Tag: science

On 17 March 2014, the science and technology blog of the prestigious newspaper The New Yorker announced, "A scientific breakthrough lets us see to the beginning of time". Lawrence M. Krauss, renowned physicist and author of "A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing", commented in his article on the news that went around the world, heralding a landmark moment in the history of science.

Earthquakes have always struck fear into the hearts of people who didn't know why the earth was shaking but who saw how easily their possessions or loved ones could be lost to such tremors.

Fossil layers seem to be consistent with some independent phylogenetic analyses, radiometric dating methods seem to be consistent with inferences based on the DNA "molecular clock," continental drift over millions of years seems to be consistent with the distribution of species and fossils on Earth... and the examples go on. If the evolution of life is not a real phenomenon, how can we have this apparent consensus between several independent strands of scientific research?

For Carl Sagan, renowned astronomer and militant atheist, God's place in the universe was certain: "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." For Richard Dawkins, exponent of the "new wave" of atheism, true science is necessarily atheistic and materialistic. This paradigm dominates the scientific world today.

Many had not yet finished clearing away the leftovers from the New Year's Eve table, almost no one had returned to work, politics was still numb and journalists yawned with boredom because almost nothing of interest had happened on 2 January 2015.

Marquis Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a mathematician and astronomer and one of history’s most influential scientists, once had a meeting with Napoleon Bonaparte. Laplace came to offer the first consul of the republic a copy of his book, “Traité de mécanique celeste” (Treatise on Celestial Mechanics)—an analysis of the solar system that expanded on Isaac Newton’s conclusions.

"Intelligent, scientifically trained people no longer believe (or can no longer believe) in God."

The field of science was flourishing, and amid its youngest and brightest, one student in particular consistently topped physics and chemistry courses, took its academic prizes and was courted with offers of scholarships by prestigious universities. His trajectory was toward the heights of the scientific world.

What would you say if you read an article that tells you that the human ability to make choices freely and consciously—that is, free will—might just be an illusion? What if the article backs up its claims with scientific research? Such curiosity is sparked by an article published on livescience.com.

Is the chimpanzee the human’s closest relative in the animal world? According to the theory of evolution, the answer is a categorical YES. Specialised literature abounds in generous estimates of human-chimpanzee genetic similarity, ranging from 96% to 99%. But how are these percentages obtained, what assumptions do they hide, and what do they mean beyond the evolutionary interpretation?

There’s a 1995 clip from The David Letterman Show where Letterman is interviewing Bill Gates. Gates excitedly explains how the internet will change the future. Letterman is sceptical. He mentions a baseball game that had recently been broadcast live on the internet. “Does radio ring any bells?” he quips sarcastically, to laughter from his audience.

Atheists frequently invoke the theory that in the Middle Ages, Christians (not just lay people, but even church leaders) believed in the myth of the flat Earth.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” This is Stephen Hawking’s statement that accompanied the book launch of “The Grand Design”.[1]

In recent weeks, the results of a Fermilab scientific experiment have caused quite a stir in the scientific community. The experiment, which dealt with some of the fundamental particles of the universe, has the potential to change humanity’s understanding of modern science. As a result, it is also raising questions about what science is, and if it can be wrong.

I got acquainted with Ariel Roth as a writer, but I also got to meet him as a human being. I discovered neither fanaticism nor nervousness, neither doubt nor ideological speech in Roth, an octogenarian who still looks in detail at each new subject appearing on the agenda of the debate between evolution and creation. He maintains an unflagging desire for honesty and a rational evaluation of the evidence.