Posted on 08/15/2006 10:11:10 PM PDT by jla
"That's basically a conspiracy theory."
What, Global Warming? I think so. Grant money determining scientific results? No that's not just theory. My brother works in a lab where all decisions and even denial of experiment results are slanted to appease the grantors. He's seen this in many other labs he deals with. If you look closely at most GW science, you will see corruption, selective data and doctored results. More than ever, science has preconceived results affecting how experiments are set-up and controlled. The grant funding gravy train rules. Many scientists do not get grants unless they will produce the desired results. This has become an epidemic.
I don't have a problem with public schools teaching intelligent design or creationism as long as they don't teach it as part of the science curriculum or pass it off as science. If they are going to be taught in the public schools then they should be taught in social studies class in the same chapter as the "sky turtle" and other religious and cultural beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the origin of human life.
I'm well aware of the time it takes for a species to evolve. But, with all the species in existence, you'd think there'd be one in the middle of the process where the evolutionists, could say, "See, here's the missing link in a living species". Since it has occurred in the past and is supposed to in the future, it should also be happening now. I was being a bit facetious with those last two questions.
>>Coulter is scientifically illiterate. Read her new book. A friend's 15-year-old kid knows more science than she does.<<
"Science" is a broad field/term and, generally speaking, quite specialized. That is why one "anti-evo" poster was ridiculed here by darwiniacs for saying he was a "scientist". What "science" does your kid know (as opposed to "believe) more than Ann?
Post 11 was pure ad-himinem.
'tis not your eyes and ears that lie but thy perceptions.
True that there are many a crank in science, but not many keep up the charade after 150 years. Especially in such an open environment as today. (or do you actually believe the 16th century was more tolerant of unconventional opinions)
Yeah, I'm starting to have more and more doubts as to evolution. Like GW, I think many scientists are corrupt in their experiments by trying to match desired results. Scientific integrity is hard to find these days. All doubters and critics are denounced on several levels. Also, they can't or seldom get federal grant money. Plus, the press will not present their views to the public. Bunch of sell outs.
And where do the IDers get their money? I doubt James Leininger opens his checkbook unless he's sure what the result of any 'research' will be.
You've hit the nail on the head. It takes real courage for an academic biologist to go against neo-darwinian orthodoxy. If he is not already tenured, his career will dead-end, his research funding will dry up and he will have difficulty getting any of his work past peer review to publication. But those who go along to get along will qualify for a seat on the National Academy of Sciences with the other hardcore enforcers of the "correct ideas."
And I'm going to need a little more evidence of 'The Man' punishing anti-GW and anti-evo views besides 'My brother says this is happening.'
I want examples, and lots of them
Work on fruit flies went on for decades. They were good subjects because their chromosomes were large and relatively easy to manipulate, and they reproduced like crazy.
That work involved sorting out the functions and locations of genes. I think homeobox was one of the fruit fly discoveries.
I remember seeing the pictures where they covered the flies alternatively with eyes and then legs. Mostly gross.
But I wouldn't characterize this as work in evolution because it was too primitive for that. Evolution was established based on the fossil record. Molecular biology has mostly supported the fossil record, but it's not far enough along to resolve many issues IMO.
I agree that Summers was sandbagged but he made that statement in a public forum. I have to believe that grantwriters are less hysterical than the Harvard chapter of NOW. I would love to see examples of anything otherwise.
Besides, aren't there religious foundations out there that are relatively well endowed? I defy you to find a starving creationist in a world where James Leininger exists.
Do you mean like ligers or mules? With enough technology you can cross anything. Look at all the weird lab mice strains running around. Some have human immune systems or human brain cells. ;(
In evolutionary biology, the important first step to speciation is that 2 populations rarely, or don't, crossbreed. That's what allows them to develop separate characteristics and eventually become morphologically distinct and unable to cross-breed.
Your requirements are not part of evolutionary theory.
I agree. Species can be defined that way.
Go see Al Gore's movie.
I don't have a problem with public schools teaching intelligent design or creationism as long as they don't teach it as part of the science curriculum or pass it off as science. If they are going to be taught in the public schools then they should be taught in social studies class in the same chapter as the "sky turtle" and other religious and cultural beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the origin of human life.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doing this is not religiously, culturally, or politically neutral. If the government gives the imprimatur of "true science" to evolution, and labels ID and/or creationism "social science", the government is sending a powerful religious message to all the students in the school.
Face it, please. Government schools never were, are not now, and never can be religiously neutral. Evolution is merely one of hundreds of curriculum policies and issues. As long as we have government schools, the fighting among the various political bully groups over the hearts and minds of the children will continue to be acrimonious.
There is only one constitutional solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Do this and the curriculum wars will end.
Fine. Teach alternate views. But ID cannot be one of them.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Please read post: #177.
Yes, private money does provide grants for skeptics of evolution and GW, non-skeptics as well. But, almost all federal money and the powers that be in academia and the media are for GW and evolution. Their is no balance in federal funding. The doubters are silenced. That's why you doubt the doubters. You don't hear their view. Read 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton. He exposes this very nicely.
"I believe a GOD probably exists I don't believe in the superstitious little god worshiped by most evangelicals..."
On what basis do you believe that a GOD probably exist? Is this a hunch? Or do you base this belief on some proof? You've done an awful lot of denigrating of the community of believers on this forum, denigrated them for [what you presume to know about] what they believe in. How is your nebulous statement about the "god" you believe probably exists any more valid than those made about the God of the people you denigrate? This is extraordinarily hypocritical and arrogant of you. This, along with many of the statements made by like-minded folks like yourself, show an irrational, condescending smugness that belies the reasoned, scientific approach you claim to utilize when invetigating the origin of life.
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.