Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 3:14 PM
348 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Porosity, RAZD, ringo, Tangle (8 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,356 Year: 23,962/21,208 Month: 1,927/2,468 Week: 20/416 Day: 20/24 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 151 of 207 (146143)
09-30-2004 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ID man
09-30-2004 2:52 PM


ID man writes:

quote:
Percy:
The topics Sternberg mentioned are all closely related to taxonomy.

Did you come to this conclusion by reading the articles?

Well, that's a silly question. Look again at your Sternberg quote. It doesn't provide any articles. It just a list of taxonomy-related topic areas.

I have posted evidence to the contrary- that he did not abuse his authority and the Meyer's article was inside the bounds of the journal.

You posted some specious argumentation that has already been rebutted several times. If you want to make your same arguments again then we can rebut them again, but it seems a pointless exercise.

As for the AAAS I would say they wouldn't know evidence if it hit them in the face nor would they understand the criteria which Behe clearly put forth.

Your tactic of using denigration as a substitute for evidence and argument grew tiresome a long time ago, and it violates the Forum Guidelines.

Where is the credible scientific evidence that shows the vision system can result from RM & NS?

This is off topic, and aren't you already discussing this or a similar issue in another thread?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 2:52 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:16 PM Percy has responded

    
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 207 (146144)
09-30-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Silent H
09-30-2004 2:35 PM


quote:
holmes:
The accusation (by the people IN CHARGE OF THE JOURNAL I MIGHT ADD) is that he allowed a paper to be published which deviated from the journal's purpose.

The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa.

as for in charge- is not the editor in charge of the content of the journal he/ she edits?

Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."

Why didn't the President say something at that time? Why did he wait for the sh_t to hit the fan, then react?

Again I take umbrage with your "IDIOT" theory bull. Why do you have to do that? Idiots usually mock what they can't understand or comprehend. In this case thyat would be you.

quote:
holmes:
As well as being a lousy entry into getting journal publication (the science was lacking), that specific journal also seemed poorly suited as a venue for the debate.

Now this directly impacts the reviewers. I would doubt your scientific credentials to make a determination on Meyer's 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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 2:35 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:44 PM ID man has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 153 of 207 (146145)
09-30-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ID man
09-30-2004 2:52 PM


As for the AAAS I would say they wouldn't know evidence if it hit them in the face

Why?

nor would they understand the criteria which Behe clearly put forth.

I don't know about the AAAS but I have stated that Behe did not prove any criteria for detecting design. Essentially Ratzsch conceded that in his comments that ID (in general) has not proven anything and its next step is proving criteria.

It has also been pointed out that Behe did not sufficiently tie IC to SC.

Perhaps you can show which criteria he clearly setup as valid criteria?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 2:52 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:22 PM Silent H has responded

    
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 207 (146153)
09-30-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
09-30-2004 3:05 PM


quote:
Percy:
Look again at your Sternberg quote. It doesn't provide any articles. It just a list of taxonomy-related topic areas.

Comparative cytogenetics, which compares the characteristics of chromosomes of different organisms. Such characteristics include the size, shape, banding pattern and number of chromosomes.

Developmental studies, which are studies that examine the development or growth of one of more organisms.

Phylogenetic hypotheses and classifications, which are proposed evolutionary histories for one or more groups of organisms as well as the classifications that are based on those histories.

Reviews of faunal groups, which are essentially reviews of how certain animals have been classified, as well as their relationship to one another.

The above go beyond pure taxonomy.

quote:
Percy:
You posted some specious argumentation that has already been rebutted several times.

That is not so. The arguments were not specious and have not been refuted. Rebuttals are not refutations. the evidence has been presented and ignored.

quote:
Percy:
Your tactic of using denigration as a substitute for evidence and argument grew tiresome a long time ago

Your tactics against Sternberg have also grown tiresome. So now what do we do?

When people say that the evidence has not been presented, that is pure bull. Now it has been presented in a peer-reviewed journal.

When people say the criteria has not been presented that again is bull and a downright lie. How else does someone deal with liars and decievers except to point out that they are liars?

Where is the credible scientific evidence that shows the vision system can result from RM & NS?

quote:
Percy:
This is off topic, and aren't you already discussing this or a similar issue in another thread?

