After I posted Food for thought?, I got a message from a student saying that she'd seen the study reported on the Documentary Channel. She thought the results looked good, but commented … it never stated if they had a control, possibly placebos, so that it can be assesed whether some of the children merely concentrated more […]
Continue readingTag: nature of science
Food for thought?
We hear a lot, these days, about eating healthy foods (& not too much of anything!). If you read the ads, and sometimes news items, you'll find some particular foods promoted as being particularly good for you. One of these is fish oil, rich in omega-3 oils and supposedly good for brain development, among other […]
Continue readingThe improbability of an eye… (‘intelligent design’ part 2)
The camera-type eye of humans (& in fact all vertebrates) is often held up as a classic example of what ‘intelligent design’ (ID) proponents call irreducible complexity. The argument goes like this: a) the camera-type eye needs all its parts to function. b) It couldn’t possibly be assembled randomly as Darwinian theory claims. c) The […]
Continue reading“intelligent design” – science or philosophy?
At my scholarship preparation day yesterday I was asked if students could expect an exam question about evolution and intelligent design. My answer? No, because "intelligent design" is not a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. My reasons for saying this? Read on…
Continue readingThe nature of science
Do you tend to think that science is a body of unchanging factual information, and everything published in the scientific literature is correct? Read on…
Continue readingQuestion: are humans still evolving?
Here’s a question to consider: are humans still evolving? What sort of evidence could we use to answer this question? We do tend to view evolution as something that happened in the past, and see the study of evolution as a ‘historical’ science. But nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution is an […]
Continue reading