I really don't care about who put on this conference or why. I want to find out what scientific research the intelligent design movement is producing. If such research was presented at the conference, than good for it, but it's still the research that's interesting, not the conference. And if research wasn't presented there, than the conference is of no interest at all.
quote:
Do I call into question the credibility of a scientific conference on evolution just because it was by evolution scientists? No. The only warrant I've seen from you and Holmes on the credibility and success of this conference is that it was by ID scientists. However, the people at this conference have more credibility than you because they are actual scientists. For example, one of the people who was on the International Scientific Advisory Committee for this conference, Adrian Bejan, has a Ph.D. from MIT, is listed by ISI highycited.com as Highly Cited, and has a quite impressive set of credentials [...]Unless you can bring in another scientist or other credible source showing why this is an uncredible conference, then the only warrant you have against its credibility is that it is related to ID.
I don't think you want to take that approach: it's too easy to find scientists who object to ID in general and who objected to that conference in particular. Eight Baylor biologists are on record as having opposed the conference and considered it pseudoscience, for example.
™ Version 4.2
