Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8937 total)
34 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,877 Year: 16,913/19,786 Month: 1,038/2,598 Week: 284/251 Day: 12/43 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 12 of 207 (140684)
09-07-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ooook!
09-03-2004 11:10 AM


BSOW Distances Itself from Article
I just received this email from Roy McDiarmid, president of the Biological Society of Washington:

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:

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

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ooook!, posted 09-03-2004 11:10 AM Ooook! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2004 4:28 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 10:23 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 16 of 207 (140928)
09-08-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
09-08-2004 10:23 AM


Re: BSOW Distances Itself from Article
holmes writes:

I am also interested in why you were sent an email on this from the BSOW? Did you write them about this issue? And if so, was it your actions that brought it to their attention?

About the last question, I deserve no credit for bringing this to anyone's attention. Nic Tamzek gets the credit for bringing it to EvC Forum's attention when he started the thread, and it looks like it had already gotten the attention of some within the relevant scientific community.

I did write a polite inquiry to BSOW's email address saying I was interested in knowing how the article came to be published in their proceedings and explaining why I was interested, and the president of the society was kind enough to reply.

The publishing of this ID article rates barely blip on my radar screen, scientifically an event of curiousity but no significance. But from the perspective of integrity we have here yet another example of Creationist shenanegans that just never seem to stop. They seem to have no trouble justifying misdeeds when they're committed in the name of the Lord. In this case we have an editor who completely bypassed his own journal's review procedures and ignored its technical focus to publish the exact same pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about ID that appears at Creationist websites. We can add this malfeasance to the long list of other Creationist misbehaviors, like quoting evolutionists out of context and so forth.

When a scientific researcher engages in misconduct (the most recent example I can think of was the cancer researcher who used ink markers to paint black regions on his mice) he is raked over the coals and usually loses his position and is forever distrusted by his colleagues. Why do I have the feeling that the probably soon-to-be-former editor of the BSOW proceedings will be a hero in the Creationist community?

Even before Creationism can began to legitimize itself by conducting genuine science, it must first establish some integrity. It is one of the great contradictions of Creationism that it combines religious faith with behavior that runs precisely counter to that faith.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 10:23 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 1:09 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 18 of 207 (140972)
09-08-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
09-08-2004 1:09 PM


Sternberg is probably just carrying on the longstanding Creationist tradition of lying for God. The BSOW proceedings, according to BSOW, "is a quarterly publication consisting of articles focusing on systematic biology, taxonomy, biogeography, and phylogenetic studies." (Webpage) The Smithsonian describes it as limiting "the purpose to the furtherance of taxonomic study and the diffusion of taxonomic knowledge, mainly through the publication of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington." (Webpage)

The information about the BSOW from the Discovery Institute article was probably provided by Sternberg and is incorrect where it says, "The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C." While people from both the museum and the Smithsonian are members of BSOW, the organization is affiliated with neither. This is just the type of fluffery Creationists always engage in.

If Sternberg is telling the truth about the reviewers, which I doubt given BSOW's recent statement, then they were carefully selected scientists known to him who share his ID beliefs. Clearly they were not on any established BSOW review board, because they would have immediately noted that the subject matter was not appropriate for the proceedings.

This couldn't possibly be a case of reviewers changing their minds when the matter became public. The public statements from scientists and scientific organizations have been very polite and circumspect, but the fact of the matter is that the Meyer article is just transparently horrible, horrible science easily recognizable as such from the very first paragraphs. If there is such a thing as an IDist who understands and accepts the standards of science, then even he would be ashamed of the Meyer article. The Meyer article will be rejected by the scientific community not because of the background shenanegans, but because the paper falls so far short of qualifying as science.

This reminds me of the paper discussed here earlier this year that purportedly found a positive relationship between prayer and IVF (in-vitro fertilization) success rates. We later find out that two of the author's are distancing themselves from it (one has lost his position), and the third author was finally discovered to be a known flim-flam artist who also hasn't paid his taxes since 1998 and has been charged with arson and fraud. See Message 91).

This is likely not be the last success of Creationists getting their writings into scientific venues through trickery and skullduggery, but they're kidding themselves if they think it is forwarding their cause. They won't make progress until they start doing science instead of wishful thinking or religion, and all they're doing is succeeding in alienating a broader and broader spectrum of scientists and thereby convincing them that sitting on the sidelines is less and less viable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2004 1:09 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 12:13 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 29 of 207 (141409)
09-10-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ID man
09-10-2004 12:13 PM


ID man writes:

quote:
Percy:
Sternberg is probably just carrying on the longstanding Creationist tradition of lying for God.

Anything to support that claim- I know Stenberg isn't a creationist, but what lies are you talking about?...BTW Percy ID and Creation are not the same.

