Don't like the implications?

[PsychoSarah]

OK, so?

So what? I answered your question as to why different "races" of humans exist. I don't know what more you want.

 

[Radagast]

Liberty University is a evangelical Christian university which requires a 'Christian Life and Though' component of almost any biology degree, which includes segments on creationism, the "origins controversy" and a literal reading of the Bible with a young earth, creationist bent.

And how does that affect his ability to operate electron microscopes? And let me ask another question, since the Qur'an says that Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days, would it have made a difference if Armitage had been a Muslim?

It seems Armitage was quite open about his beliefs, and the people who originally hired him didn't seem to mind (presumably being more interested in his very solid background in microscopy). As someone has already pointed out, being a "plant" seems to require some degree of secrecy.

Hopefully, CSUN's lesson (don't employ YEC loons in a scientific role

Refusing to hire a qualified young-earth creationist is probably a quick road to a lawsuit, except in areas like biology and geology teaching/research, where it's relevant to the job.

 

[Radagast]

How do you think vaccines are developed? We have to predict how the, say, flu virus is going to change over the course of a year, because vaccines take too long to make to wait and see what the virus going around is like before we make them. If evolutionary theory had no predictive power, there'd be no point to flu vaccines.

I don't believe what I'm reading! That's just nonsense.

Evolution in fact has very limited predictive power: it predicts that organisms will adapt/change, but it does not predict how. That's because we can't predict which mutations will actually occur.

And flu vaccines are not based on some kind of "evolutionary prediction," they are based on epidemiological predictions about the spread of viruses that already exist.

To quote the CDC, "The influenza viruses in the seasonal flu vaccine are selected each year based on surveillance data indicating which viruses are circulating and forecasts about which viruses are the most likely to circulate during the coming season. The degree of similarity between available vaccine viruses and circulating viruses also is important... CDC’s Influenza Division receives and tests thousands of influenza viruses from around the world each year and collaborates with other WHO Collaborating Centers and National Influenza Centers in the bi-annual seasonal vaccine virus selection process for the Southern and Northern Hemispheres. CDC plays a major role in testing and identifying new strains of influenza viruses through their global surveillance activities and then preparing candidate vaccine viruses."

 

[Gene2memE]

Refusing to hire a qualified young-earth creationist is probably a quick road to a lawsuit, except in areas like biology and geology teaching/research, where it's relevant to the job.

I'd argue that his set of view are completely irrelvant to his job as an electron microscope technician, so should never be brought up in teaching environment. I'd also argue that but espousing YEC beliefs in a university-level graduate/masters course - which is what I understand the dismissal was related to - WOULD be grounds for termination.

1. It's scientifically inaccurate and contravened by every verifiable fact about the natural world. I'd consider telling students outright falsehoods - even in their guise as "sincerely held beliefs" - relating to their fields of study as a fire-able offense;
2. It's a religious position, and completely inappropriate to bring up as a topic of conversation in such a setting.

As an equivalent, I'd consider a Scientologist bringing up their myths in a psychology/psychiatry course equal grounds for dismissal and equally inappropriate.

 

[Radagast]

I'd argue that his set of view are completely irrelvant to his job as an electron microscope technician, so should never be brought up in teaching environment. I'd also argue that but espousing YEC beliefs in a university-level graduate/masters course - which is what I understand the dismissal was related to - WOULD be grounds for termination.

I've seen no evidence that Armitage was "espousing YEC beliefs," other than privately, and he didn't have a teaching position in any case (that would have been a quite different scenario). And are students so fragile that a few pro-YEC words by a microscope tech would "convert" them in some way?

CSUN have, as far as I know, offered no actual grounds for termination. Their claim seems to have been that the position was temporary and that the funding simply ran out. Unfortunately, this was contradicted by internal emails and by the fact that they immediately proceeded to hire somebody else.

As an equivalent, I'd consider a Scientologist bringing up their myths in a psychology/psychiatry course equal grounds for dismissal and equally inappropriate.

Well, which scientologists in a psychology/psychiatry department should get kicked out?
a) the teaching staff
b) the students
c) the computer support technician
d) the cleaner

I would very much agree with you on (a), and very much disagree with you on (b) and (d), and agree with (c) only if the computer support technician was engaged in actual misconduct, such as abusing his position to recruit students into scientology activities (and even then I'd expect him to get just a warning in the first instance).

To pick another example, in the early days of the Internet there was an on-campus cook somewhere who used the name Archimedes Plutonium, and who clogged up mathematical USENET forums with his nutty ideas. I found him very annoying, and they should have taken his computer access away. But it would have been unjust to fire him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And mind you all, scientific theory only means it is scientific opinion, nothing more.

Yeah... germs causing deases is "just an opinion" as well. Just like the existence of atoms consisting of electrons, protons, neutrons... "just opinion".



/facepalm

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just as it is with someone who misunderstands plain English.


theory
noun the·o·ry \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Definition of theory for Students
plural
theories

1. 1 : an idea or opinion that is presented as true <Nobody knows where he went, but each of us has a theory.> <Perhaps they were formulating their own theories about how Cedric had died. — J. K. Rowling, Goblet of Fire>
   
   
2. 2 : a general rule offered to explain a scientific phenomenon <the theory of gravity>
   
   
3. 3 : the general rules followed in a science or an art <music theory>

Curious how the word "opinion" isn't mentioned in the second definition, where it concerns the scientific context of the word.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know English can be hard and all, but really, Theory is defined as opinion.

