of ID no one on this planet would really be qualified to decipher the secrets to our existence. If this planet last long enough I think in time people will realize that theories and ideas will be the extent of our abilities to figure it all out. - ryogahibiki, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This is why there ABSOLUTELY NEEDS to be separation between Church and State. I've got no problems with Christians in general. Some of my friends are Christians and they're great people. My problem is when certain people, in the name of Christianity try to push their religious dogma on everyone else. Who are these people to say what I should and shouldn't believe? And not only that, if these Christians had their way, we would need to be taught "intelligent design" along with accepted scientific theory. Well, what about all the other religions then? Should we also then be taught about Judiasm and Budism and Islam and all the other major religions of the world in public school too? Where does it end? How would you Christians feel if the majority of people in America believed in Islam and these Islamic people wanted THEIR religion taught in scientific classes across America? I bet you would change your tune then, huh?
As Americans, we are blessed to worship the religion of our choice. But to have any religion forced upon us, even in the guise of "an alternative teaching/theory" is so extremely dangerous, this can be the beginning of the end of America as we know it. Everybody who cares about freedom should do everything in their power to prevent any religious dogma forced upon them whether it is in school, the government or, I guess now, in Nasa. Amen. - BritOverseas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You know what this reminds me of, apart from ultra conservative dogma being pushed on Americans by a Gun toting maniac?
Monty Python and "The Life of Brian". "Follow the shoe, No, Follow the Gourd!!!"
It basically insulted every western religion in one easy to manage package and called all of them what they are, hogwash. Some of you guys should watch it sometime and stop taking yourselves seriously.
I am an Agnostic, through and through, and, unless I am visited by one of the Gods himself I will stay that way until the moment I become a different kind of matter in the universe, my Ego is not so fragile as to think I am here for a greater purpose or created by some omnipotent being FOR that purpose.
I have traveled extensively (for my work as an engineer in the Oil & Gas industry) and during my travels I have come into contact with people of many religions and cultures, asked them questions about their religions, even in the Middle East (I know, never talk about money, religion or politics but sometimes, its the WAY you ask), some good, some decidedly bad. If I absolutely HAD to choose one, I would probably be a Buddhist, or maybe a Hindu. They preach non violence and meditation as a means of contacting their God, which is O.K by me.
I have read both the bible and I have also read a translation of the Koran. Both make lip service to non violent means but all the followers of these faiths bend those supposedly good teachings to their will when the "others" don't tow their religious line, anybody ever hear about the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc etc etc?
I agree with a poster above, when there is no more religion we will do away with genocide, bigotry (for the most part, there are always people who will be racists) and a whole multitude of other onerous human traits.
Seems to me, the only people that really NEED religion are not exactly confident in their place in the whole grand scheme of things, I think I know mine, I am a human being, on a big rock, around a little sun, in a big universe. Apart from that, who knows?
Show me some proof and I would believe, until then, I will not believe a bunch of second hand translations that have been doctored to kowtow to Roman Catholic party policy. - EdwinBubble, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
The incompetence and brutal ignorance of this maladministration never ceases to amaze.
On the other hand since they've run their foreign policy on the basis of superstition and voodoo rather than rational thought, I suppose it's not surprise that they're trying to do the same to NASA.
The USA is rapidly becoming a joke to the rest of the world. - geoff0522, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Who is he to say that God did not create the universe through a "big bang"?
- weirdbro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You know, I'd like to believe that a real person wrote this article, but I can't prove it, can I?
Digg++ because someone has to complain when religion attacks science. - Roche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A few more details are here, since Bad Astronomy is still unavailable: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/05/153532.php Definite digg.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"opiniont the Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion"
Let's deconstruct. Definition fact:
1.Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
3. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
Definition "opinion":
1 A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2 A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3 A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
So, is the universe expanding? Yupper unless you overthrow all physics and math. Does this mean there was a big bang? Well like everything else one can argue no since no one actually saw it. In fact even if someone did you can call them a liar and part of a devious political movement that involves basically every scientist on earth. However as there is no exists no evidence to support otherwise (i.e. facts) therefore we consider it a fact until/if some new evidence arises.
Conclusion" Therefore it is the "opinion" of George Deutsch that he is competent in his position.
