babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Doubts over evolution block funding by Canadian agency

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Doubts over evolution block funding by Canadian agency
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 04 April 2006 10:41 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Study to measure ‘popularization of Intelligent Design’ refused funds.

Hannah Hoag

A Canadian federal agency has denied funding to a science-education researcher partly because of its doubts about the theory of evolution.

Brian Alters, director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, had proposed a study of the effects of the popularization of intelligent design — the idea that an intelligent creator shaped life — on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policy-makers.

At a public lecture on 29 March, Alters revealed excerpts from the rejection letter he received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The letter stated that, among its reasons for rejection, the committee felt there was inadequate “justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent-design theory, was correct.”


Read it here. (requires a subscription)

The Panda's Thumb has more info here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kindly Wise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8699

posted 04 April 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for Kindly Wise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whoooo-hooo!
Orwell was right! Doublethink is real!
Did you see the "Mission Statement" of the SSHRC(Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council)?


"We Build Understanding"??
Out of what? Hot Air? Not out of good research and rational thought, if they are saying that the Theory of Evolution is somehow a fantasy without evidence to support it.

Just as a comment on Intelligent Design: Someday I would like to ask God WHY the reproductive system is hooked up to the urinary tract. It seems counterintuitive, and somewhat dangerous. (Actually, I'd like to hear Darwin's take on that one, too...)

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Kindly Wise ]

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Kindly Wise ]


From: Etobicoke, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 04 April 2006 11:57 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is it possible the SSHRC letter was badly worded; and that they were saying the applicant did not adequately explain the basis for his assumptions?
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 April 2006 12:01 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What, he has to prove to the SSHRC that the theory of evolution is valid before they will give him a grant?

Isn't that something you would expect an agency that funds scientific research to take as a given?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 05 April 2006 12:06 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
it funds social sciences and humanities research; not hard science, I think. Maybe he did not define his terms adequately; maybe just assuming one side is correct is not acceptable in the context of a proposal to study why people believe certain things and how they are educated. Maybe he needed to explain why he believes certain things. He's not doing science, he's doing education.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 05 April 2006 12:44 AM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kindly Wise:

Just as a comment on Intelligent Design: Someday I would like to ask God WHY the reproductive system is hooked up to the urinary tract. It seems counterintuitive, and somewhat dangerous. (Actually, I'd like to hear Darwin's take on that one, too...)


You are quite right. The evolution theory is that evolution doesn't give us the best, it gives us what will work. The male urinary and reproductive tracts ar combined in all mammals. It is perhaps not ideal but it works. The combined function normally doesn't cause problems for males except when the prostate gland malfunctions. On the other hand, female mammals have separate reproductive and urinary tracts, perhaps because it is absolutely necessary to properly guid sperm to the fallopian tubes. On the other hand, female birds have one organ for reproduction, defecation and urination.

The problem inherent with "intelligent design" is that, if taken seriously, it would cause one to question the intelligence of the designer.


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 05 April 2006 12:52 AM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Is it possible the SSHRC letter was badly worded; and that they were saying the applicant did not adequately explain the basis for his assumptions?

Nope. I was at the talk. He read out the letter they gave him in full. They said that his research goal was well explained, a good idea and probably a useful study, but that they had a problem with his "underlying assumption that evolution and not Intelligent Design" was the correct theory in the first place. (that's what I can directly quote).

The guy then called upon the royal society of canada to smack them into shape, and ended his talk.


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 April 2006 01:12 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quote: The problem inherent with "intelligent design" is that, if taken seriously, it would cause one to question the intelligence of the designer.

If we have a quotation Hall of Fame, this belongs there.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 05 April 2006 01:15 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
posted by Snuckles: ... The letter stated that, among its reasons for rejection, the committee felt there was inadequate “justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent-design theory, was correct.” ...

If I understand this convoluted wording, the SSHRC wanted the applicant to reassure them that the funding would not be used in support of intelligent-design theory and since he failed to convince that this was the case, they wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt, in spite of his credentials?

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 05 April 2006 01:20 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
Nope. I was at the talk. He read out the letter they gave him in full. They said that his research goal was well explained, a good idea and probably a useful study, but that they had a problem with his "underlying assumption that evolution and not Intelligent Design" was the correct theory in the first place. (that's what I can directly quote).

The guy then called upon the royal society of canada to smack them into shape, and ended his talk.


Well, the article said he "revealed excerpts"; however, it does sound like the Council or whoever decided this needs some re-education.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 05 April 2006 09:19 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(Cynicism)It's impressive SSHRC even bothered to tell him why they were rejecting his application(/Cynicism)

Getting SSHRC funding, it is often said, has little to do with the actual quality of the proposal. It's not unknown for a proposal to almost pass muster one year, then be rejected on the first round the next year *after the concerns of the previous year's reviewers have been addressed*.

Heck, they pulled funding from the Canadian Journal of Archaeology because it didn't have enough french-language papers. Apparently they were supposed to go hold a gun to francophone archaeologists' heads in order to get them to submit papers to the journal, or something.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 05 April 2006 09:41 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Serendipity, since you heard the letter in full, can you confirm whether the comments quoted were from one of the peer-reviewers. That would normally be the case - ie SSHRC staff don't evaulate proposals, rather they are sent out to other academics in the discipline for evaulation. It sounds like he got unlucky and his proposal was sent to a nutball - I doubt SSHRC will use that guy as a reviewer again.
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 05 April 2006 11:42 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Professor denied federal research funds for assuming evolution to be scientific fact

Randy Boswell, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, April 05, 2006

A clash between McGill University and the key federal agency that funds social science research in the country is sparking a scholarly debate about the theory of evolution.

The university is urging the Ottawa-based Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to reconsider its rejection of a funding bid from prominent McGill professor Brian Alters, who claims he was turned down on the basis that his proposed study assumed evolution to be a scientific fact.

Mr. Alters, director of McGill's Evolution Education Research Centre, had requested $40,000 from the research council to examine how the rising popularity in the U.S. of "intelligent design" -- a controversial creationist theory of life -- is eroding acceptance of evolutionary science in Canada.

The planned project, submitted last year to the research council, is titled: "Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution's intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers."

In denying his request, the research council's peer-review committee recently sent Mr. Alters a letter explaining he'd failed to "substantiate the premise" of his study.

It said he hadn't provided "adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent-design theory, was correct."

Mr. Alters said yesterday that he was "shocked" at the council's response and it offers "ironic" proof that his premise about intelligent design gaining a foothold in Canada is correct.


Read it here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dex
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6764

posted 05 April 2006 02:04 PM      Profile for Dex     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with Sara Mayo. When proposals come in, they're typically sent to content experts for their review. Chances are, the topic of ID probably resulted in the paper being shunted to an ID person and that may explain some of it. Based on the website, I can't tell if that's how it works, but that is the typical m.o. of academia. On top of that, rejection of papers and research proposals is generally accomplished via the death by a thousand paper cuts, and not one where a single flaw leads to rejection.

