Riiiiiight.
If someone who doubts evolution dared respond that the system is prejudiced to prevent such publication, the snickers began. As can be clearly seen in this case, that prejudice not only exists, but exists and is acted upon with academic/scientific brutality. The evolutionists set out with clear intent of a career assasination of this man, and he's not even an ID proponent. He was simply the overseer of a magazine who, after the article was reviewed and deemed fit for publication by renowned scientists, dared to let those evil words of dissent be printed.
The reaction he encountered is of course identical to what we see playing out on the issue from the non-scientist evolutionists, as well. A tiny sticker hidden in the front of a textbook must be shut down. A thirty-second statement designed to be read in a class room must be silenced. Any deviation at all from the Darwin Dogma must be crushed quickly and without mercy.
Back to the world of scientific publishing for a moment, there is no reason at all to believe that the attitudes uncovered here are somehow magically isolated to the Smithsonian. In fact, it's a total and utter violation of common sense to believe such a thing. It's starkly clear, and has been for a long time to many of us, that dissent is not welcome, indeed not tolerated. To even entertain the notion that evolutionists have it wrong is career suicide for the vast majority of scientists. Thus they keep their mouths shut, no matter what they believe, and the facade/lie of virtual unanimity is preserved.
Thankfully, more are speaking out and this is a welcome case of fighting back against the ridiculous scientific tyranny that has existed around this issue for so very long. As I've pointed out before, if evolution (as commonly taught) were a truly defensible theory, its proponents would welcome the opportunity to publicly humiliate the other side through plain old debate and discussion of the issues. It's not, so they behave exactly the way liberals behave regarding race or any other sensitive issue: Shout down the opposition, make them out to be fools for daring to offer up their ludicrous thoughts. Chuckle, chortle, and point, so the rubes will slink quietly away and think long and hard before daring to open their mouths again. If that doesn't work, scorch the very Earth they walk on.
MM
How exactly do you "debate" with someone whose entire argument is based on a belief in a higher being? That isn't something any scientist should take on. That's not in our realm of expertise.
And you're ignoring the other half of this. Any scientific theory, as you so gleefully point out, must be open to refutation. If you wish to make ID a scientific theory, you must open it to the possibility of refuting it, and therefore, the existence of God. I think I could get a pretty good start on that just reading the daily headlines.
Now, if you say that you can't refute the existence of God, you're turning ID into a philosophical argument and a religious based idea, not a scientific theory. If that's the case, it doesn't belong in a science class.
What next? God makes things fall down, don't teach gravity?
They did say "credible". "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" is to the major peer-reviewed journals as a local church bulletin is to a papal encyclical from the Vatican. As a recent review has commented:
The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) is a respected, if somewhat obscure, biological journal specializing in papers of a systematic and taxonomic nature, such as the description of new species. A review of issues in evolutionary theory is decidedly not its typical fare, even disregarding the creationist nature of Meyer’s paper. The fact that the paper is both out of the journal’s typical sphere of publication, as well as dismal scientifically, raises the question of how it made it past peer review.
But in any case, you're entirely missing the point, which is common for creationists. Getting something (*anything*) published in some (*any*) peer-reviewed journal is hardly a major step. It's not like a hypothesis has "arrived" when it has managed a single peer-reviewed publication. Indeed, that's just the very *first* small step. What was funny about "ID" is that despite long years of blustering, and many mass-market books, speeches, etc. about how it was somehow on the verge of bringing evolution tumbling down, it hadn't even bothered (or been able) to make even the VERY FIRST tiny step towards any sort of scientific legitimacy. It has been nothing but a PR campaign.
Thus, the scientific establishment's snickering about how ID claims to be "a new science", when it hadn't even been able to muster *any* papers worthy of publishing in the journals, *anywhere*.
Now, they've *FINALLY* managed to squeak a severely flawed paper into an obscure journal. Hardly a thing to be overly proud of. And, true to form, the IDers are beating the drums mightily over that small baby step, firing up the PR machines, and trying to imply that by gosh, *now* they've actually passed the most important kind of validation that really matters, they've been "accepted" as a "real science", and the rest is just detail work... ROFL!
Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. But *you've* fallen for their propaganda, I see.
If someone who doubts evolution dared respond that the system is prejudiced to prevent such publication, the snickers began.
And very rightly so.
As can be clearly seen in this case, that prejudice not only exists, but exists and is acted upon with academic/scientific brutality.
Yawn. The only "prejudice" is that shoddy papers shouldn't make it through the review process, and when they have, it's time to find out why, and who's responsible for failure.
The evolutionists set out with clear intent of a career assasination of this man, and he's not even an ID proponent.
Where in the hell did you get *that* wrong idea? Yes, he *is* an "ID proponent".
He was simply the overseer of a magazine who, after the article was reviewed and deemed fit for publication by renowned scientists, dared to let those evil words of dissent be printed.
Try to stick to the facts, please. You're just repeating the spin so far.
The reaction he encountered is of course identical to what we see playing out on the issue from the non-scientist evolutionists, as well. A tiny sticker hidden in the front of a textbook must be shut down.
AHEM -- you're leaving out that what's being objected to is the REQUIREMENT for such a sticker. It's the *creationists* who are trying to get their way by force on that issue.
A thirty-second statement designed to be read in a class room must be silenced.
No, the REQUIREMENT of a false and misleading "disclaimer" must be resisted.
Any deviation at all from the Darwin Dogma must be crushed quickly and without mercy.
You creationists are *such* drama queens.
Back to the world of scientific publishing for a moment, there is no reason at all to believe that the attitudes uncovered here are somehow magically isolated to the Smithsonian. In fact, it's a total and utter violation of common sense to believe such a thing. It's starkly clear, and has been for a long time to many of us, that dissent is not welcome, indeed not tolerated. To even entertain the notion that evolutionists have it wrong is career suicide for the vast majority of scientists. Thus they keep their mouths shut, no matter what they believe, and the facade/lie of virtual unanimity is preserved.
Blah, blah, blah. Feel free to cite a *qualified* paper which somehow got unfairly rejected. I'm not aware of a single one, and I doubt you are either. Hint: Junk like Meyer's isn't qualified, and shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. People are rightly upset about the lowering of ordinary standards. (Again, though, this is not the same as agreement with the personal abuse that some have engaged in. Scientists should not stoop to acting like the creationists.)
Thankfully, more are speaking out and this is a welcome case of fighting back against the ridiculous scientific tyranny that has existed around this issue for so very long.
Yeah, those scientists, insisting that papers actually not be fatally flawed. How DARE them.
Look, it's not *OUR* fault the creationists haven't been able to produce anything *worth* publishing in a science journal.
As I've pointed out before, if evolution (as commonly taught) were a truly defensible theory,
It is.
its proponents would welcome the opportunity to publicly humiliate the other side through plain old debate and discussion of the issues.
We do. However, science journals are not the place for "plain old debate". They are the place for papers to be published which meet minimum standards, at least. Meyer's paper wasn't up to those standards, but it slipped through anyway.
It's not, so they behave exactly the way liberals behave regarding race or any other sensitive issue: Shout down the opposition, make them out to be fools for daring to offer up their ludicrous thoughts.
You have a vivid imagination. Yes, we point out when creationists are acting like fools. Unfortunately, there are so many targets. No, we do not "shout them down", unless you want to count burying them in evidence which supports evolution, and falsifies various creationist assertions.
Chuckle, chortle, and point, so the rubes will slink quietly away and think long and hard before daring to open their mouths again. If that doesn't work, scorch the very Earth they walk on.
Drama queening again...
Go ahead, feel free to discuss THE SCIENCE if you think you can. But the fact that most of the creationists prefer to instead whine and moan about a few folks being jerks to Sternberg, to the exclusion of just about all else, and conflate it into a Big Scientific Conspiracy, gives the strong impression that you guys really don't have any argument on the actual merits of the science.