tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post114440613927436274..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Canada, Intelligent Design and unintentional irony.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1144430671478691562006-04-07T13:24:00.000-04:002006-04-07T13:24:00.000-04:00I was at that lecture. "Audible gasps" is an unde...I was at that lecture. "Audible gasps" is an understatement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1144427200559490922006-04-07T12:26:00.000-04:002006-04-07T12:26:00.000-04:00Here's the email I sent:To: janet.halliwell@sshrc....Here's the email I sent:<BR/><BR/>To: janet.halliwell@sshrc.ca<BR/>Cc: stan.shapson@sshrc.ca,<BR/>eva.schacherl@sshrc.ca<BR/>Subject: Evolution and SSRC<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ms. Halliwell:<BR/><BR/>As a Canadian `hard scientist' (physics and astrophysics), I've spent a lot of time trying to convince my peers that our colleagues in the social sciences do `real' science too, and that there is much good and rigorous SSHRC-funded work being done in education, economics, etc; that is, that it's not all fashion design and post-modern re-textualizations of literature.<BR/><BR/>And I can see now from today's Ottawa Citizen that I was wrong this entire time. That SSHRC can reject a grant proposal for not providing ``adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent-design theory, was correct'', and that an SSHRC executive vice president can publically cast doubt on evolution (a theory that has survived and driven over a century of peer-reviewed research, and has considerably more staying power than the dresses-with-built-in-lightbulbs that is currently a success story featured on the SSHRC webpage) calls into question the quality of all research funded by SSHRC.<BR/><BR/>I've been discussing this with my colleagues across Canada all day and I can assure you that my reactions are quite typical. The standing of Social Sciences research in Canada in the eyes of the national Natural Science community has fallen significantly in the past day, and your public, published comments are largely responsible for this.<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid SSHRC and the social sciences community has lost at least one defender in the natural sciences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1144415298689029692006-04-07T09:08:00.000-04:002006-04-07T09:08:00.000-04:00As I noted, it's certainly acceptable for SSHRC to...As I noted, it's certainly acceptable for SSHRC to turn down an application for a variety of reasons, but it's <I>not</I> acceptable to turn this one down based on a reluctance to accept the fact of biological evolution.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1144414778623748712006-04-07T08:59:00.000-04:002006-04-07T08:59:00.000-04:00Some folks posting in the comments over at Pharyng...Some folks posting in the comments over at Pharyngula think this may be more of a PoMo problem than an ID problem, in an "every one has their own reality" sort of way.<BR/>Not substantiated, just musings.<BR/><BR/>Did you know Alters testified in the Dover case?Alisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09811694143714068436noreply@blogger.com