Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,580 Year: 2,837/9,624 Month: 682/1,588 Week: 88/229 Day: 60/28 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster
kongstad
Member (Idle past 2860 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 76 of 125 (238521)
08-30-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
08-30-2005 7:03 AM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
Done - thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2005 7:03 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by CK, posted 08-30-2005 7:32 AM kongstad has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 77 of 125 (238522)
08-30-2005 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by kongstad
08-30-2005 7:28 AM


need to alter..
Swop out 28 for 29....
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Aug-2005 07:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by kongstad, posted 08-30-2005 7:28 AM kongstad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by kongstad, posted 08-30-2005 9:34 AM CK has not replied
 Message 80 by cmanteuf, posted 09-16-2005 2:52 PM CK has not replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2860 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 78 of 125 (238550)
08-30-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by CK
08-30-2005 7:32 AM


Re: need to alter..
Found some more - this is fun
(DELETED)
/Soren
This message has been edited by kongstad, 18-Oct-2005 03:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by CK, posted 08-30-2005 7:32 AM CK has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 79 of 125 (242180)
09-11-2005 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by AdminJar
08-28-2005 5:53 PM


Re: Can we take care of the concerns?
Maybe Brad McFall can decipher godfearingatheists posts! Actually, I think that he(GFA) does know better and just fools around here...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by AdminJar, posted 08-28-2005 5:53 PM AdminJar has not replied

cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6756 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 80 of 125 (244183)
09-16-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by CK
08-30-2005 7:32 AM


Re: need to alter..
Hey Charles,
Check the gmail account that you posted earlier (the dropdead gmail one). I sent you some more email addy's. Working on some more now. Is that where you want them? I figured it was nicer to send them there than put them out on the forum where spambots might pick them up.
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by CK, posted 08-30-2005 7:32 AM CK has not replied

DouglasGFrank
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 125 (252466)
10-17-2005 6:14 PM


How may I assist you?
Greetings.
Since you were looking for contact information for credible scientists on this list, I thought I would save you the effort and help you find me.
I am a scientist/inventor/businessman/teacher who is prominently published (e.g. the covers of Science and Naturwissenschaften), daily practices the scientific method, teaches math and science to extremely bright young people (at a school for gifted students), and runs a business.
Regardless of my credentials, one should carefully consider the statement above the list of names which endorses it before marginalizing those on the list. Who knows, one might agree with the statement:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Certainly, the 2nd sentence should pose no issue. Any open-minded, intellectually honest scientist would agree. The first statement is simply a scientific opinion/question held by many scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould ('Mr. Evolution' according the AAAS. I discussed this point with him over lunch a few years ago, and we agreed).
Darwinian mechanisms alone have been scientifically demonstrated over and over again to be insufficient to account for the complexity we observe. There may be other natural mechanisms, to be sure, but devotion to any particular 'ism' is not science. Paradigms change...
As Einstein put it, "Any scientist who believes his own theory ceases to be a scientist."
Happy to contribute!
Dr. Douglas G. Frank, President
Precision Analytical Instruments, Inc.
Blue Ash, OH
ToolsForAnalysis.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 10-17-2005 6:44 PM DouglasGFrank has replied
 Message 83 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2005 7:02 PM DouglasGFrank has replied
 Message 85 by arachnophilia, posted 10-17-2005 7:29 PM DouglasGFrank has replied
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2005 8:55 PM DouglasGFrank has replied
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2005 10:45 PM DouglasGFrank has replied
 Message 116 by kongstad, posted 10-18-2005 10:23 AM DouglasGFrank has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 125 (252474)
10-17-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by DouglasGFrank
10-17-2005 6:14 PM


Re: How may I assist you?
So, Dr. Frank, what area of study did you get your scientific degree in, and have you ever or do you currently work as a professional scientist in any field related to Evolutionary Science?
Can you please also provide a few citations of your relevant peer-reviewed work in the field?
Thanks in advance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-17-2005 6:14 PM DouglasGFrank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2005 7:05 PM nator has replied
 Message 93 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-18-2005 3:02 AM nator has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 83 of 125 (252478)
10-17-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by DouglasGFrank
10-17-2005 6:14 PM


Examples?
Darwinian mechanisms alone have been scientifically demonstrated over and over again to be insufficient to account for the complexity we observe. There may be other natural mechanisms, to be sure, but devotionto any particular 'ism' is not science.
This is not the forum to post these demonstrations of insufficiency but I'd sure like to see them. Since I don't know what you would be refering to I can't guess where you should post them.
I suppose that since Darwin didn't consider the isolation of populations as a part of speciation then we could easily agree with the first sentence of the statement. However if that is all that the statement really means, to promulgate such a statement and suggest that it means there is a good reason for accepting an intelligent designer then appears to be deliberately misleading, even dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-17-2005 6:14 PM DouglasGFrank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-18-2005 3:17 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 84 of 125 (252479)
10-17-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by nator
10-17-2005 6:44 PM


