kallend 2,146
QuoteGiven that the Templeton foundation is an organisation founded for the specific purpose of rewarding those who bring science and religion/spirituality together it should really tell you something about the validity of ID that they don't want to be associated with it.
Says nothing about the"validity" of ID. Says worlds about their slant on what fits their bill and what doesn't.
QuoteAlso, the Templeton association is an independant charitable body that gives out prizes and grants for research it likes.
Exactly. No different than most any other organization that "gives out prizes and grants for research".
QuoteIt has absolutely no power to 'go after' any academics, or 'deny them tenure' or victimise them in any way.
Nor does most any other similar organization excercise that power in a direct way. No different.
The point is in the denials. It apparently is not uncommon for ID researchers to be denied access to funding...for political agenda reasons.
However, using your terms, (go after, deny them tenure, victimize), indirectly that does happen. Is it common for acedemics to gain tenure and all the perks that go with it if they can't get funding for any projects and can't publish?
Kallend could shed light on that.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Quote...all I do is call him on his constant string of PA's of which most get ignored...
We know what you mean. Quite common from Mr. Kallend.
Mr. Kallend says, "Maybe he'll get a cut of the box office take so he won't have to rely on hand-outs from his family. "
A direct slap in the face to most college students throughout the nation.
Hang in there. After a short while it becomes quite entertaining and good for belly-laughs!
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
jakee 1,594
QuoteSays nothing about the"validity" of ID. Says worlds about their slant on what fits their bill and what doesn't.
You mean like, being actual science? If ID had any scientific merit the Templeton Foundation would be all over it like a cheap suit. It would be exactly the type of science they want to reward. It would be the type of science they were set up to reward. But they don't, because it has no scientific merit.
QuoteHowever, using your terms, (go after, deny them tenure, victimize),
Not my terms, Auburnguy's terms. Which he has flat out refused to back up with even a single example. I wonder why.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
I didn't get that from the quote I provided from their web page. What I got was a total denial without regard to scientific merit (actual science) which, IMO, shows no interest in providing support for ID research regardless of how cheap the suit is.
Admittedly, I know nothing about the "scientific merit" of ID. I suspect few here do.
If the example I provided doesn't fit the bill as a valid one, please disregard it and I'll stand corrected.
Admittedly, I know nothing about the "scientific merit" of ID. I suspect few here do.
If the example I provided doesn't fit the bill as a valid one, please disregard it and I'll stand corrected.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
jakee 1,594
QuoteI didn't get that from the quote I provided from their web page. What I got was a total denial without regard to scientific merit (actual science) which, IMO, shows no interest in providing support for ID research regardless of how cheap the suit is.
What you get is a total denial of scientific merit because it has none. If ID was real science it would be exactly what the Templeton Foundation was set up to reward. Luckily, the Templeton Foundation recognises that ID is not real science, which is why they won't touch it with a barge pole. It is not because of differing philosophies, or politics or any of that stuff, it is because of the science.
QuoteAdmittedly, I know nothing about the "scientific merit" of ID. I suspect few here do.
I'd suggest starting by putting "Ken Miller" and "Dover" into Youtube. should find a 2 hour video of a university lecture he gave outlining and then eviscerating the pro-ID arguments presented (by its premier 'experts') at the Dover trial. Ken Miller is also a fairly devout Catholic, so he's surely not going to be opposing ID on religious or political arguments either, just the (lack of) science.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
JackC 0
QuoteAdmittedly, I know nothing about the "scientific merit" of ID. I suspect few here do.
You'd be supprised how many people here know quite a bit about the scientific merit of ID.
If you want to learn more, you could try reading the book published by the
National Academy of Sciences on Science and Creationism. The conclusion of which states:
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
Or you could try the Royal Society's comments on evolution, creationism and intelligent design. Part of which includes:
Its [IDs] supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treats gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist as if they were evidence for a designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not."
Every legitimate scientific institution is unanimous in that ID has no scientific merit whatsoever.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuote...all I do is call him on his constant string of PA's of which most get ignored...
We know what you mean. Quite common from Mr. Kallend.
Mr. Kallend says, "Maybe he'll get a cut of the box office take so he won't have to rely on hand-outs from his family. "
A direct slap in the face to most college students throughout the nation.
!
Not at all, if you'd been reading another forum, you would have seen his gloating about being supported by his parents.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,146
Quote
The point is in the denials. It apparently is not uncommon for ID researchers to be denied access to funding...for political agenda reasons.
There are funding bodies of all political and religious persuasions (including none). If you can't get funding it usually means your ideas are unworthy of support by anyone else's money. No one has a right to be funded.
Quote
However, using your terms, (go after, deny them tenure, victimize), indirectly that does happen. Is it common for acedemics to gain tenure and all the perks that go with it if they can't get funding for any projects and can't publish?
Kallend could shed light on that.
Depends on the place. Some colleges do not emphasize research and tenure is based primarily on teaching and innovation in education. Funding is not normally an issue at these places. Others are heavily into research, and having no publications will kill your chances of tenure. Also be clear that not all research costs a lot of money. There's a lot that can be done just sitting in a university library. The expensive research is usually in the biological and physical sciences where equipment costs can be very high.