I understand that exposing the typical double-standards are off limits. And yes, although to no avail, this is being discussed elsewhere.


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 3:05 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 4:37 PM ID man has responded
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 10:29 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 207 (146154)
09-30-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Silent H
09-30-2004 3:07 PM


quote:
holmes:
Essentially Ratzsch conceded that in his comments that ID (in general) has not proven anything and its next step is proving criteria.

Science is not about proof. if it were then the theory of evo would have been discounted long ago.

quote:
holmes:
It has also been pointed out that Behe did not sufficiently tie IC to SC.

Dembski has.

quote:
holmes:
Perhaps you can show which criteria he clearly setup as valid criteria?

”Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components. …
… (…indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Mike Behe

As for the AAAS I would say they wouldn't know evidence if it hit them in the face

quote:
holmes:
Why?

The positive evidence for ID has been presented and according to what Percy posted the AAAS states that the evidence doesn't exist. It is that simple.


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:07 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 4:02 PM ID man has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 156 of 207 (146159)
09-30-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ID man
09-30-2004 3:06 PM


as for in charge- is not the editor in charge of the content of the journal he/ she edits?

In an practical/temporal sense an editor has been put in charge of a journal's content by a group of people. More accurately though, an editor is NOT objectively in charge.

If you are familiar with publications or editing, then you would know an editor is expected to stick within parameters of content set by those in charge. Deviations should be brought to the higher ups.

Why didn't the President say something at that time? Why did he wait for the sh_t to hit the fan, then react?

That is an interesting question which I believe was somewhat answered by another poster. It was along the lines that following proper review is different than proper oversight.

This vindicates Sternberg on the charge of sneaking it into publication without review (I believe Percy has dropped that criticism), but does not change whether it should have been in the journal according to its subject matter.

I would also add that the controversy occured after publication. Since your quote indicates he did not see it till after the controversy began, how was he supposed to do anything BEFORE the shit hit the fan.

Let me run that by you again...

Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file

Doesn't that suggest that he reviewed it AFTER the shit hit the fan?

I take umbrage with your "IDIOT" theory bull. Why do you have to do that? Idiots usually mock what they can't understand or comprehend. In this case thyat would be you.

In this case I am mocking what I do understand and comprehend. You can always prove me wrong by addressing any of the posts you have left dangling on specific problems of ID, or your position on ID.

And it is my understanding of ID tactics which has shaped this mocking. I have already stated that pure ID could be scientific. However the leaders of the ID movement are using it to further nonscientific political/religious goals.

Though not all, many of them use derisive and odd terminology instead of "evolutionary theory" in order to make it unpalatable, furthering their antievolutionary goals.

Since I needed a way to distinguish the (possible) scientifically valid program, from the poorly constructed anti-evolutionary program, I decided to use a derisive term for the latter. But it is not wholly unfair. Where ID is about the DETECTION of intelligent design in an object, the much weaker program is about Intelligent Design INFERENCE and Organic Teleology. IDIOT happens to be very accurate.

Now this directly impacts the reviewers. I would doubt your scientific credentials to make a determination on Meyer's paper.

Why?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:06 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:01 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 157 of 207 (146161)
09-30-2004 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by ID man
09-30-2004 3:22 PM


Science is not about proof. if it were then the theory of evo would have been discounted long ago.

This is cute but does not address what I said. I suppose you will never admit that Ratzsch has contradicted your position, and clearly stated that ID is not in a position to challenge evolutionary theory... nor its model for speciation.

This is not to mention that he has stated that there are problems with Dembski's work.

Dembski has.

No he hasn't, which Ratzsch pretty well made clear.

Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems.

Do you realize that there is a significant difference between setting out an INTUITIVE CRITERIA for SUSPECTING DESIGN in DISCRETE PHYSICAL SYSTEMS, and his actually VALIDATING criteria for DETECTING DESIGN?

I have not said that Behe did not outline criteria, nor that he did not show how they could theoretically be applied to actual systems.

The problem is that he has not defined the criteria then tested them. Neither has he shown how it is related to the mathematical concept of SC. Instead a semantic description was used to suggest this was so (or more accurately COULD be so).

