Professionals

Fleur · May 11, 2005

I have seen people talk about how the vast majority of professionals working in the field accept evolution.

However, in at least some professional fields we know that there are vested interests in operation - for example, pharmaceutical companies are only able to make money if they can patent a product and therefore they do not bother doing research on alternative therapies that they know cannot be patented. (I know that this analogy does not directly apply but it is the first thing I thought of).

Is it possible that there is a reason other than the evidence that prevents these professionals from even looking at alternative views?

I am curious because while I have seen accusations of a possible science wide conspiracy, I have seen no suggestion of something along the lines of the pharmaceutical example - which isn't a conspiracy, but rather simple business sense.

notto · May 11, 2005

Fleur said:
I have seen people talk about how the vast majority of professionals working in the field accept evolution.

However, in at least some professional fields we know that there are vested interests in operation - for example, pharmaceutical companies are only able to make money if they can patent a product and therefore they do not bother doing research on alternative therapies that they know cannot be patented. (I know that this analogy does not directly apply but it is the first thing I thought of).

Is it possible that there is a reason other than the evidence that prevents these professionals from even looking at alternative views?

I am curious because while I have seen accusations of a possible science wide conspiracy, I have seen no suggestion of something along the lines of the pharmaceutical example - which isn't a conspiracy, but rather simple business sense.

Pharmaceutical companies are only successful if their drugs actually work.

Scientists are only successful if their work can actually make predictions, explain evidence, and do research that backs their hypothesis.

If 'alternate' views could do that, they would be looked at. That is simple business sense.

madarab · May 11, 2005

Notto, don't be peddling more lies. Everyone knows that Satan pays you evilutionists to spout your filthy trash. He also gives you political power (Notice how many of them are in high office.), and WOMEN, WOMEN, WOMEN!!! You'd be surprised how much action an evilutionist gets. The line, "We're all primates here." makes them swoon every time.

PS: Satan pays double if you claim to be a Christian.

Jet Black · May 11, 2005

Fleur said:
Is it possible that there is a reason other than the evidence that prevents these professionals from even looking at alternative views?

not really: Many times people have gone against the grain as it were and become well known and rich from it. There are two things that scientists enjoy: (1) being the first person ever to know something (2) proving other scientists wrong.

Randall McNally · May 11, 2005

The OP presupposes that these "alternative" theories we're hearing about are new and unexplored. For certain molecular and informational concepts in ID, that may be true, but most anything related to creationism has been tried and found wanting at least 150 years ago.

Right now, we're waiting on ID proponents to agree on a central theory or doctrine. Until that happens, focused ID research will continue to prove difficult.

cerad · May 11, 2005

Global warming might be a better example than the pharmaceutical industry. Reading the popular media as well as serious scientific peer reviewed journals gives one the impression that there is no doubt that global warming is occuring and that it will wreak enviromental havoc and that it is caused by mankind (mostly by the citizens of the United States).

There are however a fair number of scientists who point out that there really is no evidence that global warming is actually occuring and that our understanding of the Earth's climate system is still in it's infancy. They don't get published much and have a hard time getting grants.

In the end things will sort themselves out. Maybe England will become a giant skating rink in the next twenty years. But I think it's safe to say over short periods of time, science is indeed heavily influenced by both political and business interests not to mention personal economics.

Hydra009 · May 11, 2005

If there really was something scientific that could replace the ToE, whoever proposes it would win fame, fortune, and maybe even a Nobel Prize. Who wouldn't want that? This claim that scientists secretly know that the ToE is bunk and are just sweeping the flaws under the rug because of vested interests is ridiculous.

Split Rock · May 11, 2005

cerad said:
Global warming might be a better example than the pharmaceutical industry. Reading the popular media as well as serious scientific peer reviewed journals gives one the impression that there is no doubt that global warming is occuring and that it will wreak enviromental havoc and that it is caused by mankind (mostly by the citizens of the United States).

There are however a fair number of scientists who point out that there really is no evidence that global warming is actually occuring and that our understanding of the Earth's climate system is still in it's infancy. They don't get published much and have a hard time getting grants.

In the end things will sort themselves out. Maybe England will become a giant skating rink in the next twenty years. But I think it's safe to say over short periods of time, science is indeed heavily influenced by both political and business interests not to mention personal economics.

Many of these scientists who say they doubt global warming are being funded by the Petroleum and Automobile industries, who have been running an expensive campaign to convince voters and Congress that there are "doubts" about Global Warming. I was watching a show about this on PBS, and I couldn't help but be reminded about the "Scientists who doubt Evolution/Darwinism" campaign that the Discovery Institute has been running.

cerad · May 11, 2005

Split Rock said:
Many of these scientists who say they doubt global warming are being funded by the Petroleum and Automobile industries, who have been running an expensive campaign to convince voters and Congress that there are "doubts" about Global Warming. I was watching a show about this on PBS, and I couldn't help but be reminded about the "Scientists who doubt Evolution/Darwinism" campaign that the Discovery Institute has been running.

Which is exactly why I put forth the example that global warmining (or perhaps anti-global warming) is a good example of a scientific conspiracy.
Michael Crichton (Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park) has a fairly new book out called State of Fear. It's a good read if you like that sort of thing.

