Ed and God

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

I'm glad you are brave enough to read those books, both are readily available. Have you read any ID texts before?
I have also read most of that anti-expelled website and I want to point out that the 'direct claims' posted on the website are not actually quotes from the film and i'm pretty sure that they are not accurate. for example Ben stein is a Jew, and all Jews are well aware that antisemitism existed long before darwinism. I seriously doubt that the film makes this claim, I expect that in reality, the film just shows the part that Darwinism played in Nazi ideology.

It may show that, but it's wrong.

What you and this Ben Stein are referring to is social Darwinism. I know it's confusing because it has Darwin's name. Social Darwinism is not the same as Darwinism or the theory of evolution at all. As I said before and you can look it up if you want to, social Darwinism is a different theory that applied some of the reason of evolution to society, it was also based on several other authors.

Just to make this a little more clear for you: if I create a religion, a theory, a philosophy whatever based on the bible, the quran, the hindu scriptures ... and decide to call it social Christianity, would you say it's christianity and christians support it etc. My guess is no. It's pretty simple.

Michael Shermer: "Scientific theorists cannot be held responsible for how their ideas are employed in the service of nonscientific agendas."

As for smear-campaign against darwinists....WHAT???

Just re-read what you posted. A half quote used to link Darwinism to eugenics and by doing so linking it to the Holocaust.

It's disgusting. It's a smear campaign.

I have read a lot of stuff by ID scientists and they are always respectful towards their darwinian rivals, many darwinists, on the other hand have been extremely aggressive in their campaign against ID.

And vice versa.

Because the first round of pro ID papers got published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Darwinists embarked on a widespread campaign that involved intimidating publishers into rejecting ID papers. The thinking was that if sucessful, darwinists could then claim that ID is not science because it does not get published in peer reviewed journals. Brilliant piece of circular reasoning: ID should not get published because it is not science - ID is not science because it does not get published. this film (expelled) documents this smear campaign against ID, I think that you should at least give it a chance to speak for itself. Have you seen the trailer? Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.

Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.

If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.

On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.

What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.

It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.

Collin

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E&feature=related

manipulatedliving

The butt sniffing still continues?!

anarchist_grunger

i can't believe that this thread is still alive ) collin, nice job dude.

anarchist_grunger

Collin wrote:

I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.

Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.

If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.

On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.

What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.

It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.

collin, if i may: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

chopitdown

Collin wrote:

I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.

Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.

If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.

On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.

What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.

It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.

I hope you're not insinuating that publication bias doesn't occur. Publication bias does occur in the scientific community...

On 4 August 2004, a review article by Stephen Meyer, an ID proponent, appeared in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, questioning conventional evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian Explosion and proposing ID as an alternative[12] The review questions whether whether conventional biological theory can explain the information explosion evident during the Cambrian period. He says: "For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. " He argues that the first leaves too much to luck and chance to be plausible, and the second has the problem that changes to existing genes are almost invariably deleterious. However this neglects many conventional accounts of how genes evolve, including probably the major known mechanism whereby novel genes arise, via gene duplication. Gene duplication is very common through evolution, and means that one copy of a gene can continue to sustain its normal function while the other is "surplus", and is free to accumulate mutations. Thus, by conventional explanations, a new gene doesn't have to be built from nothing - instead evolution is handed an already functional "toy" to play with.

Later, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington retracted the article. The managing editor for the journal at the time, the process structuralist Richard Sternberg, stated that the article had been properly peer reviewed by three well qualified referees. His decision to publish the paper nevertheless resulted in protests, and colleagues at the Smithsonian Institute, where he was employed, sought to discredit him and created what the The U.S. Office of Special Council (which is authorized to investigate allegations of prohibited personnel practices and activities prohibited by civil service law) called "a hostile working environment".[13][14] http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

http://medjournalwatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/lot-of-bias-and-possibly-some-reality.html

also Guillermo Gonzalez, was denied tenure partly due issues re: views on ID.

