Creationism education bills

[Mookz 1,375]

1,000

[IMMensaMind 462]

If ID isn't supernatural, then who the FOCK is the designer?

 

Why do you think it is necessary to know the nature of a designer in order to study whether there is evidence of one? Who is to say that the designer isn't a person from the future, who came back and seeded the planet? Or simply an alien race? We just do not know.

 

And who the fock is witholding anything. You never asked to see the e-mail which I clearly said I wouldn't have a problem forwarding to anyone if they wanted. You just make shiit up as you go along.

 

You just now offered the question you asked. Previously, you withheld the questions. I'm not making a big deal out of it, but that's the bottom line: you just put up Shapiro's answers. His answers, btw, are what a scientist has to say. You notice, though no condemnation of IDer's use of his research to bolster their claims.

[OldMaid 2,135]

You still haven't answered the BIG question: Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann?

 

I'm willing to bet you have a life sized doll of one or the other.

[IMMensaMind 462]

It is wrong when the mathematical model arbitrarily assigns probability to a complex, multifaceted process with an inordinate number of variables.

 

That is not what he's doing. He's got a very specific model, and it's two-sided: the mathematical statistical probability of x # of parts finding themselves randomly, or x # of parts being assembled intentionally. This algorithmn is logical; supportable, and peer reviewed. This is something that he's been working on for years.

 

Observation <> testability. All the "tests" you have provided rely on false premises, most of them teleologic. By their very nature they are irrefutable. That doesn't mean they are true.

 

That is not correct. These are tangible tests. I now seriously doubt that you know this topic well enough to comment. The fact is that the organisms in question only have two possible origins: they were either randomly assembled via accident, or there is intent and design there. Mathematics can absolutely assign a probability to each of these scenarios; the permutations are not inordinate.

 

So atheism within science skews the paradigms, while religious scientists are irrational? Seems like the only "science" you accept is that created by the religious, for the religious.

 

Huh? That is illogical. I do not support Science that cannot give an answer, but says that the answer cannot be 'X', when it has no reason to do so. That is a dogmatic contrived answer, and Science was co-opted (I posted an article about it) over a century ago when the notion of Darwinian randomism took hold. Prior to that, scientists assumed the existence of a Designer (see the quote from Sir Issac Newton I posted). Contrary to the claims of the atheist, that didn't slow us down at all in scientific research.

 

The link you posted described the majority of science teachers not supporting evolution as taught before it reiterated the ID dogma; I guess only the latter was your point. As an aside, the ignorance of our country is terrifying.

 

Huh again? My point is that a whole lot of people have felt the way I have about Darwinian Naturalism. It doesn't pass the smell test.

 

I second Nikki's request: Who/what is the natural designer?

 

Invalid question. Can you not understand that? INVALID. It is a separate exercise to learn the nature of the Designer, and not needed to search for evidence whether one exists. Like an example I saw: if Voyager happened across a bulldozer on the surface of Europa, we would know that a Designer existed for the bulldozer. If we investigated the bulldozer, but could not determine its origin, any dunderhead that would demand to know the nature of the Designer of the bulldozer, or they would not accept the presence of the bulldozer as evidence of a Designer should have their head caved in.

 

That's as simple as that explanation gets. That you're stuck on this extremely basic flawed point is evidence that you do not understand this subject, and are simply lashing out to suffocate it illogically.

[Gepetto 1,454]

It sure is important for understanding whether ID is natural or supernatural, dontchathink?

 

I think if you could prove ID and that it's supernatural, that which was considered supernatural would no longer be supernatural but real.

[IMMensaMind 462]

It sure is important for understanding whether ID is natural or supernatural, dontchathink?

 

Why? The fact is that if God is discovered, the fact that all we've been scientifically been investigating would have been proven to be sourced supernaturally, so if that discovery wouldn't invalidate any other science, why would it invalidate ID??

 

[nikki2200 4]

Why? The fact is that if God is discovered, the fact that all we've been scientifically been investigating would have been proven to be sourced supernaturally, so if that discovery wouldn't invalidate any other science, why would it invalidate ID??

 

 

You really make absolutely no focking sense.

[Gepetto 1,454]

Why? The fact is that if God is discovered, the fact that all we've been scientifically been investigating would have been proven to be sourced supernaturally, so if that discovery wouldn't invalidate any other science, why would it invalidate ID??

