|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meyer's Hopeless Monster | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
PaulK writes: His unethical behaviour in publishing Meyers' paper perhaps suggests that there should be. Unethical! That's the word I've been searching for. Thank you! What most of my previous post was trying to say is that Sternberg's conduct as editor of the BSOW Proceedings was quite likely unethical. To Creationists: While assailing the halls of science, measure your behavior against the highest standards, and conduct yourselves as if Jesus himself were on the peer review committee. Would the Lord our God approve ends achieved through ethically questionable means? When Sternberg goes before his God and says, "Lord, I brought your message to your children," will not God reply, "But you went against 140 years of a respected journal's tradition, thereby rendering in vain the efforts of all my children who had maintained those traditions through the years. You respected the Lord but disdained your fellow man and stained my message with your ill conduct. My message is love and forgiveness, not complexity and design. There is no place for you here." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Unethical! Okay, I'm gonna be a bit unethical. This is not on topic but I figured this was the best way to ensure you could get my message and respond. I sent you an email, or anyway an email to admin@evc, and had not heard back. It was regarding pictures of the month. I wasn't sure if it got to you or not. Please let me know. Sorry for the interjection... bact to topic at hand... holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5836 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Percy,
Aside from your summary, a couple of things (that I don't think have cropped up yet) probably need answering as well:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Your email arrived, many thanks! I've been reserving website changes for weekends, so I wasn't going to examine the contents until then. Hope that's okay, and thanks again! The current picture has been there for a while.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1897 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
It was interesting to see how he made a deal out of being labeled a creationist. He IS one, after all. That in and of itself was not the issue, the issue, as has been raised, is that he used his position to get a creationist paper published.
The DI spin amchine is very good, however. I wonder if Karl Rove does a little side-activity for them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: And that really is the point. The scientific merits of the paper did not lend themselves to be published in that journal. This would also apply to an evolutionist writing a paper with dubious or misleading work. Meyer's paper was published not because it was a good paper, but because the editor used his position to get it included. I have seen administrators of granting institutions lose their job for similar practices, giving grant money to people because of personal realationships instead of scientific merit. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to everyone wanting to do science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Can you imagine evolutionists ever sneaking a paper on evolution into the proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention, and then crowing about how it meant the Baptists accepted evolution? That chicanery would have to have been involved and that the Southern Baptists do *not* accept evolution would be so self-evidently obvious to everyone, including evolutionists, that even considering such a thing would never happen, even without the ethical considerations.
But the Creationist mindset is an amazing thing. They sneak an ID paper into a mainstream science journal, then they crow about it as if it leant ID any validity. It's a neat trick they pulled off, but it brings them no benefit. The reaction of science isn't, "Gee, I guess ID must be valid, here it is in a journal," but rather a roll-your-eyes, "Here they go yet again." And this is what makes it so obvious that the target of all the Creationist efforts, ID included, isn't science but the evangelical community. Sternberg must have known what he was doing was unethical and would only bring him the recriminations of the scientific community, but he didn't care because the scientific community was not his target audience. His audience was the church faithful, who can now be told in all honesty that a paper supporting ID has appeared in a mainstream science journal, and that it means that more and more scientists are becoming persuaded of the bankruptcy of evolution and the inevitable ascendency of Creationism. This poor, naive, ignorant Christian community is just a pawn in the Creationist's game. Creationists care not for science, not for ethics, not for integrity. They care only about maintaining their power over their intellectually impoverished (for that's the state they maintain them in) parishioners. When I say that Creationist efforts are targeted at the church and not at science, I mean *all Creationist efforts. Even the most mathematical of Creationists, like Dembski and Humphreys, must have no illusion that their writings will find acceptance within science. But they're devout Christians with a mathematical bent, and we know that writers write and mathematicians math, and so they math away in the name of their religion without any regard to whether what they're doing has any scientific validity, all the while telling their captive audience about how right they are and how deceived the rest of science is. They have no courage to actually present their ideas in the halls of science. What a disgrace they are as human beings. Oh yes, and welcome back! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Htank you for the clarification.
