The backward evolution of science

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
Back in March this year, McGill University professor Brian Alters saw his latest $40,000 Canadian ($36,400 US) grant rejected for not providing enough evidence to support a theory he'd made a career of defending: evolution.

Professor Alters had applied for funds from Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to study the effect of intelligent design debates in the United States on Canadian students, teachers, administrators and policymakers. In the rejection letter, the SSHRC said that Alters - who is a strong advocate for education about evolution - did not provide "adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct".

One of Canada's largest funding bodies apparently seems to consider intelligent design a valid alternative scientific theory to evolution. Alters received the letter a few days before giving a Canadian Royal Society lecture on "Intelligent Design, God, and Evolution" and read the rejection aloud to the 650 people attending. He said that "there was an audible gasp in the audience".

The SSHRC stated that the letter contained an unfortunate "miswording" and said that this is the first time that a controversy is being generated by the wording of a rejection letter. Both the SSHRC and Alters himself have received plenty of mail from scientists from all over the world. Scientists say that the rejection letter aroused such interest because a four-person peer-review committee composed it and the SSHRC reviewed it, yet it appears to doubt the theory of evolution.

It is clear that the evolution community and any normal-thinking person should be concerned. It is not the decision on the grant that is disputable, but the message it conveys that evolution needs to be justified on an equal footing with intelligent design. So far, creationism is only supported by rather dubious religious texts that cannot be trusted, whereas substancial evidence, both in fossil records and at the molecular level, is more and more in favour of the evolution of species.
 
It was a grant application. I doubt you can find that online...  :rolleyes:
 
If he read it aloud to an audience, I think we may get a little peek at it, no?
 
You obviously can read, but I'm not sure you've yet reached the level of understanding what you read.

He read the rejection letter, and there's an excerpt of it in my rant in bold letters.
 
Maverick said:
whereas substancial evidence, both in fossil records and at the molecular level, is more and more in favour of the evolution of species.
Click to expand...

Pfft, THAT is supported by dubious scientific texts misquoted by science zealots and fanatics! :D
 
Onhell said:
Pfft, THAT is supported by dubious scientific texts misquoted by science zealots and fanatics! :D
Click to expand...

You're right. All bow to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!  :notworthy:
 
*sigh*

And there I was, silly me, thinking that we could have a decent discussion... :(
 
You started it :D

back on topic though, that is ridiculous and I think what conor was trying to say is if maybe their is a transcript of the rejection letter online, or clip of the speech etc. Now, he can look for it himself, however, I just think that's what he was driving at.
 
You don't seem to get it...

The grant application was to "study the effect of intelligent design debates in the United States on Canadian students, teachers, administrators and policymakers".

It was rejected on the basis that there isn't sufficient evidence of evolution against intelligent design (creationism).

Those who rejected it were senior scientists in high official positions.


That means that there are people in power, with a high level of education, who consider creationism a valid alternative to evolution...

..and that really worries me!  :huh:
 
This is really pathetic.

Maverick said:
That means that there are people in power, with a high level of education, who consider creationism a valid alternative to evolution...

..and that really worries me!  :huh:
Click to expand...
Creationism is just a theory and may be considered at the same level as evolution, at the beginning. However, with all the evidence we have in favour of evolution, i agree that these scientists are a little strange (did they ever remember what they learned? :huh:)
 
No, no. You don't seem to get it. I get that these people were dissing evolution as a legitimate theory, and THAT is ridiculous, preposturous, buh hum bug, etc. I agree that there is sufficient evidence to back up evolution and there should be an outrage throughout the scientific community.


Ben said:
This is really pathetic.
Creationism is just a theory and may be considered at the same level as evolution, at the beginning. However, with all the evidence we have in favour of evolution, i agree that these scientists are a little strange (did they ever remember what they learned? :huh:)
Click to expand...

How can I put this lightly? Oh wait, I can't... Creationism is BULLSHIT, and should never be considered Evolution's peer. There, I said it
 
Onhell said:
How can I put this lightly? Oh wait, I can't... Creationism is BULLSHIT, and should never be considered Evolution's peer. There, I said it
Click to expand...
Creationism is for me just an idea for people who don't want to search too far. I respect it, except if this is used to manipulate.

(and sorry for my bad english, i'm french :innocent:)
 
I read an article about this a short while back and thought it might make a good topic. Trouble is it is not my forte, Science.

Basically, the author (Dene Bebbington), argued quite possibly as you would, Mav. He talks of a movement in America that gaining some momentum that want to replace evolution with design and replace everything we know and understand about this world with theistic ones. The founder of this movement (it's believed) isn't even a scientist; rather he was a Professor of law and a clerk to the Supreme court.

Apparently, a favoured example of intelligent design is the bacterial flagellum - "such a structure could not have arisen from Darwinian evolution and that it's analogous to an outboard motor and propeller" (which we know is a design).

But he does say one thing, which I quite like "Intelligent design is scientifically vacuous, it's not a theory in scientific sense, and is at best a placeholder for incomplete knowledge".
 
Maverick said:
Yes it could. And, obviously, it did.
Click to expand...
Try telling that to right-wing evangelical christians who have nothing better to do in their retirement! He even wrote a book about it.
 
That's a good pic of Darwin on the cover, so poised and ready to swear to the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth :D
 
All throughout the *ahem* evolution of humans, we have struggled to find answers to certain things. So when it is unknown, it's put down to God. Science then comes along and finds evidence to suggest it is not and bit by bit, He becomes more and more obsolete. Now, our religious folk need to re-assure us there is a God, so they invent "intelligent design". Not only should the fact that highly educated people have succumb to this be worrying, but some have suggested it be taught in Schools. The board of education in Dover (Pennsylvania) actually passed a policy to allow a statement about intelligent design be read out in High School biology classes. This was overruled in a legal case brought about by some parents objections to this.
 
I somewhat disagree with you Albie. While I dread what this will come to and no matter how many times we say there will be no more science vs. Religion threads, one always is bound to pop-up....

ANYWAY, just becuase science comes along and discovers nature's secrets, it doesn't mean that they are "debunking" "god", God could still have created the world, we are merely discovering how he made/makes it work (Nature etc). So yeah, only INSECURE, fanatical religious types make up such crazy ideas (it doesn't deserve the title of "theory").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top