randman

"If ID-ists want to challenge evolutionists, the proper place for that challenge is in peer reviewed scientific journals"

OK, I am the public. Can you show me where these publications have granted ID theories any print at all? Are there any editors of these journals that don't beleive in evolution, or who do beleive in Intelligent Design?
What I have heard is these publications refuse to touch the subject?
Why should I not beleive this is simply bias?
Am I to take your word for it?
Lemme see, ...nahhhh!

Valentine Pontifex

Folk, you are going to just love this one:

<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/santorum.html" target="_blank">Dr. Miller Debunks a false ID claim about the No Child Left Behind Act</a>

Pomp

randman,

OK, I am the public. Can you show me where these publications have granted ID theories any print at all?

Can you show me where any ID theories have been presented to reputable scientific journals? The fact that none have been published does not mean that there is some sort of bias against them. I'm sure many reviewers would love a good, testable ID theory to sink their teeth into and critique.

Are there any editors of these journals that don't beleive in evolution, or who do beleive in Intelligent Design?

How is this relevant? You can hardly expect them to "believe in" ID in the absence of any testable theory of ID. Where there any journal editors who "believed in" plate tectonics before papers presenting the case for PT were presented?

What I have heard is these publications refuse to touch the subject?
Why should I not beleive this is simply bias?
Am I to take your word for it?

No, but neither should I take yours. Cite an example of an ID article being refused by a scientific publication on ideological grounds.

pseudobug

I've been there, done that with rantman, Pompous Bastard.

At this very momment, he is likely digging through ARN's web site for some sob story from an ID'er claiming their work has been refused or some quote from a journal editor saying he can't publish ID bullshit.

Nevermind the fact that Behe can't even present any data supporting his grand "theory" at a scientific meeting. Not a talk. Not a poster. Nothing.

pseudobug

hehe...busted. In a lie. Surprise, surprise.

They must be related to rantman.

Someone ought to do a mass emailing of the link to every representative in the state legislature of Ohio.

Pomp

pseudobug,

I've been there, done that with rantman, Pompous Bastard.

Well, maybe so, but I'd like to give him the opportunity to make his case.

Edit: damn UBB tags.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Lizard

Me:
Do you think parents should determine K-12 science curriculum? Are you aware that more than 50% of Americans do not know that the earth moves around the sun and takes a year to do it? Do you also advocate that parents should determine calculus, foreign language, and PE requirements? No, you probably don't, because you realize it takes experts to determine what is valid to teach in those areas. So pray tell why, in a subject which is so complex and ever-evolving as science, do you expect that parents would be qualified to say what should be taught in public school science classes?

pseudobug

edited---frigging little icons...

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

Pomp

Lizard,

Are you aware that more than 50% of Americans do not know that the earth moves around the sun and takes a year to do it?

Do you have a cite for this? Seems a little off to me.

Just a little nitpick with an otherwise excellent post.

hezekiah jones

You're a real piece of work, you are.

Scientists like to be challenged. That's why they become scientists in the first place, and that's how science moves ahead: by scientists identifying and attacking challenges (unlike Michael Behe, who would prefer to throw up his hands and say, "goddidit.").

What most scientists do not like to do is take time from their research to debunk the insidious lies of creationists and other flat-earthers. Thankfully there are some scientists, and philosophers of science such as Pennock, who enjoy it very much. Why don't you read one of his books? You might actually learn something - or would that be too "challenging"?