I can't adopt a different vocabulary for each person I debate with, so I'm going to continue to use Creationism to refer to the collection of proposals from the fundamentalist Christian community concerning origins. Whether it's old earth Creationism, young earth Creationism, flood theory, vapor canopy theory, hydroplate theory or intelligent design, I will continue to refer to them collectively as Creationism. ID is just one strategy, the most recent, as it happens, of the fundamentalist Christian community to get Creationism represented in public school curriculums.

Naturally IDists want to distance themselves from the Creationist label, but even within a perspective that holds IDists separate from Creationists, Sternberg still accepts and promotes a view that has found acceptance only in the fundamentalist Christian community, a view which has no scientific support at this time.

But the Discovery Institute isn't a creationit organization. Now who is telling lies?

Even by your definition, I'm not so sure, because some traditional Creationists like Philip E. Johnson are part of Discovery Institute. But Discovery Institute at a minimum promotes ID, and so I think I've already addressed this. But this causes me to wonder whether since IDists reject Creationism, does this mean we can enlist your help in discussions with young earth Creationists, flood theorists, dating method skeptics and so forth?

quote:
Percy:
If Sternberg is telling the truth about the reviewers, which I doubt given BSOW's recent statement, then they were carefully selected scientists known to him who share his ID beliefs. Clearly they were not on any established BSOW review board, because they would have immediately noted that the subject matter was not appropriate for the proceedings.

That is a baseless assertion.

No it isn't. You quote from http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40302, but haven't you been reading any of the other links provided in this thread? The most relevant one in this case is the statement from BSOW itself (Biological Society of Washington Repudiates Myer):

"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."

So the facts we have so far are:

  1. Editor Sternberg went against the journals stated purpose by including the article in the proceedings. From the above link:
    "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."

  2. Merely by including a non-taxonomic article he was violating the Proceedings established focus.

  3. The article was published without the knowledge of key officers of the BSOW (see prior quote above).

  4. Sternberg states that the article was peer-reviewed, yet the officers of the BSOW knew nothing about it.

  5. Sternberg has resigned.

Clearly Sternberg is lying, and as I surmised would probably happen, this liar has become a hero within the Creationist community.

Then Percy goes on to to say that the areticle isn't science but offers no specifics.

The first message in this thread provided a link to a detailed review: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html. Is there anything in there you'd like to discuss?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ID man, posted 09-10-2004 12:13 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:27 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 37 of 207 (141541)
09-11-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:27 AM


ID man writes:

Then I would have to conclude that you are confused at best and willfully misrepresenting at worst. What is your evidence that ID is a fundy christian strategy?

This information has already been presented to you. As I mentioned, and as Holmes also mentioned while citing Steve Jones, traditional Creationists are part of Discovery Institute. Holmes also cited Dembski's book drawing connections between ID and theology. Creation/evolution discussion boards like this one always include ID as a part of Creationism.

ID supporters like yourself are understandably desperate to distance the movement from the traditional Creationism that has been so unsuccessful in achieving its goal of moving Creationism into public school science classrooms, or at least in moving evolution out. The ID movement especially doesn't want to be associated with the court cases lost by Creationism, nor with the efforts of some state school boards like Ohio and Kansas that were held up to national ridicule.

It's interesting that you're a "Budhist" (which, that being the case, you'd think you'd be able to spell), but ID is primarily a movement of the fundamentalist Christian community, not of science. As a Buddhist presumably interested in what you perceive as the scientific nature of ID you will likely experience the same dissatisfactions as Steve Jones when you eventually encounter those in the movement in a position of influence capable of maintaining the primarily theological focus.

Tell that to the scientists present and past who see (saw) plenty of evidence for design. All you have shown so far is that you can twist and spin with the best of them.

I'm only representing the views of science. If ID were truly a legitimate perspective within the scientific community then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The paper in question passed peer-review. Now you want to argue semantics. Who cares what others on the board think. If they were qualified they could have been involved with the review process.

Only Sternberg said it passed peer review. No one at BSOW agrees, and this includes not only the board and officers, but also Sternberg's own associate editors. Quoting again what I already quoted from Biological Society of Washington Repudiates Myer:

"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."

Clearly Sternberg kept the inclusion of the Meyer article a secret from everyone else at BSOW because he knew that not only did it not qualify because it wasn't about taxonomy, but also because it was bad science. These misbehaviors forced his resignation, a virtual admission of wrongdoing.

Again, you the liar, has accused Sternberg of lying.

I'm just recounting events and drawing conclusions. I'm not the one lying about my connections to Creationism or making up stories about fictional peer reviews.

--Percy

This message has been edited by Percy, 09-11-2004 11:25 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:27 AM ID man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2004 2:16 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 2:44 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 38 of 207 (141544)
09-11-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:42 AM


ID man writes:

quote:
PaulK:
Sternebrg is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group - a Young Earth Creationist organisation.

