Comments on: Research v. Religious Conviction http://rightwingnation.com/2009/03/04/research-v-religious-conviction/ A little sanity in an insane blogosphere Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:56:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: MTheads http://rightwingnation.com/2009/03/04/research-v-religious-conviction/#comment-124759 MTheads Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:07:28 +0000 http://rightwingnation.com/2009/03/04/research-v-religious-conviction/#comment-124759 Great post and explanation. I fear that those people who hold religiously onto the idea of "wholly nurture" are actually endowed with "wholly nature" genes that prevent them from thinking objectively about the issue. What do you do then? Great post and explanation. I fear that those people who hold religiously onto the idea of “wholly nurture” are actually endowed with “wholly nature” genes that prevent them from thinking objectively about the issue. What do you do then?

]]> By: Bob Sykes http://rightwingnation.com/2009/03/04/research-v-religious-conviction/#comment-124756 Bob Sykes Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:36:54 +0000 http://rightwingnation.com/2009/03/04/research-v-religious-conviction/#comment-124756 I recently retired after teaching engineering for 37 years. During that time I was continually amazed at the number of faculty in the humanities and social sciences that repudiated the idea of human evolution. It was, and is, nearly universal. I also met many physical scientists and engineers who doubted Darwin's theory of natural selection. There seems to be something in the training of physicists especially that makes them incapable of understanding Darwin: they stop at the random generation of variation and ignore the selection. In fact, I would estimate that the modern theory of evolution, which is founded on Darwin's theory, is broadly accepted only in departments of biology and geology. I do not include medicine. What is especially humorous is that PhD social science and humanities faculty routine deride the "ignorant, inbred, snake-handling hillbillies" who rail against evolution in the schools, even though the PhDs are in total agreement with the fundamentalists on this point. I recently retired after teaching engineering for 37 years. During that time I was continually amazed at the number of faculty in the humanities and social sciences that repudiated the idea of human evolution. It was, and is, nearly universal. I also met many physical scientists and engineers who doubted Darwin’s theory of natural selection. There seems to be something in the training of physicists especially that makes them incapable of understanding Darwin: they stop at the random generation of variation and ignore the selection. In fact, I would estimate that the modern theory of evolution, which is founded on Darwin’s theory, is broadly accepted only in departments of biology and geology. I do not include medicine.

What is especially humorous is that PhD social science and humanities faculty routine deride the “ignorant, inbred, snake-handling hillbillies” who rail against evolution in the schools, even though the PhDs are in total agreement with the fundamentalists on this point.

]]>