40-Million Tax Dollars to be Wasted on Venerating Darwin

So again, it is insufficient that research studies the past 10,000 years, you want research IN EVERY RESEARCH OUTFIT that studies the past 10,000 years.

What’s wrong with that, half the country rejects the Darwinist view. They find it objectionable. It seems a bit unethical to tax creationists to fund the furtherance of a secular religious view.

As I said, it is terrible that tax funds are used to support a cause the tax payer does not believe in. And, as I said, every taxpayer should be allowed to designate to which cause every single tax payer cent goes.

Oh, well, perhaps over time the electorate will be motivated enough to cut NESCents funds. In the meantime I merely report on the injustice being committed falsely in the name of science. Perhaps, one day, God willing, the injustice will end.

Yes, while others make clear the consequences of your view. By the way, do you actually know that any of your tax dollars go to NESCent? Maybe your tax dollars all go towards paying to repair a tank in Iraq, while Seversky's dollars all to towards NESCent. hrun0815

But there has been an overwhelming amount of research done on just these topics– without any references to any religion. You will simply not accept the vailidity of their research. You’d much rather challenge it with some non-mainstream research done by a small handful of people.

But not enough at NESCent. Therefore I am objecting to NESCent.

You want research that studies the past 10,000 years AND supports your view.

What's wrong with that, half the country rejects the Darwinist view. They find it objectionable. It seems a bit unethical to tax creationists to fund the furtherance of a secular religious view. The fact is, reasonable people (even those with scientific training) think Darwnisism is a false religion and isn't science. Oh, well, perhaps over time the electorate will be motivated enough to cut NESCents funds. In the meantime I merely report on the injustice being committed falsely in the name of science. Perhaps, one day, God willing, the injustice will end. Any way, thank you for your comments. scordova

Research of interest of the creationists falls along the lines of ecology, conservation, genetic entropy, and phylogeny over the last 10,000 years. That can be done without any reference to religion, and is valid science even by secular definitions.

But there has been an overwhelming amount of research done on just these topics-- without any references to any religion. You will simply not accept the vailidity of their research. You'd much rather challenge it with some non-mainstream research done by a small handful of people. So it is not that you want research that studies the past 10,000 years. You want research that studies the past 10,000 years AND supports your view. That, of course, can also be bought for the right amount of money...

hrun0815

So you don’t actually object to the entire organization

Correct.

you think there should be a grant by grant review that kills atheist fronting Darwinism and leaves ‘good’ Darwinism alone

I don't know that this can be done practically speaking. What I had in mind would be to fund grants to other research institutions. Unfortunately, too many creationists organizations require researchers to sign a creed. That is not appropriate for government money. They can be donated to privately, but not by government funds. In such case, I would have my money sent to the NIH/NCBI gene bank. Their research and bioinformatics seem less prejudicial than NESCent. I've used the NCBI gene bank and encouraged other ID proponents to snoop around the databases. I don't see how taking money from NESCent to fund the NIH/NCBI would necessarily be a bad thing. If NESCent were following more topics in Ecology and Conservation and recent and present day Human Evolution, I would be more supportive. I'm not supportive of their prejudicial views of the deep past. If they were conducting even a 50/50 mix of their prejudices and research of interest to the creationists, I would be willing to compromise and support the enterprise. But as it stands, the degree of focus is far too overweighted to the traditional anti-creation views. Research of interest of the creationists falls along the lines of ecology, conservation, genetic entropy, and phylogeny over the last 10,000 years. That can be done without any reference to religion, and is valid science even by secular definitions. And to clarify, creationist notions are not necessarily ID notions. The research I suggest is specifically creationist, not ID. scordova

This topic of millions of dollars of wasted money on neo-Darwinian alchemy reminds of this lecture by Dr. Dembski Darwin's Unpaid Debt - video http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29318002 bornagain77

scordova, Too bad, there are lots of good and innocent Darwinists that should get money. So you don't actually object to the entire organization, you think there should be a grant by grant review that kills atheist fronting Darwinism and leaves 'good' Darwinism alone? Nakashima

I have seen you glean all the support for ID you possibly can from the published research, much of it federally funded, of mainstream evolutionists. It does not seem particularly ethical to me that you, as a sometime consumer, should opt out of paying your share of the cost of science. No free cherries.

