Wow...This might be pretty good. And whats perfect is that Stein is not directly supporting Christianity. He simply is saying that evolutionists are suppressing the evidence and the truth in a "take it or leave it manner" smart one he is
If ID were science they would be using their considerable funds to do science and publish it in scientific journals. Instead we see silly stuff like this and no research.
Hey second comment guy, the ID scientist ARE doing science and research as well as trying to publish it. What Stein is saying is these scientists are suppressed. Thats why we never see their research in the journals.
Suppression of free speech is unconstitutional, and therefore a crime in America. IF any of you have any evidence that a crime has been committed, you are obligated to take said evidence to the appropriate law-enforcement authorities, not to a blog. Is there any public record of anyone having filed a complaint or lawsuit in this regard, anywhere in America?MArtin: In a previous thread, I asked you to provide specific examples of specific "ID science" works suppressed by evolutionists; you didn't even try to answer the question, and the conversation ended then 'n' there. Care to try again here?You IDers have had over 150 years to do whatever actual scientific work was required to debunk evolution and prove your "theory." During most of that time, public opinion, and government policy, was not so strongly against you that ALL of your scientific work could be suppressed and buried for all that time. No conspiracy is ever that effective. (Besides, if there's such a powerful conspiracy to suppress your scientific work, why haven't we suppressed your political activism as well?)Until I see some evidence, I'll have to conclude that all this "persecution" talk is nothing but a lame excuse for your failure to bring anything to the table.
Has anyone filed a lawsuit or criminal complaint in regard to such alleged suppression of free speech? If so, can someone point us to the public record of such litigation?
Whoa Motheral, All i said was that STEIN (not me but Stein) claims that the scientists are being suppressed and discriminated against because of their beliefs. If I'm naive I apologize. But I have to admit that I am a skeptic of Christianity and ID. If Stein wants to try and prove me wrong I'll let him. Think of him as a conservative Michael Moore.
one last thing Motheral. Stein's movie is merely a presentation of that EVIDENCE you are seeking. However if that evidence is bogus and propaganda then i defer to you.But go see this presentation and just try and enter the theater with an open mind.peace
I suspect this will contain significantly less intelligent material than his show "Win Ben Stein's Money" which of course had classic categories such as: "Keep your hands off my Balzac."EVERY pseudo-science claims they are not treated fairly by the mainstream establishment. As Behe admitted, if we consider ID a science, we must consider astrology a science. Hell, why not include pseudo-history--you've heard about those guys that claim all history before the middle ages was made up by monks, right? What? No? It must be because of the dictatorial nature of history departments all across the world to freeze out the neochronologists. They won't even let them publish in reputable journals.Let's get real. ID is poor science, and has produced nothing but pseudophilosophical claims.
In response to the 2:30 AM comment guy.Consider this; An Inconvenient Truth was released to the public last year right? Well I personally was hugely skeptical on the global warming at the time. I thought it was ridiculous considering the contradicting data i had seen. However I saw the film and was pleasantly surprised at its believability though it didn't change my views. The point is that when someone receives enough money (Millions i think) to produce a presentation of evidence one can't blow it off. Secondly consider what Darwin's peers must have thought of his theory. Didn't they first look at his findings and then believe? Or did they blow off his theories without even hearing him out. Lastly ID claims are very important and should be considered because they could disprove the most powerful scientific theory ever: Darwin's theory of evolution.That my friend is why Stein shouldn't be blown off.peace
Wow, you're the most incompetent "truthseeker" I've ever met...Well I personally was hugely skeptical on the global warming at the time. I thought it was ridiculous considering the contradicting data i had seen.Please show me the data that contradict the photographic-historical record of shrinking glaciers.Also, you're WAAAY behind the rest of the denialists on this issue: they no longer dispute that global warming is taking place, they just deny it's caused by human action. Yes, even denialists have to keep up on their research...no rest for the weary, eh?The point is that when someone receives enough money (Millions i think) to produce a presentation of evidence one can't blow it off.So if a South American drug-lord says the Earth is flat, we can't blow him off, even after we've blown off numerous street-loonies who said the same thing?Secondly consider what Darwin's peers must have thought of his theory. Didn't they first look at his findings and then believe? Or did they blow off his theories without even hearing him out.Actually, many scientists did indeed take him seriously from the beginning, at least to the extent of making serious honest efforts to disprove the theory. They -- the scientific community, that is -- did NOT conspire to censor, silence and bury his work, and his book, for the most part, was published, distributed and peer-reviewed with impunity.Lastly ID claims are very important and should be considered because they could disprove the most powerful scientific theory ever: Darwin's theory of evolution.You're behind the curve again: ID's claims WERE important, until they were all refuted and discredited. Check out the "Index to Creationist Claims," and I think you'll find all of ID's claims exposed as ignorant at best.PS: None of you have answered my question regarding suppression-of-free-speech litigation, criminal or civil. A movie made by a former game-show host and ad-man doesn't count. Am I to conclude that no one has an actual case here?
