Discovery Institute loses one

You are assuming that the articles on the site now were also on the site then. Given that this was several years ago, and that the website has evolved over that time extensively, I think this is too simplistic.see evolving banner (click){{added by edit}}notice too that the statement signed does NOT endorse ID: A skeptical approach to all theories is common scientific practice.It would be interesting to see how many of these same scientists would sign a document proclaiming: ENJOY.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*26*2005 07:50 PM{{CHANGED LAST STATEMENT AS MARKED UP}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*28*2005 04:20 PM{Fixed quotes}This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*24*2005 08:51 PM

---

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.

Because the list is several years old. ... that endorsed the statement.

because I saw it several years ago.I don't expect you to take my word for it. I expect YOU to go find out if you are really that concerned. perhaps you could e-mail DI and ask when he joined?I also know that the list is continually misrepresented as supporting ID -- do you agree that it doesn't?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It would be interesting to e-mail each one on the list and get an update ...... and see if they want to endorse my pro-ID statement ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

how do you know anyone was added?on the steve list you can see the dates behind the names. (591 as of 8/26/05)and compare the DI statement to the one for the Steve List: No quibbling there.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Agreed. The problem as I see it is that no-one I know of kept a record of the DI list when it first appeared for comparison (and to log the date). To begin with it is a logical fallacy that it really means anything: the statement does not endorse ID, just being skeptical, and it is an argument from authority and thus invalid logically. The opinions of 1,000,000 scientists are irrelevant in the face of evidence.It is easy to {save} a new version and {update} the list periodically to make it appear {new\improve\supersized}, so this {updated} means little without supporting evidence of new additions.but I also would suggest that if Davidson's name is still on it that they don't have a replacement since he "resigned" ... just a thought.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

just what I need, another project ... know any good sources of cardboard?http://EvC Forum: Freewayblogger.com

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This is part of the problem that I have with the endorsed statement: it is intentionally couched in reasonable terms that most scientists would agree to, while the USE of the list is hardly on the same terms.Of course people are "skeptical" of the ability to explain "all" mechanismsBut being skeptical is a long way from endorsing pseudoscience in the place of working science.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Does it? Or does it suggest that there could be other natural mechanisms possible and that they shouldn't be discounted out of hand just because we already have mutation and natural selection?I would not rule out the possibility of other perfectly natural mechanims that would not fall into either a {mutation} or a {natural selection} category.For instance a virus splicing in a section of {alien} DNA in an infected species gives it a changed genome that is NOT due to a mutation.Again, they did not specifically ask for an endorsement of ID in the statement (yet it is still presented as one) all they did was couch skepticism in seductive phraseology.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why? What give ID any better credibility than uncle bob's crank ideas?Let me rephrase that: what gives ID a single element of credibility compared to uncle bob's crank ideas?If evolution shows why people can't fly, and we cannot explain {theoretical event A} by the current theories of evolution, then we can fly???

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Still logically false.That Dawkins endorses evolution does not make evolution any more valid.1 billion scientists opinions have no validity as opposed to evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I used to be involved with public surveys. The way you word a question can influence the answer you get. Unscrupulous pollsters know this and intentionally slant their questions to get the answers they want. Politicians do this. DI did this.The hardest part of running an honest poll is phrasing the questions in answer neutral ways. Anything that is not neutral is seductive.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No, I saw it and dismissed it as the logical fallacy that it is. It is an appeal to authority, and in this case the authorities in question don't have a clue, or they would be writting papers about the evidence and theories and observations.That makes their opinions no more valid than uncle bob's no matter what their degree or the institution they work for. Neither would I. Lower would be more appropriate, imho. Uncle bob has an open mind and ID is {assumption first, then the evidence} thinking.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

We need to be careful to develop data that cannot be used against people, and thus we need to have some protocols.There absolutely needs to be a confidentiality clause up front about the use of the results and any personal information provided.I would suggest some kind of a double blind evaluation process for the actual data: we don't really need to know {who} feels {same\different} but just how many, nor do we need to know {who} is not really a "scientist" (as advertised by DI) but just how many.I also wonder if we shouldn't broaden the scope and include people not on the list but from the same departments (for those working in departments) and run it as a general survey. There are ways to {sort\control} the data so that we can divide {list\non-list} respondants (easier if the questionaires are mailed out), and the information could be more valid if we looked at the possibility of adding people to the list rather than just removing them. The intent is validation eh?as a side note, if you change the order of questions like You will get different answers. Putting ID in quotes is also a signal. Personally, I also think this is way overkill on the questions, but has not even addressed the issue of their credentials.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

My concern here is twofold:(1) that the survey could be discussed among colleages: if the person determines he is the only one getting it, and knows that his name is on the list, that he will make assumptions that will lead to not answering, while his determining that others are getting the same survey might make him MORE likely to answer(2) running it as a general survey take the {targeting stigma} off the process. sure we are interested in the real opinions of these people, but we should be equally interested in the real opinions of their co-workers.We could have one of the question sets be "are you aware of the {DI full name and website} list of 400 scientists that endorsed this statement{list statement}
Y( ) or N( )
are you one of them?
Y( ) or N( )
whether yes or no above, do you endorse it now?
Y( ) or N( )