10
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 93:
Line 93: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 19:04, April 17, 2008
, 19:04, April 17, 2008From user talk - sadly, little fur has flown.
I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
== From user talk - sadly, little fur has flown. ==
You're still missing the point of [[Expelled]], which complains about incidents in which evolution supporters engage in suppression and persecution of opponents - in place of arguing evolution vs. design on its scientific merits. No one is saying that rebuttals of ID have never been formulated, only that the tendency is to fire academics and editors rather than to allow them [[free speech]] and [[free press]].
Can you think of an example where a professor was encouraged to '''continue''' pointing out scientific problems with the theory of evolution? Or where an editor's contract was '''extended''' after publishing an evolution critique in a peer reviewed journal? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I've moved your argument to the proper place.
:First of all, I think you're confusing what free speech and free press actually mean. Neither guarantee an academician tenure at a private university, long after the academician has abandoned intellectualism. Those rights are secured by contract. Additionally, free speech doesn't guarantee an academician tenure at a public university, when he begins to teach religion in violation of those other parts of the first amendment. And obviously, the right to the "free press" doesn't guarantee your right to publish in my journal, even if you were previously invited to do the same. That's also a contract right. If you're trying to make a legal argument... it's not going well.
:Now, yes indeed, many people are invited to criticize evolutionary theory. In fact, that's the sum-total of what scientists in the [[peer review]] process ''do'' - they point out problems, and work to their solution. If you were to read a peer review journal, the articles wouldn't be, "Oh boy, that Darwin! He was sure right on!" Peer review is not some self-congratulatory, back-slapping club. Rather, a peer review journal will have articles pointing out a problem with the current theory, and either leaving it there or proposing a solution.
:ID does that... but it points out a problem where there either is none, or where the problem has long since been solved. For example, the flagellum example. Scientists have long since moved past the apparent irreducible complexity of the flagellum to realize that it is, in fact, reducible. A paper saying, "the flagellum poses a problem for evolution" would have been proper 100 years ago, but it's not proper today. Just so, a paper saying, "Newtonian mechanics don't seem to work all the time" would, in the post Einstein era, be excluded since it's just saying something that's already been said.
:Also, another problem with ID is the substitution of the alternate solution. After pointing to a problem that doesn't exist, ID proposes an answer that ''isn't scientific'' - "well, I give up, I guess God did it," is not a scientific argument!
:In closing, there are two types of discrimination - discrimination upon a rational basis, where there are objective criteria or goals being served by the discrimination, or invidious discrimination, where the discrimination serves to advance one person's ideology with no logical objective reason to do so... like racism.
:You're alleging that the termination of intelligent design scholars is invidious discrimination, because there's no cause to terminate them other than their "beliefs." What I'm saying is there ''is'' objective, reasonable cause for termination - the scientists, practically speaking, have ceased being scientists!
:All this is to say, science ''welcomes'' criticism, but criticism that's been answered is unwelcome.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 15:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)