Bush and Science

[Xzion]

a good article expressing how the majority of the scientific community feels towards the progression the Bush admin is allowing them to make, as well as the Bush admins "recomendations"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5722898/

By Matt Crenson
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:08 a.m. ET Aug. 16, 2004

With more than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners, having signed a statement opposing the Bush administration's use of scientific advice, this election year is seeing a new development in the uneasy relationship between science and politics.

In the past, individual scientists and science organizations have occasionally piped up to oppose specific federal policies such as Ronald Reagan's Star Wars missile defense plan. But this is the first time that a broad spectrum of the scientific community has expressed opposition to a president's overall science policy.

Last November, President Bush gave physicist Richard Garwin a medal for his "valuable scientific advice on important questions of national security." Just three months later, Garwin signed the statement condemning the administration for misusing, suppressing and distorting scientific advice.

Feud intensifying
Scientists' feud with the Bush administration, building for almost four years, has intensified this election year. The White House has sacked prominent scientists from presidential advisory committees, science advocacy groups have released lengthy catalogs of alleged scientific abuses by the administration, and both sides have traded accusations at meetings and in the pages of research journals.

"People are shocked by what's going on," said Kurt Gottfried, a Cornell University physicist and chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has been in the vanguard of the campaign against the administration's science policy. Although generally not political, the group — which advocates for use of accurate scientific information in policymaking — has occasionally taken liberal positions, such as opposition to nuclear weapons.

Administration officials dismiss the scientists' concerns as misguided and accuse them of playing politics — of attempting to undermine Bush administration policies by claiming they are based on bad science.

"I don't like to see science exploited for political purposes, and I think that's happening here," presidential science adviser John H. Marburger III said in a telephone interview.

Politics and policy
Some scientists critical of the Bush administration make no secret that they would like to see the president defeated; in a separate letter (PDF file), four dozen Nobel laureates have endorsed John Kerry for president.

But signers of the declaration include scientists with ties to both Republican and Democratic administrations: Lewis Branscomb, a Harvard University professor, headed the federal Bureau of Standards in the Nixon administration. Russell Train was director of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Nixon and Ford and supported George H. W. Bush during the 1988 presidential campaign. Physicists Neal Lane and John Gibbons were both science advisers to President Clinton.

Scientists' disapproval of Bush has not gone unnoticed by the Kerry campaign. This month the Democrats used the third anniversary of Bush's decision to limit federal funding for stem cell research as an opportunity to question the president's commitment to science.

"At this very moment, some of our most pioneering cures and treatments are right at our fingertips, but because of the stem cell ban, they remain beyond our reach," Kerry said in an Aug. 7 radio address, two days before the anniversary.

How science works
Incorporating science into government has always been a sensitive proposition, given the vast differences between them.

Scientists collect evidence and conduct experiments to arrive at an objective description of reality — to describe the world as it is rather than as we might want it to be.

Government, on the other hand, is about anything but objective truth. It deals with gray areas, competing values, the allocation of limited resources. It is conducted by debate and negotiation. Far from striving for ultimate truths, it seeks compromises that a majority can live with.

When these conflicting paradigms come together, disagreements are inevitable.

For example, when a panel of experts, by a 28-0 vote, declared a drug safe for over-the-counter sales in December, they expected the Food and Drug Administration to approve it for nonprescription use soon thereafter.

But six months later the agency disagreed, citing a lack of data about the safety of the drug for 11- to 14-year-old girls.

Three physicians on the FDA advisory panel protested in an editorial published by the New England Journal of Medicine, claiming the agency was distorting the scientific evidence for political reasons.

The drug in question: a morning-after contraceptive known as Plan B.

"A treatment for any other condition, from hangnail to headache to heart disease, with a similar record of safety and efficacy would be approved quickly," the protesting panel members wrote.

Who provides advice?
The federal government relies on hundreds of scientific and technical panels for advice on a wide range of policy issues. Advisers range from wildlife biologists who provide expertise on endangered species to physicists who help guide the development of new weaponry.

