The Big Picture on ID and this Forum

This is a rather dubious claim. ID/YEC is pseudoscience to me.

1 Like

Its not about Christianity. i don’t know what a scientific world is but surely unrelated to origin subjects.
Evangelical Christianity is as strong or stronger then ever in North America. The other, false, Christian faiths are the ones losing interest. AS predicted and even desired. Off the record.
anyways for those interested in origin issues there is growing support for opposition to evolution and for a creator behind the glory of creation.

@Robert_Byers

You need to get out more…

Unlike most countries in the world… we have hundreds of denominations… each with their own special belief.

There is no practical way to let any religious position into the public schools… without causing total mayhem with hundreds of denominations who feel slighted!

2 Likes

A scientific world is one in which data and information is the universal commodity that moves between people.
I suppose you can live in the modern world without a computer, smart phone and internet connectivity? Your view of the world is not based on what is happening in the real world around you.

5 posts were split to a new topic: Atheism and the Arc of Justice

Someone need to explain Ka/Ks ratios someday soon.

Then present the peer reviewed papers so we can discuss them. The rule in science is that if it isn’t published in a peer reviewed journal then it doesn’t exist.

Hate to break it to you, but the foundation of the modern theory of evolution is the research published in peer reviewed papers. Textbooks are simply a distillation of what is found in the peer reviewed papers.

@glipsnort would be the best candidate, but I know that the time he can commit to this forum is very limited. I may start looking for some good references to work from.

http://inference-review.com/article/the-neutral-theory-of-evolution

No one makes rules in science. if a concept is presented scientifically it doesn’t need anyone else to recommend it. If you were right it would remove all the millions of people who think, study, argue, dream about subjects in science. it would revoke all science shows EVER on tv.
As i see modern evolutionism its mostly argued outside tiny, tiny, circles of peer review.
Sure seems that way and i pay attention.

Hate to break it to you, but people do make rules in science. The scientists are the ones who make the rules. The rule in science is that your research has to pass through peer review before it is considered.

Science shows on TV are for entertainment. Scientists don’t debate science through TV shows.

Also, thinking and dreaming about science is not science. Science is something you do. Science is an activity. Science is using the scientific method to test hypotheses through experiments, not sitting around and thinking about stuff. Science isn’t talking about sciency stuff on TV.

I would agree that the only people arguing against evolution are those outside of the scientific community.

1 Like

@Nonlin.org this last post is crossing a line into ad hominem, even slander, so I have hidden it. I have a very low tolerance for this from anonymous posters. Remember you are an anonymous poster, and there was much falsehood in your post, directed even at my career. Are you trying to get banned?

4 Likes

If you formal peer review in a journal, this is not strictly true. There are important contributions occasionally made outside formal peer review. Often peer reviewed papers are junk.

2 Likes

[I am sure that you are aware of everything I am writing, but just to clarify for the general audience . . .]

The requirement for peer review is the general rule. Any contributions made from outside of of peer review are tested through research that is peer reviewed.

What isn’t accepted by scientists are blog posts on websites, popular press books, and the like. If ID supporters think they can make an impact on the scientific community by writing books or writing articles at Evolution News & Views then they are sorely misguided. Scientists are looking for specific hypotheses, methods, data, and conclusions drawn from that work. Rough theories that could possibly produce testable hypotheses in the future are of interest, but they fall short of the final product that scientists are looking for.

I would also agree that there are many peer reviewed papers that are junk. Paraphrasing Churchill, peer review is the worst process for publishing science, except for all the others. Peer review is only the first hurdle that a theory needs to pass, and ID supporters so often fail to clear this first hurdle. There are notable exceptions that we have discussed elsewhere, but the list of work that could even loosely qualify as original research falls well short of the massive amount of ID science that supporters describe.

2 Likes

Concern trolling now. :clown_face:

2 Likes

I am not sure where you see any of those. Looks like you didn’t get it, and that’s too bad. Would you reconsider with an open mind?

Let’s put it this way @Nonlin.org. In a long post you:

  1. Concluded I was an incompetent scientist, except with in a narrow range of expertise that you defined and does not actually represent my training.

  2. You asked me to return to my scientific work, because I was not just not good enough of a snake-oil salesman. Not only calling evolution false, you assert that everyone who helps explain evolution to the public is a snake oil salesman.

  3. You asserted I don’t have the wherewithal to design an experiment properly.

I could go on, but the key point is that you are are dipping into something called abuse of anonymity (What is Abuse of Anonymity?). At this point, after being repeatedly warned not to post links to your sight, you spammed us with more. Going forward, you are no longer allowed to post links to your own site. Period.

I want to remind you:

You are an idealist that wants this to be a debate of pure ideas. Do not expect this at Peaceful Science. We place higher value on informed experts who have earned the right to be heard by using their real identities and, even at times, risking their careers. We will always treat leaders from the ID movement, fro example, differently than you.

So let’s focus on an achievable goal:

If you are not on board with that, this is not the place for you.

2 Likes

Not what I said. I’ll leave it at that.

1 Like

If you want credibility, @Nonlin.org, acknowledge that God is equally adept at using miracles as he is in using evolutionary principles, to create life on Earth.