Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peer Review or BUST??
misha
Member (Idle past 4618 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 31 of 73 (619296)
06-09-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:16 AM


Re: I guess we could do it again, but...
Chuck77 writes:
He wants to send me to a thread where the last comment was in 2005.....besides his that was in 2009 as a follow up of the 2005 comment. Yeah, thanks.
The objective behind sending you to an old thread is that the thread is still active. He is giving you direction so that you can reactivate a discussion that you feel has not been completed.
By directing you to an old thread you know have access to ALL of the comments by previous posters. That means that you don't have to re-hash some of the arguments. You'll also have a good idea of what has been said. That way you can see if your comments are any different than what has already been said.
If 1000 people started a new thread concerning the Meyer paper and each said the same thing. That would equate to a PRATT. He is trying to help you from falling into the same trap that too many other creationists have fallen into. He's doing you a great service, however you see it as an attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:16 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 32 of 73 (619324)
06-09-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Panda
06-09-2011 11:33 AM


Hi Panda
I don't know who you were quoting but here is another book he wrote prior to Dawkins writing "The God Delusion".
Dawkin's God - Genes Memes and the Meaning of Life
Michael Ruse wrote this:
quote:
The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths Show Why.
AbE I'm sorry to have dragged this off topic. I meant well. I won't comment on this again.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Panda, posted 06-09-2011 11:33 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Panda, posted 06-09-2011 1:59 PM GDR has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 33 of 73 (619332)
06-09-2011 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
06-09-2011 1:32 PM


GDR writes:
Michael Ruse wrote this:
quote:
The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths Show Why.
How much worth do give his words, if you bear in mind that Michael Ruse is not an atheist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 06-09-2011 1:32 PM GDR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 34 of 73 (619379)
06-09-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:15 AM


Tag, im fairly new here and just getting my feet wet but I will do that soon. I think i'll start will Stephen Meyers peer reviewed article on " Intelligent Design-The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Published by the proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
First of all, my user name is Taq, with a Q at the end. It is short for Thermos aquaticus, a thermophilic bacteria that contains a heat resistant DNA polymerase that is used for the amplification of DNA in the modern laboratory. Don't worry, lots of people get that wrong.
Secondly, I was hoping that you would pick a paper where the author/s actually did the work described in the paper. Meyers did none of work described in that paper. It was a review paper, not an original research paper. I am also hoping that you can pick a paper that tests creationism, not evolution. The entire paper is about evolution, not ID or creationism. Meyers argues against evolution but never offers a single testable hypothesis that can be used to test ID.
Of course, it is entirely up to you. These are only suggestions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:15 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 73 (619488)
06-10-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:29 AM


Really? How would you know it's crap if it never gets a chance?
Two reasons: first, the comments of the reviewers on the papers submitted; second, I am familiar with creationist arguments.
Please, don't tell me they don;t submit them.
I said that they rarely submit them, and while this may be contradicted by stuff in your head, it is supported by the research in the paper I linked you to.
ou know Stephen Meyers wonderful paper that was said to not have gone thru proper review. Thats a lie. It went thru three respevted Scientists hands before being published byu Eugenie Scott and the rest of the anti god crew were besides themselves and the editor got fired becaise he went against the TOE and let another view in.
But this is not true. Sternberg's own website says that he resigned voluntarily before the publication of the controversial paper, and that: "By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:29 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 5:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 73 (619899)
06-13-2011 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2011 4:19 AM


But this is not true. Sternberg's own website says that he resigned voluntarily before the publication of the controversial paper, and that: "By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper."[/qs]
Well, this is where I got my information from. Here's a little of the piece. i'll post the link below (if I can)
"Dr. Sternberg's future as a researcher is in doubt because of what was published under his watch, even though the article passed peer review and even though he is not a proponent of ID. According to a recent article by David Klinghoffer in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Sternberg has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, and his religious and political beliefs questioned. "
" The article was submitted for the normal peer review, and it passed. So Dr. Sternberg put it in.
Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues - the museum's number two senior scientist denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded email calling it "unscientific garbage."
Other groups, including the publisher, disassociated themselves from the article, saying that it should not have appeared."
" The chairman of the Zoology Department at the Museum, Jonathan Coddington, called Dr. Sternberg's supervisor soon after the article appeared. According to a complaint that Dr. Sternberg filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC): "First, he asked [the supervisor] whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, `Is he a right- winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor later told Dr. Sternberg about the conversation."
"In October, Dr. Coddington told Dr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the entire area, thus denying him access to materials he needs for his research. Dr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Dr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out."
Klinghoffer tried to contact Dr. Coddington and Dr. Sues, but they did not return his repeated calls for comment.
Dr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative research space and he still works at the museum. But many colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his old office sits empty. Old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him on publication projects.
According to the OSC complaint, one museum specialist chided Dr. Sternberg, saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda." Definitely not, Dr. Sternberg told Klinghoffer. He is a Catholic who attends Mass but notes: "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament."
Dr. Sternberg now rests his hope for vindication on a complaint he filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) of discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirmed that the OSC is investigating. "
Sorry for the long quotes, but that's about the gist of the whole thing. I find it curious that he said he " resigned voluntarily" BEFORE the publication. Isn't that strange to you? He is OBVIOUSLY trying to save his career as he is not taken "seriously" anymore. Im sure he actually thought the paper was Scientific and still does but the amount of backlash it recieved wasn't something he anticipated im sure.
Here's the whole article: Persecution of Richard Sternberg / Amnon Goldberg | Evolution | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2011 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-13-2011 5:50 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 38 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2011 7:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2011 7:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2011 8:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 41 by Trae, posted 06-15-2011 7:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 37 of 73 (619901)
06-13-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 5:17 AM


