Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
95 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 577/794 Week: 68/135 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 16 of 207 (140928)
09-08-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
09-08-2004 10:23 AM


Re: BSOW Distances Itself from Article
holmes writes:

I am also interested in why you were sent an email on this from the BSOW? Did you write them about this issue? And if so, was it your actions that brought it to their attention?

About the last question, I deserve no credit for bringing this to anyone's attention. Nic Tamzek gets the credit for bringing it to EvC Forum's attention when he started the thread, and it looks like it had already gotten the attention of some within the relevant scientific community.

I did write a polite inquiry to BSOW's email address saying I was interested in knowing how the article came to be published in their proceedings and explaining why I was interested, and the president of the society was kind enough to reply.

The publishing of this ID article rates barely blip on my radar screen, scientifically an event of curiousity but no significance. But from the perspective of integrity we have here yet another example of Creationist shenanegans that just never seem to stop. They seem to have no trouble justifying misdeeds when they're committed in the name of the Lord. In this case we have an editor who completely bypassed his own journal's review procedures and ignored its technical focus to publish the exact same pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about ID that appears at Creationist websites. We can add this malfeasance to the long list of other Creationist misbehaviors, like quoting evolutionists out of context and so forth.

When a scientific researcher engages in misconduct (the most recent example I can think of was the cancer researcher who used ink markers to paint black regions on his mice) he is raked over the coals and usually loses his position and is forever distrusted by his colleagues. Why do I have the feeling that the probably soon-to-be-former editor of the BSOW proceedings will be a hero in the Creationist community?

Even before Creationism can began to legitimize itself by conducting genuine science, it must first establish some integrity. It is one of the great contradictions of Creationism that it combines religious faith with behavior that runs precisely counter to that faith.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 10:23 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 1:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 207 (140959)
09-08-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
09-08-2004 10:53 AM


Why do I have the feeling that the probably soon-to-be-former editor of the BSOW proceedings will be a hero in the Creationist community?

Because it already happened?

Here is a link to the dicovery institute's announcement of martyrdom... I mean defence of Meyer and Sternberg (the editor).

Here is a link to an interview about the controversy surrounding the article in "The Scientist". I particularly love Sternberg saying he is critical of creationism, with the followup that he is a member of a biological organization DEVOTED to creationism.

I note that Sternberg says the article DID receive a peer-review and that while the reviewers might not have liked Meyers' point, thought it was worthy of publication. I wonder how this squares with the BSOW position?

{Fixed links - There were (") at the beginings and ends - Adminnemooseus}

(edited in)As a point of side interest, one may observe that the first article, including its very title, takes a stab at Kerry. Apparently evolutionary theorists must be Kerry supporters, and ID theorists must support Bush? Hmmmm, on top of moving religion into the classroom isn't there a problem when the main group advocating ID theory also links partisan politics to that "science" theory?

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-08-2004 12:14 PM

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-08-2004 12:59 PM


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 16 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 10:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 2:25 PM Silent H has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 18 of 207 (140972)
09-08-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
09-08-2004 1:09 PM


Sternberg is probably just carrying on the longstanding Creationist tradition of lying for God. The BSOW proceedings, according to BSOW, "is a quarterly publication consisting of articles focusing on systematic biology, taxonomy, biogeography, and phylogenetic studies." (Webpage) The Smithsonian describes it as limiting "the purpose to the furtherance of taxonomic study and the diffusion of taxonomic knowledge, mainly through the publication of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington." (Webpage)

The information about the BSOW from the Discovery Institute article was probably provided by Sternberg and is incorrect where it says, "The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C." While people from both the museum and the Smithsonian are members of BSOW, the organization is affiliated with neither. This is just the type of fluffery Creationists always engage in.

If Sternberg is telling the truth about the reviewers, which I doubt given BSOW's recent statement, then they were carefully selected scientists known to him who share his ID beliefs. Clearly they were not on any established BSOW review board, because they would have immediately noted that the subject matter was not appropriate for the proceedings.

