Scientism of AAAS

AAAS Hinders Science Progress

by its ‘life evolution’ presentation

Aug 9 2007

A. Terms:

1) AAAS = American Association for the Advancement of Science.

2) Progress = a forward or onward movement towards an objective, a gradual betterment.

3) Science = knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding sometimes systematized object study and knowledge of patterns of phenomena/process obtained and tested through agreed science-defined methods.

B. From AAAS Project 2061, Chapter 5,

on ‘evolution of life’:

1) In the section about Cells: “the structure and functioning of cells, the basic building blocks of all organisms”. Here and throughout the book, the Cells are referred to as Organisms, f.e.:

– “The earth’s present-day life forms appear to have evolved from common ancestors reaching back to the simplest one-cell organisms almost four billion years ago.”

– “At the very beginning, simple molecules may have formed complex molecules that eventually formed into cells capable of self-replication.”

2) On heredity: “New heritable characteristics can result from new combinations of parents’ genes or from mutations of them. Except for mutation of the DNA in an organism’s sex cells, the characteristics that result from occurrences during the organism’s lifetime cannot be biologically passed on to the next generation. Thus, for example, changes in an individual caused by use or misuse of a structure or function, or by changes in its environment, cannot be promulgated by natural selection.”

C. The Above Two AAAS Presentations Are Scientifically Incorrect

1) Again and again, the cells of organisms are NOT the organisms. The cells are the functional housings of the basic building blocks of all organisms, which are the genomes of the organisms, of which we presently know circa 1.8 million species. It is now routine to extract a genome from its cell, replace it with another genome of a fresh suitable zygote, and let the “cell” proceed with life evolution. It is not the cell that evolves, but the organism it houses. The cell is plainly and obviously an organ of the genome. The cell membrane system has been evolved by the cell’s genome as its dynamic multi-purpose functional organ. Today we are able to “transplant” this organ from one organism, genome, to another organism, another genome.

2) And again and again, “characteristics that result from occurrences during the organism’s lifetime” become feedback input to the genomes of the next generation(s) and affect the selection of paths of genome’s “mutations” upon their replication, thus biologically passing on modified functional capabilities to future generations.

This is how we evolved differently from our ancestors. Our forefathers’ new circumstances ( from forests to plains ) dictated new survival behavior, i.e. new culture, which served as feedback to our genome, whose selection of possible mutations was made richer and biased with the new feedback possibilities.

Dov

=================================

AAASP’s Hypocritical ‘Science-Religion Congruousness’

Hinders Science Progress

Aug 10, 2007

A. Terms:

1) AAASP = American Association Against Science Progress

2) Congruous = being in agreement, harmony, or correspondence or conforming to the circumstances or requirements of a situation, or marked or enhanced by harmonious agreement among constituent elements.

3) Hypocrisy = a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.

B.AAAS book, 9 August 2006, In Praise of Hypocrisy

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/aaft-abe080906.php

– “The Evolution Dialogues: Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding the rich and complex historical interaction of evolution and Christianity.”

– Jack Haught, a Georgetown University theologian, said the book “will prove to be very helpful to teachers and students of biology, especially where questions might arise about the scientific status of Darwin’s theory and the religious implications of evolution.” Haught said the book “exhibits not only prudence and judiciousness but also an erudite understanding of the distinct modes of understanding characteristic of science and religion. A major benefit of this project is that it demonstrates how a religious understanding of the world need not be looked upon as an alternative to evolutionary science and vice-versa.”

– Rodger Bybee, executive director of the nonprofit Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, said the book “will be an excellent, positive contribution to a contemporary understanding of evolution and religion.”

C. Notes On Science-Religion Incongruity

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1&p=177

plus additional entries in this blog.

Dov

============================

Scientism of AAAS

Dec 15, 2005 Dov, in biologicalEvolution forum

AAAS = American Association for the Advancement of Science.

AAAAS=American Association for the Advancement of AntiScientism….(27 Oct 2006)

Here is a recent sample of the sad, hypocritical, pathetic, wishy-washy stand of our highest American “scientific” organization of humanity and science. On the positive side AAAS contributes to advancing of mostly technological and of some scientific knowledge, but concurrently it holds back scientific progress by carefully proclaiming anti-scientific concepts and stands, upholding politically correct stands, as it is actually a political-economic interests organ-guild of mostly technicians and of also some scientists.

Now, humanists and scientists, let the AAAS speak and then ask yourself if “science-informed scientists” have a “supernatural-free” worldview…

AAAS News and Notes, Science, 28 Oct 2005.

” Science and Society, AAAS Fighting to Defend the Integrity of Science Education

With evolution on trial in Pennsylvania and under renewed attack by the Kansas State Board of Education, AAAS has stepped up its high-profile campaign to protect the integrity of science education by defending the scientific underpinnings of evolution and making clear that science and religion should not be pitted against each other.

With intelligent design on trial in Pennsylvania, the York (Pennsylvania) Dispatch published a column by AAAS CEO Alan I.Leshner. In a series of interviews, press briefings, and op-ed commentaries, AAAS Chief Executive Officer Alan I. Leshner and other AAAS officials have stressed that most religious leaders accept evolution and that many scientists are religious. But, they said, leaders of the intelligent design movement who claim scientific motives are actually trying to undermine science—at significant risk to U.S. students.

The world’s religions “bring great value to many people’s lives,” said AAAS President Gilbert S. Omenn. But “they do not prepare students for a world in which math, science, and empirically tested evidence are essential” for advancing human health, security, and economic progress….”

This goes on and on with repeat statements. I cut it off here, though, with the AAAS present explanation, so succinctly, the division of labor between Science and religion…

Dov

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *