[[Especially in highly technical complex subjects, there’s just no way the average citizen can distinguish truth from fraud]]
Sure htere is- We know huff and puff when we see it & know how to refute such fluff- it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see through the assumptions and claims that simply do NOT follow hte evidnece.
[[In those cases, only other experts in the field are really qualified to evaluate a scientist’s work.]]
That’s simply not true- again, anyone can look at hte evidnece and see whether it is scientifically supported OR if it’s just more claims that have no evidence to bakc htem up
[[And peer-review has another benefit: if you can convince your peers that your conclusions are valid, they can become your fan club, and help promote your ideas.]]
ONLY IF you don’t deviate from naturalism- the A priori belief in naturalism must be protecte at all costs- EVEN if it means ignoring those that bring conclusive evidence agaisnt hte claims- You can sit htere and pretend there isn’t an extreme bias against scientists who deviate fro mnaturalism- but the fact is you’re simpyl wrong-
You have no clue how ridiculous your words look, do you? Are you even sober? Do you care about your looks? Well then straighten up, fellow -- you look like a fool and a charlatan.
The fact is, science IS naturalism, period. If you don't like naturalism, then by definition you cannot be a scientist. You could be a philosopher or theologian or something else, but science by definition deals with the natural world, not the supernatural.
Creationism / Intelligent Design requires the totally unspecified intervention of a now undefined but unnatural factor -- a Creator or some Intelligence. But there's no basis in science for it, and that's why it's not science.