Hi GermanJW,
I can't read German so I can't comment on the contents of the links you gave. However, from what you said, it sounds like Loenning was using the Max Planck Institute website to promote his views about "Intelligent Design creationism". Likely, the Institute figured that that was a misuse of their website since it promoted a view that the Institute does not want to be associated with. It's not likely that Loenning merely participated in a discussion board on the website and was banned for stating his views, since most DB's exist specifically for that purpose. Most likely he was using the Institute's reputation to promote his views, or was speaking as if he were an Institute spokesman. If he is the head of the Genetics Department, that lends credence to this view. Do correct me if I'm wrong. If so, then banning him from continuing such misuse should be expected. However, it might be that Max Planck has a general policy that its staff must not promote wild, unscientific notions, which is how almost all scientists would classify ID, and again, in his role as a department head, he should not promote views that most scientists classify as "unscientific".
Similarly, if the head of Harvard University's biology department began promoting ID ideas, the department would rightly question his qualifications to do biology at all. This would be true whether the guy used Harvard resources or did it entirely on his own. Just suppose this head began promoting flat-earthism, phrenology, holocaust revisionism, or anything else that most people understand is whacky. Why would any university administrator want to allow the guy to use institute resources to promote such whackiness? They would justifiably question his qualifications to continue as a biologist, much less a department head, since you have to have a modicum of ability to distinguish between reality and whackiness to do the work.
Is "Intelligent Design theory" whacky? Not entirely. I just think it's probably wrong. It certainly isn't science in the normal way one defines science, since it begins with the notion that "God did it". That's religion not science and it has no place in a science curriculum, nor does any science related institution have any obligation to allow such a view to be promoted in its name.
The most prominent ID spokesman, Phillip Johnson, kicked off the modern ID movement around 1990 when he published Darwin on Trial. He's published many other books in the same vein since then. His private view is that young-earth creationism is the correct view of the origin of everything, but he's politically savvy enough not to promote such blatantly whacked-out views. When one reads Johnson's books, one gets the feeling that Johnson is not telling the whole story, and one is right. Johnson is a lawyer and argues as lawyers do in court -- not necessarily trying to get at the truth, but trying to get at just enough truth to put a viewpoint across. Johnson simply fails to tell readers the whole truth about evolution and "Intelligent Design" theory, and so, just as Watchtower writers so often do, mislead by telling partial truths.
A solid debunking of ID ideas can be found in some articles in the book Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (ed. Robert Pennock, The MIT Press, 2001).
Rocketman's response was typical of creationists and their supporters: "I'm not in favor of people being "banned" for sharing a viewpoint." It's not likely that Loenning was banned merely for "sharing a viewpoint", but for doing so in the wrong venue, or disqualifying himself as a competent researcher anb department head. This would be no different from dismissing John Morris, present head of the Institute for Creation Research, for publicly or privately expressing views in favor of evolution. And we know very well that if creationists such as the JWs were in political power, they would ban even private expressions in favor of evolution by anyone in any position, so they shouldn't complain when others do to them what they would do to others.
Ed, science is not just a form of belief. Science is a human endeavor that, on the whole and in the long run, tends toward finding how the world really works. You can call it a long term search for truth about our world, if you like. Science does not work by searching for truth in a holy book and then bending facts about the world to fit. It starts with observations concerning present or historical events, and posits theories that attempt to explain the observations. After a long time, and much observation and wrangling, a theory tends to gain acceptance, and finally to be accepted as a tentative "fact". Such things are facts, not in the sense of "absolute truth", but in the sense that it's extremely unlikely that another explanation will be found that is better. In that sense, the overall set of theories known as "evolution" are much better at explaining observations than are any of the many forms of creationism, including "Intelligent Design".
You complain about an "elite group" of people deciding how data should be interpreted. Well the fact is that scientists are trained in the art of interpreting data. Non-scientists do not generally have the skills to interpret data properly. A forensic scientist can tell a great deal from a few bones, whereas to me they're just a pile of bones. A good paleontologist can also tell a lot from bones, whereas you and other creationists cannot.
A good scientist can also simplify the data down to bare enough essentials to allow most non-specialists to understand the reasons behind the theory. As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to your grandmother you don't understand it." When I read good explanations of their ideas by good scientists, I can follow it and can see just why the data supports their ideas. On the other hand, when I read most creationist material, I'm almost always left with the feeling that I've been snookered, like when I read Phillip Johnson's writings. And when scientists and creationists argue back and forth, in books, articles, online or in person, I almost always find that the creationists have deliberately ignored inconvenient data, or they run away from observations that they have done so. In other words, creationists tend to obscure facts rather than shed light on them.
AlanF
