Replies

ID does not get published because it doesn't have anything to say -- at least not yet. For an ID article to be publishable it would have to make some testable assertion.

Yes, js1138. That's what Doc said, too. On that basis, it will never be publishable. For how is one going to put the Intelligent Designer on the stage such that he/she/it might be "tested?" It seems the Darwinists are insisting they will settle for nothing less, and it (obviously) cannot happen.

Pretty neat way to ditch the whole issue, no?

This is why ID and Creationism are not science. Therefore neither (nor is Zoroastrianism nor Last Thursdayism) belongs in a science class. If admittedly not doing science, Creationists should not expect to be published in a scientific journal. (For that matter, pure math papers don't belong in Bible Archeology either.)

One of my objections to the ID-Creationism crowd is that their continual attempts in disrupting science with admittedly non-scientific approaches. Their actions are essentially equivalent to those of the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists.

On that basis, it will never be publishable. For how is one going to put the Intelligent Designer on the stage such that he/she/it might be "tested?" It seems the Darwinists are insisting they will settle for nothing less, and it (obviously) cannot happen.

What Doctor Stochastic just said.

Please listen to yourself think. The essential ingredient in science is testability. Some scientific hypotheses sit in limbo for decades because they cannot be tested with current technology. That is why you see threads devoted to the recent testing of the speed of gravity -- the math and the predictions have been around for three quarters of a century, but could not be tested.

But anything taught as science must be testable in principle.

If ID has any meaning at all, it must propose some discovery that would support it, or it must propose a hypothetical discovery that would discredit it (this has already been done).

Several posters have asserted that certain key phenomena required by evolution have never been observed and never will be. Fine. Quantify that.

Yes, js1138. That's what Doc said, too. On that basis, it will never be publishable. For how is one going to put the Intelligent Designer on the stage such that he/she/it might be "tested?" It seems the Darwinists are insisting they will settle for nothing less, and it (obviously) cannot happen.

You cannot prove or disprove god scientifically, therefore God CANNOT be use in science, how many times must I repeat this before you creationist/ID'rs get it?

Pretty neat way to ditch the whole issue, no?

No, it's creationism trying to get into science through a backdoor. Sorry, if you use god in your thesis then it is NOT science. No matter how many times you claim it is. ID uses god, therefore it can NEVER be considered science.

For how is one going to put the Intelligent Designer on the stage such that he/she/it might be "tested?"

It's really very straightforward. Devise a testable hypotheses. Set up a few very simple experiments. Preliminary results are publishable and can generate grant money. Mind you, it's what all scientists have to do. Why should IDers get a free pass?

Pretty neat way to ditch the whole issue, no?

On one level, it's a way of keeping junk out of journals. Junk still slips through--it's not a perfect system. On another level, it's how science is done.