Just the usual censorship of the anti-science faction
This is what showed up after I posted at Expelled‘s blog:
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be. In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish.
Yes, it’s the prominent IDist Behe who wants to banish evolution.
Of course he’s wrong about evolution’s explanatory ability, while ID has none whatsoever. By Behe’s standard, ID definitely deserves banishment, although I would not go that far.
To be sure, an idea like ID that never has–and never could–address the origin of complex structures has no business being called science.
At the time of this writing, a much later comment than mine has appeared, while mine is nowhere to be seen.
They’ve never really caught onto the irony of expelling comments for their stated views, although they are not as quick to do so as Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent, is.
Now it is not certain that they will not at some point publish my comment. Even if they do, though, it’s still suppression, since people tend to read the most recent comments, and not to see comments which have magically appeared among the “older comments.” They have played that game with past comments of mine.
At this moment, the comments on that blogpost are heavily in favor of Expelled, a fact that may owe much to rank censorship and hypocrisy on their part. The people behind Expelled have always had the faults that they project onto science and science supporters, and this is just one more example of same.
It is lamentable that the too-frequent lack of openness in science is not discussed in various venues, and is instead trivialized by these liars and hypocrites. There are problems with “authorities” in science (perhaps none that are not inevitable–humans have limits) dominating the conversation. Naturally, this has nothing to do with the fact that IDists are called the pseudoscientists and would-be censors of science that they in fact are.