Talk:Suppression of alternatives to evolution

In the "Richard Dawkins" article, Mr. Schafly makes a big deal out of the fact that Mr. Dawkins current position at Oxford was an appointment and not the result of a "peer review". If Mr. Dawkins is then disqualified from calling himself a professor as Mr. Schafly contends, then the same logic holds for Creation Science and Intelligent Design. These alternatives to evolution are not being suppressed, they simply haven't passed the "peer review" test that all scientific theories have to go through to be considered seriously. And until the proponents of these alternatives really step up and make a serious effort to even try to pass the test of peer review, they will never be accepted as science.

These alternatives are not only not accepted as science by the scientific community but when the courts have had to decide, they consistently agree that they are not science. Therefore, if a science teacher is teaching these alternatives in a public school, the school almost has to fire that teacher. To do otherwise would create more problems for them than the alternative. Sometimes "freedom is not free". The teacher is free to teach what he wants but has to accept the consequences.

That same science teacher can choose to teach a class independently or publish books or articles about creationism or intelligent design. There are certainly enough of them around. In fact, the Christian/Religion book section at most major bookstores is typically 3 or 4 times the size of the Science section. Is that suppression? Mfa1957 10:23, 14 November 2007 (EST)

What this article will also document is the suppression of attempts to have creation and ID peer-reviewed in secular journals.

But you are simply wrong that they haven't passed peer review. The Journal of Creation is one peer-reviewed journal that publishes creation and ID papers, and there have been some peer-reviewed papers even in secular journals.

The article already mentions that opposition is based on ideology. If it's based on ideology, peer-review is a lost cause.

You are also incorrect to speak as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this. There are thousands of scientists (i.e., part of the "scientific community") who accept creation and/or ID.

The article does not claim that there is suppression in the publishing field (nor on the Internet). But that does not mean that suppression doesn't exist in other arenas.

Philip J. Rayment 20:33, 14 November 2007 (EST)

If there are thousands of scientists who accept creation science and/or ID, then once again, how can there be suppression? Are they being thrown in jails? I suppose that your claim is that they are being fired or prevented to publish or ridiculed by other scientist. Boo-hoo!! How many evolutionary scientist are on the staff of the Creation Research Society or have jobs at Bob Jones University or are invited to write for the Journal of Creation? None. There is no conspiracy and claims of there being one are just a way to support a weak idea. Mfa1957 09:24, 15 November 2007 (EST)