Funding an Assessment of Creation Models

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

What are the aims? What are the hypotheses within each aim? What are the proposed experiments for each hypothesis? If you were to write a grant, what would it look like?

Honestly, I’m not sure it possible to produce positive evidence of ID. However, I think it is possible to demonstrate whether or not the evidence rules out specific models of God’s direction of evolution.

If I was to write a grant, I would structure with three aims, each one a different and tightly specified model, and then propose a set of rigorous computational experiments designed to falsify the model if possible, or demonstrate theoretically we do not have the evidence to rule it out. This sort of effort, it turns out, could be fundable by foundations, or possibly even some unexpected secular mechanisms.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

If I was to write a grant, I would structure with three aims, each one a different and tightly specified model, and then propose a set of rigorous computational experiments designed to falsify the model if possible, or demonstrate theoretically we do not have the evidence to rule it out. This sort of effort, it turns out, could be fundable by foundations, or possibly even some unexpected secular mechanisms.

The John Templeton Foundation would be an obvious place to start.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Yes, JTF is one place, but I am also curious if it could be appealing to secular funding agencies too. It seems like this could be a very effective pedagogical tool. It would be a great example of hypothesis driven computation research.

This is not a religious activity, to be clear, because we might find that none of the models are consistent with the evidence. For those that do not believe their is a God, it would be analogous to Maxwell’s demon. No one believes he is real, but we can still do an analysis of the demon. IN the same way, we can still examine different creation models from a secular point of view, without actually endorsing creationism.

What are your thoughts on this @T_aquaticus?

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

Yes, JTF is one place, but I am also curious if it could be appealing to secular funding agencies too. It seems like this could be a very effective pedagogical tool. It would be a great example of hypothesis driven computation research.

This is not a religious activity, to be clear, because we might find that none of the models are consistent with the evidence. For those that do not believe their is a God, it would be analogous to Maxwell’s demon. No one believes he is real, but we can still do an analysis of the demon. IN the same way, we can still examine different creation models from a secular point of view, without actually endorsing creationism.

What are your thoughts on this @T_aquaticus?

It’s absolutely doable, in the abstract. I really like your example of Maxwell’s Demon, and I may steal it from you at some point in the future. Scientists have been testing for violations of QM and GR for decades now, so there is nothing wrong with the same approach for concepts in biology. The hard part would be “disguising” the most obvious religious aspects, but I think it could be done.

After just a quick scan there are plenty of funding programs at NSF that would work:

This Systematics and Biodiversity Sciences (SBS) cluster Program Description is valid for all proposals submitted in response to the Division of Environmental Biology core solicitation and CAREER, OPUS and RCN solicitations.

The Systematics and Biodiversity Science (SBS) cluster supports research that advances understanding of the diversity, systematics, and evolutionary history of extant or extinct organisms in natural systems. This research addresses fundamental questions in biodiversity, taxonomy, and phylogenetics, such as: What kinds of organisms exist (or existed)? How are they related? How can phylogenetic history shed light on evolutionary patterns and processes in nature? Example topics include: expeditionary biodiversity research and discovery; identification and classification of extinct and/or extant organisms; and comparative phylogenetics.

The SBS cluster seeks to fund projects that are transformative - that is, those that innovatively and fundamentally transform our approaches to analyzing and understanding global biodiversity, its origins, distribution, and evolutionary history. The cluster places a high value on integrative and holistic approaches to systematics research and training - i.e., those approaches and projects that integrate across all the components within the cluster (biodiversity discovery, organismal biology, taxonomy, phylogenetics, and evolution) and that train highly skilled modern systematists who can conduct research across the entire spectrum of these activities. Proposals that give specific examples of how they will broaden the skill set of PIs, students and postdocs are encouraged, as are those that describe how they will build capacity among traditionally underrepresented groups.
https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503666

This program sounds like it is looking for transformative ideas, so what you are proposing would certainly fit that bill.

[Patrick]

@swamidass

If I was to write a grant, I would structure with three aims, each one a different and tightly specified model, and then propose a set of rigorous computational experiments designed to falsify the model if possible, or demonstrate theoretically we do not have the evidence to rule it out. This sort of effort, it turns out, could be fundable by foundations, or possibly even some unexpected secular mechanisms.

And how would this help humanity? Please work on grants that can help people with diseases, disabilities.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

And how would this help humanity? Please work on grants that can help people with diseases.

Most my time is doing just that @Patrick, improving out understanding of medicine. In science, however, we also care about the big questions.

[Patrick]

@swamidass

Most my time is doing just that @Patrick, improving out understanding of medicine. In science, however, we also care about the big questions.

Ok, I am counting on you to find a cure to the disease that I don’t know that I have yet.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@swamidass

Honestly, I’m not sure it possible to produce positive evidence of ID.

That’s not MY answer.

I’m 100% positive that there is no way to produce positive evidence of I.D., without God’s complete cooperation!

[T.j_Runyon]

@Patrick

And how would this help humanity? Please work on grants that can help people with diseases, disabilities.

We are curious creatures. Anything that furthers our knowledge of the universe helps humanity.

[T_aquaticus]

@Patrick

And how would this help humanity? Please work on grants that can help people with diseases, disabilities.

You have hit upon one of the big questions in research. There has been a long standing debate focused on the allocation of resources and priorities within the scientific community. Does the Hubble telescope help humanity? I don’t think there is any direct benefit, but I shudder at the thought of not having it. There is also the fact that basic science research discovers amazing things all of the time that have unforeseen benefits and applications. For example, scientists studying the basic genetics of Streptococcus pyogenes discovered a strange genetic system that spliced short phage sequences into the bacterial genome. From that discovery we got CRISPR-Cas9 which could prove to be an extremely powerful gene editing tool in agriculture and medicine.

The sentiment you are expressing is a very common one, but there is also merit in studying nature just to understand it.