Comments on: How Science Works

By: emwitek

emwitek — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:51:08 +0000

As part of this thread in regards to scientific integrity I offer the following:

Eric J. Lerner in “Bucking the Big Bang” (New Scientist, May 22, 2004 p.20)

“…the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation…

in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model…Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the
peer-review committes that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang.”

I guess it’s all about the money !!!!!

By: GilDodgen

GilDodgen — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:42:04 +0000

As an example of how Darwinian science works, consider two examples:

INDUCTIVE
Spend 150 years digging up fossils with the explicit goal of verifying a conclusion that has already been reached (incremental Darwinian gradualism). When the overwhelming and persistent evidence is that new species appear suddenly and remain virtually unchanged until they go extinct (or remain to this day, like the shark and horseshoe crab), find a few speculative examples that can be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis (even though there is no way to establish ancestor/descendent relationships), and declare that the evidence supports the hypothesis.

DEDUCTIVE
Hypothesize that Darwinian processes would have produced junk DNA. When junk DNA turns out not to be junk, declare that the theory never predicted it would be.

By: professorsmith

professorsmith — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:42:27 +0000

Apparently, the Darwinists seem to think the joke is on us. See here. Of course, they seem to forget that ID is not the same as creationism.

By: mike1962

mike1962 — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:53:06 +0000

Borne: “not drinking toxic beverages”

They would if they could

By: ReligionProf

ReligionProf — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:52:02 +0000

If you look at the rest of the site, it seems to be an attempt at humor. One thing that has struck me on more than one occasion lately is that much that the Intelligent Design movement produces looks like what mainstream scientists would call attempts at humor. If you are trying to get the message out that ID is a joke, this is certainly one way of going about it!

By: Eric Anderson

Eric Anderson — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:41:29 +0000

Gotta love the early amphibians. Hey, it’s as good as anything folks have come up with yet!

By: Borne

Borne — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:15:34 +0000

Amazingly accurate as to the scientific method!

One error on the evolution page of course is that primates descended from man, not the inverse, and are thus the more advanced. That’s how nefarious mutations (the majority) and natural selection works.

But primates, while having devolved from man, are actually much better adapted than man… for tree climbing, fun romping, tail-hanging, not inventing killing or torture machines, not aborting their own young, not inventing smoking of weeds, not drinking toxic beverages, etc. etc. that is.
IOW, Man is devolving from primates and is actually devolving into a virus (many believe this has already occurred in spite of morphological set backs).

I’m pretty sure I can prove this. (the way Darwinists prove things of course)

How’s that for using Darwinian style hypothesizing?

I ought to be able to grab a few grants for this.

By: Berceuse

Berceuse — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:12:39 +0000

sorry that was for #3

By: Berceuse

Berceuse — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:57:48 +0000

Re #2:

Like Dawkins?

By: Bob O'H

Bob O'H — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:20:32 +0000

For giving away our secrets, the author of that website has just been volunteered for a Phase Zero clinical trial.

And he didn’t even realise there were Phase Zero clinical trials.

Bob