1 2 3
That's because scientific journals don't allow fiction.
9/19/2011 6:31:55 PM
Fuck casey luskin he is an unrepentant pathological liar. Oh yeah not getting published is sooooo much like the Gestapo. Lol.
9/19/2011 6:56:48 PM
9/19/2011 9:06:15 PM
Stomping your feet and whining won't make ID any less of a pseudoscience.
9/19/2011 11:38:35 PM
If you believe in magic skymen who are their own father, can you really complain you're not taken seriously?
9/20/2011 1:38:07 AM
What these guys don't understand is that academia is not a kind of country club where you're accepted or not based in a God knows which kind of non written rules of the jour. They have outlined the last 200 years a number of criteria, whose application has led with success to many of the advances in technology we enjoy today, including the computer you're typing. If a creationist fails to meet those standards it's not fascism and all that jazz. He doesn't want to play by those rules, don't play. Period.
9/20/2011 3:09:30 AM
Too wordy, Ellis, allow me to paraphrase.
"Standards are bad because they discriminate against liars and idiots."
9/20/2011 5:07:59 AM
Since when does Darwin have a lobby or lobbyists? Science has a lobby, so does education. Charles Darwin? I think not.
9/20/2011 9:42:19 AM
Because papers in mainstream science journals need -among other things- to present evidence. The ID lobbyists have none. Go fuck yourself.
9/20/2011 9:55:26 AM
Yes, it is a conspiracy of nerds.
They "block" papers because they have no scientific merit, dumb ass.
9/20/2011 10:00:28 AM
Intelligent Design Scientist = ANOTHER oxymoron from Ellis!
If the charge in untrue, then this conspiracy you speak of can't be very effective can it?
Here's the problem fool, peer review scientific journals don't print crap and intelligent design is crap.
9/20/2011 4:43:26 PM
"Those papers aren't blocked. They're flushed."
Old Viking FTW!
9/20/2011 5:04:32 PM
Hey Ellis, if I write a bullshit pseudoscientific paper and try to get it published, I will get rejected too. It's because science papers have to be about science, and science is about experimentation, logical thinking and basing your conclusions on verifiable facts that can be determined through the scientific method. How many of those things do the ID articles contain, if any? What exactly is testable about ID? See, even if you could answer one of these questions, you'd probably be able to publish something ID related in a science journal, but failing that you will not. So stop molesting the high horse and shut the fuck up.
9/20/2011 10:47:28 PM
"You're stupid, piss off" isn't exactly censorship.
And surely they were published, look for your nearest port-o-john.
9/21/2011 2:26:35 AM
I'm puzzled as to why ID supporters are so keen on gaining scientific respectability. Their pitch is clearly philosophical/theological and goes back to the classical proofs for the existence of a Deity, now discredited. If they have anything worth saying it is to philosophers and theologians that they should be saying it. [Creationism, similarly, is a religious position first, a "scientific" one second]
My argument goes like this: if there is indeed an Intelligent Designer he either wants us to know of his existence or he doesn't. If he does, he's been such a lousy self-publicist that very few people have got the message, so perhaps he's not so intelligent after all; and if he doesn't, we shouldn't be trying to fathom his purposes, because he will have made himself inscrutable and we're wasting our time. Either way, ID is of no value and the scientific establishment is quite right to close ranks against it.
9/21/2011 11:02:50 AM
So, someone makes a paper that basically says "Goddidit" and suddenly "OMG, GESTAPO!"
9/22/2011 11:13:55 AM
1 2 3