Does all this boil down to simply that I've challenged the status quo science of the day? We can argue about the little quibbles you have all day.

Maybe I'm saying the best science is always heretical because that's the only way science seems to make faster progress.

The question is, do I have a right to question the current presumptions that are commonly made in science? If not, it simply proves that scientific dogma exists. Indeed, it's obvious that you are defending something tooth and nail. Is it really about Creationism? Or...has the status quo been challenged as the dominant "alpha male" within scientific dogma? Maybe ID is a poor example? Consider that chemo has been used for like, what, 50 years. Something new should be tried that is "heretical", cause chemo doesn't work (and when it "does"; you just get cancer from the chemo like 10 years later). However, when something challenges the status quo, say the National Cancer Institute, their social dominance in regards to cancer would be challenged. They either have to get on board and support the new heresy or they have to come up with new studies to discount the study. You can basically set up the parameters of any study to discount another study; or you can make X appear to work (until you get enough studies done, taking like decades probably). The point is dogma exists in science because there are various institutes that have a dominant interest in the finances and social status.

You guys always look at science like it's something pure. It's naive. The truth is that science is ruled by those who have powerful interests, social and financial. Because of this, dogma exists in science. Money and social status is the electricity that makes the science motor run so as to support the dogma that steers where the engine goes.

I think that would be an accurate assessment. The question is who runs the science? And when heretical science comes along, which is still science, who allows it's acceptance and practice? If the flat earth history has taught us anything, it's not that people believed in a flat earth, but rather something else: the scientific elite of the day suppressed advancement because it challenged their powers that be. Likewise, new science always challenges the current powers that be, so it will always be discounted at first. Science has proven itself to partake of that nature: automatic dismissal and discounting of the new. That's because when the "alpha male" is challenged, as a superorganism, it obviously does two things: 1) it ignores the challenge (which freaks the challenger out so he runs off), or 2) um, he fights the challenge whether justified or not. You guys are such big believers in evolution; yet it's odd that you cannot accept this fact. A simple tenet of such evolution is that when the alpha male (e.g. current scientific dogma) is challenged, he balks. Science isn't as pure as you think. It's supposed to be "open" to new ideas, but it's not. The little dogmatic "creatures" within science must defend themselves. The weakness of evolution is that, as an "alpha male", it can always be replaced by a new "male", one more fit, perhaps some sort of superscience as Relativity was to the Newtonian dominant world view. So I wouldn't be defending evolution as absolute if I were you. *whispers* "Cause it's dogmatic; as much of science is now as it was in the past" (the contention between a flat earth and round sphere should prove this to anyone; those who over look the obvious stick their heads in the sand).

You go girl!

P.S. Too bad it had to be chemo though and not a better treatment. Will there ever be a better treatment?

As with the political right, a lie told in defense of the ideology isn't a lie at all to adherents...it's a defense of the "right" way of looking at the world around them. In the case of Christianity this is even more powerful, since it's a defense of God Himself, and the "correct" faith. You can see why some of them really get carried away with their cultist activities, since it goes beyond mere human, earthly values and alliances.

What's your basis for making this claim?

Typical chemotherapy amounts to sorcery because it doesn't work and it often reduces the quality of life.

I'd have to say that's not been true for a long time, and that chemo, though initially painful and difficult, can indeed prolong and improve the quality of patients' life drastically.

And are we talking about the trademark Intelligent Design or the class of intelligent design? In my book, SETI belongs to the the class of intelligent design but not the trademark dealing with creationism.

We've gone over this before Patrick. You contexted this because SETI was the search for a design for intelligence in the Universe.

People CANNOT divorce 'intelligent design' from 'Intelligent Design' (I don't believe they've trademarked those words btw) but IN the US, any talk about Intelligent Design, whether capitalized or not MEANS the rehash of creationist beliefs in opposition to science in the classroom. It is so MUCH a part of 'social culture' that it does mean one thing and one thing only. Trying to is just an red herring. It's double speak.

SETI has nothing to do with Intelligent Design. Whether capitalized or not. It does search for intelligence (alien intelligence, other sentient species) by looking for scientific evidence of such - some sort of structure, scientifically, that may not be 'by accident' 'out there'.

I asked you before. 'Do you consider yourself Christian?' 'Do you IDENTIFY as a Christian?'

Calling SETI a case for intelligent design. then would = by your logic (and if you said 'yes' to the two above questions) Calling you affiliated with Christian Identity.

(When I stated this months ago I did not clarify for the masses. Christian Identity is a white supremacist organization).