Seriously, though, imagine if the situation were reversed. Imagine if the title of the research had instead been "Detrimental effects of popularizing evolution at the expense of intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers." Wouldn't you want that same board to reject that study unless they made a strong and valid distinction between the 'correctness' of one and the 'incorrectness' of the other? Note: such a distinction is impossible, in my opinion, but it should be a cakewalk to accomplish in the other direction (i.e., pro-evolution). Academic research is notoriously skittish when it comes to controversial topics like this. The tallest nail tends to get pounded down, whether it's telling the truth or not. If you're a researcher and you're planning to take on a big and controversial issue like this, you need to have all of your ducks in a row. [aside]The best piece of advice I got about academia came from our dean on the very first day of grad school and he said: "The reason politics are so large in academia is because the stakes are so overwhelmingly small."[/aside]

Edited to add that the formal rejection is not up to the reviewers. Typically, things like this will be reviewed by 2-3 reviewers who return written reports. The governing body (e.g., committee or editor) looks at the reviews and makes a recommendation. Not having seen all of the comments, but knowing how things work in academia, my guess is the application died via a thousand paper cuts and not due to its pro-evolution stance.

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: Dex ]


From: ON then AB then IN now KS. Oh, how I long for a more lefterly location. | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 05 April 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just as a point of information, here's how things work in the economics committee; I'm pretty sure that it's the same procedure for all committees.

The file is sent to at least two external evaluators, and it is read by two of the members on the committee, who provide preliminary scores. The committee then meets to provide a final ranking. The externals' opinions are not treated as gospel, and it is often the case that the externals are simply discarded if the committee doesn't think that they're credible.

The letter is composed by a SSHRC employee, based on comments made during the discussion. It's a busy time for them, and I almost wonder if this might be a case where the pressure of a deadline led to some some sloppy wording.

[eta:] Applicants also receive copies of the external evaluations. They don't receive the evaluations made by the committee readers.

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 April 2006 03:08 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the Ottawa Citizen article:
quote:
"Evolution is not an assumption, and intelligent design is pseudo-science," said Mr. Alters. "I think SSHRC should come out and state that evolution is a scientific fact and that intelligent design is not."

Jennifer Robinson, McGill's associate vice-principal of communications, said "intelligent design is a form of religious belief" and evolution is "well-established science" beyond serious questioning.

"For the committee to say there was inadequate justification for that assumption -- in our view, that's an incorrect statement," said Mr. Robinson. "We're asking for them to review their decision."

Janet Halliwell, the research council's executive vice-president and a chemist by training, acknowledged yesterday that the "framing" of the committee's comments to Mr. Alters left the letter "open to misinterpretation."

Ms. Halliwell said confidentiality obligations made it difficult for her to discuss Mr. Alters' case in detail, but argued the professor had taken one line in the letter "out of context" and the rejection of his application shouldn't indicate they were expressing "doubts about the theory of evolution."


Out of context? Judge for yourselves. Here's the text as reported in the Citizen:
quote:
"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. In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit. In view of its reservations the committee recommended that no award be made." (My emphasis)
The committee is obviously not convinced that the theory of evolution is correct.

It also has apparently decided that ID theory has no detrimental effects on the understanding of evolution. This is precisely the issue that the study is proposed to examine; yet the committee calls it a "premise". Evidently they need to be convinced of the validity of a study's conclusions before the study has even been commenced.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 05 April 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, so much for my 'sloppy wording' theory.

You're right; it's pretty hard to reconcile that passage with the claim that the committee didn't have "doubts about the theory of evolution."


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dex
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6764

posted 05 April 2006 03:42 PM      Profile for Dex     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I disagree. If you have a central premise in your paper-- so important that it makes it into the title-- you have to back it up at some point, whether it's the gospel or not. I mean, I work in an area of research that traces its roots heavily back to a widely acclaimed paper that was written in the 1930s, and I still have to provide backing evidence for its claims when I submit each and every paper.

This proposal hangs its hat on the notion that there are detrimental effects without apparently establishing this notion. In other words: given that the effects are detrminental, let's go out and search for them. If, instead, the researchers wanted to study whether the effects of ID were positive or negative, the comments cited above would have been rendered irrelevant. The letter explicitly questions the objectivity of the piece. Again, if the tables were reversed and it was an anti-evolution paper, would people have such a problem with the rejection?

quote:
It also has apparently decided that ID theory has no detrimental effects on the understanding of evolution. This is precisely the issue that the study is proposed to examine; yet the committee calls it a "premise". Evidently they need to be convinced of the validity of a study's conclusions before the study has even been commenced.
They have said no such thing. The proposal claimed the deleterious effect and apparently provided no evidence to back it up. That is what the committee is objecting to, and it's a very big difference from what you're suggesting.

And before people start hammering me as an ID apologist, look where I'm currently living. I am in the belly of the beast of this issue, Kansas. And it makes my skin crawl. ID is a complete and utter joke, as are its proponents who claim that it is science. Demolition of ID is child's play for those who actually understand science. I just wish that academics would stop being lazy and sloppy in their attempts to discredit the latest incarnation of creationism in disguise.


From: ON then AB then IN now KS. Oh, how I long for a more lefterly location. | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 05 April 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I buy the SSHRC letter. I don't see any reason to thik that teaching one theory v. another should have any "effect", other than changing their beliefs. Certainly none anyone would observe immediately. Perhaps after 20 years of brainwashing by Mormons. Secondly, why should the researcher begin with the assumption that one or the other is "correct", if the purpose of the research is to look at the effects of teaching it. I buy it. I can't stand ID fundies, but I don't see the merit of this, and as someone who's SSHRC proposal also got r3ejected this round, I'd be pissed if they funded it.
From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 05 April 2006 03:54 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The second sentence does make sense. If you're asking for money to document the deleterious effects of teaching ID, then the committee can be expected to ask for some reason to believe that you might find something (preliminary evidence, studies that address similar issues, etc). They can only fund 40% of the proposals they see, so they don't really have the luxury of taking a flyer on something that may or may not generate interesting results.

It's the next sentence (the one in bold) that's the problem. They didn't need to say that.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dex
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6764

posted 05 April 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for Dex     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
It's the next sentence (the one in bold) that's the problem. They didn't need to say that.
That's a fair point. I guess I was working under the assumption that the existence of a deleterious effect in this situation would probably rest pretty heavily upon whether or not one of the theories was correct. I suppose one could argue, though, that teaching something that is correct/widely accepted also causes problems (e.g., teaching about credit cards leads to consumerism and excessive debt). Maybe the validity of each theory isn't that important in this case.

From: ON then AB then IN now KS. Oh, how I long for a more lefterly location. | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 April 2006 04:31 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dex:
Again, if the tables were reversed and it was an anti-evolution paper, would people have such a problem with the rejection? They have said no such thing. The proposal claimed the deleterious effect and apparently provided no evidence to back it up. That is what the committee is objecting to, and it's a very big difference from what you're suggesting.
The purpose of the study is to determine what detrimental effects a pseudoscientific idea, namely ID, is having on students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers. Not only does the SSHRC demand proof in advance that propagating pseudoscience has a detrimental effect, but they also demand proof that ID is a pseudoscience. This is bullshit. As you say, ID is a complete and utter joke, and the SSHRC ought to know better.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 April 2006 04:47 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mush:
I buy the SSHRC letter. I don't see any reason to thik that teaching one theory v. another should have any "effect", other than changing their beliefs. Certainly none anyone would observe immediately.
And that is precisely why this study would be worthwhile; the effects of propagating pseudoscientific ideas are not immediately obvious, but they need to be studied and understood.
quote:
Secondly, why should the researcher begin with the assumption that one or the other is "correct", if the purpose of the research is to look at the effects of teaching it.
Um, firstly because one of them is correct, and the other is bullshit. Secondly, the purpose of the research is not to prove one right and one wrong; that has to be taken as a starting point - otherwise the study makes no sense.

Unfortunately the idiots at SSHRC couldn't even get as far as to accept that ID is pseudoscience. As others have noted, their very refusal of this project only underscores the crying need for it.

quote:
...I don't see the merit of this, and as someone who's SSHRC proposal also got r3ejected this round, I'd be pissed if they funded it.
Your own hurt feelings and personal vanity notwithstanding, this kind of research is extremely valuable and badly needed.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 05 April 2006 05:05 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mush:
I buy the SSHRC letter.
Me too. The study sounds silly and unprovable. How can you measure the effects, negative or otherwise, about the 'propagation' of a silly theory which is almost never discussed in Canada?

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 05 April 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Your own hurt feelings and personal vanity notwithstanding, this kind of research is extremely valuable and badly needed.

Horseshit. I know perfectly well that one of these "theories" is bullshit (and crackpot!), but that's outside of SSHRC's domain. It does no good to an application to be seen as having an obviously political axe to grind. I don't at all see how this is "valuable". The harm that ID teaching does it that it makes kids/everyone delusional nincompoops (in my humble athiestic opinon). So, why is this any different than any other religious education in that regard? Imagine that some right-wing prof wanted to study the effects of "politically correct" speech on the cognitive development of children. I'd dismiss that as crackpot pseudo-academic crap as quickly as I would do this one. They are clearly trying to outflank the IDers and avoid the real question (not that is is a real question- I know). Much better uses for SSHRC dollars.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 05 April 2006 05:53 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
Serendipity, since you heard the letter in full, can you confirm whether the comments quoted were from one of the peer-reviewers. That would normally be the case - ie SSHRC staff don't evaulate proposals, rather they are sent out to other academics in the discipline for evaulation. It sounds like he got unlucky and his proposal was sent to a nutball - I doubt SSHRC will use that guy as a reviewer again.

Can't say. I can't remmber. But you're right. It's not the administrators who write this stuff, it's the referee's, although, I do think that they go through an editing and review process with the admin (the non-experts), at least thats how it works at NSERC. But I only have experience working with NSERC so I can't say for sure if the rules are the same at SSHRC.


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 05 April 2006 05:55 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
The second sentence does make sense. If you're asking for money to document the deleterious effects of teaching ID, then the committee can be expected to ask for some reason to believe that you might find something (preliminary evidence, studies that address similar issues, etc). They can only fund 40% of the proposals they see, so they don't really have the luxury of taking a flyer on something that may or may not generate interesting results.

It's the next sentence (the one in bold) that's the problem. They didn't need to say that.


But they accepted the study on all other grounds, and rejected on the sentence in bold.


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 05 April 2006 05:58 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
Me too. The study sounds silly and unprovable. How can you measure the effects, negative or otherwise, about the 'propagation' of a silly theory which is almost never discussed in Canada?

Unfortunately, it is. Canadians support creationism in nearly equal numbers as Americans. (I was suprised to find this out as well.) In addition, 50% percent of Canadians reject the statement that "humans developed from other animals". Gallup's latest study showed that 58% of Canadians rejected evolution, but that's a bit high. Most of the polls hover around 50%, and that's across North America, US and Canada.

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: Serendipity ]


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 05 April 2006 06:01 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
In addition, 50% percent of Canadians reject the statement that "humans developed from other animals".
Gawrsh.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 05 April 2006 06:07 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Serendipity:

Unfortunately, it is. Canadians support creationism in nearly equal numbers as Americans.

Holy poop! Don'cha think this could mean there is even less reason to examine the "effects" of those teachings? I mean, if half of people already are creationists, then it's hardly a new or particularly interesting phenomenon. Still seems a dumb study. Maybe the effects of "rapture" teachings would bemore interesting- people living their lives expecting to be "called home" any day. What does that do to a person?


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 05 April 2006 06:30 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:


But they accepted the study on all other grounds, and rejected on the sentence in bold.


That's not how it's done. What the committees do is set a ranking; those above the 40% cutoff line get funded. There are a lot of files that are sensible and could be funded if the success rate were higher. For those files, we try to provide the applicant with some idea of what elements that were missing from the file that prevented it from getting a higher ranking.

It could be that the story really is "it's okay, but not that great when compared to the other files we looked at."


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 05 April 2006 06:41 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What I mean was, they lauded the study on all its other attributes, and praised them in the text, which Brian Alters put up on a slide. Forgive me for using the word "accept". They didn't accept the study at all. And there was only one stated reason for it.

They didn't think it was okay to assume that "evolution and not intelligent design" is the appropriate model for how life developed.


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 05 April 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
They didn't think it was okay to assume that "evolution and not intelligent design" is the appropriate model for how life developed.[/QB]

Well, they actually said therte wasn't enough "justification in the proposal" for that assumption.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 05 April 2006 06:49 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If it was below some cutoff, as you say, then the reason for that is this mistake they've made.

If they had an issue with the study because they felt the social science was off, why didn't didn't say so? If they didn't take such an issue with the study then why is the SSHRC choosing to undermine the scientists on the scientific assumptions that underpin the study? Brian Alters works with helping teachers more effectively communicate evolution to students. Because Canada is on a rank on par with the US, the worst industrialized country in this regard, he believes that this is a study that needs to be done. I agree with him. Should the SSHRC be allowed to stop him from recieving funding? Yes. But not on these grounds.


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 05 April 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno. We'd really have to have seen all the other files as well as be experts in education before we could make that sort of conclusion.

In other news, my SSHRC committee officer has assured me that she will be extra careful in how she phrases the committee comments...


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 05 April 2006 07:27 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I keep saying this over and over. Nobody here has said that they have a problem with the study being rejected because it lacks merit to the field of education. I certainly don't.

What I have a problem with is it being rejected because it lacks merit to the field of biology.

50% of Canadians do not believe in evolution. 26% of Canadians believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools.
It seems like some of those people sit on the SSHRC. And that's a big problem.


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 05 April 2006 07:35 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
from The Panda's Thumb: Philip Sadler, a board member of the centre and director of science education at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is more philosophical. “If he was trying to answer the question as to whether all this popularization had had an impact, he just saved the government $40,000,” says Sadler. “He found the evidence without doing the study.”

From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 05 April 2006 09:57 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
I keep saying this over and over. Nobody here has said that they have a problem with the study being rejected because it lacks merit to the field of education. I certainly don't.

What I have a problem with is it being rejected because it lacks merit to the field of biology.

50% of Canadians do not believe in evolution. 26% of Canadians believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools.
It seems like some of those people sit on the SSHRC. And that's a big problem.


Oh, I agree with all of that. I'm just trying to think up a way of explaining what happened that doesn't involve being forced to conclude that the education committee really doesn't understand the relative scientific merits of evolution vs ID. But if it turns out that that third sentence in the above passage really does express what they meant to say, then they have no business evaluating any scholarly work.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 05 April 2006 10:05 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heard the interview with the McGill guy on As it Happens on the way home. I did come away more convinced that something's up here. I had this thought, though: I wonder what committee he had it go to. Was it education? If not, I could see a SSHRC committee having on it people who wouldn't want to privilege scientific knowledge over any other. I work with sociologists whom I believe seriously wouldn't want to give evolution priority over any other kind of understanding of the world, including folk wisdom or myth or legend. It isn't that they are fundie IDers, either, just social constructivists.

