Wednesday, June 08, 2011

The War On Science (It's Not What You Think)

Phillip Johnson and intelligent design profile...   Image by Raymond Yee via Flickr
A peer-reviewed article is withdrawn from publication because a Darwinist blogger objected to its content. The editor scraped and grovelled in apology.
After Dr. Sewell's article was pulled, Darwinian zealots crowed about their achievement and maliciously speculated that the article was withdrawn because it wasn't really peer-reviewed or because it was somehow substandard. The journal, meanwhile, left Dr. Sewell to twist in the wind, seemingly endorsing the Darwinists' smears. The journal editor Dr. Rodin wrote a groveling letter to the Darwinist blogger who complained to him in which he agreed that publishing Sewell's article would involve "impropriety." Rodin further apologized "for our erroneous judgement in even considering this paper for publication."
Then he was reminded of his journal's own professional standards, and ended up apologizing to Dr. Sewell, the author. John G. West gives us the take-away:
If there is a "war on science" today, it's not being waged by the critics of Darwinism or supporters of intelligent design. It's being waged by Darwinian fundamentalists who are attempting to prevent any voices except their own from being heard in the scientific community. They seem willing to do virtually anything to silence their critics--from denying them tenure, to preventing them from being hired, to engaging in cyber attacks, to censoring peer-reviewed articles by scholars with whom they disagree. Italan geneticist Guiseppe Sermonti has remarked that "Darwinism... is the 'politically correct' of science." How right he is.
Regain your full humanity.  Rebel against the atheist machine.™


Update: For more, including a link to the disputed article, go here.
Enhanced by Zemanta

6 comments:

Jim Pook said...

Intelligent Design is not science. It is religion masquerading as science so it can sneak in the back door of the classroom.

Religion needs to stay in the church and stay out of the classroom.

RkBall said...

Jim. Thanks for your comment. You offer neither argument nor evidence for your assertion. Either biological systems point to intelligent agency or they don't. If they do, they do -- and that would be a scientific "inference to the best explanation" regardless of the philosophical, religious, or moral implications. Arguably, philosophical materialism is not science -- and it is the underlying bedrock that is wedded to darwinian science. So, one belongs but the other doesn't? Then science is not a search for truth. It is merely a search for plausible (or implausible) explanations that fit a preconceived philosophical position.

Jim Pook said...

Thanks for the outlet.

I think that you are treating religion as a science, and science as a religion.

Religion requires FAITH to believe things that do not make sense. Science trys to make sense of what we can observe by testing the known facts. Sometimes these facts are proven wrong and new facts replace them. Meanwhile religion is still pushing beliefs from 2000+ years ago.

RkBall said...

Jim, "I think that you are treating religion as a science, and science as a religion."

Well, you should try to provide some evidence for this. Otherwise, it is just an assertion.

I believe that ID fits within the "inference to the best explanation" heuristic of the historical sciences, and, properly constructed to avoid going beyond the science into philosophical or religious conclusions, belongs within the realm of scientific pursuit, and therefore, the science classroom.

Arguably, the philosophical assumption of materialism, which is associated with philosophical (as opposed to scientific darwinism) equally should be excluded from the classroom -- and yet it is welcomed with open arms. So, there's an inconsistency which goes to prejudicial philosophical bias.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Sewell must publish his findings in the form of a popular book or as a posting on an internet science forum. If the peeer reviewed journals haven't the courage to publish his findings that doesn't mean they should be buried.

RkBall said...

Anon: the paper has been published electronically.

Go here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/retraction-watch-has-noted-the-math-journals-retraction-of-its-treatment-of-granville-sewell/

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"