Kasz216 said:
godf said:
Kasz216 said:
godf said:
This movie looks like it should be funny.
It's so heavily edited, it's beyond propaganda. He didn't ever speak to some of the people he's shown interviewing: they just spliced conversations together (that's certainly what happened with dawkins).
Creationists are the funniest thing. |
You know this how...? Either way, if a paper on intellegent design is actually well written and has research to back it up it should be published somewhere. I've seen less well written propaganda research studies published in journals on a weekly basis. That's the brilliant part of journals though. They are supposed to offer different viewpoints. You let the guy you disagree with publish a study, then you redo the study to get a different outcome to prove him wrong... and if you get the same results, you simply point a flaw in the methodology. Or do it the other way around... either way. He does have a point that lately a lot of less popular scienfitic theories do seem to not get their fair share of publication due to the fact that money and poltics have pretty much infested everything sceintific. Though a side effect to this is also where people will continue knowingly flawed or intentionally biased studies for monetary gain. So whether intellegent design follows the first path or the second... who can say. (i'd guess the second) though most second path research studies do find their way published in journals so they can properly have their day in court, even if their intentions are less then honorable. |
I've read a few articles about the film. The film makers have been open about it too. I don't see how any paper could put foreward ID in the manner you require. The evidence isn't there to back it up. That's why it's treated with the disdain it is. Maybe evidence will one day come to light to support ID, but it's not there now, and that doesn't seem to trouble its current proponents. |
Sure there is, the evidence he states he found. You let him post his article in some minor scientific journals, it causes a big stir and then those who are experts in the fields he are addressing publish counter articles where they take apart his methods as faulty.
That's how it works. |
The evidence he stated? What was that? Why should scientific journals need to endlessly repeat the same creationist nonsense that has been shown lacking for all these years? How many more times does it need to be shot down?
