Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)|
|I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.|
Okay, I'll bite:
Although I acknowledge that peer review is imperfect, and yes some stuff gets in that shouldn't, I am having difficulty believing that you have vetted any scientific papers, given the content of the post in which this paragraph was found. You show a lot of misconception about what science is as well as what constitutes evidence. So, first, please list some papers you have found that should not have been published so we can deal with specifics. Ideally they would be in this topic, but others are okay too.
Second, if a "creator" is implied in creation, and in ID ("designer") they are by definition religious, unless you are talking about some inanimate object, work of art, stone tool, etc. The premise of religion is the supernatural source of life and consciousness, morality and emotion.