Tim Daneliuk writes:

Steve Peterson wrote:

Science has no high priests. I already covered this: no Pope, no
bishops, either. It is actually very anarchic. However, this
statement doesn't

It's time to put this foolish claim to bed. Science has no hierarchy
of *knowledge* but it absolutely has a social/funding hierarchy; an
"establishment" (aka High Priests) that decides what gets published,
what doesn't,

That's nonsense.

and who get's funded.

That I agree with. Funding is limited.

But science can be published ANYWHERE. Put the friggin' paper on the web.
Print your own book. Let the public see it. Let the public comment.

It might be true that getting a paper in a particular journal requires
special efforts, new ideas, and accurate facts. But you can't blame an
establishment for preventing FACTS from being published. Facts and
truth can't be hidden forever. Nonconventional ideas may take years
or decades to gain acceptance. But no peer system can prevent science
from making progress.

Look at Behe - who by being published proves you are wrong.

Blaiming some peer group for not publishing Behe is just closing your
eyes to the truth - that Behe is making ASSUMPTIONS and then
DISTORTING FACTS in an effort to appear to be scientific, and convince
those that aren't scientists to accept his version of the "truth."



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.