Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
90 online now:
AZPaul3, jar (2 members, 88 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,262 Year: 4,374/6,534 Month: 588/900 Week: 112/182 Day: 19/27 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 97 of 207 (142724)
09-16-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AdminNosy
09-16-2004 12:00 PM


Re: Clarification
I'm getting confused. Your last two messages read like they're addressed to ID Man, but they're actually replying to messages from PaulK.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2004 12:00 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2004 2:32 PM Percy has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 100 of 207 (142756)
09-16-2004 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Wounded King
09-16-2004 12:20 PM


Thanks for the link. Sternberg mounts a solid defense at his website, but what he says doesn't jive with reality. Ultimately, he's using the excuse of being openminded to suspend normal scientific criteria.

If you read all the material, he spends a lot of time describing the peer review process at BSOW, and he repeatedly mentions a) talking several times with a colleague at the National Museum of Natural history who encouraged him to publish the paper; and b) the three peer reviewers, who found problems with the paper (described as corrected by Meyer) but thought it contained merit and was worth publishing.

Who *are* these people that seem to have no scientific judgement whatsoever, and how is it that Sternberg knows so many of them? How did he manage to discuss the paper only with people who urged publication? How good could a peer review process be when some huge percentage of evolutionary scientists find no merit in ID, yet Sternberg manages to select 4 who are sympathetic and not one who isn't.

You only have to look at the paper itself to see the non-scientific nature (here's a link: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories). For example:

The ease with which information theory applies to molecular biology has created confusion about the type of information that DNA and proteins possess. Sequences of nucleotide bases in DNA, or amino acids in a protein, are highly improbable and thus have large information-carrying capacities. But, like meaningful sentences or lines of computer code, genes and proteins are also specified with respect to function. Just as the meaning of a sentence depends upon the specific arrangement of the letters in a sentence, so too does the function of a gene sequence depend upon the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases in a gene. Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191)

This is the first mention in the paper of information theory, and Meyer is laying the groundwork for introducing specified complexity, but nowhere is there a link to the type of information theory Meyer is talking about, which of course is the type promoted by Dembski, which of course has never been published in peer reviewed journal, and so of course Meyer provides no reference.

And of course sections like this would set off alarm bells for any scientist on a peer review committee interested in fulfilling his responsibility to make sure that significant claims in any paper are supported by citations. And this is just one example. When Meyer actually broaches specified complexity, there is only a reference to Dembski writing in a venue outside the scientific arena. So I ask again: Just who were these peer reviewers that Sternberg managed to find?

Here's another example of apparent Sternberg openness that is actually just more spin. He writes that BSOW president, Roy McDiarmond, sent him email saying, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]." A little more detail would be helpful. McDiarmond had probably not read the paper, he was just overseeing the process. Sternberg showed him peer reviews supporting publication. The key questions are unanswered. Did McDiarmond know anything about the content of the paper? Who are the peer reviewers chosen by Sternberg? Did McDiarmond know anything about these peer reviewers?

I can't spend more time on this just at the moment, but this is all just incredibly fishy. Sternberg's website gives the superficial appearance of frankness, but you have only to poke a little bit for the incredible inconsistencies to surface. If I have time later I'll comment more about his self-serving self-praise about his own openmindedness. And why does nothing at his website sound anything like his words quoted at the Discovery Institute website when he commented about the scientific "thought police"? That quote sure made it sound like he was well accustomed to being scientifically marginalized, and this is in stark contrast to Sternberg's website where he tries to come across as perhaps more openminded than some, but otherwise just part of the scientific establishment.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 09-16-2004 12:20 PM Wounded King has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 09-16-2004 3:51 PM Percy has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 104 of 207 (142780)
09-16-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Percy
09-16-2004 2:20 PM


Answering myself where I write:

Percy writes:

And why does nothing at his website sound anything like his words quoted at the Discovery Institute website when he commented about the scientific "thought police"? That quote sure made it sound like he was well accustomed to being scientifically marginalized, and this is in stark contrast to Sternberg's website where he tries to come across as perhaps more openminded than some, but otherwise just part of the scientific establishment.

I found where Sternberg says the part about "thought police" at his website. It's in a letter to Trevor Stokes at The Scientist, see last paragraph: http://www.rsternberg.net/TheScientist.htm

He actually refers to those who reacted negatively as extremists. He also says, "I'm a scientist, not a politician." The evidence is more equivocal. He seems more like Wallace, the man who forced Darwin into print when he independently arrived at the same conclusions about evolution. Wallace was brilliant but evidently not schooled in the methods of science, for he shortly after fell into pseudoscientific beliefs, promoting seances and such. Sternberg may be like Wallace, a brilliant thinker in the field of process structuralism, but productive only because of his brilliance, and not because he has any comprehension of what comprises good science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 09-16-2004 2:20 PM Percy has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Wounded King, posted 09-17-2004 5:31 AM Percy has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 120 of 207 (143101)
09-18-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ID man
09-18-2004 11:24 AM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
ID man writes:

quote:
Percy:
The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes.

