Canada, Intelligent Design and unintentional irony.

OK, this just creeps me right out. Via BigCityLib, we learn that McGill professor Brian Alters was denied a $40,000 grant from the Canadian "Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council" (SSHRC) to investigate the effect of Intelligent Design in Canada because, according to SSHRC, Alters had "failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct."

Pause. Deep breath. What the fuck? Canada's own SSHRC is not convinced of the scientific validity of evolution? How the hell did that happen?

Note carefully that Alters' application wasn't to Canada's National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), where I'm assuming it would have received a warmer reception. Rather, because Alters' proposal was entitled "Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution's intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers," it was clearly a more social science-oriented research program and, appropriately, it was directed towards SSHRC. So far, so good.

Now, no one is saying that SSHRC has an obligation to fund every proposal that comes its way. It's always possible that Alters' application could have been turned down for any number of reasons -- incomplete information, questionable methodology, ... whatever. But to be rejected because SSHRC is not convinced of the fact of biological evolution is beyond the pale.

According to the Gazette article:

Janet Halliwell, the SSHRC's executive vice-president and a chemist by training, acknowledged that the "framing" of the committee's comments to Alters left the letter "open to misinterpretation."

Halliwell said confidentiality obligations made it difficult for her to discuss Alters's case in detail, but she argued that the professor had taken one line in the letter "out of context" and the rejection of his application should not indicate that SSHRC was expressing "doubts about the theory of evolution."

Really? How exactly does one misinterpret the following?

In its decision to deny the grant, the SSHRC panel said Alters had not supplied "adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct."

I don't see a whole lot of wiggle room there, and it certainly doesn't look any better for Halliwell when she says something as airheaded as this:

However, Halliwell added there are phenomena that "may not be easily explained by current theories of evolution" and that the scientific world's understanding of life "is not static. There's an evolution in the theory of evolution."

Methinks Halliwell has some serious 'splainin' to do. Me also thinks it's time for some housecleaning at SSHRC. I don't think we've heard the end of this story.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, The Panda's Thumb covered this a couple days ago. I really have to catch up on my blog reading.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I think it's critical that we get to see the full, unedited text of the letter to Alters from SSHRC. According to the Gazette article:

Alters said he read the letter at a public lecture last week in Montreal and there were "audible gasps" from the large audience.

so, obviously, Alters has no problem sharing the letter, although Halliwell is not as forthcoming:

Halliwell said confidentiality obligations made it difficult for her to discuss Alters's case in detail, but she argued that the professor had taken one line in the letter "out of context" and the rejection of his application should not indicate that SSHRC was expressing "doubts about the theory of evolution."

Fair enough. So let's get our hands on the letter itself so we can judge for ourselves. Readers?