Skip to main content

View Diary: Book Review: Unscientific America (351 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's more complicated (18+ / 0-)

    We completely understand why scientists get frustrated with religion, especially given it's the main reason so many people reject subjects like evolution. Still, when scientists attack people’s faith, they are not going to bridge the growing disconnect between science and society.

    In Unscientific America, we argue to focus on bringing religious America more towards science, rather than continually leaving them defensive and distrustful of the scientific community.

    •  What's "Religious America?" (8+ / 0-)

      It's not a bunch of people who happen to think different things.

      It's a huge population of different movements, some of which are working to take over parts or all of the world.

      Those movements aren't accepting suggestions, and outreach is  their job.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 06:22:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sher, scientists ask for 'faith' too. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      barbwires, DarkSyde, A Siegel

      No one has ever seen an electron, even with an electron microscope.  It exists in a cloud and seems to be everywhere at once.

      And most people alive have never looked through either a microscope or a telescope.  So what do you expect?  Very few people observe nature.  Even fewer describe nature in any meaningful way and as far as claiming to exercise any control over nature - that's really an elite club.

      "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

      by Aidos on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 06:26:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But all of that is true in Europe and SEA (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        simplicio, fayevski

        as well and yet scientific illiteracy doesn't occur at anywhere near the scale it does in the U.S. How do you explain that?

        An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

        by brainwave on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 06:29:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  one word (5+ / 0-)

          politics.

          actually it's more complex, but cultural differences are a big deal here..it's not just ignorance.

          the book unpacks all of this.

          •  Well, again, I think the main factor is religion (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            simplicio, fayevski

            not politics. Of course, religion is a huge engine of secondary political differences.

            An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

            by brainwave on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 06:41:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  evolution vs gw (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CParis, kaolin

              religion is the key factor on some issues, like evolution.

              politics is the key factor on others, like global warming.

              religion is definitely a major factor here, but i don't think it's the only one.

              •  I dunno (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zocar, fayevski

                There is much more support for legal action to curb emissions in Europe and Japan, among both the general public and politicians. Why is that? Don't think for a second European and Japanese business interests are any less bent on profit maximization at any cost! No, the difference is that the fundamentalist churches preach that it's not for humans to worry about stuff such as climate change, and whereas in Europe and Japan that message resonates with only a vanishingly small segment of the population, in America it forms a super powerful currant of the political discourse.  

                An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

                by brainwave on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:29:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LynChi, CParis, kaolin, fayevski

                  European and Asian are not as concerned with maximizing short-term profit at all costs as American corporations. They do look more at long-term consequences.

                  Also, they have traditions of respecting scientific and engineering achievement that the U.S. lacks.  Here it's all about how much money you make.

                  •  Speaking as a European (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fayevski

                    I wish you were right. But no, it's the same sh!t really. In this day and age, if you have a completely unscrupulous and pretty much criminal mindset, chances are you'll be the subject of a hagiographic portrait in some business mag within the next five years. If there is a difference in European CEOs being a little more open to sustainability arguments, I suspect religion is again at the root of that difference.

                    An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

                    by brainwave on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:41:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  brainwave, even Isaac Newton had to bow to (0+ / 0-)

              religion in order to complete his scientific studies.  The Lucasian Seat at Oxford demanded that the holder of that position renounce religion (it was in the will of Lucas that the $$$ bequethed to Oxford for the study of math not be tainted with politics of religion) in order to hold the Lucasian Chair.  The current Lucasian Chair is Stephen Hawking.

              But I think Science is pretty well politicized since 1970.  So a new paradigm is being sought.  I don't know what it is, but people are out there trying to find an answer. Maybe the internets can help.

              "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

              by Aidos on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:31:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  If (4+ / 0-)

        you're looking for a useful comparison between faith and science, I 'believe,' for lack of a better word, that there is life elsewhere in the universe and that some of it is probably intelligent. Outside of the it-happened-here-so-it-could-happen-there style of reasoning there's zero empirical evidence for that. I might write a post parsing the differences and highlighting the similarities between that view and religious belief. What do you think?

        •  Drake Equation? Maybe there is life... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DarkSyde, Four of Nine, fernan47

          elsewhere.  And then you have to define what life is.  Viruses are neither dead nor alive, they look like tiny lunar landing modules.  Where do they come from?  Space.  They are starry messengers coming in from comets.  What's that about?  Is our universe just ONE BIG OVUM being baraged by a gadzillion SPERM-LIKE VIRUSES innoculating our universe.  