That does not make him a creationist. Baraminology could very well be the future of biology. It shows he has an open mind.

Let's see. He violates his own journals guidelines to publish an article on ID. He's a member of a baraminology group. He's a fellow of ISCID (International Society for Complexity, Information and Design), another ID group. He spoke at the 2001 Creationist conference called "Discontinuity: Understanding Biology in the Light of Creation." He might have an open mind, but all his activity appears to be on the Creationist side of the fence.

Sorry Paul but I will go with Sternberg on this one. He has no reason to deny he is a Creationist...

Sure he does. As I described in my previous message, ID wants to distance itself from earlier unsuccessful Creationist efforts.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:42 AM ID man has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 41 of 207 (141579)
09-11-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
09-11-2004 11:58 AM


Some additional clarification has appeared in the online Chronicle of Higher Education that addresses peer review of the Meyer paper. They interviewed the president of the BSOW, Roy W. McDiarmid,and the article states:

The paper had been reviewed by three scientists and had been recommended for publication pending revisions, said Mr. McDiarmid. He did not learn about the paper until after its publication. "My conclusion on this," he said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."

This means that Sternberg was *not* lying when he said the paper was peer reviewed. However, as I said earlier, it must have been reviewed by people Sternberg handpicked because he knew they were sympathetic to ID. I also question Sternberg's claim that they were scientists, because even a superficial perusal of the article reveals its scientific shortcomings. The difference in quality is as Dickens and Whitman to comic books.

For this reason, I also disagree with this quote from the article:

"People who would be appropriate to review the paper would be evolutionary biologists, and I doubt that any evolutionary biologists reviewed the paper," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

It doesn't take an evolutionary scientist to recognize that the article was a combination of speculation and bad science. Anyone with a modicum of scientific background would have rejected the paper. Something fishy definitely went on.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 11:58 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 59 of 207 (142130)
09-13-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ID man
09-13-2004 10:47 AM


ID man writes:

Reality refutes you. Dr. Behe accepts it. He states as much in his book Darwin's Black Box and in articles posted on the Discovery Institute's website.

As stated a couple times already, the ID movement, including Dr. Behe, would like very much to distance itself from the largely discredited Creationist movement. It would prefer to identify itself as an independent movement unrelated to traditional Creationism. But when you look behind the curtain, there are all the usual players, like Philip E. Johnson and so forth. You quote Dr. Behe saying, "that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent," as if denial of common descent were the definition of Creationism. IDists shout "I am not a Creationist" for the same reason racists shout "I am not a racist", because they don't want to be associated with a discredited concept.

When you look under the hood of ID it has many similarities to the Scientific Creationism effort, where Creationists promoted the Genesis account of creation with all mention of God removed. ID just says that some unknown intelligence created and guided the evolution of life on earth. If this intelligence wasn't God then it was an alien race, which just pushes the origins question off to another planet. Ultimately you still have to answer the question of how the first life arose, and if your answer is that it didn't arise naturally, then your answer is still God. And that's why ID is still Creationism.

There are good reasons why traditional Creationists like Philip E. Johnson are involved in the ID movement. They know that traditional Creationism has already lost the battle, so they're looking for other alternatives like ID. But they want to take great care that ID doesn't deviate too far from traditional Christian beliefs. They know that evangelicals would not accept getting ID into schools only to find it meant denying Genesis.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:47 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:50 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 207 (142332)
09-14-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:50 AM


Re: ID is not Creation
ID man writes:

What usual players? Do I see Ham? Do I see Sarfati? Do I see Morris? Nope. No Creationists behind the curtain.

But you're wrong, because Philip E. Johnson *is* a traditional Creationist, and he *is* behind the curtain. I mentioned him because he's the most well known. Do you really believe he's the only name traditional Creationist involved in the ID movement?

ID and Creation may have similarities but they also have differences.

Sure, and vapor canopy theory and hydroplate theory have similarities, but they also have differences. It is what traditional Creationism and ID hold in common that unites them under the umbrella of Creationism with YEC, OEC and all the other flavors. They all require divine intervention as an explanation, and which qualifies them as religion rather than science. They're also both primarily promoted by the evangelical movement, not by scientists or scientific organizations.

Bottom line is that if you could provide positive evidence for your faith neither ID or Creation would have come about.

Why would I need evidence for my faith? If I could support my faith with evidence, it wouldn't be faith, would it?

And my faith has nothing to do with evolution or Creationism. I accept evolution because of the evidential support, and I reject Creationism (ID or otherwise) because of lack of same.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:50 AM ID man has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 70 of 207 (142335)
09-14-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:50 AM


Re: ID is not Creation
This message offers further support that ID is just a form of Creationism.

