Mistrust of Science - Evolution vs Creationism in the classroom

[all caps]

Ah yes, this theme. This is where you guys try to paint a picture of the “religion of science”. Let me save you some time: you’re projecting. I’m quite confident that I’m speaking for everyone in this thread who’s arguing for the science side that they’re ready to change their opinion as soon as new evidence becomes available: if someone is able to offer irrefutable proof that creationism is true and that the theory of evolution is false, we’ll change our minds. Can you honestly say the same for yourself?

Im not trying to nor interested in changing anyones opinion. Youre welcome to believe whatever you want.

Its you guys that are hell bent on forcing you religion on everyone.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

.....what?

We're using technology based on Quantum Mechanics right now to access Sherdog. Everything modern convenience around you that you utilize was brought to you by science.

 

[Grenz]

Im not trying to nor interested in changing anyones opinion. Youre welcome to believe whatever you want.

Its you guys that are hell bent on forcing you religion on everyone.

Yes, we're very sorry. We know that some of you are terribly uncomfortable with inventions like the computer or phone that you're typing on. Maybe we can make this right by you: can you point us to the passage in the bible that contains the instructions for building an airplane? Where's the part that covers electricity and how to generate it? Also, if there's anything about a COVID-19 vaccine in there, now would be a good time.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

Im not trying to nor interested in changing anyones opinion. Youre welcome to believe whatever you want.

Its you guys that are hell bent on forcing you religion on everyone.

If science wasnt "forced " where do you think we would be technologically right now? What has religion brought us in advancement over the last 120 years? Nothing

 

[degoj99]

Isn't this the default position in Science since we can't observe or measure the immaterial?

No it's a bogus psych theory that produced results that don't replicate.

 

[all caps]

We're using technology based on Quantum Mechanics right now to access Sherdog. Everything modern convenience around you that you utilize was brought to you by science.

Whats your point

 

[degoj99]

Where do you check your h-index?

Google Scholar.

 

[all caps]

Yes, we're very sorry. We know that some of you are terribly uncomfortable with inventions like the computer or phone that you're typing on. Maybe we can make this right by you: can you point us to the passage in the bible that contains the instructions for building an airplane? Where's the part that covers electricity and how to generate it? Also, if there's anything about a COVID-19 vaccine in there, now would be a good time.

More strawmen

 

[all caps]

If science wasnt "forced " where do you think we would be technologically right now? What has religion brought us in advancement over the last 120 years? Nothing

Im not religious.

 

[Hadron90]

Google Scholar.

I used scopus and posted mine a few pages back.

 

[degoj99]

Nevermind, found it. Scopus has 5 of my 6 papers.

I take it this isn't good.

Depends on your area. Also, h-index is sort of flawed because the older you are, the higher it gets, so it's inappropriate to compare folks at different career stages. My take, though, is that if you have 5 papers indexed on Scopus, and an h-index of 5, that's a great sign. Your work is getting cited, and getting cited quickly. h-index is useful because some people have high citation counts that are based on only one or a few papers, which is misleading. In contrast, your citation count is being driven by all of the papers indexed by Scopus, which is great.

 

[Black Locust]

So if we are going with the old intelligent design theory, who created God? Surely he didn't just come about by chance.

In actuality, the intelligent design theory works to hurt your argument just as much as you think it helps it. Given that God has no predecessors, and is too sophisticated to come about by chance, we must conclude that He had a designer, which would be man.

Do you believe in God?

 

[KeepingItReal]

There isn't a mistrust of science, there is a mistrust of scientists and for good reason. There are scientists who are very much frauds and they basically get a slap on the wrist, if that. They don't lose their accolades or titles. If a scientist commits fraud, the scientific community doesn't say he's not a scientist anymore and won't be allowed to conduct research for the rest of his life.

 

[Hadron90]

Depends on your area. Also, h-index is sort of flawed because the older you are, the higher it gets, so it's inappropriate to compare folks at different career stages. My take, though, is that if you have 5 papers indexed on Scopus, and an h-index of 5, that's a great sign. Your work is getting cited, and getting cited quickly. h-index is useful because some people have high citation counts that are based on only one or a few papers, which is misleading. In contrast, your citation count is being driven by all of the papers indexed by Scopus, which is great.

Thanks for the breakdown. This is my citation distribution. Doesn't seem to heavily weighted on any one paper.

I'm out of academia now though.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

There isn't a mistrust of science, there is a mistrust of scientists and for good reason. There are scientists who are very much frauds and they basically get a slap on the wrist, if that. They don't lose their accolades or titles. If a scientist commits fraud, the scientific community doesn't say he's not a scientist anymore and won't be allowed to conduct research for the rest of his life.

Then why were many Biology teachers trying to teach Creationism or present it as an alternate theory to Evolution for the last few decades. Was it because of the perceived amount of fraud among Evolutionary Biologists? Why did they specifically promote biblical Creationism as an alternate theory?

 

[KeepingItReal]

Then why were many Biology teachers trying to teach Creationism or present it as an alternate theory to Evolution for the last few decades. Was it because of the perceived amount of fraud among Evolutionary Biologists? Why did they specifically promote biblical Creationism as an alternate theory?

I don't know anything about that, I am telling you about what I do know.

 

[jeremyemilio]

This is false. Creationism is completely bogus. If people are gay, or feel like a different sex than they appear to be, there are a multitude of biological reasons why that may be. We need more science not more faith to research that.

Yes, there are biological reasons why people may feel like they are a different sex than they "appear to be" (what a slippery little anti-science phrase that is). But that's not the same as saying that people who "feel like" they are a different sex, actually are a different sex. That's some Grade A bullshit that is every bit as delusional as Creationism.

(And who said anything about being, gay? Where'd that come in?)

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I don't know anything about that, I am telling you about what I do know.

Like you I think there is a problem or at least a potential for corruption in any human endeavor where there's a power dynamic and/or monetary incentives. Whether it be Police, Scientists, Clergy, Politicians, Fortune 500 companies etc. However, there is also a problem with cynicism with the general public. There is no theory or opinion that is "True" and the scientific community has been wrong about a lot of things in the past, but doubting the consensus conclusions of hundreds of Scientists because you believe they all are corrupt seems unreasonable to me.

 

[degoj99]

Thanks for the breakdown. This is my citation distribution. Doesn't seem to heavily weighted on any one paper.

I'm out of academia now though.

You win for smartest on the forum in those journals!

 

[ocean size]

Nevermind, found it. Scopus has 5 of my 6 papers.
I take it this isn't good.

h index: x publications authored that were cited at least x times each. So if you have published five papers, h index = 5 is as good as it gets. that guy @degoj99 that popped in to brag and then not say what field he's in, if his h index is 30 has had a career for a while and is doing quite well in the literature. Some fields publish a lot more frequently than others but still, that requires 30 citations each even if the author was salami slicing the same few datasets,