I was reminded of a graduate class in social theory in which we spent a lot of time talking about evolutionary theories as both a product of social forces and a mechanism of their reproduction.

So, does it sound plausible that it was with this intention that they wrote the decision, rather than defending ID per se?


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 April 2006 11:20 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mush:
So, does it sound plausible that it was with this intention that they wrote the decision, rather than defending ID per se?
I don't care what their "intention" was; the wording of the letter makes it clear that the decision was based on a refusal to recognize the theory of evolution - a "theory" so well established by evidence that it ranks alongside the theory of gravity.

Whether they are fundamentalist ID believers or social constructivists the result is the same: they should not be allowed anywhere near making decisions about funding research.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 05 April 2006 11:27 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I heard some of As It Happens too; he stressed that people often do have grants refused, so it didn't sound like sour grapes on his part. He also said he sent an e-mail to the manager of the program [or something like that]; the manager sent a message offering to talk about it on the phone but when Alters said he would prefer something in writing, the manager refused.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pandemic, incompetent politicians
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5012

posted 06 April 2006 12:39 AM      Profile for Pandemic, incompetent politicians     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I keep this topic at what is personally believed to be its simplest, cleanest, most straight-foward form.

ID, Intelligent Design, was always uncalled for, because Creation never needed to be replaced, better explained, more fairly or reasonably so, perhaps, but not replaced.

Creation is rather inherently pointed to by or in the scientific law which states that there is a cause for everything that exists, within the temporal order framework anyway, and while science can't prove anything else about the world that is transcendental to our world, here. There is a cause for everything means that the world as we know of it and are learning more about could not have just come into being without a real cause.

UFOs and ETs put us here? I say 'no', but even if I was mistaken, still, so what if they happened to have seeded us and all we know of here, so what? After all, and in a very elementary way, that explanation or belief still doesn't explain how all came to be, for it doesn't explain, to any degree whatsoever, how those ETs came to be. If we follow the line of reasoning based on the above scientific law, then the next question has to be "where did these ETs come from, what caused them to ever exist, for, after all, there's a cause for absolutely everything?".

Of course another automatic and totally elementary question for the UFO or ET notion is where is the proof for or of this? The Ralaiens or Raliens (spelling?) say they have proof, but never provide it, and that inherently implies that they most likely are lying, all while knowing that they are, at least the leaders of this notion or "theory" anyway.

Anyway, in the end, we ultimately arrive at Creation. And there was never any value in starting the ID theme, and whoever's responsible for Creation is the Creator, i.e., God, while anyone who soundly considers the universe we know of, or even only Nature on our planet, alone, can only arrive at the realisation that the Creator is certainly intelligent, so ID is totally unnecessary, bringing nothing of any really new value, not based on what I have read of ID anyway.

Creation is fine, even scientific law is a rather concrete argument for this. At least Creation os anyway, for that it's also fine, this is a bit acceptably debatable, given the horrible nature of too many humans, our horrible crimes, spoilage, etc. I still believe it's fine anyway, even with the horrors we commit, the horrorific acts being certainly condemnable, but without rendering Creation other than nevertheless fine, beautiful, awesome, and so on.

This is about all I can really say on ID and Creation, although, whoops, just remembered, also that Creation does not inherently debunk evolution. It may provide some means for arguing that some aspects of evolutionary theory are at least, minimally questionable, but does not prove that there has not been any evolution. If Creator wanted there to be evolution, then there's certainly nothing to prevent evolution from taking place.

Creation can't be competently used to fully debunk evolution, to question or counter some aspects, possibly, but not to debunk, certainly not fully. And evolution occurs in more ways than only how we and other animals organically came to be, for it also exists in matters like climate changes, glacial periods, powerfully flowing rivers eventually evolving to meandering and far less powerful flows, etc., etc. Creationary theory is not an anti to all of evolutionary theory(ies). Some of those aren't only theories, but are actually known, proven to be facts or factual, and once a theory has been proven to be fact, then it's no longer theory, it's succeeded, moved on to the more stronger matter of fact and that is what laws are based on, proven, tested, etc., facts.

Laws can possibly change over time, I suppose, like when due to such drastic changes in terms of facts occurring or evolving, whatever the causes for this are. But as long as facts continue to prove that the laws also continue to be true, then the laws remain regarded as correct, valid, real.

People who argue that Creation totally disproves evolution either haven't thought enough about this, or they're unable to do so, or they're lying, trying to deceive, at least themselves, or are trying to manipulate others based on non-facts, or ..., whatever, but these people are mistaken, whatever the reason or motive is. Anyone who pretends to know otherwise does not know, is fooling him- or her-self or trying to fool others, etc. Whatever it is due to, it is not authoritative. And some people simply lack a sufficiently scientific mind or ability.

But there are also people who are so "caught up with themselves", so ego-centric, that they like to pretend to have Knowledge equal to God's, and this is a very sickening and annoying human characteristic. None of us knows everything, absolutely none of us.

What strikes me as peculiar is that there was never a problem during my high school years about teachers in physics, f.e., mentioning that the scientific law of causality does point to Creation, and there's absolutely nothing off-base about Nature "speaking" to us of Creation and therefore the Creator. After all, any work produced by anyone or any animal does inherently "point" to the fact that there was a creator.

(When I received that very brief instruction or reference in highschool, I was Christian and while the reference was welcome, it didn't bother me that the teacher did not pursue the topic of Creation any further. I was immediately capable of very simply realising that he was right, that scientific studies didn't provide a real means of pursuing this topic any further, and I never heard any complaints from anyone. The reference took perhaps two to three seconds to be stated, the professors or teachers did so in all fairness, with no real bigotry, etc., or whatever, whatsoever, and then we simply and "smoothly" moved on to what our course could deal with, not with what religious courses could pursue further. After all, it was a, or they were science courses, physics or biology, or maybe chemistry, one of these specific areas anyway, so it was clearly not a course on religious faith and therefore what's transcendental to this world we live in here. "Nice and simple" was that to realise, and absolutely no one in any of my classes in which this "pointing to Creation is supported in scientific not theory but law", in none of these classes did anyone ever complain. And I attended public, not religious, denominational schools, after seventh grade anyway, while these courses were after that or this level.)

Ant hills are made by ants, and when we know that a hill we're looking at or thinking about is an ant hill, we automatically think of the (intermediate) ant creators of this hill. Bee hives are made, created by bees, bird nests ..., art works by artists, at least usually humans, and tables, houses, etc., used by us, are at least usually made or created by people, either ourselves or other people, etc., and they, all of these creators, where did they come from? Nature.

Where did it all come from, how did all those things come to be? The Creation of the Creator, who made all of this possible to begin with. Without the Creator and Creation, there'd be no creators and creations.

Some puritanically narrow minded individual I read a tiny bit from last year started the nonsensical argument that humans can't create, for the Creator Created Creation, after which there's no more or other creationary work possible. It's a false notion, for, assuming that that individual is based on Creation, a-la Genesis in the Bible, well, it also says that the Creator Created us in His (holy) image, so this, alone, says that we can surely also be creators, just not on the same Scale of Work. A table does not exist, we make some, therefore we create some. It's just a question of not whether or not creationary work is involved, but it's the Scale that is addressable. If a person sits down and from purely his or her own imagination devises a new invention, then this is creationary work, activity. Whether or not it's a good idea, this is a different question or matter, and whether or not it was created by Creator, we know that it wasn't, for it was a human creation, not a Creation of the Creator.

