Quote# 1993

If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science. IMO, the fact, that peer review science rejects ID should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of science superior to peer review science.

warren_bergerson, ISCID Forums 31 Comments [12/1/2002 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Redhunter

You have fun developing a form of science that is superiour. We'll be right here waiting. What's that? Jesus review science? of course!

Take a second to consider that the most common reason for things to be rejected is lack of evidence. Science wouldn't exist without evidence, so.....what aren't you getting?

6/21/2006 6:39:09 AM

Crosis

<<< If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science. >>>

That would require a rejection of the scientific method. Good luck getting anyone with a basic grasp of science to call ID \"science\" with that approach.

6/22/2006 12:05:52 AM

CousinTed

Oh yeah! Well I'm gonna make my own science! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the science and the blackjack!


Ah, screw the whole thing.

6/22/2006 12:31:39 AM

Julian

Wow - and we can establish science as our own [non-deific] religious dogma, and it should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of religion superior to superstition, dumbass guesses, contradictory apologetics and rationalised hatred.

6/22/2006 1:20:27 AM

Greebo

Rolling a dice to determine wether a hypothesis is right or not?

11/19/2006 9:02:35 PM

David D.G.

Yeah, right, good luck with that.

Meanwhile, actual science will proceed unencumbered by you and other IDiots.


~David D.G.

11/20/2006 12:11:26 AM

Archaeopath

Someone's learned a new phrase...\"peer review science.\" I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark and suggest atheists have verbally bludgeoned this guy before.

11/20/2006 1:48:12 AM

hairband

It's already happened. Science has rejected your \"science\", yet you continue to label it as such.

11/20/2006 7:23:35 AM



Nothing in science gets out of peer review. Even pseudo science which ID doesn't even qualify as.

6/27/2008 3:24:16 PM

Lys

Let's call it "Christian review science"! It'll be superior to EVERYTHING!

Tard.

7/16/2008 9:01:14 PM

Navelgazer

Didn't they try their kind of "science" before in the Dark Ages. Stuff like how many angels can dance on a pin?

7/16/2008 9:19:37 PM

DarkfireTaimatsu


7/16/2008 9:36:46 PM

Jedi1josh

If I can't be in your club house then I'll just make my own and you can't join.

7/16/2008 10:16:51 PM

katie5000

>>"If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science."

FAIL. Do you even know what science is or how it works?

>>"IMO, the fact, that peer review science rejects ID"

There's a reason for that.

>>"should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of science superior to peer review science."

Yeah. Good luck with that.

7/28/2009 4:19:54 PM

ChristPuncher

If there is a "superior" way to establish if a scientific theory is possible, probably or true than peer review of results and retesting it still wouldn't prove ID.

7/28/2009 5:03:24 PM

Clown

Go on. Establish your "superior science". I'll even bring you cake for your clubhouse. If you promise never to mix your "superior science" with our "regular" science again, that is.

7/28/2009 11:22:31 PM

EvoPagan

I think someone already tried that. You close your eyes, open the bible and read the first verse your finger falls on. Presto-chango! Science!

7/29/2009 3:21:37 AM

Swedish Pagan

Superior science? Yeah right! Rather an inferior science, if it can't even be observed to work the way you say it does. Isn't that what peer review is, basically? We can't have science forms whose evidence is "because I say it does". That only works with five-year-olds, and barely even then. You have to be able to explain the theory behind the functioning, dumbass.

7/29/2009 5:30:25 AM

Nowonmai

If ID is ever established as science, I am sure it will happen shortly after OUIJA boards, Magic 8 Ball, and tossing bones are made science.

7/29/2009 5:35:43 AM

Anon-e-moose

"If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science."

Many have tried before. They all FAILED. Two Words: Kent Hovind.

"IMO, the fact, that peer review science rejects ID should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of science superior to peer review science."

Good luck with that. And the objective view of the scientific community?:



tl;dr: Kitzmiller vs. Dover, bitches.

7/29/2009 1:02:29 PM

aaa

Things don't work that way.

7/29/2009 1:21:19 PM

rcpilot

Kinda sad that this is a poorly presented version of a common argument against the scientific method. Respectable people that started wondering about the objectivity of the mingling of modern science and politics, and the confirmation bias sometimes present even in fairly solid peer reviewed science didn't expect it to be picked up on like this and are fairly appalled by it at least.

7/29/2009 1:43:48 PM

Mitch

When they do develop a better science, it won't have anything to do with religion.

7/29/2009 4:47:31 PM

Caustic Gnostic

Colonel Bob Ingersoll's opinion on religious BS as 'science' pretty much sums it up for me.

Ingersoll lived in the late 19th century, btw.

7/29/2009 5:43:03 PM

mkincub

the fact that it cant stand up to peer review is a great reason to call it pseudoscience actually.

12/6/2009 9:12:56 PM

1 2 | top: comments page