ICR apparently believes ID is a form of Creationism. Their http://www.icr.org/creationproducts page lists intelligent design as one of the topics covered by their "Books and Videos on Creationism and Evolution." If you type "Intelligent Design" into the search box at http://www.icr.org, you'll get a long list of articles, and a quick perusal seems to indicate that ICR has no trouble endorsing ID. For instance, read Impact No. 341 titled, "The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design." ICR is a firm supporter of ID, indeed of anything that is anti-evolution.

The ID strategy is actually neatly summed up by an ICR titled Design is not Enough:

There is a strong movement among evangelicals today to emphasize "intelligent design" as the argument of choice against naturalism and Darwinian evolution. The movement is also called "mere creation" or "the wedge movement," the idea being to avoid controversial subjects such as the Biblical doctrine of creation in talking to evolutionists. Any discussion of a young earth, six-day creation, a worldwide flood and other Biblical records of early history will turn off scientists and other professionals, they say, so we should simply use the evidence of intelligent design as a "wedge" to pry them loose from their naturalistic premises. Then, later, we can follow up this opening by presenting the gospel, they hope.

The article concludes that is important to promote both ID and Biblical arguments simultaneously.

Need I go on? Should I go to CRS and see what their position on ID is? Or should I start going down the list of ICR and CRS officers to see which ones also support ID?

Separating ID from Creationism is as transparent a ruse as removing mention of God from Genesis. You're not going to fool anyone.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:50 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:24 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 74 of 207 (142346)
09-14-2004 1:20 PM


I guess my last on-topic post said something like:

  • The editor of the BSOW Proceedings, Sternberg, is a Creationist who denies he's a Creationist.

  • Sternberg went against his own journal's focus to publish an article on ID.

  • Sternberg couldn't detect the article's lack of merit.

  • Sternberg submitted the article for peer review to unnamed "scientists", though this is not suspicious in itself since peer reviewers typically remain anonymous outside the editorial staff.

  • Sternberg does not recount the unnamed scientists saying anything about the lack of scientific content. This is hard to believe.

  • According to Sternberg, the unnamed scientists somehow found "merit" in the article. This is extremely hard to believe and incredibly suspicious.

  • Sternberg does not recount the unnamed scientists raising any questions about the appropriateness of the article for a journal focused solely on taxonomy.

  • Sternberg has resigned as editor for the BSOW Proceedings.

A side question for the BSOW: How did Sternberg get to be editor of the Proceedings.

Suggestion for Creationists: get your articles published on the merits, not by skullduggery. Scientists are not sneaking articles on evolution into church bulletins, so please stop sneaking articles on Creationism into scientific journals. Get your article published by an honest editor through honest peer review in a legitimate scientific journal. Get your article published because scientists think it represents good science. Don't do it the way Sternberg and Meyer did, because it only causes suspicion and resentment and brings you no scientific credibility. Hopefully, scientific credibilty is your ultimate goal.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 1:25 PM Percy has responded
 Message 78 by Ooook!, posted 09-14-2004 3:51 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
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 not yet responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
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 not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
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 not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 94 of 207 (142718)
09-16-2004 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ID man
09-16-2004 11:07 AM


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

The premise is false in that ID has presented the positive evidence for its case.

What you quoted wasn't a premise but an entire indictment.

The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes. This is just old-style God of the Gaps theology. We can't figure out how it could have happened naturally, so God did it.

Of course, ID doesn't actually say God did it, they just say some intelligence did it.

Where your quote characterizes ID as, "An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason," is not hyperbole, because it is supported by Dembski's very own words:

"By contrast, intelligent design nowhere attempts to identify the intelligent cause responsible for the design in nature, not does it prescribe in advance the sequence of events by which this intelligent cause had to act." William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, page 41.

The ID terms complexity, contingency, specified, and specified complexity are all just invented, pulled out of thin air. And ID simply assumes an agent that has never been observed performing an action that has also never been observed, let alone defined.

And this isn't the only mumbo-jumbo. ID isn't satisfied with inventing terms, they even have to play with the definition of "intelligent". Intelligent design, says Dembski, does not mean a good design or an optimal design. Intelligent, in fact, doesn't necessarily mean intelligent. An intelligence might design stupidly. This, of course, displays yet another inherent contradiction within ID, since Dembski claims to be able to detect any sort of intelligent design, stupid or otherwise.

ID attempts to erect a technical foundation by quantifying specified complexity, but the resulting structure is ad hoc (I'm talking about ID-style information theory), basically pulled out of thin air. And nowhere does ID ever escape its fatal underlying assumption that I mentioned a few paragraphs ago: that natural processes are insufficient.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:07 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ID man, posted 09-18-2004 11:24 AM Percy has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019