Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design?

Just another example of how Luskin's points rely on people not going back to read the original source material that he's talking about. He's taking a legitimate and reasoned debate over whether new discoveries, which show that evolution is more complex than we thought (which isn't a surprise to anyone), deserve a dramatic re-write, or whether they can be incorporated into a revision of the current model. Somehow, he interprets that as disproof of evolution, and scientists rejecting materialism.

I think the Nature discussion is good. I fall somewhere in between the two positions. I'm not surprised that there's a lot of resistance to dramatic change. It happens with EVERY topic. You have something that is extremely well supported, so you're going to need lots of solid evidence to force significant change. To claim that this is evidence of dogmatism or suppression of intelligent design is disingenuous, at best. Not that I'm surprised, given Luskin's track record... one so riddled with dishonesty, made up claims, and badly-feigned expertise, that it would make him persona non grata at any legitimate academic institute.

I think I would interpret the statement "some scientists avoid making criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution lest they give the appearance of supporting ID (intelligent design)" at its face value. They see problems with the standard model for evolution, but see that the creationist crowd grasps at any criticism of that standard model, distorting it so that it appears to bolster creationism, when in actual intention, the rejection of aspects of the standard evolutionary model is far from a statement of support FOR "ID".

As a case in point, take your very question, which on the surface appears to be trying to claim that ID is somehow valid because the standard model may be flawed. the one and the other are not an identity.

Don't lie--that's NOT what the Nature article says--it's what your Liars for Jesus website (evolution news) CLAIMS the Nature article says. Intelligent design is total hogwash, and is not even mentioned in the Nature article, whose focus is on a legitimate SCIENTIFIC controversey within the evolutionary field.

You people have yet to come up with ANYTHING besides lies and misrepresentations intended only to try to fool the scientifically illiterate public. And you still have no postive evidence for your own "alternative."

You are dismissed.

EDIT: Your attempted defense of ENV is irrelevant--the fact remains that they willfully misinterpreted a Nature article in order to serve their own anti-science agenda--and evidently, instead of going back to the primary source, you glibly accepted the misleading ENV version of it, and presented it as if that's what the primary source actually stated. IOW, you fell for the lie, hook line and sinker, probably because it seemed to validate your preexisting beliefs. That's intellectual sloth and dishonesty.

And Bulldog Drummond's calling out of the ENV article's autjhor as an attorney is NOT an ad hominem--rather, it's pointing out that as an attorney, Luskin is not qualified to evaluate a scientific issue. Whether the guy has take a few science courses is again, irrelevant. Taking a few courses or even majoring in science does NOT automatically qualify someone to pass judgement on scientific issues. And oin this particular case--since Luskin's "analysis" willfully lies about what the original article stated, then it's clear that his approach in writing was NOT to advance scientific understanding or the truth, but rather to promote his own narrative. That's a classic example of what attorneys do.

EDIT2: "The point was this: Some scientists avoid making criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution lest they give the appearance of supporting ID. " That was LUSKIN'S point, and it was NOT what the original article stated--Luskin was trying to insinuate that ID is a legitimate scientific alternative, and deliberately trying to promote the falsehood that the original Nature article so stated. Because you didn't bother to check the original article, you missed the fact that Luskin is lying. You stubbornly refuse to admit that you got caught with your pants down. Your continued, willfull, and utterly shameless disingenuousness in the face of having been publically called on it is nothing short of remarkable.

Lying For Jeezus is still LYING; Thank you for the added evidence that religion = BAD morals.

In the Kitzmiller V Dover trial, evidence was shown that conclusively proved that ID was a deliberate FRAUD, invented to try to give creationism a legal fig leaf after the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was NOT science in the Edwards V Aguillard case. So, anyone and everyone who is still pushing ID is a LIAR.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Questions about religion do not belong in the Science section. Intelligent Design is a religious belief, not science.

Huh. Years ago New Scientist admitted censoring any articles that supported alternatives to evolution.

It's criticism of science by people who are willfully ignorant of what they are criticizing. The article they cite is interesting, though: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theor...