The Tyranny of Evidence: Do Scientists Use Dogma?

Is evolution a religion? Should we describe the positions of scientists as dogma?
Is science democratic? Isn't there room for debate on the issues of science?
Why can't we teach both sides? Isn't that good science pedagogy?

Here's some links to additional information
1. [Neutral] Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
2. Critical of AAH
http://www.aquaticape.org/
3. Favorable of AAH
http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm

4. [Neutral] Endosymbiotic Theory (EST)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory
5. Critical of EST
http://www.origin-of-mitochondria.net/
6. Favorable of EST
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Endosymbiotic_theory/

7. [Neutral] for Intelligent Design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
8. Critical of Intelligent Design
http:// Entire scientific community / (hah, joke!)
9. Favorable of EST
http://www.discovery.org/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Science
• philosophy
• evidence
• tyranny
• intelligent
• design
• evolution
• biology
• aquatic
• ape
• hypothesis
• endosymbiosis
• theory
• Lynn
• Marguilis
• Elaine
• Morgan

[longfootbuddy]

scientists care about keeping their jobs, and the funding rolling in...much like religious leaders

[C0nc0rdance]

@longfootbuddy

Scientists are usually on NIH grants... which come before the work is conducted. Grants are awarded based on prior ability to produce results which can be replicated by competitors.

I'm not saying scientists are incorruptible, I'm saying they work in a system that discourages any dishonesty.

[AlanCFA]

@GSFY "people do not get hateful over anything as much as their fucked up 'precious' beliefs"

Like you get worked up over the theory of evolution having support which undermines your religious beliefs

"This is why you dropped the Catholic religion" That statement is a non sequitur. I can't tell you whether it is accurate or inaccurate because the word "this" that begins the statement does not fit with the statement preceding it. Too bad your super genius mind is unable to communicate clearly

[AlanCFA]

@GoodScienceForYou "I am constantly testing you as you are constantly testing me. I am the solid one"

Your head may be solid since it seems to be filled with concrete.

"in my understanding that this shit Evodelusionism is a fucked up pile of religious bullshit." Your understanding is zilch. You have no idea about the theory of evolution and your simply lie to boost your ego with nonsense about reading 20,000 scientific papers and a high IQ. I believe in evidence and so did Judge Hernandez.

[wjestick]

The use of scientific proof has limitations in society, and this is a vital check. If we ever allowed science to govern all human conduct we would create a tyranny the like of which the world has never seen.

Peer review is a corruptible process given patience and the appropriate motivation. Leaving it all down to science could in the end spell its death, or subversion..

If you have seen the five monkeys and banana video you will understand the process.

[TheAtheologian]

I got that it was the endosymbiotic theory because the name was better. People always use the most scientific term possible when describing something, especially something true. Therefore there was A, more evidence for endosymbiotic and/or B. you liked it better.

[PluralOfEverything]

I'm pretty sure I was subbed to you before, so why did I have to subscribe again?

[xcvsdxvsx]

while this is a true description of science its important to remember that there is a tremendous amount of lysenkoism out there masquerading as science

[piprod01]

R.I.P. Lynn Margulisis.

March 5, 1938 – November 22, 2011

[OctaBech]

Thanks a lot for mentioning the "Aquatic Ape Thesis", I've never heard about it before and find the reading to be rather fascinating. So many valid sounding answers to questions which seem (in the context of my limited knowledge) to have been skipped in the past.

This is also the best video I've encountered which explains in layman terms the rigidness of science and why (the why part being implied). So going to subscribe for more.

[therrydicule]

@longfootbuddy Yes, everyone care about keeping there jobs... So, scientist like being wrong and say they were - think about it! A scientist that "I was wrong" show honesty in front of the physical, mathematical evidence... A priest don't have to do that, but people walk out, slowly, one by one, when they realize that he is full shit and the last few one hardcore believer just die of old age. People start walking out the church in the 1880's with 1 to 4%, now the young are atheist at 30%.

[CrudOMatic]

When people complain about science not being democratic - I tell them that it is damn well that it isn't; facts are facts.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid, the sky is blue, water is wet, etc... - these thing you CAN'T vote on, because they are FACTS. You don't get to decide what is a fact, it just is. No matter how much you don't want it to be. No amount of voting is going to change that FACT.

Then some say they don't like undemocratic things, for which I say Reality isn't Candyland.

[NUTCASE71733]

@longfootbuddy

Idiot.