That is false. The underlying assertion is that it takes an intelligent agency to account for IC and CSI.

Not sure why you're objecting to this, I'm just repeating a well known IDist position. Dembski says this in extremely similar words in his book, The Design Revolution. You seem to be quibbling about descriptive labels, but no matter what you call it, it is still accurate to say that ID assumes as fundamental that natural causes are insufficient to account for biological structures and processes. From this they conclude they must have been designed by an intelligence.

But please if you have ANY evidence that nature acting alone can bring about the biological structures with alleged IC then present it. Otherwise all you have is a belief system. Belief systems are not science.

Science is not free to propose processes for which there is no evidence, but this is the approach taken by ID, and that is why it is not science. It is encumbent upon those who are convinced that nature acting alone could not bring about the variety and complexity of life to find evidence for the agents and processes of ID. If they've been active throughout the history of evolution guiding it along then they should still be active today, and you should be able to find evidence of them.

quote:
Percy:
The ID terms complexity, contingency, specified, and specified complexity are all just invented, pulled out of thin air.

And that is pure assertion. Is assertion the best you have?

I say this because of the absence of any record of observational and experimental data from which the concepts of ID might have been culled. Without such a foundation it is justified to say they were invented. If I am incorrect and there is a body of research supporting the basic concepts of ID and their application to biological structures and processes then please just let us know.

quote:
Percy:
And ID simply assumes an agent that has never been observed performing an action that has also never been observed, let alone defined.

There is the double-standard again. When has nature acting alone been observed to bring life from non-life? Why does an agent have to be defined before we can infer that an object is a product of design? Since when did the actual observance of an event make it necessary to infer something about that event?

There is no double standard. I'm just holding ID to the same standards to which science holds itself. To use your example of the puzzle of how life arose from non-life, science doesn't really know how that happened, though there are a number of informed speculations, but science assumes that all the same physical laws that govern the universe today and which we have established through extensive observation and experiment were also in play during the appearance of the first life. ID, on the other hand, postulates agents and processes for which there is no evidence, and that's why its proposals are not science.

The support for ID you've offered so far is of the form, "Just look at the bacterial flagellum. It is obviously designed." But this isn't evidence. It would be as invalid for evolution to say, "Just look at the bacterial flagellum. It obviously evolved." If we're to answer the question of the origin of the bacterial flagellum in a scientific manner then we must study how known physical laws operating on matter might have brought it about. ID doesn't do this because by its own statements (I again cite Dembski) the agent and the means used by this agent are not known, and further (and weirdly) are not even of interest to ID. This is reminescent of the scientific creationism position advocated by Duane Gish that the means by which the Creator created are not amenable to scientific study.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ID man, posted 09-18-2004 11:24 AM ID man has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 133 of 207 (145039)
09-27-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 12:11 PM


Crash writes:

The journal is a journal of systematics and taxonomy. This is not an article on those subjects.

Clearly, peer-review did not occur.

The first part is true, the second is not. The article *did* receive peer-review.

What happened is that the editor, Sternberg, abused his authority to include an article not appropriate to the journal's stated purpose, and not good science. The identity of the peer reviewers is not known, and that they supposedly "found merit" in the article has made everyone very suspicious that Sternberg hand-chose the reviewers because he knew they were sympathetic. Sternberg says the reviewers recommended changes, which Meyer then made, but the article is so bad as science that one can only shudder at the thought of how bad the pre-review version must have been.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:21 PM Percy has taken no action
 Message 136 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 140 of 207 (145058)
09-27-2004 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:48 PM


ID man writes:

quote:
Percy:
What happened is that the editor, Sternberg, abused his authority to include an article not appropriate to the journal's stated purpose, and not good science.

The evidence says you are full of it Percy. No abuse of authority occurred.

As I already said in Message 12, Roy McDiarmid, president of the Biological Society of Washington, sent me this email on the 7th of this month.

Attached is a prepared statement that will appear in the next proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. If you need more information let me know.

Sincerely
Roy McDiarmid, President
Biological Society of Washington

Here is the statement that was released publicly later that day:

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

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. 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.

