Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
83 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 82 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 76 of 207 (142357)
09-14-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
09-14-2004 1:25 PM


PaulK writes:

His unethical behaviour in publishing Meyers' paper perhaps suggests that there should be.

Unethical! That's the word I've been searching for. Thank you!

What most of my previous post was trying to say is that Sternberg's conduct as editor of the BSOW Proceedings was quite likely unethical.

To Creationists: While assailing the halls of science, measure your behavior against the highest standards, and conduct yourselves as if Jesus himself were on the peer review committee. Would the Lord our God approve ends achieved through ethically questionable means?

When Sternberg goes before his God and says, "Lord, I brought your message to your children," will not God reply, "But you went against 140 years of a respected journal's tradition, thereby rendering in vain the efforts of all my children who had maintained those traditions through the years. You respected the Lord but disdained your fellow man and stained my message with your ill conduct. My message is love and forgiveness, not complexity and design. There is no place for you here."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 1:25 PM PaulK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2004 3:34 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 77 of 207 (142370)
09-14-2004 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
09-14-2004 2:10 PM


Unethical!

Okay, I'm gonna be a bit unethical. This is not on topic but I figured this was the best way to ensure you could get my message and respond.

I sent you an email, or anyway an email to admin@evc, and had not heard back. It was regarding pictures of the month. I wasn't sure if it got to you or not.

Please let me know. Sorry for the interjection... bact to topic at hand...


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 76 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 2:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 4:33 PM Silent H has taken no action

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5088 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 78 of 207 (142375)
09-14-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
09-14-2004 1:20 PM


Percy,

Aside from your summary, a couple of things (that I don't think have cropped up yet) probably need answering as well:


  1. Apart from the fact that the subject was beyond the scope of BSOW Proceedings normal fare, what should have happened once the article was submitted?

    My guess is that standard proceedure would be to have it passed on to one of the sub-editors who would then have designated three experts in the field (for example: a couple of evolutionary biologists and maybe someone knowledgable about how information theory relates to biology). If anybody knows how it would normally work, I'd be interested.

  2. If it was submitted in the normal way, why wouldn't it have been accepted?

    If someone thinks that there is good science in this piece of writing then can they kindly point me to where in article it is hidden?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 1:20 PM Percy has taken no action

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


Message 79 of 207 (142383)
09-14-2004 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Silent H
09-14-2004 3:34 PM


Your email arrived, many thanks! I've been reserving website changes for weekends, so I wasn't going to examine the contents until then. Hope that's okay, and thanks again! The current picture has been there for a while.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2004 3:34 PM Silent H has taken no action

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1149 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 80 of 207 (142387)
09-14-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
09-14-2004 1:25 PM


It was interesting to see how he made a deal out of being labeled a creationist. He IS one, after all. That in and of itself was not the issue, the issue, as has been raised, is that he used his position to get a creationist paper published.
The DI spin amchine is very good, however. I wonder if Karl Rove does a little side-activity for them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 1:25 PM PaulK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Loudmouth, posted 09-14-2004 5:08 PM derwood has taken no action
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 5:33 PM derwood has taken no action
 Message 89 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:32 AM derwood has taken no action

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 207 (142395)
09-14-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by derwood
09-14-2004 4:45 PM


quote:
That in and of itself was not the issue, the issue, as has been raised, is that he used his position to get a creationist paper published.

And that really is the point. The scientific merits of the paper did not lend themselves to be published in that journal. This would also apply to an evolutionist writing a paper with dubious or misleading work. Meyer's paper was published not because it was a good paper, but because the editor used his position to get it included. I have seen administrators of granting institutions lose their job for similar practices, giving grant money to people because of personal realationships instead of scientific merit. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to everyone wanting to do science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by derwood, posted 09-14-2004 4:45 PM derwood has taken no action

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


Message 82 of 207 (142402)
09-14-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by derwood
09-14-2004 4:45 PM


Can you imagine evolutionists ever sneaking a paper on evolution into the proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention, and then crowing about how it meant the Baptists accepted evolution? That chicanery would have to have been involved and that the Southern Baptists do *not* accept evolution would be so self-evidently obvious to everyone, including evolutionists, that even considering such a thing would never happen, even without the ethical considerations.

But the Creationist mindset is an amazing thing. They sneak an ID paper into a mainstream science journal, then they crow about it as if it leant ID any validity. It's a neat trick they pulled off, but it brings them no benefit. The reaction of science isn't, "Gee, I guess ID must be valid, here it is in a journal," but rather a roll-your-eyes, "Here they go yet again."

And this is what makes it so obvious that the target of all the Creationist efforts, ID included, isn't science but the evangelical community. Sternberg must have known what he was doing was unethical and would only bring him the recriminations of the scientific community, but he didn't care because the scientific community was not his target audience. His audience was the church faithful, who can now be told in all honesty that a paper supporting ID has appeared in a mainstream science journal, and that it means that more and more scientists are becoming persuaded of the bankruptcy of evolution and the inevitable ascendency of Creationism. This poor, naive, ignorant Christian community is just a pawn in the Creationist's game. Creationists care not for science, not for ethics, not for integrity. They care only about maintaining their power over their intellectually impoverished (for that's the state they maintain them in) parishioners.

When I say that Creationist efforts are targeted at the church and not at science, I mean *all Creationist efforts. Even the most mathematical of Creationists, like Dembski and Humphreys, must have no illusion that their writings will find acceptance within science. But they're devout Christians with a mathematical bent, and we know that writers write and mathematicians math, and so they math away in the name of their religion without any regard to whether what they're doing has any scientific validity, all the while telling their captive audience about how right they are and how deceived the rest of science is. They have no courage to actually present their ideas in the halls of science. What a disgrace they are as human beings.

