Jump to content

Home

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'science'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The International House of Mojo
    • General Discussion
  • The Lucasforums Archive
    • The Archive

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


Current Game


Web Browser


Favorite LucasArts Game


Resolution


Height in cm


Xbox Live GamerTag


PlayStation Network ID


Steam ID


Homepage


ICQ


AIM


Yahoo


MSN


Skype

Found 4 results

  1. Its been 10 years since embryonic stem cells were first isolated and the Bush administration subsequently relented to superstitious agenda and all but shelved the research that explores their potential to save lives. Embryonic stem cells were a dime a dozen thanks to in vitro fertilization, which produces more embryos than needed. The Bush administration did what it could to block advancement in the research and technology surrounding stem cells, citing superstition and fallacious logic -they argued that surplus embryonic stem cells were better suited for the garbage disposal than saving lives (the fallacy), ostensibly because each blastocyst had its own soul (the superstition). Now, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave Geron in Menlo Park, California, permission to conduct a safety test in a handful of patients with a recent spinal cord injury. The treatment will likely not "allow patients to jump out of wheelchairs and play soccer," but it is certainly an advancement in the research necessary to work out the potential to save lives, improve quality of lives, and correct serious injuries and illnesses that would otherwise leave patients paralyzed and disabled. There are some concerns among the scientific and medical community, but about the timeliness of the clinical trial and the worry that this test might not be a good first trial of stem cell therapy since there are some potential risks of tumors developing that are already part of some hypotheses in this type of therapy. However, most scientists agree that this is an important milestone in stem cell research and that the first "cure" demonstrated will likely demolish most opposition and superstitious-based skepticism regarding the use of stem cells.
  2. It appears that New Scientist has caved to legal threats by some unknown entity that was ostensibly upset that they ran an article on how to spot hidden religious agendas in science text books. The article by Amanda Geftner was at this URL, but the message there says "New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate." The question on the blogosphere among science bloggers is who would threaten such legal action? Obvious culprits are the wackos at Discovery Institute and Denyse O'Leary, a Canadian writer and blogger who defended Intelligent Design in her 2004 book By Design or Chance. O'Leary is a nutjob extraordinaire and goes on many anti-science, pro-superstition tirades on various science and pseudoscience blogs alike. Mostly the latter. So what was in the article that was so controversial? Take a look for yourself. The internet, and skeptics blogs in particular, make such censorship and restriction of free speech near impossible. This is clearly an example of conservative-religious extremists making every effort to oppress free speech where it is critical of their superstitions or daring to question their irrational claims. Ironically, these people are not above lying to scientists to get interviews for films like Expelled, where evolution is grossly mischaracterized as the cause of the Holocaust and where the claim is made that academic freedom is being oppressed. So how do you spot religious agenda in science textbooks. If you didn't click the link to the article copy (and you should copy it to your hard drive for future reference), here's an excerpt: Clearly, what is objected to by the miscreant(s) that threatened legal action is the fact that someone is educating the public. Hopefully, New Scientist will have the article back online soon. If not, the internet will pick up the slack. In fact, I'll probably repost it on my blog.
  3. The whackos who would like to introduce superstition and pseudoscience into the public school classroom lost some foot hold recently: See the article at The Scientific American
×
×
  • Create New...