Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where to publish critiques of creationist issues?
aharvey
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (234447)
08-18-2005 11:11 AM


Nothing wrong with internet-based discussion, but sometimes ya just need a more permanent venue. Creationist journals seem to explicitly exclude opposing perspectives, and mainstream journals don't seem to have much interest in evaluating creationist "science", nor should they. Are there any peer-reviewed journals that publish papers that look at creationist issues, though not necessarily from the creationist perspective?
Not that I intend to get into this line of work in a big way, but I've discovered a thing or two about the so-called "Haldane's Dilemma" that I'd like to put out there.
Thanks!
Alan

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2005 11:23 AM aharvey has replied
 Message 3 by mick, posted 08-18-2005 1:47 PM aharvey has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 5 (234450)
08-18-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by aharvey
08-18-2005 11:11 AM


Assuming that your discoveries aren't original (if they are then they ought to be submitted ot the scientific press first), I think that one of the skeptical magazines like Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer would be your best bet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by aharvey, posted 08-18-2005 11:11 AM aharvey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by aharvey, posted 08-18-2005 2:07 PM PaulK has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 3 of 5 (234522)
08-18-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by aharvey
08-18-2005 11:11 AM


hi aharvey,
Some of the philosophy journals will deal with this stuff. Here's a recent example from Biology and Philosophy:
quote:
The argument from biogenesis: Probabilities against a natural origin of life
R. C. Carrier(1)
(1) Columbia University, USA
Abstract No evidence exists that the accidental origin of life is too improbable to have occurred naturally, but there are numerous attempts to argue so. Dizzying statistics are cited to show that a god had to be responsible. This paper identifies the Argument from Biogenesis, then explains why all these arguments so far fail, and what would actually have to be done to make such an argument succeed. Describes seven general types of error, with examples. Includes a table of forty-seven statistics used by over twenty authors to date.
Reference link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by aharvey, posted 08-18-2005 11:11 AM aharvey has not replied

  
aharvey
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (234533)
08-18-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
08-18-2005 11:23 AM


original findings?
Paul,
Yeah, I suppose that's open to interpretation. Haldane's paper came out half a century ago, it's been used by creationists, esp. ReMine, to attack evolutionary theory, to which a number of web-based responses have appeared, but none of these come close to identifying the true problem with the creationist use of "Haldane's dilemma," which requires a thorough understanding and careful reading of the original paper. So, of course assuming I have figured this out, is this original or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2005 11:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2005 2:45 PM aharvey has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 5 (234561)
08-18-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by aharvey
08-18-2005 2:07 PM


Re: original findings?
I don't know. It might be worth running your ideas past a biologist (perhaps P Z Myers of Paryngula and The Panda's Thumb), or asking on Usenet (possible talk.origins but sci.bio.evolution might be a better bet). You could also search the internet to see if anyone is putting similar ideas forward.
Personally I think that ReMine's ideas have two major flaws - one is that there is no good estimate on the number of mutations required or even for the real substitution rate allowed (Haldane's calculations used estimates that seem to have been no more than educated guesses). The other is that Haldane's argument that simultaneous substitutions don't affect the rate doesn't appear to apply in cases of "soft selection".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by aharvey, posted 08-18-2005 2:07 PM aharvey has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024