Definition "competent":
1. Properly or sufficiently qualified; capable: a competent typist.
2. Adequate for the purpose: a competent performance. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3there was a similar thing that went on earlier... when the soviet union was formed scientist there believed in "lamarkian evolution." basically, it theorized that if you cut the tails of rats for successive generations the rats would eventually loose there tails. it was of course complete bull *****... but it did start the soviet union down the path to create the "new soviet man." they believed that if they created a ridged set of social rules that after successive generations they would achieve a superior human. that's what politicos who are stupid do to lots of people in the name of... well, stupidity.
- idarkiswordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I tend to try and stay in neutral in issues like this but seriously... Why is it hard to understand that there are very few mathematical possibilities for what happened at the beginning of the universe. There is more than one theory, but the best supported one as of now is the Big Bang Theory. It is in fact a theory because of many scientists have run the calculations on movement of the stars and galaxies and dispersement of matter, and come to the same conclusion, that a very long time ago, all matter used to be very tight and then exploded into the universe at a rapid pace. Sure, there are some big holes in the thoery, but to the best of our *scientific* knowledge, its the best we have. If you want to get up on your high horse and preach about how god created the universe, I have one question for you, where the ***** did he come from eh? Cant answer that cause its impossible to prove otherwise, hence why ID is not science. Science must be testable and falsifiable, and when theres no way to do that, it is not science.
- deathpasser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why do Christian fundamentalists have to see Big bang as contradictory to intelligent design? And how the hell is talk of intelligent design getting into secular government research?
- dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I found a link today in digg to a Stanford professor, Alex Mayer, who has a different theory of time. According to his theory:
"The universe is not expanding and never existed in a hot dense phase following a primordial singularity." It is possible to present different theories that are mathematically plausible.
Let's not argue the big bang theory at the same level we argue for evolution. Scientists develop theories to try to explain the behavior of the universe, nothing more and nothing less. In that sense, science is a game, not an absolute. - sremick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't get how people can use the "probability" argument when it comes to life and creationism-vs-evolution.
Were the necessary steps highly-improbable? Of course. That's why we have yet to find life on any other planet. But you can't say, "It's so improbable, it had to be due to ID." That very neatly glosses over the incredibly obvious fact that if it HADN'T worked out this way, we wouldn't be here to count that failed roll of the dice. The universe is VERY old and VERY big (start counting stars sometime if you don't believe me). It doesn't matter if it took several 1-in-a-billion lucky draws to form life, the universe, or anything else, since BY DEFINITION one has to be at the receiving end of one of those lucky-draws to even EXIST and be able to ponder it. All the billions of failed combos of variables that didn't lead to life elsewhere just fizzled out without anyone around to count them.
I firmly believe that the biggest reason so many humans cannot grasp evolution is our general utter inability to fully comprehend numbers like millions/billions/trillions and spans of time more than a few thousand years. Our own mortal limitations restrict the playground of our mind and imagination into something of virtually no meaning in the grand scale of things. - dwaterbly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Big Bang or No Bang, how did the matter get there in the first place? Either way of looking at it there is a belief that something was created out of nothing at some point.
- Thor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can not allow religion to dictate science. You want proof? The pope declared that the Earth was not flat in 1992. Gee, no kidding.
- Vectorman2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2NASA is a scientific organization; intelligent powers outside scientific measurement should not, and are not, the domain of science.
- Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1.
As secular and goofy as C. Sagan was, we certainly need someone else like him to come along to explain the convoluted semantics and frustrations of these armchair theologians and physicists. . .geesh.
. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3>About time somebody stood up to all the anti intellectualism that seems to growing at the moment
here here... i've had it. this idea that all idea are equal in the lofty halls of truth just isn't so. some deserve no hearing and thats that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Don't just vote the neocons out of office. Drag them out of office and kill them.
- PrimoTurbo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory
Big Bang is a scientific theory
That is all. - M4K3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I didnt know "creation by intellectual design" (aka GOD) was proven either.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>starmanjones, if Physics doesn't allow us to see far enoguh back to understand
>what hapened before hte Big Bang in terms of where the matter was, then you can
>easily make an argument that if Physics DID allow us to go far enough back, it
>would prove that there is a supreme being.
woah... leap of illogic. no i can't easily make any sort of arguement like that. one... i don't expect it will be forever beyond us. Two, i wouldn't make any claims to know what was back there until i had some reasonable idea... there is not one thing in this universe that would cause me to think... "currently the state of physics goes back to such and such time... and because we can't currently break that barrier our best guess is the tooth fairy did it. "
you make no sense in your arguements. but honestly... what i don't expect is that you will ever have a clue.
