Posted on 10/02/2006 9:48:05 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
SSHRC doubts the science of evolution
By Dan Adleman
In the summer issue of Humanist Perspectives, Gary Bauslaugh reports that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has rejected Dr Brian Alters’ application for a grant to study the “detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution’s ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers.”
The rejection, in and of itself, need not set off alarm bells, as the SSHRC rejected 73% of the applications under review at the time. What is extraordinarily disturbing, however, is the council’s stated reason for the refusal to grant funding:
“The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers. Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design Theory, was correct. It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results.”
Memorial University’s Larry Felt, one of the panelists who reviewed Dr Alters’ application, told Canwest that while he doesn’t dispute the theory of evolution, there are aspects of the natural world that “evolution has some trouble accounting for.” Felt went on to suggest “the possibility of a synthesis” of evolution and Intelligent Design that “compels scholars to take an open mind,” as opposed to the kind of closed mind frame that feels compelled to “dump on the religious right.”
(Excerpt) Read more at republic-news.org ...
My goodness! Sanity with such a panel?
Won't wonders never cease!
Ahhhh do declare!
Of course
that post is just chock full of scientific facts
vs
raging bias, fear mongering, rampant assumptions, unwarranted hostility . . . .
/sar
I suspect that a Pentecostal will likely be a major channel through which someone very close to you is rescued, healed, . . . protected . . .
such that . . . in the not too distant future say 1-15 years . . .
a very humbling--even humiliating insight will descend with a thunderous thud.
What happens then in terms of choice and behavior will likely be rather important.
Such an attitude as that expressed marks a person wtih a bull's eye. And the Archer is a very accurate shot.
But with Pentecostal fundamentalism on the rise all over the place
= = = =
Welllllll, authentic HOLY SPIRIT POWER BASED CHRISTIANITY IS on the rise at the same time that such Christianity is particularly targeted for removal from public life; such believers are persecuted, driven out of the public square; tortured and killed by the 100's if not the thousands in some regions.
God will always have a people willing to be channels of His power and Majesty--and He seems to have a hobby of picking some of the most flawed servants through whom to display His Power and Majesty.
To the degree that God is the one behind the Pentecostals rise . . . one would be a fool to stand against Him and/or them.
To the degree they are the idiots some seem so convinced they/we are . . . they will be but chaff in the wind.
UnConstitutional, unfair, raging biased discrimmination against them will eventually carry a terrible penalty though before too long, the globalist cabal setting up the world government will continue to reward such increasingly.
Irrational emotional rants against them masquerading as rational intellectual and particualarly as scientific debate will eventually be shown as the holly hypocrisy it is.
The atheists and agnostics who've taken over the religion of SCIENTISM are the ones responsible for the deceptive and dangerous practice of building up evolution into such an enormous house of cards of faith and assumption. We didn't.
All of the evidence supports Natural Selection.
That's simply untrue.
None of the evidence supports the biblical account of creation.
That's also simply untrue. One would think that a "scientific" based value system and post would be more skilled and given to dealing in facts instead of assumptions, distortions and untruths.
It doesn't particularly matter if ID has 1% or 95% of the facts to support it . . . "All" and "None" are simply untrue.
Well, you've certainly presented a thoroughly convincing argument.
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.