Incorporating scientific advice into policymaking involves an implied contract of trust between government officials and scientists. Scientists trust that their advice will be weighed honestly, without attempts to distort, deny or refute it. Government officials trust that scientists will not inject personal opinions or a political agenda into their advice.

From time to time, both sides are accused of breaking that trust. In July, for example, a panel of experts sharply lowered the recommended cholesterol level for patients at risk of heart disease. Consumer groups challenged the recommendation, pointing out that some panel members have financial ties to companies that make cholesterol-lowering drugs.

In the larger dispute, scientists charge that the Bush administration has violated its side of the bargain in two ways: By manipulating scientific information to suit political purposes and by applying a political litmus test to membership on scientific advisory committees.

Hot spots in science policy
The conflict usually centers on scientific advice involving politically contentious subjects such as reproductive health, drug policy and the environment.

Climate scientists, for example, complain they have been frustrated in their attempts to include full and accurate information about global warming in official government reports — a charge the administration denies.

‘The really important questions here are ethical questions; they're not science questions.’


— John Marburger III
White House science adviser

The administration also finds itself at odds with many medical researchers over use of embryonic stem cells. Bush, concerned that harvesting the cells requires the destruction of human embryos, decided in 2001 to restrict federally funded research to a few dozen existing cell lines. But medical researchers, believing stem cells offer a key to curing many debilitating diseases, say the decision severely hampers their work.

"I don't get the sense that science was particularly part of the decision making," said Elizabeth Blackburn, a University of California, San Francisco biologist.

Marburger, Bush's science adviser, sees it differently: "The really important questions here are ethical questions; they're not science questions."

Democrats further politicized stem cell research when they invited Ron Reagan, son of the late president, to speak at their convention in Boston this summer.

"We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology," Reagan said in his speech, urging the audience to "cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research."

Strategies for argument
In any argument people will emphasize information that supports their position and ignore contrary evidence, said Roger Pielke, Jr., a science policy expert at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He calls the strategy "cherrypicking" and considers it a legitimate debating tactic.

"That is different than actually going out and manufacturing or altering the scientific process in a way that guarantees the result will agree with your point of view," Pielke said.

Bush's critics say his administration is doing just that when it screens scientific advisers based on their political views. They argue that when it comes to science, professional qualifications should trump party affiliation.

Blackburn became a cause celebre for many scientists who felt her dismissal from the President's Council on Bioethics in February was retribution for her disagreements with the administration over stem cells and other issues.

Gerald T. Keusch, associate dean for global health at Boston University, says he resigned as director of the National Institute of Health's Fogarty International Center last year after the administration shot down 19 of his 26 picks for advisory positions.

He said one candidate was turned down because she had served on the board of a nonprofit organization dedicated to international reproductive health, another because she supported a woman's right to an abortion.

"I was hopping mad," Keusch said.

Political litmus test?
Dr. D.A. Henderson, a biological weapons expert, said that when President Bush's father chose him for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, it didn't matter that he was a Democrat and that his wife was president of Planned Parenthood of Maryland. All that counted was his expertise.

"I can't imagine that happening today," said Henderson, although he has worked in the last three administrations and now advises the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Marburger dismisses such notions: "I can say from personal experience that the accusation of a litmus test that must be met before someone can serve on an advisory panel is preposterous," he said in an April response to the Union of Concerned Scientists statement.

As proof, he offered himself. He's a Democrat

[Adex_Xeda]

Union of Concerned Scientists?

Heh

[Siji]

Administration officials dismiss the scientists' concerns as misguided and accuse them of playing politics — of attempting to undermine Bush administration policies by claiming they are based on bad science.

Yeah.. because over 4000 scientists and 48 nobel prize winners are obviously prone to being misguided and purely political.. as opposed to the Bush administration's history of honesty and being objective.

[Adex_Xeda]

Scientists collect evidence and conduct experiments to arrive at an objective description of reality — to describe the world as it is rather than as we might want it to be.

