Here is an Yahoo article of a few weeks ago which comments on the
increasing distrust of science by the general public, because of scientists
contradicting each other, and once-confident findings being overturned.
Although the article doesn't say it, as a layman I would add that the
overconfident pronouncements of evolutionists have probably been a major
factor. The Mars Rock and the Peppered Moth are two recent examples
which must have lowered scientists credibility in the eyes of the public.
Also the fact that the leading Darwinists are atheists while the majority of
the public are theists of some sort, must be a major problem. Having an
extremist anti-Christian atheist like Dawkins as Professor for the Public
Understanding of Science, cannot be good for science. When Dawkins
rages that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution (which would include
many, if not most, of the public) is "insane" or "wicked", then this is not
likely to improve the public's estimation of scientists!
I like the following:
"Lynn Frewer, advising Britain's Agriculture Ministry on how best to
communicate health risks to a confused public, says medical "experts"
should start treating people like grown-ups. "Conflict is inherent in the
scientific process and people realize that science is not infallible. But many
experts deliver the message as if everything is understood and, when new
research shows something different, confusion follows."...So why do
scientists insist on peddling false certainties? "Because they think the public
is thick," Frewer said. "People are happy with uncertainty, provided they
are given the information and can make an informed choice. Be straight
people know the doctor and the scientist are no longer gods."
I wonder what would happen if the Darwinists stopped assuming that "the
public is thick" and instead gave them "the information" (ie. the
philosophical assumptions of the theory, and evidentiary problems with it)
so the public "can make an informed choice"?
Steve
========================================================
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990817/sc/britain_scares_1.html
Yahoo! News Science Headlines
Tuesday August 17 11:19 AM ET
Experts Worry That Public May Not Trust Science
By Lyndsay Griffiths
LONDON (Reuters) - Don't drink tea or wear sun cream. Avoid white wine, get
off the pill and give up breast-feeding. Take aspirin, quit exercising and, most
important, stop reading medical stories -- they could be bad for your health.
Amid a rash of often contradictory messages about what is good for your
health, British medical experts worry that the biggest loser could be the
public's trust in science.
"All this scaremongering is not good for us," Peter Marsh of Oxford's
independent Social Issues Research Center said. "Not only do people not
trust the message, they no longer trust the messenger. Our faith in science is
on a steady decline."
After all, it was not long ago that scientists decreed that coffee was a villain,
high-protection sun cream a savior and exercise the key to health and
happiness. Now all of those conclusions are under a cloud.
Depending on which medics you trust, aspirin might cure headaches and
prevent heart attacks -- or cause fatal ulcers. Breast milk could give babies a
boost against infection -- or pump them full of toxic pollutants. Childhood
vaccines might be a life-saver -- or a menace to brain and bowels alike.
Alcohol: is it good or bad for your health? In excess, bad, experts agree. Yet
red wine, in moderation, is said to be good for the heart. And white wine might
be OK too.
As for beer, no one seems to know.
Suffering depression? Anxiety? Anger? Weight loss or brittle bones?
Scientists say it could be due to too much exercise, whatever the benefits to
heart, lungs or soul.
"There are some serious messages getting lost in the noise," said Marsh. "All
this conflicting advice has a very confusing effect and some potentially
dangerous side effects."
CONFUSING DATA
The flood of information about matters medical stems from a growing desire
among consumers to eat better, sleep safer and generally live a longer,
healthier life. Yet as demand for knowledge grows and science gets more
sophisticated, research throws out new data that might clash with the old,
sowing doubt and undermining public trust in the medical establishment.
Marsh said the psychological fallout was easy to detect, with people reacting
in three distinct ways. "One set become gibbering wrecks. They read every
single warning, take it all seriously and can't act," he said.
"The next group, especially the young, seize on this opportunity for defiance
by consuming whatever is considered bad for them. The third group suffers
warning fatigue and just switches off."
Doctors, once icons, now are trusted little more than politicians or journalists
and experts fear that emotional fears about health are over-riding rational
thought.
Take the debate over genetically modified food. Markets have pulled products
from their shelves and activists have torn up experimental GM crops fearing
possible environmental contamination and health risks.
Yet many experts say the fear is based on a gut reaction to such products
being dubbed "Frankenstein Food" rather than on genuine scientific concerns.
Lynn Frewer, advising Britain's Agriculture Ministry on how best to
communicate health risks to a confused public, says medical "experts" should
start treating people like grown-ups.
"Conflict is inherent in the scientific process and people realize that science is
not infallible. But many experts deliver the message as if everything is
understood and, when new research shows something different, confusion
follows."
Different scientific approaches produce different advice, just as funding,
samples and sources can change results.
So why do scientists insist on peddling false certainties?
"Because they think the public is thick," Frewer said. "People are happy with
uncertainty, provided they are given the information and can make an
informed choice. Be straight -- people know the doctor and the scientist are no
longer gods."
[...]
Copyright (c) 1996-1999 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of
protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of
DNA. `Catch-22,' say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA
with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and
enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: `In essence, the first RNA
molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they
replicated themselves.' Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it
relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating
RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially
synthesized, random RNA sequences." (Dover G., "Looping the
evolutionary loop", Review of "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life
to the Origin of Language", by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary,
Oxford University Press: 1999, in Nature, 399, 20 May 1999, pp217-218)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------