> EXACTLY: once experiment, experience and consensus (a long, arduous, > contentious process) reach a conclusion it takes extraordinary evidence to > alter it. That's a core principle of the scientific method. Yes, that is a core but there are certain topics that become taboo. Try to forget about ID for a moment and look at other scientific theories for examples.
>> The community is against Cold Fusion (the physics idea), so no >> experiments > > Cold Fusion is a classic example of how there has NEVER been an replicable > claims yet there are dozens of new crackpot claims every year. This is > the > hypothesis that's cried wolf. Actually, thats untrue. There have been replications but not 100%, which says there are other variables in the mix. Wasn't there a post here a year back or so about the Navy putting a nice sized chunk of money back into Cold Fusion research? The Navy, but not the scientific community as a whole. Even if they do find the missing variable(s), getting journals to publish the findings or getting other scientists to try and replicate will be an up-mountain battle at jovian gravity. > This is just not true. The finer points of evolution are under constant > debate. When did life become sufficiently complex to allow biological > evolution? Is evolutionary change steady or punctuated? Is the largest > contributor mutation, environmental pressure or some other process? > > The theory is under constant refinement, it's the core understanding that > is > nearly unassailable. NOT because of some "conspiracy" but simply because > the evidence is utterly overwhelming and convincing. Thank you for the point. The core is nearly unassailable. No research is even thought of to re-examine the sacred core. If an experiment is properly formulated and replicatable but challenges that core, should it not be examined? >> the >> fight that string theory had to go through for years before it was even >> looked at by the community. > > Exactly: it was a fight. It was challenging a deeply established norm. And ANY PROPER experiment should be allowed to challenge a deeply established norm. The onus now goes on the ID side to produce a proper experiment. I would think that people would be happy for this. If the ID people are pushing for their position to be taken seriously by scientists they have lost any control of the playing field. > You'll notice that while it's still controversial it IS considered a > legitimate field of study now. It paid it's dues. Evidence was > collected, > hypothesis made and validated, etc: in short they did their science and > they > gained support. Point. as above. > In this case Intelligent Design wants all of the benefits but doesn't want > to do any of the work. It's a whiney little bitch of a theory screaming > "I > wanna be science!" when it's done no work, raised no reasonable challenges > to the established theories and fails to meet the basic criteria of > inquiry. Again, see above. If they want to be science, then they have to play by the rules of the game. If they say scientifically that God directed this event or that change then they had better put together a proper experiment to show it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get involved in the latest ColdFusion discussions, product development sharing, and articles on the Adobe Labs wiki. http://labs/adobe.com/wiki/index.php/ColdFusion_8 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:242001 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