 

 

Although, the above is awful communication skills, the point penultimatestraw is making is it is important to know if we have a creator or if we don't. Can't you admit that?

 

My only point was it is to early to ask the question. We are too far away from knowing enough to even begin trying to answer the question of is there a supreme being or force that designed/created everything and if there is, who or what specifically is it.

[GettnHuge 2]

Why? The fact is that if God is discovered, the fact that all we've been scientifically been investigating would have been proven to be sourced supernaturally, so if that discovery wouldn't invalidate any other science, why would it invalidate ID??

 

 

I'm sure when that happens, the mainstream media will not just avoid covering it, they will try to cover it up. The gov't will never let it happen.

The gov't is in a competition with god, and even if god appeared and said: "Hey, I'm god" the gov't will still say, no that's not god, it's just a guy.

But that guy could most definitely be god, and instead of us knowing that the guy is most definitely god, we are instead arguing about the

fact that the guy may possibly or possibly not be god. I know that you know where I'm coming from on this one. I have friends who deal with

this entire god vs. gov't situation on a daily basis and the stories they tell me are simply incredible

[IMMensaMind 462]

Although, the above is awful communication skills, the point penultimatestraw is making is it is important to know if we have a creator or if we don't. Can't you admit that?

 

My only point was it is to early to ask the question. We are too far away from knowing enough to even begin trying to answer the question of is there a supreme being or force that designed/created everything and if there is, who or what specifically is it.

 

That is not the point penultimate is trying to make, as near as I can tell. Straw is trying to box ID into being illegitimate as science, because it delves into the supernatural, when in point of fact ID just searches for a cause, regardless the nature of that cause.

 

I mention God showing Himself because it is the best way to illuminate the hypocrisy under which science operates, if it looks to delegitimize ID as a viable pursuit (scientifically) merely because a designer could in fact be supernatural. Everything science researches could have a supernatural source, and yet no other science is questioned in this manner.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'm sure when that happens, the mainstream media will not just avoid covering it, they will try to cover it up. The gov't will never let it happen.

The gov't is in a competition with god, and even if god appeared and said: "Hey, I'm god" the gov't will still say, no that's not god, it's just a guy.

But that guy could most definitely be god, and instead of us knowing that the guy is most definitely god, we are instead arguing about the

fact that the guy may possibly or possibly not be god. I know that you know where I'm coming from on this one. I have friends who deal with

this entire god vs. gov't situation on a daily basis and the stories they tell me are simply incredible

 

Bye.

[nikki2200 4]

That is not the point penultimate is trying to make, as near as I can tell. Straw is trying to box ID into being illegitimate as science, because it delves into the supernatural, when in point of fact ID just searches for a cause, regardless the nature of that cause.

 

I mention God showing Himself because it is the best way to illuminate the hypocrisy under which science operates, if it looks to delegitimize ID as a viable pursuit (scientifically) merely because a designer could in fact be supernatural. Everything science researches could have a supernatural source, and yet no other science is questioned in this manner.

 

You really make absolutely no focking sense.

[Gepetto 1,454]

That is not the point penultimate is trying to make, as near as I can tell. Straw is trying to box ID into being illegitimate as science, because it delves into the supernatural, when in point of fact ID just searches for a cause, regardless the nature of that cause.

 

I mention God showing Himself because it is the best way to illuminate the hypocrisy under which science operates, if it looks to delegitimize ID as a viable pursuit (scientifically) merely because a designer could in fact be supernatural. Everything science researches could have a supernatural source, and yet no other science is questioned in this manner.

 

Oh yea, you're correct. I would like to have a legitimate debate, but forgot about the heathens ulterior motives.

[GettnHuge 2]

That is not the point penultimate is trying to make, as near as I can tell. Straw is trying to box ID into being illegitimate as science, because it delves into the supernatural, when in point of fact ID just searches for a cause, regardless the nature of that cause.

 

I mention God showing Himself because it is the best way to illuminate the hypocrisy under which science operates, if it looks to delegitimize ID as a viable pursuit (scientifically) merely because a designer could in fact be supernatural. Everything science researches could have a supernatural source, and yet no other science is questioned in this manner.

 

I believe that Spider-Man is the creator. Prove me wrong or accept this.

[OldMaid 2,135]

IMMensaWannaBe,

 

Are you out on a day pass?