Researchers choose the directions that want to pursue and many times avoid directions that they disagree with. When done in mass it creates an inherrent bias in the research. They do indeed describe their world as they want it to be.

I've seen it in action over past decade working amongst these doctorial types.

Politics and idealogy are everywhere. To claim that the scientific community is somehow insulated from it is an overstatement.

One prominent example are global warming "scientists" that rely on doom and gloom assessments to guarantee continued federal funding of their work.

Like religion, the scientific ideal is quite often less than realized because of human failings.

[miir]

Like religion, the scientific ideal is quite often less than realized because of human failings.

Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on interpretation.



So Adex, let me get this straight.
The Bush administration is moving backwards in many scientific fields but because some scientists you have heard in the past had personal bias in their opinions, you can dismiss every scientific study/organization that criticisizes your government's stance on research?

Instead of seeking out information to validate or invalidate thier claims and opinions, you can nonchalantly dismiss them because there is a chance they might be biased?


Is this attitude typical of god fearing Bush supporters?

[Adex_Xeda]

Like religion, the scientific ideal is quite often less than realized because of human failings.

So Adex, let me get this straight.
The Bush administration is moving backwards in many scientific fields but because some scientists you have heard in the past had personal bias in their opinions, you can dismiss every scientific study/organization that criticisizes your government's stance on research?

Your slanted summation aside, I'm not talking about Bush. I was remarking at the journalist's incorrect assumption that the scientific research community was somehow insulated from politics and that their findings are uneffected by personal desires to see the results go one way rather than the other.

Instead of seeking out information to validate or invalidate thier claims and opinions, you can nonchalantly dismiss them because there is a chance they might be biased?

There is bias in everything, scientific research is no exception. I've personally witnessed it during my various university jobs as a research assistant.

People often sacrifice objectivity when it threatens their funding.

[Voronwë]

scientists are very interested in politics, because huge sources of research funding are from the government. The NIH for example.

And they are rightly engaging in political action to act in the better interest of their industry. It so happens that additionally, they are of the opinion that the better interest of their industry in this case is in the better interest of society at large.

We are talking about dollars from the National Institutes for Health, and I am sure most of you can imagine the types of things that the NIH funds. Well basically if you have ever taken a pill, received an injection, or had a medical procedure conducted on you, there is a pretty good chance that dollars from the NIH in some way shape or form helped that process develop - either by funding the science that discovered the mechanism, inspiring pharmaceutical companies to invest in further research, or by literally funding the clinical trials themselves.

Sure scientists are humans and want job security and want their industry to flourish, but we are talking about the real footsoldiers of this industry (Postdoctoral Fellows) who make on NIH payscales in the low $30 thousands of dollars. These are people with PhDs. They work 60 hr weeks and are brilliant and dedicated. They prove on a daily basis that they work for things beyond a profit margin, and I for one greatly respect and appreciate their work and dedication.

They don't have lobbyists (the pharmaceutical industry has more than 1 lobbyist per Congressman) because they can't afford them. Their budgets don't allow them to throw down credit cards at clubs and buy drinks for potential clients, etc.

Anyway, the Bush administration has repeatedly used political operatives to make scientific policy decisions that are frankly assinine.

the ramifications are of course significant for our long term economy as well. It was because of massive government investment in technology in the 50s and 60s that we created microcomputers and the resulting economic boom that followed. We are potentially on the verge of another huge technology boom in the biological sciences, and if we don't fund the research, we won't reap the financial rewards. And somebody else will.

It is a tremendous policy blunder by the White House - letting the political wing run roughshod over issues that have real, lasting domestic economic implications.

[masteen]

You're absolutely right, Voro. Allowing Christian (and particularly Catholic) dogma affect our decisions in the fields of scientific endeavor is fucking bullshit.

Religion's place is to help us put what we know into perspective, not to tell us what we should or should not know. When we let the Church dictate terms to the scientific and academic community, we end up with the Dark Ages.

[Metanis]

It is a tremendous policy blunder by the White House - letting the political wing run roughshod over issues that have real, lasting domestic economic implications.

