Slashdot Mirror
Prof Denied Funds Over Evolution Evidence
radarsat1 writes "The Montreal Gazette today reported that a professor at Montreal's McGill University was refused a $40,000 grant, allegedly because 'he'd failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.' Ironically, the grant was for a study into the detrimental effects of intelligent design on Canadian academics and leaders." From the article: "Jennifer Robinson, McGill's associate vice-principal for communications, said the university has asked the SSHRC to review its decision to reject Alters's request for money to study how the rising popularity in the United States of 'intelligent design' - a controversial creationist theory of life - is eroding acceptance of evolutionary science in Canada."
Haa-haa.
I'd love to help you out -- which way did you come in?
Intelligent design, when taken in a pure form that never attempts to imply who or what the designer is, is as legitimate a theory about life and the universe as evolution is.
No it isn't. That you _think_ it is merely shows that you are an uneducated ingnoramus.
Since when is a Judge in any way qualified to rule on science? What if that had happened with Einstein or Maxwell? Darwin has been overplayed, if you read Origin of Spicies you can see that it is a theory and there are plenty of inconsistencies, Intelligent Design is something that is another theory. I am not claiming that either is correct, however, having read Darwin, the proponents intelligent design, and the Judge's opinion. The way science develops is through the proposition of theories and lots of work required in proving one superior to the other. Sometimes neither one is able to get the upper hand (e.g. Physics). What Judge Jones did was really censorship more than anything. If science is to be determined by the courts, then our civilization is truly in for it.
Big John---"Little Lucy's in the lab dead upon the floor, for what she thought was H2O was H2SO4."
Neither. It is both ignorant and dishonest to say that any of the "theories" (yes I am using that term loosely) for how we came to exist is anything more than theory. Darwinian theory happens to have the strongest science to back it up. ID recognizes this but allows for the possibility of it being wrong as well.
I get the feeling from the vitrol of your post that you would hold the theory of evolution to be law. So I ask you then, why is it still just a theory? Do you have some empirical evidence that eliminates the other possibilities? I for one don't and therefore prefer to reserve judgement until more facts are presented. As far as I am concerned in my daily life it is not vital for me to put all of my eggs in any one basket.
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
The Bible is not a scientific journal and cannot considered a legitimate source of observational data.
That statement is unscientific. Ironic.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I don't think that any scientist with a truly objective view could ever state that Darwin's theories ARE correct. We simply don't know that this is the case. Currently, the theories that exist which are lumped into "evolution" do appear to act as better indicators, from which predictions can be made which appear useful... but that doesn't mean that they are correct. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they're close to correct. It simply means that based on the current physical evidence we have, they appear as the most useful theories, that fit with the most data points.
These theories are providing some really great predictions, recently, not only was a fossilized type of animal predicted, but the likely grographic location was predicted as well. Now it may be that the creature found will eventually turn out to be something less exciting than we currently think, it may be that there are 1000 coastal areas where similar fossils could be found. We don't know...
In the end, what does it matter? Evolutionary science appears quite important to biologists, perhaps some anthropologists and a goodly number of geeks like us... but, for Joe "The Nazerene" SixPack, does it really matter if he believes some science book, or believes his pastor? The science book will provide him with a whole load of theories which, without deeper study may appear completely ludacrious. The Pastor will provide him with an easily understood answer which will likely appear perfectly rational to a person who lives in that tunnel-reality. Should Jope spend 20 years researching evolution, or just accept the Pastors word and spend 20 years improving his business as *insert whatever career Joe might want to do here*.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
Um, that isn't a fact. It is a highly dubious opinion.
It is a fact, and it has been verified by every scientific examination of the shroud for nearly 50 years. There is three-dimensional information encoded in that two-dimensional image. We do not, nor have we ever had the technology to produce a two-dimensional image upon an artificial surface which contains emergent three-dimensional topographical information. And no, it wasn't painted either, for the same reason that two dimensional maps of the Earth aren't accurate at certain latitudes. Sorry. The technology doesn't exist.
We very much do have the technology to create such 3d images, and can replicate the level of 3d detail in the shroud easily using techniques which were common in the 12th century.
If it were so easy to produce such an image artificially, why has nobody done it? They've had over 100 years.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
-1 Troll: WAAAAAAAH WE DON'T AGREE
Looks like scientists are shouting down people who disagree with them. Galileo and Einstein would be proud. More mod points wasted. Yawn.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Which makes it completely useless in the realm of science, or anything else having to do with reality for that matter.
