[js1138]

The reason for these two seemingly contradictory facts is that ID advocates know when to keep their head down when they want to keep their jobs, and when they want to be published. Like the old dissidents in the Soviet Union, there are ways around to get around the obstacles orthodoxy.

This is utter nonsense. You don't have to give your religious or philosophical beliefs to do science. All you need is a research proposal that has a likelihood of producing new data. I have been told by ID advocates that the heart and soul of current ID theory is information theory. This not a costly kind of research, and it can be done without any special preconceptions of what is expected.

If you have a research project that requires a supercomputer, you can make one with volunteers, like SETI online. Are you aware of the protein folding project which uses thousands of Internet volunteers?

The basic problem with ID is that it has no hypothesis that can be tested and no research proposals. ID is a parasitic meme that feeds on the research done by mainstream science.

The fundamental mode of ID research is to look at any new research finding and announce that you now have two gaps where you previously had only one.

[Diamond]

You don't have to give your religious or philosophical beliefs to do science.

Tell that to the judge and the plaintiffs in this case. They seemed to be very interested in the defendant's and expert witnesses religious beliefs. But I was not referring to scientists religious or philosophical beliefs. I was referring to ID scientists' interpretations of scientific data, which are anathema to the reigning orthodoxy.

ID is a parasitic meme that feeds on the research done by mainstream science.

Are you saying that research and articles in scientific publications are not for public use and interpretation by all scientists?

Cordially,