http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/11/16/science-v-pseudoscience-on-trial/ Explore science, nature and environment stories from Northern California and beyond with KQED’s multimedia series Thu, 24 May 2012 05:51:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/11/16/science-v-pseudoscience-on-trial/#comment-10997 Barry Starr Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:28:25 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/11/16/science-v-pseudoscience-on-trial/#comment-10997 I am actually a strong proponent for evolution. Any unbiased scientist who has looked at the data has to be. What I wrestle with is why is such an ironclad theory accepted by so few people? Why does the general public so strongly support ID? And what can scientists do differently to let the public see what is plain to them? I am actually a strong proponent for evolution. Any unbiased scientist who has looked at the data has to be. What I wrestle with is why is such an ironclad theory accepted by so few people? Why does the general public so strongly support ID? And what can scientists do differently to let the public see what is plain to them?

]]> http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/11/16/science-v-pseudoscience-on-trial/#comment-10998 Javan Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:12:44 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/11/16/science-v-pseudoscience-on-trial/#comment-10998 I have seen the special...thrice. It focuses on the trial, the evidence, and the decision. It does not point to scientists and place blame in their direction for evolution being boring. Where are you getting it that scientists have not presented evolution in an informative and interesting way? I think that's an absurd accusation. Maybe, perhaps YOU don't think it's all that interesting, perhaps a little boring with its dry, slow-moving evidence-based approach, and that people have to go out and do stuff to make headway...sure it's not as exciting as, I dunno...blogging, but it isn't in any way uninteresting. I think you are biased. I have seen the special…thrice. It focuses on the trial, the evidence, and the decision. It does not point to scientists and place blame in their direction for evolution being boring. Where are you getting it that scientists have not presented evolution in an informative and interesting way? I think that's an absurd accusation. Maybe, perhaps YOU don't think it's all that interesting, perhaps a little boring with its dry, slow-moving evidence-based approach, and that people have to go out and do stuff to make headway…sure it's not as exciting as, I dunno…blogging, but it isn't in any way uninteresting. I think you are biased.

]]> http://science.kqed.org/quest/2007/11/16/science-v-pseudoscience-on-trial/#comment-10996 Barry Starr Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:33:07 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/11/16/science-v-pseudoscience-on-trial/#comment-10996 I haven't had a chance to check out the NOVA special (bad blogger!). Does it try to address why intelligent design is so popular and evolution isn't? In other words, do they blame the scientists at all for their failure to communicate evolution to the public in an informative and interesting way? I haven't had a chance to check out the NOVA special (bad blogger!). Does it try to address why intelligent design is so popular and evolution isn't? In other words, do they blame the scientists at all for their failure to communicate evolution to the public in an informative and interesting way?

]]>