This couldn't possibly be a case of reviewers changing their minds when the matter became public. The public statements from scientists and scientific organizations have been very polite and circumspect, but the fact of the matter is that the Meyer article is just transparently horrible, horrible science easily recognizable as such from the very first paragraphs. If there is such a thing as an IDist who understands and accepts the standards of science, then even he would be ashamed of the Meyer article. The Meyer article will be rejected by the scientific community not because of the background shenanegans, but because the paper falls so far short of qualifying as science.

This reminds me of the paper discussed here earlier this year that purportedly found a positive relationship between prayer and IVF (in-vitro fertilization) success rates. We later find out that two of the author's are distancing themselves from it (one has lost his position), and the third author was finally discovered to be a known flim-flam artist who also hasn't paid his taxes since 1998 and has been charged with arson and fraud. See Message 91).

This is likely not be the last success of Creationists getting their writings into scientific venues through trickery and skullduggery, but they're kidding themselves if they think it is forwarding their cause. They won't make progress until they start doing science instead of wishful thinking or religion, and all they're doing is succeeding in alienating a broader and broader spectrum of scientists and thereby convincing them that sitting on the sidelines is less and less viable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 1:09 PM Silent H has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 12:13 PM Percy has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 19 of 207 (141033)
09-08-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
09-08-2004 10:50 AM


Re: BSOW Distances Itself from Article
I started to look a little further into Meyer's "review" and in light of Percy's e-mail I would like to say that I have always found a rather strained use of English in the discussions by evolutionists on the philosophical place in theoretical biology of the DIFFERENCE between preformation and epigenetics. I am not certain that Meyer has maintained this distinction textually throughout but if he did THEN contra the subsequent denial I will be able to find SOME MERIT technically in the article. Whence I start to think about this issue IN EVOLUTIONARY LITERATURE I FIND and will see if I still found, that it all depends on how much emphasis is placed on ecology vs behavior as the scale from the organism is expanded in the writing to whatever the "population" thinking is to have been renewed in thought by the author or seen from a new sample of the same.

I think the issue of the BAUPLAN was originally put in its modern treelike form by Woodger but because I tend now-a-ways to think with Georgi that classical entropy and not Shannon information contains the reverse flow from the large to the small in theor bio I will have a hard time with this article as I had with Loudmouth's recent comparision to Human Language in another thread but the use of the problematic between preformation and epigentics to say what the problems are BEFORE the affordance has been blue-printed may not be an error but indeed a difference in reading styles of biologists. My reading then would depend on a certain understanding of technology and this gets very difficult to bring across on EVC so it perhaps for the best that I confine my self to working on the design itself rather than for reasons to believe in the premonition of said.

The article had said

quote:
Yet, in their view, the “genocentricity” and “incrementalism” of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any “theory of the generative” (p. 7).

If I am correct about sister chromatid exchanges BEING the source of TEMPORAL HIERARCHIES in Macrothermodynamics then a source #would# have already been sent onto EVC but depending on how the codes figure into the difference of covalent and ionic boding supramolecularly it is anyone's guess as to how much is preformed vs what is epigentic strictly when it comes to the full diffential that must include the sink from the population as well whether this is via entropy as I tend to think or some other view of information that might have been discussed by Meyer.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-08-2004 04:28 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2004 10:50 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 207 (141393)
09-10-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
09-08-2004 2:25 PM


quote:
Percy:
Sternberg is probably just carrying on the longstanding Creationist tradition of lying for God.

Anything to support that claim- I know Stenberg isn't a creationist, but what lies are you talking about?

quote:
Percy:
This is just the type of fluffery Creationists always engage in.

But the Discovery Institute isn't a creationit organization. Now who is telling lies?

quote:
Percy:
If Sternberg is telling the truth about the reviewers, which I doubt given BSOW's recent statement, then they were carefully selected scientists known to him who share his ID beliefs. Clearly they were not on any established BSOW review board, because they would have immediately noted that the subject matter was not appropriate for the proceedings.

That is a baseless assertion.

from http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40302

However, National Center for Biotechnology Information staff scientist Richard Sternberg told The Scientist the three peer reviewers of Meyer's paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."