The bias is there...no one knows to what extent except for those who try to publish in the big name journals, but it seems they have decided to create their own journals (which are peer reviewed) to publish their work, so perhaps we'll never know how much (great or small) bias there is/was.

timsinclair

Hi Tim, okay here goes, plug some holes for me about Noah's Ark, and if you could explain in the simplest terms you can because my vocabs not as good as yours (i am from Yorkshire, England after all).

So to sum up, around 2500 BC, God wanted to flood the earth and all living things on it apart from Noah and his family (8 people in all) and so God told him to build an Ark and save 2 of each animal. From what i understand, all the animals came to the ark, noah and his family didnt go to the four corners of the world and collect them. right?

Well, HOLE #1 - Collecting The Animals. Most animals that live where they do in the world live there because thats where their food grows and cant move beyond the range of their food source because they've got nothing to eat. How do they travel from far off places (assuming they can walk that far) what do they eat on the way? Also, the climate alone will stop animals that live in one part of the world travelling and living in another part of the world, penguins for example are not going to travel through the desert to get to the middle east. What about all the predators on the way as these animals are walking thousands and thousands of miles to get to the ark? So my question to you is how did all the animals get to the ark from around the world.

HOLE #2 The Size of the ark. There are thousands and thousands of species of animal in the world and noah had to take 2 of every species. Thats alot of animals isn't it to fill the ark, which will take up alot of room. Then we've got the dinosaurs, which are huuuuuuuuuge. Have you seen the size of a brontosaurus and a TRex (2 of them)?

HOLE #3 Food. Noah was floating about on the ocean for about a year, so noah had to take enough food on board for a year for his family and the 10's of thousands of animals that were on the ark. Thats a hell of a lot of food innit. Every animal needs a special diet. Insects live on particular kinds of plant, Koala bears live on eucalyptus leaves etc. So Noah aswell as gathering every different species of animal in the world, had to gather every different plant in the world. How did he grow all these plants in the ark (which had just a single window for the sunlight to get in). Some animals can only eat live food, spiders, insects, snakes etc. How did Noah keep all the food fresh?

HOLE #4 Caring For the Animals. 8 people in all I believe. How did Noah and his family care for all the animals. Imagine thousands and thousands of animals every day crapping and peeing in the ark, all the waste they create, then they have to feed them all and exercise them. If they dont exercise, their muscles start wasting away. Did he put a big collar on the Tyrannosaurus Rex and run him up and down the boat? Could 8 people do all this? hmmmmmm

Okay, theres my first holes for you to fill, hope you can give me some answers.

Sorry. been a bit busy. I am not drowning in the flood quite yet Cate, I also have a life outside this thread which involves looking after 2 kids and a pregnant (and temporarily wheelchair bound) wife.
Glad to see that you are now asking the right questions grazman, those may look like holes in my ark but they are just portals from which to fire my cannons at your good ship ‘the beagle’ (Darwin’s ship).

First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly. However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship. You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere. Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’. Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation. Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Yes grazman I have seen the size of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. but these fossil examples are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects suvived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some of your questions:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/


p.s Nice to meet another Englishman here grazman, i'm from wiltshire.

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

You did read that site, right?

But Stein does not quote the very next passage in the Descent of Man which makes clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. Rather, he remarked, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”

:rolleyes:

Yeah, he did say this but it is hardly a outright rejection of Eugenics. The phrase 'if so urged by hard reason' shows that evolutionary reason DOES lead us down the eugenics path. Darwin correctly notes that this would deteriorate the 'noblest part of our nature'... i agree.

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.

Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.

If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.

On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.

What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.

It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.

