What is encompassed by "evo science" exactly? Biology? Genetics? Geology? Physics?

The evolution defenders on this forum constantly bring up the peer review process and excoriate Creationism/ID because it doesn't go through that process, while SO MUCH of evolutions discoveries have gone through that process. What they fail to admit, or are just not smart enough to realize is that these papers are reviewed in most cases by the very people who financed the project being reviewed. In any case though, it was performed by pro evolution advocates who have a personal stake in forwarding this very flawed science. So the system is rigged and the fix is in when validating whatever info is submitted, as long as it fits with the overall scheme which evo science is promoting.
well-said, Arch.

Not well-said at all.

The peer-review system is not a formalised system where 'only those that financed the report get to review it', the peer-review system means that anyone, anywhere, can critically analyse and debunk a scientific report if they can provide a valid argument which stands up to criticism. Plenty of creationists have tried - and failed, because their arguments don't stand up to criticism.

Scientists do not have a 'personal stake' in proving evolution. Firstly, to most scientists there is no 'controversy' in the first place - at least, not one that should be taken any more seriously than the claims of Flat Earthers. Secondly, the amount of kudos/fame/fortune a scientist would get from scientifically disproving any major theory is massive. Finally, if this 'pressure on scientists to stay with the norm' is so strong, how come there have been so many other paradigm shifts within science?

'Evolutionists' do not control what material gets put into science textbooks, any more than creationists do. Not that you have even shown yet that the embryo drawings used are invalid, when their context in the books is taken into account. If you want an actual example of 'more concerned with promoting their agenda than honestly protecting the truth and methodology which other legitimate sciences live and breathe by', you need look no further than one of your own (one of many possible pages I could have linked you to - any regarding 'Dr' Kent Hovind could have been good, too).

Oh, and Expelled got slated because it categorically misrepresented those who it interviewed - just like "What the Bleep" did before it.

...any comment on my earlier post?

Originally Posted by obvious_child

Are we confusing current drawings made from photos with Haeckel's work? Sounds like it. Furthermore, creationists seem to completely ignore that Haeckel's ideas weren't that far off. Campbell and Reece right NOW have pictures that show essentially the same argument that Haeckel was trying to make in his drawings. Haeckel drew more then existed. That doesn't make his idea fundamentally wrong. And Haeckel did it for personal gain.

I thought science was supposed to be "rigorous". If "ideas weren't that far off", and "personal gain" are rigorous enough for evolution, why isn't it good enough for ID?

Please, look through it. That post was purely about how creationist label anyone who disagrees with them atheists. You won't find any evidence to suggest that Mr. Rehm is in fact an atheist.

Evidence to suggest? The fact that he's joining with the ACLU in a lawsuit against traditional Christians is plenty of evidence to suggest.

Do you know everyone in your town? Do you even know over a 1,000 people?

When I was a little younger I had a real good idea of who was teaching Bible school in a local church in my area. But it doesn't apply to my town, it applies to the town HE described - where he felt a closeness to others, enough for people to recognize a person from past associations, or from knowledge of details of their lives.

Furthermore, you are limiting your argument to those who live in that town. The court case as well as the surrounding controversy involved far more people then those who lived in it. Both sides brought in experts and all walks of life discussed the case before it went to trial. Do you know every blogger in the world?

I'm limiting my argument to those who live in that town because he was referencing his discomfort from that town!

Originally posted by marc9000] Doesn’t touch it? He doesn’t know that science is used as a weapon against theology? That’s a pretty heavy touch.

Originally Posted by obvious_child

Not everyone is as cynical as you are.

Cynical? I'm just talking about testable, repeatable, observable evidence. Let's do some testing;

The God Delusion
God Is Not Great
The Selfish Gene
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
Letter to a Christian Nation
The end of faith
The Blind Watchmaker
Breaking the Spell
The Atheist Universe
The Portable Atheist
The Quotable Athiest
Irreligion
Everything You Know About God Is Wrong

Titles of books that are weapons against religion, by evolutionists. Is your opposition to ID a result of your cynicism?

No. Read the whole thing. His religion does not include that a supernatural being designed life as we see it.

I did read the whole thing. He didn't include any belief in a supernatual being. His jobs at a nameless church mean nothing.

No. He doesn't believe in a supernatural component on design.

He showed no evidence that he believes in much of anything other than his beloved science and the ACLU.

The lawsuit is to keep intelligent design out. It does not stop creationism.

Hahahahaha - I'm going to have to bookmark this one.

Perhaps, but that depends what he means by theology. Furthermore, he never specified whose theology science was going to talk about.

Depends on the meaning of the word "is" hahahaha

Originally Posted by iangb

Not well-said at all.