The positive evidence for ID has been presented and according to what Percy posted the AAAS states that the evidence doesn't exist. It is that simple.

Ratzsch has said that it has NOT been presented. It is that simple. Now do I trust what you say or Ratzsch?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:22 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 6:54 PM Silent H has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 158 of 207 (146173)
09-30-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by ID man
09-30-2004 3:16 PM


ID man writes:

The above go beyond pure taxonomy.

Taxonomy is the science of classification. Look at your list again. The descriptions all contain words like "comparitive", "groups", "relationships", and last but not least, "classifications".

Besides this, Sternberg is the only one who seems to think this journal of taxonomy has been publishing non-taxonomic papers. Look around the Internet for descriptions of the BSW's Proceedings and they all describe it (if they describe it at all) as a narrowly focused taxonomy journal. I can find no more details about it. Its articles aren't on-line, and my library doesn't carry it.

That is not so. The arguments were not specious and have not been refuted. Rebuttals are not refutations. the evidence has been presented and ignored.

You haven't presented any evidence. All you do is repeatively cut-n-paste your description of the production of the bacterial flagellum. How about describing for us how the designer arrived at his design, and how he went about modifying the DNA of the bacteria to implement it.

Your tactics against Sternberg have also grown tiresome. So now what do we do?

Sternberg isn't a member violating Forum Guidelines by abusing fellow members.

When people say that the evidence has not been presented, that is pure bull. Now it has been presented in a peer-reviewed journal.

When people say the criteria has not been presented that again is bull and a downright lie. How else does someone deal with liars and decievers except to point out that they are liars?

Another possibility you might consider is that intelligent and honest people can still disagree.

I understand that exposing the typical double-standards are off limits. And yes, although to no avail, this is being discussed elsewhere.

When topics aren't held on-topic, then discussion gets spread across several threads, which is very confusing and is considered a bad thing. The Forum Guidelines which express this rule predate your appearance here by several years. There is no double standard.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:16 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 6:48 PM Percy has responded

    
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 207 (146235)
09-30-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
09-30-2004 4:37 PM


That is not so. The arguments were not specious and have not been refuted. Rebuttals are not refutations. the evidence has been presented and ignored.

quote:
Percy:
You haven't presented any evidence.

I am talking about the evidence pertaining to this thread. The evidence that the Meyer's paper was not off topic for the journal. The evidence that Sternberg did not abuse any power. The evidence that the paper went through peer-review.

quote:
Percy:
How about describing for us how the designer arrived at his design, and how he went about modifying the DNA of the bacteria to implement it.

Talk about "off topic"! ID is NOT about the designer or how the designer designed. Anyone who knows about ID would know that. BTW no one says the designer had to modify the DNA of any organism. That is not what ID says.

Your tactics against Sternberg have also grown tiresome. So now what do we do?

quote:
Percy:
Sternberg isn't a member violating Forum Guidelines by abusing fellow members.

The AAAS are fellow members? holmes calling the ID theory an "IDIOT" theory is abuse aimed at IDists. I am an IDist. That is abuse. Have you called him on that?

I understand trying to keep things on topic and will abide by that. However if you let other people abuse IDists or Creationists, which is common here, then you shouldn't jump on IDists and Creationists for doing the same to evolutionists. I apologize for going off on tangents.

Back to the topic:

Meyer's article is titled:
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

Taxonomic and taxonomy seem pretty similar to me.

The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. - R. Sternberg

Then we have people saying the Meyer's paper wasn't scientific. To this Sternberg responds:

After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

IOW 4 qualified scientists say it was worthy of publication. They trump the people posting here.

Then you posted an email from Roy McDiarmid. Your email is contradicted by what Sternberg posts:

Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]".

OK now we are back on topic.


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 4:37 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:01 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 7:36 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 207 (146237)
09-30-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Silent H
09-30-2004 4:02 PM


holmes let's get back on topic. I will deal with your BS about Del in another thread.


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 4:02 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:05 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 207 (146239)
09-30-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Silent H
09-30-2004 3:44 PM


quote:
holmes:
In an practical/temporal sense an editor has been put in charge of a journal's content by a group of people. More accurately though, an editor is NOT objectively in charge.