          Is there a universe within each ovum being baraged by sperm?  And are there an untold number of lives being lived in nano-nano-nano seconds.

          Is life just like those nesting Russion dolls, with one universe encapsulating another with different maths and physics for each size?  Who can tell?

          You hve to define life first.

          "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

          by Aidos on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 06:54:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  RE life elsewhere ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DarkSyde, fernan47

          one can do a statistal analysis and provide probabilities which support (or undercut) such an "I believe" statement. But, agreed, there is "belief" here, at some point, rather than repeatable knowledge.

        •  Define life. That's unanswered. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ricochet, fernan47

          First we have to agree on what defines life.  There's disagreement.  Stanley Miller's experiment has not led cell biologist to creating a cell, agreed to be the basic unit of life.  They can't even create a micelle which is an inanimate cell (lacks DNA or RNA) but at least has an inside and an outside.

          I submit that the more you know about Science, the more evidence you see of a creator, not less.  :)  Do I agree with the fundies.  Heck no!  But then I don't practice religion as an F student either.  I'm an A+ student of religion.  I don't have much in common with the common religious person other than I respect religion.

          "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

          by Aidos on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 07:05:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's simply not true (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fayevski

            First, micelles form spontaneously all the time! It's one of the classic examples of self-organizing structure. Hell, spontaneous micelle formation is basically why soap works.

            Perhaps you meant vesicles, which have a double-layered membrane, resulting in an aqueous internal environment (like a cell). But there are a number of observed mechanisms for micelle to vesicle transformation, including the one catalyzed by montmorillonite clay. This clay just happens to catalyze RNA polymerization, as well.

            While there are still a huge number of open questions regarding the specific details in the path to origin of cells, the field is much further along than you might imagine. The current (and likely last) major theoretical debate is currently whether significant metabolism existed prior to replicating, catalytic polymers.

            Second, it has been my experience that the more one actually knows about science, the less likely they are to believe in a creator. And to back that up, how about this 1998 study (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html) of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where 7% has a personal belief in god and more than 70% has a personal disbelief in god. And another ~20% had expressed doubt or agnosticism.

            Some scientists believe in god. The two ideas are not necessarily in conflict, but it is simply undeniable that most scientists (and particularly, the most prominent of them) rather tend to not believe in a creator.

            The two main points of your comment are demonstrably false, and quite frankly, this casts doubt on anything you say, in my opinion.

            This website is dedicated to electing a more progressive government. I'm in that caucus, and I welcome liberal religious members here, but don't try to pretend that scientists back your ID religion. Most scientists find that utterly contemptible. The biggest split among scientists is those that say it is stupid and those that just think it's stupid.

      •  Science by its very nature (7+ / 0-)

        does not ask for faith, since it is constantly open to challenge - in fact constantly invites challenge. That is the power of science.

        Evolutionary theory is open to more knowledge. That's strength. But creationists use the word theory as a negative - as proof that we don't really know. Not true - theory means more that prevailing evidence suggests a conclusion which is still being actively formulated as new evidence is found.

        Religions however do ask for faith for their unsubstantiated crap:

        Our fairy story is truth. Believe it.

        and from the fundamentalists, the constant underlying threat that taps into the fear of death:

        Your soul will suffer for all eternity

        So, must respectfully disagree about scientists asking for faith.

        We need two lists: those we will work to elect and those we will defeat. If you're not progressive, you're not a Democrat.

        by moosely2006 on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:05:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you!. That's the fundamental distinction. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moosely2006, fayevski

          If we could just start there and get more people to understand that faith and science are two diametrically opposed ways of looking at the world.  One believes that the world is like it is "just because I believe it!"  The other wants to try to figure out what is real.  

          Ran across a wonderful quote the other day in a new book that I'm reading called "Trick or Treatment" by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst:  "There are, in fact, two things, science and opinion;  the former begets knowledge, the ignorance."  from Hippocrates of Cos, 2000 years ago.

          Substitute religion for opinion, which is really all religion is, and it sums up the current problem succinctly.

          •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LynChi, fayevski

            and when you quote Hippocrates, it always brings to mind an opinion ventured by a science-based friend that:

            If not for the rise of the Catholic Church, mankind would have entered the Industrial Age by 200 A.D.