I know the point you are trying to make. I merely would suggest that it's all politics.

Since human beings are involved the "political" will always trump the "scientific". And for all your bitching you wouldn't really want it any other way. For example, Hitler's scientists were doing their best to "prove" the inferiority of other races.

[Squegy]

In the past, individual scientists and science organizations have occasionally piped up to oppose specific federal policies such as Ronald Reagan's Star Wars missile defense plan.

that was just a scam to scare the russians! worked because it bankrupt them =p

[Winnow]

Nice post Voro.

We need as much research and development in all fields as possible. Spinoff technology and products from our military, space and other areas build on each other.

I'll always back huge programs like our manned mission to the Moon and currently to Mars. People that whine about a mission to Mars costing billions while people in the world starve just don't get it.

[Adex_Xeda]

Sometimes research bumps into the realm of ethics. At those junctures, moral judgements come into play.

Without moral calls we'd have no guard against ethically bankrupt pursuits such as eugenics, organ harvesting, or biological weapons development.

[Aslanna]

that was just a scam to scare the russians! worked because it bankrupt them =p

We've already debated that point!

[masteen]

I am in favor of harvesting organs from death row inmates.

[Voronwë]

so basically Adex and Metanis you are saying that scientists can't decide what is right or wrong and need the government to tell them how to conduct their work?

point to ONE example of a NIH funded project (out of hundreds of thousands if not millions over the decades) that has been a gross violation of human rights. If you guys are going to talk about Dr. Mengela and Eugenics, you should throw some facts in. Cause frankly it is bullshit propaganda that you use to shore up an arugment that is founded upon nothing.

you should know the NIH has extensive internal checks and reviewing processes on all of their grants, especially those regarding the use of human tissues. Hell i did work on lobsters in a lab funded partially by NIH and they had to have paperwork on the fair and ethical treatment of the animals and we are talking about things that are effectively bugs.

The fact is the NIH has been the leader in ensuring that the interests of the public are served and that includes ethical research.

But that isn't what we are talking about. Again, what is typical of right-wing propaganda, you present a false choice.

Its either the Bush way to do it, or we get Auschwitz. That is utter bullshit, and you should hold your ideas to a higher critical standard if you are truly interested in understanding this issue.

basically, the Bush administration said they would open about 70 cell lines to research on stem cells. They have not and are keeping it to the current 20 something lines open.

Basically, if you are against stem cell research you are against in-vitro fertilization. It's that simple.

[Voronwë]

It is a tremendous policy blunder by the White House - letting the political wing run roughshod over issues that have real, lasting domestic economic implications.

I know the point you are trying to make. I merely would suggest that it's all politics.

Since human beings are involved the "political" will always trump the "scientific". And for all your bitching you wouldn't really want it any other way. For example, Hitler's scientists were doing their best to "prove" the inferiority of other races.

i know you didnt intend to do it Metanis, but your ridiculous Hitler analagoy actually bolsters my point.

The reason the atrocities occured in Nazi Germany was that political idealogues pushed the research direction.

To make sure we are on the same page, in our modern equation political idealogues = Religious Fundamentalists.

[kyoukan]

You are arguing science with someone who thinks the earth and everything on it was magically created by some powerful deity about 2500 years ago.

[Cartalas]

You are arguing science with someone who thinks the earth and everything on it was magically created by some powerful deity about 2500 years ago.

Oh and the big bang theory plays out so well, Lets throw a bunch of atoms together and come up with a world with animals and the proper amount of gasses to sustain life. Not to mention its placed at just the right distance from the sun not to burn up or freeze. Yeah that works.

[Lynks]

You are arguing science with someone who thinks the earth and everything on it was magically created by some powerful deity about 2500 years ago.

Oh and the big bang theory plays out so well, Lets throw a bunch of atoms together and come up with a world with animals and the proper amount of gasses to sustain life. Not to mention its placed at just the right distance from the sun not to burn up or freeze. Yeah that works.

The odds of that happening are actually possible considering the amounf ot stars and planets in the universe.