The peer-review system is not a formalised system where 'only those that financed the report get to review it', the peer-review system means that anyone, anywhere, can critically analyse and debunk a scientific report if they can provide a valid argument which stands up to criticism. Plenty of creationists have tried - and failed, because their arguments don't stand up to criticism.

Scientists do not have a 'personal stake' in proving evolution. Firstly, to most scientists there is no 'controversy' in the first place - at least, not one that should be taken any more seriously than the claims of Flat Earthers. Secondly, the amount of kudos/fame/fortune a scientist would get from scientifically disproving any major theory is massive. Finally, if this 'pressure on scientists to stay with the norm' is so strong, how come there have been so many other paradigm shifts within science?

'Evolutionists' do not control what material gets put into science textbooks, any more than creationists do. Not that you have even shown yet that the embryo drawings used are invalid, when their context in the books is taken into account. If you want an actual example of 'more concerned with promoting their agenda than honestly protecting the truth and methodology which other legitimate sciences live and breathe by', you need look no further than one of your own (one of many possible pages I could have linked you to - any regarding 'Dr' Kent Hovind could have been good, too).

Oh, and Expelled got slated because it categorically misrepresented those who it interviewed - just like "What the Bleep" did before it.

...any comment on my earlier post?

Once again all you can produce is a Talk Origin propaganda piece. Nothing more objective or substantial than its slanted and biased perspective. You're not even smart enough to realize that TO is exactly the problem we are speaking about with the so called science of evolution. Their sole purpose for existing is to debunk any and all criticisms which attempt to hold evolution accountable for their distortions and junk science. Yet you sheeple carry it around like its your bible. And rely on it as if it's absolute truth.

And one more thing, based on this statement, the peer-review system means that anyone, anywhere, can critically analyse and debunk a scientific report if they can provide a valid argument which stands up to criticism. you obviously don't have an actual clue regarding what the peer review system entails. Here is an objective News Article which deals with the problems with the peer review system as it exists today. Here's an excerpt:

For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.
Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system.

The system is based on journals inviting independent experts to critique submitted manuscripts. The stated aim is to weed out sloppy and bad research, ensuring the integrity of the what it has published.

Because findings published in peer-reviewed journals affect patient care, public policy and the authors' academic promotions, journal editors contend that new scientific information should be published in a peer-reviewed journal before it is presented to doctors and the public.

That message, however, has created a widespread misimpression that passing peer review is the scientific equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited. The flurry of episodes has led many people to ask why authors, editors and independent expert reviewers all failed to detect the problems before publication.

The publication process is complex. Many factors can allow error, even fraud, to slip through. They include economic pressures for journals to avoid investigating suspected errors; the desire to avoid displeasing the authors and the experts who review manuscripts; and the fear that angry scientists will withhold the manuscripts that are the lifeline of the journals, putting them out of business.By promoting the sanctity of peer review and using it to justify a number of their actions in recent years, journals have added to their enormous power.

The release of news about scientific and medical findings is among the most tightly managed in country. Journals control when the public learns about findings from taxpayer-supported research by setting dates when the research can be published. They also impose severe restrictions on what authors can say publicly, even before they submit a manuscript, and they have penalized authors for infractions by refusing to publish their papers. Exceptions are made for scientific meetings and health emergencies.

But many authors have still withheld information for fear that journals would pull their papers for an infraction. Increasingly, journals and authors' institutions also send out news releases ahead of time about a peer-reviewed discovery so that reports from news organizations coincide with a journal's date of issue.

A barrage of news reports can follow. But often the news release is sent without the full paper, so reports may be based only on the spin created by a journal or an institution.

Journal editors say publicity about corrections and retractions distorts and erodes confidence in science, which is an honorable business. Editors also say they are gatekeepers, not detectives, and that even though peer review is not intended to detect fraud, it catches flawed research and improves the quality of the thousands of published papers.

However, even the system's most ardent supporters acknowledge that peer review does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers and has never passed the very test for which it is used. Studies have found that journals publish findings based on sloppy statistics. If peer review were a drug, it would never be marketed, say critics, including journal editors.

None of the recent flawed studies have been as humiliating as an article in 1972 in the journal Pediatrics that labeled sudden infant death syndrome a hereditary disorder, when, in the case examined, the real cause was murder.

Twenty-three years later, the mother was convicted of smothering her five children. Scientific naïveté surely contributed to the false conclusion, but a forensic pathologist was not one of the reviewers. The faulty research in part prompted the National Institutes of Health to spend millions of dollars on a wrong line of research.

Fraud, flawed articles and corrections have haunted general interest news organizations. But such problems are far more embarrassing for scientific journals because of their claims for the superiority of their system of editing.

A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors' research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors' scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers' criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.

While editors and reviewers may ask authors for more information, journals and their invited experts examine raw data only under the most unusual circumstances.