[GettnHuge 2]

IMMensaWannaBe,

 

Are you out on a day pass?

 

I think god was created in a laboratory.

[Frank M 181]

I'm posting this for Frank, as you believed that this doesn't exist: this is a peer-reviewed article, and it links Dembski's concept of active information to the alleged evolution of the flagellum in terms of probabilities of random formation of the components needed versus designing the components to fit together. Unless you don't understand what is being said in this article.

 

and another...

 

and another...

 

Peer review. You axed for it, you got it.

 

 

You do realize that these are not peer-reviewed articles, they are articles that were accepted for a conference in 2009. They do not appear in any journal, and merely have to be accepted by two conference judges to be presented at the conference.

 

These papers have not been through the rigors of peer review.

 

Nice try, though.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You do realize that these are not peer-reviewed articles, they are articles that were accepted for a conference in 2009. They do not appear in any journal, and merely have to be accepted by two conference judges to be presented at the conference.

 

These papers have not been through the rigors of peer review.

 

Nice try, though.

 

Except that you're not correct.

 

As of December 2009, the lab's website offers three peer reviewed papers by Dembski, Marks, and Winston Ewert. The papers emphasize the concept of active information in the context of search for solutions to problems. The notion is developed fully in "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success." .[20]

 

A second paper,"Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism, [21] is an analysis of the evolution simulation Avida and purports to uncover the sources of active information in the program. A third paper [22] is a preamble of the "Cost of Success" paper.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_Informatics_Lab

 

In point of fact, Dembski has 7 peer-reviewed papers that have been published.

[GettnHuge 2]

Except that you're not correct.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....Informatics_Lab

 

In point of fact, Dembski has 7 peer-reviewed papers that have been published.

 

evoinfo? seriously? come on you cannot be serious here. He might as well review his own paper and you can count that too.

maybe he can hand it to the waitress at his fav restaurant to be reviewed whilst he eats. I suppose I should post optimus prime's

most recent work peer reviewed by bumblebee

:overhead:

[nikki2200 4]

evoinfo? seriously? come on you cannot be serious here. He might as well review his own paper and you can count that too.

maybe he can hand it to the waitress at his fav restaurant to be reviewed whilst he eats. I suppose I should post optimus prime's

most recent work peer reviewed by bumblebee

:overhead:

 

Go away or he shall call you fat a second time.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Go away or he shall call you fat a second time.

 

Clearly, GettnHuge's brain doesn't work. That the published papers are listed on a site which is supportive of the view is ancillary to the point that the papers were peer-reviewed and published. Do a search for me: find all the supporting documentation of this fact.

 

It's an interesting version of healthy debate you people promote, since you aren't even willing to know the details.

[Frank M 181]

Except that you're not correct.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....Informatics_Lab

 

In point of fact, Dembski has 7 peer-reviewed papers that have been published.

 

From your link

 

Bernoulli'sPrinciple of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in ComputerSearch
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II-conference paper. not peer-reviewed

 

Conservationof Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success
William A.Dembski and Robert J. Marks II-conference paper. not peer-reviewed

 

LIFE'S CONSERVATIONLAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information
WilliamA. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II-book, not peer-reviewed

 

The Searchfor a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search
WilliamA. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II-peer-reviewed, but has nothing to do with ID in natural systems

 

Efficient PerQuery Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle [with Erratum]
WinstonEwert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II-conference paper. not peer-reviewed

 

EvolutionarySynthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism
WinstonEwert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II-conference paper. not peer-reviewed

 

A Vivisectionof the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information
GeorgeMontañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II-peer reviewed paper in a journal whose stated goal is as follows:

 

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

 

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah, the last one is peer-reviewed in a journal with an incredible bias towards ID.

 

So, once again, fail.

[GettnHuge 2]

 

From your link

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah, the last one is peer-reviewed in a journal with an incredible bias towards ID.

 

So, once again, fail.

 

Watch out, he attacked me for saying the same thing in my own irritating way.

[GettnHuge 2]

 

From your link

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah, the last one is peer-reviewed in a journal with an incredible bias towards ID.

 

So, once again, fail.

 

Boy this is taking a while. menda must be burning up google looking for other peer reviews for these crackpots. He might be telling us

how Mrs. Feldman's 5th grade class is legit and well respected.