They've been paid, time to move on and pay institutions that don't practice obvious violations of civil rights and perpetuate viewpoint discrimination. Ruloff pointed out research into RNA synthesis in humans was actively attacked by Darwinists wanting to preseve the Junk DNA story. And then people I know personally having their jobs threatened and pensions cut by Darwiniswts in the goverenment (at NIH, (organization unnamed), George Mason, ...) Bad news. Time to end the supply of money to the perpetrators. Too bad, there are lots of good and innocent Darwinists that should get money. But there are some bad apples who swear by the ideas of Sam Harris and Larry Moran. If Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne had their way, they'd have even fired Francis Collins. Scary. scordova

Salvador, You essentially propose "one dollar, one vote" on certain aspects of the budget. It bothers me to see you do this, because I know that you're economically savvy, and must know about the L-curve of family incomes in the U.S. Some hundreds of American billionaires already have inordinate political power, and you would make them the arbiters of whether various agencies and programs exist. I have seen you glean all the support for ID you possibly can from the published research, much of it federally funded, of mainstream evolutionists. It does not seem particularly ethical to me that you, as a sometime consumer, should opt out of paying your share of the cost of science. No free cherries. ------------------ When Benjamin Franklin emerged from the last session of the Constitutional Convention -- I believe this is a true story -- a woman asked him, "Have you given us a monarchy or a republic?" He replied, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." The Founders were heavily influenced by Plato's Republic. That's the source of the idea of checks and balances. Plato also emphasized that the democratic city-states of Greece had descended into anarchy, and the Founders took heed. Not only does the U.S. constitution not mention democracy, but it in fact does not describe a democracy. Hamilton explained in one of the articles of The Federalist that the idea was to elect to office outstanding individuals who would make better decisions for the people than the people would make for themselves. It is amazing that Americans today find this fundamental notion of American government positively un-American. Mind you, I'm all for universal suffrage. But a story I heard many years ago comes to mind. A young boy's dog birthed a litter, and the boy, with the help of his mother, took one of the pups to school for show-and-tell. At the end of the presentation, one of children in the class asked about the gender of the puppy. The boy couldn't answer, and the teacher, seizing on the opportunity, asked if anyone in the class knew how to tell. After a long silence, a hand went up. "Yes, Sally?" the teacher prompted. And Sally offered, "We could vote." Sooner Emeritus

By promoting standard representations of bioinformatics data, and by placing in the public domain bioinformatics software, NESCent makes it possible to do substantive research for the price of a graduate student and a computer.

The issue isn't so much "pennies per american per year". The issue is that I do not believe the majority of evolutionary theory is productive science, in fact it is harmful, imho. I qualified that by pointing out some areas in evolutionary research that are redeemable. So $40 million spent on promoting ideas damaging to science and the human condition is spending 40 million too much. But that is my opinion, while others see such usage as a good thing. I suggested, perhaps, if such research bothers ones conscience, they can have their monies put to other causes. You may not like such lavish expenditures for warfare. I support the possibility of individuals refusing to finance such endeavors, or at least having more say in how much directly goes to these concerns. I think that is a fair way for parties who disagree intensely about money to resolve their differences. We don't enslave each others finances. Surely there are areas where we might be precluded from such choices, but I think the area of science investment would be reasonable place to allow taxpayer discretion. I surely wouldn't have put one dime forward to bail out General Motors. My beef with NESCent is that many evolutionary ideas are poison to society. I don't view most of evolutionary theory as science, but rather religious dogma. This is funding a poisonous world view. That is my opinion, but I don't fault someone for wanting to donate their money to fund evolutionary research. I do object that even one dime in principle from me or other non-Darwinists be forcibly taxed from us. As far as the importance of evolutionary theory, many of the items listed 5 reasons evolution is important, even creationists would agree with. But those areas of agreement don't have to be conflated with Darwin's claims of Organic Evolution from a primoridial ancestor. That's the part of evolutionary theory that I find questionable. scordova

