New Scientist: ID-friendly creationist given air-time beside Nobel Laureates

Jehu, I remember that lame piece. BTW, how does one falsify IC if it cannot be falsified? Evidently, by allowing only one view. Does not matter, they have Judge Jones, a true golem if ever was one on public parade, that he can't deliver a speech with originality, a regular gunnif of the word. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/did_judge_jones_plagiarize_sch.html Chutzpah? No, I'd call it no principles. Unbelievable he serves as a Judge. Dembski had is right, he's a putz and self absorbed. I'm guessing he probably had an assistant write his speech, or that is what his claim will be. Michaels7

Michaels7

If the Dover decision “killed” ID. Why is ASCB promoting a lobby against it?

That is a good question. Kind of like, if there is no controversey about ID in the scientific community why are aticles published in scientific journals like Science attempting to refute it? http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3415&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science%20-%20MainPage Jehu

If the Dover decision "killed" ID. Why is ASCB promoting a lobby against it? Michaels7

Salvador, Thanks, I'd failed to read that item. Yes, he's well published and another stick in the materialist craw. About ideas, boldness, creativity, risk - see my comment on Presidents column; Mary Beckerle, ASCB in Dave's post, Ultraconserved Phenotype It is an interesting column on hindsight and future creative work. And there is an AD promoting agasint ID in their newsletter BTW for promoting a new lobby across 50 states. On the one hand, they want to bring in Engineers, CompSci, Physics and Math. On the other hand, they do not like the inference drawn of ID. Michaels7

In my humble opinion, at this stage of the game, the worst thing that could happen to the progress of ID is that it be ignored in the public sphere. Bad publicity is better than no publicity at this point. The other thing is I had no idea that Biologic Institute even existed, nor the fact that Baumgardner has done respectable work and has been published in the journals Science and Nature, nor that there are Nobel Laureates who explore the paranormal. [note: I heard elsewhere the the discoverer of PCR believes in astrology.] The point at issue is that someone may have questionable ideas, but the exploration of truth is hindered if we stiffle people from exploring ideas, even ones that seem outrageous. Or if we hinder them from participating in the scientific enterprise because they may hold certain views of reality which others deem outrageous. Newton supposedly explored alchemy and Kepler was an astrologist. My view is we should encourage people to explore ideas. I think the majority of OOL is the quest for square circles. However, it has been the billions of dollars of failed OOL research that has convinced me the alternative, namely ID, is more promising. So even the exploration of an idea I deemed hopeless (like OOL) it was still worthwhile in the quest for truth. I'm reassured fewer and fewer stones have been left unturned in OOL. A spirit of open and free inquiry is a good thing for science. scordova

Ok I am confused, was any of this a good thing? Tims

The New Scientist article was hilarious! Let me paraphrase: "Those wascally wabbits, any time those wittle nut cwackers think they can out-smart Ewmer J. Fudd they've got another thing coming." mentok