People, if they wish to continue to do so, can debate who's God is the real God, but basically no one with a keen sense of reasoning, especially if possessing a real scientific sense or ability, can deny that Creation (regard as theory or law, as you wish, but I can't but realise that it's fact) is indeed valid. The only problem for science is that we can't explore except for what's temporal, for we need, then, to be able to touch, manipulate, test, guage or measure, etc. We don't have the ability to do this level of research, scientific research, with the world that is transcendental to our own. We simply don't, and very simply and maturely should accept that we certainly don't have any such means or abilities.

We're limited. None of us is without limitations, and there are different reasons, or factors contributing to this reality, but even if these were absent, the constraining ones due to how human society or societies are government, say, we would nevertheless remain limited. A problem is that we're naturally limited to begin with, and we just add more limitations, because of the way we "define" human societies, how we're to function, what our social dependencies are, and the like, or etc.

So while the law of causility actually does point to Creation, scientific research can't pursue this, because it's not what scientific research is suited for doing or working on discovering. Scientific research and applications, these are only temporally focused, rather than to explore what's mainly of the realm of religious or spiritual scope. Scientific laws contribute, sure, but scientific research is not meant for pursuing this avenue, God, Creator, Creation.

It then becomes a matter of religious faith or spirituality, to take over and pursue further, and philosophical research or reasoning can help, but it also can't, philosophy alone can't provide all of the answers. After all, philosophy, for the most part anyway, is primarily about human society, and how we interrelate with Nature, our world, the one we definitely depend on. Then it becomes ever more evident that religion or at least spirituality is required, to be able to pursue this overall understanding as fully as humans feasibly can, all while competencies definitely do vary. Even with that approach, the religious or spiritual pursuit of understanding all of this, or even with all of these approaches combined, in a firmly or totally careful and strong way, we're still limited.

For Christians, there's one at least possibly, if not certainly, valid explanation for the very latter, that not even with religious or spiritual study can we fully know all that is. What this reference is is that Jesus of Nazareth said that He was unable to tell the first apostles and disciples, and therefore every generation of Christians thereafter, all there is that can be potentially known of Heaven, that He was only enabled to teach what God the Father wanted to be taught, and that it was not going to be thoroughly comprehensive. Jesus made this clear, that He was only to tell us the essentials we, Christians anyway, need, in order to be able to really believe that it's indeed right to believe Jesus' teachings. (Whether or not humans agree on whether or not it's 'indeed right to believe Jesus' teachings', many argue over this. When I say it's 'indeed right' to do so, am speaking strictly from the Christian perspective, rather than trying to bash Christian faith upon others. If people disagree, then I'm not going to argue about it, am not going to be crusadal, am not going to treat Christian faith any differently than Jesus himself did, which was to simply allow people to individually accept, or not. He was no basher, except towards outright hypocrites, and sane people of any walk in life, of any religion, including atheism, don't mind letting hypocrites know that they're this, and that it's unacceptable, wrong, etc.)

Any religious teacher or preacher who pretends to know all is false, and fooling him- or her-self, or at least trying to fool others, manipulatively, deceptively, egotistically, etc. No human knows everything, and research continues for this very reason, because we don't know everything. It's very nice and simple, plainly so.

After all, if we knew everything, then there'd be absolutely no valid justification for wasting time with research, but humans are in need of very carefully researching, on or in many topic areas. Research has proven that while we supposedly advanced, we have lost very important research or empirically learned results of real value from the past. Research is called for not only for new discoveries, but also for re-discoveries of what humanity has unfortunately lost, left behind, and which is of real value today. If we were stupid enough to waste time with totally unnecessary research, then we'd prove to be idiots, again, as if this proof does not already occur enough, and it would again prove that we're ignorant and therefore obviously don't know everything.

I try to keep all of this "nice and simple", in line with real common sense. Note, also, if you wish anyway, that I'm one to distinguish between common way and sense, treating 'way' as rather disgusting, like idiot lemming-hood-ism, while 'sense', as it should be understood, in the manner that inherently means what's beneficial for society and this world, overall. Generally, common way is something to be wary of, while real and thus sound, sane common sense is to be welcomed, treasured, for it greatly helps when we're not experts, but then while many so-called experts are dangerous because they either lack sound common sense, or refuse to apply or stick by it.

Well, here's another distinction. If we apply, live by sound common sense, then we'll not only think as other sound people welcomely also do, we'll retain true individuality. Conversely, by being lemming followers of common way, we lose our individuality, and that's something I never wish to forsake. Hence, it's not to mean that I would ever refuse to adopt good things or ways of others, instead of "reinventing the wheel for myself when others have already done so and I can or should therefore just be able to copy from them, be a sane and beneficial copycat", it's just that it's very useful and beneficial to be way of common ways, until they've been verified in terms of overall, holistic soundness, vs not, or absence thereof.

So there's my "thesis", in a preliminary draft form anyway, on this overall topic of ID, Creation, and evolution.

Mike Corbeil
Hatley ..., Qc

[ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: Pandemic, incompetent politicians ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pandemic, incompetent politicians
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5012

posted 06 April 2006 02:41 AM      Profile for Pandemic, incompetent politicians     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bla, bla, bla, oh long-winded am I, but while at this forum's topic, why not also refer to our common humanity! And it fits in very well with respect to common sense, vs common way, too.

Christians anyway, fundamentally, i.e., essentially, are taught to believe in our overall common humanity, too.

How is that, the very latter? Remember when Jesus of Nazareth addressed the apostles, some of them anyway, on the question of when they could know, vs not, whether or not they possessed or exercised real discernment, the kind God wants of Jesus' followers and fellows, and fellow-ettes. The first two apostles got their answers wrong, Jesus having said so, and they had referred to darkness vs light, and wolves vs real lambs or sheep, being able to distinguish between these. Jesus said no, neither is the answer. The third apostle realised that the other two had been told to have been mistaken, so he simply asked Jesus for the answer, and He said that it's, very simply, when they could look at their fellow human beings and truly perceive the presence of God in them.

Whoah, now that's a powerful, universally or holistically so, statement or answer, I'll say. Really, too. Why? It says, basically or essentially, fundamentally (in the true and sound sense of fundamentalism), "get rid of your religious prejudices, etc., and get with realising that all humans, including even the wicked actors, are children of God", we all have God for Creator, and even Satan does, too.

(Why would such a great God allow the persistence or even commencement of Satan or anything like it? Yes, it's indeed a question many people can ask, wonder about, and the answer, as harsh as reality in this world is, is very simple. God chose, decided that Love was to be made the topmost priority, and we can't love, if we don't have free will. If we lack that, then we're at best puppets, and that's if we'd exist at all. So, God knowing what providing free will could certainly entail, He made real Love the priority, and I certainly can't criticise such a choice, because I love having the ability to love, care, etc. If we didn't have freedom, we could not love, care, etc., and I would definitely not want that.)

Anyway, Jesus reconfirmed this teaching when He instructed the apostles to spread the Good News, and when He said 'spread', He did not mean to bash the news into or onto people. It just meant to communicate in the same manner that He did, and He was never forceful about this, about or in His teachings and public addresses, except when addressing, specifically so, hypocrisy and hegemony, f.e. With regards to His purposeful religious teachings, not that his addresses to the hypocrites and hegemons were anything less than purposeful though, well, He always let people individually choose to come and Hear, and among those who came, they were freely allowed to accept, or not. He did not come as a crusader or warrior, but Teacher, only. Remember the Sermon on the Mount, f.e. There was absolutely no forcefulness on His part in this event.

