AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

That's a good point Baldimo. Rejecting a scientific claim because it is supported by Catholics, rather than looking to see if it is tested and valid, is an example of bad science.

Good science doesn't have a political or religious objective.

but a university must be accredited and I see very limited accreditqtion for Trinity (I do not think that this is a "Catholic" university any more than is " Ave Maria" U) .


A college's name does NOT necessarily assume a religious affiliation.

ALL UNIVERSITIES Associated with the Catholic Church (in the US) are accredited by their regional accreditational orgs.

The associated divinity schools do not have to be, but the U that offers degrees in Liberal arts, sciences or engineering , all render unto Caeser.

Sure... the point is that doesn't make me believe it. But it doesn't make me disbelieve it either.

A college's accreditation or lack of accreditation don't mean that any specific claim is valid or invalid.

Farmerman, I am curious.

What is your view on the safety of GMOs in the food supply? This is another example of where political correctness from the left is trumping scientific findings.

REALLY??
colleges that teaach Biology according to Lysenko or Biblical "Creation SCience" are not accredited by their regional science accred orgs. That tells ny graduate school NOT to accept credits on transfer or grad applications.

ACCREDITATION IS A FIRST ORDER SCREEN for applied and research science. If I were sent an app for grad work from a graduate of the Bob Jones geology dept, Id reject it out of hand

THe assault on science is real and has been getting worse for a long time. It is partly about the decline in the belief in a fixed reality outside of our own minds, and partly because science like most everything else has become corrupted . There are very good reasons why people dont believe science anymore. For one thing just look at the decline of the university and the corruption of the peer review process. For another look at how science is written in obscure lingo making it impossible for the average person to access it, for another look at all the crap science (pseudoscience) that is ordered up by those trying manipulate public policy/opinion. And finally think of all the times we have been told that we should or should not eat something for our health, and then we get told years or decades later "OOPS, strike that, do this instead". Often the original claim came from government and/or bullshit artists, but in the minds of the people this is science being wrong (because the government and bullshit artists claimed from the start that they were making a science backed statement).

I dont see it getting better anytime soon. Just look at this Presidential race, truth is now largely irrelevant in the minds of the people. THey are of course wrong, but only large amounts of pain from doing things wrong is going to fix this problem.

we are already ingesting GMO's. I am dead set against GMO's in pesticide gene or a herbicide immunity insertion bcause of an eventual an evolutionary immunity on sequential generations.
Ive used ROUNDUP ready soybeans for about 10 yeqrs and Ive got entire fields of quackgrass, redqweed, and foxtails that are IMMUNE to roundup. Hell, now they thrive on it.

Ive gone to a program of multiple focus treatment for pest and weed control . We learned the lesson with DDT because mosquitoes hqd become immune to it over time and now the popular use of multi focus pesticides is working better

That's not the question that I raised as an example of how the political left is anti-science.

The question is whether you accept that GMOs have never posed any additional threat to humans as part of the food chain.

That has been shown scientifically, and yet there is political pressure from the left to reject the science.

what exactly has been shown "scientifically"?? Im not sure I understand your point.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full

youre mixing apples and oranges. DNA methylation can and does derive new transgenic propwerties that thwe original species did not have.
Use of things like bacillus thurengensis inserts for plants have shown to be a substantiql component in the decline of marker species and is pwrhaps also involved in CCS (colony collapse syndrome) of the Italian Honeybee spwcies.

Insertion of transgenes that make plants immune to herbicides has also caused immunity to surrounding wild species and results in farmers spending higher amounts of money on even more toxic pestiicides and herbicides (like nicotenoidal pesticides).
If your mind is maade up and you are claiming that concern re: GMOS is a "Left -wing feqr". thats your prerogative (I do not share it because , while GMOs help create super "meats", they also create super BUGS and WEEDS.
I used to be a totaql supporter of GMOs (qs a fqrmer). 15 years later Ive seen the dark side of this wonderful technology.

NATURE BATS LAST -Dave Raup.

Thats statement that GMOs dont result in any greater concern than present, is kind of self serving were I in the meat products industry that is trying to claim an entire continent's market.

Ive been close to this for about 20 years mostly as a livestock and crop field farmer.

Gene editing presents another problem when something like a fqairly obscure technology is unleashed without ANY checks and study (as it is presently being done in Asia)

Ive seen Asiatic GMO "Super size shrimp" and am always concerned that the editing of the genome and the insertion of a novel transgene may have some down- the- road negative effects that arent well understood.

Ill try not to ingest GM foods by my own choice--You are free to eat and endorse GMO product all you wish. (Just dont try to convince anyone knowledgeable that its merely hysteria from some left wingers, cause thats untrue).

One thing that I find kinda silly about the "GMOs ARE PERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD" crowd is thqt, hile we, as scientists see and accept the evidence for evolution, qe seem to wanna change trqcks and deny that evolution is in fact in -play with GMOs. Can you see that point Max??

The science of genetics explicit in all the "Jurqssic Pqrk" movies had some very inobvious points. Inertion of transgenes often has unpredictable effects that, by not atudying them longer term (like maybe 20 or more generations wherein the Russian biologists saw the evolution of artificially selected arctic foxes into Canis domesticus variqnts).

Ive seen NO reserch on may of these GMO products (like the super sized shrimps). The trqngenes re, to me, unknown in their expression. I dont read the GMO literature but I cqtch up on qrticles in SCIENCE and I still see some "Look whut we found about spider genes" references that force me to hunt down the obscure publications that cover the subject.

I meant societies in general. I had in mind superstitious beliefs such as that wind turbines cause cancer, the anti-immunization crowd, the anti-GMOs crowd. I think those people span national borders.

You got that wrong Farmerman. The scientific community all accepts evolution as settled science.

GMOs are like vaccines. The scientific community has largely accepted that their use in the food chain is as safe as traditionally bred food sources. There are people who oppose GMOs and vaccines for ideological reasons who are trying to come up with pseudo-science to scare people off of a potentially useful technology.

Liar--i will point out that you are the one to introduce personalities and personal slurs into this discussion.

I just realized that I am making the assumption that you believe that vaccination is safe and useful without checking that this is true. If it isn't then this last post won't be very helpful.

You believe that vaccines are safe and useful, right Farmerman?

A cogent observation.

I love irony (and no, I haven't beaten any women today )

In fact, i had more in mind just such anti-scientific superstitions.

You manufacture the alleged irony in your head. You're the only in this thread who has been indulging personal slurs.