Quote boxes
You can get coding help via the dBCodes On (help) link, found to the left of all text entry or editing forms.
There are 3 types of quote boxes:
[qs]This is the shaded quote box. Evcforum.net custom is that it is used to quote from other forum messages[/qs]
The above results in:
This is the shaded quote box. Evcforum.net custom is that it is used to quote from other forum messages
There is also a variation on the previous:
[qs=Adminnemooseus]This adds a name for the quoted member.[/qs]
The above results in:
Adminnemooseus writes:
This adds a name for the quoted member.
Then there is the original style quote box:
[quote]Evcforum.net custom is that this style quote box is used for quoting material from outside sources.[/quote]
The above results in:
quote:
Evcforum.net custom is that this style quote box is used for quoting material from outside sources.
Using these quote boxes really helps with showing who said what.
It's also a good thing to use the "Preview" button, to see if you got the coding right. Bad coding will show up in red. One complication you need to watch out for, is that one style of coding error may effect other coding, and the real error might not be what you may think it is.
PLEASE, NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE IS OFF-TOPIC, AND REPLIES WOULD ALSO BE OFF-TOPIC. Off-topic messages are undesirable topic clutter.
Adminnemooseus

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 5:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 38 of 73 (619909)
06-13-2011 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 5:17 AM


So can you tell us what job he got fired from yet? Because I can't make it out from your post.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 5:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 39 of 73 (619911)
06-13-2011 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 5:17 AM


Some facts you need to know.
1) Sternberg is and was an ID proponent
2) The article refers to access privileges at the Smithsonian, which he did not lose. It was not a job (there is no evidence that Sternberg's employment was ever under threat). Because it was not a job the OSC did not have jurisdiction.
3) Sternberg did NOT follow the proper procedures when publishing the paper. There are also questions about the peer review process - it is entirely possible that the reviewers were selected because they were friendly to ID. Certainly that seems to Be the reason why the paper was sent to Sternberg. None of the peer reviewers have been identified.
4) My information is that the office reassignment was part of a wider reorganisation of the space, and that Sternberg kept the keys he actually needed.
5) Since Sternberg is so keen to claim persecution there is no reason to doubt his own claim that he resigned the editorial position (the only one he actually lost) before publication of the paper.
6) Sternberg is hardly the only ID proponent to make dubious claims of persecution. Dembski, for instance is even worse (omitting the fact that he was given the post in question BECAUSE of his support for ID, and under somewhat irregular circumstances)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 5:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 73 (619916)
06-13-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 5:17 AM


So, he wasn't actually fired from anything ... but people "chided" him? And criticized the article?
Why not? Do you expect creationism to be sacrosanct?
I find it curious that he said he " resigned voluntarily" BEFORE the publication.
Why? It appears to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 5:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4296 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 41 of 73 (620284)
06-15-2011 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chuck77
06-13-2011 5:17 AM


quote:
Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues - the museum's number two senior scientist denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded email calling it "unscientific garbage."
So she peer reviewed it and gave her opinion, what's the problem then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 5:17 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 73 (625568)
07-24-2011 2:40 AM


My perspective, now.
Content deleted
*****EDIT***** Im not sure why I posted this here. I got my threads crossed and thought it was my origianl post or Evo or Creo site. My bad. Maybe I should move it?*****
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : Wrong thread
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide most of message, off-topic banner.
Edited by Chuck77, : Deleted the content
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2011 3:21 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 44 by DBlevins, posted 07-24-2011 3:27 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2011 4:45 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 07-24-2011 5:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 47 by Son, posted 07-24-2011 5:53 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 49 by Admin, posted 07-24-2011 6:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 11:11 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 43 of 73 (625569)
07-24-2011 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chuck77
07-24-2011 2:40 AM


Re: My perspective, now.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide, off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Chuck77, posted 07-24-2011 2:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3766 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 44 of 73 (625570)
07-24-2011 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chuck77
07-24-2011 2:40 AM


Re: My perspective, now.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide (still a pretty good, albeit off-topic message), off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Chuck77, posted 07-24-2011 2:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 45 of 73 (625573)
07-24-2011 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chuck77
07-24-2011 2:40 AM


Re: My perspective, now.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide, off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Chuck77, posted 07-24-2011 2:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024