|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Significance of the Dover Decision | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image size. Edited by Trixie, : sig removed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
an answer on rape?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
natural selection is not exclusive evidence of Darwinian evolution, nor imo is it evidence at all since it works against increasing genetic diversity and so against macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
That's my signature box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Maybe not the best signature in most threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I listed something like 16, by no means exhaustive. Imo, you have not discounted them and the ones you do blast seem to be based on either bashing the publication or saying a mistake is made or that it was in a book. Qualifying the differences between books and peer-review and peer-edited is fine. Just saying because evos don't like it that something was published doesn't cut it imo.
Moreover, you don't address all of the articles. Here is another one by the way.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315. This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” Axe concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.” Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
The author clearly believes his article adds to the case for Intelligent Design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
As far as the Lemon test, you may be surprised to hear a majority of Supreme court justices have questioned it's validity. No case has come before them to overturn it, but I would not be surprised to see it thrown out.
But for this thread and my views, I think you are not appreciating my comments on being an originalist in interpreting the Constitution. Case law does not trump the Constitution. I don't accept the living document view of the Constitution and neither do many judges and politicians. We will see who prevails over time, but if you guys nominate Hillary, it may well be we do for the next 8 yrs... Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
That's already on your list. And if your list wasn't exhaustive then why not do some quality control on it ? Since the sub-title is "ID research as it relates to Dover" you could take out all the non-research papers for a start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
As far as the Lemon test, you may be surprised to hear a majority of Supreme court justices have questioned it's validity. No case has come before them to overturn it, but I would not be surprised to see it thrown out I have no idea what time scales you are talking about here but the majority opinion from McCreary County vs ACLU of Kentucky:
quote: The last I heard it was only 3 judges that were of the opinion the Lemon test should go, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas. Since then, who else has jumped on board? As you can imagine, our news media doesn't cover details about US constitutional opinion of a US branch of government too much. As a side note, (I'm not looking to debate it, which is why I'm not replying to the post in question), whether or not Axe actually does support ID is under dispute. An interesting discussion can be found here - which is doubly interesting because of the acknowledgement: "Also, many thanks are due to Douglas Axe, who graciously helped me with early drafts of this essay. ". The only reason I mention this at all is because Axe was one of the few papers related to Dover: Dembski included it in his Expert Report, along with nine other papers. Out of curiosity, has the dearth of papers that even remotely related to ID as shown by Dover resulted in an increase in ID's production of explicitly ID work? I've not seen any such increase in research, but that would make Dover quite significant - "a much needed kick in the pants", I believe you say stateside.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
And from the Department of Redundancy Department we have:
randman writes: I listed something like 16, by no means xhaustive...Here is another one by the way. A list that you claim wasn't exhaustive, yet when you added one more we discover it was already on your list. By the way, here's a hint: a cut-n-paste of a link is not itself a link, so no one can follow your "link" where it says "See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology 'Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design'". You need to either link to the original webpage (which was apparently at the Discovery Institute), or go to the trouble of recreating the links after the cut-n-paste, or cut-n-paste from the original HTML source if it doesn't rely in some essential way upon css classes. The significance of the Dover decision is the exact opposite of what you're arguing. The decision ruled that ID is not science, because for the most part IDists don't do science, they do political lobbying. I guess you're presenting references to ID papers to show that the judge's decision was wrong, but using the paper you just referenced, the description of Axe's paper that you include isn't from the abstract. His paper doesn't mention intelligent design or specified complexity. You can find the original abstract, along with the proper representation of exponents (e.g., 1077 should have been 1077) at Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. It may be the author's opinion that his research supports ID, but how are scientists going to know this if he only points it out at ID websites instead of in the paper itself? That being said, D. D. Axe (not D. A. Axe is in your cut-n-paste) is taking the precisely correct approach, doing research and presenting it in peer-reviewed technical journals. If he and other ID researchers succeed in forming a consensus around ID within scientific circles, then ID will start appearing in textbooks and classrooms shortly after. Presenting persuasive research results is how all other science became accepted. It's the only avenue open to any new science. Taking a scientific case to school boards instead of journals is a giant red flag that shouts, "We couldn't convince scientists, but we can sure convince hicks like you." Members of school boards should run from IDists the same way they would from someone on the street who says, "Psst, hey buddy, want to buy a genuine Rolex for just $10?" The Journal of Molecular Biology charges $30 for access to articles, including the references, so I can't do a search to see which papers referenced the 2004 Axe paper, but there's an article over at Panda's Thumb (Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function) that gives a rough sense of the kind of scientific dialogue that should be taking place between Axe and his scientific peers. If Axe convinces his peers then celebrate, because it means ID wins. But right now ID remains an extremely minority view within science, one which is barely studied in any scientific manner. Even within fundamentalist Christian circles ID is a minority view, since most are YEC creationists who reject not just evolution but much of science. Probably the true danger to ID comes not from scientists but from their fellow conservative Christians, who once they discover ID contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis will throw it out of the classroom faster than you can say "Adam and Eve." These are some of the actual significant aspects of the Dover decision. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It may be the author's opinion that his research supports ID, but how are scientists going to know this if he only points it out at ID websites instead of in the paper itself?