Hi Collin.
Look, the whole thing about whether Dawrin advocated Eugenics is debatable, we can disagree on it and we can both find Darwin quotes that appear to support our case. However this is only a minor part of the film 'expelled', which is mainly about the anti ID campaign. Lets be clear, ID is the underdog, a tiny minority pitted against the Darwinian establishment. Other controversial scientific findings do not claim discrimintion as you rightly say, but ID is a critique of the central belief of Darwinism - naturalism/materialism, which is why it pisses a lot of people off and gets a lot of people very scared. The accusation is that the first round of papers were published in the peer-reviewed literature but then the Darwinian establishment launched a campaign of intimidation to stop further publications so that they could employ the claim 'ID is not science because it does not exist in peer reviewed literature' to the public. This is not a matter of opinion, it can be proven one way or the other by interviewing those publishers who first published ID papers. This is what the film 'expelled' does and if you are truly open minded, you will watch it. You said you 'want proof' , well this film offers it so if you are not wiling to watch it, it shows that you dont really 'want' it. for anyone who doesn't know what film I am talking about, here is the link again. Peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

timsinclair

COLLIN: Just re-read what you posted. A half quote used to link Darwinism to eugenics and by doing so linking it to the Holocaust.

It's disgusting. It's a smear campaign.

Now come on Collin.
I have not called any contemporary Darwinists 'Eugenecists' this is simply untrue. I have plainly stated that modern most modern Darwinists reject Eugenics, but this is precisely BECAUSE of its historical effect on politics. Eugenics is the direct application of Darwinism to politics, thats why its called 'social Darwinism'. Most modern Darwinists do NOT believe that Darwinism SHOULD be applied to politics, however, many Darwinists of the past DID. Galton, Haekel, and Marie Stopes WERE Eugenecists and Eugenics WAS used by the Nazi's. Thats what I said and I stand by it. If I have been embarking on a 'smear campaign' as you say, who have I smeared?

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Hi Collin.
Look, the whole thing about whether Dawrin advocated Eugenics is debatable, we can disagree on it and we can both find Darwin quotes that appear to support our case. However this is only a minor part of the film 'expelled', which is mainly about the anti ID campaign. Lets be clear, ID is the underdog, a tiny minority pitted against the Darwinian establishment. Other controversial scientific findings do not claim discrimintion as you rightly say, but ID is a critique of the central belief of Darwinism - naturalism/materialism, which is why it pisses a lot of people off and gets a lot of people very scared. The accusation is that the first round of papers were published in the peer-reviewed literature but then the Darwinian establishment launched a campaign of intimidation to stop further publications so that they could employ the claim 'ID is not science because it does not exist in peer reviewed literature' to the public. This is not a matter of opinion, it can be proven one way or the other by interviewing those publishers who first published ID papers. This is what the film 'expelled' does and if you are truly open minded, you will watch it. You said you 'want proof' , well this film offers it so if you are not wiling to watch it, it shows that you dont really 'want' it. for anyone who doesn't know what film I am talking about, here is the link again. Peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

I am truly open minded yet I will not watch the film. Ben Stein and the producer have proved they are dishonest and used dishonest tactics. Not just the Darwin-quote, mind you. They tricked scientists into being interviewed under false premises.

manipulatedliving

Still...close butt sniffing of the third kind?

timsinclair

Collin wrote:

I am truly open minded yet I will not watch the film. Ben Stein and the producer have proved they are dishonest and used dishonest tactics. Not just the Darwin-quote, mind you. They tricked scientists into being interviewed under false premises.

A truly open-minded person is willing to hear from both sides. You seem to have made up your mind by listening only to a website set up to discredit the film. Watching the film will not only dispell any ideas people might have of closed-mindedness on your part, but, if you are right about the film, it would make your case stronger.

Collin

chopitdown wrote:

I hope you're not insinuating that publication bias doesn't occur. Publication bias does occur in the scientific community...

I'm sure there's bias but not like tim and Ben Stein want you to believe.

also Guillermo Gonzalez, was denied tenure partly due issues re: views on ID.

To put things into perspective.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

A truly open-minded person is willing to hear from both sides. You seem to have made up your mind by listening only to a website set up to discredit the film. Watching the film will not only dispell any ideas people might have of closed-mindedness on your part, but, if you are right about the film, it would make your case stronger.

As I've said I will try and find a copy of Darwin on Trail, which you suggested.

It is a fact that Ben Stein lied. I am willing to listen to both sides, however, Ben Stein has lost all credibility to me.

