Replies

Your reasoning is similar to that of gender and ethnic studies professors.

A very nice assertion... now we shall see if the reality fits the hype...

Dr. Shelby Steele recounts how he was approached by a gender studies professor following one of his speeches. The professor asked him why he was not a supporter of gender studies. If I recall correctly, Steele asked if the professor was studying anything that cannot already be studied in existing departments. The professor responded that what she studied could very well be studied in other departments, but “institutional bias” made it oh-so-difficult.

There's only one problem with your illustration...Gender studies department are OFFICIALLY recognized in many of our university and their so-called professors are TENURED and are *NOT* being hounded out of their positions. When they publish outrageous articles, few are demanding their ouster and they are SECURE in their position.

This isn't the case with those who even show a smattering of sympathy for Intelligent Design, like Sternberg, who was hounded to death for allowing an ID-Sympathetic article to be published in the proceedings. That's just one example by the way. I can count several others.

So... on this count alone the analogy you give is not apt at all. I wonder how many more bogus analogies there will be....

Steele then asked why she didn’t choose to publish in an existing department just to fight the good fight. The professor scoffed and left.

And here we go to the CRUX of the matter that's DIFFERENT. ID proponents WANT to have their papers in an existing department to fight the good fight, it is the existing status quo that is so closed minded, they won't allow them to be published. And when some article gets published, you see howls of protests and THREATS from Darwinists. What's the fear ? If you have reason on your side, you should be able to come back with a refuting article.

Doesn’t that “institutional bias” the professor blamed mirror the “witch hunt” you speak of?

Absolutely not as the DIFFERENCES I cited show.

That’s the key.

NOPE. The key does not fit.

You think that science wrongly brands creationism as a false science, even though creationism, creation science, and intelligent design all invoke the supernatural to explain natural phenomena.

Again, I repeat --- you are confusing Creationism with the Intelligent Design Movement the two share some similarities but are different. As I said before -- study the ID movement and you will be better educated.

So, why not fight the good fight and show that current science is wrong in its judgment?

That's EXACTLY what ID proponents are doing if in case you aren't paying attention ---- Trying to get their papers in peer reviewed journals ( even if biased people are fighting it ), getting their papers reviewed by scientists who are open-minded and sympathetic to their ideas, writing books, writing articles, arguing, reasoning, publishing, going on interviews, creating alternative educational materials... convincing people one at a time and of course -- DOING MAINSTREAM RESEARCH. This is part of fighting the good fight. What do you think these efforts are ( see the article in this thread ) ? Chopped liver ?

Use the weapon of the status quo, peer-reviewed journals,

Yes, and when they get published ( see the experience of poor Dr. Sternberg ), what kind of reception do they get ? Do they get scientific arguments ? Or do they get practically censored ?

to create a new status quo, one that places creationism in its rightful place as a science.

The more you write things like these, the more you show your ignorance of the ID movement.

Unless, of course, you’re afraid of being ridiculed for attempting to revert science back to pre-Renaissance standards.

Look who is talking.... First, eliminate the censorship and eliminate the threats of losing your job, and then we'll talk but not until.

And BTW, inspite of the fact that Darwinists in high positions are threatening ID sympathetic Scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez with loss of tenure, what has the censorship effort accomplished thus far ?

RESULT : THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT DARWINIST EXPECT.

A recent survey ( see other threads and this poll by USA TODAY : )

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_n.htm

show that MORE PEOPLE THAN BEFORE ( close to 70%) think that the statement, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” is definitely or probably true.

Makes me wonder how much public money Darwin lobbies in high science will screw out of US taxpayers in order to try to change their minds - with about as much success as they have had in the past - zilch.

SirLinksalot,

Thank you for leading me to the one of the founders of the Discovery Institute, Mr. Stephen C. Meyer.

It seems like he did, in fact, get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

Considering that Meyer is a founder of the DI, I'm surprised that in his testimony, Dr. Michael Behe claimed that there were no peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design. I would expect a senior fellow at DI to be well aware of such an event.

Anyway, we'll just see if intelligent design can get more papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

Hey, thanks for saving me a lot of time debunking this bozo’s baloney!

If you have more time, why don’t you try to explain to these ignoramuses that the first living cell has not and *cannot* be explained by purely natural, unguided mechanisms. That means that every single living cell in the world is essentially not just “evidence” of ID but *proof*.

Oh, but “ID cannot be observed,” they confidently (and cluelessly) assert. They might as well declare that the nose on their face “cannot be observed.”

I know I shouldn’t throw around some of the insults that I do, but the incredible ignorance that these guys proudly and arrogantly exhibit just rubs me wrong.

Let me just end with a relevant quote:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” —Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA and Nobel Laureate