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

From your link

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah, the last one is peer-reviewed in a journal with an incredible bias towards ID.

 

So, once again, fail.

 

The red additions to the peer-reviewed articles are not found in those links; you arbitrarily added those. I provided a link which corroborates the peer-review of three articles. If you look around at all, you'll see all sorts of dour people ing about his articles, and their peer-review. You just don't like it.

 

Now let's focus on the last one. Even you have to admit that it is peer-reviewed. I'm sorry, but do you expect peer-review to be an unbiased process? How stupid do you think people are, Frank? Everyone knows that peer-review is a fixed process. The fact is that regardless the bias, it was peer-reviewed.

 

Which is what you asked for. All you're doing is illustrating the rigid strident bias of Darwinists that Shapiro comments about.

[GettnHuge 2]

The red additions to the peer-reviewed articles are not found in those links; you arbitrarily added those. I provided a link which corroborates the peer-review of three articles. If you look around at all, you'll see all sorts of dour people :cry:ing about his articles, and their peer-review. You just don't like it.

 

Now let's focus on the last one. Even you have to admit that it is peer-reviewed. I'm sorry, but do you expect peer-review to be an unbiased process? How stupid do you think people are, Frank? Everyone knows that peer-review is a fixed process. The fact is that regardless the bias, it was peer-reviewed.

 

 

So you acknowledge the corruption...yet still base your opinion and rep on it?

[Frank M 181]

The red additions to the peer-reviewed articles are not found in those links; you arbitrarily added those. I provided a link which corroborates the peer-review of three articles. If you look around at all, you'll see all sorts of dour people ing about his articles, and their peer-review. You just don't like it.

 

Now let's focus on the last one. Even you have to admit that it is peer-reviewed. I'm sorry, but do you expect peer-review to be an unbiased process? How stupid do you think people are, Frank? Everyone knows that peer-review is a fixed process. The fact is that regardless the bias, it was peer-reviewed.

 

Which is what you asked for. All you're doing is illustrating the rigid strident bias of Darwinists that Shapiro comments about.

 

Peer review is not the same as approval for the inclusion in a conference. Sorry, they were not peer-reviewed. You obviously know very little about the peer review process, especially if you make statements like the bolded

 

Bio-Complexity is not a recognized scientific journal in Pub Med. Be that as it may, the other problem is that the William Dembski and Michael Behe are editors of the journal. I would not only call that bias, I would say that's enough bias to not publish the papers. Plus, this being an online only journal in existence for a couple of years, you might expect they'd have published a lot of papers . In fact, there is one issue, called 2010, and it has three articles and one critical review in it. It is now 2011. I would expect that there should be more, given the fact that Behe and Dembski are so brilliant and can basically get anything they write published in this "journal" because they are on the editorial board and can basically decide what goes in it and what doesn't.

 

There's not, though. Can you explain this away as Darwinist bias since the editorial board is basically all ID proponents?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Anyone have netflix? This movie looks interesting, and includes Behe. This site only has a trailer:

My link

[penultimatestraw 473]

Peer review is not the same as approval for the inclusion in a conference. Sorry, they were not peer-reviewed. You obviously know very little about the peer review process, especially if you make statements like the bolded

 

Bio-Complexity is not a recognized scientific journal in Pub Med. Be that as it may, the other problem is that the William Dembski and Michael Behe are editors of the journal. I would not only call that bias, I would say that's enough bias to not publish the papers. Plus, this being an online only journal in existence for a couple of years, you might expect they'd have published a lot of papers . In fact, there is one issue, called 2010, and it has three articles and one critical review in it. It is now 2011. I would expect that there should be more, given the fact that Behe and Dembski are so brilliant and can basically get anything they write published in this "journal" because they are on the editorial board and can basically decide what goes in it and what doesn't.

 

There's not, though. Can you explain this away as Darwinist bias since the editorial board is basically all ID proponents?

With only atheists on scientific editorial boards, what is an ID proponent to do?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Peer review is not the same as approval for the inclusion in a conference. Sorry, they were not peer-reviewed. You obviously know very little about the peer review process, especially if you make statements like the bolded

 

Bio-Complexity is not a recognized scientific journal in Pub Med. Be that as it may, the other problem is that the William Dembski and Michael Behe are editors of the journal. I would not only call that bias, I would say that's enough bias to not publish the papers. Plus, this being an online only journal in existence for a couple of years, you might expect they'd have published a lot of papers . In fact, there is one issue, called 2010, and it has three articles and one critical review in it. It is now 2011. I would expect that there should be more, given the fact that Behe and Dembski are so brilliant and can basically get anything they write published in this "journal" because they are on the editorial board and can basically decide what goes in it and what doesn't.

