Evolutionists punish scientists that dare to differ

Ah, something Bob and I can agree on.

There's no question the Darwinian priesthood is firmly entrenched in the scientific establishment and they will suffer no dissent to their monopoly on "science" or to their creation myth.

Dr. Meyers article is excellent. It definitely has touched a nerve (to say the least) with the philosophical materialists who conflate their metaphysical assumptions with "science". The "critical" responses (at least the ones I've seen) to the article are weak and have been adequately rebutted. I guess what's left is for the Darwinian priesthood to close ranks and dismiss any empirical challenges to their creation myth by philosophical dogmatic pontifications on what is and isn't "science".

 

Let's see what Sternberg's boss has to say.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000777.html

 

Bob

Your tales of retribution are false. According to Stanberg's own boss, he lost his office as part of a move planned before the publication of the article and was given another office in a location of his choice.

You claim that this is a case of how "Evolutionists punish scientists that dare to differ" yet there is nothing that can be pointed to that shows any punishment.

Your only somewhat reasonable complaint is that ID is defined as not scientific. So, please, tell us the testable, falsifiable predicitons that ID makes and what contributions it has made to science. If you cannot, then the defintion of it as unscientific is true.

 

"The one in position to "receive these benefits" claims not to have them."

Basically we have a case where each side says something different happened. You condemn me for accepting the view of while side even as you blast away accepting only the view of another. Can you say "hypocrit?" We don't know what happened. There seems to be a reasonable explanation but we cannot know at this point which side is telling the truth. As these things usually go, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. My best guess would be that the move really was planned before publication and had nothing to do with the article but that Stanberg really has received some grief for letting such a piece of trash through.

But why should we be surprised. You first had your "junk science" thread where nothing in evolution was ever shown to be junk but numerable examples of YE junk were shown for which an attempt to defend was never even tried because they were so inexcusable. Then there was your "moral decay" thread where you made a claim that evolution must lead to moral decay even though in the very article you cited, scientists were opposing the same thing you opposed. You could not even share with us your own views on the matter. For all we know YOU could be in favor of the same kind of experimentation. And now we have this. The facts are in dispute yet you cling doggedly to one story and hipocritically condemn anyone who gives the other version of the story. Perhaps you should dig a little more deeply next time.

"#1. Did you "Actually read Meyers article" or are you simply spouting dogma?"

I have read some of it but not the whole thing. Have you read ANY of it?

Again though, it is not simply dogma to say that ID is by definition unscientific. In its present state, there is no science. What is the theory of intelligent design? On what specific observations is it based? What are its predictions about what we should find? What are its testable ideas? What woould falsify ID?

The fact is that ID has no testable, falsifiable, predictive theory. And, by definition, it is not science until it does. No dogma, just facts which are uncomfortable for you.

 

I still mention the same thing I have mentioned before. YOUR science does not allow for a variable which could provide the possibility of a supernatural effect during creation. This variable could be anywhere from zero to infinity.

Here is the problem. If you KNOW in your heart that an omnipotent God exists; but you leave out the variable that He would or could be involved in the creation, you are therefore using "bad science" because you know for a fact that the variable does exist; but if you believe and have trusted in God, then you are admittedly using false science.

 

"Is this guy (Jonathan Coddington) "really" Sternberg's "boss"!!??

Notice what CODDINGTON..."

Before you jump all over me, you better go back to your original source and correct them on their use of terminology to report the story. I believe my very first post on this thread is the one that contained the correct description of the relationship.

But you never let a good fact get in the way of an argument, do you?

"HERE IS a salient point in the article easy enough to address. DID this happen - yes or no?

Does UTEOTW show ANY interest, intent, to LOOK at this evidence for the primary claim made in the article?"

Well, the title of your thread was about his punishment. Being mad, your "salient point" in your own words, has nothing to do with being punished. And I did address it. By pointing out that in y opinion they had a right to be upset by the publishing of a non-scientific paper in a science journal. I then support my assertion by pointing out that ID has not testible, predictive, falsifiable theory. It is not science.

