Tag Archives: Science

News

New study: global warming skeptics know more about science than alarmists

Leave a comment

ECM posted this Fox News story on Facebook.

Excerpt:

A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:

  • “Electrons are smaller than atoms — true or false?”
  • “How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?”
  • “Lasers work by focusing sound waves — true or false?”

The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct.

“As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased,” the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.

It reminds me of the debate between theists. On the one hand, you’ve got the theists with their Big Bang, fine-tuning and biological information. On the other hand, you’ve got the atheists with their eternally oscillating bouncy universe, their unobservable multiverse and their hypothetical aliens seeding the Earth with life. It’s science vs. religion, all right. Or perhaps I should say science vs. science fiction.

Commentary

Hugh Ross debates Lewis Wolpert on scientific evidence for a Creator

Leave a comment

From the 2012 Unbelievable UK conference, Peter Byrom (BirdieUpon) reports on a great debate on science and Christianity.

Excerpt:

I had the great pleasure yesterday of attending the debate “Does the universe show evidence for a creator?” at Imperial College, London. Arguing in the affirmative was astrophysicist Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe,  a science-faith think tank from the USA; arguing the negative was Lewis Wolpert, Emeritus Professor of biology and British Humanist.

[…]But, onto the debate itself! A good turn-out. The lecture theatre was packed. It was hosted by Imperial College’s Christian Union, but a decent number of atheists and sceptics showed up too – which is quite something given that AC Grayling was giving a lecture in the next room (he passed by me earlier as I was editing my latest Dawkins-critical video on my laptop… I don’t think he noticed)!

This is where it gets interesting. Hugh Ross went first, and outlined for 20 minutes his Creation Model, arguing that the Bible – and only the Bible – contains consistent, scientifically accurate predictions about the cosmos, the empirical data for which is only being discovered recently in the modern age. His case is essentially that the more we discover about the universe, the more the evidence for design and a transcendent creator piles up and confirms what the Bible has been telling us for the past thousands of years. Of particular note were passages from Jeremiah and Romans, which Hugh claims tell us about the expansion of the universe and the law of entropy. Alongside we have the opening of the Bible, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth – the Big Bang is this beginning. When this was discovered, a great many scientists were reluctant to accept it, fearing that an absolute beginning of space and time gave too much leverage to those who believe in theistic creation.

It was fascinating also to hear Hugh cite an article written by atheist physicists called “Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant”. In this article, its atheist authors were forced to concede that this particular cosmological constant left them no choice but to invoke a transcendent causal agent. Their solution? To “do a Daniel Dennett”: conclude that this cosmological constant must, therefore, surely be false (!)

Go read the whole thing at Apologetics UK blog! It’s great when we have smart guys to give us a ringside report.

News

New Gallup poll: 50% of Americans now pro-life – only 41% are pro-choice

Leave a comment

I found this article at Secondhand Smoke. (H/T ECM and J Warner Wallace)

Here are the poll results:

The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as “pro-choice” is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves “pro-life,” one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009.

[…]Since 2001, the majority of Republicans have consistently taken the pro-life position, but by a gradually increasing margin over “pro-choice.” That gap expanded further this year, with the percentage of Republicans identifying as pro-life increasing to 72% from 68% last May, and those identifying as pro-choice dropping to 22% from 28%. Still, Republicans’ current views are similar to those found in 2009.

[…]The percentage of political independents identifying as pro-choice is 10 points lower today than in May 2011, while the percentage pro-life is up by six points. As a result, pro-lifers now outnumber pro-choicers among this important swing political group for only the second time since 2001, with the first occurring in 2009.

[…]Democrats’ views on abortion have changed the least over the past 12 years, with roughly 60% calling themselves pro-choice and about a third pro-life. Democrats’ identification as pro-choice was above this range in May 2011, but has returned to about 60% in the current poll.

Why are the pro-lifers winning?

Wesley J. Smith explains:

When you look at the poll, the pro life side has been the plurality/majority view for several years.  The question is why? Here’s my take:

  • The pro life movement has science on their side. A fetus is a human being in the gestating stage. He or she isn’t a parasite nor a tissue mass.
  • The pro choice side became too strident and absolutist–as in fighting the bans on partial birth abortion and insisting on making abortion available to minors without parental consent.
  • Just as in the gay rights issue, familiarity breeds acceptance.  Many people know pro life activists and understand they are not the kind of uncaring people the media and pro choice activists like to paint.
  •  America remains a generally religious nation. Not all pro lifers are religious, to be sure, but the power of faith as a motivator on this issue can’t be denied.

Saying one is pro life isn’t the same thing as saying abortion should be outlawed.  But it does show, I think, that those who work indefatigable to value the lives of the unborn are respectable and mainstream.  And that means the incremental approach activists have taken on this issue for decades is slowly working.

I think that pro-lifers, especially groups like CCBR and LTI who are able to do two-hour formal debates, do the most good. Show the pictures of abortions does a lot of good. When you see red blood next to a miniature human, you know that abortion is wrong. It is wrong to spill the blood of another human being without justification. And what possible justification could there be for hurting a little baby?