 

There's not, though. Can you explain this away as Darwinist bias since the editorial board is basically all ID proponents?

 

I'm referring to you when I mention Darwinian bias.

[Frank M 181]

I'm referring to you when I mention Darwinian bias.

 

 

Well, I'm certainly not the one keeping your ID rockstars from publishing, so I don't know why you would think that about me. The more likely scenario is you were using that term as some sort of excuse for the utter lack of published material from them, as if there's some sort of conspiracy to keep the information from getting out into the mainstream of scientific thought instead of it just being that the research is sh1t.t

 

Be that as it may, can you explain why this "journal" that you are hanging your hat on has one issue in two years with three papers in it when both of your heroes Dembski and Behe as well as Robert Marks, the other author on the paper and an admitted Creationist, are on the editorial board? And can you account for the ridiculous bias of having the editor publishing his own papers?

 

So they publish papers in a conference summary journal that is not peer reviewed, they publish books that are not peer reviewed, and they publish papers in a defunct journal, not recognized in any journal database, that they edit themselves.

 

That's what you're telling us is proof that they've been through peer review?

 

I can't figure out whether my response should be or .

[GettnHuge 2]

Well, I'm certainly not the one keeping your ID rockstars from publishing, so I don't know why you would think that about me. The more likely scenario is you were using that term as some sort of excuse for the utter lack of published material from them, as if there's some sort of conspiracy to keep the information from getting out into the mainstream of scientific thought instead of it just being that the research is sh1t.t

 

Be that as it may, can you explain why this "journal" that you are hanging your hat on has one issue in two years with three papers in it when both of your heroes Dembski and Behe as well as Robert Marks, the other author on the paper and an admitted Creationist, are on the editorial board? And can you account for the ridiculous bias of having the editor publishing his own papers?

 

So they publish papers in a conference summary journal that is not peer reviewed, they publish books that are not peer reviewed, and they publish papers in a defunct journal, not recognized in any journal database, that they edit themselves.

 

That's what you're telling us is proof that they've been through peer review?

 

I can't figure out whether my response should be or .

 

game set match

[Frank M 181]

game set match

 

 

He can keep setting them up all he wants, I'll keep knocking them down.

[GettnHuge 2]

 

He can keep setting them up all he wants, I'll keep knocking them down.

 

When I glazed over those links all I could think about is if Bomama had written such a piece, and how many would swear by it because it

was 'reviewed' and posted by the DNC as if that legitimized it.

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

He can keep setting them up all he wants, I'll keep knocking them down.

 

You are the only one I can see claiming no peer review of these papers. Even critics of these papers are mentioning that they're peer-reviewed; they just don't like the content. So far, you've only claimed - with no support - that these are not peer-reviewed. You try to discredit the source of peer-review, with no documentation of your case to discredit, other than "you don't like them".

 

I do not see that as convincing, considering your hostile attitude towards this subject. Of course, you won over sycophants with conclusions in search of support already, but that isn't good enough to win your case.

[Frank M 181]

You are the only one I can see claiming no peer review of these papers. Even critics of these papers are mentioning that they're peer-reviewed; they just don't like the content. So far, you've only claimed - with no support - that these are not peer-reviewed. You try to discredit the source of peer-review, with no documentation of your case to discredit, other than "you don't like them".

 

I do not see that as convincing, considering your hostile attitude towards this subject. Of course, you won over sycophants with conclusions in search of support already, but that isn't good enough to win your case.

 

For the fifth time, since you are apparently deaf to anything other than your own voice, I will explain it to you. I have been working in science for 23 years, I am very familiar with the process of peer review. Acceptance of papers for presentation at a conference is not peer review. It's not. I went on the page for that conference and read the criteria for inclusion. Two judges look at the paper and say "Sure, we'll show this at our conference." You gave us three papers that were presented at a conference and then printed in the conference summary. They were not peer-reviewed. Peer review involves sending a manuscript to multiple scientists (more than two) who read the article, suggest revisions, send the paper back, then review the revisions and decide whether or not to recommend the paper for publication. They did not appear in any scientific journal, just the summary of what was presented at that conference. That is not peer-review. Sorry, but as I said, it just demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the process.

