No tangent, it was right on topic.

You've been duped by the bait and switch. That's fine, you're in good company - plentiful company anyway. The reason there's so little controversy in academia over this is because it isn't allowed. Its a closed system. Questioning the consensus, like Galileo did in his day, is frowned upon and career suicide.

Scientists get their greatest glory by overturning current conventions. It is not frowned upon, science is a very sceptical institution by default. Everything in science is questioned. That's how it progresses. Go look up the scientific method.

Why then are well-credentialed scientists losing their jobs for being skeptical and questioning the consensus view?

This happens often? I remember recently a "scientist" tried to get published in Nature and when Nature didn't publish his article he got mad, talking about "discrimination." In reality his article was of very low quality and had no evidence so he just ended up making a fool of himself.

This is of course irreverent to what we were talking about. Changing the subject doesn't change the meaning of evolution when scientists talk about it. It's not like science is perfect or anything though.

It happens too often for you to make statements like you did. And no, I wasn't referring to people getting articles printed in magazines, I was talking about well-credentialed scientists already in the field.

Did you mean to say "irrelevent?" Anyway, not sure who changed the subject, if you'd like to discuss the various meanings of evolution some more, I'm game.

No truer words can be said than those in your last sentence. This is the common ground we can work from. Science has come a long way, but it has a history of being wrong time and again, and to think we've suddenly hit the peak of perfection is silly.

People promoting creationism are hte show stoppers, I don't see how science can advance if creationist movements say "Guys, this is how it happened, it written in the bible, no need for further debate or research. case closed"

Now the thing they're trying to do is to tell that scientists are the real show stoppers because they want the research being continued and do not accept everything already being discovered and/or written down.

This new approach is completely absurd. (The approach not the people, just in case you want to put something in my mouth.)

I don't think replacing scientific theory and research with bible stories is the answer either, but that is not what this is about.

What is happening is "big sciece" trying to close the debate that even Darwin himself said would have to continue forever.

Just because something is "written down" doesn't make it true. Science is able to observe some things that are observable and reproducable, the rest are gaps that are filled in with theory. Big science is controlling what those theories are, and stopping even the questioning of existing theories.

You make it sound as tho someone is trying to replace fact with fairy tale, and that simply is not the case. This, by the way, is yet another popular bait and switch tactic related to this issue that is abused: calling any criticism of Darwinism or other theories creationism. That's intellectually dishonest.

I wasn't my intention to imply all criticism equals creationism as I don't believe that. But I get the impression creationists are they ones complaining the most.

Whether or not there is "big science" involved. Research of evolution hasn't stopped nor is everyone getting fired proposing controversial theories. This is the point where the lack of understanding of the theories and research in the general population poses a problem.

People are getting fired for proposing other theories that challenge the consensus. There is a recent documentry on the subject.

Your argument amounts to "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is just too dumb to understand."

I didn't wrote that and that's not what I think. Try harder if you want to put words in my mouth.

I don't understand all new results of the research, why should I? I'm an economist, and I did not study anything even remotely having to do something with evolution.

Just because I did not study or research in that field doesn't make me come to the conclusion it's wrong just because I don't understand it like a biologist does.

If you mean "Expelled", it claims a lot and just because some where fired doesn't mean everyone gets fired nor that science stops making progress.

Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job just because someone made a documentary about it supposedly being one? Do you believe Al Gore because he made a documentary?

I believe that the people interviewed in the documentry, especially the Darwinists like Dawkins, were all saying exactly what was on their mind and that the interviews were fairly done and edited. I haven't seen Algore's documentry, and Loose change wasn't compelling due to the lack of qualified subjects and balance. Expelled interviewed people on both sides of the issue and people at the top of their field were given their say. There's no real comparison between Expelled and Loose Change.

The "darwinists" were on several accounts outraged by the way their comments were interpreted. From Richard Dawkins' review of the film:I can only apologize for the huge quote, but Dawkins wasn't exactly terse about it. I've snipped it gratuitously already, and if you want the full quote it's at the link above, paragraphs 14-16.

I don't doubt they were outraged, they made fools of themselves. That doesn't mean they weren't treated fairly.

I'm done with this issue, its like saying Jesus had a girl friend on a bible thumper forum. I really don't have an axe to grind with anyone on either side of the darwinism debate.

Here's some more interesting remarks, showing that ID claims don't hold up in court either. Maybe the justice system is conspiring against ID researchers as well.

Did you read the quote? To use the example in the quote, Dawkins' statements were completely misconstrued in every way. He invented a science-fiction scenario because they asked him to, then they represented it as his opinion and then ridiculed him for it in the final film.

Have you seen the film?

I did read Dawkin's excuses, and they make him look more unhinged than his interview in the film.

In what ways do they make him seem unhinged?

Have you seen the film?

poor logic, just because something isnt universally excepted by 'john public' does not make it wrong, also speciation has been observed, the definition of a new specie is when it can no longer interbreed with the old one, this has been observed to occur with numerous bacteria, many smaller insects and more recently the formation of a new breed of mosquito on the london underground that cant breed with those found above the surface.
also evolution is the fact, natural selection is the theory part
species change over time, natural selection is the theory as to why.

well ive yet to see anyone other than creationists critisize evolution, the lamarckists are suspiciously quiet, maybe theyve got something behind the scenes

Its a conspiracy, get your tin foil hat out!
as for the epic piece of fail that is exposed i suggest you check out the real reasons why some of the people in the film were fired.

Sternberg
Gonzalez
Crocker

ID = Genesis