Put Up, or Shut Up!
| November 20, 2009 | Posted by PaV under Culture, Global Warming, Intelligent Design |
There’s breaking news today about the Hadley CRU in England which had its emails and data banks hacked into. CRU is the acronym for ‘Climate Research Unit’. Seems that some of the emails show some possible collusion when it came to producing and supporting data that didn’t fit into GW science. Some interesting quotes. How about this one:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
Isn’t this ineteresting: the way to marginalize the critics is to keep them away from the journals and claim that none of the critic’s views have been “peer-reviewed”. Doesn’t this sound familiar?
Speaking of sounding familiar, how abou this . . .
Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review. But the best science should stand up even to outside scrutiny. And if Mr. McIntyre has a credibility problem with climatologists, climatologists’ predictions are increasingly viewed skeptically by the public.
That’s right: Put up, or shut up. That is, unless someone can come up with a “theory” which can replace Darwinism, their criticism will never be taken seriously.
Looking at these quotes, is it any wonder, then, that we here at UD have steadily pointed to what is going on in climate science as a proxy for what is happening in the evolutionary debates? Maybe it’s time to “take over a journal”!
But, of course, then they’ll just simply collude in saying that the journal has lost all its value—it’s lost its credibility. Humpf!
39 Responses to Put Up, or Shut Up!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Getting back on track…
Lying Scientist were hacked
What they covered
and tried to smother
the public discovered
now they deserve to be smacked.
Down that is, to the ground that is.
Like the pond scum they say they come from.
Notice how the Darwinist fail to see the link between this discovery and their own fascist lifestyles.
Give credit where credit is due. The Design Theorist called out the Global Warming Hoax a long time ago. We’ve had 11 years of cooling now, something the models never predicted. So any hockey stick interpretation was proven wrong long ago, with bad data as well as shown by McIntyre.
Al Gore’s fiction and lies was shot down by an English Court and forced to admit at least 9 erroneous claims with a lable that it was a political book, not science.
This is disgusting behavior by the Climate freaks that seek to malign and visciously attack those who question their claims.
Likewise now for years the Darwinist have acted and behaved the same way. With attacks on their peers like Sternberg.
Darwinist at these publications are no longer operating as scientist, much like the Global Warming Homers, they seek nothing but to censor and shut out all existing opponents to their god of unguided processes.
That the atheist now worship Darwin in churches lets us know that it is a religion today more than a science.
No more distractions. What these climatologist did and are doing is vulgar and offensive to any true liberal and freethinker.
What we have today is a bunch of close-minded bigots in Global Warming huxters like Gore, waiting to make his Billions off of Carbon tax scams, and the Darwinist who seek to retain their bankroll in making up cute bedtime stories about the past.
What a waste of minds, time, money and effort. Such political correctness is a killer of science and holds us back from progress.
150 years of dead tree ideas.
How’s that bear in the water doing these days Darwinist? Still swimming around eating bugs? OR did it evolve into a whale yet?
Pffft… science fiction.
It is a mistake to think that Hume ever refuted Paley. It’s as if you think Paley was not aware of Hume’s argument when he wrote. Do you actually believe that is the case?
Philosophers today acknowledge that the argument “refuted” by Hume, is not the argument which Paley made.
This is why it is necessary to claim that “natural selection” can bring about the appearance of design.
Design was still on the table when Paley wrote, it was still on the table when Darwin wrote, it was still on the table after Darwin, and it’s still on the table today.
There’s a simple, obvious, reason for that.
Trying to resurrect Hume’s tired old misguided argument doesn’t help.
Mung @ 32
I think we both know that Paley was a well-educated and highly-intelligent man who was well aware of Hume’s work.
It does not alter the fact that Paley argues by analogy which, while not a fallacy itself, is vulnerable to the fallacies of selective observation and argument from incredulity.
Those criticisms still stand.
I just quoted a contemporary who disagrees.
Yes, it is.
But in the 150 years since Darwin published his theory, evolutionary biology has grown into the thriving discipline it is today.
ID, meanwhile, is still little more than a fading proposal on the table.
Hume’s case is the one that has stood the test of time, not Paley’s.
Seversky,
That’s actually not true. Hume’s argument was that things that reproduce can become complex, while Paley’s answer was that things that reproduce make them even more complicated than his watch analogy, which, we know today, is absolutely correct. Hume assumed that simple things could be produced and reproduce themselves until they became complicated. We know that in order to reproduce, you are already complex. Besides, Thomas Reid effectively refuted Hume too.
You agree that Paley was aware of Hume, but then go on to assert that he committed the very error against which Hume argued.
It is Darwin who argued by analogy.
The same author who wrote, “The program of biology is reverse engineering on a grand scale,” also wrote the following:
If you can call the occasional obligatory yet content-less nod towards “evolution” as the cause in a book otherwise fully about design in the cell a “thriving discipline”…
Seversky:
So the only way to reach a valid design inference, in your opinion, is to know the designer?
That is backwards.
Ya see the only way to know anything about the designer, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.
If we know the designer then we do not need to reach a design inference as design would be a given.
It isn’t a problem.
Ya see we have tried and true design detection techniques.
Then there is reducibility- that is figuring out what it takes to account for what we are observing.
That said can you point to any non-telic research?
IOW what research has been conducted that demonstrates all we observe can be accounted for via blind and undirected processes?
Nope you still need POSITIVE evidence for your position.
1- That is nonsense because,
2- There is evidence for design
And I take it that means you cannot provide a testable hypothesis and can only say “we win because you can’t introduce me to the designer(s)”.
What a schmuck.
So now you have to lie?
Is lying the best you have?
Not one of those relied on “non-telic research”. Not one.
And you want us to believe sheer dumb luck is behind it all?
BTW ID doesn’t require the supernatural.
And natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins.
So whare does that leave your position besides contorting reality to suit your needs?
So what do you have Seversky?
Any evidence for your accumulating genetic accidents actually producing useful complex protein machinery and new body plans?
Any positive evidence at all beyond teh refusal to accept the design inference just because you haven’t met the designer(s)?
Anything?
Seversky:
It is such a thriving discipline that we don’t even know if any amout of genetic modification can account for the transformations required.
For example evolutionary biologists can’t even account for the change in primate feet from a grasping foot with an opposable big toe to a running foot with all toes in line.
But the bear, the bear, the bear is still swimming and will one day turn into a whale…
hahahaha… what absurdity.
Watching Dawkins cling to his religion, explaining about some 4 legged land creature moving into the ocean is like watching a Harvard graduate explain where wood comes from in a tree. Or, for that matter Al Gore.
Seversky:
If an explanation doesn’t work it gets dumped (or modified until it does work).
If an alternative is waiting, fine.
If not we (humans) work on it- or not. That is the “thing” about being human. Sometimes we get to choose.
I would also say that designed to evolve/ evolved by design is a better explanation than evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
That genetic accident pap you’ve been pushing explains diseases and other malfunctions very well.
But that is the only contribution to understanding living organisms that your position has provided.
I guess something is better than nothing.