Posted on 12/27/2007 2:32:59 PM PST by CedarDave
In the 16th century a large, powerful institution saw itself as threatened by heretics - people who didn’t agree with all its dogmas - so it began to identify and punish those dissidents. Five hundred years later a similar effort is under way. In the 16th century it was the Roman Catholic church; today it is Big Science. The only real difference is that today heretics are simply deprived of their livelihood; burning at the stake is no longer in vogue.
Exhibit One in this contention is found on Page A2 of the Dec. 14 Enquirer: “Global-warning skeptic says he’s being vilified.” This is from an economist, but scientists who express similar doubts about the fashionable view (global warming is due to generation of CO2 by humans) are similarly marginalized.
Exhibit Two is the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez by the astronomy department of Iowa State University, despite a stellar record of scientific publications. His crime? He co-authored a book ("The Privileged Planet") that suggested that the unusually benign (for life) situation of the Earth might have been due to an intelligent designer.
As a doctoral student I was taught that good science sought reliable facts about the world around us, and hypotheses followed wherever those facts lead. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the case. Instead, selected facts have led to politicized conclusions, and countervailing facts are no longer tolerated. This is not good science.
~~snip~~
To end this Inquisition, scientists dedicated to good science must defend the right of skeptics to be heard.
(Excerpt) Read more at icecap.us ...
It sounds like Guillermo’s problem is not that he couldn’t get heard, but that he was heard and judged short of his school’s tenure standards.
The proponents of intelligent design need to propose some testable hypotheses, conduct research based on them, analyze the data, and publish the results in a manner consistent with usual scientific procedure. Until they do so, 99.99% of scientists are not going to recognize ID as science.
The refusal to play by the same rules as everyone else, not their supposed challenge to CW, is their problem. They ought to stop whining and get to work.
bookmark
INTREP
So what scientific, observable, testable basis did scientists come use to the conclusion and the universe was not intelligently designed that it should become the standard to compare everything else to?
How did the universe bringing itself into existence and establishing itself become the default option to be accepted by *real* scientists and the position of ID became the one to prove?
What evidence is there to support the contention that something like what we see all around us, all the order, complexity, and intelligence does not need intelligence to exist or function?
For later...
Proponents of ID present it as an alternative to the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is not about how the universe came into existence, i.e. it is not about "who created the heavens and the earth." It is about the process by which species change and evolve.
I have my doubts that falsifiable hypotheses can be generated by ID proponents. I once saw a list of three or four that proponents claimed were testable. My personal opinion was that none actually were. However even if I am wrong, the fact remains that they have yet to test a single one. And until they do, the credibility that they seek in the scientific community will elude them.
I truly believe that if they would get serious about doing research they would find themselves more welcome than they believe possible.
I do hope this is helpful.
Yes, this was a good one; thanks for the ping!
~~AGW ™ ping~~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.