Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Must not support creationism
Something that most of the human race believes in to this day may not be mentioned in an American university? Clear bigotry
Montana Tech is a science-oriented unit of the University of Montana, offering a range of degrees in science and technology fields. So Montana-based technology entrepreneurs might seem like logical choices for commencement speakers. This year's speakers will be Greg and Susan Gianforte, engineers who started several technology companies and have been donors to computer science programs at several Montana colleges.
Does it matter that they also support a creationist museum that seeks to convince people that evolution is incorrect? Is there anything inconsistent with a science university honoring people who back creationism?
Some faculty members and students are organizing a graduation boycott (an unprecedented level of protest for Montana Tech) because they think the university should not give a platform to people who argue against science. The university says that since they won't be talking about creationism at graduation, the issue doesn't matter.
The Gianfortes, through their foundation, were major donors to the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, an institution that frustrates scientists and academics in Montana for promoting ideas that are widely seen as religious belief, not science. The museum does not in any way hide its views that natural history, as taught by science professors and museums nationally, should be fought.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Science trumps religion any day of the week.
It doesn't say much about US universities that "Creationists" could even be taken seriously on any level. The religiosity of Americans is an international joke, and seen as one of many signs of the US's decline on the World stage, not least in the field of real science and the technology it leads to.
I hate to burst your bubble, but evolution does not even qualify as real science by the current definition of science. It violates the second law of thermodynamics. It contradicts all observed laws of genetics, such as the fact that all observed mutations are either stillborn, disabled, or sterile. Beneficial mutations are not observed. I thought the scientist is supposed to go where the data leads, but here we have "scientists" who are more like inquisitors toward anyone who dares question their religion.
3:52 AM Oh wow, how shockingly ignorant you are. Your infamous creationist ref to the second law of thermodynamics alone shows it. Your misunderstanding of "mutation" is risible. Did you attend a US university?
"The Gianfortes, through their foundation, were major donors to the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum, an institution that frustrates scientists and academics in Montana for promoting ideas that are widely seen as religious belief, not science. The museum does not in any way hide its views that natural history, as taught by science professors and museums nationally, should be fought."
It's fascinating how, through its wording, this article sticks to the assumption that what the museum is teaching is not science.
"I realize that such doubts [about Darwinian naturalism] will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science."
and
"For a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in these areas. But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense."
— Thomas Nagel (Atheist), Mind and Cosmos
If you hear bullshit over and over, it becomes your truth.
4:27,
Oh wow, what a powerful argument! </sarc> Insult without evidence or logic.
"without evidence or logic."
LOL. That is what belief is. The pot is calling the kettle black., Mr. Luke.
So let me guess, citing the conclusions of a well known atheist whose profession is to study the scientific literature promoting evolution so that he can communicate it to others is not evidence because any "evidence" which contradicts evolution is "not science". Did I get that right?
"but the big prize goes to Thomas Nagel, who’s a well-regarded philosopher who dropped a big clinker this year, with a book that claims we ought to consider Intelligent Design more seriously.
I’ve skimmed Nagel’s book, and it’s a lot of ponderous musing with no foundation in evidence at all. Vernon’s article is no better. It’s enough that Nagel is an advocate for teleology, and that’s really all he can say about it: “he wonders whether science needs to entertain the possibility that a teleological trend is immanent in nature.” “Wondering” is cheap, evidence is hard. He basically finds it inconceivable that all of the universe could have natural causes, so therefore science is inadequate, so therefore we ought to be considering supernatural factors.
You know, that’s a really stupid argument. If you want the details on the poverty of Nagel’s book, read Leiter & Weisberg’s review." - PZ Myers
Sources:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/07/the-most-despised-science-review-of-2012-is
http://www.thenation.com/article/170334/do-you-only-have-brain-thomas-nagel
Creationists never actually advance any real scientific evidence for their beliefs (which after all are just based on ancient middle-eastern myths, which were probably only meant as allegories in the first place). All Creationists do is try to pick holes in scientific research by misrepresenting it and by deliberate obfuscation (yes, "wondering" and "musing" is about all it amounts to).
The point of the article is not whether "Creationism" is Science, or whether "Evolution" is the only possible explanation for our existence (it's not - as the Creationists point out). The point is that we have people who have been very generous to a university being criticized NOT for attempting to influence that university's teaching policies or curriculum, but for being generous to another institution that does not adhere to what can most generously be described as the "evolutionary dogma."
We criticize religious zealots for their "overly emotional" reactions to attacks on their core beliefs, but we never recognize the same emotional volcanoes that lie just beneath the thin veneer of our own "scientific" beliefs.
And anon 6:24 - if All Creationists do is try to pick holes in scientific research by whatever means, then they are no worse than Scientists pursuing competing theories - and don't even try to tell me that "Scientists" don't "misrepresent" other people's research or deliberately "obfuscate" it - I've watched the CAGW debate too long to accept that statement as anything but wishful thinking.
Stan, if you hate science so much, why are you using a god damn computer?
Scientific theories are based on scientific evidence, even if different scientists may have competing opinions. However, Creationists never put forward actual scientific evidence for their own Creationist beliefs - which are not "theories" in the scientific sense, but usually just pure speculation about what might support their pre-existing religious ideas or literal interpretations of the Bible or other "holy-books".
The misrepresentation or misunderstanding by Creationists about generally accepted scientific findings, such as biological evolution, is so often of the egregious kind, such as the comments of 3:52 AM.
Theres some truth in the name of hat movie EXPELLED NO INTELLEGENT ALLOWED dawinism is STUPID
Come on people, quit avoiding the elephant in the room and talking around the subject. We all know anyone who rejects any part of Darwin's Theory of the Evolution of the Species" is ignorant and malevolent. There is no point in further discussion of that.
We need to decide now what length of prison term should be imposed upon such a malefactor.
Anon 3:52- and you're wrong.
And ignorant. If you don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics (and you don't), or basic genetics (and you don't) you should try reading a book on physics or genetics. Just a hint.
PROTIP- if you look at the 2nd Law sometime, the words you are needing to understand are "isolated system". You're welcome.
11:06 Creationists like 3:52 just regurgitate what they've been told are arguments against scientific findings they don't like by misinterpreting other scientific findings; and the mis-application of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a classic example that's even become a joke because it's become such a standby for Creationists (most of whom probably and evidently never actually bother to examine such scientific Laws).
Post a Comment