Comments on: Evolution Schmevolution

By: Angus McPresley

Angus McPresley — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:15:05 +0000

Despite being couched in jokes, those questions seem to me to contain a high degree of insight. Nearly every other commentator these days either a) tries to pretend they know something about science, or b) laughs in an “aw, shucks” kind of way while practically taking pride in how little they know about it.

By: Fake News Shows “Real” News the Way | Cosmic Variance

Fake News Shows “Real” News the Way | Cosmic Variance — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:17:04 +0000

[...] As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the blogosphere, including our own corner of it, has been abuzz with discussion of The Daily Show’s “Evolution-Schmevolution” week. I’ve certainly been enjoying it, although I feel the interviews could have been done better. [...]

By: Cosmic Variance

Cosmic Variance — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:16:16 +0000

Fake News Shows “Real” News the Way

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the blogosphere, including our own corner of it, has been abuzz with discussion of The Daily Show’s “Evolution-Schmevolution” week. I’ve certainly been enjoying it, although I feel like t…

By: Mark Matson

Mark Matson — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:57:34 +0000

Although we know that science is different than religion (and other academia), it is important to realize it doesn’t look that way to the outside world. Science appears to be just another elite group of people debating among themselves and sending their decisions to the lower people below. How is that different than what they do at the Vatican?

Of course, we know why it’s different, but how does the average guy on the street know that. It’s not like he’s tested the acceleration of gravity himself anytime recently, let alone tried to find a neutrino.

By: theophylact

theophylact — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:57:41 +0000

…and ID got a “Not Recommended”…

By: MobyDikc

MobyDikc — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:47:57 +0000

The wikipedia acts as an unbiased report of science.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State

It explains the idea and that it lost momentum, and eventually evidence came in that refuted the theory for most cosmologists.

Take a look at the Intelligent design entry:

“Adherents of ID claim it stands on equal footing with the current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe [1]. This claim has not been accepted by the scientific community and intelligent design does not constitute a research program within the science of biology. Despite ID sometimes being refered to popularly and in the media as Intelligent Design Theory, it is not recognized as a scientific theory and has been categorized by the mainstream scientific community as creationist pseudoscience. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design