In that respect, journal editors are like newspaper editors, who check the content of reporters' copy for facts and internal inconsistencies but generally not their notes. Still, journal editors have refused to call peer review what many others say it is — a form of vetting or technical editing.

In spot checks, many scientists and nonscientists said they believed that editors decided what to publish by counting reviewers' votes. But journal editors say that they are not tally clerks and that decisions to publish are theirs, not the reviewers'.

Editors say they have accepted a number of papers that reviewers have harshly criticized as unworthy of publication and have rejected many that received high plaudits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/he...7cd378&ei=5070

Originally Posted by marc9000

The Selfish Gene

Have you read The Selfish Gene? I don't recall anything about religion being brought up there (then again I read it shortly after it came out back in 76 so I may be wrong. Do you have examples?)

The rest in your "list" have nothing to do with evolution or even biology or science in general as far as I know, but are rather philosophical, etc. arguments.

What does it say about peer review when most scientific papers are wrong?

Most scientific papers are probably wrong - science-in-society - 30 August 2005 - New Scientist

Originally Posted by Archangel

Once again all you can produce is a Talk Origin propaganda piece.

Are you not the one who keeps whining about people attacking the source and not dealing with what is said?

Nothing more objective or substantial than its slanted and biased perspective.

"Slanted and biased" to you means that you don't agree with it. Sorry, but that's not actually slanted or biased.

You're not even smart enough to realize that TO is exactly the problem we are speaking about with the so called science of evolution.

iangb is one of the last ones around here who even bothers trying to be civil with you. Above is a good example of why the rest of us don't bother trying anymore.

Their sole purpose for existing is to debunk any and all criticisms which attempt to hold evolution accountable for their distortions and junk science.

Their sole purpose is outlined right on their main page:
"The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences."

Yet you sheeple carry it around like its your bible. And rely on it as if it's absolute truth.

Wait, just so we're clear here:
It is wrong to rely on a single source for all your information, and view anything that disagrees with it as a lie.

I completely agree with you Archie. So why do you do it?

The TO archive is a compiled source. All the information on it is referenced, and all those references can be verified. When someone links to a page on TO, they are linking to a short-form version of 150 years of research and testing.

Originally Posted by Archangel

What they fail to admit, or are just not smart enough to realize is that these papers are reviewed in most cases by the very people who financed the project being reviewed. In any case though, it was performed by pro evolution advocates who have a personal stake in forwarding this very flawed science. So the system is rigged and the fix is in when validating whatever info is submitted, as long as it fits with the overall scheme which evo science is promoting.

I've reviewed papers, and I've never financed anything. The editor's job is to find reviewers who are knowledgeable about the particular paper being reviewed.

On the receiving end it gets pretty rough sometimes.

Originally Posted by marc9000

The argument is that if evolutionists were completely honest, Haeckel’s fraud should have been completely abandoned, not occasionally sneaked through students textbooks to attempt to make a stronger case for evolution than actually exists.

If Creationists had an ounce of intellectual integrity, they wouldn't inflate the Haeckel story beyond its reasonable dimensions. Can you name a single modern biology text that rests evolutionary theory on Haeckel's long-discredited theory that ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny?

No? Thought not. As usual, Creos XXXX more hot air than common sense. Neither would it be honest of biologists to repudiate Haeckel entirely. Ontogeny turns out to be constrained by phylogeny. Evolution provides reasons for that: your religious beliefs do not even remotely address the relevant issues. Haeckel was partly right -- Creationists are wholly wrong.

If evolutionists are even slightly dishonest like that, what would stop them from creating ~pretend Christians~ to help them make their case against creation?

God, you Creos must be desperate! Why would we invent Christians who accept evolution as a fact? Or are you seriously claiming that any Christian who doesn't kowtow to your fundamentalist ideology isn't a "real" Christian?

Originally Posted by supersport

What does it say about peer review when most scientific papers are wrong?

Most scientific papers are probably wrong - science-in-society - 30 August 2005 - New Scientist

I'd explain this, but you would need to understand the philosophy of science to understand the explanation. Since you don't, I'd be wasting my time.

What does it say about religious belief when your bible can't even get the value of pi right? Or figure out the earth orbits the sun?

At least science is self-correcting. Your religion constantly perpetuates its many errors.

Tiny cults depend on their exclusivity for their existence. They define themselves by favourable comparison against the strawman "dissolute" other!

Originally Posted by ShadowPikachu

Have you read The Selfish Gene? I don't recall anything about religion being brought up there (then again I read it shortly after it came out back in 76 so I may be wrong. Do you have examples?)