All found the paper "meritorious, warranting publication," he said.

Moreover, Sternberg told the journal he and Meyer have falsely been labeled creationists by the scientific community, noting: "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."

Then Percy goes on to to say that the areticle isn't science but offers no specifics. Very typical of an evolutionist whose very theory they support is void of specifics and full of generalizations.

BTW Percy ID and Creation are not the same. No amount of whining and misrepresentation can change that fact.


"...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 18 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 2:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 12:21 PM ID man has replied
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 09-10-2004 12:27 PM ID man has replied
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 1:44 PM ID man has replied
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2004 5:37 AM ID man has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 21 of 207 (141394)
09-10-2004 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ID man
09-10-2004 12:13 PM


Sternberg is a creationist. We have adequate evidence of that.

We also know that he circumvented the editorial procedures to sneak a pro-ID paper into an inappropriate journal. It is no great stretch to suspect that he may also have chosen reviewers likely to give the paper a pass regardless of merit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 12:13 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 1:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 22 of 207 (141396)
09-10-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ID man
09-10-2004 12:13 PM


ID and Creation[ism] are not the same.

You're right about that, ID man. ID is creationism with explicit Bible references carefully excised, so that the same ol' pap can be snuck into public school curricula. Completely different.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 12:13 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 1:03 PM Coragyps has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 207 (141399)
09-10-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
09-10-2004 12:21 PM


quote:
Paul K:
Sternberg is a creationist. We have adequate evidence of that.

What is this alleged evidence? Why would he state that he isn't a Creationist? Most/ all Creationists I know are proud to proclaim what they are.

quote:
PaulK:
We also know that he circumvented the editorial procedures to sneak a pro-ID paper into an inappropriate journal.

How do you know that? How do you know who is telling the truth?

quote:
PaulK:
It is no great stretch to suspect that he may also have chosen reviewers likely to give the paper a pass regardless of merit.

Given that you can't support your claims why should anyone believe you?


"...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 21 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 12:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 1:17 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 207 (141400)
09-10-2004 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coragyps
09-10-2004 12:27 PM


quote:
Coragyps:
ID is creationism with explicit Bible references carefully excised, so that the same ol' pap can be snuck into public school curricula.

That would be a blatant misrepresentation of reality. Funny how evolutionists always revert to that. ID is not creation or creationism. IDists understand that, Creationists understand that. Leave it to the anti people to try to label one as the other. What a bunch of whining crybabies evolutionistrs have evolved into.

BTW do NOT edit my quotes by adding someting that wasn't there. That is bad form indeed.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-10-2004 12:04 PM


"...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 22 by Coragyps, posted 09-10-2004 12:27 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 09-10-2004 1:14 PM ID man has taken no action
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 09-10-2004 1:14 PM ID man has replied
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 1:36 PM ID man has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 25 of 207 (141401)
09-10-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ID man
09-10-2004 1:03 PM


Sure thing ID man, by far the majority of ID proponents are Raelians. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 1:03 PM ID man has taken no action

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 26 of 207 (141402)
09-10-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ID man
09-10-2004 1:03 PM


ID is not creation or creationism.

I spent quite a few hours last September in the presence of some of the bright lights of IDism, at the Texas biology textbook hearings. After seeing them in action, I'd have to disagree with you - it's the same thing as creationism, just wearing a suit.

Sorry if you took offense at my editing - I intended the brackets to clearly show my own alteration. My apologies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 1:03 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:16 AM Coragyps has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 27 of 207 (141404)
09-10-2004 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ID man
09-10-2004 1:00 PM


Sternebrg is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group - a Young Earth Creationist organisation.

http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html

Although Sternberg is not listed as beig present at this '97 meeting the "Agreements" section here celearly shos that this is an eplicitly YEC group
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/bsg97/

And this link is just one which refers to the statement put out by the Biological Society of Washington http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/index.php?p=132#comments

So now I have backed up my statements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 1:00 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:42 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 28 of 207 (141407)
09-10-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ID man
09-10-2004 1:03 PM


If ID is not creationism perhaps you can explain why Steve Jones was asked to leave the ID movement ?