That's $15 million the NSF has already granted, not $15. Sooner Emeritus

scordova, The vast majority of Americans process big numbers quite poorly, and you are giving us an object lesson in how to take advantage of that. Your title is altogether too clever. The National Science Foundation has already granted $15 over 5 years to NESCent. Forgive my arithmetical snobbery, but that's one penny per American per year. The productivity of NESCent, relative to the funds it has received from the NSF, has been extraordinary. I challenge you to show us an NSF-funded research center outside the biological sciences that compares. Now each American will fork over a whopping 1.67 cents per year to keep NESCent in operation. (Pre-surge military operations in Iraq cost each American 1.67 dollars per day.) By promoting standard representations of bioinformatics data, and by placing in the public domain bioinformatics software, NESCent makes it possible to do substantive research for the price of a graduate student and a computer. Here, alone, the Center has yielded a huge return on investment. And I must note that NESCent has made it possible to conduct ID research on a shoestring budget. It seems, Salvador, that you are simply oblivious to what you've gotten for a penny a day. The unit cost of an F/A-18 Super Hornet is $57 million. Each time one of those airplanes crashes -- and they do so fairly often, given the hazards of carrier-based operations -- American citizens lose 43% more than they have committed to a no-loss investment in 10 years of intense scientific activity at NESCent. I describe the investment as no-loss because it cannot diminish our scientific understanding. People flock to airshows to see the the Blue Angels fly F/A-18 Hornets in formation with 18" wingtip to canopy separation. In the past 10+ years, there have been three crashes and three deaths. Perhaps someone with a concern for both life and money can explain American values to me. Sooner Emeritus

Mr Seversky, Would there not be a risk of falling prey to “the tyranny of the majority”, that unglamorous ‘Cinderella’ areas such as struggling inner city health and social services might lose funding in favor of what is more attractive, like a new hockey stadium or shopping mall? Yes, I think this is an important issue, and an important one to address. If we assumed everyone was selfish in their allocations, the inner city dwellers might allocate their taxes towards inner city programs, and the suburbanites towards suburban programs. Of course, the need of the inner city program is larger than all the taxes that could be allocated to it. The current Federal budget does reallocate funds, and we would have to see if the citizenry actually did act completely selfishly, under a program that was phased in with education. I personally believe that most participants in such a program would not act selfishly, at least not in an immediate sense of the term. There is also the point that the federal budget has other sources of income than the personal income tax. I wouldn't extend the idea to corporations, and there are fees and debt raised by government bonds. So even if the idea became wildly popular, the goverment would have the means to even out the selfishness and worse, fickleness of the public. Another alternative would be to limit the level of detail allowed for allocations. This might disappoint people like scordova, but again under a phased approach we could see how well it did allowing people to allocate at the level of DHS vs. HHS and proceed from there. A nasty side effect would be government programs appealing directly to voters for funding by running ad campaigns and wasting the money they'd been given. Lots of things to think about! Nakashima

Baloney! It is my wish Democracy will come to it’s senses and let bureucrats and politicians have less money to waste.

Yes. Understood. You claim this to be your wish. I don't think this is actually your wish, but it's too difficult to prove otherwise. All I can say is this, Seversky was right. It would be a sad world and I am glad that this particular democracy will not change to accommodate your wishes. hrun0815

In fact, we should just all decided exactly how our taxes get allocated. Of course, that would be exactly that ’sad wish’ of yours.

That would be far more democratic than the way it is now. And there is nothing, in principle, preventing the democracy today from voting for such empowerment over time.