And the fact that he says that "Darwinism led, in a pretty much straight line, to Nazism and the Holocaust" is dispicable and disgusting. Not because I'm trying to "defend" evolution but because it shows a gross misunderstanding of history, the theory of evolution and nazism and the causes of the Holocaust.

Collin

timsinclair wrote:

Yeah, he did say this but it is hardly a outright rejection of Eugenics. The phrase 'if so urged by hard reason' shows that evolutionary reason DOES lead us down the eugenics path. Darwin correctly notes that this would deteriorate the 'noblest part of our nature'... i agree.

Darwin shows what you and Ben Stein and countless of others can't seem to grasp; humans can think and make moral choices even if they don't believe in god.

I know it's hard to believe because the bible says otherwise, but you'll have to believe this "fool" (biblical quote).

Collin

anarchist_grunger wrote:

collin, if i may: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

Priceless. Ben Stein is not only a liar but also a hypocrite.

Collin

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI

Interesting video.

chopitdown

Collin wrote:

I'm sure there's bias but not like tim and Ben Stein want you to believe.



To put things into perspective.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez

to add to the perspedctive.... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/guillermo_gonzalez_has_highest.html
granted, it may be his earlier worth that is cited, and his lack of grant funding to me, is a bigger concern at a university such as ISU where extra-mural funds are necessary... But ID views are NOT tolerated well at public institutions; they're just not. Science and scientists are not the altruistic ideologues that people think they are. they don't nec want truth, they want statistical significance and they want their ego stroked.

Publication bias exists more than you think and less than others would have you believe...it is there, it is present and it does effect what is published and what is disseminated. edit: i serve as a journal reviewer and there is a lot of bad science / poor use of scientific method that doesn't get published b/c it's caught in the reviewer stage; i don't want to give the impression that just b/c an ID paper isn't published it's b/c of some conspiracy...sometimes there are very legitimate reasons for not publishing something...but you need to know that in the end, it is the editors final call as to what makes it in. A good editor will take the advice of the section editors and the reviewers; however, the editor decides what goes in the journal and the editor must decide if he/she is willing to take the fallout from publishing a paper....good or bad. Look at the smithsonian example, i don't believe that's an isolated case (I have no idea how often it happens)...but that editor published something that was against the grain AND good science (it survived the peer review process) and he was ridiculed to no end.

Collin

chopitdown wrote:

to add to the perspedctive.... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/guillermo_gonzalez_has_highest.html
granted, it may be his earlier worth that is cited, and his lack of grant funding to me, is a bigger concern at a university such as ISU where extra-mural funds are necessary... But ID views are NOT tolerated well at public institutions; they're just not.

Well, I can agree with that. But to conclude that he was not giving tenure because his views is simply speculation, believing that there is a atheist/scientist plot even more so. (I'm not saying you believe in this conspiracy but it seen to be something tim believes in.)

Look at the smithsonian example, i don't believe that's an isolated case (I have no idea how often it happens)...but that editor published something that was against the grain AND good science (it survived the peer review process) and he was ridiculed to no end.

I think the truth is that ID isn't there yet. ID isn't science yet (and whether it ever will be is an entirely different debate). Paul Nelson, a young earth creationist and intelligent design advocate said:

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."

These are the words from an advocate of intelligent design.

Furthermore, irreducible complexity and specified complexity, two of the strongest arguments of ID, have been debunked and refuted.

I think many proponents of ID cannot accept the fact that they really don't have a strong scientific case, even though advocates of ID admit it. There's so much propaganda out there, and I do mean propaganda. I think this propaganda has convinced people that ID is strong, correct science... They see how ID is treated by the scientific community and claim it's a plot against it.

The fact is ID has been and still is debated and discussed. I can understand that scientists don't want to waste their time with the same old claims time and time again, such as the bacterial flagella argument.

The science of ID is severly lacking, but attacks against the scientific community and accusations that they deliberately collude to "oppress" ID are ridiculous.

About Stephen Meyer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

It's an interesting read. Again, I'll have to side with the scientific community on this one. In fact, I think Sternberg's actions are again an example of the crusade or witch hunt against the scientific community.