Since the proposal is entitled "Detrimental Effects of..." it sounds to me like they were complaining he was making too many assumptions that the study would yield negative results. I'm sure there are detrimental effects, but you can't design your study around that expectation and expect it to remain unbalanced.
It's not as though he's setting up to do research on evolution, and they're denying it because evolution might be false - he's setting up a study on the evolution vs. intelligent design "debate" and they're denying it because his application didn't have enough groundwork. The one sentence he quoted (which, as the article notes, was out of context) talks about "adequate justification". It may be as simple as them saying, "You didn't state your assumptions clearly enough - add a paragraph explaining why we know evolution is correct and ID is not and resubmit," and him misunderstanding and blowing it out of proportion.
If someone proposed a study to test the "Detrimental Effects of belief in Earth Suckage vs Gravity", they would never be asked to add a paragraph explaining how Gravity is correct.
The thing is, evolution is on a more solid scientific footing than gravity, so WTF?
Evolution is on a more solid scientific footing than gravity?
How so?
I mean, I'm not questioning the theory of evolution -- but it is a **theory**: nobody's seen it actually happen, have they? Gravity, on the other hand, is there for everybody to observe.
Actually, yeah, folks have seen evolution in action. I posted a pointer to a case in this journal a few months ago, but that's beside the point.
The fact is, observation is the only reason we have for a theory of Gravity (which is, like evolution, also a **theory**). We don't have a mathematical model that explains where it came from, or why its a requirement of the universe. As far as we currently know, you could change a few dozen laws of physics and *poof* Gravity would go away.
Evolution, on the other hand, can be proven from a few mathematical axioms dealing with selection, replacement, and randomness. You would have to not only change the laws of physics to get rid of it, you'd also have to change some of the laws of mathematics as well.
Now, personally, I believe that Gravity is probably as fundamental a feature of a universe as evolution, but I can't prove it. I *can* prove how evolution is inevitable in any non-trivial universe. Thats why I say its on a firmer footing.
Yes, but no. I mean, your second paragraph is entirely correct, but why shouldn't he apply for funding to study the detrimental effects of something? I could equally well study the detrimental effects of numeracy, or the detrimental effects of satanism; neither of these seems to rely on satanism or arithmetic being false. I'm not sure it even matters.
"The detrimental effects of universal sufferage on the sexual slavery industry" - perhaps not the happiest choice of wording, but certainly a valid title for a paper, wouldn't you think?
Even if I live in a happy world where intelligent design is The Answer it is still disruptive. Look at prohibition.
No, I think it's entirely sensible to take a social movement, whether you agree with it or not, and ask 'what are the problems this will cause?'
But to come full circle - yes, of course, it is clear that we don't know why the proposal was actually rejected, and it is clearly in the applicant's programme to make the biggest press of it possible.
The thing that really hurts my head is this: it is not, in practical terms, physically possible to doubt the theory of evolution. It just cannot be done. You can say the words, but you cannot mean it.
That said, it is entirely possible to have a scientific theory that life on earth was designed by an external intelligence. That's completely respectable, utterly falsifiable, and I want to see the evidence.
So there's no conflict. There can't be a conflict. Anyone who says there is a conflict is obviously a liar. They are standing up there naked and in pink paint, screaming 'I am a pink painted liar.'
Um, but generally without the paint.
Most oddly odd of all of this is that the 'intelligent design' camp are giving us what amounts to a little green men theory because they want to oppose evolution because they want to support god. By some enemy-of-my-enemy argument they suppose that this makes sense as a strategy, or what?
I am baffled. I am so baffled I may just explode.
Or perhaps I'm not. Maybe it's the same conspiracy as September the Eleventh. Maybe it is just another part of the global attack on freedom and truth, another part of the war of terror, in which radical loonies from all over the world are joining together to bring down the good and the intelligent.
In terms of rhetoric, of course, the difficulty we are seeing is that there are self-styled 'Christians' and 'Moslems' and now 'scientists' who oppose the actual Moslems, the actual Christians, and the actual scientists. They are using the 'rule of law' to oppose the rule of law, and the 'reasoning' of 'science' to oppose the reasoning of science.
Is this what political correctness has wrought? Are the labels now so dilute that the truth can no longer be discerned even when it is utterly indubitable?
The thing that really hurts my head is this: it is not, in practical terms, physically possible to doubt the theory of evolution. It just cannot be done. You can say the words, but you cannot mean it.
the problem is, they do. dinossaur bones : planted there by scientists Carbon dating : results are faked geology : big conspiracy from the communists babylon ruins : satan`s work etc, etc, etc.
they have an "explanation" for everything. Hell, I haven know "people" who think Earth is at the centre of the universe. and the whole landing on the moon a scam thing ...
*shrug* never underestimate the extense of people's stupidity.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swestrup
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 04:42 pm (UTC)It's not as though he's setting up to do research on evolution, and they're denying it because evolution might be false - he's setting up a study on the evolution vs. intelligent design "debate" and they're denying it because his application didn't have enough groundwork. The one sentence he quoted (which, as the article notes, was out of context) talks about "adequate justification". It may be as simple as them saying, "You didn't state your assumptions clearly enough - add a paragraph explaining why we know evolution is correct and ID is not and resubmit," and him misunderstanding and blowing it out of proportion.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 04:55 pm (UTC)The thing is, evolution is on a more solid scientific footing than gravity, so WTF?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-07 11:47 pm (UTC)How so?
I mean, I'm not questioning the theory of evolution -- but it is a **theory**: nobody's seen it actually happen, have they? Gravity, on the other hand, is there for everybody to observe.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-08 01:47 am (UTC)The fact is, observation is the only reason we have for a theory of Gravity (which is, like evolution, also a **theory**). We don't have a mathematical model that explains where it came from, or why its a requirement of the universe. As far as we currently know, you could change a few dozen laws of physics and *poof* Gravity would go away.
Evolution, on the other hand, can be proven from a few mathematical axioms dealing with selection, replacement, and randomness. You would have to not only change the laws of physics to get rid of it, you'd also have to change some of the laws of mathematics as well.
Now, personally, I believe that Gravity is probably as fundamental a feature of a universe as evolution, but I can't prove it. I *can* prove how evolution is inevitable in any non-trivial universe. Thats why I say its on a firmer footing.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 05:00 pm (UTC)"The detrimental effects of universal sufferage on the sexual slavery industry" - perhaps not the happiest choice of wording, but certainly a valid title for a paper, wouldn't you think?
Even if I live in a happy world where intelligent design is The Answer it is still disruptive. Look at prohibition.
No, I think it's entirely sensible to take a social movement, whether you agree with it or not, and ask 'what are the problems this will cause?'
But to come full circle - yes, of course, it is clear that we don't know why the proposal was actually rejected, and it is clearly in the applicant's programme to make the biggest press of it possible.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 04:50 pm (UTC)That said, it is entirely possible to have a scientific theory that life on earth was designed by an external intelligence. That's completely respectable, utterly falsifiable, and I want to see the evidence.
So there's no conflict. There can't be a conflict. Anyone who says there is a conflict is obviously a liar. They are standing up there naked and in pink paint, screaming 'I am a pink painted liar.'
Um, but generally without the paint.
Most oddly odd of all of this is that the 'intelligent design' camp are giving us what amounts to a little green men theory because they want to oppose evolution because they want to support god. By some enemy-of-my-enemy argument they suppose that this makes sense as a strategy, or what?
I am baffled. I am so baffled I may just explode.
Or perhaps I'm not. Maybe it's the same conspiracy as September the Eleventh. Maybe it is just another part of the global attack on freedom and truth, another part of the war of terror, in which radical loonies from all over the world are joining together to bring down the good and the intelligent.
In terms of rhetoric, of course, the difficulty we are seeing is that there are self-styled 'Christians' and 'Moslems' and now 'scientists' who oppose the actual Moslems, the actual Christians, and the actual scientists. They are using the 'rule of law' to oppose the rule of law, and the 'reasoning' of 'science' to oppose the reasoning of science.
Is this what political correctness has wrought? Are the labels now so dilute that the truth can no longer be discerned even when it is utterly indubitable?
It's time to go home. I'm tired of this planet.
*waves from le vieux Hull*
Date: 2006-04-06 04:58 pm (UTC)I live too close to 24 Sussex Drive... apparently.
:) N
P.S. Take me with you when you go!
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 05:08 pm (UTC)the problem is, they do.
dinossaur bones : planted there by scientists
Carbon dating : results are faked
geology : big conspiracy from the communists
babylon ruins : satan`s work
etc, etc, etc.
they have an "explanation" for everything. Hell, I haven know "people" who think Earth is at the centre of the universe. and the whole landing on the moon a scam thing ...
*shrug* never underestimate the extense of people's stupidity.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 05:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 05:43 pm (UTC)These are also the people who truly beleive that the apocalypse, Rapture or whatever it is called is gonna happen in their lifetime.