Those opposed to the science presented have become like Rabid Dogs attacking the author of the article rather than the substance of the article.

You simply suffer from biased perception. "New atheists" and pseudo skeptics etc are as insulting and off topic, yet you think that the insults from your own side are harmless. Guess what - change your point of view, and suddenly you may understand why it is, for example, deeply insulting if you belong to the very group that corrupts the peer-review system yet "just state the fact" that xyz has no peer-reviewed published research to back up her point.

I am sitting in Guangzhou writing this. Over here we know we are not anonymous on the web. And, No, They don’t eat dogs over here anymore.

I am in China and we eat dogs and cats. They are very tasty and are eaten a lot especially in Guangzhou. That you write such a blatant lie just proves how much less trustworthy you pseudo-progressives are compared to upright and honest creationists who admit to their belief.

The point is a simple one.  If someone wants to debate a scientific point, then certainly evidence is a requirement.  However, when two sides can't agree on what constitutes evidence, then clearly there isn't much to discuss.

However, I would argue that there is a fundamental flaw from the ID perspective that needs to be considered.  No matter what belief someone holds, the "ground rules" indicate that this is a scientific discussion.  Therefore, as when engaging in any game, one must follow the rules of that game.  You can't simply make up your own and then complain that the game isn't fair.

So, ID'ers have a responsibility to actually present evidence that has been researched or at the least observed in some form that demonstrates where the scientific principles don't apply.  This doesn't mean anecdotes are acceptable, nor does it mean that the tired old arguments about irreducible complexity and other nonsense are acceptable.  It also doesn't mean that ID'ers can conflate origin issues with evolution, since this is precisely what makes too many of the comments disingenuous.

In the end, the real problem is that ID isn't interested in science.  ID is ONLY interested in trying to tear down evolution theory.  It isn't interested in replacing it with anything else.  It isn't interested in demonstrating how new insight can lead to new understanding.  It isn't interested in applying any insights into existing problems.  It's sole purpose is to denigrate evolution and replace it with a religious explanation.

So, while you may think that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate, but I would argue that it is inappropriate to troll scientific sites when your interest isn't scientific.  It is inappropriate to comment on sites where your intent is merely to disrupt. 

Personally I think the best response isn't the ad hominem attack.  It's the delete option.   I'm not interested in granting "freedom of speech" to people whose sole purpose is to increase confusion and lie.  Make no mistake, ID and creationism is a lie, because it is being presented as an alternative to a scientific theory [which it is not] and it is often being denied as being religiously based [which it is].  Therefore, it has no place as a point of discussion regarding science.  None, nada, nyet, nein. 

Now, we can wait for the ID'ers and creationists to join in the commentary and watch their indignant responses.

Hi Hank,

We are both wrong on the numbers of peer reviewed papers.

“B.-C. Björk, R. Annikki, and M. Lauri. Global annualvolume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access options.(Openly available at:
http://oacs.shh.fi/publications/...)

The authors used the most comprehensive citation indexes, Web of Science andUllrichsweb, for their analysis.They estimate that 1.346 million articles werepublished in 23,750 journals within 2006.”

Downloaded from http://www.quora.com/How-many-academic-papers-are-published-each-year

I cannot access the original article cited from here.  But I am blown away by the numberof peer reviewed papers published in the world yearly…

Cheers,

Georgie

Hi Hank,

The number blew me away too.  As i Said i cannot get the original article here in china, I have problems with my internet connection. I am returning to canada on friday as i get three week out of china so i will look at it then.

If you can download it, could you look at the article and see what they say. Perhaps if it is not too much trouble could you email me a copy of it?
 
Cheers,
georgie

Dear Sasha,

Regarding your comment about my hiding my identity. I do not. I use my real name; I am registered on the site so my email address has been verified.  Trolls don't do this and so are anonymous.

The picture of a beagle goes with the title of the Blog: A dog with a Blog.   Writing from the perspective of an outsider or a beagle in this case is a literary device. Perhaps you should read up on English literature?

So it is not Ironic, Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word Ironic as you clearly don’t know what it means.

As for the meds comment it was used in the same manner Bart Simpson uses the phrase “Lightenup Dude”

In closing, your comment is not ironic, only moronic. 

Warmest Regards,

georgie