Intelligent Design continued

JOE MEERT

What good is ID?

I went to a talk here yesterday by Carl Zimmer. For those
who don't know, Zimmer is an award winning science journalist who
authored the book "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea". The book served as a
companion to the PBS series on evolution. Zimmer's talk was average,
but he made a number of good points that resonated with the audience.
He asked the rhetorical question; "What good are the pretenders to the
throne-namely ID and young earth creation". He noted that most ID'ers
(Discovery Institute ilk) hold a position that is anathema to
ye-creationism (namely old earth) but that they are both religious
movements. In fact, one need only look at the Discovery Institute's
logo to see who they think the ID'er is! The second point he made, that
has been made (and ignored here and on other boards) is that ID has
produced no science at all. There are no scientific publications on ID.
Scientists are not using ID in their research. In fact, the point was
made that not even Behe uses ID in his scientific publications. It's a
religiously based socio-political agenda or Paley in a new coat and
tophat. The ID bunch spend their time criticizing evolution rather than
publishing the basics of their 'alleged' better alternative. In short,
there is no scientific basis for ID, it is all politically driven.

 

HELEN

With all due respect to Zimmer, he is badly mistaken on several counts
where ID is concerned.

1. It is NOT the same as YEC, as has already been stated here. In the
sense that a designer of some kind seems to be the only rational
conclusion, YEC becomes a subset of ID. However in the way the data is
approached, YEC is the opposite of ID. Zimmer perhaps needs to read a
little more about this subject before making such statements.

2. ID is at heart a system of tests predicated on the theory that
perhaps not ALL phenomena are the results of time, chance, mutation, and
natural selection. This has nothing at all to do with religion, but
with using the same tests that are part of fields such as archaeology
and forensics and applying them to a different area of science. Now it
can be legitimate to say these tests are not valid in that particular
area, and there are some well-thought-out arguments in that area which
ID needs to address, but to say ID is religious is either ignorance or a
deliberate falsehood.

3. ID is not in the business of producing science via research, but of
testing the published conclusions to the research as well as applying the tests to natural phenomena themselves.

4. There are a multitude of publications regarding ID from books to
articles. The fact that mainstream science peer-reviewed journals
refuse anything to do with ID is not evidence against ID but evidence
against the impartiality of the journals. In the meantime, ID has been
gaining attention in the press and the public mind, and that is what it
set out to do in the first place: wake people up.

5. Bringing Paley’s argument back is not a bad thing. Some things are
recognized as designed. Why?

 

PATRICK PARSON

The Discovery Institute was, not too long ago, embarassed by an internal
memo from the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture which overtly
described the objective as promoting Christianity.
http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/wedge_document.html


Here's a sample:

"Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and
political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that
nature and hurnan beings are created by God. "

The Discovery Institute vigorously denies that the agenda is to promote
theism, but their internal memo clearly shows that is precisely what it is.

It doesn't seem like a goal one should be ashamed of. I don't agree with
the way they are going about it, but I'm interested in promoting Christian
values, too. I don't happen to think science will be able to help, since it
can't address the supernatural. But the intent is fine. I wish they
weren't embarassed about it.

I think they should be willing to say so directly. The "Oh, you weren't
supposed to see that." reaction isn't a step in the right direction.

 

JOHN PAUL

Do scientists use ID in their research? Helen has done
a very good job showing that some sciences use ID-
forensics and archaeology. I would add anthropology
and arson investigation as two more fields that would
also use ID. Can it be applied to biology? Mike Gene
thinks so:
http://www.idthink.net/arn/pred/index.htm

(Using ID to Understand the Living World);
http://www.idthink.net/arn/shap/index.htm

(ID
friendly evolution);
http://www.idthink.net/arn/dif/index.htm

(THE CELL:
REDUCTIONISM FALLS WHERE ID STANDS)


Also as has been pointed out before, IDists (or
anyone) can infer the Lord our God is the designer but
the point is that life on Earth could have been
designed by some other ‘intelligent’ agent. The
identity of the designer is irrelevant as to whether
or not something is designed. To further the point of
biological design, today we observe scientists
designing biochemical systems and we have never
observed biochemical systems originate via purely
natural processes.

To Joe: Why is it OK to infer
biochemical systems are the result of purely natural
processes when we don’t have any evidence to
substantiate that claim, but it is not OK to infer
design even though we can observe biochemical systems
being designed?

I guess Joe doesn’t think that materialistic
naturalism has no political, or other, agenda. That's
hardly the case. The point being is that if
materialistic naturalism isn’t indicative of reality,
what good is it? Further, do whale researchers have a
better handle on their research by the alleged
‘knowledge’ of the alleged cetacean evolution? Does
the ‘knowledge’ that all of life owes it common
ancestry to an as yet unknown population of organisms
(or populations) that just happened to have the
ability to self replicate, aid us in any way in the
research to cure cancer or any disease?

In conclusion, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a
duck, waddles like a duck- we can infer that it is
indeed, a duck. With design, if something looks
designed, acts designed, has been observed being
designed, and has no substantiating evidence for
arising without a designer - it is safe to infer it
was designed.

John Paul

 

PATRICK PARSON

Do scientists use ID in their research? Helen has done a very good job
showing that some sciences use ID-
forensics and archaeology. I would add anthropology and arson
investigation as two more fields that would
also use ID.

Actually, Helen merely asserted that ID is used in forensics and
archaeology. I have a friend who is the forensics expert for a large
city police department. He thought her assertion was funny. I also
gave Helen a cite for a book about the interpretaton of artifacts, so
she could learn how they actually do determine what artifacts are, and
how they were made and used. ID had nothing to do with it. I had to
learn arson investigation for a project in my former company. Had to
go back to college to learn about it. There was no ID in any of it.

It appears that you and Helen are trying to tell us that the procedures
scientists have always used are actually ID. If so, what is to be
gained by adding "Godmustadunnit"? Since science has been
spectacularly successful without that assumption, it appears to be
foolish to add it.

------------

JP:
Can it be applied to biology? Mike Gene thinks so:
http://www.idthink.net/arn/pred/index.htm

If it works, why haven't we seen any results? You would think that
such a marvelous new tool would be good for something. Yet we see no
breakthroughs or benefits at all. What scientist has used Dembski's
filter to come up with a great discovery?

-------------

JP:
(ID friendly evolution);
(THE CELL: REDUCTIONISM FALLS WHERE ID STANDS)

If folks think that
physical causes are in adequate to describe physcical processes, I'd
sure like to have them show me one thing in biology that can be shown to
have a non-physical explaination. I'm very serious, JP. Show me
one. Anecdotes and "well we don't understand it yet, so it has to be
what I want it to be" stuff doesn't count.

--------

Also as has been pointed out before, IDists (or anyone) can infer the
Lord our God is the designer but the point is that life on Earth could
have been designed by some other ‘intelligent’ agent.

The recently-revealed "wedge" document from the Discovery Institute
pretty much spilled the beans for IDers. Yep, they're basically trying
to promote their version of Christianity, after all. I got a lot of
outraged protest from creationists when opined that was what they were
really up to. But I was right. Their tent is big enough to let the
Moonies in, but it's still some kind of version of Christianity.

----------------

JP:
The identity of the designer is irrelevant as to whether or not
something is designed. To further the point of
biological design, today we observe scientists designing biochemical
systems and we have never observed biochemical systems originate via
purely natural processes.


Sure we have. We have, for example, seen an irreducibly complex
metabolic pathway evolve by purely natural processes.

-----------

JP:
Further, do whale researchers have a better handle on their research by
the alleged ‘knowledge’ of the alleged cetacean evolution?

Yep, they do. Having found all sorts of intermediates between ungulates
and modern whales, that pretty much did the trick. Having found that
cetaceans are genetically most similar to ungulates was just one more
confirmation. Even creationists are beginning to suggest that the
evolution of whales from ungulates is "not really macroevolution".

------------

JP:
Does the ‘knowledge’ that all of life owes it common ancestry to an as
yet unknown population of organisms
(or populations) that just happened to have the ability to self
replicate, aid us in any way in the research to cure cancer or any
disease?

The truth is not false, even if it has no practical uses. However, you
might remember that all sorts of apparently useless knowledge have
turned out to have practical applications. For scientists, knowledge
is a worthy goal in iteself.

--------------

JP:
With design, if something looks designed, acts designed, has been
observed being designed, and has no substantiating evidence for
arising without a designer - it is safe to infer it was designed.

One of the things humans can do really well, is tell the difference
between designed things and natural things. Even stone age tribesmen
will tell you that a watch is designed, but a carrot is not.

 

JOHN PAUL

John Paul:
Do scientists use ID in their research? Helen has done
a very good job showing that some sciences use ID-
forensics and archaeology. I would add anthropology
and arson investigation as two more fields that would
also use ID.

Pat:
Actually, Helen merely asserted that ID is used in
forensics and archaeology. I have a friend who is the
forensics expert for a large city police department.
He thought her assertion was funny.

John Paul:
Objection. Hearsay is not evidence.

[Administrator: the following question has been rephrased to avoid inflammatory implications:]
Is it possible you misrepresented ID to your friend?


Pat:
I also gave Helen a cite for a book about the
interpretaton of artifacts, so she could learn how
they actually do determine what artifacts are, and how
they were made and used. ID had nothing to do with it.

John Paul:
From Britannica: “A general term for any one of the
things made by a human being is artifact.”

Let’s see- archaeologists try to differentiate natural
objects from designed objects. ID tries to
differentiate natural objects from designed objects.
Seem pretty similar to me.


Pat:
I had to learn arson investigation for a project in my
former company. Had to go back to college to learn
about it. There was no ID in any of it.

John Paul:
I believe that you think that is so. Tell
us, how would you differentiate between arson, an
accident or natural causes, of a fire? Can you also
tell the difference between an accidental fire and
arson made to appear as an accident? (I guess that
would depend on how clever the arsonist is)


Pat:
It appears that you and Helen are trying to tell us
that the procedures scientists have always used are
actually ID.

John Paul:
Not all scientists and not all procedures.


Pat:
If so, what is to be gained by adding
"Godmustadunnit"?

John Paul:
That is not what ID is about Pat. This is a
misrepresentation. God did it. Get
over it. Now let’s find out how things function. Maybe
that will help us figure out our purpose. Perhaps then
we will better understand the function and how to
maintain it. It’s a nice cycle.

Why don’t you ask yourself- what is to be gained by
saying purely natural processes can account for life
and its subsequent diversity from some unknown
population(s?) of unknown organisms? Even Dennett
admits there is no way to predict what would be
selected for at any point in time. Perhaps if we
understood the design of life we would be able to
predict what environments (natural or artificial)
would do to what organisms and ecosystems. In that way
we could better prepare to intervene if something goes
awry.


Pat:
Since science has been spectacularly successful
without that assumption, it appears to be
foolish to add it.

John Paul:
Newton attributed what he observed to the Lord our
God, as did Kepler and many other scientists. The
issue only arose when people started taking God out of
the equation. What did that accomplish? Now we are
free to explain away everything as a result of purely
natural processes because there will be no call for us
to verify those explanations? What good is an
explanation without verification? I wish I had
teachers like you when I was in junior high. I had an
explanation for most anything.

------------
JP:
Can it be applied to biology? Mike Gene thinks so: http://www.idthink.net/arn/pred/index.htm

Pat:
If it works, why haven't we seen any results? You
would think that such a marvelous new tool would be
good for something. Yet we see no breakthroughs or
benefits at all. What scientist has used Dembski's
filter to come up with a great discovery?

John Paul:
A little patience Pat. Believing that all of life owes
its common ancestry to some as yet unknown population
of organisms hasn’t exactly added much to the
advancement of science.
-------------


JP:
(ID friendly evolution);
(THE CELL: REDUCTIONISM FALLS WHERE ID STANDS)

Pat:
If folks think that physical causes are in adequate to
describe physcical processes, I'd sure like to have
them show me one thing in biology that can be shown to
have a non-physical explaination. I'm very serious,
JP. Show me one. Anecdotes and "well we don't
understand it yet, so it has to be what I want it to
be" stuff doesn't count.

John Paul:
Pat, that is exactly the anecdote that evolutionists
use all the time. Explanations don’t wash (see above
comment on explanations), empirical evidence does. Can
we go to a lab, take the hypothesis of eucaryotic
origins (bacterial endosymbiosis) and verify it?
Understand the difference? The same goes for the
'explanation' on how life started.

