Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[Annie]

Like the writer of the following post, I disagree with ID being added to the science curriculum, but what is happening here is wrong. Links are found at the site:


http://instapundit.com/archives/026781.php

November 11, 2005

I'M DEEPLY UNIMPRESSED WITH "INTELLIGENT DESIGN," but this NPR story on the harassment, firing, and intimidation of scientists and academics who support intelligent design, or even seem like they might, is pretty appalling. (More accurately, the story is very good, but what it reports is appalling). This is pretty much scientific McCarthyism, and it ought to be stopped.

Listen to the story, and read this letter from the Office of Special Counsel on the Smithsonian Institution's behavior in a particularly disgraceful episode

Of course, with friends like Pat Robertson, Intelligent Design hardly needs enemies.
posted at 09:19 AM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[Bullypulpit]

Like the writer of the following post, I disagree with ID being added to the science curriculum, but what is happening here is wrong. Links are found at the site:


http://instapundit.com/archives/026781.php

Given that ID isn't really science, is it really discrimination?

 

[Powerman]

Given that ID isn't really science, is really discrimination?

ID isn't science. I didn't read the article but if it's a job pertaining to science then these supposed ID backers probably suck at their job.

 

[Powerman]

From the article
:
"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."


So what's the big deal here? He's obviously not exactly a top notch scientist if he's trying to pander to some ID nonsense that isn't even science. Some people say it's bad science and that gives it too much credit because it is not science at all. It's not even a debate. If you disagree you are merely misinformed. It's like saying that 2+2=5 to suggest that ID is science.

 

[Annie]

Given that ID isn't really science, is really discrimination?

Given that the guy didn't write or necessarily agree with the article, that he just published a peer reviewed column, yes. You both are guilty of what you are accusing others of being, ignorant.

 

[Gunny]

ID isn't science. I didn't read the article but if it's a job pertaining to science then these supposed ID backers probably suck at their job.

Ignorant statement. Please explain how belief in ID automatically hampers one's ability to perform a scientific job .......

 

[Powerman]

Ignorant statement. Please explain how belief in ID automatically hampers one's ability to perform a scientific job .......

Maybe you're misunderstanding me. You can believe in a creator and perform scientific tasks. But if you actually think that ID is science then you obviously don't understand the scientific process and thus you are probably not a very good scientist.

 

[Annie]

Maybe you're misunderstanding me. You can believe in a creator and perform scientific tasks. But if you actually think that ID is science then you obviously don't understand the scientific process and thus you are probably not a very good scientist.

Okay, so now you are for throwing out discussion within the scientific community? I'm not pro-ID, certainly not within the science curriculum. With that said, I do believe that academic publications should be free forums for issues of their time. You already said you didn't read, just condemn-so let's all raise one to Joe McCarthy, but from the left.

Funny how you are so quick to join the sheep! I'm much more surprised at Bully, who normally is quite thoughtful.

 

[Powerman]

Okay, so now you are for throwing out discussion within the scientific community? I'm not pro-ID, certainly not within the science curriculum. With that said, I do believe that academic publications should be free forums for issues of their time. You already said you didn't read, just condemn-so let's all raise one to Joe McCarthy, but from the left.

Funny how you are so quick to join the sheep! I'm much more surprised at Bully, who normally is quite thoughtful.

I'm not for throwing out discussion in the scientific community. ID isn't science. What do you not understand about that? It's not bad science. It's not science at all. Do you understand that?

 

[Powerman]

"With that said, I do believe that academic publications should be free forums for issues of their time."


Right. But people should expect to be criticized by their peers when they start talking all of this ID nonsense that isn't even science.

 

[Annie]

I'm not for throwing out discussion in the scientific community. ID isn't science. What do you not understand about that? It's not bad science. It's not science at all. Do you understand that?

Here's the problem, I do understand that. I've made that very clear. BUT, for anyone that knows his ass from a hole in the ground, it's necessary to have open forums. That those that 'argue' science should prevail, mimicking McCarthism is retarded in the least.