As for being the right distance, it is for us, as we are today. I bet if earth was closer, our skins would probably be 10 times thicker or something.

[*~*stragi*~*]

You are arguing science with someone who thinks the earth and everything on it was magically created by some powerful deity about 2500 years ago.

Oh and the big bang theory plays out so well, Lets throw a bunch of atoms together and come up with a world with animals and the proper amount of gasses to sustain life. Not to mention its placed at just the right distance from the sun not to burn up or freeze. Yeah that works.

.............
lol

[Adex_Xeda]

Voronwe,

You extend my comments past what I have said.

The scientific community is no more pure, insulated nor sacred than any other grouping of people.

Politics, personal morality, and bias, will exist in anything that humans do.

[Wonko Wenusberg]

Wow this is a comedy goldmine!

[Voronwë]

You are arguing science with someone who thinks the earth and everything on it was magically created by some powerful deity about 2500 years ago.

Oh and the big bang theory plays out so well, Lets throw a bunch of atoms together and come up with a world with animals and the proper amount of gasses to sustain life. Not to mention its placed at just the right distance from the sun not to burn up or freeze. Yeah that works.

actually the big bang theory is based on things that have been **MEASURED**

things like:

background microwave radiation in the universe
the acceleration of galaxies and other celestial bodies

sure the Big Bang Theory is incomplete.

The understanding of the mechanisms of gravity are incomplete. That does not mean that until we understand Unified Force Theory that we can jump off of buildings without fear of gravitational acceleration.

Certainly it is extremely difficult ot comprehend how things as remarkably complex and wonderful as ourselves or even a "simple" oak tree could exist in the absence of being "Designed". This is an amazing thing even to people who know more about the mechanics than any of us.

The fact that DNA can more or less control its own replication, and it does so through the interoperation of around 168 interlocking proteins is much more mystifying to me than some spaghetti billboard that bears a peculiar resemblence to the Madonna. But because I don't understand how it works, because i don't know everything, that doesnt mean God made it.

Regardless of how complex the scientific view of the universe is, it is based on measured, observed facts. Regardless of how appealing the religious view is, it is not only not supported by the facts - it is directly controverted by them.

For instance the universe is greater than 5,800 years old. If you would like to refute this, I would refer the starting point for your refutation to be an exposition on the radioactive decay of carbon isotopes and how that inspite of millions of measurements by indepent researchers in every country that conducts modern science - that this decay is not only inaccurate, but downright false.

[Vetiria]

Oh and the big bang theory plays out so well, Lets throw a bunch of atoms together and come up with a world with animals and the proper amount of gasses to sustain life. Not to mention its placed at just the right distance from the sun not to burn up or freeze. Yeah that works.

haha, thanks for the laugh Cart.

[Aaeamdar]

Without moral calls we'd have no guard against ethically bankrupt pursuits such as eugenics, organ harvesting, or biological weapons development

Or we could use real facts.

1. The removal of Plan B from FDA aproval. Based on medical evidence of potential harm to the user? No, based on the "absence only" moral/political stance of Bush. If an easy after the fact solution was widely avialable, afterall, it makes abstanence a harder sell (like its not hard enough already).

2. The attempts by Bush to control the opinions released by American scientist to various international bodies - such as the WHO. In a recent example, Bush tried influence the report of a group of American scientist so that international standards of "Dolfin safe" tuna could be changed so that more dolfins could be killed in nets and still have the tuna labled "Dolfin safe." Please explain to be what protection Bush provided us in that instance against "ethically bankrupt" science.

3. The use of the following questions when appointing scientist to government science posts:

a. Do you like Presitdent Bush?
b. Do you think the President is doing a good job?
etc.

Those are certainly relevant questions to test the scientific objectivity of a person.


Bush must go.

[Voronwë]

please tell me that "D-O-L-F-I-N" is Pres. Bush's spelling not yours

[Kluden]

I had just assumed that's what Dar meant...cause that's funny!