And-U-Say · May 11, 2005

Jet Black said:
not really: Many times people have gone against the grain as it were and become well known and rich from it. There are two things that scientists enjoy: (1) being the first person ever to know something (2) proving other scientists wrong.

OK, now this is absolutely correct. These motivations should tell you (the CF, not you personally) something about the amount of evidence supporting creationism.

Nice.

Arikay · May 11, 2005

Big Bang = Against the grain.
Evolution = Against the grain.
Relativity = Against the grain.

Just to name a few famous theories. Plenty of scientific theories went against the grain. Of course, a ton more went against the grain and were wrong. Not everything that does is right, and that must be realized.

madarab · May 11, 2005

To be fair, a lot of them (like the 19th century theories of electrodynamics leading up to and including Maxwell's work, and the various add ons to quantum mechanics leading up to the Standard Model) were widely accepted as soon as they were released.

Ledifni · May 11, 2005

Fleur said:
I have seen people talk about how the vast majority of professionals working in the field accept evolution.

However, in at least some professional fields we know that there are vested interests in operation - for example, pharmaceutical companies are only able to make money if they can patent a product and therefore they do not bother doing research on alternative therapies that they know cannot be patented. (I know that this analogy does not directly apply but it is the first thing I thought of).

Is it possible that there is a reason other than the evidence that prevents these professionals from even looking at alternative views?

No. You are correct, in any profession there are forces that drive the professionals to examine certain things and not others. In the case of science, the force that drives science is the rewards offered for falsifying prominent theories. That is, scientists personally succeed by showing that everybody else, including themselves, is wrong.

Thus, I don't think there's any way you could claim that the entire scientific community is turning a blind eye to the faults of evolution, given that if even one of those scientists explored the alleged faults and found evidence of them, and built an alternative theory based on the new evidence, he would be considered by far the greatest biologist since Darwin. He would be showered with praise and acclaim and would undoubtedly win a Nobel prize in very short order.

You're trying to tell me that not one competent scientist in all the world has been tempted to go for that prize?

JohnR7 · May 11, 2005

Fleur said:
Is it possible that there is a reason other than the evidence that prevents these professionals from even looking at alternative views?

I would be interested in knowing just how many people can think for themselves to come up with a alternative view. Evolutionists tend to be very regimented and they tend to follow the party line, because they know that any disagreements among themselves will weaken their position.

JohnR7 · May 11, 2005

Ledifni said:
Thus, I don't think there's any way you could claim that the entire scientific community is turning a blind eye to the faults of evolution, given that if even one of those scientists explored the alleged faults and found evidence of them, and built an alternative theory based on the new evidence, he would be considered by far the greatest biologist since Darwin.

IF they can come up with a NEW theory, that is fine. But you CAN NOT falsify a old theory without producing a better explaination. So they have no choice but to turn a "blind eye" even if there were to know that the theory is not a good one and that it is not supported by the evidence.

Ledifni · May 11, 2005

JohnR7 said:
IF they can come up with a NEW theory, that is fine. But you CAN NOT falsify a old theory without producing a better explaination.

Huh? Sure you can! Galileo falsified Aristotle's theories about gravity, but he didn't create a new theory first. He falsified Aristotle's ideas and then attempted to work out better ideas. In fact, science always falsifies before it theorizes, as any proposition that is not supported by scientific evidence is merely an hypothesis, not a theory.

JohnR7 said:
So they have no choice but to turn a "blind eye" even if there were to know that the theory is not a good one and that it is not supported by the evidence.

They have plenty of choices, John. Your assertions are laughable because anyone who knows anything about the field of science knows you're just making them up from whole cloth. It really blows my mind -- why do people make things up and then go and try to teach them to the experts? Don't people like you realize that the experts ALREADY KNOW that you made it up? Who are you trying to convince?

JohnR7 · May 11, 2005

notto said:
Pharmaceutical companies are only successful if their drugs actually work.

It does not matter if the drugs work or not. They only make money if they actually sell the drugs.

JohnR7 · May 11, 2005

Ledifni said:
John, again you prove you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

BUZZZZZ, this looks like a flame and a personal attack to me. Careful because I have no problem with using that little report button on the bottom of the window. It is not any easier for me than it is anyone else, but we got to go by the rules here or everything will get out of control.

Split Rock · May 11, 2005

JohnR7 said:
I would be interested in knowing just how many people can think for themselves to come up with a alternative view. Evolutionists tend to be very regimented and they tend to follow the party line, because they know that any disagreements among themselves will weaken their position.

John, scientists disagree among themselves all the time!
They disagree about the evolution of birds
They disagree about how fast large therapods could run
They disagree about how much hunting T-rex did
They disagree about how much influence genetic drift has on evolution
They disagree about what killed the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous
They disagree about how gradual evolution is
They disagree about why sexual reproduction evolved
etc, etc.

Sorry, but the "follow the party line" theme only works in Creationist organizations, like AIG and ICR.

Phred · May 11, 2005

Professional geologists who make their living off of finding oil and minerals don't use flood geology. They use real science. Same as pharmas do. It isn't a vested interest, it's what works.

.

Professionals

Member

Legend

Senior Member

Jet Black

Guest

Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

Zebra Fan

bel esprit

Conflation of Blathers

Zebra Fan

Veteran

HI

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Conflation of Blathers

Junior Mint

Similar threads