Tag Archives: Discovery Channel

What’s Wrong With Being A Mad Scientist?

Fictional mad scientists are most often portrayed as highly driven and glory hungry; they are the unwitting villains, the victims of their own inquisitive natures. Author, Reto Schneider, has written The Mad Science Book, which chronicles the history and present of questionable experiments carried out by real-life “mad” scientists. A list of nine of these experiments is on The New Scientist website. My favorite is Dogbot, the robot dog that was a social reject. Real dogs wanted nothing to do with him. Maybe his nose glowed red or he aspired to be a dentist. Whatever the reason, Dogbot was not allowed to participate in dog games.

What I like about mad experimentation is it’s raw unbridled curiosity. What does it matter if some experiments go wrong or if others are completely useless and outright wacky? What counts is that humans have a desire to understand the world. Thomas Edison was a mad inventor; he wasted ten years of his life on devising a new mining technique, which failed miserably. He also designed furniture and homes made out of that comfortable substance know as concrete. Not big sellers.

The lesson here is that in a complex world, curiosity saves the cat, it doesn’t kill it. But still there is an intellectual divide in society. There are those who care to know the world, and those who don’t care to have their world views tarnished by reality. I’m talking about creationists here. To them a mad scientist is someone to be feared.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Science

The Montauk Monster Eats Human Brains For Lunch

It looks like the mystery of the Montauk Monster is solved. It’s a decomposing raccoon with missing teeth and missing fur. But what’s fascinating about the story of the monster is that it inspired such imaginative stories and outrageous speculation.

What is it in our human minds that makes us choose the unknown over the known. Why do some of us reject reasonable explanations for fantastical ones? For example, the media and the public automatically assumed the creature washed up on the beach, that it had an aquatic origin, not a terrestrial one. Which one is more reasonable? It’s clearly a mammal. And raccoons do love the seashore and seafood.

And minds leaped to the conclusion that the Montauk Monster was a creature completely unknown to science. Why didn’t the same minds consider the possibility that the “creature” was just unknown to them, and not to science. Not all of us are experts on anatomy and the decay of animal remains. Why can’t we just admit ignorance, instead of grasping at straws?

When a reasonable explanation isn’t immediately available our minds seem to reach for the stars.

3 Comments

Filed under Skepticism

Noah’s Ark Discovered

Poor Mike Rowe, from the Discovery Channel show Dirty Jobs, had an early career hawking objet d’art on QVC. Like a skilled urban archaeologist, he deftly describes his find – the Ark of Noah. Except his Ark is a small garish highly-overpriced tote bag.

And check out the name on the side of that sturdy craft, it’s called the S.S. Noah. SS stands for steam ship. So here we have strong evidence that Noah’s Ark was self-propelled. I guess the Ark wasn’t thrust upon Mount Ararat by God, it was sailed there by Noah. He should have settled on Hawaii, the fool. Anyway, this is quality evidence in favor of the Biblical Flood, so we best keep it to ourselves or the creationists might use it. It’s better than anything they currently have.    

www.TheDarwinReport.com

1 Comment

Filed under Trawling For Creationism