Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
719 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, ringo (4 members, 715 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,081 Year: 6,193/6,534 Month: 386/650 Week: 156/278 Day: 24/30 Hour: 1/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 15 of 207 (140926)
09-08-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
09-08-2004 10:23 AM


Re: BSOW Distances Itself from Article
My understanding is that the responsible (or irresponsible) editor, Richard von Sternberg, had already resigned. Before all the fuss over Meyer's paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 10:23 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Brad McFall, posted 09-08-2004 5:23 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


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: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 43 of 207 (141603)
09-11-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:36 AM


Yet obviously ID does NOT accept universal common descent since declaring a belief in it is incompatible with membership of the ID movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:36 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 44 of 207 (141605)
09-11-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:42 AM


I think the obvious desparation of your excuses is quite suffiicent to show how damning the evidence is. I suppose if he were on a Flood Geology group you would say that "might well" be the "future of geology".

Baraminology is based on YEC doctrine. It is allegedly a Biblical concept (although in fact it is nowhere in the Bible) and the papers requested include purely theological ones.

This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-11-2004 02:58 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:42 AM ID man has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 54 of 207 (142017)
09-13-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by ID man
09-13-2004 10:47 AM


There's no need to spin it.

There are plenty of possible explanations, not least the fact that Behe's departure would be very damaging. And the ID movement is all about politics, PR and spin.

Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:47 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 11:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 56 of 207 (142037)
09-13-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ID man
09-13-2004 11:25 AM


No, I don't admit that I am wrong. Because you have offered no evidence that I am wrong. As I say Behe's departure would be too politically damaging for the ID movement to simply ask him to leave for endorsing common descent.

And I've got to admit that I laughed at your description of ID. No, ID is all about influencing the American school curriculum. Want to explain why the ID movement won't even take a stand on the age of the Earth ?

And since you agree that rejection of common descent places ID in the creation camp you have to deal with Steve Jones' departure from the ID movement - according to Jones over that very issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 11:25 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 09-13-2004 11:41 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 61 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:41 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 66 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2004 11:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 65 of 207 (142317)
09-14-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:41 AM


If you have offered any evidence other than Behe's statemnets accepting common descent then I have yet to see it. I have already given reasons why I do not consider that adequate. Let me add that Behe's personal views are not necessarily those of the movement. Let us also note that the ID movement is happy to include YECs like Paul Nelson.

Moreover if you cannot work out for youself how the departure of Behe would damage the ID movement then I see little hope for you. Not only is Behe active in promoting the ID message he is one of the few IDers of any stature in any branch of Biology. It would be a serious blow to ID's scientific pretensions to lose him at all - the more so if it were over a scientific issue. But apparently you don't see any of that.

On the other hand you have yet to deal with Steven Jones' testimony. Steven Jones states that he was asked to leave the ID movmenet because his belief in common descent was not comaptible with membership - and by no less a figure than Philip Johnson (who has a far better claim to speak for the ID movement thna Behe).

And let me also point out that you did indeed state that a movement that rejected common descent should be placed

quote:

In the Creation camp,


Anyone can go back and see that you agreed with me on that point.

So now all your attacks have been proven false are you going to try to seriuously deal with the issues ? Or can we just expect more abuse because you can't stand the truth ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:41 AM ID man has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 67 of 207 (142329)
09-14-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by AdminNosy
09-14-2004 11:21 AM


Re: Wrong?
I'm saying that the ID movement, as a movement, does not accept common descent. All Behe's testimony tells us is that one member of the movement personally accepts common descent and has not been forced out as a result.

The more important issue is Steve Jones' testimony, since he states that he was asked to resign from the movement by one of the few people who could legitimately claim to speak for the ID movenent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2004 11:21 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2004 5:47 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 85 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:13 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 75 of 207 (142347)
09-14-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
09-14-2004 1:20 PM


I would expect that Sternberg was given the position for his experties in taxonomy. The fact that he was given the position is evidence against any claim that there is discrimination against creationists. His unethical behaviour in publishing Meyers' paper perhaps suggests that there should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 1:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 2:10 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 80 by derwood, posted 09-14-2004 4:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 86 of 207 (142707)
09-16-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by ID man
09-16-2004 11:13 AM


Re: Wrong?
Which other IDist's support Common Descent ?

I am familiar with Steve Jones' long support of the ID movement (he is still a committed opponent of evolution. I see no reason why he should misrepresent the facts behind his resignation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:13 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:28 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 92 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2004 11:45 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 91 of 207 (142713)
09-16-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by ID man
09-16-2004 11:28 AM


Re: Wrong?
I have provided adequate evidence - Steve Jones own posting to his own list. If you won't accept that then why should we accept Behe's claims as evidence ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:28 AM ID man has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 93 of 207 (142717)
09-16-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ID man
09-16-2004 11:07 AM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
Let us note that:

1) The alleged "positive arguemnt" comes nowhere close to meetign the requirements stated in the paragraph under attack. It provides no model of what happened, how or when.

2) The article attempts to insinuate that "An unintelligent, non-guiding force did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" IS accepted as a valid model. This is a complete falsehood.
A serious attempt at providing a model for the evolution of the flagellum is here:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Where does the ID movement offer anything with equivalent detail ?

In short the allegations of "double standards" are completely false, and are based - at best - on ignorance of the actual situation.
G


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:07 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ID man, posted 09-18-2004 11:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 95 of 207 (142720)
09-16-2004 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by AdminNosy
09-16-2004 11:45 AM


Re: Clarification
Let me make a simple point. You can't say that all members of the Democratic Party agree with every item of Democratic Party policy.
Nor can you say that something is not Democratic Party policy just because you can find one Democrat who disagrees with it.

Given Philip Johnson's standing in the ID movement if he asks a member to resign for endorsing Common Descent then we have strong evidence that Common Descent is against the ID movement's "official line" even if they permit others holding similar views to remain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2004 11:45 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2004 12:00 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 112 by ID man, posted 09-18-2004 11:49 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022