 

[Gunny]

Maybe you're misunderstanding me. You can believe in a creator and perform scientific tasks. But if you actually think that ID is science then you obviously don't understand the scientific process and thus you are probably not a very good scientist.

You have reached this conclusion by WHAT process exactly?

 

[Powerman]

Here's the problem, I do understand that. I've made that very clear. BUT, for anyone that knows his ass from a hole in the ground, it's necessary to have open forums. That those that 'argue' science should prevail, mimicking McCarthism is retarded in the least.

But this is the problem sweet stuff. Talking about ID in a science forum is the equivalent of talking about Santa Claus at a mathematical lecture. It's a complete waste of time.

 

[Powerman]

You have reached this conclusion by WHAT process exactly?

I've said probably 100 times on this forum why ID isn't science. But I'll do it again so pay attention this time.

ID is not science for 2 reasons. It is neither testable nor non-falsifiable. There is no need for something that is not science to be brought into a science forum. It's nonsense.

 

[Annie]

But this is the problem sweet stuff. Talking about ID in a science forum is the equivalent of talking about Santa Claus at a mathematical lecture. It's a complete waste of time.

Calling me 'sweet stuff' is cause enough to silence you. Overlooking it this time, wrong you are, in the sense that by putting it into the scientific forums, those with the expertise are able to argue it. What part of this escapes you? It's the course of the academic rigor.

 

[Annie]

I've said probably 100 times on this forum why ID isn't science. But I'll do it again so pay attention this time.

ID is not science for 2 reasons. It is neither testable nor non-falsifiable. There is no need for something that is not science to be brought into a science forum. It's nonsense.

I'll agree with this, which is why it should NOT be in science curriculum for general science. On the other hand, it should be debated in scientific medium and college level courses. That is what builds strong curriculum.

 

[Powerman]

I'll agree with this, which is why it should NOT be in science curriculum for general science. On the other hand, it should be debated in scientific medium and college level courses. That is what builds strong curriculum.

But why should something that is not science be debated in science forums and college classrooms? If it was a competing theory then by all means. But it's not even a competing theory. It's propaganda that's attempting to backdoor creation into the public school system.

 

[Annie]

But why should something that is not science be debated in science forums and college classrooms? If it was a competing theory then by all means. But it's not even a competing theory. It's propaganda that's attempting to backdoor creation into the public school system.

To discredit it or credit it. I see no way that ID is ever going to be able to meet scientific testing, but I guess that would have been said of Galileo and Oppenheimer also. Not that I put that on that footing...

 

[Gunny]

I've said probably 100 times on this forum why ID isn't science. But I'll do it again so pay attention this time.

ID is not science for 2 reasons. It is neither testable nor non-falsifiable. There is no need for something that is not science to be brought into a science forum. It's nonsense.

One, I don't particularly care how many times you have said what ..... this is the FIRST time that I asked you.

Two, so what you are saying is that any theory of origin that is not testable nor non-falsifiable is not science; therefore, ANY scientific theory of origin being taught as science is in actuality NOT science since it is neither testable nor verifiable.

 

[Powerman]

One, I don't particularly care how many times you have said what ..... this is the FIRST time that I asked you.

Two, so what you are saying is that any theory of origin that is not testable nor non-falsifiable is not science; therefore, ANY scientific theory of origin being taught as science is in actuality NOT science since it is neither testable nor verifiable.

Not testable according to your limited understanding of science perhaps. But there are tests and observations that you can make to lead you to different conclusions. Obviously we can't go back in time. Think of it as forensic science. At least you have something to work with. Invoking a supernatural being in your theory is just sillyness. It's not science. The big bang is science. For example we know that the universe expanded because it's still expanding and we can observe that. We can also observe different radiation levels and such. With ID there is absolutely nothing to observe or test so it isn't science. How difficult is that to understand?