Posted on 04/30/2009 8:18:57 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Obama Pushes for Expansion of Science and Technology
by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D.*
--snip--
Interestingly, the long list of useful items that the president mentioned lacks even a single reference to any benefits derived from or used for evolutionary theory, which is touted by some as the unifying theme of all the biological studies. Was this a tremendous oversight by Mr. Obama? Not likely, since his speech aggressively promoted the practical application of science to the benefit of humanity. Evolutionary theory is totally irrelevant to achieving that goal, as one evolutionist acknowledged: “Most [biologists] can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
--snip--
Some of the loudest applause Mr. Obama received occurred when he said, “Next, we are restoring science to its rightful place. On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Thanks for the ping!
Moral absolutes ping
I think this has it backwards. Obama is destroying scientific progress by bankrupting the nation and socializing everything.
As for the evolution thing, give it break. People (by which I mean liberals) are doing evil in the name of selfishness, not nazi-style ‘social darwinism’.
The theory of evolution really is used by researchers in the life sciences. It gives us a framework with which to make predictions and interpret results. To those of us who work with it, it is a tool just like the theory of electromagnetism, or of gravity. There is no emotional investment or belief system involved with a theory, it’s just a tool.
Actually not. He move has just guaranteed that science has taken a back seat to ideology, way at the back of the bus.
I don’t know, even the Evos are beginning to admit that evolution is superfluous to operational science. Indeed, if you asked me, it is steering scientists in the wrong direction. For instance, Darwin’s predicted “tree of life” is in the process of being hacked down, the evolutionary prediction that 97% of our genome is composed of “junk” DNA left over from our evolutionary past has been overturned by Project ENCODE, and let’s not forget the fact that phylogenetic trees using complete genome sequences consistently fail to predict known “evolutionary” histories. Again, if you asked me, the neo-Darwinism is failing miserably and is on its way out.
Translation: science will be run by amoral to evil evo-materialists who think life is about as precious as pond-scum.
No one I know is “admitting” that our theoretical groundwork is superfluous to our research. We just use the theory, much in the same way we might use the theory of electromagnetism to examine biological molecules. Using the tools given us in no way “leads us astray.” Quite the contrary, those tools enable me, as a researcher, to make testable predictions about the system I am studying. I was making evolutionary predictions just today; it’s a routine activity for me.
The constant refinement of evolutionary theory in no way invalidates the framework; all science, in every field, undergoes constant refinement as new data is collected and pieced together to form a more complete picture.
As for the ENCODE project, I Googled it and found the project sponsors’ website. They discuss the project findings strictly in terms of evolutionary theory—in other words, they don’t see it as any kind of invalidation of the theory.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for scientists to ditch the theory of evolution. That’s not happening until a better theory with superior predictive powers comes along.
==No one I know is “admitting” that our theoretical groundwork is superfluous to our research.
“Examining the major advances in biological knowledge, one fails to find any real connection between biological history and the experimental designs that have produced today’s cornucopia of knowledge of how the great variety of living organisms perform their functions. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science.”
—Philip S. Skell is emeritus Evan Pugh professor of chemistry at Penn State University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html
==As for the ENCODE project, I Googled it and found the project sponsors’ website. They discuss the project findings strictly in terms of evolutionary theory—in other words, they don’t see it as any kind of invalidation of the theory.
I didn’t say that they lost their faith in Darwin’s materialist creation myth, I said that Project ENCODE has fasified the evolutionary prediction that 97% of our genome is “junk” DNA. Indeed, they discovered just the opposite, that at least 93% of our genome is functional. Needless to say, Creation and ID scientists have been predicting functionality all along.
==The constant refinement of evolutionary theory in no way invalidates the framework; all science, in every field, undergoes constant refinement as new data is collected and pieced together to form a more complete picture.
I would say Darwin’s so-called “tree of life” being hacked down and replaced by an “orchard” or “forest of life” that much more closely resembles Creation and ID predictions is a VERY BIG blow to neo-Darwinian evolution.
Certainly Obama has ideological reasons for his science policy, but an enormous part of it is simply channel more $$$ to his academic constituents.
The human organism (or any organism) is stunningly complex. It is truly amazing how in 9 months a human grows from a single cell, to a fully functioning, living, breathing creature. There are countless processes, chemical, electrical, biological continuously happening in the body. I cannot even begin to comprehend how thought works. These processes work flawlessly for decades. The complexity and perfection make me skeptical of evolution being capable of creating it. However, I am even more skeptical that since it is so complex and seemingly incomprehensible, that therefore, something infinitely more complex and powerful than we ourselves are must have created us. If we cannot explain our own existence and how we came to be, then how can we explain that something even more complex than us came to be? Although I will say one thing, I do not believe that evolution and God are necessarily mutually exclusive.