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

The Council of the Biological Society of Washington
7 September 2004

This should satisfy your request for evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:48 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:33 PM Percy has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 141 of 207 (145061)
09-27-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:56 PM


Sternberg's statement concerns his authority as editor. At no time was he given carte blanche to violate the journal's stated purpose.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:56 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 146 of 207 (146114)
09-30-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:37 PM


First an aside: Your quote in this message is fine, but for longer quotes such as in Message 144 please just link to the page and provide shorter excerpts.

ID man writes:

Precedent had already been set, no carte blanche required: ...etc...

The topics Sternberg mentioned are all closely related to taxonomy. If he can't tell the difference between these topics and ID then he isn't qualified or competent to be editor of a taxonomy journal.

But, of course, no one really believes Sternberg's incompetent. He knew an article on ID was outside the bounds of his editorial authority, but he abused that authority and published Meyer's article anyway. Naturally in the aftermath both McDiarmid and Sternberg are doing damage control. McDiarmid is trying to recover what he can of the journal's former reputation, and Sternberg is doing the same by trying to cast his actions into a favorable light.

In Message 145 you say:

Percy, How do we know that that Roy wasn't coerced into writing what you posted? Why should he be trusted and not Sternberg?

I don't recall making arguments about who should be trusted and who shouldn't, but anyway, if McDiarmid's statement was coerced then it would mean he didn't agree with it. But why would the president of the BSW disagree with a statement completely consistent with the long established and long-ago stated purpose of the journal? Why would any scientist disagree with the AAAS Statement on ID citing the lack of credible scientific evidence and the lack of testable criteria?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:37 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 2:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 149 of 207 (146136)
09-30-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Silent H
09-30-2004 2:35 PM


holmes writes:

ID man writes:

Which group do you belong to holmes?

I never wrote him a response so I am not in any of them. If I did I would also not be in any of them. Clearly he is discussing the types he had received, not all the kinds there could be.

I *did* send Sternberg email, inviting him to participate here, and I don't fit into any of those categories, either.

Most notable in Sternberg's taxonomy of the responses (I guess that's what a taxonomist does, taxonomizes!) is the antagonistic and defensive tone. The terms he uses to describe the responses, like "extreme hostility and anger" and "herd instinct", and his use of the term "thought police" elsewhere, are the reactions of someone who clearly already views himself as outside the general scientific community.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 2:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:01 PM Percy has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 170 of 207 (146365)
09-30-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ID man
09-30-2004 8:01 PM


John Paul writes:

Your email buddy agrees with the decision of the reviewers.

JP, read the sentence from McDiarmid again, carefully this time:

"Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."

McDiarmid agreed that the reviewers were in support of Sternberg's decision to publish.

McDiarmid did not say he agreed with Sternberg's decision to publish.

He did NOT go against the scope of the journal. That much is obvious.

But who are you trying to convince, JP? Yourself? Who do you hope to persuade with such bare, unsupported assertions in the face of the evidence, namely the more than hundred year history of the journal, the unanimity among the BSW officers, and the opinions of the rest of science in general.

BTW my initials are AJ not JP(?).

Your IP address is recorded with every message posted here. Your IP address and ID Man's IP address are identical. Thanks go to MrHambre for first noticing the similarity in posting style, and to AdminNosy for checking the message IP addresses to verify.

One of the reasons that the forum guidelines include a stipulation against registering under more than one name is so that people know who they're discussing with. I already knew your position on ID, and had you been honest about who you were I would not have engaged in discussion with you. Your charade has wasted a lot of my and other people's time.

Why is it that whenever someone engages in something sleazy and underhanded that it's almost always a Creationist? Look, Creationists, IDists, whatever you want to call yourselves: the ends don't justify the means. If Creationism and ID replace evolution it will be through honest effort and evidence, not by abuses and tricks like Sternberg's and JP's.

It's no wonder you leap to Sternberg's defense, JP. You're just like him.

--Percy

This message has been edited by Percy, 09-30-2004 09:20 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 8:01 PM ID man has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 171 of 207 (146370)
09-30-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Silent H
09-30-2004 7:56 PM


I really shouldn't offer JP (or anyone) any protection under the guidelines here, since moderator guidelines recommend against taking action in threads in which you're a participant. I'm sorta limited to just whining about not following the Forum Guidelines.

My opinion is that it's giving JP something to focus on beside the topic, so it's working against you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:56 PM Silent H has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 172 of 207 (146434)
10-01-2004 8:31 AM


Does anyone know what the traditional policy of journals is regarding the anonymity of peer reviewers? I'm wondering if there's any chance of discovering the identities of the reviewers of the Meyer paper.

--Percy


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022