| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Samir Ribic" |
| Date: |
27 May 2004 05:01:09 AM |
| Object: |
Theory of Evolution and media |
The big majority of biology scientists, and the most of scientists
from other natural sciences take evolution as a fact. Creationism is
an anachrone movement, even if supported by some scientists (mainly
social sciences).
However, when I search on google, very often occurs that web pages
that support creationism outnumbers those that support evolution.
The similar situation is on bookshelves. We had to wait 140 years
between "Origin of Species" and "The blind watchmaker" (which is still
unknown book in my area). In the meantime, the bookshelves were full
of religious book against TOE.
The situation on TV is not much better. With exception of BBC,
televisions usually give more time to Bible/Quran than to science.
It seems that evolution scientists do not care very much about
participating in media. Modern science is too complex to care about
popularization of the results. If we lose teaching of science in the
public school and receive teaching of religion, the scientist
themselves will be duty for it too.
.
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 09:32:47 AM |
|
|
"Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
news:f9e33c87.0405270209.c88313@posting.google.com...
The big majority of biology scientists, and the most of scientists
from other natural sciences take evolution as a fact. Creationism is
an anachrone movement, even if supported by some scientists (mainly
social sciences).
However, when I search on google, very often occurs that web pages
that support creationism outnumbers those that support evolution.
The similar situation is on bookshelves. We had to wait 140 years
between "Origin of Species" and "The blind watchmaker" (which is still
unknown book in my area). In the meantime, the bookshelves were full
of religious book against TOE.
The situation on TV is not much better. With exception of BBC,
televisions usually give more time to Bible/Quran than to science.
It seems that evolution scientists do not care very much about
participating in media. Modern science is too complex to care about
No, it seems book stores do not care about selling science books. They would
rather make more money selling books to less disciminate types. Most book
stores are not owned or operated by scientists. There are many good science
books out there, but most have to be special ordered.
Klaus
popularization of the results. If we lose teaching of science in the
public school and receive teaching of religion, the scientist
themselves will be duty for it too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 10:19:13 AM |
|
|
Klaus Hellnick wrote:
"Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
news:f9e33c87.0405270209.c88313@posting.google.com...
The big majority of biology scientists, and the most of scientists
from other natural sciences take evolution as a fact. Creationism is
an anachrone movement, even if supported by some scientists (mainly
social sciences).
However, when I search on google, very often occurs that web pages
that support creationism outnumbers those that support evolution.
The similar situation is on bookshelves. We had to wait 140 years
between "Origin of Species" and "The blind watchmaker" (which is
still unknown book in my area). In the meantime, the bookshelves
were full of religious book against TOE.
The situation on TV is not much better. With exception of BBC,
televisions usually give more time to Bible/Quran than to science.
It seems that evolution scientists do not care very much about
participating in media. Modern science is too complex to care about
No, it seems book stores do not care about selling science books.
They would rather make more money selling books to less disciminate
types. Most book stores are not owned or operated by scientists.
There are many good science books out there, but most have to be
special ordered.
Klaus
I would say that about 90% of what is on the shelves in bookstores should be
censored as abject crap. It is quite a chore to wade through it to a gem.
This is particularly evident in the 'Computer books" sections.
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 10:39:45 AM |
|
|
Klaus Hellnick wrote:
"Samir Ribic" <samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba> wrote in message
news:f9e33c87.0405270209.c88313@posting.google.com...
The big majority of biology scientists, and the most of scientists
from other natural sciences take evolution as a fact. Creationism is
an anachrone movement, even if supported by some scientists (mainly
social sciences).
However, when I search on google, very often occurs that web pages
that support creationism outnumbers those that support evolution.
The similar situation is on bookshelves. We had to wait 140 years
between "Origin of Species" and "The blind watchmaker" (which is
still unknown book in my area). In the meantime, the bookshelves
were full of religious book against TOE.
The situation on TV is not much better. With exception of BBC,
televisions usually give more time to Bible/Quran than to science.
It seems that evolution scientists do not care very much about
participating in media. Modern science is too complex to care about
No, it seems book stores do not care about selling science books.
They would rather make more money selling books to less disciminate
types. Most book stores are not owned or operated by scientists.
There are many good science books out there, but most have to be
special ordered.
Klaus
I would say that about 90% of what is on the shelves in bookstores should be
censored as abject crap. It is quite a chore to wade through it to a gem.
This is particularly evident in the 'Computer books" sections.
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 08:21:56 AM |
|
|
(Samir Ribic) shot from the breach
towards his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
However, when I search on google, very often occurs that web
pages
that support creationism outnumbers those that support evolution.
Mainly because science relies on peer-reviewed science journals
rather than the internet which can contain any old *****.
Creationism wouldn't pass first base when subjected to the rigours
of scientific peer review and they know this full well. So they
fall back on the internet.
--
Phil Roberts | Without me its just aweso. | http://www.flatnet.net/
"Whatever you do don't read the bible for a moral code. It
advocates
predjudice, cruelty, superstition, and murder. Read it because we
need more atheists, and nothing will get you there faster than
reading the damn bible."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fletch F. Fletch" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 08:44:31 AM |
|
|
Phil Roberts wrote:
samir.ribic@alemsistem.com.ba (Samir Ribic) shot from the breach
towards his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
However, when I search on google, very often occurs that web pages
that support creationism outnumbers those that support evolution.