Now it is up to ID Man to clarify what he is saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
From Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry:
quote: The premise is false in that ID has presented the positive evidence for its case. The case is in the literature I have posted as well as other essays, articles and books. We can detect design by the coming together of separate parts or components in an ordered way in such a functional system is formed that is dependent upon the order and those individual parts or components. With the bacterial flagellum not only is a functioning system formed but the energy to drive it is supplied as is the ability (or even knowledge how) to use it, which requires a communication link. So far the only alleged pre-cursor to the bacterial flagellum, the type III secretory system, has been shown to be if anything an offshoot of the BF. Yet here we have all these proteins that come together as if they were instructed to do so, just like we see parts come together to form a product in automated factories, and the vocal minority won’t allow science to infer ID. It is only a matter of time before that minority gets put in its place. BTW, we can’t deny what has yet to be shown. IOW if you could show your process was sufficient odds are we wouldn’t be having this discussion. However we can compare- what is the positive evidence that natural selection acting on random variations or mutations can do what evolutionists assert it can? IOW what is the positive evidence that a bacterial flagellum can arise by nature acting alone? What is the positive evidence for asexual and sexual reproduction arising by nature acting alone? What we will find, as with endo-symbiosis and the alleged origins of eukaryotes, is that what is being looked for has to be assumed in the first place. IOW Dr. Margulis started with the assumption that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes and then fit her observance to that assumption. The same can be said of the alleged evolution of metazoans. Then these guys have the audacity to mention details. LoL! The theory of evolution is void of details. The ‘why’ in the theory of evolution is what? The theory of evolution can only speculate based on the assumption. How can we falsify the theory of evolution? What is the empirical test to show that euks. evolved from proks.? An unintelligent, non-guiding force did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason is not a model. "The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible" Ho and Saunders. BTW detectives do not require a motive to solve a case. Many times the motive is unclear until after the case is solved. The double-standards in the first paragraph alone would give any rational person caution for the contents of the rest of the paper. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Can you support your assrtion? Dr. Behe isn't the only IDist that accepts common descent.
quote: Do you know this Steve Jones personally? Were you there when he was asked to resign? Do you believe everything a disgruntled person tells you? Do you know all of the details behind his resignation or only what Steve posted? "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Which other IDist's support Common Descent ?
I am familiar with Steve Jones' long support of the ID movement (he is still a committed opponent of evolution. I see no reason why he should misrepresent the facts behind his resignation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Conflating ID with Creationism is a transparent ruse. You are only fooling yourself and your gullible ilk. By your logic theistic evolutionists are also Creationists. I wonder what Ken Miller would say to you about that.
I never saud that ID didn't have similarities with Creation. Both have similarities with the theory of evolution. That does NOT make them all one in the same. It doesn't matter if Creationists support ID. That does not make ID = Creation. If I want to learn about ID I would not go to the ICR or AIG. Is that where you learn about the theory of evolution? I put my arguments down in the proposed topics thread labeled Intelligent Design is not Creation[ism]. I wonder why the moderators won't post it?
Copy of entire contents of proposed topic deleted. Moderators have already cautioned this thread to remain on topic. Members who feel moderators are not responding fast enough to proposed topic are free to volunteer for a moderator role. --Admin ID is Creationism only in the minds of the ill-informed or the blatant misrepresenters. Which one are you Percy? This message has been edited by Admin, 09-16-2004 10:58 AM "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Dean Kenyon and Scott Minnich are two such IDists. However, I only have to present one, Behe, to shoot down your case.
quote: That isn't evidence. If you don't have any evidence just say so. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: He is? Any evidence for that assertion?
quote: That is not true. It is not a creationist paper. Meyer is an IDist and yes there is a difference. The paper was reviewed by three other people- biologists. Is Nick Matzke a biologist? This message has been edited by ID man, 09-16-2004 10:33 AM "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Better check that "wedge document" again, ID man. You can fool some of the people most of the time.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024