> Does censorship belong in science?
No, but then again neither does superstitious claptrap like ID. Consequently, "censorship" in this area is like an observatory "censoring" papers on astrology.
“Richard von Sternberg, the holder of two PhDs in biology (one in theoretical biology, the other in molecular evolution).
‘snip’
"The article was "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," by Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge University PhD in the philosophy of biology. He's currently a senior fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute. In the essay, Meyer reviewed the work of scientists around the world — at places like Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, and the University of Chicago — who have cast doubt on whether Darwinian evolution can explain the sudden infusion of genetic "information" and the resulting explosion of between 19 and 34 new animal phyla (body plans) about 530 million years ago — the Cambrian Explosion.”
Hows many PhD's do you have? These are scientists from notable universities around the world.
The "theory" of evolution may yet go the way of the following other iron clad science of its day:
http://www.answers.com/topic/obsolete-scientific-theory
More to the point, what are these guys so afraid of. Supression is not Debunking.
You might want to stop drinking the koolaid, and really look into what ID claims.
The paper passed peer-review, and the peer-review file was checked and deemed appropriate by the president of the council. How is that superstitious? Have you even read the paper?
Well, genius, rest assured you will have no more say in the process than I will.
One day you will bow before God and confess ID is the truth. I promise you this.
How is it "superstitious" to attribute design to biological entities that function as machines? Can't remember the last time I got superstitious over seeing a car or a lawn mower, though I reckon there was a time when Indians became superstious over guns. But not for long.
The design involved with biological entities, by the accounts of evolutionism, must be far less complex or interesting than the design involved with cars and lawn mowers, which we somehow intuitivuely know to be intelligently designed. Which is easier to build from scratch: a lawn mower, or a blade of grass?
Consider a tornado in a junkyard how long would that tornado take to churn out a Lexus. How about a massive explosion sets all matter into motion then a billion billion years later all matter finally collapses into
itself no worse for the wear and resumes being nothing.
In either case all the energy expended science percieves
as undirected just jostling with other energy waves until
stuff just happens. Scientists could just boil their theroy down to "sh*t happens" put it on t-shirts and bumper stickers and be done with it.