Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

When Scientists Stop Locking Out Opposing Science,
And Stop Burning Emails And Research Papers
Folks May Start To Trust Them Again

Example:
Asteroid K**led Dinosaurs
There's No Dinosaurs Above The Iridium Ash Layer.

Opposition:
There's No Dinosaurs For 3-4 Meters Below The Iridium Layer.

Suggesting:
Dinosaurs Were Already Buried Under 12ft Of Sediment Before Asteroid

'NO !!, ASTEROID K**led Dinosaurs !!

arvadaian

I sure didn't expect this from Forbes. I hope it gets some interest from the righties there's a lot for them to learn here. the science denying they engage in can have real lasting negative effects on our overall society.
Thank you for publishing this.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

Isn't this an opinion piece?

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

You Were Expecting A Physics Dissertation From Scientific American ??

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

Forbes.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Yes! The earth shattering controversy about S$#T that, ah, has no meaning, except to other eggheads concerned about useless stuff. Why are we even using public money to fund peoples hobbies? There are true, earth shattering problems in the "here and now" that need attention.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

1. The Economy
2. The moral center of the nation

....to name two.

rich boise Loc: Idaho

You hit that. The article derides people checking out "creation" sites. Academics and "scientists" talk about "the theory of evolution" but will not even allow discussion of any evidence that contradicts their religion(evolution). They will not even look any alternatives or allow their students to. It is total hypocracy. But that is the order of the day. A real example: a relative who is a high school science teacher, and a very good one, Will anxiously read any article or book about any scientific idea or theory. I gave him a copy of a book by a duly credited microbiologist who had the nerve to question how complex organisms could evolve on their own. He would not even look at the book just called it another "christian" book. The author was not a christian(but might be now) and the book was not a "christian" book. But question his religion and you get a religious response. When you call evolution a "theory" you are right but when you teach it as fact and do not allow any alternative to be offered you have effectively moved the "theory" to "proven science". That is a lie, even if evolution eas true..

rich boise Loc: Idaho

This article is another bigoted piece of opinion. The author derided those who mistrust "scientists". It is a fact that "climate scientists" in England were caught fudging the figures. Why? Yes, some right wingers have gone overboard. Some left wingers have gone overboard. The fact remains, these "scientists" got caught lying. Why would anyone trust them?

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Part of the reason I posted the article is that the purported enlightened of the world are just as often skewed by fame and fortune, I agree the climate "scientists" are completely worthless or at best confirmation bias "instruments" of a conspiracy.

The other fact remains that there are good scientists in the world who want to get to the core of a problem, that aren't in a hurry and don't jump to conclusions. I am an engineer by trade and I embrace the basic tenets of good stewardship, which is: when I'm wrong and someone else proves so-it's ok. Better to be wrong, accept the error of my assumptions then do harm in the world. That's why we have a strong peer review process where I work. Do no harm!

I don't agree with creationism as a science, teaching it or otherwise. That's what churches are for...please accept my apologies...teaching creationism does not teach science. God doesn't teach science either-ever think of that? What matters is what's in your heart and people worrying about teaching creationism should worry more about teaching Jesus's message than worrying about whether God or Christianity is edified. God isn't offended that 1 + 1 = 2, teachers don't give God credit for that either.

rocketride

I think you misread that editorial. It is clearly aimed at least as much at the lefty "warmists" and GMO opponents as at anyone else.

rocketride

Does it really matter, in terms of Christianity's (or any other religion's) basic moral lessons whether the universe was created in a sort of parlor trick 6,000-ish years ago, or "just happened for reasons as yet unknown and by means not well understood" 13-ish billion years ago? If it doesn't matter, then ignoring the physical evidence for the latter model is just silly, and if it does matter, please explain why.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

False. Absorbing information is time consuming. Shouldn't that time be spent productively?

If the age of the universe doesn't matter, then ignoring the data for either model is pragmatic. If the age the age of the universe does matter, then ignoring data supporting either model is foolish.

rocketride

I'm emphatically not saying that the age of the universe and of the Earth doesn't matter. It does, but not for reasons that directly affect the important parts of anyone's religious teachings. It isn't particularly relevant to the way we should be treating each other. And maybe the creationists shouldn't get so hung up on it. A 13+billion-year-old universe/ 4.5 billion-year-old Earth (vs. 6,000-year-old) shouldn't make any difference to the teachings of the Christ, the Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Abraham, the Vedic Bards or anyone else.

Both things are important, but they don't have any real connection with each other.