Citations etc.
Does this matter. I'm not so interested in Dr. Frank's personal accomplishments as I am in seeing what exactly he means by supporting the statement and what evidence and reasoning he uses to arrive at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 10-17-2005 6:44 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 10-17-2005 7:31 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 87 by nator, posted 10-17-2005 7:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 85 of 125 (252492)
10-17-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by DouglasGFrank
10-17-2005 6:14 PM


Re: How may I assist you?
oh, well, that kind of blows the validity here, but it's definitally interesting to hear from one personally (if you are who you claim to be, at least)
either way, welcome to the board.
daily practices the scientific method,
that's kind of a suspicious wording. last i checked, the scientific method isn't "practiced" like law or, well, religion.
"Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Certainly, the 2nd sentence should pose no issue. Any open-minded, intellectually honest scientist would agree.
yes, agreed. that is essentially true for ANY theory.
The first statement is simply a scientific opinion/question held by many scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould ('Mr. Evolution' according the AAAS. I discussed this point with him over lunch a few years ago, and we agreed).
i'm sorry, but i'm frankly quite skeptical of THAT claim. gould does not strike me as an id'er or creationist, although i don't know much about his personal faith. but even just opening his book and leafing through it, and looking at the pictures in some similar (though less popularist) fossil books has me totally satisfied with the claim that random mutation and natural/sexual selection can account for the complexity of life. if i had to bet on gould's take on it, being a lot more educated in paleontology than i, i'm willing to put my money of "he's not a creationist."
besides, the "look what gould said!" claims are kind of old among the creationist community, we've all seen them before, and every one of them has been false or out of context. so when i say i'm skeptical, it's because i'm skeptical and past example has proven this particular brand of argument to be wrong, not out of any kind of devotion to gould.
Darwinian mechanisms alone have been scientifically demonstrated over and over again to be insufficient to account for the complexity we observe. There may be other natural mechanisms, to be sure, but devotion to any particular 'ism' is not science.
i'd like to note to the other people reading this that here is not the place to debate this specific claim. however, i think i speak for the rest of when i say that we hope you'll stay on to debate this particular bit elsewhere on this forum.
but i'd like to ask for some clarification. by "darwinian mechanisms" do you mean strict "origin of species" darwinism, or are you including more modern adaptions of the theory, including convergent evolution, cooption, punctuated equilbrium, various other selection techniques and the like?
also, do you find that personal faith (no matter what it is) plays some kind of role in this particular decision (be honest).

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-17-2005 6:14 PM DouglasGFrank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-18-2005 3:46 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 100 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-18-2005 4:59 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 86 of 125 (252493)
10-17-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by NosyNed
10-17-2005 7:05 PM


Re: Citations etc.
Does this matter. I'm not so interested in Dr. Frank's personal accomplishments as I am in seeing what exactly he means by supporting the statement and what evidence and reasoning he uses to arrive at that.
i think we hased this out a bit before. i forget what we decided. certainly, someone working the field is a little more qualified to their take on the evidence than someone who got a masters and now teaches homeschool.
basically, the question is: "are you a working scientist, or did you just get a degree in science and then never use it?"

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2005 7:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 125 (252497)
10-17-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by NosyNed
10-17-2005 7:05 PM


Re: Citations etc.
Getting a degree in hydraulics, for example, makes one less an expert in the ToE than say someone with a degree in Biochemistry.
Also, getting a PhD and then never working with theory, as a professional scientist, also makes one less credible when critiqing theory.
All of the real, practicing scientists I know readily admit to ignorance and lack of appropriate expertise of many other branches of science and wouldn't dream of pronouncing the foundational theories of other fields as invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2005 7:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by arachnophilia, posted 10-17-2005 7:43 PM nator has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 88 of 125 (252501)
10-17-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by nator
10-17-2005 7:37 PM


Re: Citations etc.
All of the real, practicing scientists I know readily admit to ignorance and lack of appropriate expertise of many other branches of science and wouldn't dream of pronouncing the foundational theories of other fields as invalid.
imagine if a biologist attacked one of euclid's axioms. kinda silly, isn't it?
why then can a mathematician be taken seriously for attacking an axiom of biology?
actually, i should rephrase. having grown up in a math department. mathematicians don;t take dembski seriously. they seem to rank him with numerologists and engineering students.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by nator, posted 10-17-2005 7:37 PM nator has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2292 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 89 of 125 (252507)
10-17-2005 8:00 PM


Let's remember the reason behind this thread folks. Its not a debate thread.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1395 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 90 of 125 (252517)
    10-17-2005 8:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 81 by DouglasGFrank
    10-17-2005 6:14 PM


    Re: How may I assist you?
    Dr Frank,
    Welcome to the fray. As pointed out this is a {link and information} thread and not one for discussion. As one of the originals in this issue, I'd like to say that this point is also discussed on a parallel thread: {The DI loses one}
    http://EvC Forum: Discovery Institute loses one
    see message #13 for example.
    A final note: the purpose of the excercise is not regarding what the statement says but how it is used by the discovery institute and whether the people on the list are aware of that useage.
    Please feel free to help.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-17-2005 6:14 PM DouglasGFrank has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 97 by DouglasGFrank, posted 10-18-2005 3:58 AM RAZD 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