Check for Evolutionists.

[Uphill Battle]

"For instance, if the exam was on astrophysics, and you simply do not believe that such and such was billions of lightyears removed from ourselves, you WILL NOT PASS."

"For instance, if the exam was on astronomy, and you simply do not believe that the earth revolves around the sun, you WILL NOT PASS."

The funny part is that all of these objections to scientific findings that have been well established and backed up by evidence a long time ago are based on RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS, not scientific ones.

"Let's try to interpret the facts in a manner that supports our religiously motivated conclusion" is not exactly a scientific approach. It's scholasticism.

I don't think any creationist out there would disagree with your first two points.

you move from an example to the absurd. Fairly put, to become accredited, you must ascribe to Evolutionary theory. Would any self respecting Evolutionary teaching institution graduate a disenter? please. And it is exactly that theory that is in debate. I did not debate the distance of stars (although I may debate the how of the distance) nor the mechanics of the solar system.

lets keep on topic.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Of course i dont understand , you are the only genious here right ?

 

[Danhalen]

I don't think any creationist out there would disagree with your first two points.

you move from an example to the absurd. Fairly put, to become accredited, you must ascribe to Evolutionary theory. Would any self respecting Evolutionary teaching institution graduate a disenter? please. And it is exactly that theory that is in debate. I did not debate the distance of stars (although I may debate the how of the distance) nor the mechanics of the solar system.

lets keep on topic.

What, exactly, makes you think ID is not absurd?

 

[Uphill Battle]

You know, conspiracy theorists are usually labeled as foolish. And you are basically claiming the entire worldwide science community is in on a conspiracy. Several million people of ALL FAITHS are somehow in on this.

GET REAL!!!!

I am not describing a conspiracy. I am describing a standard. It's really simple. I don't claim that they are out to "get" creationists, only that they will never accept their work, based on their own beliefs.

BTW, I don't feel the hostility is neccessary, we CAN argue in a semi-civil manner, can't we?

 

[KerrMetric]

I don't think any creationist out there would disagree with your first two points.

you move from an example to the absurd. Fairly put, to become accredited, you must ascribe to Evolutionary theory. Would any self respecting Evolutionary teaching institution graduate a disenter? please. And it is exactly that theory that is in debate. I did not debate the distance of stars (although I may debate the how of the distance) nor the mechanics of the solar system.

lets keep on topic.

But to a biologist those are equivalent levels of argument. Actually dissenters have graduated - though they are going to have trouble being hired to do research later on.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Kerrmetric , its too bad you cant back up anything with a little thing called evidence of what you are saying . You bashing people who disaree with you , is not evidence sorry .

 

[KerrMetric]

I am not describing a conspiracy. I am describing a standard. It's really simple. I don't claim that they are out to "get" creationists, only that they will never accept their work, based on their own beliefs.

BTW, I don't feel the hostility is neccessary, we CAN argue in a semi-civil manner, can't we?

It's based on the facts and the ability to perform science NOT beliefs. This is perhaps my biggest problem with creationists.

They try to make this sound like a disagreement like which ice cream tastes the best when it is actually the difference between those who can do the work and those who cannot.

There is NOT a democracy of ideas at work here - simply those who are correct at a basic fundamental level and cranks who are just, well, cranks.

 

[Danhalen]

I am not describing a conspiracy. I am describing a standard. It's really simple. I don't claim that they are out to "get" creationists, only that they will never accept their work, based on their own beliefs.

Here's the rub, creationists do not practice science. Therefore it logically follows that people who do practice science will not accept creationist work as science. Likewise, creationists will never accept scientific work as creationism.

Should evolution get equal time in the pew?

 

[KerrMetric]

Kerrmetric , its too bad you cant back up anything with a little thing called evidence of what you are saying . You bashing people who disaree with you , is not evidence sorry .

What???? I said they have no peer reviewed ID/Creation work. YOU HAVE SHOWN NOTHING OF THE SORT - basically because you cut/pasted a list which you didn't understand.

I stand by my comment. Behe and his cohorts have had no ID work accepted by mainstream science peer review.

 

[michabo]

Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books.[...]
and books (Discovery Institute 2005):

• Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press.

Peer-reviewed books, now. If there's ever a sign that these people have no idea what a peer review entails, this is it.


Anyway, I thought we might ask Behe directly what he thought of his own work and see if it really is "peer reviewed" and just how it stacks up. Fortunately, in the recent Kitzmiller v Dover trial, someone thought to do just that:

Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?
A. No, I argued for it in my book.
Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. That is correct, yes. (Source)

​

Behe says clearly that not only has Behe never submitted anything suporting ID (Creationism), but no one has. All of those articles that you linked don't even touch on ID/Creationism.

Looking at the book is worse. Behe tries to claim that "Pandas" was peer reviewed, but then we learn that the so-called peer reviewers hadn't ever read the book.

Here is the comment by Dr. Atchison, one of the "peer reviewers":

So unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am275I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later. (Source)

​

And this is what Behe calls peer review. That is simply ridiculous. Close to a bald-faced lie, I'd say. And to hear people here saying that books have been peer reviewed, when the editor only sent the book out to learn "who would be interested in buying the book?"


I don't expect much to come out of this, but at least recognize that KerrMetric has been scrupulously honest and accurate in his portrayal of Behe and the scientific process. He does this for a living. You may not like what he has to say, but the people lying to you are AiG, not him.

