![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearbut not quite the same type of idiots..McGill challenges denial of funding for evolution research:
Now, if you had clarified what you meant by assumption, as in if you meant that assumption from a social sciences perspective (where in America, supposedly 50% of the population doesn't accept evolution through natural selection as the means by which the current (and many past) species exist on this planet), then perhaps you are right in simply pointing out (politely, perhaps) that 50% of the population are a bunch of idiots and one can't assume that they accept as true what you [Alters] assert to be scientificly factual.
In other words, from a social sciences point of view, you can't look at "evolution is an accepted fact" as a constant, as a control, for basing a scientific experiment around ID.
In this, they are perhaps correct. If that is what they meant.
Although I had thought the Canadian population as a whole was better than that. And thought better of themselves, too...
"I just want to underline that it is not correct to suggest that the funding proposal was not accepted because the council or the committee had doubts about evolution," [Schacherl, spokesperson for the SSHRC] said.I'm sorry if your people can't write English, but "Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct." is still what was written and no amount of clarifications is quite going to erase that.
"We understand the way the committee's comments were transcribed or written down or summarized could have misled him and we really regret that the note sent to him gave the impression that the committee had doubts about evolution. That was really not what the committee intended."
Now, if you had clarified what you meant by assumption, as in if you meant that assumption from a social sciences perspective (where in America, supposedly 50% of the population doesn't accept evolution through natural selection as the means by which the current (and many past) species exist on this planet), then perhaps you are right in simply pointing out (politely, perhaps) that 50% of the population are a bunch of idiots and one can't assume that they accept as true what you [Alters] assert to be scientificly factual.
In other words, from a social sciences point of view, you can't look at "evolution is an accepted fact" as a constant, as a control, for basing a scientific experiment around ID.
In this, they are perhaps correct. If that is what they meant.
Although I had thought the Canadian population as a whole was better than that. And thought better of themselves, too...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 10:32 pm (UTC)Then again, maybe not.