EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

It is the job of an editor to not let pass an article that is pseudo science. It's not the editor's fault all ID articles so far are pseudo science. It's because it's pseudo science that it's not published, not because it is ID. If there were a scientific article supporting ID, it would be published, and win the Nobel prize. It still remains a fact that ID was what creationists chose to get evolution out of the classrooms. And if it has nothing to do with evolution, as you seem to be saying here, then why do they always whine about it? It's not abiogenesis they want it taught alongside, it's evolution.

---

I hunt for the truth

No we don't actually. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in populations over time. Ok. Please inform your fellow ID advocates then that evolution should be left alone. Not that I agree this should be taught in classrooms anyway, since it's simply not science, but let's not go that way. And strangely that is what the Discovery Institute (ID's top advocate) wants. Strangely, I have never met an ID proponent who wanted to leave evolution alone.

---

I hunt for the truth

Yes, and as others have pointed out to you, he wasn't discriminated against. He didn't follow the rules, and when you don't follow the rules, you will be reprimanded. It wasn't discrimination, and it was valid. No discrimination occurred. They can say whatever they want. They can expect a kicking around when they don't follow the rules of the organization they belong to. Imagine I would sign up to be a priest in the Catholic Church, and after a few years I would start teaching my flock that Jesus wasn't god, the virgin birth didn't happen, and the resurrection was a fabrication. Would I be discriminated against when they'd kick me out of the Catholic Church? Really? Yes. And rightly so. This has however nothing to do with freedom of speech, but with violation the rules of the organization he was a part of.

---

I hunt for the truth

No, it isn't. And even if it was, that's a strange way of studying biology, wouldn't you say? I haven't seen anyone here state that the scientific method wasn't used to investigate the claims of atrology. We have however claimed that astrology itself does noet use the scientific method, and is thus not science. As no one has claimed this, could this just be an attempt to paint "Darwinists" as irrational without any basis? The same is true for creationism. That doesn't tell you what close to wear and stuff as is. It's still not science. Faith IS belief. Even if we grant you your completely wrong term "Darwinism". Then still no. It's based only on evidence.

---

I hunt for the truth

No it doesn't. That's actually the premise. No it doesn't. It continues to exist because some people expressed data in creative ways. Ways that are uncscientific. Of course. They can, they just don't No, but you did state that "Darwinists" said that science couldn't study the claims of astrology, when in fact, nobody said that. Nothing says ID must investigate astrology. Another thing that was never said. Where do you get this stuff. Does a physicist have to study literature? Afraid's not the right word. But something like that, yes. Really? The wedge document says otherwise. True. However, it might shed some light as to why you don't want to see that you're wrong. What's the "this" you are referring to here? Really? First of all, according to crawler30 ID's got nothing to do with evolution. I'd sort it out amongst yourselves what it does and doesn't address first. Second, if most Americans would want to teach the earth is flat theory alongside the earth is round theory, would it be ok to teach that too? What is a "pure evolutionist"? And if you accept evolution, then why teach ID alongside it? What does this got to do with anything? Just because some people refuse to accept they are wrong, it somehow proves science is wrong? Furthermore, science doesn't work that way. Would you mind elaborating on that proof? Not according to the courts. And not according to reality either. So, even when you are proven utterly and completely false, you'd still cling to ID and claim it's true? Nice way to do science. You've allready lost. See Kitzmiller v. Dover. Really? And who are part of this globe spanning conspiracy? Irrelevant. It doesn't follow the scientific method, therefore, it's not science. If you show up with a tennis racket and some tennis balls to a football game, would you still insist you're playing football? First of all, that's not what science does. Second, they're not expelling people. Nothing. They have reality on their side, after all.Edited by Huntard, : Clicked wrong button and left some mistakes in

---

I hunt for the truth

No, science involves following the scientific method. You don't want to get "creative" with you results, trust me. Really? Would you mind sharing that quote with me? I think you're confusing this with something to do with Michael Behe's definition of science. It's so broad it would include astrology as well. And you really aren't advocating astrology is science, now are you? But that's what ID does as well, only they've gone far more vague. In case you object to this, who or what/ according to YOU, is the designer? I should have been more clear, my apologies. You're basically right, although this statement seems to imply that one day things of faith WILL be proven. That's not the case either. First of all, there is no "Darwinian faith". Second, it already does. It does. Darwin can't the modern theory of evolution can and does. We don't know, nobody claims evolution is 100% true though. There is however no evidence that points towards any other thing but evolution. Yep. They're silly like that.

