User login
Recent blog posts
- Three Dawkins Quotes
- A(nother) rational response to rationailty
- How to survive in today's recession...
- Einstein's Buddhism?
- Isaac Newton, a Creationist?
- Judge Jones III, may I approach the bench?
- Michael Behe's response to science journal (peer review continued...)
- Enough with the "Peer Review" argument already
- Michael Behe, ID, and "intellectual dishonesty"
- Grace, Blood and the idea of a proxy sacrifice
Another case of doubling up on you...
By contrast, the ID folks regularly mix philosophy with their science, then complain when it isn't published. If you really are appalled by this situation and want to convince me of your argument, just show me an ID article that hasn't been published and an equivalent mainsteam academic article with comparable scholarship.
I'll go a step further, I'll point to a current instance of the scientific bigotry. You may have read of this. Here we have a largely published scientist whose credentials are backed, but since he believes in ID he is blacklisted. You keep referring back to the need for peer review, and yet can't seem to recognize the dogmas of the "peers" that refuse to revue. You seem to have this idea that ID scientists are all a bunch of crackpots. Now, granted, there are crackpots in there. But there are legitimate scientists in the group too, and their views bring the full brunt of the majority of "accepted" scientific establishment.
Yes, I said dogma. And yes, I meant it.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/worlds_premiere_scientific_jou.html
Blessings... :)