Leave it to an anthropology major to be more “pro-science” than the rest of us
|May 23, 2006||Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design|
Interesting how pro-science has come to mean anti-ID. It reminds me of how pro-choice has come to mean anti-life.
It’s going to become increasingly difficult in coming days for evolutionists to maintain the charade that they are “pro-science” — after all, pro-science means following the evidence wherever it leads.
By the way, I now own the domain names pro-science.com and evidencefreescience.com.
Key Quote: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Many people, including science promoters like Dr. Eugenie Scott, have stated that they have no problem with the Gates Foundation supporting Cascadia, because the money is not going to Intelligent Design research. I, however, disagree. By supporting any aspect of the Discovery Institute, the Gates Foundation is condoning the think tank as a whole.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Donate responsibly, check pro-science stance first
Megan Mccullen, anthropology student, email@example.com
When Microsoft Corp. became a multi-billion dollar enterprise, I used to talk about how much I despised Bill Gates.
The monopolistic control he had on the computer market seemed, to me, to be focused on personal wealth for himself Ã¢â‚¬â€ plus I’m an avid Macintosh fan, so I’m biased.
But as the years went on, I changed my views.
With the formation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Bill started sharing the wealth. And not only did he share it, he shared lots, and he supported causes I think are really important.
Propelling the future of science, the foundation has supported research and programs to improve global health, increase educational opportunities for inner-city children and improved multiple aspects of life in their own community around Seattle through multiple avenues.
Gates is a supporter of science. Indeed, he might be considered the iconoclastic image of “the geek” Ã¢â‚¬â€ if anyone can see the positive outcomes of scientific research, he can.
That’s why I was so disturbed to find out that he has donated money to the Discovery Institute, the leading organization to support the promotion of Intelligent Design.
Now, to be clear, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation did not give the Discovery Institute money for Intelligent Design studies; it is helping to fund Cascadia, a Pacific Northwest transportation program that the institute also runs.
But as a technocrat with a vested interest in science, shouldn’t he more carefully consider to whom he donates his money?
The Discovery Institute’s fellows have published articles promoting Intelligent Design, disavowing embryonic stem cell research and linking boys who do poorly in school with the fact that they grew up without fathers.
They’ve also taken a stand on assisted suicide. Fellows at the institute have even argued that “religious faith is central to the process of innovation.”
Funny, I personally keep my faith and my scientific research independent of each another. Clearly this organization has multiple interests, and transportation in the Northwest seems to be a minor one.
This organization has rejected important scientific advances and incorporated religion into other avenues of technology where there is no need for its association.
And Bill Gates, an advocate for science and technological advancement has given this organization more than $9 million in support of its research and studies.
Many people, including science promoters like Dr. Eugenie Scott, have stated that they have no problem with the Gates Foundation supporting Cascadia, because the money is not going to Intelligent Design research. I, however, disagree.
By supporting any aspect of the Discovery Institute, the Gates Foundation is condoning the think tank as a whole.
When donating money to an organization, people need to examine the ultimate goals of the group.
It is not acceptable for scientists to simply look the other way and ignore anti-scientific activities by an organization, simply because they are supportive of some technology activities in which we are interested.
The Gates Foundation has enough money to dole out, and that it has the power to cause change and say, “You must be pro-science to receive our funds.” These are the organizations that need to stand up for solid science.
Too many people today, and especially people of power, are cherry-picking science when it fits their arguments and disavowing it when it does not.
This is simply inappropriate and should not be supported. But scientists and technology researchers themselves, such as Bill Gates, should be most accountable in this affair.
When donating money, and placing their stamp of approval on organizations for the purpose of supporting scientific endeavors, donators should do their research and be sure that the organization itself is pro-science.