Comments for Rhubarb

Comment on Flying Spaghetti Monster by Dr. Rebecca W. Keller

Dr. Rebecca W. Keller — Tue, 01 May 2012 23:51:52 +0000

Thank you!

Comment on Flying Spaghetti Monster by Rebecca Foxworth

Rebecca Foxworth — Tue, 01 May 2012 22:11:52 +0000

I have been debating which middle school science curriculum to purchase for next year, and believe I have settled on Biology 1 for the first part of the year based on this blog entry.
I have maintained for years that “true science” does not exist. Observable data combines with personal, human beliefs to form theories (I use the word “theory” in the way science would use it…as an accepted fact based on observable data) that often prevent their adherents from admitting, or even seeing, that opposing data exists. The problem is that we are not dealing only with mathematics and scientific discoveries; we are also dealing with personal beliefs and politics. Are there Creationists who immediately condemn any evidence that looks like it might support evolution? Of course! Are there evolutionists who immediately toss out anything that looks like it might support deliberate design and label it “an anomaly”? Of course! Thank you for creating a curriculum that will teach my child to observe, look at the data, and THINK. May she also understand that there are evidences for both theories, and scientists (real scientists and mathematicians that hold real degrees from real universities) on both sides of the debate. Bravo for you for stating that there should be room in science to present the evidence, to teach what we can observe, and to admit that opposing viewpoints are a natural part of historical science where outcomes cannot possibly be observed without a time machine. Pretending that there exists a sort of time machine whereby we can prove our own viewpoint beyond the shadow of a doubt: THAT is the stuff of fairy tales. I appreciate your embrace of open debate, sans name calling and accusations. Good for you!

Comment on Flying Spaghetti Monster by Dr. Rebecca W. Keller

Dr. Rebecca W. Keller — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:37:48 +0000

Hi Sharon,

If you read the post, the top paragraph is from our mailbox and I am responding to this person’s comments. I did not create the illustration of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and posted the illustration so that readers would understand the reference. Your reaction to the illustration is on target – I too think it is an insult to millions of Christians. If you read the comment sent to our mailbox, you’ll see that this person is trying to make the argument that evolutionary theory is the only acceptable scientific theory and is purposely insulting anyone who disagrees by using a pejorative reference to Christians with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Insulting your opponent is a common tactic in the evolution/creation debates. I am trying to steer the conversation away from insults and back to balanced dialogue concerning science and how to interpret scientific information.

I completely agree that we “should give kids ALL choices and let the kids decide.” This is exactly what Real Science-4-Kids is all about. I also completely agree with you that the “truth is probably somewhere in between.” My books teach kids the basic building blocks for science – chemistry, biology, physics etc. and also teach them how evaluate opposing viewpoints. In my opinion, allowing kids to evaluate opposing viewpoints is the single most important aspect of a good science education.

So, I think we are on the same page?

Warm regards,
Rebecca Keller

Comment on Flying Spaghetti Monster by Sharon Beverly

Sharon Beverly — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:58:57 +0000

Your illustration and close-minded attitude are an insult to millions of Christians everywhere. Your torture of the Sistine Chapel ceiling painting by DaVinci (who was a scientist and inventor also by the way) is unforgiveable.

Einstein once said that as the circle of light increases, so does the darkness around it. To believe that you know everything, including how to “teach kids to think” while bashing the beliefs of millions is ridiculous. You are as guilty as those you blame. Your blather just shows how ignorant you are.

If you really want to be enlightened, give the kids ALL the choices, taught by credible people, then let the kids decide. There are just as many errors in the theory of evolution as there are in the theory of creation. The truth is probably somewhere in between. I know that God exists, and whether he created the earth in six days or 6 million years is immaterial to me. Throwing Christians to the lions is so 2000 years ago. Wake up.

Comment on Galileo had an enemy and it wasn’t the Catholic Church by Kaylie

Kaylie — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:43:44 +0000

That really captures the spirit of it. Thanks for pstinog.

