Not to speak for anyone, but there is a "feeling" among many in the intellegent design movement that the evolutionists manufacture items such as this and have since the time of Darwin.
Our cable company provides I believe Trinity Broadcasting Network, they have a regular show around 6 pm CDT spent trotting out pseudo-scientists who show "proof" that man and dinosaurs co-existed, blah, blah, blah. It is utterly fascinating to watch in a trainwreck sort of way.
Originally posted by Guru ZimI'm not sure why you are referencing Nature, which I presume you mean Nature magazine by.
You referenced an article refering to the front page of the weekly Nature. All I am saying is that these amazing discoveries have been discredited before. I was not going to reference Piltdown, but that was science for over 40 years - it's a "fact" in my Mom's college textbook. Transitional forms are the darling of those who have faith in the concept of evolution, and I think there's a need for a tremendous amount of proof and multiple instances before I can accept this.
This has been Ted Daeschler's pet project for many, many years, long before he had this "proof", so like every other situation, I want independent proof.
I mean, we had frickin' pictures of the weapon sites in Iraq but haven't found any actual weapons. That, of course, was W's pet project and I think we might agree that some of the data was spun. You mean old Ted, cause he's a SCIENTIST (everyone bow down!), is above that? Clearly, that hasn't always been the way it is.
I take a wait and see attitude on this.
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Well, I honestly did go back to find the reference to Nature, I just missed it. Saw it today.
That said, this wasn't in-house investigative journalism by Nature like the wikipedia article, they were just reporting it.
Piltdown hurts, just like the Korean just hurt Stem cell research. Fraud is almost never good anything. That said, there is no reason to assume fraud every time evidence is presented - it should merely go through the questioning that all evidence goes through.
I'm assuming the fact that it is being published now and that they have quotes from guys like Richard Dawkins means that this wasn't found last week, but that it has been around and people have been looking at it. I'm assuming this, because I haven't personally researched this yet.
So yes, point taken. All research should go through peer reviewing. I assumed this had happened.