[Jice Virago]

Oh and the big bang theory plays out so well, Lets throw a bunch of atoms together and come up with a world with animals and the proper amount of gasses to sustain life. Not to mention its placed at just the right distance from the sun not to burn up or freeze. Yeah that works.

Jesus Christ on a cross with nails are you a fucking retard. I mean, I know that the southerners on this board have an excuse since their schools like to sneak in the "mystical boogeyman actually made everything, except those darkies, gays, and towel heads" concept and pass it off as actual fact. You are from the northern midwest and have no excuse for your willful ignorance, aside from possible inbreeding depending on what part of Minnesota you happen to be from.

Ignoring for the moment that you are jumbling the origins of the universe with the origins of organic life on earth, lets tackle this from the statistics angle: The Earth orbits an average main sequence star at a typical distance for a rock body at a typical distance from the center of the most common type of galaxy (spiral) at a distance from the hypothicised center of the point of origin of the Big Bang (based on known velocity vectors of nearby galaxies in relation to ours). The one rare ingredient in the equation for us was having an abundance of water (which I might add is not that rare cosmologically speaking) on such a world. Even if the odds are a trillion to one of this happening and the odds of the chemical reaction that spawned life equally remote, in an infinite universe it will happen somewhere. If you roll the dice often enough, eventually your number does come up, thats just how statistics work. It just so happens we were that rare turn of the dice, so we are here to debate our good fortune. The fact that your mind is blown away by the enormity of the odds involved does not exactly suprise me and you are certainly not alone. Many people who understand even just the basics of cosmology are awestruck at how fortunate we are, myself included.

As for the Big Bang, well Voronwe pretty well explained that at your 3rd grade reading level. I would add that advances have been made in the last couple decades in our knowledge of subatomic structure and mapping of deep space have addes piles and piles of evidence to further support the Big Bang Theory (the superstring variant at least) to the point where few people with college level physics knowledge would dispute it. I know that to some of you that an amonia soaked towel with a Jesus face encrusted on it seems like stronger proof, after all since how many bearded jews did the romans crucify back then anyhow, its gotta be our Lord! Yeah the Crispies are the ones I want deciding which way our scientific advancement goes! /sarcasm

[Cartalas]

Great now I know your problem Jice you have no faith, Thats ok you believe what you want and I will believe what I want.

you keep trying to recreate that big bang but let me save you some time, without DIVINE intervention you wasting your time.

[Niffoni]

One time my science teacher brought in this thing that glowed, and when we touched it our hair stood up! That was sweet. But then that whole wafer turning into Jesus is pretty awesome too. So on a scale of 1 to 10 I give science a pharm.

[Jice Virago]

Of course I have no faith. I base my opinions on reason and fact. I don't need some mysogynistic self contradicting book that has been revises a hundred times to tell me right from wrong. I don't need to believe in some mystical boogyman to accept that the universe exists and will keep on existing. Reason and progress are forever the enemies of dogma, which seeks to restrict the enlightenment of people to retain its power over their thoughts. I understand that a small minded backwater hick like yourself is frightened of reality to the point where you cuddle up at night with your bible like a proverbial teddy bear, but your weak assed lash out on my atheism does nothing to refute my point; it only serves to demonstrate your inability to open your mind to reality. But hey, if reciting psalms about crap that happened two millenia ago, and have virtually no relavence to the modern age, like the Yub Nub ewok song makes you more able to cope with your meaningless existance, more power to you.

[Marbus]

I personally see no reason why believing in God and the Big Bang Theory have to be mutally exclusive, they don't. In fact, to me the Theory explains how everything was created in great detail. God didn't give us that in the Bible because He was having to tell it at a 3rd grad reading level or less. Just like evolution, to me the whole "taking a rib from adam" and the days of creation is a pretty keen way of explaining evolution as well.