Oh yes, and welcome back!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by derwood, posted 09-14-2004 4:45 PM derwood has taken no action

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 83 of 207 (142405)
09-14-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
09-14-2004 11:44 AM


Clarification
Htank you for the clarification.

Now it is up to ID Man to clarify what he is saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 11:44 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 207 (142704)
09-16-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
08-25-2004 9:56 PM


a response to Meyer's critics
From Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry:

quote:
Meyer's paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized "intelligent design" since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of "intelligent design" presented, just as in all previous work on "intelligent design". Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. "An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model.

The premise is false in that ID has presented the positive evidence for its case. The case is in the literature I have posted as well as other essays, articles and books.

We can detect design by the coming together of separate parts or components in an ordered way in such a functional system is formed that is dependent upon the order and those individual parts or components. With the bacterial flagellum not only is a functioning system formed but the energy to drive it is supplied as is the ability (or even knowledge how) to use it, which requires a communication link. So far the only alleged pre-cursor to the bacterial flagellum, the type III secretory system, has been shown to be if anything an offshoot of the BF. Yet here we have all these proteins that come together as if they were instructed to do so, just like we see parts come together to form a product in automated factories, and the vocal minority won’t allow science to infer ID. It is only a matter of time before that minority gets put in its place.

BTW, we can’t deny what has yet to be shown. IOW if you could show your process was sufficient odds are we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

However we can compare- what is the positive evidence that natural selection acting on random variations or mutations can do what evolutionists assert it can? IOW what is the positive evidence that a bacterial flagellum can arise by nature acting alone? What is the positive evidence for asexual and sexual reproduction arising by nature acting alone? What we will find, as with endo-symbiosis and the alleged origins of eukaryotes, is that what is being looked for has to be assumed in the first place. IOW Dr. Margulis started with the assumption that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes and then fit her observance to that assumption. The same can be said of the alleged evolution of metazoans. Then these guys have the audacity to mention details. LoL! The theory of evolution is void of details. The ‘why’ in the theory of evolution is what? The theory of evolution can only speculate based on the assumption. How can we falsify the theory of evolution? What is the empirical test to show that euks. evolved from proks.?

“An unintelligent, non-guiding force did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.

"The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible" Ho and Saunders.

BTW detectives do not require a motive to solve a case. Many times the motive is unclear until after the case is solved.

The double-standards in the first paragraph alone would give any rational person caution for the contents of the rest of the 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 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-25-2004 9:56 PM Nic Tamzek has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:49 AM ID man has replied
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-16-2004 11:50 AM ID man has replied
 Message 102 by Ooook!, posted 09-16-2004 2:39 PM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 207 (142705)
09-16-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
09-14-2004 11:44 AM


Re: Wrong?
quote:
PaulK:
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.

Can you support your assrtion? Dr. Behe isn't the only IDist that accepts common descent.

quote:
Paul:
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.

Do you know this Steve Jones personally? Were you there when he was asked to resign? Do you believe everything a disgruntled person tells you? Do you know all of the details behind his resignation or only what Steve posted?


"...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 67 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 11:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:22 AM ID man has replied

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


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

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 207 (142708)
09-16-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
09-14-2004 12:11 PM


Re: ID is not Creation
Conflating ID with Creationism is a transparent ruse. You are only fooling yourself and your gullible ilk. By your logic theistic evolutionists are also Creationists. I wonder what Ken Miller would say to you about that.

I never saud that ID didn't have similarities with Creation. Both have similarities with the theory of evolution. That does NOT make them all one in the same. It doesn't matter if Creationists support ID. That does not make ID = Creation. If I want to learn about ID I would not go to the ICR or AIG. Is that where you learn about the theory of evolution?

I put my arguments down in the proposed topics thread labeled Intelligent Design is not Creation[ism]. I wonder why the moderators won't post it?

Copy of entire contents of proposed topic deleted. Moderators have already cautioned this thread to remain on topic. Members who feel moderators are not responding fast enough to proposed topic are free to volunteer for a moderator role. --Admin

ID is Creationism only in the minds of the ill-informed or the blatant misrepresenters. Which one are you Percy?

This message has been edited by Admin, 09-16-2004 10:58 AM


"...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 70 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 12:11 PM Percy has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Coragyps, posted 09-16-2004 11:36 AM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 207 (142710)
09-16-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by PaulK
09-16-2004 11:22 AM


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

Dean Kenyon and Scott Minnich are two such IDists. However, I only have to present one, Behe, to shoot down your case.

quote:
PaulK:
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.

That isn't evidence. If you don't have any evidence just say so.


"...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 86 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:38 AM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 207 (142711)
09-16-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by derwood
09-14-2004 4:45 PM


quote:
SLPx:
It was interesting to see how he made a deal out of being labeled a creationist. He IS one, after all.

He is? Any evidence for that assertion?

quote:
SLPx:
That in and of itself was not the issue, the issue, as has been raised, is that he used his position to get a creationist paper published.

That is not true. It is not a creationist paper. Meyer is an IDist and yes there is a difference. The paper was reviewed by three other people- biologists. Is Nick Matzke a biologist?

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-16-2004 10:33 AM


"...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 80 by derwood, posted 09-14-2004 4:45 PM derwood has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2004 1:36 PM ID man has replied

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


Message 90 of 207 (142712)
09-16-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ID man
09-16-2004 11:24 AM


Re: ID is not Creation
Better check that "wedge document" again, ID man. You can fool some of the people most of the time.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:24 AM 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