--------

John Paul:
Also as has been pointed out before, IDists (or
anyone) can infer the Lord our God is the designer but
the point is that life on Earth could have been
designed by some other ‘intelligent’ agent.

Pat:
The recently-revealed "wedge" document from the
Discovery Institute pretty much spilled the beans for
IDers.

John Paul:
Did it state that God was the designer of life on
Earth?
Wm. Dembski states,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Even if a theory of
intelligent design should ultimately prove successful
and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the
designer posited by this theory would have to be the
Christian God or for that matter be real in some
ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about
science and simply regard the designer as a regulative
principle--a conceptually useful device for making
sense out of certain facts of biology--without
assigning the designer any weight in reality.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In an article found here:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=584


Pat:
Yep, they're basically trying to promote their version
of Christianity, after all. I got a lot of
outraged protest from creationists when opined that
was what they were really up to. But I was right.
Their tent is big enough to let the Moonies in, but
it's still some kind of version of Christianity.

John Paul:
Well the Christianity tent is allegedly big enough for
evolutionists. Or is it that allegedly Christians can
also believe in the common descent diatribe of the
ToE? It appears that there are many versions of
“Christianity”, but in reality, only one True Path.
What maze are you stuck in?

BTW, what some proponents do and what ID is can be two
different things. Also you don't have to be a
Christian to be an IDist or a Creationist- in case any
lurkers were wondering.

----------------

JP:
The identity of the designer is irrelevant as to
whether or not something is designed. To further the
point of biological design, today we observe
scientists designing biochemical systems and we have
never observed biochemical systems originate via
purely natural processes.

Pat:
Sure we have. We have, for example, seen an
irreducibly complex metabolic pathway evolve by purely
natural processes.

John Paul:
You posted what you thought was one example on another
board. However that example, like the others, was
refuted (ie, the experiment did NOT show Darwinian
mechanisms could produce IC).

-----------

JP:
Further, do whale researchers have a better handle on
their research by the alleged ‘knowledge’ of the
alleged cetacean evolution?

Pat:
Yep, they do.

John Paul:
Living in New England I have had the pleasure to visit
many cetacean institutes. Also because of modern
technology, I can contact others. The scientists who
study whales apparently could care less about their
alleged origins as it matters not to their research.
Some found it interesting and yes some scoffed at the
idea that whales ‘evolved’ from a land mammal.


Pat:
Having found all sorts of intermediates between
ungulates and modern whales, that pretty much did the
trick.

John Paul:
Alleged fossil ‘intermediates’ are just an
evolutionist’s way of saying, “I wouldn’t have seen it
if I didn’t believe it.”


Pat:
Having found that cetaceans are genetically most
similar to ungulates was just one more
confirmation.

John Paul:
For Creationists it confirms a Common Creator.


Pat:
Even creationists are beginning to suggest that the
evolution of whales from ungulates is "not really
macroevolution".

John Paul:
Reference please.

------------

JP:
Does the ‘knowledge’ that all of life owes it common
ancestry to an as yet unknown population of organisms
(or populations) that just happened to have the
ability to self replicate, aid us in any way in the
research to cure cancer or any
disease?

Pat:
The truth is not false, even if it has no practical
uses.

John Paul:
Exactly. Also, the truth is not false even if it
doesn’t fit evolutionist’s mundane definition of
science.


Pat:
However, you might remember that all sorts of
apparently useless knowledge have turned out to have
practical applications. For scientists, knowledge
is a worthy goal in iteself.

John Paul:
But is it knowledge if it can’t be verified?

--------------

JP:
With design, if something looks designed, acts
designed, has been observed being designed, and has no
substantiating evidence for arising without a designer
- it is safe to infer it was designed.

Pat:
One of the things humans can do really well, is tell
the difference between designed things and natural
things.

John Paul:
And that is why design is so obvious in biochemical
systems.


Pat:
Even stone age tribesmen will tell you that a watch is
designed, but a carrot is not.

John Paul:
Give that tribesman modern technology so he can see
what the carrot really is and he will tell us it was
designed. The black box has been opened. Design can no
longer be ignored.


