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.

Having taken Philosophy, I have a decent understanding of what pseudoscience is. There are many things that fall into the vague category of pseudoscience; creationism, religion, pyschic abilities, etc. all fall into the vast category of pseudoscience. The science is one that has absolutely no substantial or reproducable evidence supporting it. Big Foot, for example, has a few pictures and possibly a foot print but none of it has been reproduced or the actual creature found. Therefore, Big foot falls into the category of pseudoscience because he has not been proven to actually exist. Pseudoscience does not neccessarrily mean that every belief and scientific theory falls into the group. Some of Einstein's theories have not been reproduced with scientific equations but because the equations and theory seem sound, Einstein's theories remain as theories and not pseudoscience. Opening the can of worms that is religion, religion is a pseudoscience because there is absolutely no evidence except faith and the idea does not appear to have any proof occurring any time soon. Therefore, religion falls completely into the category of pseudoscience.

Creationism falls directly into the category of pseudoscience because it has no real proof to support and can not be proven anytime soon unless with the use of faith- which can not be challenged because it is a personal belief. On the other side of theh spectrum, Evolution has real and substantial proof in the form of fossil records, carbon dating, etc. In Jacoby's view, Creationsim is a direct hindrence on the scientific community with the challenge and feud between religion with creationism and science with evolution.

Religion has been given credit for continuing any sort of intellectualism after the collapse of the Roman Empire. However, with relisgion's basis in pseudoscience it has a conflict with today's scientific beliefs and the advancement of the nation as intellectuals. Can religion ever take enough of a back seat not to hinder science and intellectualism? Keep in mind, I dont call for the end of religion because I know many people need the sense of something greater then worldly facts.