DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? ...

Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory.

IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
newsgroup. It would be off-topic.

This argument is a red-herring. Science has a philosophy
of knowledge. That philosophy of knowledge is being questioned.
It is not a 'theology based' attack (at least not exclusively).
The attackers claim they have the ability to describe the
problems with today's scientific system and propose to do so
using *science* (not theology). They should be heard, and then
refuted or not.

Accepting of-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not
only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources
that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but
it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative
atmosphere.

The IDers have made proposals that are specific within sub-branches
of science. Those narrow proposals should be evaluated within
their respective disciplines.

You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their
integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over
what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to
Off-Topic threads?

You should read more history of Science. There has been *plenty* of name
calling, ad hominem attacks, questioning the virtue, honor, method, and
competence of one group of scientists by another. There is a whole lot
of "Jane You Ignorant Slut" level of diatribe within the Scientific
community from time to time. Come to think of it, it's kind of how I see
them treating the IDers. Again, I am not defending ID, I am defending
the idea that they ought to be *heard* and evaluated openly and fairly
for their Scientific claims.

When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science
it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the
scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or
religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified
at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a
podium so much as they are disgusted.

Nonsense. Most new Scientific theories go through a period of
outright rejection by the Science Establishment. "Mainstream Science"
rejects things because it has a vested interest (funding, prestige)
in the status quo. So much so that there is a well-worn saying
in the community that "Funeral by funeral, Science progresses."

The IDers may be dead wrong, *but they should be heard.* I am
trained in the Sciences, though my personal specialty is
more in mathematics. I am troubled by a discipline that claims
to arrive at knowledge by "objective means" and then scurries to
circle the wagons the first time an outsider shows up with
an idea that is fundamentally different than the current orthdoxy.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/