---

I hunt for the truth

Not sure what you mean wit CSI, but I'll give 2352 bits of information being created by a single mutation.Read message 35 of this thread: Message 35I'm sorry, I don't know how to link to specific messages anymore with the new board software. What you think is irrelevant. What the evidence shows is what's important. Like new bits of information arising from a single mutation like I just showed? It doesn't call for an intelligent designer. And it doesn't explain the "fine tuning" either. Since that's a totally wrong argument anyway. But that's not for this thread. Read upthread a bit, you'll find his posts there. And once again, if you accept evolution, then why teach ID alongside it? And he is wrong,as also shown in Kitzmiller v. Dover. None. First of all it doesn't work that way, second, you can't disprove anything especially not when you invoke a supernatural "intelligent designer" That's not really evidence, now is it? PLease provide a scientific report or investigation that supports your assertion. Yep, reality's against you as well, you see. What you think is irrelevant.Edited by Admin, : Edit message link to use the MID dBCode.

---

I hunt for the truth

That's easy, it's because that is the only thing it can do whilst obeying the laws of chemistry.

---

I hunt for the truth

Ok, but don't go claim there is no way information can arise naturally if you don't know for certain that it can't. They are. It is. Again, don't go claiming things you aren't even sure of. No, it disproves predictions made by hypotheses. So yes, you can disprove things. But pray tell, how do we disprove a supernatural "intelligent designer"? I don't think it'll be any scientific evidence then, but I'll await it before commenting more. Me? YOU are the one making the claim, so YOU are the one who should support it. Yes, and so is what everybody else thinks. Without evidence to back up your claims, whether or not you think it's true is completely and utterly irrelevant.

---

I hunt for the truth

Again, what you think is irrelevant. No they didn't, they had seen it was only a simple blob of plasma. They had of course seen wrong. It's not their fault people are ignorant of how evolution works and don't want to accept it. No I don't. I know it already explains it, even though there are people like yourselves who think it doesn't No, I don't. See above. Yes, that's true. You're wrong though. ooh! Nice! *puts on aluminium hat* True, though that only works for so long. And of course that didn't happen. That still doesn't mean it happened. You have evidence it is a conspiracy then? Let me get this straight, liberals that don't want people to think for themselves....you really have a weird outlook on things. Once more. What you think is irrelevant. It will. Goddidit isn't an answer of any kind, and brings us absolutely no step closer to finding out how nature works. By the way, did you just admit that the "intelligent designer" is god? I thought this wasn't a religion? what you th...yeah you know by now. These debates do, the answer ID provides doesn't. Clever . But wrong. It's simply the way of reality, It is what it is regardless of what you think it should be like.

---

I hunt for the truth

No. What you think is irrelevant. It doesn't follow the rules of science, therefore it is not. If I walk onto a football field and start playing tennis, would you insist that I was in fact playing football? Say what now? Ok, what designed us then? In the case you say aliens (that are then even more complex than us) where did they come from? Other Aliens? Is it Aliens all the way back? Where did the very first life of the universe come from then? A supernatural designer you say? Oh dear, that's religion... Really, then what is the designer? We're not talking about machines or people, now are we. And the prevailing one. Of course, that's why we have the scientific method, to eliminate motifs infecting the results. Not as is. However, they can be telling when it comes to the validity of the statement. Of course, science is set up to eliminate motifs. I've one for you. Who/what is the designer? Aliens all the way back?

---

I hunt for the truth

Well excuse me. You don't have to reply, you know. But thank you for doing so. Ok, I'll leave it at that then. Since metaphysics isn't real physics, "metascience" then isn't real science (it's a made up word in fact). Thank you for proving our point. He's an ID'er. So no wonder he makes up words. Ok, but follow this logic with me. There are only two possible designers. Aliens, or supernatural beings right? Wait, that sounds like....yes! Religion! We're not talking about them. We're talking about your designer. He doesn't. But then where does this natural designer come from? They are. Where did the natural designer come from? In essence, yes. If the aliens evolved by natural means, you just set it all one step back. If something supernatural created them, it's religion. So, which is it? Evolution is true, yet occurred one step before us. Or it's religion.

---

I hunt for the truth

He's talking about my "nylon eating bacteria" post, found here: Message 35It also links to the video he is talking about, which I'll embed below, but which can be viewed hereI don't think he's antichristian. He is however ant CREATIONISM. very telling Drew would see that as antichristian.

---

I hunt for the truth

Because he likes to piss them off. By saying they are helping reduce Christians (something they certainly don't want to do, in fact, they want more of them), he touches a sensitive nerve, which will piss them off, which will lead to funny videos to laugh at (I think). But nothing came up that you could counter it with? What a surprise. Or, if you think you do have something, you probably still haven't.You're better of reading Woundedking's thread (thanks for that!) to find something to "counter" nylon bacteria, then ID/crea sites.

---

I hunt for the truth

Let's call it speaking from experience, shall we?

---

I hunt for the truth