40-Million Tax Dollars to be Wasted on Venerating Darwin

_{Salvador Cordova

March 28, 2010

Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Media}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From the NCSE: Congratulations to NESCent

NCSE is happy to congratulate the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) on the renewal of its grant from the National Science Foundation. According to a March 2, 2010, press release, NESCent was awarded a five-year grant renewal in the amount of $25 million, to continue its core programs in evolution research, informatics, and education through 2014.

and NESCent Press Release

This is the second major NSF grant that NESCent has received, which brings the total funding for the Center to $40 million. The grant will enable the Center to continue its core programs in evolution research, informatics and education through 2014.

Perhaps the only reedeming lines of research are those such as this one Measuring evolutionary change in modern human populations using cohort data. NESCent would do well to track evidence of genetic entropy and decay, but why are almost no funds devoted to this important topic? Why do I think they would NEVER touch this important topic?

About the only testable prediction I saw from NESCent was that women are evolving to become fatter.

Here are some of the other 40-million dollars worth of “discoveries”:
Science Highlights

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

Comments

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_115935PaulBurnett_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

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_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

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_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

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_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

We could also remove the tax breaks given to churches. If people want religion let them pay for it.Seversky_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

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_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

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_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

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_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

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_{March 28, 2010
March
03
Mar
28
28
2010
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply