Re: OT Intelligent Design and is this really way way off topic


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>A more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist*
> >>the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public
> >>trough. This is once of the principal sources of the
> >>intertia in the science establishment IMO.
> >
> >
> > That could become true if the 'science establishment'
> > backslides to the point where it must placate the
> > 'religiosu establishment' to avoid a fiery demise tied
> > to a stake.
>
> Hey, if the science establishment wishes to not be
> under the scrutiny of populist politics (which I think
> we both agree damages science) it ought to find private,
> voluntary funding for both research and schools.
> Then no elected school board could dictate much of anything.

Populist politics funds _some_ of the 'science establishment'
because it receives a return on that investment. That
return will be reduced if populist politics begins to
micromanage the 'science establishment'.


> <SNIP>
> >
....
>
> >
> >
> >>The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it
> >>hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here
> >>rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe
> >>that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these
> >>matters.
> >
> >
> > You, for example, are not merely 'daring to question'
> > evolutionary biology. You accuse 'the science establishment'
> > in general and in particular editors and peer reviewers
> > of supressing papers, claiming the motive for this
> > conspiracy is 'adherance to scientific orthodoxy'.
> > I daresay demonization is apt.
>
> That's not exactly the emphasis of my accusation.

You've made multiple accusations. 'Adherance to
scientific orthodoxy' is a quote from one of them.

> My
> emphasis is that the science establishment, faced
> with a political environment (public school) has appeared
> to be running from the fight rather than confront it.
> It makes some of us wonder just why. I do not attribute
> any particularly Machiavellian motive to this at all.

The American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association
quite debating the tobacco companies because the tobacco
companies got more benefit from the existance of the debate
than they lost from the content of the debate itself.
That, and the tobacco companies also used the debates
as a platform from which to disseminate outright lies.

One expects the Christian Coalition to do the same.

>
> >
> >
> >><SNIP>
> >>
> >>>"Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
> >>>in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
> >>>than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty
> >>
> >>That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author"
> >>theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not.
> >
> >
> > But that doesn't change the fact that the esential element
> > of each is "God did it".
>
> The essential elment of the *metaphysics* is "God did it",
> but this is not necessarily presupposed in the scientific
> claims of such theories - at least some of them.

I don't agree.

> Moreover,
> Science ought to remain completely mute to the statement
> that "God did it" because it has nothing to offer in either
> support or refutation. Whether the Universe operates by
> magic, having sprung forth from a burst of smoke from
> Nothing Whatsoever, or is the product of a creating God
> involved in His creation at every quanta is not a question
> Science can remotely address.

Agreed. That is pretty much what I say.


> This does not keep a good
> many Scientists from treating Theists like idiot children.
>

Certainly being a scientist does not preclude being an
***.

> >
> >
> >>
> >>>"Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical
> >>>constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine
> >>>intervention.
> >>
> >>Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are
> >>theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their
> >>*claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the
> >>hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their
> >>claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others
> >>in the community of scientists seem to have.

Scientific journals have minimum standards for publication. Off-
hand I expect that ID papers typically do not meet those standards.
Scientifc journals do not exist to 'give a hearing' to religiously
motivated zealots even if they *claim* to have scientific
evidence that supports their faith.

Astrolgers *claim* to have scientific evidence to support
their conclusions too.

> >
> >
> > Asuming for the moment that ID papers are being rejected, why
> > is it so hard for you to believe that they are being rejected
> > because they do not rise to the objective standards of the
> > journals to which they have been submitted.
>
> Because I have read/heard far more ad homina commentary from
> people defending establishment science than I have seen/heard
> thoughtful refutation. This may be a knowledge problem on
> my part. So, if you can direct me to a clear refutation of
> ID that points out why it has no merit being considered as Science,
> I'm all eyes ...

No, I encourage you to read 'ID' papers that
were ostensibly rejected and compared them to papers that
were published.

>
> >
> > You seem to be saying "So what if the paper may be a bad paper, how
> > could it hurt to publish it." Publishing a bad paper hurts plenty
> > and that is why journals have peer review.
>
> Oh c'mon. There are plenty of lousy or marginal papers published
> in all manner of Scientific journals.

I bet you'll have a hard time finding some examples that compare
to those ID papers that were ostensibly rejected.

....
>
> >
> > Don't you think that the people suing school boards would sieze
> > upon the publication of any paper, no matter how bad or how
> > thoroughly disproved and present it as proof of an issue in
> > controversy?
> >
> > The IDers are desparate to get a paper referring to God published
> > because they want to use it as a means of forcing religious
> > teaching back into the public schools.
>
> Again, the foul here is having public schools in the first place.
> ...

Not a topic I care to discuss.

....
> >
> > ... However, I will point out that there are legions
> > of scientists who believe in God and practice a variety of religions
> > who also regard ID as unscientific.
>
> I would be grateful for a cite here.
>

While I am sufficiently interested in the matter to read
something about a poll of that sort when a headline catches
my eye I am not sufficiently intersested to research it at
this time. As I am wont to say "Google is your friend."

--

FF

.

Loading