>Can't have it both ways. You can't say that the Big Bang is a fact, depsite the
>fact that we can't go far enough back to prove it, but then say that God is
>definitely not real becuase physics can't prove it.
as a person of science... i don't regularly make any committments for the record that are beyond my veiw. thats just the way we are. but what i do-do is identify the possible or maybe probable events in some mental heirarchy. god or the tooth fairy creating the universe is at the very bottom... so far down that they are considered on the reject pile. and we often have a good laugh at your expense.
>mister.joshua ...it is ***** like you that are the reason why the ultra left
>are having enough trouble voting the republicans out of office at all. Becuase
>you are VERY alone in this country in terms of how you think. Even Hillary
>Clinton would laugh at you. (And not just after seeing you naked.)
wait... let me just say for mister.joshua... the reason republicans are in office is because they have figured out how manufacture votes. you can read that in a recent GAO report.
and i was there. and mister.joshua was hitting hillary the whole time bill was being the best president we ever had. so... go hillary you got my vote. why don't you and bill run. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>Now was it neccesary for the topic creator to mention bush? No, just trying to
>discredit him further. In an article where a bush appointee is the one doing the
>good, then he would not be mentioned as one. As americans, people should not be
>calling our president stupid just because they disagree with his beliefs. He has
>a freakin MB from harvad, idiots dont get MBAs from harvard...
yes it is. the rest of us. i mean real americans recognize bush for what he is. and planting stooges in place of real qualified people is part of the game. i don't call him stupid because i disagree with his beleifs i call him stupid because his beleifs are stupid. ID? stupid. how can a guy push science and tech when he is against it in most forms.
and... in case you didn't know it. rich ellitiest americans have been paying people to go to class for them for EVER! don't be stupid. oh, i guess you look up to stupid... so i guess you.. well... you all confuse everyone. :D - BSpolice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@5blocksfree: I agree with you, but it's hard to sit still with this sort of thing going on. What I want to know is, why hasn't some bright mind from the scientific community gone to the media with the actual (rather than the ID - and apparently White House) definition of the word "theory"?
On that note, here are the definitions from a few dictionaries:
The American Heritage dictionary: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
Wordnet 2.0 (Princeton): "1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory""
Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary: "1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena —see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation" - BritOverseas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Despite all of this discussion, have you ever noticed it is almost impossible to discuss, intellegently, the subject or religion with somebody who is devoutely religious. First of all, when you point out some of the obvious holes in the mighty book, there is denial. Then, when they finally come to realise that maybe, just maybe, all might not be well with the world, they then start to get angry. Then, all of a sudden you are a blasphemer or an infidel or my favorite, you are "sad & stupid for not being able to 'feel' God"and so on and so on.
I once had a discussion about theology with a reverand in the U.K. Nothing was heated, nothing untoward until I mentioned the word "Evolution". It was like a "nasty" switch had been turned on. I won't go into the whole conversation but basically my favorite comment was "you scientific people, when you don't know what you are talking about, you trot out that old evolution thing". I wasn't aware that hundreds of years of scientific research had been rebuked and to be quite honest I was a little saddened to find somebody like that that still taught schoolkids in the U.K. In the Baptist revival halls of the deep South yes, but not in a large metropolitan area of the U.K. Disturbing. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't know what everyone is gettting so worked up about...these words were uttered by some 24-year-old puke with little to no scientific training, in a political position appointed by the same person who gave us the former director of FEMA, and is apparently someone who I'd opine has a very big mouth. I say laugh and enjoy the ride - it's amazing how one single administration can so consistently make itself look so incredibly foolish.
- Bromskloss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2starmanjones writes: "look in any church. i bet you can find some white guys today that will fight you over whether jesus was white."
Um, what kind of churches have you visited? Never heard of anything like it in any of the churches I've been to. - BSpolice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@tonage:"And you religionaphobes wonder why there is so much crime and people doing bad things in this country."
It's because statements like that, and the people who make them, that I cannot stand religion. Get it through your head that holding religious beliefs is NOT a necessary precondition to being a good, law-abiding person. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3having the government appoint inqusitors to publicly attack sciencists is what the roman catholic church did 100's of years ago. watch for scienctists burning at stakes soon.
seriously, when government starts taking this road, your country is *****.
dugg because ***** like this can't go unchecked - Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Unreal Alex:
"Intelligent Design" is not theory, it's pure and utter crap that the Religious Right wants to push on us because they are still back in the Dark Ages where Science is evil. -
Show 51 - 100 of 226 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is