            We need two lists: those we will work to elect and those we will defeat. If you're not progressive, you're not a Democrat.

            by moosely2006 on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:57:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Theories (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LynChi, moosely2006

          "..creationists use the word theory as a negative - as proof that we don't really know."

          When I encounter religionists that claim evolution is "only a theory", I point out that the law of gravity is also 'only a theory'.

      •  Scientists don't ask for "faith" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LynChi, fayevski

        They ask for and present evidence. We know electrons exist because of overwhelming evidence for their existence, not because of "faith."

        That's a key difference between Science and Religion: unless you want to get into the philosophical weeds and talk about "faith" in the operation of our brains and sense organs, science doesn't ask for faith but religion requires it.

      •  Sort of. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fayevski

        We can trivially see protons now, and while electrons are a quantum phenomenon, one can see actual pictures of their (once theoretical) probability distribution.

        But even beyond that, we can confirm the existence of parts of protons even smaller than electrons. We can do that because vision lets us see equations and numbers for those equations, coming from machines that we build (and can see). And we see those numbers, using our minds to evaluate mathematics that we constructed to follow a set logic, can see that those numbers fit a model of something we cannot see.

        If vision is the limit of what can be considered science, then science ended millenia ago. Everything we do -- every disease we cure, every astronomical correction, every thing -- depends on our ability to augment our (god-given?) limits of perception.

        The size of the gaps that god occupies are a function of our success at measuring the world around us. Does that not give you pause? God's effect is now thought, among those who "reasonably" believe, to be a quantum effect...

        This is a guy that, supposedly, rained frogs for a day. I'm sure you have a refined notion of that, but to paraphrase Sagan, why was god so obvious in the past, but so frustratingly irrelevant in the present?

    •  Absolutely on target! (8+ / 0-)

      Great post! I wish the more extreme atheists would stop saying that religion is the problem.  Really fanaticism is the problem, and some atheists can be fanatic.  The truth is we don't know any final answers and while modern science may pretty much demolish a literal interpretation of the creation story of the Bible, it does not destroy the idea of a creator of some sort.  Nobody is going to like this, as it points to our ultimate ignorance in regard to final causes.

      I am an agnostic because I see no solid reason to believe or to disbelieve in a god, goddess or gods.  I doubt that a god, goddess or gods exist, but I DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN!  I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that life on earth came into being around 3.5-4 billion years ago and that it evolved into the biota we see today. Of course a 6,000 year or 10,000 year age for the earth is patently ridiculous, as is the idea of an earth-centered universe or a flat earth, but totally attacking religion as a false idea will get us nowhere fast.  We will be "pure" but marginal, like the extremists in any group.  

      •  you and Dawkins agree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mr science, dpryan, Neon Vincent, fernan47

        Here's what Richard Dawkins says about the existence of gods:

        'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

        We can't disprove lots of things.  I can't disprove unicorns but I don't think they're real.  Zeus, Apollo, fairies, ghosts . . .

      •  But religion is the problem. See my post above. (0+ / 0-)
        •  But how are you going to eliminate it? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kaolin

          I'm sure you could start a nice religious war, but based on past history not enough people will be killed and the atheists might be the ones that loose.

          I can also point out that there is nothing separating an atheistic totalitarian government from a theistic totalitarian government - they still dictate what people may think.  And if you believe that you can just explain to the populace about the false ideas of religion and have them see the light, without massive repression, you are living on a different planet than I am.

          I'm not excusing the stupider forms of religion, but I also am fairly convinced that there are things neither theists nor scientist know.  What exactly do we mean by "natural phenomena"?  I sure cannot give an absolute definition.  My suspicion is that, as J. B. S. Haldane put it, "the universe is queerer than we can suppose." Haldane was an atheist and yet he understood this at least.

          I can put forth logical explanations for unicorns - muddled descriptions of narwhals and/or the rhinoceros, so it was not totally a false concept. As to Zeus- how else would you explain thunder in 1000 BCE?  

      •  Congratulations: you are also an atheist. (0+ / 0-)

        All it takes is a lack of belief in gods, goddesses, and the like to join the club. Doubt is OK, certainty isn't necessary.

