I had a professor in college who was an atheist. He had two earned doctorate degrees. He had been teaching for 30-35 years. I took his class because everyone talked about how he was an awesome teacher.
He was a geologist. He told us in one of the first classes that he would not test us on the time lines of when things took place. He also told us he would not test us about the origins of the Earth. He told us that the information on those topics was always changing. Then he said, "I will stick to the science."
The teacher taught us about the Earth's crust. He taught us about how volcanoes impacted the Earth's surface. He taught us about metamorphism. And true to form, he focused on the science. He was an awesome teacher and I learned so much from his class. He was also funny adding in little jokes. I could tell why students loved him.
When I think of a scientist, I think of him.
I had a tumor years ago right when I started on Xanga. I asked around because I wanted the very best doctor to treat me. One name came up twice. The doctor was only 38 but she was super smart. I could tell from the very beginning why she was recommended.
She dedicated herself to one type of cancer and treated it with all of her might.
She was clearly a scientist. Her husband was also a doctor.
It appears to me that scientists focus on the big issues. They will attempt to cure cancer. They will try to find out why a rare disease is killing young children. They will study hard and tackle the issues of our time. They will attempt to give us advance warnings of tornado activity. They will warn a whole country of the potential of a tsunami.
I have always wondered why someone would want to be a pseudo scientist and focus on evolution.
It just appears that the only thing that is good for is correcting people on the Internet. Perhaps they just couldn't make it as doctors or scientists.
What do you think about pseudo sciences? Do you think that there is a place for the study of such things?
True 
Comments (94)
what....?
The implication that evolution is not a "big issue" is ridiculous, as is the idea that evolution is only good for correcting people on the internet. Evolution is a theory that encompasses the fields of geology, biology, paleontology, physics, etc. Big issues are typically those which are of import to several fields. Evolution definitely qualifies.
Also, evolution is pretty relevant for diseases and vaccines. Flu viruses mutate, HIV develops resistance to drugs, and so on. We absolutely *must* understand the details of evolution--from small scale stuff like bacteria and fruit flies, to large scale stuff like neanderthals and humans.
The job of a scientist is to ask "Why?" and "How?" Any scientist worth her salt would want to know why there is life and how it came to be. These questions are nowhere near the realm of pseudo science.
^^^ ditto jim's comment above.
'He also told us he would not test us about the origins of the Earth. He
told us that the information on those topics was always changing. Then
he said, "I will stick to the science."'
Yes, the great thing about science is that it is always uncovering new information- however, that information ultimately tends to fall into a coherent picture. You may not have had such a picture re: origins of the earth 3 decades ago, but science has since progressed.
Also, before you start throwing words like 'psuedoscientist' around, please keep in mind that, unlike any other alternative 'theory', evolution has explanatory power, and lots of it. If you disagree, use your favorite alternative to tackle this question:
http://topologicoceans.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/why-do-people-catch-swine-flu-but-not-tobacco-mosaic-virus/
@jim_the_american@xanga - agreed
Congrats on getting posted here! :)
As I have sought truth by study and prayer, my Heavenly Father has never commented to me one way or the other on evolution. What He has done is give me enough evidence, love, and faith to convince me that He is real, that He is the Father of my spirit, that Jesus Christ is His Son, and that Jesus made a sacrifice that will allow us to move from this existence into a much wider and more glorious and eternal future life.
I have a list of questions to ask Him some day, but I will be patient for now.
If you are going to absurdly misuse a term like "pseudo-science," you could at least spell it correctly.
@jim_the_american@xanga -@vickevlar@xanga - I love how theo leads me to new friends!
Here's my take on his blog. http://diva-jyoti-3.xanga.com/741055804/cruel--dawkins/
@lomal
"Whether the Biblical creation happened in
just 7 days or is a metaphor of the spiritual creation that occurs in
any person who comes to know God is unimportant to me in the eternal
scheme of things."
That's fine. But some of us live in uneternal, physical reality, and are troubled by such things as lower back pain, exploding appendicies, and infectious disease. We would rather prefer that evolutionary biologists (who are familiar with such afflictions) are on call with explanations and advice. And we don't appreciate antiscientists running about and denying the ancestry of extant life, and thereby sabotaging public health efforts
This has nothing to do with faith. It's about the usefulness of evolutionary biology as a branch of the sciences in general.
:/
evolutionary biology is an extremely useful branch of the sciences. faith is your department; YOU work it out.
Evolution & Medical Science or any other physical science IS NOT Pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience includes astrology, homeopathic remedies, ghost, remedies, and anything else without hard scientific proof to back up the results.
There is no room for studying pseudoscience because it is based on a false premise.
Another belief that is based on a false premise is religion.
There is always a reason to be studying Evolution, Medical Sciences, Geology, Physics, and other hard sciences and it is to live in a real world as possible. To actually help people (like doctors) or to share knowledge that is true (like teachers).
Faith allows people to think without reason.
