If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science. IMO, the fact, that peer review science rejects ID should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of science superior to peer review science.
32 comments
You have fun developing a form of science that is superiour. We'll be right here waiting. What's that? Jesus review science? of course!
Wow - and we can establish science as our own [non-deific] religious dogma, and it should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of religion superior to superstition, dumbass guesses, contradictory apologetics and rationalised hatred.
Yeah, right, good luck with that.
>>"If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science."
FAIL. Do you even know what science is or how it works?
>>"IMO, the fact, that peer review science rejects ID"
There's a reason for that.
>>"should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of science superior to peer review science."
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Superior science? Yeah right! Rather an inferior science, if it can't even be observed to work the way you say it does. Isn't that what peer review is, basically? We can't have science forms whose evidence is "because I say it does". That only works with five-year-olds, and barely even then. You have to be able to explain the theory behind the functioning, dumbass.
If ID is ever established as science, I am sure it will happen shortly after OUIJA boards, Magic 8 Ball, and tossing bones are made science.
"If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science."
Many have tried before. They all FAILED. Two Words: Kent Hovind.
"IMO, the fact, that peer review science rejects ID should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of science superior to peer review science."
Good luck with that. And the objective view of the scientific community?:
image image image
tl;dr: Kitzmiller vs. Dover, bitches.
Kinda sad that this is a poorly presented version of a common argument against the scientific method. Respectable people that started wondering about the objectivity of the mingling of modern science and politics, and the confirmation bias sometimes present even in fairly solid peer reviewed science didn't expect it to be picked up on like this and are fairly appalled by it at least.
Colonel Bob Ingersoll's opinion on religious BS as 'science' pretty much sums it up for me.
Ingersoll lived in the late 19th century, btw.
So, "warren_bergerson", how would you determine right and wrong in your "superior science"? Please be more specific.
My guess how your "superior" science will look like: Some self-declared authority gets a random thought which fits his own personal opinion and interests, calls this "divine inspiration", and declares this to be the absolute, unchanging truth. When someone else disagrees, he will get silenced, with methods ranging from emotional blackmail, shunning, torture, up to waging a 'holy' war. Until this or another self-declared authority gets a new random thought which fits his personal opinion and interests better, declares this to be the new absolute, unchanging truth, and everybody who agrees with the old absolute, unchanging truth will get silenced, with methods ranging from emotional blackmail, shunning, torture, holy wars...
Just look in any history book.
Ah, but there is an alternative to peer reviewed science. It is called "superstition." granted, superstition is vastly inferior to peer reviewed science with regards to improving the quality of life and expanding human knowledge. However, superstition is far superior as a tool for manipulating the ignorant.
So, what exactly is it that you want to do Warren?
"If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science."
It wasn't, and it was, respectively. Kitzmiller vs. Dover made sure of that. >:D
In 2002, John E. Jones III was personally appointed to the Federal Bench by George Dumbya Bush. Three years later, Judge Jones' decision in the extra -peer review science arena that is a court of law , specifically the case of KvD - and the implications for Constitutional Law that case's precedent set - was the final nail in the coffin of the Creationist cause (Romans 13:1-5, and all that jazz). The fact that, no doubt, warren here voted for Dumbya. Coincidence?
image
'There is no such thing as Coincidence in this world. There is only Hitszuzen ('Inevitability') '
-Yuuko the Dimensional Witch, "xxxHOLiC"
“If ID is ever to be established as a science”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