If you describe God as an all powerful being, which most Christians do, then by definition he is outside of time and space as we understanding. Trying to assign our days, which are just a rotation of our particular planet, to the amount of time it took for everything to happen can't make sense to anyone who has studied phyics past 6th grade much less college... The Big Bang Theory can trace everything back to what? 10 to the negative 38 seconds or something like that? which is bascially back to the "spark." IMHO there is your Divinity, there is your proof, before there was nothing in our understanding, something had to start the reaction, God started the equation and I also believe helped to guide it as well, on this worlds and many others... just none close enough for us to get to quickly... yet.

Marb

[masteen]

The Big Bang works pretty well in a finite universe as well. Even if the trillions of galaxies we can observe are all that there are, that's still plenty.

Here's the thing I don't understand about the creationists: There is nothing about the Big Bang theory that is incompatible with the CONCEPT of a creative deity. What it conflicts with are the specific details of a collection of folklore written 2000 years ago.

[*~*stragi*~*]

Wasn't it yub yub? First aunt Veru and now yub nub!

wtf!

[Adex_Xeda]

Measuring God with science is like measuring the volume of water in a lake armed with a ruler.

The ruler might give you some idea of the lake's volume but it's really the wrong tool for the job.


Scientific pursuits are a natural extention of our curiousity. Empiricism will tell you all kinds of things. But we have to recognise that there are things out there (such as God) that go beyond our ability to empirically frame.

An ant can walk on the surface of my finger and get some idea that I'm exist, but all of it's senses will never tell it enough to totally understand what a human is. If the ant rejects that I exist just because his reasoning can't frame it, then it suffers from a lack of perspective.

Science is a path to understanding, but it critical to recognise it alone is insufficient.

[Cartalas]

Of course I have no faith. I base my opinions on reason and fact. I don't need some mysogynistic self contradicting book that has been revises a hundred times to tell me right from wrong. I don't need to believe in some mystical boogyman to accept that the universe exists and will keep on existing. Reason and progress are forever the enemies of dogma, which seeks to restrict the enlightenment of people to retain its power over their thoughts. I understand that a small minded backwater hick like yourself is frightened of reality to the point where you cuddle up at night with your bible like a proverbial teddy bear, but your weak assed lash out on my atheism does nothing to refute my point; it only serves to demonstrate your inability to open your mind to reality. But hey, if reciting psalms about crap that happened two millenia ago, and have virtually no relavence to the modern age, like the Yub Nub ewok song makes you more able to cope with your meaningless existance, more power to you.

I am not arguing the fact that there was not a Big bang Im arguing the fact that there must of been divine intervention with the Big Bang, Hell maybe thats the way God created the universe. As far as the Bible goes well lets be frank it was written by men who like to streatch the truth. The world was created for a purpose Gods fingerprints are all over the place. Hell god even used math to create plants, I mean look at all the leaves on the plants on earth ( Except for mutations). They all have 1,3,5 or 7 leaves Prime numbers. Coincedence Jice? I dont think so. But as I said Jice believe what you want I guess it comes down to you better hope your right otherwise Ill be roasting marshmellows on your ass.

[Voronwë]

i am sorry i participated in some degree of divergence from the point of this thread.

it should not degenerate into "science is good, and religion is bad and never the twain shall meet".

i think Marbus is right that it is not inconceivable to say that God exists and the physics of the universe are as we (for the purpose of this conversation) understand them. that is not implausible, but personally i don't believe it.

Regardless, the point of this thread is that even though since the inception of the NIH in 1887 and all fo the advances in science since then (discovery of the atom, discovery of DNA, vaccination, etc), the NIH has regulated itself in an ethical fashion. So over 100 years.

At issue here, is ony one particular relgious theology having disproportionate representation in the control of research direction of the premiere research organization in the history of mankind that has proven itself to have handled every major advancement in biological understanding in that span in a manner that not only satisfies its government imprimatur, but exemplifies the finest ideals of our democratic society.

[noel]

This thread should be archived. This is truly spectacular reading.