GO LOOK AT WHAT PSEUDOSCIENCE REALLY IS AND SEE IF YOU BELIEVE IN THAT STUFF.
though i wouldn't doubt that you would.
You got guts posting this... and that's sad that it takes guts to post something like this on a supposedly "christian" website. But I agree with you.
Science is supposed to stick to things that can be proved, tested, and have enough empirical data to theorize and test.
I had a similar experience; my calc 3 teacher (who was not religious) got up one day to explain some calculations for our moons orbit- he ended by saying that if we believed in pure evolution then he seriously doubted that we possessed the necessary intellect to pass his class.
Like you, I sincerely wish science would stop trying to find origins and focus on the things that can be tested and detailed in absolute facts.
But that will probably never happen.
As a Ph. D student in evolutionary biology, I find your post incredibly condescending and massively ignorant. Just fyi.
@jim_the_american@xanga - That was a very appropriate reply. Props!
@TravelingStranger@xanga -
"Science is supposed to stick to things that can be proved, tested, and have enough empirical data to theorize and test."The theory of evolution: check, check, and check.
"my calc 3 teacher (who was not religious) got up one day to explain some calculations for our moons orbit- he ended by saying that if we believed in pure evolution then he seriously doubted that we possessed the necessary intellect to pass his class. "
What does moon orbit have to do with evolution? What's "pure" evolution?
"I sincerely wish science would stop trying to find origins"
A sickeningly anti-intellectual intention.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - I find it mildly entertaining and hilarious that my comments always seem to make you mad.
Moon orbit has to do with origin of life on earth; without it life would not exist on earth- it's merely one in 1,000's of mathematical problems the theory of evolution faces.
@TravellingStranger@xanga
"Moon orbit has to do with origin of life on earth; without it life would not exist on earth- "
That's not obvious to me, nor to other people who have studied the matter. There's a great book called 'what if the moon didn't exist?' by astronomer Neil Comins, He wildly varies certain facts about the earth- the existence of the moon, the size of the sun, the size of the earth, its angle of rotation- and found that, though different planets would take radically different evolutionary trajectories, there is no real reason to think that life is prohibited. Life is pretty robust.
You mention '1,000's of mathematical problems' with evolution. I am a mathematician and am unfamiliar with them. Could you name a few?
Calling something a "pseudo science" is not particularly helpful. FWIW, I would think that the skepticism of a scientist who believes in the Genesis creation account would be helpful to the scientific inquiry. I do not know how God works in His time, so there is no terror to me of reaonable scientific testing, deduction and hypotheses.
<< Like
you, I sincerely wish science would stop trying to find origins and
focus on the things that can be tested and detailed in absolute facts.
But that will probably never happen. >>
Like many others, I sincerely wish Religion would stop trying to fabricate evidence to support their belief in creationism or intelligent design, and just stick with their faith.
But that will probably never happen.
And it is simply because religion is threatened by science and critical thinking.
The only reason people of religion are the only ones who question science is because science is slowly revealing that many phenomenon that people once said, "God did it," truly comes from the rules of science.
If you could do me a favor and anyone else here, educate yourself on the difference between science and pseudoscience.
@TravelingStranger@xanga -
"I find it mildly entertaining and hilarious that my comments always seem to make you mad."Not mad. Just a little depressed about the general public's understanding of science in the UK and US.
"Moon orbit has to do with origin of life on earth; without it life would not exist on earth- it's merely one in 1,000's of mathematical problems the theory of evolution faces."
A lot of things wrong with this. The moon doesn't have much to do with the origins of life beyond stabilizing the climate, but evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origins of life either, so I'll let it slide.
The moon effecting life on earth proves a problem with evolution...how?
@Nikki - religious fanatics aren't the only people who hate science. There are also climate change 'skeptics'! Granted, there's a lot of overlap...
@chuckbot - There are a lot of New Age people (which I guess could still be considered "religious fanatics") that are against science as well. Not only can they be anti-medicine and pro-alternative therapies, but I recall meeting one that was against evolution. It was really bizarre because I, a Christian evolutionist, was trying to explain to a New Age 'believer' why evolution as a theory is superior to the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Clearly assessing the amount of scientific support among these groups based on their spiritual beliefs isn't so cut-and-dry...though on the whole, you're right about the overlap part.
@kk_grayfox@xanga - yup. Some of my friends are astrologers; one of them called me a 'brute' for applying critical thought to the question. That one is also a New-Age nutritionist who has given me a lot of extremely questionable (and unsolicted) advice about what I should and should not eat. Apparently, beans and rice cause cancer. >_<
the complete lack of intelligence in this post has blown my mind.
@kk_grayfox@xanga - Thanks. I'm a PhD student, too (atomic physics). My research focuses on precision tests of the Standard Model, so I recognize the value of questioning the scope and limits of existing theories. I also recognize the importance of doing so in a systematic way.
As far as I know, nobody has ever proposed or carried out an experiment whose results call evolution into question, though I assume it is true that early misconceptions have been replaced by more sophisticated ideas as our understanding of evolution, well, evolves.