1 2 3
Let's take the design of the human eye, shall we? One of three things must be true:
1. With all of its flaws (blind spot, locations of nerves and blood vessels), it wasn't designed
2. The designer was incompetent and unable to make it as fully effective as possible
3. The designer just prefers squid and other creatures whose eyes don't have the same flaws
Tell me which of these options makes the most sense.
9/19/2011 7:22:21 AM
Casey Luskin is a shill for the ID lobby. ID has been debunked by science, and completely destroyed in court.
Critisism isn't beinf silenced. It's just that if you are spouting nonsense, you will get called on it, and you will be ridiculed, and not taken seriously. If you write a paper that essentially says "God did it", you will be laughed out of the scientific community.
9/19/2011 7:38:55 AM
= POPE =
If someone's mommy had told them the mud pie in their hand was a big lump of dirt instead of pretending that it was the most marvelous and thoughtful gift ever, we might have a little less of this going on. Even if you wrote it yourself, it's still crap when it's crap. The standards are well documented.
Choosy mothers choose Jif!
9/19/2011 7:50:20 AM
In the annals of human depravity, Elsberry's alleged schadenfreude certainly eclipses the mass murder of millions of inconvenient ethnicities. Convene a trial at the Hague!
9/19/2011 7:51:43 AM
Ah Wing Nut Daily.
Where science means "bigfoot" sightings and secret bible code.
9/19/2011 8:10:31 AM
@Mister Spak: That quote could've come straight out of Ken Ham's mouth, except Adolf didn't follow it with a plea for money.
9/19/2011 8:28:26 AM
I'm no expert, but I think a paper has to be scientific to be considered a scientific paper.
I really think, though, that scientists should allow papers on ID to be published in their scientific journals, but only under a "humor & satire" section.
9/19/2011 8:35:04 AM
"I really think, though, that scientists should allow papers on ID to be published in their scientific journals, but only under a "humor & satire" section."
To be fair and balanced, they should also include geocentric astronomers and Hogwarts faculty.
9/19/2011 8:49:36 AM
Pseudoscience articles are routinely rejected by peer-reviewed journals. Shock and disbelief. How does scientific literature dare to be selective?
9/19/2011 8:58:00 AM
The day a truly well researched paper clearly demonstrating intelligent design is written, it will get published. The problem is none have ever been written. They're all garbage because intelligent design is not science, it's religion in disguise.
9/19/2011 9:20:38 AM
You seem to be confusing untrue with completely true. Not a single paper on Intelligent Design has ever been published in a peer-review journal because Intelligent Design does not hold up under the intense scrutiny these papers demand, and proponents of ID know this. That's why they prefer to publish their crap in books that are published by organizations that are set up specifically to advance creationism.
9/19/2011 10:06:30 AM
Ellis, that is how science works. When a paper is submitted for paper review it WILL be savaged by the reviewers. It does not matter what the topic is, the process is exactly the same. If no significant fault can be found, despite the best efforts of the reviewers, then and only then will it possibly be approved for publication.
The question is not why are ID papers being ripped to shreds by reviewers. That is their job, it is part of science. The question is, why do the writers of articles on ID think they can get a free ride to publication and still call what they do "science?"
9/19/2011 10:13:37 AM
So you are claiming censorship, yet the only evidence you have is the word of the Discover institutes "attack" dog with a reputation of lying describing a meeting about a pro science advocate who rejoices when a ID paper is rejected.
Even if what Lieskin says is true then it's hardly censorship to be happy thaat peer review is doing what it is supposed to and ensuring that pseudoscience is not published.
9/19/2011 10:37:22 AM
Yeah, there's a reason for that - Intelligent Design is complete horseshit.
9/19/2011 10:50:59 AM
Those papers aren't blocked. They're flushed.
9/19/2011 11:50:58 AM
Gestapo tactics: coming to your house in the middle of the night, arresting you, taking you to a secret location, interrogating and torturing you, then sending you to a concentration camp.
"Darwin lobby" (ie vast majority of scientists): Asserting that "Intelligent Design" lacks any evidence.
These two things are not similar.
9/19/2011 12:15:56 PM
I'd go with option three. After all, why wouldn't Cthulhu favour cephalopods? He made them in His image, after all.
9/19/2011 1:08:39 PM
Your so called "papers" were rejected because they were fucking jokes and not serious research papers!
9/19/2011 1:17:38 PM
Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, World Net Daily.
One of these things is not like the others...
9/19/2011 1:20:24 PM
There's no mystery or nazi-esque conspiracy about it: Use the real scientific method to prove your hypothesis, and you will be published in real scientific journals. That is the standard ALL studies are held to, not just yours.
9/19/2011 2:46:54 PM
When scientists are unanimously rejecting your theory, that means you're bullshitting people, not that there's some super-conspiracy.
If you need more proof that this is the case, imagine the uproar you people would make if ACTUAL PROOF for creationism was discovered. You would berate the scientists for ignoring that evidence, right? But look at your statement again; there is no proof, just hot air and an accusation of conspiracy.
9/19/2011 2:53:43 PM
I love this.
You know what Luskin is so upset with Mr. Elsberry about in this specific case? Elsberry helped work to get an ID propaganda paper withdrawn from a journal.
A journal of mathematics.
And the paper was dealing with the second law of thermodynamics.
The IDiots aren't even bothering to deal with evolution in, you know, biology. They know that the people who are actually experts in the field would laugh them out. So they go to get their paper published in a journal dedicated to a completely different field. And then they try to hide their real agenda underneath the mask of physics. (Physics they don't understand -- the paper in question delivered the "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics canard.) And even then, they aren't submitting to a physics journal either. And then they get called out on how wrong they are by Dr. Elsberry (who, I believe, is a marine biologist).
9/19/2011 3:03:58 PM
Intelligent design scientist is an oxymoron. There is no science in intelligent design.
9/19/2011 3:05:21 PM
Maybe it's because all the claims in these papers have been proven false?
No, that couldn't be it.
9/19/2011 3:40:55 PM
@Angua- That's freaking hilarious! No wonder he's pissed off, he was trying to cheat and got caught. It's the same reaction I get when I catch creationists quote mining: they get super pissed and start lashing out at me.
9/19/2011 5:43:41 PM
1 2 3