Congress stepping in to stop witchunt of IDers

Page not found - WNDThe reliance of evos on heavy-handed political measures to silence their critics is not surprising, but it demonstrates the weakness of evo models to stand on their own in an open and intellectually free environment. Basically, evolutionism cannot stand an open format where factual criticism and alternative concepts can be freely advanced and discussed, and instead relies on ridicule, threats, discrimination, etc,etc,...of anyone daring to challenge their dominant position in academia.As a sidenote, it's not suprising that evos appear to be very Left-leaning as well. The same crowd dominates academia, and so foists it's ideas on the rest without a sense of fairness and academic freedom.

And yet many prominent evos are rabid atheists, but somehow they don't need to be concerned with having "religiously" or rather anti-religious motivations?The simple truth is no one but partisan evos really thinks Steinberg did anything wrong whatsoever. Even the Wash Post slams evo orthodoxy over this. It's a witchunt on the part of evos. Arguing, yea, but he really is a witch (in evo eyes) is nonsensical. Basically, you have defined ID as out of bounds and so conducting witchunts of IDers is acceptable to mainstream evos. It's the same old circular reasoning we see evos resorting to in their data analysis.Also, the Dover decision was a joke. The judge copied and pasted something like 90% straight from anti-ID partisan brieds. The fact anyone with a brain that looks into could take it seriously is astonishing. The simple fact is ID is science no matter how hard you guys try to insist and use bogus political and legal tricks and discrimination to try to silence it.

So they need to publish, but if they do, the editors daring to publish them will have their careers ruined if evos have anything to do with it, eh?And you don't see a contradiction with the evo stance here?Also, IDers are publishing.

The paper wasn't bogus. The political nature of evos is to insist that all papers threatening their position are bogus, but that doesn't make it so.

The problem is the track record of evos does not suggest we should respect their opinion all that much. I hate to bring Haeckel back, but evos kept insisting creationists and IDers were wrong to call it fraudulent well into the 90s, and all evos had to do was look it up for themselves, but they would not.Take the discussions of QM here. I showed quite clearly where quantum physicists themselves state very plainly that either or both local realism and forward causality are being violated, and that QM predicted this and does predict this, and yet you guys insisted otherwise. No amount of lab testing, applied principles, etc,....could shake that conviction because, frankly, evo convictions are not fact-based.

Your basis for stating ID is not science appears to consist of the fact that partisan evos willing to try to ruin anyone's career that is open to ID have said ID is not science.Somehow you think that's valid?I brought up some other examples evos have thought were valid as well, just to illustrate why, imo, a reasonable person shouldn't listen to you guys.This is indeed a matter of academic freedom, and a willingness not to be led by dogma, but open to facts and analysis.

`Is NPR part of the evangelical conspiracy to misrepresent evos too?

This is not the first time this has come up. The Washington Post ran an article we discussed some time back that was very critical of the evo establishment over this, and now we see NPR reporting that there are scientists that think ID has merit but they are afraid of the witchunts of evos.So it's not just evangelicals saying evos are using positions of power to suppress academic freedom and conduct witchunts, but it's also some very liberal media outlets.I would think with such a disparate group crying foul, that perhaps you and some other evos would at least consider the possibility that you are wrong? But then again, maybe not.....historically it's been very difficult to get evos to admit to even easily verifiable mistakes such as the Biogenetic Law....

percy, we discussed the Wash Post story awhile back, and I accept the quotation from NPR from WND. This particular thread probably isn't going anywhere because I think it's clear that it doesn't matter to evos if there are scientists that are persecuted for advancing ID, and that there is a witchunt going on. Your comment below is, for me, tacit admission of that. What's left to discuss? You guys think the witchunt is OK, and your critics think otherwise, but at least we can settle on the fact there is a witchunt towards anyone in academia advancing ID.

You could take a stab at the retrocausality thread. One reason for posting it was so that you and others could see Cramer's comments on entanglement as indeed being "action at a distance".It was very frustrating to see you guys deny what quantum physicists state, namely that it violates either or both local realism and forward causality, and yet despite the fact QM is probably the most successful theory in all of science, you guys just flat out stonewalled and denied what QM is, according to those working in that field.