God Bless,

John Paul

 

JOE MEERT

Let me address several points made by Helen and others:
(1) Neither I nor Zimmer misunderstand ID. I realize the small differences
between ID and young earth creationism and have written about them at
http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/id.htm.

ID, as formulated by Behe and
others at DI should be anathema to young earth creationism, but it is not.
Helen and others embrace it simply because it argues against evolution and
we all know who the 'intelligent designer' really is.
Masquerading behind a cloud of 'it could be anything or anyone' is nothing
more than wishful thinking. ID won't mention the G-D word because then it
would be exposed for the religious movement it is.

(2) ID is simply an old argument wrapped in new clothing. Zimmer's point,
and mine as well, is that ID has produced NO useful science. ID is not
being used in everyday research and ID's scientific champion (Michael Behe)
is an evolutionist who thinks that the ID is a God of the gaps and nothing
more. Behe (other than his book) has not published a single peer-reviewed
article using ID. No one else has either. This, more than any rhetoric
from either side, speaks to the overall bankruptcy of ID as science. It
doesn't work and it doesn't contribute anything useful to science. To say
that ID is not about doing research (as Helen did) also speaks volumes about
the scientific bankruptcy of the idea.

(3)The notion that scientific journals are biased against new ideas is
patently false, but this claim is made by Helen and other creationists on a
nearly constant basis. So far, there is no proof of this bias. You made
this claim about Setterfield (turns out to be false). Others have made
similar claims, but there is no supporting documentation. Papers get
rejected all the time. As an editor, I can tell you that in the top
journals, very few papers submitted are ever published. It's not about
censorship. It's about quality science and writing convincing data-laden
papers supporting your position. I am getting tired of this baseless
accusation. I know how things work and there is no bias against good
science. I can give you a good example of a creationist writing about
biblical geology. Steve Austin wrote an article (accepted by Intl Geology
Review) about the earthquake of Amos. It was biblical history supported by
good data. The journal did not censor the article because it was about the
bible or written by a creationist. It was accepted on the face value of the
data. The sooner creationists realize this is all that science asks, the
sooner they will stop making baseless claims.

 

JOHN PAUL

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
Let me address several points made by Helen and
others:
(1) Neither I nor Zimmer misunderstand ID. I realize
the small differences between ID and young earth
creationism and have written about them at
http://www.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/id.htm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
As you have been told before, YEC is a subset of ID.
No one said they were the same, ever.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
ID, as formulated by Behe and others at DI should be
anathema to young earth creationism, but it is not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Why should ID be anathema to YEC? As you have just
been told (again), YEC is a subset of ID. They are not
the same. Do you understand what a subset is?
I happen to agree with Behe in that the only way
common descent would be possible is if the original
population(s) of organisms were ‘front-end’ loaded.
That is, they already had the genetic information
necessary to get past the IC road blocks. However
there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
Helen and others embrace it simply because it argues
against evolution and
we all know who the 'intelligent designer' really is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
ID argues against evolution? It would be more correct
to state that ID argues against the Darwinian
mechanism accounting for life’s diversity owing its
common ancestry to some unknown population of
single-celled organisms that just happened to have the
ability to self-replicate. ID also postulates the
origins of life, which evolutionists try to distance
themselves from. Methinks you are confused as to what
ID is and what ID isn’t.

If something looks designed, functions as if it were
designed and has no substantiating evidence that it
wasn’t designed, why is ‘wrong’ to infer design?

Also please keep your assertion that ‘we all
know who the intelligent designer’ is to yourself. I
see you can accuse others of doing that but here you are…

Again- Wm. Dembski states,
:“Even if a theory of
intelligent design should ultimately prove successful
and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the
designer posited by this theory would have to be the
Christian God or for that matter be real in some
ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about
science and simply regard the designer as a regulative
principle--a conceptually useful device for making
sense out of certain facts of biology--without
assigning the designer any weight in reality.”


In an article found here:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=584


Who should we believe? Someone who is very much
involved with ID or someone who is dead set against
ID?


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
Masquerading behind a cloud of 'it could be anything
or anyone' is nothing
more than wishful thinking. ID won't mention the G-D
word because then it
would be exposed for the religious movement it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
ID is no more religious than is materialistic
naturalism, which is the prevailing worldview in
science these days. Science should be the pursuit of
truth, regardless where it leads us.