So the human heart is unreal? Interesting hypothesis. So scientists would state, with certainty, that love doesn't exist?
Hardly in the same league as science on ANY level.
God created scientists too.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
They have reproduced it. They used a carved statue(3d), wrapped a shroud around it, and heated it.
Where? When? What newspaper was it reported in? Which scientific journals? Where is the scientific article explaining the experiment? Who interpreted the results? Who tested the results? Why wasn't the experiment and its results on the front page of every newspaper like the shroud itself has been? Where was the 72-point headline "SHROUD OF TURIN PROVEN A HOAX?"
Did the reproduction have a photographic negative? Did it have emergent three-dimensional information? What was the spectrum analysis? How did they get the image onto the cloth without damaging the cloth itself? Did it affect the carbon dating? Did the physical impossibility of reproducing a two-dimensional image accurately from a three-dimensional source affect the appearance of the image?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Not much more to say.
Oh, there's a great deal more to say. Where is the scientific evaluation? What PhDs examined the experiment and its results? What scientific journals published the findings? What other research teams have reproduced this work? What journalists covered the experiment? Why isn't there a USA Today article? Time article? Scientific American article? Newsweek Article? One major metropolitan newspaper? University? Anything?
I find your skepticism for all things big business particularly ironic
It's not skepticism when you have proof.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I sincerely doubt that those documenters of miracles are open to other natural explanations that don't mesh with the miracle idea.
Again, someone without faith, presented with a miracle for which there is no non-supernatural explanation, might (and often does) still refuse to believe it was a miracle. This isn't new, by the way. There are numerous accounts of people who personally witnessed miracles that refused to believe their origin. Faith is a matter of the heart, not a matter of science. That isn't new either.
Stating that this in 'encoded' implies belief that this is an intentional effect
No it doesn't. Well, it doesn't unless you want to use it as a basis for attempting to refute a claim that was never made.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Love is a measurable biochemical process.
Really? Well that's good to know. Thanks for solving a mystery that has persisted for eons.
What it is is a bald face lie told by people who should not be knowingly lying to protect their religion.
Please construct a working honeybee.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
care all that much about it or think that it's truth is so proven that disproving it would be news
It was on the cover of Time Magazine, genius.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Ugh...
"The rising popularity in the United States of 'intelligent design' - a controversial creationist theory of life - is eroding acceptance of evolutionary science in Canada"
Repeat after me, people -- ID is NOT creationism.
In fact, ID and creationism are antithetical to each other -- if one is true, the other is false.
Creationism == the earth was created as it was said in the bible (created in 7 days, the earth is only a couple thousand years old, etc.)
ID == natural selection is true, creatures evolved, but an intelligent designer influenced evolution.
If the professor himself couldn't understand this very basic difference between the two ideas, he definitely didn't deserve to get a grant to study it. It'd be like a physicist not understanding the difference between newtonian and quantum physics applying for a grant to study the possible implications of quantum mechanics.
The very notion of science itself is incompatible with religion.
No it isn't. Science itself is a kind of religion, with beliefs and practices adopted on faith.
Science takes as its central premise that nothing should escape testing or questioning.
That sounds like a recipe for The Inquisition.
But the real central premise of science is that observable phenomena can be understood, explained, and even predicted in terms of testable theories and models. The notion that the world can be understood in theoretical terms is an unprovable belief. It's a successful belief, but it can't be proven.
Moreover, the method for constructing scientific theories -- the Scientific Method -- is also adopted on faith. There is no guarantee that it will work in every case.
Part of the problem that we face in science is that the theories we are obliged to construct are often mathematically subtle and abstruse. Most lay people don't have the math to understand the mathematical models which comprise many of our best theories.
One of the reasons people like to debate Darwinism is because there isn't very much math in it, and so the lay public can readily understand what it's saying. Lay people don't take issue with Newtonian Gravitational Mechanics or Einstein's models because they are written in pure math -- a language most lay people don't understand. More to the point, they don't even take issue with population genetics, since that's mostly about calculating probabilities associated with breeding. And that was a subject founded by a religious cleric who bred peas.
The Orenda Project -- Community Soul on the Right Path http://www.musenet.org/orenda
Fucking right you are!
You post this crap every time that there's a ID/Darwin discussion on Slashdot.
Fo the X millionth time ID is not a theory .
If you have nothing useful to contribute to the debate SHUT THE FUCK UP, WANKER!
No but, yeah but, no but...