Scientific Skeptics Have a Right to be Heard

ICECAP - The Blogosphere ^ | December 27, 2007 | Clyde E. Stauffer

[freespirited]

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.

[fightinJAG]

bookmark

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[metmom]

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?

[editor-surveyor]

For later...

[freespirited]

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?

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.

[alwaysconservative]

Yes, this was a good one; thanks for the ping!

[steelyourfaith]

~~AGW ™ ping~~