In article ,
says...
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

charlie b wrote:
...


One of the arguements the ID folks present is
"this organism is extremely complex, too complex
to merely just happen by accident. therefore
it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".

That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
have a Scientific case to make to support that
conclusion. We may well never know, because
the Science Establishment today it putting huge
resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
to avoid having this debate.


What on Earth do you mean by "we may never know"? They
can certainly establish their own journals, societies and
hold their own conferences just like homeopaths, chiropodists,
astrologers and polygraphers have.

Nobody is silencing them any more than the Southern Baptists
silence a polymer chemistry by not inviting a chemist
to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes.

You are indulging yourself in some sly rhetorical tricks here
but it doesn't wash. The IDers are making claims of *science*
(or at least they say they are). "We will never know" whether
or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific*
peer review of those claims. This is fundamentally different
than "not inviting a chemist to give a sermon about semipermeable
membranes." Because theology and chemistry are not both scientific
disciplines and thus not open to similar review processes. The essence
of the ID claim is that (at least part of it) is that it is *science*
so why shouldn't the existing infrastructure of science be called
upon to review it?

Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated
doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant
dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their
agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not,
in reality, flock together.

Ad hominem

The reason that their claims are never reviewed is because they never
make any. All they do is state a few unfounded hypotheses with no
evidence or claim behind them.

If you doubt this then, please go ask ask a few. you will quickly find
out that they fall into two camps.

The first are the scientifically illiterate who wouldn't know a theory
if it bit them. These people simply regurgitate what they read in some
booklet somewhere, with as little understanding as a speak-and-spell.

The second are the morally bankrupt who know they do not have a
scientific leg to stand on, but hope that by spewing out a bunch of
techno-babble, that they can convince those in the first camp that they
aren't being fed a bunch of pure BS.