 

[michabo]

you move from an example to the absurd. Fairly put, to become accredited, you must ascribe to Evolutionary theory.

You must understand evolutionary theory, and you must be able to describe it thoroughly and accurately. If you choose to work to replace it, that is your perogative. If you succeed, then you will receive riches, fame, and scientific and popular prestige.

If you just write crank notes and "poster sessions" (like Behe), then you will get ridicule within the scientific community, but likely get rich and adoration from the creationist community who cares more for your conclusions than your methods.

 

[JediMobius]

I stand by my comment. Behe and his cohorts have had no ID work accepted by mainstream science peer review.

Funny thing about mainstream science, they support the mainstream view by whatever means so as to maintain funding for their projects. 'Popular' science is motivated by money and a form of peer presure, not so much as by a quest for truth/knowledge/evidence.

For example, scientific evidence which supports global warming (evidence which has often been shown to leave out early 19th century warming trends) is vastly published by the mainstay science periodicals, but evidence showing that global warming is not significantly more than it has been on this Earth is ignored by the same publications.

Generally speaking, the scientists who voice dissent to mainstream science are retired or otherwise uninfluenced by funding worries. This is not, of course, the fault of science, rather the foundations and organizations with the riches to spend on science will only give money to those that support their agenda.

 

[KerrMetric]

Funny thing about mainstream science, they support the mainstream view by whatever means so as to maintain funding for their projects. 'Popular' science is motivated by money and a form of peer presure, not so much as by a quest for truth/knowledge/evidence.

Rubbish. Typical resort to the conspiracy theory lie. Here's $1000 that says you have never worked in science.

Generally speaking, the scientists who voice dissent to mainstream science are retired or otherwise uninfluenced by funding worries. This is not, of course, the fault of science, rather the foundations and organizations with the riches to spend on science will only give money to those that support their agenda.

I have, like many many others, tenure. I cannot be fired for any academic reason. So where are these mavericks?

 

[Valkhorn]

Anyway, I thought we might ask Behe directly what he thought of his own work and see if it really is "peer reviewed" and just how it stacks up. Fortunately, in the recent Kitzmiller v Dover trial, someone thought to do just that:

Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?
A. No, I argued for it in my book.
Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. That is correct, yes. (Source)

​

Behe says clearly that not only has Behe never submitted anything suporting ID (Creationism), but no one has. All of those articles that you linked don't even touch on ID/Creationism.

This deserves its own thread.

 

[Mocca]

"A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

See, that's what axioms are for.

 

[Mocca]

I believe that we have five senses, but I believe that we have more than 5 senses. Is it true we use only half or so of our brians? Then how can we know that anything we come up with as true is true? That is, just because we can't see something, does that mean it isn't there? Just because we can't hear something, does that mean it isn't there? See what I am getting at?

10% of the mass of your brain is used for thinking. This doesn't mean that one could think 10 times more, only the other 90% is used for providing nutrients to the neurons, providing stuctural support for the neurons, digesting dead neurons, etc.

 

[stumpjumper]

You blokes still at it?

Is Chrisfilm -- whatever-- still around?

 

[Silent Bob]

Funny thing about mainstream science, they support the mainstream view by whatever means so as to maintain funding for their projects.

Yeah just like they supported classical physics when Einstein proposed his theories, just like everyone refused to accept quantum mechanics because it meant funding would be cut on some and given to others, just like they opposed the Big Bang because it too was against what mainstream science thought to be true. But all of these theories crashed the opposition in the end. Because if you are right, YOU ARE RIGHT.

This is how science works. You publish a new theory and if it is groundbreaking enough it will have to withstand an enourmous amount of flak. But if you are right you get your name into the history books. Unfortunately Behe will always be a footnote of the person who equated his "theory" with astrology.

'Popular' science is motivated by money and a form of peer presure, not so much as by a quest for truth/knowledge/evidence.

The exact opposite is true. Ken Miller has spoken about the way popularizers are viewed by the rest of the scientific community as second class scientists. Of all the popularizers out there only a handful has made any kind of money from pop science and trust me compared to the grants these people could recieve by spending their time in the lab most of them actually lose money.

For example, scientific evidence which supports global warming (evidence which has often been shown to leave out early 19th century warming trends) is vastly published by the mainstay science periodicals, but evidence showing that global warming is not significantly more than it has been on this Earth is ignored by the same publications.

There are two problems with the above example. Firstly both views are right, as I understand, it is a matter of which model you use. Secondly global warming is favoured by mainstream media NOT science journals.

Generally speaking, the scientists who voice dissent to mainstream science are retired or otherwise uninfluenced by funding worries. This is not, of course, the fault of science, rather the foundations and organizations with the riches to spend on science will only give money to those that support their agenda.

What agenda is that? To conceal the Roswell incident and continue with the genetic manipulation of our species in order to create the perfect human/alien hybrid that will take over the world and make us all speak in binnary?

 

[Ryal Kane]

I believe that we have five senses, but I believe that we have more than 5 senses. Is it true we use only half or so of our brians? Then how can we know that anything we come up with as true is true? That is, just because we can't see something, does that mean it isn't there? Just because we can't hear something, does that mean it isn't there? See what I am getting at?.

I think you're referring to the idea that we only use about 11% of our brains. It's not true.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

 

[Dannager]

The sheer number of logical fallacies and false information used by creationists in this thread is staggering.