Once again:

During my tenure as managing editor some problems arose in the process. In one case I strongly disagreed with an associate editor in his handling of a paper. To deal with the problem, I took control of the paper again, had it reviewed and edited, and published it. Needless to say, the associated editor was upset, and denied that I had the authority to do this.

In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis ŕ vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts. The Council asked me, moreover, to draft a formal process document describing the procedures of the Proceedings including their ruling on the role of the managing editor. The document is still in process, and I expect to complete a draft for the Council's review and approval in the coming weeks.

At no time during my nearly three years as managing editor did I ever ask the Council for its input on any editorial decision regarding any particular paper. Nor did the Council itself or anyone on the Council intimate to me that the Council ought to be in any way involved in editorial decision-making with regard to particular papers. Even in its recent post-Meyer minor revision of its publication rules, the Council only requires that two people—the managing editor and an associate editor—be involved in the decision to publish paper. As will be seen, an equivalent policy was applied to the Meyer paper, as I consulted with a member of the Council before making a decision to publish the paper.

quote:
holmes:
but does not change whether it should have been in the journal according to its subject matter.

The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa.

and one off topic:

quote:
holmes:
I have already stated that pure ID could be scientific. However the leaders of the ID movement are using it to further nonscientific political/religious goals.

And your evidence for this is what?


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:44 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:28 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 162 of 207 (146240)
09-30-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ID man
09-30-2004 6:48 PM


holmes calling the ID theory an "IDIOT" theory is abuse aimed at IDists. I am an IDist. That is abuse. Have you called him on that?

You have not understood my position, which I just described to you so I am curious as to why you don't get it.

I call the theory which explicitly examines criteria for detecting intelligent design of objects ID theory. Anyone that sticks to this I call an ID theorist. I have even defended that it can be a scientific theory and does not require supernatural designers and so is NOT a religion.

The problem is that a lot of socalled ID theorists have departed from this program... ironically most of the ones who started it. I think there is a valid question if they ever even wanted to pursue ID. From that program they quickly used semantic arguments to weaken detection criteria to merely suggested design inference, and added a component of knowing what our end design is FOR (aka teleology).

I am making fun of those who depart from science. If you are not one of these it should be pretty easy to prove by just answering my questions in support of strict ID theory. And then I am not referring to you.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 6:48 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 163 of 207 (146242)
09-30-2004 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ID man
09-30-2004 6:54 PM


I will deal with your BS about Del in another thread.

Great. Look forward to it. About time.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 6:54 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 164 of 207 (146256)
09-30-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by ID man
09-30-2004 7:01 PM


Once again

Once again you quote the guy who is trying to defend himself, while trying to defend himself. You have to move beyond just his own statements.

Within his statements (and backed up by the president's comments) he did follow correct editorial procedure in trying to get it reviewed for the journal. I admit I am a bit stunned by the reviewer's acceptance of that specific article, but if they agreed then they agreed.

Within this latest quote he gives an argument that he believes backs up that he had the ability to choose whatever to print in the Journal. That does not actually seem vindicated by the evidence.

Look at it carefully. He was in charge of the process and could control reviewers and even direction of papers through that process.

But this does not suggest he was under no expectation for what kind of material would or would not be appropriate.

I am baffled of your lack of understanding of this usual setup.

For example the editor of Time may have lots of leeway in publishing articles, but if he took it into his mind to do a graphic sexual article with full color centerfold, that would clearly be a violation of the expectations of those in charge. He would not be vindicated just because it was a piece on Hugh Hefner and he asked the associate editor because he realized it might be controversial.

Indeed his own knowledge of its controversial nature is exactly what I have hinges my argument on. He details precedents of not purely taxonomic articles, but is there ONE CONTROVERSIAL article? Specifically one well outside of Taxonomy itself to address general biological science?

It is UNUSUAL for an editor to take known controversial articles into their own hands without passing it upwards.

And I am still not sure why there is any debate at all...

Given that the president and board have said it was outside the scope, why are we to believe all of them are lying, but this one guy is not?

And your evidence for this is what?

