[Coyoteman]

But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it.

False.

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

But there you encounter the problem: ID is religious belief masquerading as science. It has made a lot of claims, but it has produced no evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny. Even Behe has backed away from most of his earlier claims.

Look at the efforts of the Dyscovery Institute in support of ID. Check out their blogs. Most are authored by lawyers, with an occasional English major or journalist for diversity. Where is the science? What a joke!

[Chode]

where's the science??? it's all in the global warming arena.

[Grut]

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

Well, kinda. Science is a lot more accepting of arguments that say "current thinking is incomplete" than of those that say "current thinking is flat wrong."

[truthfinder9]

Even Behe has backed away from most of his earlier claims. Let's see, I'm reading his new book and it seems he is confirming everything he said 10 years ago in in his first book. If you're going to masquerade as an adult at least try to be believable.

[truthfinder9]

P.S. See how your honest, open-minded academics have tried to silence and edit debate with Behe:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/10/23/when_will_darwinists_accept_that_evidenc

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I see that you start with the same premise as that which IDers decry. Try this on for size, if you can't logically explain your position using deduction, induction and Occam's razor to the common layman, either your position is faulty or you don't understand your subject well enough.

Now I will be the first to agree that logic is not the be all and end all of science. There is more to science than that. But illogic has no place in scientific thinking.

Therefore, I ask you to *logically* explain your position about ID without resorting to argumentum ad hominum or question begging premises (circular logic). Any assumptions will, of course, have to be logically shown to be valid for the purposes of this discussion.

Since this is a logical exercise, then any falsifiability or testability arguments either for or against ID must be waived, since it must be conceded that both sides have problems in this regard. IOW, if a point is made using either of these arguments it is to be assumed that logic is being sidestepped, therefore the point is invalid.

A word to the wise. Be very careful about relying overmuch on "scientific evidence." Scientists seem to be wrong more often than not. As an example, I give you the evidence on climate change, which has flip-flopped at least four times in the last century - each time, the consensus of scientific opinion was absolutely certain they were correct.

Remember, this not a full-blown scientific enquiry, only an exercise in logic. The main purpose for suggesting this logical exercise is to let both sides see the logical strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. This is not designed to get people to change their minds (since it obviously won't do that), but it will force people to give reasonable apologia for their positions (something I wish our politicians would do).

For those who don't understand the logical rules I have stated, deduction is something you can absolutely show is true from the available facts (e.g. if a girl was 14 in January of 2006, then in June of 2007, it can be shown conclusively that she had passed her 15th birthday), induction is drawing reasonable conclusions with a high probability of accuracy without knowing absolutely for sure from the given facts (if a dog inside a house doesn't bark during a burglary, then it is reasonable to assume an inside job. However, there are burglars who have a way with animals, such that dogs won't bark at them. So while the odds are that it is an inside job, it is not conclusively so) and Occam's razor basically states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the answer you are looking for.

So, using the tools of deduction, induction and Occam's razor, en evant mes enfants. Let the games begin.

[DallasMike]

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

Right. Just like the "science" behind global warming.

[TASMANIANRED]

“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Sam Harris. The End of Faith

[philetus]

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge”

A few years ago they found Jericho and were amazed that the walls had fallen outward.

[jwatzzzzz]

But there you encounter the problem: EVOLUTION is religious belief masquerading as science.

[Pietro]

"All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence."

And where are they to bring it cman when all the doors are closed to them. When to mention "design" is career suicide.

I've always felt you are an honest observer and respect the way you defend your position, however, perhaps the adherents of your position could benefit from some sincere self examination.

The acadamie is held in low regard, and science, heretofore above the fray, is being dragged down w/ it. The same ostracization that is heaped on ID is being heaped on critics of climate change. The same iron grip. The same "junk".

The only thing evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

[taxesareforever]

And science masquerades as the elitist avenue to enlightenment. Back at ya. What a joke.

[RightOnline]

Who needs science to “prove” there is a God? I can tell you for a fact He’s far more real to me (and billions like me) than you are.

[AndyTheBear]

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

Try dissenting against CO2 driven global warming. You will find the computer models supporting this *theory* will trump evidence from the real world every time.

For example in reaction to learning the ice core records show that temperature change has consistently proceeded CO2 change by 200 to 800 years, climate *scientists* claimed that this only strengthened their theory.

Decades ago, Karl Popper wisely opined that theories that don't risk falsification should not be considered scientific. I find myself one of many very impressed at his insight in the matter.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

Not necessarily.

Max Planck was right. Science proceeds one funeral at a time.