Thursday, July 24, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Historian predicts the end of 'science superpowers'

by PhysOrg

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://www.physorg.com/news136046124.html

Historian predicts the end of 'science superpowers'

Is the sun beginning to set on America's scientific dominance? Much like the scientific superpowers of France, Germany and Britain in centuries' past, the United States has a diminishing lead over other nations in financial investment and scholarly research output in science and engineering, say a group of historians and sociologists led by University of Wisconsin-Madison emeritus history professor J. Rogers Hollingsworth.

Massive investments in recent decades by the European Union, China, Japan, Russia and India have leveled the international playing field in the sciences, according to the essay published in the July 24 issue of the journal Nature. The trend will likely put an end to the age of the "unrivaled scientific behemoth," a status the U.S. has enjoyed since the end of World War II.

"What we are seeing is a diffusion of good science centers all over the world, a trend which ultimately may be good for science," says Hollingsworth. "But it also means that the U.S. relative to the rest of the world no longer dominates."

The authors cite China as the most pronounced example. In 1995, China ranked 15th among nations in the production of science and engineering papers, according to the research analysis firm Thomson Reuters ISI. By 2007, the country ranked second, an increase driven in large part by the country's economic growth.

China also made dramatic gains in scientific talent. From 1985 to 2005, the number of natural sciences and engineering doctorates in China increased seven-fold and elevated the country to third in the world.

Similar major strides in the number of doctorates and the volume of scientific publishing have taken place in India, Japan, Russia and Europe. Hollingsworth argues that this shift closely parallels the emergence of a global economy and the newfound ability of many nations to compete.

"The decline of the U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world is facilitating the strengthening of science elsewhere," the authors argue.

Hollingsworth and his co-authors - UW-Madison senior scientist Ellen Jane Hollingsworth and Karl H. Muller, director of the Vienna Institute for Social Science Documentation and Methodology - assert that U.S. science is still strong and performs at a high level. For example, U.S. researchers still account for more than half of the top 1 percent of most-cited papers in the world.

But the global proliferation of science will present new challenges to the United States. Hollingsworth says that the biggest threat to U.S. science competitiveness may be the massive size of major research universities, which produce a high volume of published work but not a corresponding increase in "major breakthroughs." For example, Hollingsworth says that almost 50 percent of papers published by U.S. scientists are not cited by other scientists, which raises the question of whether the high volume of publishing "is really enhancing our stock of knowledge."

"I think we have become too obsessed with quantitative measures of science - the volume of papers published, where they're published and the number of grants attained," he says.

"To thrive in this transition from a science hegemony to a global competitive landscape, the biggest need will be to become more flexible and more adaptive," he adds. "And if you're not adaptive, you can see what happens with the examples of the auto industry and steel industry in America."

Hollingsworth recommends a major investment in a new type of nimble and interdisciplinary science in the United States by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. He says the creation of more than two-dozen smaller-scale research institutes that would be autonomous from, but adjacent to, current universities could have great results. These would operate with little bureaucracy and without the constraints of conventional academic departments, and be more likely to fuel creative thinking, he says.

These institutes would mirror the successes of smaller-scale campuses such as Rockefeller University in New York, the Salk Institute in California and the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico. Each of these campuses, Hollingsworth says, produces a high percentage of breakthrough research advances despite their small size, and their successes stem from an organizational culture and structure that is nimble, collaborative and cross-disciplinary.

For the past 15 years, Hollingsworth has been studying research organizations worldwide and looking at whether there are different approaches and structures around the world that are more conducive to promoting innovation. This essay put his ongoing work in an historical perspective.

Provided by University of Wisconsin-Madison

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, July 24, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 59 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #217466 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 11:26 am

A historian predicts this huh?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

2. Comment #217469 by Dr Doctor on July 24, 2008 at 11:26 am

I guess the historian was looking in the rear view mirror.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

3. Comment #217474 by eh-theist on July 24, 2008 at 11:32 am

I'm not so sure I disagree with the general idea of this message.

Science is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) driving forces behind economies. With the direction that the US Government is going, it is quite likely that the "scientific superpowers" will be (have been?) matched/surpassed by other nations. I think China is a good example.