 

As for your last paper, the journal you claim is legitimate is not. No journal can be considered legitimate if there is one issue in two years that contains only three papers, two of which have authors on the editorial board of the journal.

 

I can start up Frank's Journal of Awesome and print all of my Geek Bored posts in journal form to prove how awesome I am, that doesn't make it a legitimate journal.

 

ETA-After looking at BIO-Complexity's website, I must admit that I made a mistake. ALL of the papers as well as the critical review "published" on the site have authors on the editorial board, which makes it about as BS as you can possibly get.

[IMMensaMind 462]

For the fifth time, since you are apparently deaf to anything other than your own voice, I will explain it to you. I have been working in science for 23 years, I am very familiar with the process of peer review. Acceptance of papers for presentation at a conference is not peer review. It's not. I went on the page for that conference and read the criteria for inclusion. Two judges look at the paper and say "Sure, we'll show this at our conference." You gave us three papers that were presented at a conference and then printed in the conference summary. They were not peer-reviewed. Peer review involves sending a manuscript to multiple scientists (more than two) who read the article, suggest revisions, send the paper back, then review the revisions and decide whether or not to recommend the paper for publication. They did not appear in any scientific journal, just the summary of what was presented at that conference. That is not peer-review. Sorry, but as I said, it just demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the process.

 

As for your last paper, the journal you claim is legitimate is not. No journal can be considered legitimate if there is one issue in two years that contains only three papers, two of which have authors on the editorial board of the journal.

 

I can start up Frank's Journal of Awesome and print all of my Geek Bored posts in journal form to prove how awesome I am, that doesn't make it a legitimate journal.

 

ETA-After looking at BIO-Complexity's website, I must admit that I made a mistake. ALL of the papers as well as the critical review "published" on the site have authors on the editorial board, which makes it about as BS as you can possibly get.

 

I understand what you're saying. I just recognize how hard it will be to get topics on ID peer-reviewed by a science culture which is looking to shut down ID because they do not consider it legitimate. I also recognize that those in science who peer-review anything you perceive as pro-ID will summarily be rejected in one way or another by you and people with your preconceptions.

 

As I've said before, since everything science measures could have a supernatural cause, it is just as illegitimate as the study of ID which could discover a natural cause just as easily as anything you would consider science. ID has been stigmatized - with the help of the overzealous - to mean religious or supernatural. It shouldn't be.

 

There is and always has been bias in the peer-review process; there is evidence of that all over the place. This topic is similar to lefties denying that there is bias in the media.

[DankNuggs 305]

This thread is beyond dumb... ID is just as relevant a theory as it has ever been... All the religion bashing one can muster could never trump it. Can't... Science is way out of its league at this point...

[Frank M 181]

I understand what you're saying. I just recognize how hard it will be to get topics on ID peer-reviewed by a science culture which is looking to shut down ID because they do not consider it legitimate. I also recognize that those in science who peer-review anything you perceive as pro-ID will summarily be rejected in one way or another by you and people with your preconceptions.

 

As I've said before, since everything science measures could have a supernatural cause, it is just as illegitimate as the study of ID which could discover a natural cause just as easily as anything you would consider science. ID has been stigmatized - with the help of the overzealous - to mean religious or supernatural. It shouldn't be.

 

There is and always has been bias in the peer-review process; there is evidence of that all over the place. This topic is similar to lefties denying that there is bias in the media.

 

 

The science culture won't allow our non-science based ideas to get published!

 

 

If the science is good, it will get published. So far, it's not. in fact, as has been said ad-nauseum in this thread, the experiments haven't even been done. That would be a good start to getting a paper published.

 

You can't seriously be comparing (small) problems with blinding in the peer review process to the type of bias that publishing three articles and a review in a journal by authors who all sit on the editorial board of that journal entails, right?

[Frank M 181]

This thread is beyond dumb... ID is just as relevant a theory as it has ever been... All the religion bashing one can muster could never trump it. Can't... Science is way out of its league at this point...

 

 

Yeah, that's why there's so may schools teaching it as science now, isn't it?

 

 

Way to come in on the end and look like a doosh!