then you read this story: Prof denied grant over evolution. Agency wants proof Darwin is correct; But McGill says committee's reasoning is faulty. From the Montreal Gazette:
McGill University says the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council made a "factual error" when it denied Professor Brian Alters a $40,000 grant on the grounds that he'd failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.
Now I don't like writing about ID, because it's honestly it's like talking about individuals who don't believe in algebra, but I just can't believe this. It's one thing to deny funding because your work is not important (which the agency does argue) but it's a whole other matter if the agency dennies basic principles like evolution (which they did as well).
But did they really say that? From the Montreal Gazette:
In its decision to deny the grant, the SSHRC panel said Alters had not supplied "adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct."
Tbrnac, you must be joking.
- Log in to post comments
He obviously needed a footnote saying "Ref. the entire contents of about twenty different journals for the past hundred years, plus about a ton of other material, for more detail". This would be funny if it wasn't so bloody scary.
Just wrote to the Montreal Gazette:
Dear Editor
The irony of seeing that Professor Brian Alters being denied a grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) is that its members who did the rejection -- S. Bennett (English Literature), L.Felt (Sociology), R. Heap(History), G. Larochelle (Human Sciences) and R.Rose ( Economics) all lack a background into the hard sciences. The theory of evolution is the cornerstone of biology, genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology, and geology. Furthermore, it uses scientific concepts proven in thermodynamics, nuclear decay and information theory. Alters planned project, titled Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolutions intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators, and policymakers and I would add to that list, members of the SSHRC indeed needs to be carried on even more so.
oh that's so sad, i really like McGill. I'm going to use that algebra quote though, that's priceless.
I read your 'Montreal is great' paragraph after I read this. That is funny stuff.
What? And I thought creationism was only raging in places like Utah. If Canada - and Montreal of all places - starts behaving like this, then I'm very, very sorry for the progress of science in North America.
I wouldn't say that ID or creationism is raging, but some very loud IDiots want to make it seem so. They mostly blog and write articles for newspapers and that's about it. Once in a while some story like this comes out, but it's mostly because of uneducated individuals who listen to the IDiots and then do something stupid. I try not to write about the whole thing because it has very little to do with what we do in the lab on a day to day basis.
OK, maybe I was going a bit far in using the word "raging", but isn't it true that there is at least one school in Pennsylvania (OK again, it was not Utah) where ID is mandatory teaching? I'm not bothered about scientists (for I hope that most of them are educated enough), but about the 3600+ children to whom ID is being taught in a public establishment right now.
Timtom - I think you may be referring to the ID case involving the Dover school district in PA. The answer is no, ID is not being taught in PA. It was shot down in court. Although, strictly speaking, they were not trying to "teach" ID, just make it so that teachers had to read a little blurb about how evolution was just a "theory" and there might be another possibility... anyway, here is a link to the news story...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
I wonder if this was a criticism more of the completeness or writing style of the proposal, than of actual evolution versus ID? If the subject of the proposal is evolution versus ID, then surely the proposal would need to provide a fairly exhaustive discussion of the controversy. After all, it's a sociology grant, not a natural science grant.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on that little excerpt of one sentence, given without context.
Hey U - long time no hear. (I guess you got over the email thing - don't worry I'm the only one that has access to that info and it's only to prevent spam)
Yes you do have a point - in fact the SSHRC does go on to question the need for such a study. However if the administration of McGill University is coming out and saying that this is unfair ... it concerns me.
Having said that, you're probably right in that the statement was probably overblown. I doubt that the ID movement has any traction in Canadian public discussion.
well, this is the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. are we sure it wasn't some "natural science is just another superstition" type person?
Thank you steve, I was misinformed.