I have asked you before for a reference to where an evolutionist "predicted" that 97% of our genome would prove nonfunctional. I'm starting to think you're ignoring the question because you don't have such a reference but don't want to have to admit it.
I would say Darwin’s so-called “tree of life” being hacked down and replaced by an “orchard” or “forest of life” that much more closely resembles Creation and ID predictions is a VERY BIG blow to neo-Darwinian evolution.
I have asked you before if you understand that the proposed "forest of life" actually resembles creationist predictions less than Darwin's tree of life did. I'm starting to think you're ignoring the question because you know that's true but don't want to have to admit it.
I notice that your quote about the supposed uselessness of evolutionary theory was from a chemist, not someone who works in the life sciences. His quote missed the mark, to say the least. Of course, practicing physicians, veterinarians, farmers, etc., do not need to have any kind of understanding of the theoretical framework of evolution. Nothing they do requires any knowledge of the evolutionary relationships between various organisms. As a biomedical researcher, however, that knowledge is fundamental to my ability to perform my work.
Let’s say, for instance, that I am interested in a specific gene. The gene has been identified in cows, bison, goats, and deer, and there is sequence information available for the gene in all these species. I notice that these are all hoofed animals, so my first question is, is the gene common to all hoofed animals? Does it only occur in herbivores (pigs have hoofs but are not herbivores)? Is the gene present in other mammals? My knowledge of evolution gives me the ability to make certain predictions which then enable me to design the experiments to answer these questions. My first step would be to align the gene sequences and examine them. I expect to find regions of high homology (areas that code for functional protein domains) and lower homology (areas that code for structural protein domains). Once I identify those regions, I can design probes to search for corresponding high homology areas in other species—because evolutionary theory tells me they will be there if the gene is present.
The hypotheses I would have to form from a creationist standpoint would be completely different. Accepting creationism as a scientific theory, I’d expect the gene sequence to be identical in every species, because the protein product has the same function in all species. Instead of aligning gene sequences and looking for highly homologous regions that I could use to design probes, I’d just get the sequence (it wouldn’t matter if it was cow, goat, or whatever) and make a probe. Then I would probe DNA extracts from other species and see if the gene is there, because I’d still want to know which species have the gene.
And so on. I know this example is kind of long, but I’m trying to give an idea of how evolutionary considerations guide my work. There is no way I’d be able to perform research if I didn’t accept evolutionary theory. That would be like an electrical engineer trying to develop new technology without any comprehension of electromagnetic theory: impossible.
As for other points you brought up, I have to wait until later to address those. I have to go to work and, you know, use elements of the theory of evolution to design a research project.
Exactly. And at the same time, it's possible for someone to fix my stereo or build a computer who doesn't understand that theory. So in a similar, very limited sense I supposed it's possible for "practitioners of the biological sciences" not to need to understand evolution. But that doesn't mean the theory doesn't still underly everything they do.
President Pledges Three Percent of GDP to ‘Science Research’
Lunar Pioneer | 4/27/2009 | Joel Raupe
Posted on 04/27/2009 10:25:35 AM PDT by Prospero
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2238865/posts
[snip] President Obama received a standing ovation during his address to an annual gathering of the National Academies of Science after pledging to fund “science and research” at a rate of “three percent of GDP.” Because the President was critical of the prior administration, saying “there was no room for ideologically-driven science,” the polling questions relate to general knowledge of what participants know about past spending and what the nation’s GDP actually is. [end]
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“I notice that your quote about the supposed uselessness of evolutionary theory was from a chemist, not someone who works in the life sciences. His quote missed the mark, to say the least.” [excerpt]Uh, chemistry is the foundation of (to my knowledge) all life.
“The hypotheses I would have to form from a creationist standpoint would be completely different. Accepting creationism as a scientific theory, I’d expect the gene sequence to be identical in every species, because the protein product has the same function in all species. Instead of aligning gene sequences and looking for highly homologous regions that I could use to design probes, I’d just get the sequence (it wouldn’t matter if it was cow, goat, or whatever) and make a probe.” [excerpt]For some reason, what you just wrote gives me the impression that, when it comes to creationism, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“That would be like an electrical engineer trying to develop new technology without any comprehension of electromagnetic theory: impossible.” [excerpt]LoL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.