> > There is no "scientific community as a whole" that could put money, time > or > effort into anything. The Navy is funding part of the "scientific > community > as a whole" - so part of the community is, in fact studying the issue.
Actually, there is in the respect that there are a limited number of journals and if they don't allow an article in, it's dead. There are a limited number of respected labs that can and will replicate results and if they don't want to (for whatever reason), it's dead. To answer your question: yes, the experiment should be examined (and they > are examined as all of the scientific responses to ID prove) but that > experiment will NOT touch the core. The core of evolution is built upon > over a century of good experiments, tremendously compelling evidence and > NOTHING has come even close to assailing that core. Will NOT touch the core? NOT? Thank you for showing my point so well. Even if the experiment touches the core, the feeling of NOT is there. Not very open to change, even proper scientific change. I'd think that scientists would love to see a proper experiment that turns an entire 'truth' on its side. Oh, for another Einstein. Over turning a scientific theory isn't a game of words (as the IDers would > like to think) or a game of a single "Eureka!" moment (as many people seem > to think). If it happens at all it's a game of struggling inches: you're > damn right it's work. Hard work. > > You have to fight tooth-and-nail for every convert to your cause and every > person that laughs in your face needs to be met with more and better > evidence. THAT'S the way it works. Yes, but it has to be allowed to work. If I have all the evidence in the world on a subject but none of the journals will publish my results and none of the universities will allow me to showcase them (or even test them), then the point is moot. However every time that some scientist actually schleps out to continue this > futile debate something strange happens: win or lose the Discovery > Institute > puts out a big press release the next day about how distinguished > scientists > consider ID worth debating over! That's a marketing issue. With the right words the Discovery Institute can be rendered impotent. "We wait for the day that a valid experiment will show ID to be true but that day has yet to come. We welcome any testable and replicatable theory that will prove that there is an ID." The right words in the right way at the right time. I'm not defending ID or any other theory. I'm saying that the scientific community is not as open to new ideas as you make it sound. They're not even open to the initial debate in some places. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:242019 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