If that is your wish, then you shouldn’t live in a democracy.

Baloney! It is my wish people in this democracy will come to their senses and let bureucrats and politicians have less money to waste. I'm merely doing my part to raise awareness of the incopetence of the powers that be.

I wrote: Why should I have to pay dearly and forcibly for the stupidity of others? Hrun wrote: I don’t know how to say it any clearer: Because you live in a democracy and the elected officials chose to spend the money that way.

That equivocates the point I was making. I asked a rhetorical question as to the wisdom of financing stupidity like the GM bailout, and you responded by saying, that's the way it is. You didn't answer the rhetorical question I was asking (regarding the wisdom of the law), you only gave a mechanical description of how laws are passed (you didn't address the wisdom of the decision). You resorted to equovication, and pretended I didn't understand the process. I wasn't questioning how the law was passed, I was questioning the wisdom of what transpired.

If that is your wish, then you shouldn’t live in a democracy.

Baloney! It is my wish Democracy will come to it's senses and let bureucrats and politicians have less money to waste. And because I live in a democracy I can hope that raising awareness of fraud and waste may effect change. scordova

Scordova wants individuals having a greater say over how their hard earned money is spent and have corrupt politicians have less of a say. I can’t see why this is a sad wish.

The consequences of your wish are clear. Seversky laid them out. If you don't see they are sad, then so be it: elect somebody who will implement those changes. I, for one, am happy that I live in a democracy in which the mob might elect, but not rule.

I try not tell people how to run their lives and spend their money, and I like people giving me the same freedom.

If that is your wish, then you shouldn't live in a democracy. In fact, if that REALLY is your wish, you shouldn't even be a liberitarian, you should be an anarchist. Of course, you are not. You actually like regulations about how people spend their money and how they live their lives. There are just specific things that you don't like. And you simply take those and try to make a general statement. Well, we simply showed you where your wish would end.

I didn’t like the bailouts of General Motors, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. I didn’t have much say in how tax dollars were flushed down the toilet so that corrupt politicians could accept “campaign support” to keep them in office.

Of course you did. You could have lobbied your elected officials, but in the end, the bunch that is currently in office decided that this is how the money was spent. That is the will of the people, since the will of the people elected the folks who made the decision.

Why should I have to pay dearly and forcibly for the stupidity of others?

I don't know how to say it any clearer: Because you live in a democracy and the elected officials chose to spend the money that way. It's the same reason that you chose to pay for the war, support faith-based initiatives, paid for agriculture subsidies, ... If you don't like it, elect somebody else.

So money might have be spent on something without immediate or even direct benefit for science to progress. The issue is who decides who gets the money? If we’re all required to donate to basic research, let us have say which project will be funded. As a student, I am affiliated with a huge research organization. I don’t see how a corrupt politician would be wiser than the average science student or professor in deciding important research areas. Even if we’re wrong we can’t be any worse than the set of politicians who “loaned” money to General Motors.

In general it is not a politician who decides, which project gets funded AND you have no idea if the politician in question is actually corrupt. You are just asserting this without proof. So your goal would be to have everybody donating to basic research decide which study gets funded. But why stop there: I say, let everybody decide which agricultural product gets subsidized by how much. I say, let everybody decide which and how many tanks to order. I say, let everybody decide what highways should be repaired. In fact, we should just all decided exactly how our taxes get allocated. Of course, that would be exactly that 'sad wish' of yours. hrun0815

Ok, here is the size of the GM bailout: 56 Billion Dollars

GM’s $22.5 billion bailout proposal would "cost" each of those taxpayers $192.31, or that is effectively their contribution to the aid. The company said it might need an extra $8 billion, by 2014, which would bring the tab to $260.68 per. So much for that new iPod Touch. Adding in the cost to bail out GMAC, GM’s former finance company would bring the total to $303.42. No songs for the iPod for a while, either.

