Evil scientist conspiracy? [Question for young earth folk?]
Offline As it stands, 99% of the cosmologist community in the U.S. accept the expansion of the universe as predicted by the big bang and 99.85% of biologists and earth scientists accept the old earth and evolution. 96% of the scientific community in the U.S. (including members of the scientific community not in the cosmology and life sciences fields) accepts the old universe and evolution. This percentage figure is only higher amongst foreign countries.*
I don't want this to degenerate into an argument over whether or not evolution is correct or whether or not the big bang is correct, but rather, I had an interesting question. If evolution and the old universe are so blatantly wrong, what accounts for this? How are so many scientists fooled, even the religious ones?
My question is sincere, as a member of the scientific community, I genuinely want to know an answer. What prevents you from trusting the scientific community when it comes to the origins of the earth? You trust them enough to design your computers and mend your bodies, but what accounts for this overwhelming distrust of 99% of the scientific community?
I don't know if this is the right forum for this, so please move it to where its appropriate if that's not the case.
*Figures: Newsweek, June 1987 anonymously polled 480,000 earth and life scientists in the U.S. 700 individuals (less than half a percent) believed humans did not evolve from prior animals and that the earth was less than 10,000 years old. 1991 Gallup polls demonstrate that 5% of scientists surveyed (including scientists not in the earth sciences and life science fields) rejected the theory of evolution. More recent surveys show this number to be 4%. The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both support evolution and the old earth.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
Explaining the universe by invoking god is like solving an equation by multiplying both sides with infinity. It gives you a trivial solution and wipes away any real information about the original problem.
- Login to post comments
My question is sincere, as a member of the scientific community,
What's your field, fellow test tube jockey?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
No test tubes for me. I work in the intersection of particle physics and cosmology. Dark matter's my bag.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
Explaining the universe by invoking god is like solving an equation by multiplying both sides with infinity. It gives you a trivial solution and wipes away any real information about the original problem.
It does seem silly that people will go to extraordinary lengths to hold onto such ridiculous beliefs. The fact of the matter is that the bible came from a scientific (not historical) dark age, a few centuries after the wonderful scientific studies of the Greeks and over a millenium and a half before the Enlightenment and modern science. Most Christian beliefs are not based upon scientific study, nor reasoning. It pre-dates modern science by a long way and people are still very much caught under its spell, they don't want to let go of it. For many people going fundamentalist is the only way to hold on, for others going with science is easier (although then you might say their beliefs will pretty much crumble with cherry picking).
It is a psychological need to resist, these people are scared to let go, whether it is the fear of hell (a very useful memetic mechanism) or the dependency on God. It's basically a great big oedipal complex!
Atheist Books
Cool. There are times that I (the biologist) regret not going into physics, although I took quantum physics as a side science, not my profession. Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on who is conducting the WIMP experiments better? The Americans have a giant underground germanium mesh cooled to 1/10,000K above 0K, and they just sit there waiting for a WIMP to strike it and cause detectable vibration. The Europeans have this giant tank filled with flourescent Xenon that should glow when struck by a WIMP. Everyone I have heard is saying that the Europeans are being far more cost effective (their apparatus does not require 0K cooling or a giant underground mesh or round the clock monitoring by bored physicists). I just wanted a professional opinion.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Obviously, the way I'm doing it is the best.
. I don't know exactly how much I can reveal, suffice it to say that our method more closely resembles the latter method using gas as a means of detection, for precisely the reasons you mention.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
Explaining the universe by invoking god is like solving an equation by multiplying both sides with infinity. It gives you a trivial solution and wipes away any real information about the original problem.
Obviously, the way I'm doing it is the best.
.
How many times have I said that? LOL.
don't know exactly how much I can reveal,
Why? Military research? (Just kidding)
suffice it to say that our method more closely resembles the latter method using gas as a means of detection, for precisely the reasons you mention.
Of course, of course. The Yanks apparatus are sucking up cash like a giant vacuum.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Hehe, I don't want to reveal that much because it would be extraordinarily easy for anyone to track me down if I do.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
Explaining the universe by invoking god is like solving an equation by multiplying both sides with infinity. It gives you a trivial solution and wipes away any real information about the original problem.
If you're really that deep into dark matter then nobody knows where you are by definition.
My Artwork
I kind of wish I'd done physics beyond GCSE (the minimum level of education legally required). Reading up on WIMP (because I had no idea what you were talking about it sounds absolutely fascinating. I may indeed start reading some physics textbooks out of general interest.
Atheist Books
the 'science conspiracy against christianity' is actually an expected result of accepting an old contradictory relgious text as literal. If it wasn't so ignorant and oppressive, it would be funny.
I mean, here we are in the information age,and we have two nutty factions basically running much of the world.
On one side, we have religion A, who has people in power who claim they are instructed by their religious text to conquer the world, and they strap on bombs and go to almost any length in their religious wars.
On side B, we have psudo-intellectual americans running this society who, because of their literal interpretation of their text, believe their is a giant conspiracy to hide the evidence of creation, that spirits talk to them and intervene in their personal issues, and that basically all science is fraudulent.
The two groups might as well take up rocks and spears and go at it. This way, the rest of the sane world could just go about our business unhindered by their inane ramblings and actions.