It's also defined as assumption. a little icing on the cake for ya'.

You know... it's quite amazing to me how you think you can get away with pretending as if the word "theory" means the same thing in every context, as if the word doesn't have a more specific meaning when used in "scientific theory".

What do you hope to accomplish here? Do you really think you're going to score any points by pretending that words can't mean different things in different contexts?

I mean, the very dictionary definition that you posted clearly makes the distinction by giving you no less then 3 different definitions that apply to different contexts.

The context we talk about (science), makes no mention of "opinion" at all in the very definition that YOU posted. In fact, it goes even further then I would be willing to go by even calling it a rule in scientific context.

Seriously mate, usually even the most hardcore theist realises that "scientific theory" has a stricter meaning then just every-day-use of the word that you might use over a couple of beers with your friends saying "you know... I got this theory about Trump...". There it indeed is just opinion or some crazy idea that might or might not have good arguments or evidence to back it up.

In science, it means a very specific thing. One of those things is that it has evidence in support of it and that it is independently testable and verifiable. It's a "graduated" hypothesis. That's what it is in science.

Now you can deny that all you want and repeat it's "just an opinion" till you are blue in the face. But it will only result in you being wrong and fooling yourself.

I just don't see the point in such dishonest argumentation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Words/definitions are very important here.

Indeed they are. And what's perhaps even more important is that one uses the correct definition in the right context.

So when a construction worker asks you to use the crane to drop the heavy load of tools on top of a roof, you don't answer with "how is a bird going to help us with that???"

So, when you use the word "theory" in a scientific context, you better use the word as it is defined in that context.

Minimize that as you will for obvious reasons, but it's still important, you can't weasel out of that fact.

Indeed, you can't weasel out of that fact.
You have everybody here telling you that you are using the word wrong.
The very dictionary definition you put up even showed in definition 2 that the scientific context does NOT mean what you are saying it means.

So why on earth are you insisting otherwise???

Evolution is assumption...

It's not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution in fact has very limited predictive power: it predicts that organisms will adapt/change, but it does not predict how.

Scientific predictions aren't like fortune telling or prophecy.

They rather are predictions made on the nature of evidence/data.

Predictions in evolution are for example:
you will not find an amphibian with hair.


Obviously, due to the random nature of mutations as well as changes to the environment, it is close to impossible to "predict" what certain species will look like a couple thousand years from now.

We might be able to give a few vague educated guesses, based on habitat and how an environment slowly changes, but even that would be with a few kilo's of grains of salt.

That's because we can't predict which mutations will actually occur.

And flu vaccines are not based on some kind of "evolutionary prediction," they are based on epidemiological predictions about the spread of viruses that already exist.

That exists TODAY.
Next year, the virus will have evolved and the current vaccine might no longer work.

 

[juvenissun]

How would you know?

I also study science, and I am a human, just like you are.

 

[juvenissun]

-_- evolution is not mysterious,

Evolution is a myth.
How many life species we know? How many case on the evolution of life species have we observed?
A dumb can see what a myth it is.

 

[juvenissun]

So what? I answered your question as to why different "races" of humans exist. I don't know what more you want.

You did not say "why".

 

[Armoured]

Of course it did, I broke it down for you, and made it very clear already...go into denial now if you wish, doesn't change the facts.



Spare me. That desperate old tactic no longer works...you all need some new material...please.

Hey, you're the one telling us you know better than Stanford university.

 

[Armoured]

Yeah... germs causing deases is "just an opinion" as well. Just like the existence of atoms consisting of electrons, protons, neutrons... "just opinion".



/facepalm

Gravity, too. Seriously, just jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute. It's only "opinion" that you will fall.

 

[Armoured]

Curious how the word "opinion" isn't mentioned in the second definition, where it concerns the scientific context of the word.

 

[sfs]

I also study science, and I am a human, just like you are.

You demonstrably know much less about genetics or the rest of biology than I do, know (based on this thread alone) next to nothing about what data supports evolution, know nothing at all about how I use evolution in my work -- and yet you feel confident that you know better than I do how well grounded my confidence in evolution is. One of us is generalizing based on faith here, and it ain't me.

 

[sfs]

Evolution is a myth.
How many life species we know? How many case on the evolution of life species have we observed?

You do realize that we don't have to observe species actually forming to know that they're related, right? Just like we don't have to witness your birth to tell that you're related to your siblings.

A dumb can see what a myth it is.

Dumb people can see all kinds of things that aren't true.

 

[juvenissun]

You demonstrably know much less about genetics or the rest of biology than I do, know (based on this thread alone) next to nothing about what data supports evolution, know nothing at all about how I use evolution in my work -- and yet you feel confident that you know better than I do how well grounded my confidence in evolution is. One of us is generalizing based on faith here, and it ain't me.

Yes, I know very little about your stuff. Yet, I dare to challenge you. Because what I know now is beyond science, it is philosophy. Philosophy is about methods. Data is only subordinate. Remind you that I have never talked anything about faith when argued about the science of evolution.

I sort of know what you are doing, because people in our biology department and chemistry department are doing similar things all the time. And I do listen to their presentations.

 

[juvenissun]

You do realize that we don't have to observe species actually forming to know that they're related, right? Just like we don't have to witness your birth to tell that you're related to your siblings.
Dumb people can see all kinds of things that aren't true.

No I don't. That is the whole point. In doing what you said, we call it: speculation.

You may see that kind of thing at a scale of cell or sub-cell. But, that is all you have. The rests are speculations.