# Science is screwing up the battle for America's minds. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716 "2005-07-15T21:06:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/101 "2005-07-16T22:31:31Z")
Claiming science has no effective voices is patently ridiculous. We are a society run by scientists. There are the economists at the Federal Reserve and on Wall Street. There are people studying Quantum Physics on the government’s dime in New Mexico. California has a major genomics field. There is a computer in nearly every home. Dseid, what world do you live in where science is being persecuted? Your argument seems like a Christian persecution complex being applied to science. Scientific research gets trillions dumped on it annually. Have you just recently looked up from your encyclopedia to realize that the country has lots of ignorant people in it? However, as a caveat, I think it’s just as ignorant to dismiss religion in all this. Most people that are anti-science are anti-science that dismisses the human question as irrelevant to it’s pursuit of knowledge. I think that question of “Will this research kill us all?” is more relevant today than it ever was, and that is the essence of the moral dilemma that comes with scientific research. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/102 "2005-07-16T22:34:36Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Take away life after death and God is meaningless. That is fact. That isn’t even logical. Please explain how a universal sentience is denied by the lack of an afterlife. Erek ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2005, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/103 "2005-07-16T22:40:05Z")
> [@nameless](#): > > Oh, **lekatt** , why must you cruelly bait me so? > > In another thread involving you, I linked [this](http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/71/4/549) study, which shows that electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain evokes memories. A famous neurological case study named [H.M.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.2190) had a chunk of his medial temporal lobe removed and lost the ability to make new memories, though he was functional in most other regards. His is not the only such case study; there are many. [CREB](http://www.med.ege.edu.tr/~norolbil/2001/NBD14301.html) is a gene that when knocked out in flies, largely inhibits their ability to make new memories. Overexpressing the gene makes them learn overly fast, responding to a single incident. Interfering with the transmitter [norepinephrine](http://nootropics.com/noradrenaline/) interferes with memory. Knocking out or antagonizing the [glutamate NMDA receptor](http://www.bioscience.org/1998/v3/e/magnusso/2.htm) interferes with a memory-dependent task. > > And that’s just memory. The evidence for its storage in the brain is irrefutable. I am still waiting for that irrefutable **physical** proof. Brain cells look alike, same as liver cells, or kidney cells. But scientists map brain cells into functions based on their experience. However there are no two brains that function alike. When I said physical evidence I meant show me the memory cells, the thought cells, after all if consciousness is really **biological** it could be seen. If you probe a TV tuner or damage it in some way the TV will lose it full ability to operate correctly. That does not prove the TV creates the programs any more than faulty functioning brain proves the brain creates the personality. if you had read the links I offered it would have been explained. [http://www.aleroy.com/FAQz23.htm](http://www.aleroy.com/FAQz23.htm) ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2005, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/104 "2005-07-16T23:46:36Z")
My $0.02? A lot of “Science” isn’t Science. It’s technique. A lot of people who think that they are “Scientists” aren’t. They’re merely technicians. A lot of people enter Science not out of deep philosphical drives, but are merely going for advanced vocational training. I work in a pharmaceutical firm. One of our synthetic chemists and I were talking. When he referred to himself as a scientist, to his great displeasure, I reminded him that he was nothing more than a “molecule monkey.” A pair of hands, trained in the current art and practice of synthetic chemistry. He was using the insights developed by other, “real scientists,” but was not really advancing the field, which is what real scientists do. Bizz As others have said, it’s not that we’re losing ground, it’s that others are catching up (and why not? We taught 'em!!) ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/105 "2005-07-17T00:02:39Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Brain cells look alike, same as liver cells, or kidney cells. No, no they don’t! Brain cells have a unique morphology and functionality all their own. It is what permits them to do their job. Your ignorance of histology is astounding. Furthermore, not all brain cells are alike; they exhibit a great deal of variation and can be classified into many subgroups. > [@lekatt](#): > > But scientists map brain cells into functions based on their experience. However there are no two brains that function alike. Okay, I’m sort of with you so far… > [@lekatt](#): > > When I said physical evidence I meant show me the memory cells, the thought cells, after all if consciousness is really **biological** it could be seen. What the hell? I’ve just given you five cites that outline a biological basis of memory. Each cite is from a different level of organizaton: physiological, structural, chemical, genetic, and molecular. I’ve given you PHYSICAL evidence that memory is stored and accessed in the brain. What have you given me to suggest that memory comes from somewhere else? What exactly would convince you that memory is physically located in the brain? Are