        •  I refuse to take on that label.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kaolin

          because I still am willing to be convinced otherwise - but only by solid evidence. I am an agnostic or non-theist if you wish.  There seems to be something in the American psyche that needs to have everything in right-wrong, winners-losers, religious- atheistic, conservative-liberal etc.  Things do not always work that way.  I tend to be a fiscal conservative, but a social and foreign policy liberal.  The best way to drive both "sides" batty is to claim to believe in a more nuanced system.  Both "sides" will then hate you and call you wishy-washy to boot!

          •  All atheists are willing to be convinced (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HiBob, fayevski

            you'd have a tough time finding a non-agnostic atheist. When one of us (atheists) implies otherwise, we're just using shorthand. A non-theist is, by definition, an atheist.

            write(*,*) transfer((/7.8675962E+34, 1.4198914E+22, 2.8759284E+20, & 7.0309227E+28, 1.5274153E-43/),(/'x'/));

            by dpryan on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 03:05:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Seems the best (4+ / 0-)

      balance in this domain is to discuss and understand that religion and science answer different questions.

      I do believe that there are people who find meaningful balance and reinforcement between theology and scientific study. The damage is when theocracy and dogmatic theology drive out respect for and understanding of the value of the scientific method.

    •  Sheril, Ape diploid #48, human #46. WHY? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ricochet

      I know one of the arguments is that species are being destroyed and there are some minute changed occuring in evolving species but there are no new species.

      The argument the religious have against evolution is not that all life is connected, it's the argument that we 'evolved' from apes.  Somewhere along the line we 'lost' a pair of chromosomes?  How does that happen?

      Human ploidy is 23 chromosomes or 46 diploid.
      Ape ploidy is 24 chromosomes or 48 diploid.

      Again.  WHY?  If we had a common ancestor where's the speculation on the chromosome number of that common ancestor.

      And I'm not a fundie.  I just find it puzzling.

      "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

      by Aidos on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 07:29:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We didn't lose it (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HiBob, moosely2006, kaolin, fayevski

        they pieces got hooked up to other chromosomes.  The genes are still there.

        There are great maps of the translocations.  There is no mystery.  I'll try to find one for you.

        Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

        by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 07:48:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ken Miller gives a great talk on this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kaolin, Aidos
      •  Here's a diagram from a paper (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kaolin, Aidos

        that shows the comparisons of regions on the chimp and human chromosomes:

        http://www.plosgenetics.org/...

        See figure 1 there.  But they were looking only at inversions, not so much translocations. Still looking for a good freely-available map of the translocations.

        Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

        by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:36:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm aware of this. (0+ / 0-)

          All life shares regions with all other life.  Translocations included. We even share with tomatoes and snakes and rats.  The question of the ploidy remains;

          Ape: haploid 24 and diploid 48
          Humans: haploid 23 and diploid 46

          With alot of genetic material shared in common, and translocation all over the place, but the ploidy prevents interspecies mingling.  And there's a ton of loose genetic material floating around in the cell, the purpose of which is still unknown.  Why some genetic material combines to form chromosomes and other genetic material exists floating around the cell is a mystery.  A friend says this remains a research topic in cell biology.

          BTW I've had the pleasure of meeting both Francis Collins and Harold Varmus in a small group while I worked on autoimmune diseases and spoke to the House Bioethics Panel on patient issues in autoimmunity.

          "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

          by Aidos on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 10:59:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Neat (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fayevski

            First, regarding arguments from authority:

            a. I first met Francis Collins in junior high school, about 20 years ago.

            b. I know about a half dozen Nobel Laureates on a first name basis. I've TA'd courses for a few of them.

            c. I have the personal cell numbers of a former NAS president, a handful of people at the NCSE, and more than one person on Holdren's staff in the Obama White House.

            d. I did my doctoral work, on origin of life theory, with a member of the NAS.

            Second, for any one else paying attention: ignore this Aidos person. They have a complex mixture of fake knowledge in play here. Fox News worthy statements (at least in regards to science). This is either a troll or an anti-science liberal. Personally, I consider both a serious problem.

            •  Dr. jabr, thank you for taking the time to (0+ / 0-)

              to read my post.  However you have ignored my quesstion on ploidy and I would have expected you to refer to cites, quite possibly to something you might have published for your PhD or subsequent writings.  My education, my c.v., my experience, and list of celebrated cell phone numbers is much more modest than yours and my contact with the scientific elite is marginal.  Without any real evidence, just because you say so, I will cede and say that you are better than me when it comes to doing science.  So I will look to you as I would look at a teacher, a bringer of knowledge, an opportunity to grow.  Educate me about human v. ape ploidy since it's tangential to your PhD work on the origins of life.

