Search This Blog

Monday, January 23, 2012

Even with a monopoly on the "Science" channels, secular organizations, and academia the Darwinists cannot get people to believe in their silly hypothesis!

Image: Charles Darwin
Richard Milner Archive 
This is one of the last photographs taken of Charles Darwin, who developed the theory of evolution whereby changes in species are driven, over time, by natural and sexual selection.
updated 1/20/2012 5:37:26 PM ET
Gut feelings may trump good old-fashioned facts, and even religious beliefs, when it comes to accepting the theory of evolution, new research suggests. 

"The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it, if they really knew it, they would see the logic and accept it," study co-author David Haury, an associate professor of education at Ohio State University, said in a statement.

But, he noted, research on the matter has been inconsistent. While one study would find a strong relationship between knowledge level and acceptance, another would not. Likewise, studies have contradicted each other on the relationship between religious identity and acceptance of evolution, he said.

Haury and his colleagues figured that another unexplored factor must be at work. Previous research has shown that the human brain doesn't judge the merits of an idea solely on logic, but also on how intrinsically true the idea feels: Could this process of intuitive reasoning help explain why some people are more accepting of evolution than others?

To find out, the researchers recruited 124 pre-service biology teachers at different stages in a standard teacher preparation program at two Korean universities. They chose to look at students in Korea because teacher preparation programs in the country are quite standardized. "In Korea, people all take the same classes over the same time period and are all about the same age, so it takes out a lot of extraneous factors," Haury explained.

Moreover, about half of Koreans don't identify themselves as belonging to any particular religion, he said. In the U.S., only about 16 percent of people are religiously unaffiliated, according to the Pew Research Center. (Religion can be a reason for not accepting evolution, as some think it goes against a god as a creator.)

The researchers first asked the students a series of questions to measure their overall acceptance of evolution, teasing out whether they generally believed the main concept sand scientific findings that define the theory of evolution. Next, they tested the students on their knowledge of evolutionary science with questions about various processes, such as natural selection. For each question, the students wrote down how certain they felt about the correctness of their answers — an indicator of their gut feelings.

They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs. Even students with a greater knowledge of evolutionary facts weren't more likely to accept the theory unless they also had a strong gut feeling about the facts, the results showed.

The study has important implications for the teaching of evolution, the researchers said. Informing students about this conflict between intuition and logic may help them judge ideas on their merits.

"Educationally, we think that's a place to start," Haury said. "It's a concrete way to show them, 'Look, you can be fooled and make a bad decision, because you just can't deny your gut.'" 

The study was published in the January 2012 issue of Journal of Research in Science Teaching.


Darwinists lie on a regular basis.   One of the biggest is that Intelligent Design is Creationism.   Nope.   I can use ID findings to support ID but ID is real on-the-ground science.  Darwinists may have forgotten what real science actually is, after all, they are so used to making stuff up they may not remember how to actually investigate and test and all those "science" things ID guys do?   

Anyway, if your gut tells you that Darwinism makes no sense, just think, your gut is smarter than Richard Dawkins' brain!   Same with Global Dumbing.   All those faked graphs and incriminatory emails and doctored data?   We know now...

Global Warming: Myth vs. Reality
The media is responsible for popularizing the fear that increases in carbon dioxide emissions will lead to a catastrophic upset in the global climate structure. The truth of the situation is: some parts of this new climate pattern are not completely understood and scientists are still researching. There are some myths about Global Warming that have been repeated and magnified so many times by so many people that most people accept them on blind faith without thinking to question them or listen to the other point of view. Here are some of the main myths and assumptions Global Warming followers support and why they are just plain untrue.
Figure 1:
Myth: The Ozone Layer is in serious danger

Although the hole in the Ozone Layer directly above Antarctica is extremely large, the whole layer is not falling apart. While the hole above Antarctica has been growing larger during the past couple of years, the ozone concentration has held pretty constant and the rest of the layer around the Earth has been building up. While it is necessary to make sure that our planet is protected under an adequate coat of ozone, we have some time to help it to continue to mend and our atmosphere is heading in the right direction for a complete ozone restoration.1

Myth: CO2 causes climate change

Many Americans take for granted the idea that an increase in carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is what leads to an increase in Earth’s temperature. In fact, that is only a theory. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland published his research that found that a change in Earth’s temperature would have more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. He “points out that cloudiness and water vapour [sic] are nearly a hundred times more influential on global temperature variations than all the rest of the greenhouse gases combined. He suggests for example, that if it were possible to double the global CO2 concentration, the effect could be cancelled out by a 1% increase in cloudiness.”2

Many scientists believe that changes in solar irradiance are what cause the changes in average global temperature from year to year.3
Figure 2:
As you can see in Figure 2, solar irradiance is closely related to Earth’s surface temperature which leads many scientists to believe that when the sun’s radiation increases or decreases from one year to the next, the Earth’s temperature responds respectively.

Myth: All scientists agree with the media on the subject of Global Warming

This is very untrue. In fact, there have been three famous petitions by scientists trying to tell the world that the media’s portrayal of Global Warming is false. These three are the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992 from Germany with 4000 signatures, the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, from Germany again with 110 signatures and the Oregon Petition Project from California, USA with 17,000 signatures from concerned scientists from around the world.2

A survey conducted by Greenpeace found that only 13% of scientists asked believed that the continuation of current levels of energy usage will result in catastrophic changes in climate. A poll conducted within the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society concluded that 17% of members believe greenhouse gas emissions caused the increase in global temperature.4

Myth: Most people support the Kyoto Protocol

By 2004, seven years after the Kyoto conference that gave birth to the Kyoto Protocol was held, only 15% of countries that considered the protocol actually started using it. Even though our friends in the media were claiming that all of the countries in the world held a consensus and were unified in their fight behind the Kyoto Protocol; that just wasn’t true. Out of the 210 countries that adopted the Kyoto Protocol, only 32 actually ratified it. That means 85% of countries that signed this set of restrictions rejected them, as of 2004. In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the country’s most prestigious technical institute, published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.2

Myth: The Earth cannot withstand higher levels of CO2

Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide is actually an amazingly good thing for the environment. A lot of research shows that increased levels of carbon dioxide “accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions”5 Since 1950, there are 30% more trees available to make timber and, currently, there is about 60 tons of timber for every American. Also, “mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year; and a composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxideincreases.” 5



Global Warming caused by mankind does not happen and IS NOT HAPPENING!!!!

From the author below:

"The Arctic ice continued to grow until March 31st. This is the latest period ever recorded for this, and the latest date ever for the start of the seasonal melting. (clearly conditions are favorable for ice growth in the Arctic).

Arctic ice extent is near the average of the past 30 years, it is back to normal.

The Arctic ice is also thicker than it was in 1980 according to the University of Illinois Cyrosphere.

Global sea ice volumes are also back at the level in 1980. Where is the warming, clearly in some warmer's heads."- JGP

1 comment:

Jon Woolf said...

As usual, Radar, you make a mountain out of a molehill. With any complex subject, there's a difference between knowledge and understanding. One can learn all the facts about the subject, and still not understand it. This is true of relativity, quantum mechanics, mathematics (even low-level math such as algebra), law, forensics, military tactics, theology, history, and many other fields. Evolutionary theory is no different. Even if we didn't have creationists slithering around spreading lies about the theory, this would still be true. There is more to understanding than simple knowledge.

This is one reason why creationist assaults on evolutionary theory are so laughably inept: no anti-evolutionist ever truly understands evolutionary theory. (If you did, you wouldn't be anti-evolution anymore.) And because you don't understand it, you think you can destroy it by picking nits around the fringes of the theory.