[Voronwë]

They all have 1,3,5 or 7 leaves Prime numbers. Coincedence Jice? I dont think so.

so do the 4 leaf clover thingees all over my backyard mean i live in hell?

i'm not trying to make fun of you, just goofing off. i agree that nature itself is beautiful and amazing. there is quite likely a pretty good explanation of why plants tend to radiate their leaves in certain conformations. Quite likely there are certain mathematical patterns that over hundreds of millions of years of evolution make for more efficient solar panels - which is essentially what leaves are.

[Cartalas]

[quote="Cartalas] They all have 1,3,5 or 7 leaves Prime numbers. Coincedence Jice? I dont think so.

so do the 4 leaf clover thingees all over my backyard mean i live in hell?[/quote]

You dont have 4 leaf clovers all over your back yard Take a look at them you might if your lucky have one. 4 Leaf Clovers are a mutation When is the last time you walked through a field of 4 leaf clovers? Maybe thats why they are lucky?

[noel]

No, it means that the leprechauns are coming for you ranger boy!

For my good friend Cartalas.

[Cartalas]

They all have 1,3,5 or 7 leaves Prime numbers. Coincedence Jice? I dont think so.

so do the 4 leaf clover thingees all over my backyard mean i live in hell?

i'm not trying to make fun of you, just goofing off. i agree that nature itself is beautiful and amazing. there is quite likely a pretty good explanation of why plants tend to radiate their leaves in certain conformations. Quite likely there are certain mathematical patterns that over hundreds of millions of years of evolution make for more efficient solar panels - which is essentially what leaves are.

I understand V-Man I chose to believe in a Divine creature some dont that is why I hate talking about religion. For me its a simple explination as Im sure it is for Jice.

[noel]

The key point that people are attempting to make though Cart, is that creation and evolution need not be mutually exclusive. Popularly called 'Theistic Evolution' (for all the fence sitters) and supported by the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics (again for emphasis not a theory, a law) exists the idea that the creation of the universe happened exactly as the scientists theorize it did, but only through the hand of God.

It needn't be one of the other.

[Winnow]

The key difference between those basing their positions on science and those who base their reasoning on religious beliefs is this:

Scientists continue to find more and more data backing up their theories while those who argue religious beliefs keep revising and modifying their stories to accommodate reality.

[Lynks]

I refuse to categorize anything as religion if I don't understand it. To me, thats the simple way out and people just won't bother finding out what heppens. Hell, if you had guys telling you the sun comes out because some dude in a chariot pulls it out (greek mythology which is in some way a religion), you'd laugh at them. Why? Cause eventually, we had proof to say that doesn't happen.

[masteen]

Some people see the fine interworkings of the material and energy that compose every level of the universe and see God, while some see it as the natural result of billions of years of interactions.

Until the Python-esque foot comes out of the sky and squooshes Jice, we can't be sure of anything.

[Voronwë]

to be fair aranuil, cartalas' BB code quote error was simply my error that he quoted

i did howerver go back and revise mine.

[noel]

You've ruined your own lands, Voronwe, you'll not ruin mine!

Or something. Edited my regularly scheduled stupidity in the name of fairness... is it 5:30 PST yet?

[Rekaar.]

And so then, with regards to all your wonderfully measurable items, explain to me how it all began? If there was a "Big Bang"...what created the Big that went Bang?

They say for all things there must be a beginning. Just how old is the universe? What was there before it existed? How long did that last? What was before it? Where did everything begin? What was before that?

What we can taste touch smell see and hear has evolved immensely over the past few hundred years. We know exponentially more about our environment than we ever did in the past. Because you can better explain your environment doesn't in the least, by any stretch of the reasonable imagination, disprove anything we can't describe yet. Nor does it call into serious question anything that occurs or occured which we cannot explain eleventy billion years later.

There will always be unknowns. It's another of life's tests. Will you be a Jice, or will you be a Mother Theresa?

[Winnow]

And so then, with regards to all your wonderfully measurable items, explain to me how it all began? If there was a "Big Bang"...what created the Big that went Bang?

Well lets see...we can say that we don't know and keep researching the question or we could say that Daffy Duck created the big bang because that would be just as valid as any other religious made up story explaining it.