Could you please provide citations for these "more ID papers" that are purportedly being published through peer review processes. I am intimately familiar with this process,having fought for several years to have my work published in peer reviewed journals. At each submission, reviewers pointed out flaws in my reasoning or experimental design. Eventually the work was published, and is now taught a standard concept in my field. I would like to see the supposed ID papers that have survived this same intellectual gauntlet.

The video is correct only in that the precise values of the universal constants are critical for life as we know it. If the values were different, then some other form of life could be pondering how come the force of gravity was just enough to produce 11 and one half arms and a chemistry based on the chemistry of kryptonite. Or possibly no life. But given the constants of this universe, the probability that life would develop as we see it is simply 1, since..here we are.

Oh...btw, I am one of the "Scientists" you refer to, having spent 40 years engaged in laboratory science.

Actually, this is a pretty good example of how science should work. A published paper was examined in a variety of ways, as the Times report says, " It (the original paper) rerouted countless researchers’ agendas, inspired activists to change their approach to voter outreach, generated shifts in grant funding, and launched follow-up experiments." Eventually, the fraud was revealed, and the results discarded. Retractions and "corrections" appear almost daily in the scientific literature as the process works itself out. That's why you must never believe news reports of dramatic breakthroughs - there generally hasn't been sufficient time for true peer review, which is more than a reviewer or two analyzing the paper, but consists of other scientists trying to replicate the original studies.

If you don't know, then don't make up your own "facts". The funding sources are clearly shown at the end of the paper: "This work is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security [contract HSHQDC-12-C-00058 (B.T.G. and C.J.E.M.)], and the RAPIDD program of the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security and the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health (C.J.E.M. and B.T.G)."

A recent research paper available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6235/694.full demonstrates that the chances of a child's dying from non-measles infections is substantially raised for several years following a measles infection. This seems to be due to the measles infection inducing the immune system of the child to "forget" previous exposures to other infectious organisms, opening the child to reinfection. thgink about that next time you believe that fraud, Wakefield, about the dangers of vaccination.

Rac: The Miller-Urey experiment emphatically did not fail. It did what experiments are supposed to do - it produced data that has to be examined in the face of the underlying assumptions. The M-U experiences demonstrated that there were conditions under which organic molecules could be formed. In their original analysis they found only a limited variety of molecules. More recent examination of stored samples (using more powerful, modern analytical techniques) demonstrated that they also produced several amino acids, among other molecules. We now no longer believe that their assumptions about the atmosphere's composition during abiotic times was fully correct. More recent experiments, using better estimates of the atmosphere have produced not only more than 20 amino acids, but also some of the bases found in nucleic acids. This is how science works, and when a student walks into a science class he/she should find out about science and how it works, not about stories passed down for several thousand years that reflect iron/stone age understanding of the universe.

The shooter was not an undercover cop. According to the first reports he was an auxiliary officer, specifically prohibited from conducting enforcement actions.

They didn't solve "the" problem, they solved "a" problem, one that Darwin couldn't solve because genetics and most of biochemistry hadn't yet been invented. There are lots of unsolved individual problems to be solved within the general title of the theory of evolution, but there are many that have been solved. That is how the theory receives further support.

I repeat - the reverse is true. Most abortions done for medical reasons are mid-late term since it is difficult to make a diagnosis earlier than 20 weeks. There are also some mid-late term abortions done for the medical benefit of the mother, although I don't know the incidence off hand. I have seen claims on both side of the issue of what percentage of all mid-late term abortions are for medical reasons, which is why I asked for your reference. I will go read it, thanks.

Do you have a citation for that statement? The reverse is true - most abortions performed because of severe fetal abnormalities are performed after 20 weeks. This is because it is very difficult to diagnose a severe abnormality such as diaphragmatic hernia, anencephaly, etc. with any certainty prior to 20 weeks. The organs are just appearing in their final-like form at the 20 week mark, so trying to see organ abnormalities prior to this point is largely guesswork.

I really don't understand this turn of events. I can understand why adolescent students might do this - anything to piss-off the elders. But presumably intelligent professors? I don't understand.

Wrong. Private speech censorship codes are outside of the constitution unless the government imposes them. I have a firm rule that anyone coming into my house speaking pig latin is expelled from the premises. Neither the constitution nor the courts of the land have any enforcement powers over this. I don't place any duress on potential entrants to my house - my house, my rules - if you want to enter, follow my rules, or go elsewhere. University of Oklahoma says the same thing, as does every college and university I am familiar with (that's a lot of schools) - our school, our rules.

It isn't an issue of whether someone was offended in the Oklahoma incident. The simple fact is that the student code and university statutes prohibit certain types of behavior. When you join that community you implicitly agree to abide by those rules (at my university it isn't implicit, you must sign an agreement, initialling each paragraph), and if you violate those rules you are subject to whatever is appropriate as determined by the institution. Asking if you should have someone should be arrested for calling you a "Cracker" is a red herring, since in Oklahoma nobody was subjected to criminal charges.

If you want to see how real mathematicians treat population growth, look at this: http://www.sol.duke.edu/cunningham/Phylogeography/Readings/RogersHarp.1992.pdf. This paper describes how actual populations row in waves, not in idealized exponential curves. What this means is that the "scientific" posting of yours is nonsense.