Mainly because science relies on peer-reviewed science journals
rather than the internet which can contain any old *****.
Creationism wouldn't pass first base when subjected to the rigours
of scientific peer review and they know this full well. So they
fall back on the internet.
And repeated attempts to inculcate kids. Religious practice has taught them
well.
Slainte,
Fletch
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 10:30:36 AM |
|
|
(Samir Ribic) writes:
However, when I search on google, very often occurs that web pages
that support creationism outnumbers those that support evolution.
If you go into any bookstore, the number of books on the shelves
that support the idea that the universe was created by a god or gods
vastly outnumber the textbooks on physics too. Part of this, I believe,
is because there is only one story to tell in physics, aside from
biography and "how it was discovered that" narratives. There really is
only one Newton, one Einstein, one Bohr, and a handful of men working
hard to extend their work.
Any whackjob, however, can tell a pretty story about how his or
her version of god made the universe. And usually, these days, he
writes a book about it and tries to sell it and make a buck off it.
There are so many "creation" websites out there because there
are so many different stories of creation, period. And, unlike on the
science shelves, all those different stories disagree with one another
to some significant degree.
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 01:54:14 PM |
|
|
(Samir Ribic) wrote in message news:<f9e33c87.0405270209.c88313@posting.google.com>...
The big majority of biology scientists, and the most of scientists
from other natural sciences take evolution as a fact. Creationism is
an anachrone movement, even if supported by some scientists (mainly
social sciences).
However, when I search on google, very often occurs that web pages
that support creationism outnumbers those that support evolution.
The similar situation is on bookshelves. We had to wait 140 years
between "Origin of Species" and "The blind watchmaker" (which is still
unknown book in my area). In the meantime, the bookshelves were full
of religious book against TOE.
The situation on TV is not much better. With exception of BBC,
televisions usually give more time to Bible/Quran than to science.
It seems that evolution scientists do not care very much about
participating in media. Modern science is too complex to care about
popularization of the results. If we lose teaching of science in the
public school and receive teaching of religion, the scientist
themselves will be duty for it too.
I do my best by running a web site. I've found that trying to get
media exposure for matters palaeontological is like getting blood out
of a stone, and if they do take something up they distort it beyond
recognition.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samir Ribic" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
28 May 2004 03:00:30 AM |
|
|
It seems that evolution scientists do not care very much about
participating in media. Modern science is too complex to care about
popularization of the results. If we lose teaching of science in the
public school and receive teaching of religion, the scientist
themselves will be duty for it too.
I do my best by running a web site. I've found that trying to get
media exposure for matters palaeontological is like getting blood out
of a stone, and if they do take something up they distort it beyond
recognition.
RF
Maybe because plesiosaurs are not as impressive as tiranosaurs :-)
To put joke aside, I watched some creationist internet sites. They
said that there were totally eight fossiles of hominides found in the
world and none of them proves evolution. If you ever visited museum of
human evolution in Krapina, Croatia you will solely there find more
than 50 fossiles or their copies! However, the museum has no web page.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 01:05:44 PM |
|
|
(Samir Ribic) wrote in message news:<f9e33c87.0405270209.c88313@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
It seems that evolution scientists do not care very much about
participating in media. Modern science is too complex to care about
popularization of the results. If we lose teaching of science in the
public school and receive teaching of religion, the scientist
themselves will be duty for it too.
I would not say they don't care. I would say there are a lot of
reasons that few do particpate. And of the few that do, most
don't participate for very long.
The media is responsive to the demands people want of it. The result
is the Jerry Springer show. In order for science to work well in
the media, people have to want it. But they don't. How many tv
series like Sagan's _Cosmos_ have there been? Between that and
the JS show, the closest we get are shows like _Beakman's World_.
Now, don't get me wrong, I adored BW. It's just that you can't
learn a huge amount of science through it, just "sound bites."
Learning science takes effort and time. Most people won't spend
that amount of time learning anything at all, never mind science.
Even watching a show like Cosmos requires quite an investment of
time and concentration. And it was about as sugar coated as such
material could possibly be.
In other words, it's a cultural change we need. Imagine, if you
will, if every parent in the world attempted to instill in their
children a respect for learning, understanding, rationality,
and just generally being brainy. The problem with that fanatasy
is that the parents don't have much contact with those things,
so it's hard for them to hold them up as good. And in many
circumstances, they see their own lives being rewarded for just
mindless doing as they are told, not having a questioning attitude,
not rocking the boat. They don't see rewards for being brainy.
So, I don't see big changes happening quickly. But I do still
try to push in what I perceive to be the right direction.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of Evolution and media |
27 May 2004 05:50:34 AM |
|
|
(Samir Ribic) wrote:
It seems that evolution scientists do not care very much about
participating in media. Modern science is too complex to care about
popularization of the results. If we lose teaching of science in the
public school and receive teaching of religion, the scientist
themselves will be duty for it too.
I don't believe that scientists have a moral obligation to mold the
society. Besides, confronting the religious views head on may not
always yield the desired results. When creationism and evolution are
debated out of the scientific context, the former often "wins", for a
variety of reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
