|
Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/21/2008 6:35:26 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
No, I am talking about ID research. Where is it? Quit running away from your claims.
Already given.
quote:
That is analogous to me stepping outside and claiming I have my own atmosphere. There is no such thing as "their own peer review". Either these papers are reviewed by the best scientists in the field or they are not.
The "best" is a subjective word. As I have already demonstrated, the secular community unfairly discriminates against creationists and ID advocates.
quote:
As noted by someone before, the response you have quoted relates to the "Letters" section, not the "Reports" section. But you are right, they are unlikely to print peer reviewed ID work for one very good reason: it doesn't exist.
They are unlikely to print it because it contradicts naturalism. That's why they refused to print Humphry's work, admitting that they are unlikely to print creationist work. It's not that Creationists and ID advocates don't want to do research (they do privately funded research while evolution must rely on public fundings), it's that those who are in charge of public fundings dishonestly discriminate against anything that may question naturalism.
quote:
Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
The fact of the matter is that people questioning naturalism have tried to publish their work, but anything that may question naturalism automatically gets discriminated against. The secular community denies grants to those who may question naturalism, but they only grant tax money to researchers who do not. This dishonesty needs to stop.
quote:
Then show me up. How are these hypotheses testable in the lab.
Read it.
quote:
All I keep finding are papers on evolution.
No, they are ID research.
quote:
Hmf, where is it? Be specific. Show me where ID is specifically applied.
You already quoted it (but you choose to ignore it). For instance
quote:
Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines.
They are applying ID to their research.
You also keep ignoring the fact that UCD is unfalsifiable and ID is falsifiable. ID makes predictions, UCD does not. ID predicts that IC and SC structures like the flagellum (or the DNA for it) will not emerge independently of design or independently of existing IC and SC structures. This is falsifiable. UCD makes no predictions. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it didn't falsify UCD. Feel free to keep ignoring though.
I mean, the best evidence for UCD you can come up with is poor circular reasoning. They base alleged phylogeny/relationships on evolutionary assumptions and then they base UCD assumptions on alleged phylogenetic relationships. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it didn't falsify UCD, the fact is that UCD is unfalsifiable. ID, OTOH, is falsifiable.
Show me evolution producing new organs, organ systems, limbs, flagella, body plans, appendages, etc... or the DNA for them. These things look designed, they contain characteristics of things we design. We try to design and build cells in a lab (though we don't yet have the technology to do so), we don't ever see nature produce IC and SC systems independent design or independent such systems. Why should I believe nature somehow produced them independent of design? Just because you can classify them into some classification system? Show me nature producing these systems independent design and independent the existence of these systems or else I have no reason to believe that they are a product of evolution.
quote:
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
Again, just like in the case of Gentry, they discriminated against Humphry only after they knew he was a creationist. They are far less likely to publish the work of a creationist, they unfairly discriminate against creationists. Even science admits discrimination. Then they publish the work of someone else who basically came up with similar conclusions. You keep choosing to ignore the evidence but I think you are smart enough to know that the secular community dishonestly discriminates against scientists that may question naturalism.
Back with the case of Gentry
quote:
When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.
(link above).
Again, only after it was known Gentry was a creationist did Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminate Gentry's connection with them. There does exist unfair discrimination against those that may question naturalism and it still exists (they try to make it less obvious now, though I'm sure those at ISU that sent E - Mails to one another strongly implying that Gonzalez's ID position was the reason for his denial and then publicly denying it didn't intend that their E - Mails would go public. I'm sure now they would try harder to ensure that they don't get caught in the future). It needs to stop.
|
|
|
|