Why? Maybe. Maybe it's just a minority at the top more interested in maintaining power, and the rest would like to see things open up? I doubt it because frankly, current evo science does not contain "tests of replicability and independent verification" concerning the basic assumptions of evos, and yet it is asserted dogmatically. There are absolutely no examples of macro-transitions documented in the fossil record, for example, and yet alternative theories to explain the fossil record, such as ID, are dismissed out of hand. That's just bull-crap, but since evos believe what you wrote, they don't give ID a chance anyway. The deck is stacked because, by definition, in your mind, ID is anti-science, and so there is no objective basis among the evo establishment to consider it. I see it as the exact opposite. Evos have an unshakeable belief formed prior to rigorous scientific standards, namely the Darwinian myth, and actually formed as well with all sorts of fakery and political and social overtones, and now, evos just accept it blindly, and interpret all data in light of it, even though the basic assumptions of evolutionism have not been empirically verified, nor substantiated.ID, on the other hand, seeks out an honest appraisal of the facts to see where they lead. It's the exact opposite, imo, of what you are writing. Or maybe they are just happy that truth is being made known, and false concepts perpetuated by evos are being exposed. You assume evos have noble motives, but IDers don't. Faith-based? You mean like faith in evolution and Darwin? The simple fact is evos are not going where the evidence leads, but smearing everyone else as faith-based when in reality, evos are as faith-based a group as they come. They just have their own "faith."I harp on this as an example, but be honest here. Why did it take over 100 years of sustained criticisms from the suppossed faith-based wackos for evos to finally admit Haeckel's stuff was fraudulent? The fact of the matter is if you just look at the history of how evos have supported their theory, it is absolutely laughable to pretend they have followed a scientific process, scientific standards, not even remotely, and their critics which you claim want to destroy science are to be credited for exposing frauds such as the Biogenetic Law.It's time for evos to come to grips that a lot of what evo scientists have advanced as true in the past 130 years is a load of cow-dung, and that contrary to their claims, they really haven't ever properly substantiated their major claims. They haven't substantiated, for example, that observed variation or subspeciation of even speciation processes create the genetic material to add up to macroevolution. They haven't shown that mutational rates are greater than the rate of genetic loss via isolation. They haven't ever really explained, quantified and defined the concept of fossil rarity as an excuse for why we see absolutely no macro-transitions in the fossil record. They haven't any evidence to really counter the obvious flaws in their story such as how half-formed wings are an advantageous trait. They have no duplicatable, testable claims whatsoever to verify ToE. They haven't come up with a valid means of determining when similarities are the result of convergent evolution or common ancestry. They haven't explained adequately how a random process would create 2 imperfect designs independently. Their explanation of natural selection just doesn'y explain the mammalian ear. They have varying and different definitions of the very term "evolution" and other terms, and insist that defining one definition of the term makes a different definition true as well. They haven't defined "random" or substantiated what "random" means despite using the term. They base their view of science on classical definitions of reality which are wrong, as demonstrated via quantum mechanics.....etc, etc,.....

So that explains the NPR report on other scientists that are saying the same thing about a climate of fear and hostility towards anyone willing to advance ID?As far as Steinberg, I tend to be suspicious of the perception and judgement of evos since most of the time they have prejudged the situation already and suspect the report slamming Steinberg could well be just another hatchet job.

Sounds like they were creating a hostile work environment and slandering the guy to me.......more.... It's hard to see how considering the actions and emails of the Smithsonian ptbs, that they are not guilty of bias and slander.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : Fix formatting.

Page not found - WNDLooks like the article was properly peer-reviewed after all, and the claims no other scientists reviewed the article was false all along.As far as stuff criticizing the scientist, anyone that thinks all this trumped up stuff has merit considering that they were fine with him for 5 years, and then went ballistic over the article, well, all I can say is reasonably objective people can see this is a witchunt.The truth is this was payback time for breaking ranks. Message: you dare publish ID papers, and we will try to ruin your career.