Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution

[bobhikes]

Scientists who wish to question evolution without risking their job can go to work for the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, or any other organization which supports their beliefs. Why should institutes of higher education, which are primarily concerned with teaching students what we already know, have to support activities which do not further that goal?

Scientific failures that follow the scientific method are very valuable teaching tools. Not every scientific theory is a success. Students need to know this and know that they have the ability to test all past scientific theories and laws.

If not science has no value.

My point is that no scientist should ever be fired because his work is thought to be against the current laws of science.

 

[camanintx]

Scientific failures that follow the scientific method are very valuable teaching tools. Not every scientific theory is a success. Students need to know this and know that they have the ability to test all past scientific theories and laws.

If not science has no value.

My point is that no scientist should ever be fired because his work is thought to be against the current laws of science.

Like Thomas Edison said, every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward, but even he had to fund his own research. No one should expect job security unless their pursuits bear fruit.

As for going against the current laws of science, that is exactly how great scientists are made. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, none of these are remembered because they reinforced what we already knew.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Scientific failures that follow the scientific method are very valuable teaching tools. Not every scientific theory is a success. Students need to know this and know that they have the ability to test all past scientific theories and laws.

If not science has no value.

My point is that no scientist should ever be fired because his work is thought to be against the current laws of science.

Disproving a scientific theory is one thing. Using creationism as the disproof is completely different, and unscientific.

 

[bobhikes]

Disproving a scientific theory is one thing. Using creationism as the disproof is completely different, and unscientific.

actual bill readsSec.　51.979.　　PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.

Notice it protects anyone who purposes an alternate theory not just the ID people. It also only protects their right to research the alternate theory.

So are you opposed to researching alternate theorys are you afraid of alternate theorys, or do you just oppose anything if creationism is mentioned before it.

 

[waitasec]

I think that proponents of creationism / ID "theory" shouldn't compare themselves to evolution or science at all. Creationism / ID does not follow the scientific method, so the inevitable result of such a comparison is moot, useless, and clearly shows a lack of credibility - scientifically speaking, of course - to the beliefs.

it is impossible to follow the scientific method when applying it to wishful thinking...

 

[waitasec]

actual bill readsSec.　51.979.　　PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research [U]relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.[/U]

Notice it protects anyone who purposes an alternate theory not just the ID people. It also only protects their right to research the alternate theory.

So are you opposed to researching alternate theorys are you afraid of alternate theorys, or do you just oppose anything if creationism is mentioned before it.

emphasis me
how is "ID theory" supported scientifically?

 

[bobhikes]

emphasis me
how is "ID theory" supported scientifically?

It can't be supported scientifically if they are not allowed to research it, but then you know that which is why you want to fight so hard to stop legitimate research being available.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

actual bill readsSec.　51.979.　　PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.

Notice it protects anyone who purposes an alternate theory not just the ID people. It also only protects their right to research the alternate theory.

So are you opposed to researching alternate theorys are you afraid of alternate theorys, or do you just oppose anything if creationism is mentioned before it.

Actually if you had read my earlier post in this thread, you would have seen I said I didn't have a problem with a professor researching alternate theories, whatever they be. I do take issue with him using ID research to teach a science course. Nothing about creationism is scientific, Plain and simple. It's folklore and should not be taught to science students.

 

[McBell]

Disproving a scientific theory is one thing. Using creationism as the disproof is completely different, and unscientific.

Problem is that they are not using creationism as any thing but the defualt osition should they succeed in showing evolution false.

they strategy is to present creationism then try to prove evolution false, then because they presented nothing other than creationism, creationism has to be right because it is all that is left.

So what we really have is the fact that creationists spend all the time not researching creation, but quote mining hoping to show the ignorant just how wrong evolution supposedly is.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

It can't be supported scientifically if they are not allowed to research it, but then you know that which is why you want to fight so hard to stop legitimate research being available.

So you are saying up to this point no one has ever tried to research creationism scientifically? I would be suprised if that were true. You just don't hear about it because its not possible. Nothing about the idea is scientific.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Problem is that they are not using creationism as any thing but the defualt osition should they succeed in showing evolution false.

they strategy is to present creationism then try to prove evolution false, then because they presented nothing other than creationism, creationism has to be right because it is all that is left.

So what we really have is the fact that creationists spend all the time not researching creation, but quote mining hoping to show the ignorant just how wrong evolution supposedly is.

Agreed.

 

[McBell]

It can't be supported scientifically if they are not allowed to research it, but then you know that which is why you want to fight so hard to stop legitimate research being available.

What a load of bull ****.

The problem is that creation is not science and never will be.
Creationists know this.
That is why they spend all their time and money quote mining, flat out lieing, and playing games in politics.

They know that creation will never be anything but wishful thinking backed by faith.

 

[waitasec]

It can't be supported scientifically if they are not allowed to research it, but then you know that which is why you want to fight so hard to stop legitimate research being available.

who is not allowing them to research it?
i'm not following. bare with me if you will, i think i miss understood...

 

[camanintx]

It can't be supported scientifically if they are not allowed to research it, but then you know that which is why you want to fight so hard to stop legitimate research being available.

Who exactly is preventing them from conducting any research?

 

[McBell]

who is not allowing them to research it?
i'm not following. bare with me if you will, i think i miss understood...

Sounds to me like he has been watching Expelled and has taken all the bull **** in that movie as though it was some god given gospel and is now merely perpetuating the conspiracy theory Expelled spent so much time exploiting.

 

[bobhikes]

So you are saying up to this point no one has ever tried to research creationism scientifically? I would be suprised if that were true. You just don't hear about it because its not possible. Nothing about the idea is scientific.

Two things

One there is nothing in the bill that allows teaching of ID if the school does not wish it.

Second if there is nothing scientific about ID what is the problem the bill is a useless bill concerning ID they will not be able to propose a testable hypotheses

 

[waitasec]

Sounds to me like he has been watching Expelled and has taken all the bull **** in that movie as though it was some god given gospel and is now merely perpetuating the conspiracy theory Expelled spent so much time exploiting.

"yes yes it's coming back to me now"
~peter sellers

[youtube]CzycofSj7EM[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzycofSj7EM

 

[bobhikes]

who is not allowing them to research it?
i'm not following. bare with me if you will, i think i miss understood...

Universities are the key to scientific research. They have the best equipment and put the most money(Usually federal grants) other than corporations. However being mentioned as a creationist or ID scientist and all that is shut off to you. The best you can do is work for a religious organization with far less grants and no equipment.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Two things

One there is nothing in the bill that allows teaching of ID if the school does not wish it.

Second if there is nothing scientific about ID what is the problem the bill is a useless bill concerning ID they will not be able to propose a testable hypotheses

I actually never said I had a problem with the bill, other than professors possibly using university funding to accomplish the research. If they do it on their own time, then have at it. They can research the theory of why my dog eats cat poop for all I care. At second thought, Id actually like to know that.

 

[bobhikes]

Sounds to me like he has been watching Expelled and has taken all the bull **** in that movie as though it was some god given gospel and is now merely perpetuating the conspiracy theory Expelled spent so much time exploiting.

No this is all me, never seen or read any thing about creationism or ID.

I believe I was pretty clear in my opinion. If a scientist can form a valid hypotheses he should be incouraged to follow it. To many past scientists have died in shame only to be honored after death because there theories weren't popular.

I don't want to be popular, I want to be right.