Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually absent from science education.... As one of the hallmarks of the scientist is critical, rational skepticism, the lack of opportunities to develop the ability to reason and argue scientifically would appear to be a significant weakness in contemporary educational practice. In short, knowing what is wrong matters as much as knowing what is right. — Jonathan Osborne, “Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse," Science Magazine, April 23, 2010
I love your site! I **really** enjoy reading it for several specific reasons: 1. It uses the latest (as in this month!) research as a launch pad for opinion; for years I have searched for this from a creation science viewpoint, and now, I’ve found it. 2. You have balanced fun with this topic. This is hugely valuable! Smug Christianity is ugly, and I don’t perceive that attitude in your comments. 3. I enjoy the expansive breadth of scientific news that you cover. 4. I am not a trained scientist but I know evolutionary bologna/(boloney) when I see it; you help me to see it. I really appreciate this. — a computer technology salesman in Virginia
The rule that science refuse teleology seems, therefore, less a requirement of science as such than a logical consequence of materialism: if materialism is true, then no fundamental or real teleology can exist in nature for science to study; instead, any teleology or intelligence in nature must result from underlying nonteleological processes. The question therefore arises whether nature, conceived in purely material terms, possesses the ability to create all the information that we find in it. — William Dembski, Being as Communion (2014), pp49-50
If any principle in science deserves to be called a “law,” what would it be? Undoubtedly, the law of conservation of matter and energy: neither of these fundamental entities can be created or destroyed. Also known as the first law of thermodynamics, this law has no known exceptions anywhere in the universe. Whoever discovered this law must have been a scientist of the highest rank, a PhD, director of a reputable university research department, respected the world over, and interred in Westminster Abbey, right? Actually, he was none of the above. For him, science was just a hobby. He had trouble getting his ideas published. Professional scientists looked down on him, and were it not for the help of a friend, his work might have been lost in obscurity. Yet his experimental procedures and measurements were of the highest caliber, and the principles he deduced from them are of fundamental importance. They helped shape our modern world, and every housekeeper is a beneficiary of the discoveries he made. Units and laws of physics were named after this somewhat reserved, unassuming, serious-minded citizen scientist by the name of James Prescott Joule.
Question: what is the most abundant sedimentary rock in the world? Follow-up question: what would happen to the science of geology if the consensus theory of how this most abundant sedimentary rock was deposited turns out to be wrong? Prepare for a paradigm shift: experiments have shown mistakes in long-held assumptions about mudstone formation. Here’s […]
Rubisco sounds like a brand of cracker or something, but it’s actually an air cleaner your life depends on. It’s an enzyme that fixes atmospheric carbon for use by photosynthetic microbes and plants. In doing so, it sweeps the planet of excess carbon dioxide – the greenhouse gas implicated in discussions of global warming – […]
And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.' —Jesus Christ, in Matthew 19:4-6