I haven't read it. But the title of it raises suspicion - if genes are natually selfish, isn't it okay for humans to be selfish also if there is no God as most everyone knows is Dawkins belief? Here is a partial review of the book;

Amazon] Many of Dawkins's metaphors have caused raised eyebrows - one outstanding example is his characterization of living things as "lumbering robots" built to protect the genes that hide in them - but the metaphors are always (eventually) brought under control. The title is one such metaphor that has often been misunderstood by superficial analysis. The 'selfish gene' is simply a gene that does not aid others at its own expense. Such genes would be better able to reproduce and spread through the gene pool than those that did sacrifice themselves for others, and therefore completely dominate the gene pools of all species as a result of billions of years of evolutionary pressure.

I cannot hope to adequately summarize Dawkins's arguments in a mere review, so I sincerely urge you to read "The Selfish Gene" for yourself. I should warn that conservatives would probably not enjoy the book nearly as much as I did. Dawkins is an open secular humanist with socialist leanings, and is not worried about offending the delicate sensibilities of creationists and fundamentalists. This book should only be read by those willing to 'accept' the validity of natural selection and evolution; others would only waste their time. I would direct readers seeking a more scientific discussion of these issues to G. C. Williams's "Adaptation and Natural Selection." All others will most likely enjoy "The Selfish Gene" a great deal and finish the book with a new appreciation for and understanding of evolution and biology.

Originally Posted by ShadowPikachu

The rest in your "list" have nothing to do with evolution or even biology or science in general as far as I know, but are rather philosophical, etc. arguments.

"...How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" doesn't contain science in general?

Originally Posted by marc9000

"...How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" doesn't contain science in general?

It seems from this review that the author uses the scientific method to evaluate the God hypothesis as he would do for a scientific one.

From Amazon.

" Product Description
Throughout history, arguments for and against the existence of God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology. In the meantime, science has sat on the sidelines and quietly watched this game of words march up and down the field. Despite the fact that science has revolutionised every aspect of human life and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the notion has arisen that it has nothing to say about the possibility of a supreme being, which much of humanity worships as the source of all reality. Physicist Victor J Stenger contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. Treating the traditional God concept, as conventionally presented in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, like any other scientific hypothesis, Stenger examines all of the claims made for God's existence. He considers the latest Intelligent Design arguments as evidence of God's influence in biology. He looks at human behaviour for evidence of immaterial souls and the possible effects of prayer. He discusses the findings of physics and astronomy in weighing the suggestions that the universe is the work of a creator and that humans are God's special creation. After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. "

Originally Posted by Karl

I've reviewed papers, and I've never financed anything. The editor's job is to find reviewers who are knowledgeable about the particular paper being reviewed.

On the receiving end it gets pretty rough sometimes.

That was a general statement of fact Karl, not a universal description of every peer review situation. And if you're a true insider within the scientific community then you know that to be true. The question I have is, why would you either deny that reality of corruption within the peer review process or ignore it if you are truly seeking to keep it honest and a system which has as its primary reason for existing, a process by which to discern fact from fiction.
None of you who responded to me above even touched on or responded to either of the links I or SS posted regarding fraud in the peer review process. Here's another link which deals with this issue. Maybe this time one of you will at least admit that a serious problem exists, and maybe even make some suggestions as to what must be done to fix it. The denials in the face of such evidence gets very old and only makes you look unethical yourselves for ignoring such obvious problems in the field you claim to respect so much. The following outlines the highlights and abstract of what the paper covers in its body of work. This is what we should be focusing on rather than the irrelevant minutia you all see happy to critique.

Censorship, Misconduct, Fraud, Peer review, Publishing pressure, and Impact Factor

Shi V. Liu Scientific Ethics

HIGHLIGHT

“Top” journals have blamed authors and even their institutions for giving them bad (later known) papers to
publish. However, who are the people that actually picked up these good papers (perceived then) among so
many submissions (over 90% of them are rejected) and published them in high-profile? Why “top”
scandals were so frequent in the “top” journals? Does the high impact factor of the “top” journals also
include these high negative impacts on science? Why didn’t “top” journal confess their mistakes and even
misconduct in publishing?

ABSTRACT

After rejecting a series of correspondences form me that revealed and discussed some serious problems in
scientific research and publishing, Nature published some apparently later submitted correspondences that
basically echoed some of my opinions. Nature’s bias against a specific author who had been very
outspoken against its mistakes in publishing flawed and even fraud papers and its strong censorship on
critical opinions represent a typical misconduct in scientific publishing. The misguided publishing policy
and the discriminating selection process by some “top” journals have led to the formation of an ill-
pressured publishing pressure cooker which at least partially contributed to the frequent misconduct by
some scientists. Without break this pressure cooker or, at least, remove the ill-pressure, misconduct in
scientific research and publishing will not stop.

Censorship, Misconduct, Fraud, Peer review, Publishing pressure, and
Impact Factor