Comment on Critical Thinking & Absolute Truth by Emily Tomulty

Emily Tomulty — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:00:54 +0000

By all means, unless we examine and re-examine our faiths periodically, whatever faiths they may be–we will be crouching or pridefully marching behind a momentum of doubt or fear. Raised in protestant Christianity, I struggled and was ultimately unsatisfied with the uncertain subjectivity in my experience. I have always followed my heart…and my heart (greek…”nous”–not the emotions) has always believed that Truth needs no protection or defense. “To defend one’s Faith..” throws a red flag. Investigate and read history, study science, think critically and harbor a little humility while doing so.

Comment on Flying Spaghetti Monster by Dr. Rebecca W. Keller

Dr. Rebecca W. Keller — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:28:17 +0000

I agree that ideally “as new, repeatable, observational evidence is obtained, theories are formulated to account for the observations and if the evidence completely disproves the theory, it is discarded.” If this were truly the case, then scientific theories would not be dogmatic. Unfortunately, reality is much different than the ideal and anyone who has ever studied the history of science or submitted a paper for publication knows that science is not a completely rational, linear endeavor. Science is performed by scientists and scientists have biases and sometimes rigid dogmatic views about how things “should” work and it often takes a whole paradigm shift to “disprove a theory” – or even alter it. And this not a flaw of science but what makes science interesting.

Now let’s consider theories for the creation of the world, which right from the start is not something science can currently prove nor disprove. We can’t repeat the experiment nor observe how it happened. All we can do is make up stories about how and when and even Who created the world. I agree that distorting or discarding data to fit a 6 day creation story is not good science, but even if we make up a scientifically sounding story complete with mathematical symbols and fancy equations, it’s still a story-still a fairy tale. The truth is we don’t know how the world came into being and to imagine that science can answer this question unequivocally or has answered it is errant.

Science must remain iconoclastic at all times and this means that scientists must be aware of and own their biases – even if those biases sound scientific. A good science education encourages students to examine all biases – their own and those of others. If you teach a child how to evaluate opposing viewpoints only then have you educated them and that is why all views-even those we don’t agree with- belong in a science curriculum.

Comment on Flying Spaghetti Monster by Peter

Peter — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:23:01 +0000

Scientific theory is not dogma. As new, repeatable, observational evidence is obtained, theories are reformulated to account for the observation. If the evidence completely disproves the theory, it is discarded. End of story. How is that dogma?

Compare that to when you have an immutable conclusion, such as the creation of the world in six days, fit your observational evidence to match, and discard or distort anything that does not lead to your conclusion. That is dogma, and it is a barefaced lie that does not belong anywhere in a science curriculum. Unless you simply want to redefine the word “science” to include fairy tales.

Comment on Hot Seat for Biology Teachers by Victoria

Victoria — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:42:04 +0000

Could not agree with you more about the unwarranted teacher-bashing by Science Magazine. Evolution versus creationism is a political and cultural battle, not a scientific debate and biology teachers should not be expected to navigate this storm. I appauld the 60% who wisely decide not step out of it.
There is so much to learn about HOW stuff works in our natural world that one could spend years learning before ever having to ask the question WHY it works that way.
Students need a hard-science foundation before tackling these tough issues while pop culture seems to expect them to think and speculate before they are prepared with any real information.

Comment on The day after Judgement Day by Victoria

Victoria — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:07:05 +0000

If we believe that G-d created our universe as we know it, then the laws we study in physics and chemistry are G-d’s laws. Learning physics and chemistry is learning the mind of G-d, how cleverly the world is assembled and operates. In reply to Kimberly who believes that if G-d wanted to make a global earthquake happen, then it would happen with or without scientific evidence, then we are saying that G-d created the laws by which his universe works, then simply would violate his own laws. No I say. G-d would operate under his own creationist laws, ie. the laws of physics and chemistry to create any miracles. My gut says it is more likly that we do not understand all of the the laws of our world than it is likely our creator would violate the laws we do know about.