That is the way absolutely all humans working as Christian ministers, whether they be ordained or not, for, f.e., Brother Roger of the Taize community in France was certainly a minister, just not ordained into "priesthood", after all, ya know, well, it's the way all ministers truly and seriously working in the holy name of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Christ, Messiah, and Anointed One, it's the way they're all supposed to work, for none of us is Him, and He didn't but simply offer what He had to say or reveal, teach, how ever you wish to call it.

Jesus never addressed the topic of Creation, didn't deal at all with this. In a sense, He did, but it's purely implicitly, and that is reflected in these posts of mine. Here, right now, I'm just speaking in terms of explicit teachings, and He provided none of the latter on this topic. (Implicitly, yes, explicitly, as far as I recall anyway, no.)

He just spoke of God the Father, what the followers and fellowship brothers and sisters are to believe for essential bases in the faith, warned about the many false prophets, preachers who'd come to be and to falsely pretend to speak in His holy name, how we're to consider our social order, and all while demonstrating real liberation, not warring liberation but nevertheless liberation theology, i.e., character, in terms of the need to see to the poor, marginalised, at least wrongfully persecuted, imprisoned, and put to death, and so on. He kept it all very simple and down-to-earth, and holistically sane or sound, didn't get into really complicated matters, didn't call for the humanly impossible, etc.

It was all "nice and simple", but the rich, generally, don't correspond or relate, can't see and don't hear or carefully listen, although some of them are fortunate enough to be able to do so, and do so. Most don't, but some do. And it's not a complaint solely about them, for while it actually is this, in serious part, we also have poor preying upon other poor, marginalised, etc., and in hellbent ways, much enough like when Judas Iscariot cheaply betrayed Jesus, while not only was betrayal dead wrong, Judas also did so awfully cheaply, for pittance money. And I've been harmed by poor and non-poor, so I know that both happen.

We also have concrete examples from all over our world, of poor preying upon poor. It's certainly been going on in Haiti, with the hellbent coup d'etat regime, f.e., but also in many other countries.

Yet, the poor preying upon other poor are not as bad, in overall terms, for they're important actors to pay attention to and work on stopping, but are micro-relevant, instead of being so at a macro. level. In the latter case, those responsible do far more overall harm than individual poor who prey upon a relatively few other individual poor. Both are of bad order, and need to be stopped, but the marco.-bad is certainly worse, for it majorly involves far more victims. Both need stopping, though!

Anyway, bla bla bla, some of my unofficial "ministering", I guess, above. Oh well, I guess the same applies in the rest of this post, too. (It's not easy to totally omit religious references or beliefs, religiously based in terms of "roots" anyway, when it's become an integral part of who we are as humans. I suppose it can be done, but it is not simply easy for me.)

The real point of this post is only to refer to our common humanity, for it's definitely real. We can be of different and variably contrary religious beliefs or faiths, but all humans nevertheless are children of Creation and therefore of the Creator, who created Creation, and we have needs and natures that are common to all, across all religious, etc., scopes. And our common humanity should never be neglected, never!

For that, we need to work on achieving mutual understanding and accord, not warring, for we should certainly begin to turn our weapons of war into ploughshares, and start with being really fruitful, finally, please. I don't care if others don't believe in my religious faith, the most any Christian is religiously authorised to do is to simply spread, communicate the Good News, with absolutely no bashing attempted, let alone committed.

On that basis, I can communicate or cross-communicate with fair people of any religious faith, including my own, in which case I'll add the unfair among Christianity, and fairly exchange. If we don't agree on the religious faith to follow, in the end, we at least can still be friends, friendly, mutually beneficial and fair, etc. Why on earth would I ever want to harm or lead harm to anyone of another religious faith and who, especially, is of fair, fine character! To do that would be insane and hellbent wrongful on my part.

I don't want and refuse to treat religion as a weapon or matter of war, because it should NEVER be treated in this manner. To do that, for Christians, is to be contrary to Jesus, and that definitely is not good for Christians. He never authorised us to do any bashing.

To oppose wrongs of empire, imperialism, etc., including simply hypocrisy and hegemony, sure, but this or that doesn't need to be coupled with religion, per se, for all forms or occurrences of these wrongful matters or acts, they can and should all be opposed, regardless of the religious beliefs involved. One way or another, in some cases justifying religious references, like the fact that du-fous G.W. Bush et al pretending that Christian faith supports their hellbent ways, f.e., while in other cases it simply doesn't call for religiousness whatsoever, simply sound common sense and caring. Whatever the case is, whatever order of opposition is called for or justified, the wrongful ways of humans can and should be opposed, "nice and simple". Precisely how very simply depends on context, but opposition is otherwise always justified.

And, while speaking of opposition to wrongs in our world, Jesus provides a "dualistic" perspective and teaching on this. Some people just don't have the character to be actively, are not outspokenly activist, but all while nevertheless being in heartful, wholehearted support of such others. And there are those or these others who have and exercise the character of concrete activism.

How did Jesus teach this "dualistic" reality? Remember, when He, innocent He was on the Cross, or at least on the last path to it, He said that those who were not against Him were for him. Those who were outspokenly or at least publicly demonstrated that they were against, these people's positions were obvious, while those who didn't have the character to come all the way out in publicly demonstrated support of Jesus but who nevertheless were wholeheartedly against what was being done to Him, well, He said, they're for Him. And that inherently implied that they simply weren't of the character to come all the way out and publicly demonstrate this reality about themselves. Totally innocent and sincere they were, just that they didn't have the characters to come forward and display this part of themselves, and Jesus Loved them, and expressed His sincere appreciation of their fellowship, of true nature, just not pubicly demonstrated, is all or only what the difference was and is about. He said so Himself, so this Christian will adopt this teaching of His, and indeed deems it as very important, essential understanding, realisation.

I nevertheless try to shake or wake people up in to becoming active, in my own, microscopically individual way, casually, in passing, but never wish to bash these people, at most only desiring to try to stir them into being active. After all, our world is in need of a lot of real and energetic activism. We may not have much hope, but nevertheless, activism is not out of place. We can "go down" complacently, or in actively trying to oppose, it's just a question of which of these two paths we accept to innocently "go down".

And we can remember that Jesus prayed to God the Father to forgive the persecutors, torturers, and executioners, followed by additional torturers (spear in the chest and vinegared sponge shoved in the mouth, while he was on the c/Cross), asking God the Father to forgive these people, because they did not know what they were really doing. They knew that they were committing Him to the end and sufferances He was treated with, but lacked a very special order piece of awareness, they did indeed lack. They were ignorant in a very special way, and Jesus clearly, here-in, taught this very important lesson to all who'd become His followers, that we have to think of more than what's only of this world's realities.

That again refers to our common humanity. After all, those Jesus was speaking of, praying for forgiveness for were not Christians, right? Right. They weren't among His followers. They were brutally against him, although most of them hadn't a clue why, just carrying orders, and then some personal meanness, I suppose, the very latter meant with respect to the RE's (Roman Empire's) soldiers who went and stuck a spear in His side, and a vinegared sponge in His mouth when He was just saying that He was thirsty for blessed, wonderful water. But the ones who officially condemned Him to this end, not the puppet soldiers, although and I guess not entirely puppets, for they committed some acts of their own choosing, well, it's nevertheless the officials who allowed and made all of this happen, who made it all happen, who made sure that what persecutors commanded was carried out. Still, all ignorant they were, not of killing and brutalising, but of very important matters they very obviously were ignorant of anyway.