Your allegations of actual punishment have been thrown in doubt by my words directly from Coddington. So much so that you now shy away from your original charges about punishment and make your "salient point" anger over non-scientific works being published. It is fun to see you back peddle.

"#1. These failings can only apply to the myth we know today as the religion of evolutionism. Hardly worthy to even be called "junk-science".

#2. ID is NOT by definition "not science" -- it would be like saying that there CAN BE no way to KNOW if a painting was made by accident NO test, NO ability to DETERMINE intelligence has made it."

I'll just copy and paste from another recent post here about how evolution does follow scientific principles. If ID also does, then maybe you can show how they follow the process.

So let's see how evolution stacks up.

Step 1. I have given you a partial list of observations above. So check.

Step 2. Well, we hypothesize that these observations seem to show that all life may be related. So we will go with that as a hypthesis. New life forms can develop from other life forms.

Step 3. Now the fun begins. Let's look at a few examples.

Take whales for example. They are sea dwelling mammals. During their development, they have cute little legs and feet that emerge and then are reabsorbed. Sometimes this programmed cell death does not occur and the whales are born with full on rear legs. Well, we'll predict that whales have a land dwelling ancestor and we should be able to find fossil of such. And we do. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and many others. Well, once we have the fossils we see that they show whales evolving from ungulates. So if we test modern ungulates we should find them closely related to whales. We test and they are. Now, if whales came from land animals, they then once had a functional sense of smell. We might be able to find the remains of the genes for this system. And guess what, whales have scores of pseudogenes of a sense of smell just like what the land animals to which it is related have.

Man has traits that makes us another ape. There should be links between us and the other apes. And there are. (For a whole thread on the genetic links see http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? ) Some of the links are genetic. We find shared pseudogenes and retroviral inserts and transposons between man and the other apes. We have a rich fosil record leading back to common ancestors.

The fossil record shows the horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. We predict that genetics should show the same link. And it does.

Darwin even predicted that there must be a means for carrying the instructions for making life. Last century we found it, DNA.

So, evolution passes the thrid step with flying colors. This third step is where we really spend all of our time in debates.

Step 4. Well here we refine our theory as we make more observations and we see how different scientists support different notions with new discoveries. Some ideas are cast off in favor of new ones, such as cladogenesis replacing orthogenesis for the most part, but such is the process. We have lab experiments where rapid evolution can be observed. Evolution meets the criteria of the fourth stage.

So we see, contrary to your assertion, that evolution does follow the scientific method. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Bob

UTEOTW takes the prize again.
Maybe his ability to read his bias in the news is as good as his ability to google his belief?

If he can google for junk science to support evolution so well, why can't he google a little news piece?

Then he might not feel that you were "jumping on him".

But, in that world view ... there was no need to seek the truth.

Sternberg's integrity was attacked, his intelligence has been doubted, and it has all been because he chose to publish an article on Intelligent Design.

All sides agree on that basic paragraph. Just his side thinks that this is not discriminatory behavior. This side of the world sees it as discriminatory when we are disparaged for our faith in the Creator.

Bob, Creation rocks !!!

Wrote it quick ... But, keep defending the faith Brother!

 

Bob,

Maybe instead of reading UTEOTW's cross posting and wasting our time, we could peer review his faith in evolution?

IMHO, he should have logically infered that his peers have already done so. However, it may be that he can't take the hint.

 

UTEOTW:

IMHO, You have chosen to place your faith in evolution to answer the questions found in Nature, and you have not placed faith in the Creator to answer the same questions.

I place faith in the Creator to Create as He willed ... Neither the Creator, nor Science have revealed evidence that is conclusive about which method He used when He Created the universe and mankind. However, from what He has revealed in Genesis and in the Creation itself, I will believe in ID as His process.