Replies

I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine, or retract your statement.

I have no intention of retracting my statement.

There is a big difference between restricting the theory that a teacher can use to explain data, on one hand, and burying the data itself, on the other.

I understand perfectly. However, to present a position contrary to Darwinian evolution would also mean presenting evidence (data) defending that view. We both know that's what the debate is all about. The reason you won't answer my question is that it would be an admission or a denial that such evidence exists. If the evidence exists, why isn't it being taught? On the other hand, to deny such evidence exists would be untenable. I suggest you re-read the comments and numerous citings on the site I posted.

When you come up with an example of the latter, which you charged, let me know.

I have no intention of searching for an example that would satisfy you. But let me invite any concerned parent to investigate their own system for themselves. This is not an argument about religion, it is an argument about academic freedom and intellectual honesty. If a debate exists within the scientific community, and we all know it does, why not let the kids in on the particulars?

So you have no intention of backing up your own charge? Nice.

However, to present a position contrary to Darwinian evolution would also mean presenting evidence (data) defending that view. We both know that's what the debate is all about. The reason you won't answer my question is that it would be an admission or a denial that such evidence exists. If the evidence exists, why isn't it being taught? On the other hand, to deny such evidence exists would be untenable. I suggest you re-read the comments and numerous citings on the site I posted.

What utter tripe. ID is not, in any way, about new or 'buried' data or evidence. It is about drawing a conclusion from data that is known and it not even slightly 'buried' or 'censored.'

Is there evidence from which one can draw the conclusion of an intelligent designer? Certainly. Is there evidence to which the scientific method can be applied to test that hypothesis? No. Could one look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion? Absolutely.

Bottom line, you charged that 'data' is being censored that would lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, and you continue to charge that, but you can't identify a single piece of data that is being censored.