What’s the difference if we attribute something to
God, and Intelligent Designer or Mother Nature acting
with Father Time on some unknown natural process?

Please answer that question.

None one in the ID or Creation camp suggests shrugging
our shoulders and saying God/ Intelligent Designer
must have done it that way and leave it at that. This
appears to be the evolutionists’ view of IDists and
Creationists, which would be, and is, a blatant
misrepresentation of reality.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
(2) ID is simply an old argument wrapped in new
clothing. Zimmer's point,
and mine as well, is that ID has produced NO useful
science. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Did you even read the links I provided in my earlier
post?
Please tell us what useful science materialistic
naturalism has produced? What have we gained by
postulating a purely natural origin for life? What
have we gained by postulating that the original
life-form could evolve into the diversity we observe
today? What have we gained by postulating only purely
natural processes have led to all we observe?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Joe Meert:
ID is not being used in everyday research and ID's
scientific champion (Michael Behe)
is an evolutionist who thinks that the ID is a God of
the gaps and nothing more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Reference please (on Behe thinking that ID is a God of
the gaps and nothing more) or else it is a baseless
assertion.

Modern ID is relatively new. Give it some time. What’s
the hurry? Also how would you know what molecular
biologists use in their research? Did you ever think
that what they use and what they publish are not one
in the same?

I am sure you won’t like this article but here it is
anyway:

The Biologist
http://www.creationequation.com/Archives/TheBiologist.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Joe Meert:
Behe (other than his book) has not published a single
peer-reviewed
article using ID. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
According to Behe, he has been censored. Has anyone
published a single peer-reviewed paper that shows that
life is the product of purely natural processes? Is
there a peer-reviewed paper(s) that show what Behe
calls irreducible complexity can arise by the standard
Darwinian step-by-step processes?
Did you know there is now an International Society for
Complexity, Design and Information, that has been set
up for an ID peer-reviewed process?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Meert:
No one else has either. This, more than any rhetoric
from either side, speaks to the overall bankruptcy of
ID as science. It
doesn't work and it doesn't contribute anything useful
to science. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Until you can tell us what believing that the origins
of life are due to purely natural processes has added
to science it is clear you are applying the typical
double-standards that evolutionists always fall back
on.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Joe Meert:
To say that ID is not about doing research (as Helen
did) also speaks volumes about
the scientific bankruptcy of the idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Perhaps Helen can clarify that for us. I understand
that it is virtually no way to predict what a designer
will design, but I feel (as does at least one other
person- Mike Gene of IDThink.net) that ID can be a
valuable tool for doing biological research. It’s
there on his website. All you have to do is go there
and read it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Joe Meert:
(3)The notion that scientific journals are biased
against new ideas is
patently false, but this claim is made by Helen and
other creationists on a
nearly constant basis. So far, there is no proof of
this bias. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Actually there is evidence and it has been presented.
Both Behe and Humphreys have provided that evidence.
That was why Creationists now have their own
peer-review process and IDists are doing the same.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Joe Meert:
You made this claim about Setterfield (turns out to be
false). Others have made
similar claims, but there is no supporting
documentation. Papers get
rejected all the time. As an editor, I can tell you
that in the top
journals, very few papers submitted are ever
published. It's not about
censorship. It's about quality science and writing
convincing data-laden
papers supporting your position. I am getting tired of
this baseless
accusation. I know how things work and there is no
bias against good
science. I can give you a good example of a
creationist writing about
biblical geology. Steve Austin wrote an article
(accepted by Intl Geology
Review) about the earthquake of Amos. It was biblical
history supported by
good data. The journal did not censor the article
because it was about the
bible or written by a creationist. It was accepted on
the face value of the
data. The sooner creationists realize this is all that
science asks, the
sooner they will stop making baseless claims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Paul:
Just so we get this straight- No one said ALL
Creationists’ or IDists’ submissions get rejected
outright. Unless you are calling Behe and Humphreys
liars, I don’t see the evidence to support your
position.

So if you would, please tell us what the alternatives,
IYO, if life’s origins could not have arisen via
purely natural processes?


God Bless,

John Paul