Imo, this argument is disingenious. We all know within evo circles, the idea of ID is highly charged and likely to set off a firestorm of persecution and protest among evos towards anyone daring to publish explicitly ID papers, though it seems that is happening nonetheless. I think what happened at the Smithsonian is ample evidence and example of such a witchhunt, and incidentally, the media and Congressional review came to the same conclusion. I realize you guys will disagree, but it's worth noting a lot of people that are not creationists or IDers agree it was a witchunt and wrong. You know when the NYTs agrees with randman and other conservatives, that it's pretty doggone likely the case for persecution rather than objectivity is very strong. Anyway, I think you realize a paper can be favorable to ID discussing one of it's tenets or discounting Darwinism without having to explicitly use the term, Intelligent Design, which would just create (to try to inject some humor here) the usual pavlovian response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Imo, this argument is disingenious. We all know within evo circles, the idea of ID is highly charged and likely to set off a firestorm of persecution and protest among evos towards anyone daring to publish explicitly ID papers, though it seems that is happening nonetheless. I think what happened at the Smithsonian is ample evidence and example of such a witchhunt, and incidentally, the media and Congressional review came to the same conclusion. I realize you guys will disagree, but it's worth noting a lot of people that are not creationists or IDers agree it was a witchunt and wrong. This exact logic was tried by the defense in the Dover trial to explain why there was no papers and it was soundly rejected. Some others who have read the transcripts might need to help me with my memory but I even believe that the defense was rebuked when trying use the smithsonian issue as rhetoric. You cannot say that Congressional review came to the conclusion that there was a witch hunt at the smithsonian when all of 2 congressmen were the ones responsible for the biased report. 2 who have direct ties to the ID/creo movement. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Soundly rejected by a judge in District court....doesn't mean all that much and if you guys understood that District courts rule all the time contrary to one another, you'd realize that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Imo, this argument is disingenious. We all know within evo circles, the idea of ID is highly charged and likely to set off a firestorm of persecution and protest among evos towards anyone daring to publish explicitly ID papers, As well it should becasue extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let me repeat that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How about the last part. ...require extraordinary evidence. If someone makes a claim as extraordinary as ID, that all life on Earth is actually the work of some higher designer, that someone had better be able to back it up with much better evidence than the easily falsified "irreducible complexity" BS, especially with the mountain of evidence directly contradicting ID (that many evolved structures, in fact, are stupid, they simply work well enough). If you step into a room full of physicists and make a bizzare claim like "relativity is false!" (or anything like what tesla says every day around here), you should be met with ridicule unless you can back up your claim with ironclad evidence. IDists have never produced any significant evidence beyond incredulity and religion. Until they do, real scientists will continue to make fun of them. Believing in god (or an unnamed "designer") is one thing. Believing you can prove it scientifically is quite another. When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Soundly rejected by a judge in District court....doesn't mean all that much and if you guys understood that District courts rule all the time contrary to one another, you'd realize that. Actually IIRC, its because it was hearsay. The important thing is WHY it was considered hearsay. Exactly because there was NO Congressional ruling on the issue made it hearsay. Santorium was one congressman. He and his lacky hardly count as "Congressional review". Again, if you had read the transcripts you would know. Are you ever going to answer the question as to why the Dover expert defense didn't drag out the many ID papers when they had the chance? Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024