Motheral you've never met me and probably never will which is a pity. we would have many things to discuss. However as for a truthseeker yes I am not well schooled and i apologize for being naive.
Motheral has said:Martin: In a previous thread, I asked you to provide specific examples of specific "ID science" works suppressed by evolutionists; you didn't even try to answer the question, and the conversation ended then 'n' there. Care to try again here?I feel a little deja vu again, since I have discussed the Richard Sternberg case several times before. But here is just a snippet of what the U. S. Office of the Special Counsel said about the case of Richard Sternberg, who had published Stephen C. Meyers article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" (an article favorable to ID) in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer reviewed scientific journal.Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions and even proposals to change how the SI retains and deals with future RAs. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.The rest can be read here: http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm.There were efforts to get him fired, his political and religious background was investigated, false allegations were made against him, he was pressured to reveal peer reviewers against contrary to professional ethics, and a nice hostile work environment was created by the nice open-minded pro-evolution crowd.This is the treatment any editor can expect to receive who publishes a pro-ID article. In light of what happened to Sternberg, maybe Motheral could give us the names of the scientific journals that are willing to seriously consider a pro-ID article.
Anonymous,You said: As Behe admitted, if we consider ID a science, we must consider astrology a science.Obviously implying that ID is not science. They you said:Let's get real. ID is poor science, and has produced nothing but pseudophilosophical claims.This implies that ID is science, but not good science. Which is it? Is ID not science at all, or poor science?
"If ID were science they would be using their considerable funds to do science and publish it in scientific journals. Instead we see silly stuff like this and no research."Anoymous, By this reasoning we could just as easily say that if global warming were science, Al Gore would be using his considerable funds to do science and to publish it in scientific journals. Instead we see silly stuff like AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and no research.It's funny how we can take statements of poor logic and so easily plug into them new nouns. Once you neglect sound reasoning, anything goes.
I was going to leave a comment, but my spy sweaper informs me that a troj/vbsDL-A is trying to install on my system. Oddly, this is the only web site I have looked at so far this evening.
Martin,If you wish to parse words, how about a poor attempt at science, in the same way neochronology is a poor attempt at historiography. Or as astrology is a poor cosmology (or whatever it is).
You certainly have stirred them up on this one, Martin. I would much rather watch this movie this Christmas than endure the atheistic Golden Compass.
There were efforts to get him fired...Last I checked, he still had his job after the dispute ended. You call that persecution?...he was pressured to reveal peer reviewers against contrary to professional ethics...Since when was it "contrary to professional ethics" to reveal who peer-reviewed one's work? Since when was peer-review supposed to be done anonymously? This charge is pure nonsense.If you really want to spin the Sternberg affair as a "persecution" story, you might want to address the points made in this article and supporting material:http://www.scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.phpYour fixation on Sternberg proves your "persecution" excuse for ID's scientific vacuousness is pure crap. Sternberg is just one person, and not a leading light of ID. How do you explain everyone else's failure to support ID with actual science?
Motheral,You said:Since when was it "contrary to professional ethics" to reveal who peer-reviewed one's work? Since when was peer-review supposed to be done anonymously? This charge is pure nonsense.Since when? Oh, I don't know--since the practice of scientific research reached maturity? Look, you need to become a little more familiar with how research works before you make public statements about it.Here is the basic position from the Council of Science Educators:Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the designated review process unless necessary and approved by the editor. Material submitted for peer review is a privileged communication that should be treated in confidence, taking care to guard the author's identity and work. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and should not use the knowledge of their content for any purpose unrelated to the peer-review process. Although it is expected that the editor and/or reviewers will have access to the material submitted, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will remain strictly confidential.That's under the section "Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers".You can read more here: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/2-3_reviewer.cfmThis is a basic, rock-bottom aspect of peer review and isn't even debatable.
What science journal does Martin Cothran review papers for? What science paper has Martin Cothran ever perr reviewed for a science journal?
Martin: sorry, the URL I tried to post got truncated.Read this article, and the supporting references, regarding the Sternberg case, and see if you can justify Sternberg's conduct. (Yes, the blog post itself is heavily biased, but it does contain factual allegations and references that you should be able to deal with, one way or another.)
Anonymous,Are you saying that only people who publish in peer reviewed journals can say anything about whether confidentiality is a part of the peer review process?Is that your argument?
Post a Comment