Jesus thereby made it clear that ignorance is a very real factor that He pays attention to, and provides very careful consideration for. Whoah. I can't reject it.

When Jesus said "Blessed be the peace makers", he was not stating this in a religiously specific manner. He meant this in terms of all who truly work on being peace makers, all. And that again speaks of our common humanity, and it, as far as I'm concerned, means to be non-prejudicial, for to be prejudicial is to be unjust, arrogant, egotistical, etc., all bad characteristics, and certainly unfitting for humans who truly realise that we're only humans.

It's very important. We're all only humans. Yet, what does 'only humans' really refer to? For me, it's quite major, what's referred to, as readers can derive from these two posts of mine.

On that basis, when Jesus said "Blessed be the peace makers", while He also said similar enough words about people who'd sincerely seek out real Truth, well, He was, like when He said praising words about the good Samaritan who didn't, not during Jesus' own existence here anyway, not that we know of anyway, become Christian, well it's that He was able during his life here to state praising words about other people, non-apostles and -disciples, people who were not adopting His teachings at least at that specific time, but who nevertheless exercised qualities that He wants His own followers and fellows to also adopt. He was teaching what His followers should understand from or based on other people present and acting at that time, and it's a teaching which is perpetual, non-ending, at least for as long as we exist in this world, here, anyway.

It all "comes back" to Creator, Creationism, and that all of us, including other animals, are born of the Creation, and that all humans are children of God, and we should pay very careful attention to this. Even sound atheists are capable of this, just that while they're capable, they're not people who are prepared to profess to adopt any known religious beliefs in any specific manner. Some atheists are spiritual, but are so "turned off" from existing religions and the variances in beliefs and conduct within each, that they're not willing to proclaim to adopt any. It's understandable, for people of all religious faiths, at least other than anemists anyway (and am not sure about them, for maybe some of them have also been guilty in this regard), well, they are people who wish to prefer to say that they're staying independent. Some atheists are hard-set or -core about belief in God and the Transcendental, but that's okay, at least for Christians anyway, for Jesus never said to war religion upon anyone, who so ever.

If it's not true, then I'd say that nothing is, but, instead, that everything is justly purely imaginary, and that I haven't a clue how this or that could ever make any sense whatsoever. No, for me, this world and life are very real.

This Christian doesn't understand why other so-called Christians came up with the idea of trying to replace Creation and therefore Creationism with ID. There was absolutely no call for this whatsoever. To improve or expand upon Creationary theory itself, sure, maybe anyway, if there was a just call for this anyway (I'd have to review the details, for I just treat it as reflected in my two posts, here), but to concoct a replacement theory, there was absolutely no point in ever doing so. For me, it's a concoction due to a lack of real-world understanding of the world we really do live in.

Why did those "inventors" ever think that they were on a valid path to begin with? To say that the Creator's intelligent, hey, just consider the world we live in, and if you don't find Awesomeness, etc., about this, then it doesn't matter what approach you take, you'll never be able to common sensically argue that the Creator's intelligent. People are too out of touch with reality. The fact that I can just look at another person or creature and realise the existence thereof, this is already awesome, if we are able to simplify our perception of reality. If we can't do that, then we're lacking, for there's plenty to be awestruck about, "plain and simple", really.

Why did they bother with ID at all? Well, maybe, it strikes me as similar enough anyway, it's kind of like when Thomas of Aquinas was trying to convince an atheist that God really does exist. Thomas did fine, as long as he stuck with it being self-evident that God exists. If you carefully examine his complete argument or logic for this, however, and you have a real sense or experience in dealing or communicating with people of varying beliefs, then you can quickly realise that Thomas was not adequately realising who, what type of person, a non-believer, he was communicating with. He thought that his convoluted logic would impress the other, and yet, while it may possibly sometimes works, we can't expect such complicated logic to regularly succeed. Why? We need to pay careful attention to human reality and therefore variable natures or understandings, and needs, needs in terms of what is or is not convincing to each individual.

Instead of that convolution, I'd stick with it being self-evident that God, Creator exists alright, but would not bother with the order of logic Thomas further developed. I'd just tell or suggest to the person, consider Nature, consider the trees, birds, and so on, and your own existence, your ability to think, perceive, etc., do you think that this is all out of just nothing, or that there's a real cause for all of this? I'd refer such people to what's known to them, for within it, there's plenty for them to be able to refer to for serious reflection, already. They don't need a mass of convoluted human logic added on top, or instead of. Thomas was, like too many, out of touch with reality, in his convolutionary manner.

Jesus was far more straight-forward and simple. He didn't entertain undertaking anything like that argument or logic of Thomas, but then the latter was just another mere human being, one lacking enlightenment, and we all lack this, variably but still to some degree, as far as I'm concerned. After all, I'm not about to pretend that I'm God and therefore have to admit that I remain ignorant, in varying degrees, and on many topics or topic areas.

Being a genius in one area or another, or even in multiple areas, but never all, okay. To be Godly Knowledgeable, however, now this is a whole other matter, and no human has this level of achievement. Likely none ever will, unless God makes it so, and am not sure that He ever does, enough yes, but totally, I haven't a clue (ask the folks in Heaven about this, not me). I won't pretend to know that which I don't, and don't ever want to attempt doing so. If I don't know but believe I have a potentially helpful hunch, then, sure, make it known, but while making it also understood that you're not certain, only based on hunch, intuitive as it may be, and such intuition does exist, f.e., profesionally, trade-wise

A serious problem in Christianity is not totally but nevertheless too much lack of sound common sense. I love Christian faith as per Jesus, but am annoyed by all of the human nonsense that's been added, and which has only polluted this religion or religious faith. In some cases, it's even worse, it's in replacement of, instead of merely added on top, too.

The Creator who Created all that we know for Universe and Nature could not be but Intelligent to begin with. A simpleton can even figure this much out.

Am I simpleton or simpletonian? Sure, but then absolutely every human being also is, variably, because none of us knows absolutely everything, and we know far less than we believe to know, regardless of how much we know that we have ascertained that we know. We'll always be ignorant, and the way our world is run, it's very clear that we're awfully ignorant, and worse. Why do we need to research and develop anything at all, if we're not simpletons! We wouldn't, if we weren't simpletonian. And some are even worse, they go and work on "reinventing the wheel", when it's already been done and can simply be copied and, according to need, modified.

"Blessed be the peace makers"! Can this world finally realise that we need to take our cursable weapons and turn them in ploughshares, and our fields of war, into fields of cropping, for healthy harvesting. Yum yum. Make your food your medicine, and your medicine your food, like a grand farming RC minister once wrote, and which is available on the www (search on "make food your medicine", or some derivatoin thereof, and you'll find the link, for I don't know where it is in all of my bookmarks, and it may be, not unlikely but likely, in a corrupted archive, that, because 'tar' was run from a directory that was being included in the archive, instead of from a directory or folder above, a parent, leaving that there's still room for this IT/IS professional, of the past, in the present, for people don't know to thoroughly test their software products!).

Peace, and may God, Father unto all, regardless of what religious beliefs we individual hold, be with us. We're in big trouble, and are in serious need of help or Help.