Changes need to be made in our direction (ie. teach the controversy - JUST KIDDING) and they need to be made soon.

Other Comments by eh-theist

4. Comment #217481 by newskin on July 24, 2008 at 11:35 am

While it stands to reason that developing nations are going to take an increasing larger slice of the pie,i wouldnt write the US off anytime soon. It's not all about headline investment figures or output but the quality of those doing the research. Also, within biology at least (the only field i know a little about), the US holds a lot of patents for the techniques and materials and most of the big bioengineering companies are US based. This means that if anything, the US may just benefit from increased overseas research.

Other Comments by newskin

5. Comment #217485 by DamnDirtyApe on July 24, 2008 at 11:37 am

Sci-fi Speculates better than I ever could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(Firefly)

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

6. Comment #217495 by prettygoodformonkeys on July 24, 2008 at 11:46 am

Yes, predicting the past is a great way to get your averages up.

Couldn't help thinking that China (and others) will be unhampered by fundie thinking that might negatively affect things like stem cell research, the actual teaching of evolution to future researchers, funding for all of these, etc.

They will quickly move ahead of those who drag their collective feet. I'm hoping, though, that levelling the field might encourage cooperation, and might then widen the distribution of benefits.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

7. Comment #217499 by Nova on July 24, 2008 at 11:50 am

I think it's odd some people tout the US scientific dominance as anything special. It's the by far the largest developed country, so it will obviously have a big lead. What I want to know is if it has the largest scientific output per person, because I highly doubt there will be any significant difference between it and other developed countries, probably one of the Scandinavian countries or Japan will lead on a per person analysis. The reason China is increasing greatly in scientific power is equally obvious - it is rapidly developing. I also think it's naive to think such a vague measure as 'science' is easy to measure, it seems simplistic to simply use the number of papers produced as the only measure.

Other Comments by Nova

8. Comment #217528 by 82abhilash on July 24, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Let us not make the mistake of co-relating scientific prowess to national well-being. Science is necessary but not sufficient. The Soviet Union was scientifically highly advanced yet collapsed.

In the ancient world we have the examples of the Greek civilization. This guy is a historian he should know that as well.

Even before good science what we need are free societies. Societies that tolerate open discussion and free-thinking. Otherwise the benfits of good science will be lost to society and instead directed towards maintaining the power of tyrannical political institutions.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

9. Comment #217532 by Apathy personified on July 24, 2008 at 12:18 pm

So, a historian is predicting that - 'the times they are a-changin'.

Maybe this will shake some uni's and academics out of the 'publish or perish' mindset - lets have some good science instead of volumous repetition.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

10. Comment #217539 by Dr Doctor on July 24, 2008 at 12:20 pm

The Soviet Union was seriously damaged early on by bad science. Read up on Trofim Lysenko.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

11. Comment #217544 by Tezcatlipoca on July 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Yet for all of China's science and engineering papers they still grind up bear paw and other animal body parts and prescribe them as "medicine"? I think they are beset with their own (re comment 6)fundie hurdles

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

12. Comment #217547 by Federico_Lopez on July 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm

I work for an engineering company in Canada and 95% of the engineers are from other countries. The same is happening in U.S. and Europe. Any comments?

Other Comments by Federico_Lopez

13. Comment #217556 by MikedubB on July 24, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I have been feeling this coming for quite some time. I think the issue is not only the US in relation to increased foreign investment in science, but also the state of the education system within said countries. The scandalous creationist endeavors in the US and elsewhere should be duly noted, but the state of the education system itself bears the brunt of my criticism. US schools continue to fail to meet expectations while abroad we see ever greater acheivements. We, as a people, tend to overlook the grand significance that a proper education has on the future of civilazation itself. If the US wants to stay on top, it should start on the bottom. I say, 'No more home-schooling', 'No more private schools choosing curriculums', and 'No more lowered expectations'. And for the love of all that's holy, can we put someone in the executive office that doesn't dismiss intelligent people as a 'reality-based community'?

Other Comments by MikedubB

14. Comment #217597 by bamafreethinker on July 24, 2008 at 1:00 pm

As a father of two teenagers I confess that I, like many, many other parents in the US, am too lenient on my kids when it comes to their education. They both make great grades, but I don't push them enough. I think that the last few generations of parents are too soft and let their kids get by with mediocrity and therefore sit back and let the education system accept mediocrity. We've been told that to spank our kids will damage them, and we don't figure out other ways of being the authority that they need when they don't have enough knowledge/drive to see the long-term benefit in pushing themselves and investing in their future. Most Japanese kids excel not because of their genetics but because of their work ethics â€" that is where we Americans fall short in my opinion. Too many of us are lazy-asses and we let our kids be lazy-asses. I wish my parents would have pushed me more.

This has inspired me to throw my son's PS3 out the window and buy him some science books.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

15. Comment #217598 by rod-the-farmer on July 24, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Interesting. One of the problems I have read re U.S. universities is the increased attention given to foreigners entering the U.S, by the Border Patrol. This is causing those students to re-consider attending U.S. universities for advanced degrees, and choosing other countries (Europe, Canada, Australia) instead. That means declining enrollment of foreign students.

Then we combine this with the as-yet un-measurable decline in science knowledge, due to the fundie attacks on subjects like evolution (among others). The result may be an enhancement to the effect described in the article above. Spreading the higher levels of science eduction around to other countries would seem to be of benefit to all. Intellectual competition between schools is usually good.

Noteworthy is the lack of any comments on the effects this will have on the muslim world. As has been mentioned before on this site, Spain translates more technical books in one year than the entire muslim world has done in the past 1,000 years. This does NOT bode well for the future of islamic countries. They would seem to be a new type of "have not" people surfacing.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

16. Comment #217606 by MikedubB on July 24, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I wish my parents would have pushed me harder, too. Constructively of course.

Other Comments by MikedubB

17. Comment #217639 by Border Collie on July 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Maybe when we don't have an anti-science Christian fundamentalist in the top political office of the nation who utilizes lawyers to rewrite scientific papers and who constantly intimidates truth seekers, things will get a little better.

Tezca ... very relevant bear paw comment ... along with bear gall bladder, rhino horn, tiger bone and whatever other miraculous wonders there are in Chinese apothecaries ...

TWP ... Put that thang on safety so that you don't shoot yourself in the head!

Other Comments by Border Collie

18. Comment #217641 by Dr Doctor on July 24, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Homeopathy. Alternative medicine. Pot. Kettle. Black. Nuff said.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

19. Comment #217643 by capacitor76 on July 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Re comment 7 (Nova): As far as I know, the U.S. currently leads in output of scientific publications, citations, new patents and science awards not only in absolute figures, but also per capita, outstripping the 'next best' countries (e.g. UK, Canada, Germany, Japan) at least by a 2:1 ratio.

It has to be noted, though, that influx of foreign brainpower has been a major factor in this throughout the past decades. U.S. universities are, on average, much better financially endowed than their European and Asian counterparts and, and least traditionally, face fewer legal and bureaucratic restrictions. Therefore they can offer a better research infrastructure, pay higher salaries and effectively buy off the best scientists from other countries. You'll very often read about new scientific developments conceived by European or Asian expatriates working at American universities.

I'm not sure where university and research institute funding in the U.S. is heading, but given the comparatively large proportion of corporate funding and private donations, I don't see the above changing anytime soon. Of course, as countries like China or India prosper economically, they may develop similar systems of funding. I don't expect this to happen in (continental) Europe, where education expenditures tend to be cut in favour of maintenance of expensive welfare systems, and corporate funding of research is frowned upon as an attempt by Big Business to instrumentalise science.

Other Comments by capacitor76

20. Comment #217686 by Szymanowski on July 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm

At least this kind of article should make science - not reality-denial - a more central part of the 'patriotic' American agenda :)

Other Comments by Szymanowski

21. Comment #217759 by AmericanGodless on July 24, 2008 at 3:36 pm

You can see it is pointless to advise people to learn differential equations, or to do a course in electronics or in computer programming. And yet, fifty years from now, if an understanding of man's origins, his evolution, his progress is not the commonplace of the schoolbooks, we shall not exist... The ascent of man will go on. But do not assume that it will go on carried by western civilization as we know it... We have not been given any guarantee that Assyria and Egypt and Rome were not given... If we do not take the next step in the ascent of man, it will be taken by people elsewhere, in Africa, in China... Humanity has a right to change its color. And yet, wedded as I am to the civilization that nurtured me, I should feel it to be infinitely sad, I, whom England made... I should feel it a grave sense of loss (as you would) if a hundred years from now Shakespeare and Newton were historical fossils in the ascent of man, in the way that Homer and Euclid are.

-- Jacob Bronowski, "The Ascent of Man," 1973 (15 years to go).

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

22. Comment #217763 by ghuckin on July 24, 2008 at 3:41 pm

.....the creation of more than two-dozen smaller-scale research institutes that would be autonomous from, but adjacent to, current universities could have great results. These would operate with little bureaucracy and without the constraints of conventional academic departments, and be more likely to fuel creative thinking, he says.

What? Like the Discovery Institute? I guess Genie Scott needs to have a chat with Prof. Hollingsworth.

Other Comments by ghuckin

23. Comment #217786 by Appleby on July 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Many third world countries (even Muslim ones e.g. Malaysia) have virtually limitless budgets when it comes to education. They send their people overseas often with full scholarships (the criterion usually being only admission into *any* "Western" institution). This means something like full work pay (despite being overseas for 3-4 years and not working), a comfortable living allowance in said foreign currency, additional allowance to take their whole family (wife and kids) and a bunch of other stuff. And they don't have to pay it back even if they fail (and many fail). The just work off their bond to the institution which sent them in continued service for a few more years. Many run and don't even do that (and it's not strongly enforced anyway). This is the kind of "investment" in education a Westerner could only dream about.

However, the West kind of gets back at them by passing even substandard students. Even supposedly top institutions grant PhDs to such foreigners who can't even string a proper sentence together in English. Presumably these institutions need the money. So, simply looking at the number of PhDs foreign countries have is no indication of their scientific talent. Neither is the volume of their publications. They too rehash the same old papers and are not well-cited. Finally, those foreign academics worth their salt will likely find their way to some Western country to settle down and work anyway. The U.S. and other Western nations don't really have anything to worry about, IMO. But there's no harm in them improving themselves further for its own sake.

Other Comments by Appleby

24. Comment #217806 by Meerbat on July 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm

This is somewhat off-topic, but I am hung up on the title of the article.

A pet peeve of mine is the overemphasizing of history in discussions and debates. Often it comes with the paraphrased quote (by George Santayana according to Google) "Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it."
I see nothing wise in this (version of the) saying other than the trivial statement that information increases the chances of making a good decision.
Yet the same people who would argue that free-willed humans are incredibly complex and therefore inscrutable by science, would be the first to warn you about the dangers of non-belief, based on some atrocities in the past century falsely attributed to atheism. So now all of a sudden they can predict the future of whole states and nations of humans...

A couple of words here on "atheistic" indoctrination and the collapse of the "atheistic" regimes. I had the dubious honor of growing up under one myself and yes, they did tell us about evolution since we were little kids. Except in that version, it was the virtue of labor that caused monkeys to progress towards perfection and turn into humans. And listening to subversive radios or even the wrong kind of music could somehow make you go astray from the bright path towards the socialistic future. Oh, and all people were equal but some more equal than others. Though I didn't witness the events myself, close relatives have told me stories about the day Iosef Dzhugashvili died: adults would sincerely weep and mourn loudly on the streets the loss of the Father of Nations ... Talk about a society governed by reason.

So not only is the premise that the atrocities of the past century were caused by societies that have become too rational for their own good false, but the argument rests on the implicit unsupported assumption that history is deterministic and would repeat itself if we could rewind it. We now have some good evidence that natural history is governed by contingency, but people fail to acknowledge that this is also true of human history.
Finally, to say something about the article: just because a prediction is falsifiable, that doesn't make it scientific.

