ID proponents could put a rather rapid end to their persecution simply by publishing a testable hypothesis that is consistent with currently available data, and which projects data yet to be found.
One can only characterize as crank science, a conjecture that asserts an unspecified entity did something at some unspecified time using unspecified methods for unknown reasons.
It is difficult to argue against the proposition that a entity having infinite capabilities might have been the cause of everything we see. Perhaps gravity really is a manifestation of angels pushing and pulling things around. Prove otherwise.
Science, of course, does not attempt to prove otherwise. It simply asks the question, “Can we find regularities in nature that obviate the need for hypothesising demiurges having arbitrary means, methods and motives?” Anyone not asking this question is not engaging in science.
I still haven’t received an answer to my question about whether you are authorized to publish Dembski’s writings under your Freerepublic screen name. If not, you have exposed FR to possible legal consequences.
A true scientist would welcome Marks’ research as an excellent opportunity to test theories and as a challenge to do better. Other responses but reflect on that person’s character.
If you looked at Prof. Marks work, he has impressive credentials and is one of the nation’s leaders in the field.
At the University of Washington, where Prof. Marks was on faculty for 26 years, he ran The Computational Intelligence Applications Lab. Prof. Marks ran it, with no approval from anybody, with Mohamed El-Sharkawi. They wrote numerous papers together and got millions in grants for this lab.
I think a music scholar (The college president, John Lilley) telling Dr. Marks what he can and can’t pursue scientifically has to be the height of presumption.
Now if as you say you want a testable hypothesis published, why not let the group that Prof. Marks leads to continue their work so that they CAN publish the results of their work ?
THEN, after they do publish their work, you can actually critique it.
You can’t call it crank science when the VERY ENDEAVOR itself ( open for all to observe and critique) is shut down from the beginning. You call it crank, I call it intellectual suppression.
Again, Is it any wonder why a vast majority of Americans don’t take Darwinism seriously ? Do yoy think supporting this suppression is going to help the Darwinist cause ? If reason and evidence are on the Darwinist’s side, what is there to fear ?