He describes it here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/9116

quote:

I wish to announce that I have left the ID movement, my position having become increasingly untenable, due to my advocacy of of common ancestry within ID, it being finally suggested by Phil Johnson that I leave.

If species are not related by common ancestry then how does Intelligent Design explain where they come from ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 1:03 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:36 AM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 29 of 207 (141409)
09-10-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ID man
09-10-2004 12:13 PM


ID man writes:

quote:
Percy:
Sternberg is probably just carrying on the longstanding Creationist tradition of lying for God.

Anything to support that claim- I know Stenberg isn't a creationist, but what lies are you talking about?...BTW Percy ID and Creation are not the same.

I can't adopt a different vocabulary for each person I debate with, so I'm going to continue to use Creationism to refer to the collection of proposals from the fundamentalist Christian community concerning origins. Whether it's old earth Creationism, young earth Creationism, flood theory, vapor canopy theory, hydroplate theory or intelligent design, I will continue to refer to them collectively as Creationism. ID is just one strategy, the most recent, as it happens, of the fundamentalist Christian community to get Creationism represented in public school curriculums.

Naturally IDists want to distance themselves from the Creationist label, but even within a perspective that holds IDists separate from Creationists, Sternberg still accepts and promotes a view that has found acceptance only in the fundamentalist Christian community, a view which has no scientific support at this time.

But the Discovery Institute isn't a creationit organization. Now who is telling lies?

Even by your definition, I'm not so sure, because some traditional Creationists like Philip E. Johnson are part of Discovery Institute. But Discovery Institute at a minimum promotes ID, and so I think I've already addressed this. But this causes me to wonder whether since IDists reject Creationism, does this mean we can enlist your help in discussions with young earth Creationists, flood theorists, dating method skeptics and so forth?

quote:
Percy:
If Sternberg is telling the truth about the reviewers, which I doubt given BSOW's recent statement, then they were carefully selected scientists known to him who share his ID beliefs. Clearly they were not on any established BSOW review board, because they would have immediately noted that the subject matter was not appropriate for the proceedings.

That is a baseless assertion.

No it isn't. You quote from http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40302, but haven't you been reading any of the other links provided in this thread? The most relevant one in this case is the statement from BSOW itself (Biological Society of Washington Repudiates Myer):

"It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings."

So the facts we have so far are:

  1. Editor Sternberg went against the journals stated purpose by including the article in the proceedings. From the above link:
    "The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history."

  2. Merely by including a non-taxonomic article he was violating the Proceedings established focus.

  3. The article was published without the knowledge of key officers of the BSOW (see prior quote above).

  4. Sternberg states that the article was peer-reviewed, yet the officers of the BSOW knew nothing about it.

  5. Sternberg has resigned.

Clearly Sternberg is lying, and as I surmised would probably happen, this liar has become a hero within the Creationist community.

Then Percy goes on to to say that the areticle isn't science but offers no specifics.

The first message in this thread provided a link to a detailed review: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html. Is there anything in there you'd like to discuss?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 12:13 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:27 AM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5092 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 207 (141513)
09-11-2004 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ID man
09-10-2004 12:13 PM


Wow, you already got your ass handed to you on a platter, but I thought I should offer a hand...

BTW Percy ID and Creation are not the same. No amount of whining and misrepresentation can change that fact.

While I will agree that it is POSSIBLE to separate the two in theory, are you seriously suggesting that major members of the movement are NOT simply creationists?

The link given to Steve Jones's exit from ID pretty much shows that not only is there a lot of Religion within members of the ID movement, but that it is gaining an overtly creationist religious bent.

In another thread I pointed out to you that one of the founding members of ID... Dembski... put out a book called "Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Theology and Science".

Maybe you could explain how he is not pushing a creationist brand of ID? Was the title supposed to be sarcastic or something? It certainly didn't read that way.


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 20 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 12:13 PM ID man has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022