Talk:Rosalind Picard

Point of View Material on the Petition

A respected news source, the New York Times, labeled the petition anti-evolution. This carries more weight than anonymous contributors (like myself and others who have contributed to this article). It also appears that most of the previous editors of this article seemed to have agends.

136.167.158.77 Edit: Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence -Clearly POV, no explanation needed

209.6.126.244 Edit: Added POV material: (Note that the biological science signers are the most highly represented group.) -Again, this is POV and actually false since upon further examination lumping people in the "engineering/computational sciences" signers together creates a larger group than the biological science signers. It is safest to leave this out.

I suggest that all contributors read Wikipedia's Point of View guidelines. Other comments would be appreciated.128.197.4.36

The petition and Rosalind Picard's name are certainly being USED by the anti-evolution, pro-creationism movement. There is no question of that fact. So the New York Times is correct in labeling it the Anti-Evolution petition. It's petty for Rosalind Picard or her toadys to engage in an edit war about that particular term, instead of standing up for what they believe in and explaining WHY she signed her name and the good name of the MIT to that Anti-Evolution petition. The question is not "Is the petition Anti-Evolution?" It certainly is, because that's how it's being used. The real question I'd like answered is: "Does Rosalind Picard believe in Creationism, and is she willing to stand up for what she believes in and signs her name to, or not?" She needs to answer that question herself, and this wiki page should link to that.

This article from the Discovery Institute clearly demonstrates that the petition is being used by the Discovery Institute in its campaign against evolution (it's dated April 1, but although ridiculous, it's not a joke -- they take themselves quite seriously): http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114

In the words of Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute: "It is an important day in science when biologists are bold enough to challenge one of the leading theories in their profession." If only Picard were bold enough to step up to the plate and explain her views on Creationism and her dissent from Darwinism, and why she chose to sign her name and MIT's name to the Anti-Evolution petition.

It would be interesting to hear Picard address this glaring double standard:

The Anti-Evolution petition urges that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Why just Darwinism? The scientific method has always encouraged careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER THEORIES, including pseudoscientific theories like Intelligent Design. The Discovery Institute and their supporters are intellectually dishonest, negligent and close-minded, because they refuse to carefully examine the pseudo-scientific claptrap called Intelligent Design, which they promote because of their political agenda. Where's the careful examination of the evidence of Intelligent Design, and why doesn't the Discovery Institute encourage that too, instead of ignoring the huge preponderance evidence?