what scientists do and creationists don't

[velkyn]

a good essay on what scientists do and creationists don't:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/12/what-scientists.html#more

Answers in Genesis, perhaps the most visible and well-funded anti-evolution organization in the country, spent approximately $27 million building its creation “museum” in Kentucky. AiG is presently raising money for their latest venture, a Noah’s Ark theme park, estimated to cost $24.5 million when completed. I have a suggestion for Ken Ham and the folks at AiG. Why not spend a fraction of that 24 and a half million to actually do a scientific experiment? For instance: build a real ark, fill it with animals just like Noah is claimed to have done and float it out in the ocean for a year to test the hypothesis. Think of all the converts that would win when it worked! Hell, I’d get saved myself!

I emailed Dr. John Hawks at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and asked him about funding scientific research and he replied, “Last year NIH spent $8 million on the Cancer Genome Atlas, bringing it to a total of $43 million. This project works on the principle that cancer cells are engaged in an evolutionary process in the body that will often be convergent in different people, so that building a systematic atlas of the genes involved will help us understand and find effective strategies to treat different cancers.”

So for less than the cost of two huge, embarrassing testaments to ignorance and misinformation AiG could have funded something like the entire Cancer Genome Atlas. But then again, at the creation “museum” they have a Triceratops with a saddle!

[12 Monkeys]

 Just think about how that money could help set up farming co-op's in countries that could use the help. Theist building shrines,instead of following the teachings of their saviour,pathetic.

[pingnak]

Video games are more important than cancer research, too.

Jes' you keep yer hans offa my playstation!

[Gill]

Nothing wrong with evolution, other than the fact that I don't yet see any part of it which includes personal responsibility for one's choices.  I guess next time I get into trouble, I can just blame it on my badly behaving genes....

[wright]

Nothing wrong with evolution, other than the fact that I don't yet see any part of it which includes personal responsibility for one's choices.

Why would you expect to see that? Just because evolutionary theory can explain the basis of altruism, would you also expect it to explain the particulars of patent infringement?

I guess next time I get into trouble, I can just blame it on my badly behaving genes....

You could do that. You could also blame it on demonic possession. I wouldn't think either would go over too well, at least in most courts in the USA.

Back on topic: you'd think there would be more effort on the part of the Intelligent Design crowd in particular to do more research in genetics and molecular biology. If they could find objective evidence that only hinted at their claims being right, there would be an explosion of interest from both sides of the creation / evolution debate. Money would flow in from almost literally everywhere.

But we don't see that. Instead, we see publicity and quote-mining mills like the Discovery Institute continuing the basic strategy creationists have used from the get-go: take pot shots at the increasingly solid ToE and try to get the courts to accept their myths as being on a par with science.

[Gill]

Nothing wrong with evolution, other than the fact that I don't yet see any part of it which includes personal responsibility for one's choices.

Why would you expect to see that? Just because evolutionary theory can explain the basis of altruism, would you also expect it to explain the particulars of patent infringement?

Because it's a slippery slope.  People can start with blaming how they feel on their genes, then they start blaming how they act on their genes, etc.  eventually, why not blame everything on my genes?

Got fired from work,  my genes.  Got arrested, my genes.  Did well on a test, wait,  that was me, not my genes,  (since it was something good)

[Azdgari]

Our genes are just as blame-able for all our actions as gravity is blame-able for all our actions.

After all, there is no action we can take that is not affected - and ultimately enabled - by gravity!  "Officer, I could not have struck that man, had gravity not held us both to the floor!"

The idea that the theory of gravity removes responsibility for our actions is exactly as asinine as the idea that evolution removes responsibility for our actions.

[wright]

Because it's a slippery slope.  People can start with blaming how they feel on their genes, then they start blaming how they act on their genes, etc.  eventually, why not blame everything on my genes?

Got fired from work,  my genes.  Got arrested, my genes.  Did well on a test, wait,  that was me, not my genes,  (since it was something good)

I agree: that's quite a slippery slope. Have fun tossing your strawman down it.

[Gill]

Alright, just sayin...

Don't act surprised then if 10-20 years from now 'genetic predisposition to commit violent act' is used as a defense in some trials.....

[Azdgari]

And it would be an unjustified usage, if so.

Even if your objection were valid, it would be a flaw in human psychology, rather than a flaw in evolution.  The truth is the truth.  Our reaction to reality doesn't change it.

Agreed?

[Gill]

Well, a person may not use the defense to claim zero responsibility, but possibly mitigate their responsibility,  lessening their sentence. 

[Azdgari]

Well if some specific biological condition unduly affected them, then sure.  Like if they had Tourette's Syndrome, and one of their fits caused them to push a friend over the rails at Niagara Falls.  Their biology is relevant to their own responsibility.