Other Comments by Meerbat

25. Comment #217839 by Appleby on July 24, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Past performance is no indication of future performance?

Other Comments by Appleby

26. Comment #217965 by EvolvedDNA on July 24, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Comment by Federico_Lopez

You must work in Calgary or Edmonton..I have many customers in engineering working in the oil patch as well, and many are from overseas. What I also notice is that most have good world view, having worked in other parts of the world before coming to Canada.

Other Comments by EvolvedDNA

27. Comment #217974 by christianapologetic on July 24, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Lets see, science "dominating"? I believe religion has been around longer than science. I think most of you know that it will be around longer than science too. The fact that religion has been around so long is true. Its obvious that we should elect John Mccain for president. I think that you guys would agree.

Other Comments by christianapologetic

28. Comment #217977 by Scot Rafkin on July 24, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Comment #217974 by christianapologetic

You have many outstanding questions on another thread. You've answered none. How about cleaning up your mess before polluting another thread?

Other Comments by Scot Rafkin

29. Comment #217979 by christianapologetic on July 24, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Excuse me, you act like its on ME to prove to YOU that the Bible is true. You're the one who makes claims about the Universe that deviate from Christianity, the onus is on you my friend. I'm praying for you right now, remember that.

Other Comments by christianapologetic

30. Comment #217981 by Scot Rafkin on July 24, 2008 at 8:10 pm

you act like its on ME to prove to YOU that the Bible is true.

Correct. You may proceed.

Other Comments by Scot Rafkin

31. Comment #217983 by Goldy on July 24, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I believe religion has been around longer than science

Speculation. Did religion give Homo fire or was it science? Did religion show Homo to knap flint or was that science?

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #217984 by thewhitepearl on July 24, 2008 at 8:13 pm

TWP ... Put that thang on safety so that you don't shoot yourself in the head!

awww safety's for suckers!

Christianapologetic,

Keep it up kid, keep it up.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

33. Comment #217985 by Scot Rafkin on July 24, 2008 at 8:14 pm

the onus is on you my friend. I'm praying for you right now, remember that.

You're not my friend. Pray all you want, just don't slaughter a goat or anything on my behalf. I wouldn't want any animals injured or killed in the making of your delusion.

Other Comments by Scot Rafkin

34. Comment #217990 by EvolvedDNA on July 24, 2008 at 8:20 pm

christianapologetic
What part of the bible is true..pray tell.. sorry about the pun. Religion has been around for so long but nothing has been achieved except division and hate.. look at the religions that are pollutiing the world today..your god is anything but love. Keep praying buddy, it saves you from doing something constructive.

Other Comments by EvolvedDNA

35. Comment #218002 by dragonfirematrix on July 24, 2008 at 8:50 pm

JUST MY OPINION

I do not see the diminishing role of science in America to be to far fetch. I see the evolution of new things as very specialized in the beginning paying a very few highly trained (at the time) specialists to support and maintain the new things (inventions). Communications, cars, computers, and nuclear technology were all new and highly specialized sciences supported by highly paid personnel in the early years of those inventions.

As the new inventions evolve and spread throughout society (example: computers), the dissemination of that knowledge spreads to hobbyists, non-specialists, etc. The need for the specialists declines as the average person acquires the knowledge. A non-specialist can fix other peoples computers in their garage.

WHERE AM I HEADING WITH THIS

The offset to the decline of a country in its lead in science (and other technical endeavors) is an open and progressively minded society with strong forward-looking visions supported by the foundations in real science.

NOW CONSIDER THIS

America, over the past years directed by conservatives, many of which embrace cult idiocies like Creationism and Intelligent Design brainwashing children in schools with the backward thinking of religion (cults). These backward brains continue to holdback progress today.

AMERICA IS DECLINING

America is declining because it has turned its back on real science in favor of its belief in cults (religion).

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

People should cast their support and donations to nations that support the advancement of real science even if that nation is not their own.

Humanity can override religion, if it chooses to do so.

SCIENCE IS the truth, the light, and the way.