Compare that to the relatively smaller budget for the National Science Foundation of 6 billiion of which NESCent gets 8-million a year. I can think of various science projects such as weather satelites, disease control, etc. that are worthy of serious consideration, moreso that the GM bailout (aka "bribes for votes") I contribute privately to science organizations such as Biologic Institute, CSRQ, and contribute a little time to ReMine's work. I'd have more money to give such projects if I didn't have to pay for the GM bailout. As far as NESCent, why not have them study genetic entropy. That is scientific research of immediate and long term practical significance to everyone. If someone really wants NESCent to explore the more esoteric lines of investigation, let them pay for it with their money, not mine. I don't see how the missing links to angiosperms would be a more important topic than the genomic deterioration across species.... scordova

: Yeah, but you know that this is exactly what scordova wants. See, he does not want HIS tax dollars to go towards something he does not support. That right should be given to everyone. What you are describing is merely the sad consequence of scordova’s wish.

Scordova wants individuals having a greater say over how their hard earned money is spent and have corrupt politicians have less of a say. I can't see why this is a sad wish. I try not tell people how to run their lives and spend their money, and I like people giving me the same freedom. I didn't like the bailouts of General Motors, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. I didn't have much say in how tax dollars were flushed down the toilet so that corrupt politicians could accept "campaign support" to keep them in office. If people want to bail out GM or other bankrupt businesses, let them buy bonds or donate directly to a company that allows retirees to retire at about 52 with full benefits and salary. Why should I have to pay dearly and forcibly for the stupidity of others? I do agree that science progresses with basic research that doesn't have immediate benefit: Recall the famous line when a woman asked Michael Faraday about his research into electricity, when she said, "What good is electricity?" To which Faraday replied, "Madam, what good is a baby?". So money might have be spent on something without immediate or even direct benefit for science to progress. The issue is who decides who gets the money? If we're all required to donate to basic research, let us have say which project will be funded. As a student, I am affiliated with a huge research organization. I don't see how a corrupt politician would be wiser than the average science student or professor in deciding important research areas. Even if we're wrong we can't be any worse than the set of politicians who "loaned" money to General Motors. scordova

Hi to all, this is my first post. Perhaps the NESC should be investigating this case http://technorati.com/lifestyle/family/article/girl-has-half-her-brain-removed/ of a girl who has survived and flourished with half her brain removed to prevent seizures. Perhaps the scientists there could investigate 1/ how we EVOLVED to the point that we have a brain much bigger than we apparently need ? and 2/ How the mechanism EVOLVED that would rewire the remaining half of her brain to take over (removing half a brain never happens naturally)? Cross

I thanked everyone even individuals not sympathetic to ID for commenting here. Do you have a problem with that?

Nope. With that I don't have a problem. But what you did had (at best) two meanings. hrun0815

Sal, Thanks for the links. bornagain77

hrun: Re #13: Which of these comments is ‘not sympathetic to ID’?

I thanked everyone even individuals not sympathetic to ID for commenting here. Do you have a problem with that? For those that would like to see NASCent prosper, I even suggested a line of investigations NASCent which even creationists might find interesting. scordova

Re #16: Yeah, but you know that this is exactly what scordova wants. See, he does not want HIS tax dollars to go towards something he does not support. That right should be given to everyone. What you are describing is merely the sad consequence of scordova's wish. hrun0815

Nakashima @ 11

Mr hrun0815, Yes, in one sense it could lead to a democracy that is much more direct and participatory. Even the act of simply reporting the aggregate preferences would be a powerful feedback signal.

As a means of sounding public opinion I agree the proposal has merit but what if the actually allocation of funds were decided by popular vote? Would there not be a risk of falling prey to "the tyranny of the majority", that unglamorous 'Cinderella' areas such as struggling inner city health and social services might lose funding in favor of what is more attractive, like a new hockey stadium or shopping mall? Seversky

Gage @ 6

Hey Seversky: Religious people DO pay for their religion, every bit of it. No government money that I am aware of goes to support religion. Can you give examples to the contrary?

In 2006, Rick Warren was engaged in a court battle with the IRS over a tax break for clergy on housing expenses. The court appointed law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky to file a friend-of-the-court brief on a constitutional issue. In passing, the article notes:

Current Congressional budget records show that the exemption has cost the government as much as $500 million in tax revenue a year, shifting that much of the national tax burden onto other taxpayers.

That is not the only tax break available to religious groups, either, and this is all revenue, as it says, which is lost to the government and must be made up from general taxation. So, as an agnostic and atheist, I could object to my tax dollars going to support religions in which I do not believe. In point of fact, I have no objection to assistance being given to poor clergy working in deprived areas. Anyone doing good work like that deserves all the help they can get. But when those same breaks are available to churches or megachurches which are already obscenely wealthy then I draw the line. Before anyone jumps to their defense, let me say that I am aware that not all churches are like that. A close associate belongs to a church known, amongst other things, as the "church with no name" or "two-by-twos". They own no lavish megachurches, or churches or, indeed, buildings of any sort. The "workers" are itinerant preachers who have no income, no possessions or place to live other than what is provided by the charity of the church members. I do not share their beliefs but I do respect their determination to live as Jesus and his disciples lived according to the New Testament, a commitment which stands in stark contrast to many who profess Christianity in this country. Seversky

Re #13: Which of these comments is 'not sympathetic to ID'? Are you just taking the designation out of thin air for each of the comments? Or is automatically each comment made by a commenter who is 'not sympathetic to ID' also automatically the same? hrun0815

Thank you everyone for the comments (even those not sympathetic to ID). Is there anything that could be redeeming about NASCent. If they were more devoted to tracking human phylogeny and recent human evolution (like the last 10,000 years), I would be more enthusiastic. Here is some human evolution studies that would fit their bioinformatic capabilities: Y-Chromosomal Aaron or the phylogenetic questions raised by Robert Carter, John Sanford, Dan Criswell, and Andrew Snelling: The Eve Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence Although they are creationist related topics, they surely can confortably fit into empirical science if NASCent were not so prejudiced. The grand daddy phylogeny of them all would be: Table of Nations Of course many reject the Table of Nations. Fine, the question of the specifics of recent human evolutionary phylogeny is up for grabs and is legitimate science. I would find such exploration more reasonable than the evolutionary speculations such as human evolution from apes. Human evolutionary phylogeny from y-chromosomal adam and mitochondrial eve might be discernable and yield results even creationist can appreciate. I would make a gentlemanly wager if NASCent really studied the issue of human phylogeny, they might find it consistent with the Table of Nations. scordova

Oh yes. And it might also show if lobbying to the masses or lobbying to elected officials is more or less efficient. I know that there were arguments that suggest to increase the salary of elected officials to make them less susceptible to direct or indirect bribes. If we allocate taxes directly, maybe we could artificially increase the salary of ALL taxpayers to accomplish the same. hrun0815

Mr hrun0815, Yes, in one sense it could lead to a democracy that is much more direct and participatory. Even the act of simply reporting the aggregate preferences would be a powerful feedback signal. Nakashima

Re #9: Oh, I know. It will be very interesting to see how spending will shift in comparison to what we currently have. Of course, some people might say that this type of allocation is not in line with actually having a democracy-- but I would say that simply depends on the type of democracy you want. hrun0815

Mr hrun0815, This is a legitimate suggestion, and the technology exists to implement it. In effect, you are giving the taxpayers the opposite of a line item veto, a line item affirmation. Give every line item and organizational level in the Federal government a number, pst the list on a website. Let taxpayers add a voluntary schedule to their tax return of allocations of a percent of their taxes to spent on various line items. It has to add up to 100% or less. The first few years might be taken as advisory only. If only a small number of people availed themselves of the service, nothing needs to be done. By definition, all money is fungible, so one person can imagine all of their taxes going to DHS while another person can imagine all of theirs going to HHS. If the service became more popular, it might actually allocate more money to a line item or organization than the budget does. Now the President and Congress have a clear "will of the people" mandate to expand that item. Nakashima

Seversky wrote: (#5): "We could also remove the tax breaks given to churches." The Greek government is going broke, and has decided to start taxing church income - and the Greek Orthodox Church is reluctantly cooperating. See, for instance, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100006_27/03/2010_115935 PaulBurnett

Seversky,

We could also remove the tax breaks given to churches. If people want religion let them pay for it.

People do pay for it, it's called tithing. Clive Hayden

Re #6: Yes, you are absolutely right. No taxes to anything you don't support. In fact, maybe nobody should pay taxes, and they should simply donate money to causes they see fit. You know, like for religions. Now that would be exactly like the founding fathers intended, right. By the way, if you would peruse the internet you could find much relief. Even with the establishment clause in place, the government can and does support many religious organizations. I believe that if you were to look hard, you might even find a Office for faith-based initiatives, thus directly supporting the actions of religious groups. hrun0815

Hey Seversky: Religious people DO pay for their religion, every bit of it. No government money that I am aware of goes to support religion. Can you give examples to the contrary? Being exempt from taxes, which I'm sure you know applies to ALL non-profit organizations (and including the NCSE I believe), does not constitute "not paying for your religion". Many who are wiser than you have recognized the general value of religious and other non-profit organizations, and set it up this way. If you want to talk about "not paying for your religion", this post is an excellent example: Darwinism clearly includes some religious aspects (things that have to be taken on faith), yet demands huge amounts of public funding in the name of "science". Gage

We could also remove the tax breaks given to churches. If people want religion let them pay for it. Seversky

My view? Make the tax dollars of Ken Miller and friends pay for NESCent, not my tax dollars.

YES. I wholeheartedly agree. You should only pay for stuff with your taxes what you agree with. I think every single person should be asked detailed questions in their tax return of the sort of: "What percentage of your tax dollars would you like to use to fund xxx." After only a few thousand questions you'd be done. And everything would be so much more fair. Just like the founders of the nation thought it should be. I mean, really, what do I care about some road in Montana. Let the people in Montana pay for it. hrun0815

The French to English translation of the above:

It is said to us that in spite of uncertainties and even the errors which could be raised, the conclusions remain what they were. But that does nothing but reinforce the doubt about the value of these models: they are so complex and under-given that they lead to the same conclusions in spite of considerable modifications of the data

from the French:

“On nous dit que malgré les incertitudes et même les erreurs qui ont pu être relevées, les conclusions restent ce qu’elles étaient. Mais cela ne fait que renforcer le doute sur la valeur de ces modèles : ils sont si complexes et sous-déterminés qu’ils conduisent aux mêmes conclusions malgré des modifications non négligeables des données”

scordova

An excellent article, in French, by a scientist about climate change. Two sentences stand out "On nous dit que malgré les incertitudes et même les erreurs qui ont pu être relevées, les conclusions restent ce qu'elles étaient. Mais cela ne fait que renforcer le doute sur la valeur de ces modèles : ils sont si complexes et sous-déterminés qu'ils conduisent aux mêmes conclusions malgré des modifications non négligeables des données" I think that this is the same thing with Evolution: even when evolutionist got it wrong, they tell us that it doesn't change anything. If a theory is that plastic, to my point of view, it's not worth funding. Because the funding is going to fuel a proces that is going to produce dogma and bad science. Please read the article in Le Monde about climate change: http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2010/03/27/la-religion-de-la-catastrophe-par-henri-atlan_1325086_3232.html, title="La religion de la catastrophe, par Henri Atlan". Kyrilluk

I'd be more sympathetic to the center if they received the works of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg and applied geneticist John Sanford. The center's bioinformatic capabilities would be important to validating the ideas Sternberg and Sanford have put forward. I'm skeptical the center will ever reach out to these individuals even though such an actions could benefit medical science. scordova