Mike C.

[ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: Pandemic, incompetent politicians ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 April 2006 03:22 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Long thread!
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pandemic, incompetent politicians
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5012

posted 06 April 2006 04:36 AM      Profile for Pandemic, incompetent politicians     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NO ONE should ever block teaching of evolution!

After posting my last post, the second one, I noticed that the title of this discussion forum is about the Canadian government blocking ..., and it definitely should not block teaching of evolution. It should allow, also, mention of Creation(ism), but only in its elementary form, that which scientific law does point to, nothing more. For more on that, then it should be relegated to religious studies, and at least somewhat in philosophy. But governments should certainly refrain from adopting and becoming theocratic rule, and there's nothing essentially wrong with evolution.

Evolutionary theory is like any theory, questionable, but being at the level of theory, instead of hypothesis, and less, it deserves some real credit. The problem is not the theory, it's what some aspects of it claim or propose, and those parts simply require research. No governments whatsoever should oppose research and contemplation which is actually justified, and evolutionary theory, it's justified.

To see, worse to impose, theocratic governance is to be dead wrong, at least Christianly speaking anyway. Jesus said to keep church and state separate matter, to leave to Caesar that which is of his reign, and to God, what's of His reign, to not mix or confound these.

Why? Theocracy is bound to be unjust and towards many, potentially very many innocents. People innocently hold differing religious beliefs. People are brought up from nearly birth to believe in one religious faith or another, and some along the atheistic line, while others eventually come to adopt the latter, leaving or abandoning any of the former, and no one is to be unjustly treated.

G.W. Bush welcomes theocratic nonsense in the US, not in Iraq but in the US, yes. Why? Because it is wrong. Why in Iraq? Because it is against the wrongs he wants to impose on Iraq, it's against his agenda, not because of it being unfair to install theocratic regime. If theocracy in Iraq meant G.W. Bush would get his way, totally, then be sure of this, he'd be for it all the way, unrelentingly.

Theocratic governance is the "tool" of idiots and monsters, not of anyone who's Just. We have absolutely no use for theocratic government rule in this world, and should always oppose it being made or rendered established, regardless of the religion involved. As far as this Christian is concerned, only God and Jesus can assure sound, sane, fully Just theocratic rule, and if Jesus ever does return to correct governance in this world, the same Book of Revelations, or whereever this matter is specifically referred to, there's going to be another 1,000 years (who knows how long that'll work out to be, for God's years are not necessarily human years) during which people receive a second chance, hope, but some will opt out, and I conjecture that that means that it's not really or at least not fully one strong, fully Just theocratic rule that will be installed or established.

I don't know anything about the very latter, only know some things I've read, and which haven't been researched any further. But I do realise that we better refrain from wishing theocratic rules established by humans! Definitely.

Besides, there's nothing essentially wrong with evolutionary theory. Creationism does not negate that evolution is not going to be part of the whole of what goes on. Creationism is, instead, mostly about the Commencement, does not detail what follows. And we have at least some concrete facts that tell us that there's been at least some evolution. What kind, of what nature, precisely, it's yet to be fully ascertained, but there's been some, definitely.

Yet, the Canadian government considering blocking evolution, well, let's carefully remember that "politics is full of hypocrisy", being very replete with that crap, PHB's, point headed, i.e., narrow minded, bosses, idiots pretending that they have any authority over others, etc., exist and act en masse.

We're evidently going through a very harsh period of "under PHBs", today. The blastard idiots think that they are capable of, du-fously qualified to be our bosses, and they're idiots.

Ya know, in the US military there is very specific law which states that the cic is not the boss, the US Constitution is, and what does that say about international laws and conventions that the US government comes to promise to abide by? It says that the latter is supreme to the US Constitution itself, and it's, already in US military law, explicitly to be treated as far above the du-fous idiot president acting as cic.

Theocratic rule cannot be justly implemented by humans, get rid of this desire, all governments! Chuck it out right away. To accept counsel from religious people is one thing, but to make governments theocratic, no humans can justly achieve this, none! Maybe, if not surely, some of us could do this well, but none of us are in a position of being able to do so!

Governments need to focus on being Just towards everyone, and unjust towards no one.

Get rid of theocratic temptations! Nice and simple!

Mike C.


From: Quebec | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 06 April 2006 09:10 AM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
zzzzzzzzz
From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 06 April 2006 09:22 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I'll give it a go..
quote:
Whether they are fundamentalist ID believers or social constructivists the result is the same: they should not be allowed anywhere near making decisions about funding research.

In the biological sciences, perhaps, but that's not SSHRC's remit. In anthropology or sociology, yeah, I think I'd like to see a little cultural relativism resonating around there. I think Mush's question about what subcomittee it was sent to is an important one to get an answer about--I suspect it'll clarify what's going on here.

From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 06 April 2006 09:58 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
. . . somebody else already said it . . .

[ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: the grey ]


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 April 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:
In the biological sciences, perhaps, but that's not SSHRC's remit. In anthropology or sociology, yeah, I think I'd like to see a little cultural relativism resonating around there.
You apparently think that only people in the "hard" sciences really need to accept the theory of evolution as a working premise. Everyone else is free to believe whatever pseudoscientific bullshit they like and apply their ignorance to the performance of their non-hard-science jobs.

By the same token only physicists need to accept the theory of gravity and only astronomers need believe that the Earth goes around the Sun. The rest of us can be "cultural relativist" skeptics about all that geeky scientific stuff.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kindly Wise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8699

posted 06 April 2006 06:34 PM      Profile for Kindly Wise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmmmm.....

Plausible doesn't necessarily mean "correct" or even "more likely".

Does the Nixonian concept of Plausible Deniability logically imply the existence of a counter-point concept of Deniable Plausibility?


From: Etobicoke, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 April 2006 12:55 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, an interview with one committee member indicates that some academics in decision-making roles may not grasp the distinctions between evolution, intelligent design (I.D.) and creationism.

The committee member, who did not wish to be named, suggested that I.D., stripped of any religious connotations, is an honestly debated issue among scientists.

"You can't strip it of any religious connotation," responds Jason Wiles, one of the managers of the Evolution and Education Research Centre. "It is fundamentally religious in nature, because of the implication of a supernatural creator."

Mr. Wiles is preparing a comprehensive account of anti-evolution activity in Canada. "There's an anti-evolution group in every province," he says. "And there are multiples in each of the larger provinces." Their projects range from creation-science museums to anti-evolution summer camps.

"Canadian schools don't appear to be teaching enough about evolution, and that lack of information . . . is going to leave students wide open to the activities of the anti-evolution organizations that are here," Mr. Wiles says.

This fall, Peter Sparrow, a science teacher, will bring his Creation Bus through Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Mr. Sparrow and his wife, Cathy, have been travelling through the Australian Outback for more than 13 years bringing their creation message to remote towns. The tour is supported by Christian Ministries International. Its co-ordinator, Perry Petrushko, says, "We expect it to be very busy."

Mr. Wiles and Prof. Alters say Canadian biology teachers contact them regularly about how to deal with I.D. in the classroom. "Teachers who have no intentions to teach it whatsoever find their students saying, 'Oh, I want to talk about intelligent design, or creationism,' " Mr. Wiles says.

A survey of how many Canadian teachers face such pressures was part of Prof. Alters's research plan.


-- from the Globe and Mail, behind the wall, but available here until Monday morning.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca