<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>The shadows of science – a Princeton historian’s take on pseudoscience</title>
		<description>Discuss The shadows of science – a Princeton historian’s take on pseudoscience</description>
		<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:16:10 --400</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/component/jcomments/feed/com_flexicontent/47786/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>the problem of not being in evolutionary science</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-51663</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Being in Engineering, it looks like you never actually thought very hard about biology. Here, a hint: you cannot add ad-hoc arguments like that, simply because evolution is best understood through phylogenetics, which today is impossible to do without math - ie programming. You don´t attribute blue screens of death fo a vengeful god, do you? There is no place to "attribute it to fortuitousness or a designer" when you look at DNA - that´s no science. You look at DNA, it makes sense or it doesn´t, and if it doesn´t you don´t give up and invent a story to explain it. The scientist can "attribute it to fortuitousness or a designer" as a person, but not as a scientist.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>an</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:35:49 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-51663</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>'Cool' is subjective</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50486</link>
			<description><![CDATA[CV: "Jonathon actually had some good points to make..." If you consider tired apologetics which have been refuted over and over to be 'cool.' If you really wanted answers to his questions, rather than reassurance for your faith, you could find every one of his points answered in detail at Talk.Origins.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Reginald Selkirk</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:01:11 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50486</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>&quot;upper echelon&quot; snicker</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50484</link>
			<description><![CDATA[JK: "The point I was making was that there are many like me in the upper echelon of the scientific community..." You are in an engineering program, not science. And you are not in the upper echelon. So get over yourself.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Reginald Selkirk</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:56:44 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50484</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Read your own comments</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50482</link>
			<description><![CDATA[JK: "Having a PhD doesn't make one correct." And yet you cite your own standing in a master's program in mechanical engineering as evidence that your obviously ill-informed opinions about biology and chemistry should be respected.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Reginald Selkirk</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:55:10 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50482</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>About those numbers</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50480</link>
			<description><![CDATA[JK: "E. Coli is agreed to be the minimal assembly of proteins to sustain life" 1) Wrong. Other bacteria are known with fewer than 400 genes dubbed "essential". See Mycoplasma genitalium, as one example. 2) The number of genes which are essential is dependent on the environment. 3) These are modern organisms. The accepted biological theory is not that an E. coli randomly assembled itself 3+ billion years ago, but that it evolved from something simpler. See for example the "RNA World Theory." 4) Standing in a master's program in mechanical engineering does not make you an authority on biological science. Why would you think that it does? Check out the "Salem conjecture."]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Reginald Selkirk</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:48:44 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50480</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Theory</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50417</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Jonathon Kilhoffer says "There are several fringe scientific theories out there but creationism is not one of them." In a sense he is correct. Creationism is not a scientific theory at all.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Lauren Cook</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:11:28 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50417</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Evolution isn't Abiogenesis</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50286</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Natural selection isn't random, but Johnathon is talking about abiogenesis, the first appearance of organisms. Natural selection does not act upon matter which can't reproduce, so while the theory of evolution does explain how species adapt and change over time, it does not explain how life began in the first place. Creationists often attack this concept in order to debunk evolution, even though they have little to do with one another (besides being necessary for a worldview which excludes a creative force.)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rhiannon</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:47:44 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50286</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Planet of the Apes?</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50282</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I believe leprechauns designed us... and since you can not prove or disprove them, my theory is just as valid. Good to see Faye's old friends have found their way here... Where's Nerdyseahorse???]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Aquanerd</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:39:09 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50282</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Darwinian evolution isn't random!!</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50155</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Natural selection is non-random!! You either didnt understand or didnt want to understand the darwinian theory of evolution. Natural selection is a play on cause and effect, evolution via natural selection is all about non-randomness. It's ridiculous to assume that we came to be by chance, and it's insulting that people think scientists believe that assumption.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Kristina</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:39:55 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50155</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>I Found...</title>
			<link>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50052</link>
			<description><![CDATA[the video of Neil deGrasse Tyson answering the question does the universe have a purpose to be a very effective response to those who want to push a god-of-the-gaps argument. It can be found at the link below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pL5vzIMAhs]]></description>
			<dc:creator>frankg962</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 07:44:27 --400</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/blogs/lightningrod/item/47786-the-shadows-of-science-a-princeton-historians-take-on-psuedoscience#comment-50052</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