Well, the above is just my opinion.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

36. Comment #218066 by Appleby on July 24, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Comment #218002 by dragonfirematrix

Science, I think, will be its own undoing. There will probably come a time when machines will do most of our science and thinking for us. On a smaller scale, consider this. How many people today know how to calculate the square root of a number (on paper)? How many (scientists, even) actually know the actual formulas and logic behind the statistical analyses they use? Most likely all they know is how to use Excel or SPSS.

Other Comments by Appleby

37. Comment #218130 by 82abhilash on July 24, 2008 at 10:40 pm

10. Comment #217539 by Dr Doctor on July 24, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The Soviet Union was seriously damaged early on by bad science. Read up on Trofim Lysenko.

There was Lysenko. But the Soviet Union made several real advances in science which cannot be overlooked. After all they did put the first man made object in space, then the first animal in space and then the first man in space and the first woman in space and mastered the space walk first. They also perfected Space Station building.

In the field of medicine Soviet scientists (in present day Georgia) did develop an alternative to antibiotics to fight infection - bacteriophage. Basically evolve viruses in a lab that infect bacteria causing infection and use it on the patient. The virus won't harm the patient because it evolved only to infect bacteria.

There was also a technique that allowed one to operate on the heart without using a heart lung machine.

So you see, the Soviet Union did make significant advancements in Science and Technology in a relatively short period of time. That is why the US government of the time was worried. They feared that they would provide a useful role model to the developing thus threatening thus making liberty a causality to progress.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

38. Comment #218145 by Dr Doctor on July 24, 2008 at 11:28 pm

By which time it was too late because by the time the Soviet internal economy and scientific establishment crawled out from underneath Lysenko's jackboot economically and politically the "West" had the USSR cornered.

Frankly I think the diminishing influence of the USA (if it happens) will be a good thing. The world needs better balance between interests, and this will hopefully make the US foreign affairs less strident and shrill.

Especially if it continues to head towards becoming a de-facto theocracy.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

39. Comment #218150 by William Sierichs Jr. on July 25, 2008 at 12:20 am

Christianapologetic:

Before anyone can start trying to prove or disprove anything about the Bible, you have to tell us which Bible you mean.
Jews have a Bible that does not include the Christian scriptures.
The first Christian scriptures were collected by Marcion in the earlier part of the 2nd century, but did not include some items of the "New Testament" now, notably the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, and his version of "Luke" does not sound like the version we have today. A good case can be made that the four official Gospels today had not yet been written by Marcion's time. Also, there were a lot of other gospels that early Christians considered to be true gospels but are not in today's Bibles.
The church hierarchy declared Marcion a heretic and later created what became the Roman Catholic Bible.
Protestants, however, declared some of the RC books to be nonscriptural - "Apocrypha" - and left them out of the Protestant Bible.
Meanwhile, the Greek Orthodox Church Bible has books in that the RC Church does not accept as canon.
The Slavonic Bible adds yet another book, and some Eastern churches add yet one more book to their Bible.
The Ethiopic Church Bible has yet MORE books that no one else includes in their Bibles.
Finally, the Mormons say they have yet more books that came from Jesus which they consider to be part of the Bible, but the older Christian churches reject the Book of Mormon.
Another thing you have to tell us: We don't have the original versions of any of the books, only copies of copies, and not two copies of any one book are identical; each contains variants from the others; and while some differences are obvious copying errors, other variants have genuine theological consequences. Scholars cannot create a "Bible" source collection without deciding which version of a sentence is the correct one --- and if scholars disagree, you can get two different Bibles in the old languages.
Next, of course, the texts have to be translated, leading to yet more variations. Catholics consider the King James Bible to be a false Bible.
So, please tell us which version of the Bible you say is the true one, and prove that it is the true and accurate version and translation (or prove why we should ignore the Bibles you don't consider to be the true Bible).
My info comes from several sources, particularly "The Seven Mighty Blows to Traditional Beliefs" by A.J. Mattill Jr. and "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" by C. Dennis McKinsey.

Other Comments by William Sierichs Jr.

40. Comment #218155 by Raiko on July 25, 2008 at 12:54 am

Oh great. We're just "Europe" here now.

Other Comments by Raiko

41. Comment #218158 by DamnDirtyApe on July 25, 2008 at 1:05 am

How old are you Christianapologetic?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

42. Comment #218162 by Darwin's badger on July 25, 2008 at 1:22 am

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

43. Comment #218175 by Tycho the Dog on July 25, 2008 at 2:15 am

Comment #217544 by Tezcatlipoca & Comment #217639 by Border Collie - effectively countered in Comment #217641 by Dr Doctor

What the superstitious masses believe is not important, unless they can elect their leaders/shape national education policies on the basis of those superstitions.

If Americans continue to elect people to influential positions on the basis of shared irrational beliefs, then the quality of American education will ultimately suffer.

Other Comments by Tycho the Dog

44. Comment #218185 by V'Ger on July 25, 2008 at 3:26 am

Lord of the Rings is a true story. Now it's your job to prove me wrong ;-)

I can't believe I have to share this planet with such TWATS!

Other Comments by V'Ger

45. Comment #218187 by Ygern on July 25, 2008 at 3:42 am

Is it just me or is there a slight whiff of scaremongering in the tone of this article?

I would have thought that it is a GREAT thing if more and more countries across the world are supporting the advancement of science, instead of superstition.

I really don't see US science as 'under threat'. This just means US scientists will have more peers.
And that's a positive development, right?

Other Comments by Ygern

46. Comment #218201 by NormanDoering on July 25, 2008 at 4:11 am

I ran into this question months ago and it was part of a blog post:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/pox-on-vox-i-say.html

Vox Day had wrote that "...the empirical data shows that the predominantly Christian United States produces more science per capita than any of the many more secular nations,..."

The per capita claim turned Vox's statement into a lie. The United States is huge, it does grant more patents, get more Nobel prizes, etc. But I checked some stats and found out that on a per capita bases the US was behind Finland, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

I used a couple metrics; number of Nobel prizes won per capita, number of journal articles written per capita and the number of patents granted as a "production of science."

Considering Nobel prize laureates per capita, the U.S. comes in at number 11, behind a bunch of more secular nations; Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Even Austria, Ireland and Germany beat us.

The reason there are so many American Nobel winners is because America is such a large country.

On patents per capita, the United States is number 12 on this list, again, the secular Europeans, Norway and Sweden beat us. Japan is number 8 there, but Japan leads the world in patents per million people on another list.

The more religious countries don't do so well, Israel is #20 on the list, just behind Australia and just ahead of Belgium, with 74 patents granted per million residents.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

47. Comment #218210 by Christopher Davis on July 25, 2008 at 4:22 am

"What part of the bible is true"---EvoledDNA (query to christianapologetic)

I think mostly the fucking and killing.

And maybe the sacrificing of livestock.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

48. Comment #218229 by Meerbat on July 25, 2008 at 5:09 am

Comment #217839 by Appleby

Past performance is no indication of future performance?

For a person, it is a good indication of future performance. But the analogy between a person and a nation is pretty weak. How is the history of the Byzantine Empire an indication of Greece's "performance" today?

Other Comments by Meerbat

49. Comment #218267 by black wolf on July 25, 2008 at 6:22 am

I call Poe on christianapologetic. Too taciturn to be a fundy, too sudden to be a moderate.

Other Comments by black wolf

50. Comment #218316 by RobDinsmore on July 25, 2008 at 8:20 am

The biggest reason for the US not growing as fast scientifically recently is due to funding and to some extent how universities are run. Funding for pure science research has gone from great to sustainable to many top researchers not being able to purchase relatively inexpensive new equipment. When research projects are constrained by money it is really hard to do anything new. Instead we just try to make due with what we have on hand and try to get more papers published so we can get more grant money.

Universities don't help either becuase a large chunk of all grant money goes to overhead. Now it makes sense that researchers should pay for utilities and "rent", but much of that money goes to things such as Technology management, a branch of the university that hires many high salary officials and tries to patent and make money off of research. They spend millions of dollars on this and get hardly any in return. Think about it. They are trying to profit on research rather than trying to get more research done.

Other Comments by RobDinsmore