Posted By Caulimovirus on July 6, 2007
“I Just Love Making Posts About Sam Chen*”
.: Sam Chen said something again. Read this post over at Overwhelming Evidence. I don’t know for sure if the poster is a parodist or a real creationist (Russell’s Law, remember?), but that hardly matters. I want to focus on what Chen, a bona fide creationist, said in the comments section.
.: First, some background: hblavastky wrote a post about the latest free energy hoax where s/he claims it’s the real deal and, moreover, a challenge to those dogmatic materialists. I can’t exactly summarize his/her reasoning because there is none, but the gist of the post involves the so-called inviolable second law of thermodynamics being violated, so there! About the only sane voice in the entire thread is nagrom, who wrote: “This is not science yet. The findings have not been made public. Just because they say it is “peer reviewed” does not mean it is real.”
.: That’s all the background you need. Here is what Chen said that I find so amusing:
So after hearing all this shouting about how IDers aren’t peer reviewed we now find out that peer-review doesn’t mean it is real? So what is the point of peer review? And for something to be science it has to be made public?? So everything scientists are doing in their labs today isn’t science because it hasn’t been made public yet? What standards are you following?
Here is another classic example of evolutionists back tracking (this time on peer-review) because they are losing ground to intelligent design. Because IDers are being peer reviewed (more and more now), evolutionists are now claiming that peer-review doesn’t matter.
I wonder who is making a fool of themselves here.
.: I don’t want to challenge any of his points here (do I even have to?). I just want to ask Chen a simple question:
What do you think scientists do in a laboratory?
.: Or how about a more poetic question:
If a scientist publishes a paper in the forest, and there’s nobody around to read it, is it still science?
.: By the way, this post on 90% True has been certified peer-reviewedâ„¢ by anonymous experts, who have themselves been peer-reviewed certifiably. What, you don’t believe me? Well, who’s Mr. Anti-Science now?
*You hear me, Google?