Reply #54: so you want to conflate this work with the idiocy in the "online book?"

[RainDog]

because I did read portions of the piece and it doesn't postulate anything new. As I noted several times in several ways on this same thread - the complaints about evo sci were simply not true in relation to "forms."

As far as "normal" science vs. those who really "care about truth" - it is ridiculous to me to both acknowledge that science does change when overwhelming evidence creates a change that is acknowledged by experts in a field and then to claim that this is some problem. In order for a diff. idea to be accepted in an area of study that requires reproducible results, that requires a way to express these ideas (whether in language or other symbols), and that requires that someone understands where this or that science came from -- someone SHOULD have to go through a stringent and highly skeptical peer review.

Peer review is the accepted academic standard in all areas of academia. What makes evo theory different? People can have good ideas that they publish which are not accepted at first but then become accepted after other experts in that field are able to reproduce the result or proof or see the evidence on a wall in some excavation or look at jawbones.... to call something "normative" doesn't negate its useful purpose.

but you know, you're right. I'm not a scientist. the earth is flat and I can find others who believe this too. the earth was created in 7 days and I can make big money by supporting this pov. that's not "normative" - unless you operate outside of accepted reality -- but if it's not normative then it must be better, right?