you asking for a [grandmother cell?](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12374433&dopt=Abstract) Because that concept has pretty much been thrown out the window. > [@lekatt](#): > > If you probe a TV tuner or damage it in some way the TV will lose it full ability to operate correctly. That does not prove the TV creates the programs any more than faulty functioning brain proves the brain creates the personality. Okay, what you’re making here is primarily a philosophical argument, and that’s not my jurisdiction. But here goes anyway. Lets assume that we give someone a television who has never seen one before. Would it be wrong of him to assume that the television was in fact generating the programming? What reason would he have to think differently? It is the most parsimonious explanation, though it is not (in this case) the correct one. We are in a similar situation with regard to how the human brain works. The most parsimonious explanation is that consciousness is physical. I am not denying that it is _possible_ that some ethereal nonphysical consciousness works through the brain like a conduit, but to adopt this belief is to generate a more complex system. Occam’s Razor forbids this explicitly–a separate nonphysical consciousness is not required to explain the nature of human memory. I apologize profusely for the hijack, but apparently I just can’t keep my mouth shut. I will quit the thread forthwith. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/106 "2005-07-17T00:15:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Dseid, what world do you live in where science is being persecuted? Your argument seems like a Christian persecution complex being applied to science. Scientific research gets trillions dumped on it annually. Where do you get the impression that **Dseid** ’s point is one of persecution? His OP is not a lament that science is being suppressed, but a call to those who support science to find a way to do more to make sure that it is not even more misunderstood. Attacking the strawman of “persecution” that he has not raised is not addressing the argument. At least **lekatt** ’s silly claims are a demonstration of the problem. I’m not even sure where you’re going with your claim. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/107 "2005-07-17T00:22:13Z")
Religion and science are separate. There is no reason to inject religion into science, except to control, stifle, or stop it. Science has no interest at all in destroying religion. Religion however has a long history of interfering with science - from stem cell research, young earth, monkey trials and AIDS research today, way beck to the geocentric universe. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/108 "2005-07-17T02:39:07Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That isn’t even logical. Please explain how a universal sentience is denied by the lack of an afterlife. > > Erek Perhaps it isn’t understandable when you don’t quote the whole post. Read the whole post and it will make more sense. My compliments on your previous post. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/109 "2005-07-17T03:06:49Z")
> [@nameless](#): > > No, no they don’t! Brain cells have a unique morphology and functionality all their own. It is what permits them to do their job. Your ignorance of histology is astounding. Furthermore, not all brain cells are alike; they exhibit a great deal of variation and can be classified into many subgroups. > > Okay, I’m sort of with you so far… > > What the hell? I’ve just given you five cites that outline a biological basis of memory. Each cite is from a different level of organizaton: physiological, structural, chemical, genetic, and molecular. I’ve given you PHYSICAL evidence that memory is stored and accessed in the brain. What have you given me to suggest that memory comes from somewhere else? > > What exactly would convince you that memory is physically located in the brain? Are you asking for a [grandmother cell?](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12374433&dopt=Abstract) Because that concept has pretty much been thrown out the window. > > Okay, what you’re making here is primarily a philosophical argument, and that’s not my jurisdiction. But here goes anyway. > > Lets assume that we give someone a television who has never seen one before. Would it be wrong of him to assume that the television was in fact generating the programming? What reason would he have to think differently? It is the most parsimonious explanation, though it is not (in this case) the correct one. We are in a similar situation with regard to how the human brain works. The most parsimonious explanation is that consciousness is physical. > > I am not denying that it is _possible_ that some ethereal nonphysical consciousness works through the brain like a conduit, but to adopt this belief is to generate a more complex system. Occam’s Razor forbids this explicitly–a separate nonphysical consciousness is not required to explain the nature of human memory. > > I apologize profusely for the hijack, but apparently I just can’t keep my mouth shut. I will quit the thread forthwith. Hey. don’t quit the thread, you’re actually listening and thinking with me as if I were really human. Even if you don’t agree. It may be that the most parsimonious explanation is that consciousness is physical. but what if we have other evidence to the contrary. Some research scientists are studying near death experiences and their findings are consciousness remains fully alive after the death of the brain. Why would anyone not be interested in this research. Think about the possibilities. I know skeptics will never change, but real scientists would if they felt the studies were honest. Oh, yes, the religious folks will never believe it either no matter what the evidence. Well maybe you could consider it. [http://www.ntdaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/01/21/41f0a79e73d4c](http://www.ntdaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/01/21/41f0a79e73d4c) [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1693](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1693) [http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,55826,00.html](http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,55826,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/110 "2005-07-17T03:44:20Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Just takes away life after death which is not neutral to religion. I think a Buddhist would take issue with that. Life after death is not a universal tenet of all religions. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/111 "2005-07-17T04:28:27Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > And now we know where the arrogance of scientists come from, it is taught in science classes? Yes, it’s arrogant to say that the American public is stupid. A humble person would describe them as brilliant, even intelligent. In fact, ALL Americans are far above average in intelligence, I humbly admit it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/112 "2005-07-17T04:44:09Z")
And all the women are strong and all the men are good-looking. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/113 "2005-07-17T05:24:51Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Take away life after death and God is meaningless. And yet I feel okey-dokey with the notion. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/114 "2005-07-17T05:38:59Z")
**DSeid** , here’s another book for your reading list - Finding Darwin’s God - A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, by Kenneth R. Miller. I’m just starting it, but my husband has read it, and he found it quite fascinating. It’s written by a biologist who happens to be a Christian. Or maybe a Christian who happens to be a biologist. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/115 "2005-07-17T06:54:40Z")
Erek, Tom already clarified for you that I posit no persecution. I bemoan the lack of understanding of the scientific method and fear what I sense as a growing distrust of science in our country, even as we all benefit from its fruits. Lekatt again illusrates the problem. He puts forth the challenge for science to provide irrefutable proof, with the expectation that a failure to do so allows that any idea is as good as any other. He, and much of the public at large sadly, fails to understand that science is by its nature not designed to produce irrefutable answers (like religion is), but rather to put up answers that are potentially refutable. A model gains strength the more it survives attempts to refute it by testing its predictions. Some models have survived so many attempts at refutation (that is, have made so very many correct predictions about future observations) that they are honored as “theories”. Like the theory of gravity. And evolution. Equally well established. Some models are merely tentative guesses consistent with a few observations and are just hypotheses. Some models make predictions that are inconsistent with future observations and they are called wrong. featherlou, thanks … my nightstand will be crowded indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/116 "2005-07-17T09:32:14Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I’m not sure I buy Liberal’s explanation. The problem with it is that scientists have always counted among their number a huge number of arrogant know-it-alls, and in any case an alleged arrogance on the part of science can’t really explain ignorance. I didn’t say anything about arrogance. I wrote about downright ignorance _on the part of scientists_: specifically, ignorance of science itself — what it is, how it came about, what it applies to, and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/117 "2005-07-17T12:37:26Z")
And oh Lekatt. You use the word “skeptical” with vitriol and as opposed to “a real scientist”. This again illustrates part of the problem. “Real scientists” are “skeptics”. That’s what science is about, being skeptical, questioning, requiring evidence and weighing the value of that evidence. So, to use your Near Death Experiences cites as a case in point: “real scientists” would weigh the perceptions of few individuals who survived cardiac resuscitation and a handful of unconfirmed second-hand anecdotal reports of new accurate memories formed, and the hypothesis that this represents non-physical consciousness, against the extremely massive body of evidence on brain function and neural correlates of consciousness and of altered consciousness and successful predictions of future observations made. They would ask what predictions a nonphysical origin of consciousness model would make that would be inconsistent with a physical origin of consciousness model, and if it is testable. In this case the the only observation that would be inconsistent with a physical model would be if there were reproducibly confirmed reports of individual with a documented absence of brain activity who developed verifiably accurate new memories of activities around them at that time on at a rate better than would be expected than by chance speculation for someone with their history and emotional state. Anecdotes need not apply. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable then it need not apply as a question approachable by science. But here you have nothing. No predictions made and tested. But using these anecdotes as evidence against a body of successful pedictions large enough to fill multiple volumes yet HAH unable to provide irrefutable proof so this guess must be just as good. That’s the public ignorance I’m talking about. And again I ask how we can get the public more informed about the relative weights of evidence, and the difference between established theories that make successful predictions and wild-assed speculations without evidenciary support or explanations whose sole evidenciary support is revealed religious truth and not science and that have no testable predictive value because they are designed to be irrefutable. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/118 "2005-07-17T13:07:46Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I pointed out in my other post that technically science is neutral to God. Just takes away life after death which is not neutral to religion. Take away life after death and God is meaningless. That is fact. The religious people understand it fine. I think it is easy to understand. My big problem with science is that it’s technically neutral to cookies, never once weighing in on whether chocolate chip cookies are tastier than lemon thumbprints. You take away this judgment, and baking is meaningless. That is fact. Bakers understand it fine. I think it is easy to understand. > [@](#): > > you’re actually listening and thinking with me as if I were really human. I love the subjunctive. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/119 "2005-07-17T13:43:19Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And oh Lekatt. > > You use the word “skeptical” with vitriol and as opposed to “a real scientist”. This again illustrates part of the problem. “Real scientists” are “skeptics”. That’s what science is about, being skeptical, questioning, requiring evidence and weighing the value of that evidence. So, to use your Near Death Experiences cites as a case in point: “real scientists” would weigh the perceptions of few individuals who survived cardiac resuscitation and a handful of unconfirmed second-hand anecdotal reports of new accurate memories formed, and the hypothesis that this represents non-physical consciousness, against the extremely massive body of evidence on brain function and neural correlates of consciousness and of altered consciousness and successful predictions of future observations made. They would ask what predictions a nonphysical origin of consciousness model would make that would be inconsistent with a physical origin of consciousness model, and if it is testable. In this case the the only observation that would be inconsistent with a physical model would be if there were reproducibly confirmed reports of individual with a documented absence of brain activity who developed verifiably accurate new memories of activities around them at that time on at a rate better than would be expected than by chance speculation for someone with their history and emotional state. Anecdotes need not apply. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable then it need not apply as a question approachable by science. > > But here you have nothing. No predictions made and tested. But using these anecdotes as evidence against a body of successful pedictions large enough to fill multiple volumes yet HAH unable to provide irrefutable proof so this guess must be just as good. That’s the public ignorance I’m talking about. > > And again I ask how we can get the public more informed about the relative weights of evidence, and the difference between established theories that make successful predictions and wild-assed speculations without evidenciary support or explanations whose sole evidenciary support is revealed religious truth and not science and that have no testable predictive value because they are designed to be irrefutable. Respectfully Sir, you don’t have a clue about near death experiences and the research done, and being done on them. Suggest you study the subject so you can speak more knowledgeable. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716/120 "2005-07-17T13:48:58Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I didn’t say anything about arrogance. I wrote about downright ignorance _on the part of scientists_: specifically, ignorance of science itself — what it is, how it came about, what it applies to, and so forth. Science may have its share of arogance, but ignorance? Man, you’re way off. These guys take science and the scientific method very seriously. Sit in on a journal club where a recent paper is presented. It seems to be an exercise in nitpicking where everyone will try to find one miniscule way that an experiment could have been done better. Even if the same thing was shown in two other experiments, if the absolute correct control was not run, someone will spot it, and no one will fully accept the data. But, for example, if a developmental biologist tomorrow discovered that evolution could not have happened as described, that paper would be similarly torn to shreds. Every discovery has to undergo such treatment. However, were it able to emerge from the dogpile still standing, it would be lauded, the author would be given any grant money he or she wanted for the remainder of his career, and it would make the cover of _Science_. Over the past twenty years, there are examples of this. Pruisner’s discovery of prions flew in the face of quite a bit of scientific dogma. He was eventually given the Nobel prize, though some think that it was premature. The discovery that _H. Pylori_ causes ulcers; granted they had to give themselves ulcers to prove it, and discussions of awarding Barry Marshall a Nobel are not uncommon. Don’t blame science or scientists for not accepting a pet hypothesis. It’s not arogance or ignorance that keeps “intelligent design” out of science curricula. If a hypothesis is true, and is tested, and stands, science will accept it and make a champion of the originator of the idea. All of us in science are trying for this! But, intelligent design is a hypothesis, and nothing more. Test it, prove it, stand the scrutiny and then you can put it in curicula. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-is-screwing-up-the-battle-for-americas-minds/312716.md?page=7)