275
Duke Shuts Down Huge Plant Collection, Causing Scientific Uproar
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
275 points (99.3% liked)
science
14984 readers
639 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Calling Duke a 'religious school' is disingenuous. They are a secular school that has a divinity program. The university pre-dates the divinity school by almost a century.
They are widely seen as a world class medical, business and law school. Contributions include, the first ultrasound imaging, the first CFD analysis software, and cochlear implant development.
They don't focus on sports anymore than other peer institutions (think Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, or Notre Dame) they just caught lightning in a bottle with Coach K, and have been really good at basketball for a while.
I say all of this to highlight, they are a legitimate, well funded active contributor to academia and research.
They aren't some hack religious institution that's trying to play being a real school while shoveling indoctrination down your throat like BYU or Liberty.
Duke is a legitimate research university that should be criticized even more harshly for the decision outlined in the article because of their history as a top tier research institution, not because they're "a religious school that doesn't care about science."
After a quick googling, they also were on the religiously unpopular side of embryonic stem cells.
“Duke says embryos aren’t children, which anyone with eyes can see, and that’s why they’re a great university.”
They're a secular institution that was on the leading edge of stem cell research when it was far more controversial than it is now.
I don't think those are "low-ass" standards.
Stem cell research has never ever been controversial among scientists. Priests, maybe.
That's a disingenuous statement. Gregor Mendel was a monk(and became an abbot). Darwin very nearly became a priest and waited years to publish the origin of species until Alfred Wallace independently came to the same conclusion partly because Darwin was conflicted about how it went against Christian dogma at the time. Even now there are plenty of scientists with religious faith and belief. There's no scientific guidance on souls.
Your evidence is people who lived a century or two ago?
According to a 1998 study, 92% of members of the National Academy of Sciences reject the belief in a higher power or God. Now decades later, that number is closer to 100%. And a soul is a philosophical concept, not an empirical one.
NAS is far from every scientist. There's a graduate+faculty faith organization at most if not all R1 institutes.
As you state a soul is a philosophical concept which is why faith is so involved in trying to dictate what "life" is.
If you want to beat them we need to be arguing at the correct level for understanding. The church not caring til Roe and abortion of some sort being done for hundreds or thousands of years is not the argument that matters to fundies. It is when life is determined to have a soul in their belief. If scientific facts argue against philosophical belief, neither side will ever understand the other.
Scientists tend to care about science, that is indeed correct.
Your earlier comment stated that they didn’t care for science and where preoccupied with religious ideologies.
Which is it that you believe now?
If the university president sucked your dick for breakfast every morning it wouldn't matter. Way to pick up on the least emphasized and important point to fuel your gate boner.
I assume you mean secular, not non-secular. Non-secular would mean they do have a religious affiliation.
Yup, that's what I meant.
That’s like saying “they have commitments to a cult, but they’re good at science.” I don’t think non-secular institutions should have accreditation. Period.
I sense you might have some unresolved anger issues...
In a country increasingly governed by religious ideals that strip the rights of women and minorities, it is harder and harder not to hate religion.
Agreed. I'm a Socialist Bi/Pan Transwoman and a "Christian" for lack of less tinged and equivalently brief word.
I choose to look at these types of things as opportunities to praise good opinions.
Whenever the collapse happens, assuming there are still people around, we'll still have to live with people after the fact. Accepting the inevitability of "religious thoughts" and helping to mold and shape those ideas is better than failing to remove them entirely.
Also, its a healthier mindset in general, for me at least.
I would be fine with tolerating religion's existence if it remained a personal belief that was not forced upon others. But the moment it is, that means war.
I totally agree. I personally just try to be a part of influencing the.... culture? Of religion from a less antagonistic or opposing position. History has proven, piss off a country and religion may be used to retaliate, piss off a religion and countries will retaliate. Understanding people for what we all are in essence is something that has worked in my life on the micro scale, and despite having little to show for my efforts so far, I think its more than nothing...
I accept the existence of religion by virtue of the fact that humans are half a chromosome away from chimpanzees. I’m not happy about it, though.