What do you think of when you see the word “pseudoscience”? How do you understand the argument between evolution and creation, as Jacoby presents it? Please end your blog with at least one good critical question.
When I think of pseudoscience, the first thing that comes to mind are diet pills. Pseudoscience is supposed to be fake science or a claim that appears to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence and does not adhere to the scientific method. In Jacoby's book, she presents a clear argument between evolution and creation. Jacoby suggests that intellectuals think, therefore they side with evolution and that fundamentalist, anti-intellectuals, believe, therefore they side with creation. Jacoby presents the notion that evolution is based from scientific data and can be modeled time and time again with the same results; whereas, creation is based from belief and storytelling. The theory of creation has no scientific background, cannot be tested and is completely intangible. However, evolution can be tested with the scientific method and one is able to see the same results every time. The argument between creation versus evolution is extremely controversial and many factors play into one's argument of favor. Jacoby suggests that if one is intellectual, then one will side will evolution and that if one if an anti-intellectual, one will side with creation.
If it has been thousands of years since the bible has been written, why do people follow the bible word for word even though times and living conditions have changed dramatically?
Why do people still have faith in things that has never been proven or tested?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment