Stirring the pot - creation vs. evolutionism

[philologus]

Originally posted by Trevor

What gets me are the crackpots that literally believe things like creationism and Noahs ark. Two of every animal? How did he feed them? What about parasites? Was each animal carrying exactly 2 of every one of its parasites? What about tropical and arctic species? How did he keep them warm/cold? What about Australian species? How did they get to the ark? Strange Noah didn\'t remark on how odd it was to have egg laying mammals, or that God was clearly taking the piss with the duck billed platypuss.

Strikes me that these people just can\'t be bothered, or don\'t want to think for themselves.

Here\'s the main problem I have with this debate, wherever it arises. I am suddenly a crackpot.
I am always entertained by this debate and enjoy reading/speaking about it, but I genuinely don\'t care if evolution is ever \"proven\" correct or not. It doesn\'t affect me mentally, financially, relationally OR spiritually in the least. If you provide unassailable proof of evolution, then to me it means God made it happen. If I believe in a God who could create the universe with His words, then why could he not suspend the reproductive (or other) functions in animals He created, while they were on the ark? It makes no difference. I work in a very technical job. In our industry we have the most advanced machinery available, and I use math and scientific principles, daily, to solve production problems. My bosses all know what my beliefs are and have no problem with me wielding the mighty weapons of science without supervision. This is largely because I always produce results, which equal money. My belief in God has no impact (except perhaps that I endeavor to live up to my beliefs on a daily basis). My point, is that the actual daily life of the majority of humans is not impacted by this debate, unless they are working scientists. So calling people crackpots or (as has been said in previous threads on this topic) claiming that they shouldn\'t be trusted to be rational, is silly. I simply subscribe to what I believe is a more sublime, elegant explanation for my \"Origin of Species\". And in the end it comes down to Pascal\'s wager anyway.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Rodnik
But would it progress faster if all states and the fed provided funding or more funding?---most certainly. I wasn\'t saying there weren\'t proponents to the research---I said contention--which means there are people on both sides.

You\'re assuming that there are actually results to be found. It\'s been twenty years and in the same time adult stem cell research has produced many medical techniques, embryonic has produced failures.

Whether it is a moral issue or not, you really can\'t expect the federal government or the states to spend billions of dollars on research that might or might not produce anything. They are beholden to the people, and the people expect results from their taxes.
Even if it does, there\'s the very real question of whether its better to spend that type of money on techniques that may/may not save a few select lives in the future, or to use that money as taxpayers intended to fix the very real problems of right now.

Science in the name of science, while interesting and sometimes even helpful, should not come before the needs of the people who are footing the bill. The federal and state governments are beholden to the people, it\'s the people\'s money, and they should not waste that money on what many people see as frivolous research when there are people without homes and food to eat.

Take this from someone who works at the only Synchrotron ring in the world to be run at the state level, on less than $5 million a year

And you guys should be commended---but, if you had more money could you do more?
The answer, I\'m sure, is \"yes\".
So the lack of funding, in your case, would be a hindrance---however slight you may consider it.[/quote]

Surprise, the answer is \"no\".
Sure we may be able to get some newer equipment, better offices, better paychecks, but the amount of actual research would stay the same. You can only do so much in a given time frame, regardless of how much money you have.

You\'d be absolutely surprised at how much you learn and how much information you get when you have to improvise, instead of throwing money at a problem.
Visiting scientist are often amazed at how resourceful we are, and often come to us when they have a problem that we\'ve already fixed by thinking outside the box, by necessity, from conservative spending.
We don\'t replace unless absolutely necessary, we repair, we make on site modifications, we invent parts and pieces that do not exist and have them manufactured locally.

And at the end of the year, we still usually have tens of thousands of dollars that we have to spend in order not to lose it.
I got a nice leather chair for my office and a few oscilloscopes.

 

[Rodnik]

You\'re assuming that there are actually results to be found. It\'s been twenty years and in the same time adult stem cell research has produced many medical techniques, embryonic has produced failures.

I’m not assuming anything. You and I both know there’s still research that can be done here (or at least I *hope* you do). But that’s not the point.

Whether it is a moral issue or not, you really can\'t expect the federal government or the states to spend billions of dollars on research that might or might not produce anything. They are beholden to the people, and the people expect results from their taxes.
Even if it does, there\'s the very real question of whether its better to spend that type of money on techniques that may/may not save a few select lives in the future, or to use that money as taxpayers intended to fix the very real problems of right now.

You’re off on a tangent. This has nothing to do with the point. All research has the opportunity to produce nothing. Arguing about *where* money should be spent is a different issue altogether---and again, has nothing to do with the point.

Science in the name of science, while interesting and sometimes even helpful, should not come before the needs of the people who are footing the bill. The federal and state governments are beholden to the people, it\'s the people\'s money, and they should not waste that money on what many people see as frivolous research when there are people without homes and food to eat.

And you’re back on point a little here….because it would be ethically wrong to do so. So, a philosophy wins over science. The inherent belief that “people” are our greatest asset, but even that philosophy has the *potential* to break down at smaller scale.
Here’s an extreme example---
We have criminals, in prison, that spend extended amount of time being “non-productive members” of society, yet they continue to consume resources (granted, we have non-criminals that seemingly do this same thing). But we’ll pick on prisons, because all of them are overcrowded, understaffed, bring down property values, and pose an inherent risk to the communities in which they’re established.
Wouldn’t it be logical to find a way for the criminal to serve his time punishment and not consume resources? Say, as in placing them is stasis to serve out their time---find an effective/inexpensive way to put them in a chemically-induced coma; freeze them, etc…?
I know that’s going overboard a bit, but the logic is sound. Removes the risk, reduces cost and real-estate needed to house the prisoners, they consume less resources, replaces all prison guards/wardens/etc with a few medical professionals and some administrative staff.
Sure…that would be logical. Would it be ethical? I can’t answer that objectively, so I won’t. Are there other logical ways to deal with it? I’m sure there are. Would they be ethical?
A question to ponder anyway….

Surprise, the answer is \"no\".
Sure we may be able to get some newer equipment, better offices, better paychecks, but the amount of actual research would stay the same. You can only do so much in a given time frame, regardless of how much money you have.

I just *knew* you were going to say this.
You’re kidding yourself and thinking too small. More people, given the proper space and resources, can accomplish more in a given period of time. Basic stuff---and there are plenty of mathematical formulas to support it. And if other folks in your business (aka field of research) said it couldn’t be done on the money you were given---rest assured, there’s something else to be accomplished given more resources.

You\'d be absolutely surprised at how much you learn and how much information you get when you have to improvise, instead of throwing money at a problem.

No, I wouldn’t. You’re implying that more money/resources will only make you use your resources frivolously—

Visiting scientist are often amazed at how resourceful we are, and often come to us when they have a problem that we\'ve already fixed by thinking outside the box, by necessity, from conservative spending.
We don\'t replace unless absolutely necessary, we repair, we make on site modifications, we invent parts and pieces that do not exist and have them manufactured locally.

And that’s smart “business”. Even smarter business is to increase your resources and maintain the same resourcefulness.

 

[Evil Dave]

Rodnik, the problem here is you are thinking of this in a black and white logical manner, without putting the human equation into this.

You would tend to think that with all the scientists and academia running around that logic must rule supreme in any scientific facility.

From my experience at quite a few labs this is simply not the case, scientists and academia are still people. It\'s politics, greed, and one up manship. Quite more often than you would think, it is not so much about the truth as it is about the funding and the comfortable life one gets from it.

I could tell you tales of embezzlement, theft, faking of data to fit the theory.

While you might think that more funding would get more things done, just take a look at our government.
It only gets more accomplished if spent wisely, which in my experience it rarely does.

Scientists are people too, and are plagued by the same corruptness, laziness, political agendas, and lack of common sense that plagues the rest of humanity.

Believe me, I used to believe science could solve everything, that logic was supreme, but after being in science for so long, I have grown jaded and cynical. Humans are more often than not, not logical creatures. They are selfish and petty, and will lie, steal, kill for their own agendas, or their beliefs.
Just because they have the title of scientists doesn\'t make them immune to these traits.
It just makes them better at justifying them, usually with \"for the betterment of man\" or \"for the sake of knowledge\" thrown into the justifications.

We have just as many flaws, if not more, than organized religion, and are just as willing to spout dogma, and be as close minded as those we denounce.
ie: Global warming believers vs. non-believers. The Global Warmers are essentially calling those who do not take up their banner heretics.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by Rodnik

I just *knew* you were going to say this.
You’re kidding yourself and thinking too small. More people, given the proper space and resources, can accomplish more in a given period of time. Basic stuff---and there are plenty of mathematical formulas to support it. And if other folks in your business (aka field of research) said it couldn’t be done on the money you were given---rest assured, there’s something else to be accomplished given more resources.

I have to take exception to this. This has been disproven by business time and again. When given more resources, including labor, the existing labor will have more people to hide amongst and less direct supervision of their activities. They will do the minimum amount of work possible to collect pay. Subsequently those that were previously operating efficiently will eventually become fatigued and do less because their peers can do it with little repercussions. I\'ve seen it many times with my own eyes. To Dave\'s point Scientists are still people.

 

[Rodnik]

Rodnik, the problem here is you are thinking of this in a black and white logical manner, without putting the human equation into this.

Sigh…no, I’m not. You\'ve somehow missed the original point of contention.
So, I’ll stop here and ask a very simple question:

Do you believe that a scientific theory always establishes a more credible answer to a question than a group belief?

If the answer is “Yes”, then you and I are on opposing sides.
If you say “No”, then we share the same view.

And “It depends” doesn’t work with the question, considering the word “always”.

And we can stop there.

Cheers!
R.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Rodnik
Sigh�no, I�m not. You\'ve somehow missed the original point of contention.
So, I�ll stop here and ask a very simple question:

Do you believe that a scientific theory always establishes a more credible answer to a question than a group belief?

If the answer is �Yes�, then you and I are on opposing sides.
If you say �No�, then we share the same view.

Ahh, I gothcha, I just woke up, had to work until 3 am.
Then we agree.

 

[Rodnik]

Then we agree.

I thought we did...

Now..go get some sleep...lol