The political/moral/religious content of the discovery institute website. The testimony of Johnson and Dembski before congress where they said ID would help push out materialist moral theories in favor of conservative religious ones. Books such as Dembski's "Intelligent Design" which directly connects ID with Biblical Xianity and its morals. Do I need to continue?

I have mentioned two of those at least twice and the last one numerous times, asking you to explain the problem it presents. So far you have not responded to any of those requests. Will you address his book this time?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:01 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 165 of 207 (146269)
09-30-2004 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ID man
09-30-2004 6:48 PM


You might want to check Message 36, I think your secret's out.

ID man writes:

I am talking about the evidence pertaining to this thread. The evidence that the Meyer's paper was not off topic for the journal. The evidence that Sternberg did not abuse any power. The evidence that the paper went through peer-review.

As I said before, it was all rebutted before. You replied with some nonsense about rebuttal and refutation being two different things. If you want to split hairs on semantics then please go waste someone else's time. If you'd like to make the same arguments that have already been rebutted then feel free, but like I said, it seems like a pointless exercise.

ID man writes:

Your tactics against Sternberg have also grown tiresome. So now what do we do?

quote:
Percy:
Sternberg isn't a member violating Forum Guidelines by abusing fellow members.

The AAAS are fellow members?

Uh, ID man, you equated your abuse of your fellow members with what you say is my abuse of Sternberg. I said nothing about AAAS in this regard. If Sternberg participates here I will follow the forum guidelines in my treatment of him, just as I follow those guidelines in my treatment of you. But Sternberg is not a member here violating Forum Guidelines. However, you are, and it was to that fact I was calling your attention.

holmes calling the ID theory an "IDIOT" theory is abuse aimed at IDists. I am an IDist. That is abuse. Have you called him on that?

No, I'm not happy about that. But since I've given you free reign to abuse people for a while now, I couldn't very well offer you any protection when people began treating you in kind, now, could I. I mentioned my concern about your abuse a couple times as Percy when you called fellow members liars (there were other things, but I focused on that), but you chose to ignore the suggestions. You even lied about your identity. Now you're reaping what you've sown, so live with it.

Meyer's article is titled:
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

Taxonomic and taxonomy seem pretty similar to me.

The title's a smokescreen.

Then we have people saying the Meyer's paper wasn't scientific. To this Sternberg responds:

...Sternberg quote...

IOW 4 qualified scientists say it was worthy of publication. They trump the people posting here.

They're anonymous, you know nothing of their qualifications. I believe they were handpicked by Sternberg. Given the huge proportion of biologists who reject ID, the odds that Sternberg just chose three qualified scientists at random who accepted ID is miniscule.

Look, JP, if it were really true that so many scientists now accept ID that your only problem is convincing the last holdouts of science here at EvC Forum, then ID has already won, and you don't really need to care about us. But that's not really the case, is it? In reality, science still rejects ID, and the fact that ID succeeded by artifice in getting an article on ID into a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean science accepts ID any more than it did before. Science is dismayed that this happened. Science feels an editor subverted the peer review process to get a pet topic into a peer reviewed journal. Those are the facts, JP.

Then you posted an email from Roy McDiarmid. Your email is contradicted by what Sternberg posts:

Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]".

This Sternberg quote has been posted here before, and I read this exact part many times while piecing things together, so no, my email is not contradicted by what Sternberg posts. The full story goes like this.

Shortly after publication, McDiarmid sought clarification from Sternberg about how an article on ID came to be included in the Proceedings. Sternberg replied that it had gone through all the required steps, including passing peer review. McDiarmid asked for the feedback from the peer reviewers. Sternberg supplied it, McDiarmid examined the material, and then he sent the email that's quoted saying, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]".

In other words, this happened after publication, not before. Neither McDiarmid nor any of the officers of BSW knew about the ID article before publication. Any responsible editor would have checked before running an article that not only went against the established scientific focal area (taxonomy) of the journal, but also had so much potential to embarrass this previously well-respected journal.

JP, dishonorable actions will only work against your efforts to bring legitimacy to ID. Sternberg's actions will do more to hurt than help ID in the long run, and you're not behaving any better. My advice to you is to be honest, be forthright, be polite, answer all questions, acknowledge all problems.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 6:48 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:56 PM Percy has responded
 Message 168 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 8:01 PM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017