              That being said, I find it amusing that your post amplifies why America is becoming less and less scientific.   Your comment "snip ignore this Aidos person. snip  This is either a troll or an anti-science liberal. snip" really proves my point about how politics is killing science.  You chose not to answer my question on ploidy, you don't even send me cites that might answer my question, you simply dismiss me as being either anti-science or a troll.  You even go so far as to ostracize me and ask others to do so simply because you say so.

              I must say it's quite unscientific to wear a paper bag over your face (anonymous poster on a blog and I know you're not Stanley Miller since he died a couple of years ago) and do an ad hominum attack against me instead of answering my question on ploidy.

              The question on ploidy is an unpleasant truth that has stumped quite a few.  I have had the pleasure of chatting with James Watson, in private, at a reception for him at Chicago's Museum of Science. It was the weekend that Chicago Medical School changed its name to the Rosalind Franklin College of Medicine.  I did skewer Watson on the historical fact that Rosie the crystallographer was working with Linus Pauling on the structure of the DNA molecule when he, Jim Watson, sat in on her lecture in Cambridge and beat her to the analysis of the structure of DNA as being a double helix.   It was the opinion of many that Rosalind Franklin should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for the double helix along with Crick & Watson.  Even so, we chatted amiably for 15 minutes!  In a corner.  He came to chat with me.  He was firm with me and on several of my questions he chose to deviate from the question asked and asked me questions instead.  He was pleasant but disappointing.  He had empathy for me because he has a disabled son and I'm disabled too.  And he wanted to focus on what it meant to care for a disabled adult.  The problem of ploidy remained unanswered and that's OK with me.  Nobelist Watson wanted me to see his humanity.

              You chose to be a political animal instead of being a scientist.  You chose to stifle debate/conversation on science and instead went on a personal attack against me simply because I asked a question you could not answer or did not want to answer.  

              James Watson changed the focus and started asking me difficult questions.

              Dr. jabr please answer the question on human vs. ape ploidy or direct me to one of your colleagues who might be able to answer my question.

              "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

              by Aidos on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 06:35:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please... read something (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fayevski

                Ploidy is not some big mystery. As mem from somerville tried to explain, the genetic material is conserved between Apes and humans, it's just arranged differently. This is not unusual. It turns out DNA is very mailable and sticky. One chromosome can get stuck to another in some early ancestor and thus you get a chromosome reduction, and conversely you can have a chromosome that gets broken and becomes two separate chromosomes in some early ancestor. Normally this is deleterious for an organism, but sometimes they become fixed in a population. This is not anything new or controversial, it's only a mystery to the uninformed or willfully ignorant. In fact we know some of the processes involved in karyotype evolution ( the term for changes in ploidy/chromosome number, try looking it up), they are related to non-homologous recombination, repetitive element distribution and chromatin biology. In fact you can synthetically alter ploidy and chromosome number in plants and some animals to recapitulate what the evolution of karyotypes might have looked like. Please, please, please don't go around with your ignorance on display claiming that it's proof of some scientific mystery. It's only proof that your either a fool or uninformed or both.

                Here are some public-access reviews on the subject. Please read them before commenting any more on this subject, do not perpetuate pseudo-mystery.

                Paper 1
                Paper 2
                Paper 3
                Paper 4

                •  I'm a dilletante...not nefarious. (0+ / 0-)

                  I will read your cites.  

                  I admire good science.  I admire good art.   I love fashion.  I love good food & wine.  I love my family and friends.   I love my healthcare team, they keep me alive.  :)

                  "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -Aristotle

                  by Aidos on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:12:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Good Luck With Your Book! (0+ / 0-)

      If you can do this for the Dick and Jane and Spots of this world in any way then Bravo. It's getting scary out here to be the one that does not believe. That wants to upchuck knowing they almost put a creationist play park in her back yard. (Instead it's up the road in Kentucky, thank god haaa) Look at it from their point of view and bring them forward gently. Don't pull their teeth out and you will make a giant step forward for science. Amen haaaa

      •  Carl Sagan brought science forward to me... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        barbwires, kaolin

        For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.

        Carl Sagan

        We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

        Carl Sagan

        Hope you can bring this forward too.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site