However, it is unclear to me what "research" on ID would entail, and why any money would be needed to do it. What would they spend the money on? What expensive equipment is needed?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jcd11235 0
QuoteNor does most any other similar organization excercise that power in a direct way. No different.
The point is in the denials. It apparently is not uncommon for ID researchers to be denied access to funding...for political agenda reasons.
However, using your terms, (go after, deny them tenure, victimize), indirectly that does happen. Is it common for acedemics to gain tenure and all the perks that go with it if they can't get funding for any projects and can't publish?
Kallend could shed light on that.
I have yet to see, here about or read about any scientific hypothesis suggesting ID is a plausible explanation of life or the human form. If you know of any, let us know. In the meantime, I'll assume that the reason ID proponents don't get the funding they think they deserve is not because they are being discriminated against, but because they are unable to propose ID in any manner that allows it to be tested repeatedly and independently, and possibly disproved, fundamental requirements of any scientific hypothesis.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteNor does most any other similar organization excercise that power in a direct way. No different.
The point is in the denials. It apparently is not uncommon for ID researchers to be denied access to funding...for political agenda reasons.
However, using your terms, (go after, deny them tenure, victimize), indirectly that does happen. Is it common for acedemics to gain tenure and all the perks that go with it if they can't get funding for any projects and can't publish?
Kallend could shed light on that.
I have yet to see, here about or read about any scientific hypothesis suggesting ID is a plausible explanation of life or the human form. If you know of any, let us know. In the meantime, I'll assume that the reason ID proponents don't get the funding they think they deserve is not because they are being discriminated against, but because they are unable to propose ID in any manner that allows it to be tested repeatedly and independently, and possibly disproved, fundamental requirements of any scientific hypothesis.
Conversly, there is nothing proving ID is not a reason (I dont care about the funding angle here) Darwin himself states that evolution is seeable looking at changes within a species. He also says that there is no evidence of evolution creating a species. (I know there are theories in this regard)
DNA level of creation is todate, completly unexplained.
I make no claims for ID or against. I simply point out some facts
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jakee 1,594
QuoteConversly, there is nothing proving ID is not a reason
There's nothing proving the telepathic pixies at the bottom of my garden aren't a reason.
QuoteDarwin himself states that evolution is seeable looking at changes within a species. He also says that there is no evidence of evolution creating a species.
1) Please provide the particular reference you are referring to.
2) Darwin published On the Origin of Species 149 years ago. Evolutionary research has progressed just a little since then.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
quade 4
QuoteDarwin himself states that evolution is seeable looking at changes within a species. He also says that there is no evidence of evolution creating a species.
This is among the issues with calling evolution "Darwinism" and relying solely on words ONLY Darwin himself wrote. You'd have to remember that at the time of Darwin, DNA had not even been understood; today it is. The evidence of evolution goes straight down to the level of DNA and is, in fact, traceable.
Evolution is far more than simply Darwin's words.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
jcd11235 0
QuoteConversly, there is nothing proving ID is not a reason (I dont care about the funding angle here)
There is nothing that proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real, either. Should we teach about FSM in Biology class?
There is no evidence supporting ID (or FSM), and neither is testable in such a manner as to allow them to be disproved. Thus, they are not science, by science's very definition. Science starts with zero assumptions. A scientific conclusion is found through observation and logic, and is subject to be disproved through observation and logic at any given time.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteDarwin himself states that evolution is seeable looking at changes within a species. He also says that there is no evidence of evolution creating a species.
This is among the issues with calling evolution "Darwinism" and relying solely on words ONLY Darwin himself wrote. You'd have to remember that at the time of Darwin, DNA had not even been understood; today it is. The evidence of evolution goes straight down to the level of DNA and is, in fact, traceable.
Evolution is far more than simply Darwin's words.
Fair enough but, it still remains far from my point
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteConversly, there is nothing proving ID is not a reason (I dont care about the funding angle here)
There is nothing that proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real, either. Should we teach about FSM in Biology class?
There is no evidence supporting ID (or FSM), and neither is testable in such a manner as to allow them to be disproved. Thus, they are not science, by science's very definition. Science starts with zero assumptions. A scientific conclusion is found through observation and logic, and is subject to be disproved through observation and logic at any given time.
You play word games.
Science is the investigation of theory.
You wish to limit it based on your perceptions only? Or groups with which you agree?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jcd11235 0
QuoteYou play word games.
Not at all. Science uses words very precisely so that interpretations of statements are not subjective.
QuoteScience is the investigation of theory.
No, science is about testing hypotheses. A theory is something completely different. See above statement about precise use of words.QuoteYou wish to limit it based on your perceptions only? Or groups with which you agree?
How did you reach that conclusion? Science is limited to that which can be tested by way of experiment and observable (directly or indirectly) evidence. It doesn't matter what I wish.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
You've got nothing, do you.
Maybe he'll get a cut of the box office take so he won't have to rely on hand-outs from his family.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.