Care to answer the question I actually put forth in the majority of the post you were supposedly responding to?

[Gill]

I'm not sure what you were saying.  Yeah, our reaction doesn't change what happened.   But,  when you start talking about how much responsibility one should take for their actions,  evolution, I don't see helping one to understand that much.

[Azdgari]

I was referring to your reason for bringing it up in the first place.

Evolution is a valid description of reality, regardless of how we react to it.

Agreed?

[Gill]

The part about all physical life descending from a common ancestor, yes, I would agree that's true.   It's just when one get's into other aspects of it, things can get sketchy....

[Azdgari]

You mean, its moral implications?

Or do you mean factual aspects which influence the validity of the theory itself?

It is a fact that a critical density of U-235 will result in a nuclear explosion.  I don't like some of the implications of that fact, and people have done some very sketchy things based on it, but that in no way influences any part of the validity of nuclear physics.

[pianodwarf]

Alright, just sayin...

Don't act surprised then if 10-20 years from now 'genetic predisposition to commit violent act' is used as a defense in some trials.....

What do you mean, "10-20 years from now"?  They've already been doing it for years.

[Azdgari]

As a side-note, the fact that genetics can influence our behaviour is true regardless of whether evolution has anything to it or not.

[Samothec]

Alright, just sayin...

Don't act surprised then if 10-20 years from now 'genetic predisposition to commit violent act' is used as a defense in some trials.....

While the various "Law & Order" shows claim the story does not represent real people, you know they used real events to inspire the stories. So, while I haven't confirmed such a case does already exist, I'm guessing several such trials already do exist. But genetic predisposition claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We already know sociopaths have different brain structures but we still are not going to excuse them from responsibility.

[Samothec]

Nothing wrong with evolution, other than the fact that I don't yet see any part of it which includes personal responsibility for one's choices.  I guess next time I get into trouble, I can just blame it on my badly behaving genes....

So very, very off topic with reply #3 (but your first reply in the thread). Why? Do you not like valid criticisms of creationists?

[free]

Alright, just sayin...

Don't act surprised then if 10-20 years from now 'genetic predisposition to commit violent act' is used as a defense in some trials.....

Typical Gill, not doing his research.  This already happens.  Here is just the FIRST result I found.  http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?69+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+209+%28winterspring+2006%29

[Azdgari]

^^ It is for this reason that we need to stop teaching our children about genetics.   

[free]

The part about all physical life descending from a common ancestor, yes, I would agree that's true.   It's just when one get's into other aspects of it, things can get sketchy....

Please, give actual instances of where evolution is sketchy.  Evolution is one of the most tried and tested pieces of science we have, that is why it hasn't had a major fundamental change, there hasn't been anything sketchy.

[Samothec]

^^ It is for this reason that we need to stop teaching our children about genetics.   

Oh, no! We've lost him to the anti-science side! Say it isn't so! Please, please! Don't cross over to the god(damned) side!       

[Gill]

Alright, just sayin...

Don't act surprised then if 10-20 years from now 'genetic predisposition to commit violent act' is used as a defense in some trials.....

Typical Gill, not doing his research.  This already happens.  Here is just the FIRST result I found.  http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?69+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+209+%28winterspring+2006%29

Well, I think this actually goes to show that one doesn't have to research everything to already have an idea of what people may do.  (maybe it was my intuition or personal experience)

[Gill]

The part about all physical life descending from a common ancestor, yes, I would agree that's true.   It's just when one get's into other aspects of it, things can get sketchy....

Please, give actual instances of where evolution is sketchy.  Evolution is one of the most tried and tested pieces of science we have, that is why it hasn't had a major fundamental change, there hasn't been anything sketchy.

I think people have just demonstrated where it's sketchy by showing how it could be used to mitigate personal responsibility, which was my initial issue with it.

[pianodwarf]

I think people have just demonstrated where it's sketchy by showing how it could be used to mitigate personal responsibility, which was my initial issue with it.

Whether someone can use a doctrine to mitigate personal responsibility has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that doctrine is true or false.

[Gill]

I think people have just demonstrated where it's sketchy by showing how it could be used to mitigate personal responsibility, which was my initial issue with it.

Whether someone can use a doctrine to mitigate personal responsibility has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that doctrine is true or false.

Yeah, but there must be some implication in the theory which mitigates responsibility, otherwise, I don't see why anyone would ever think to refer to it.

[pianodwarf]

Yeah, but there must be some implication in the theory which mitigates responsibility, otherwise, I don't see why anyone would ever think to refer to it.

Do you get a flu shot each year?