|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
I believe that the Discovery Institute described him as an “activist judge” with “delusions of grandeur”. In my opinion that was a fair comment based on the extent to which the judge went well past what was legally necessary to settle the particular constitutional issue in Dover, based on his excessive confidence as expressed below:
I see. You claimed that Judge Jones 'went well past what was legally necessary' and that was apparently a very bad thing, but when the Office of Special Counsel acts outside its jurisdiction, that's somehow a very good thing and they must be believed, despite evidence from another government body which investigated them that they're not doing their job in a proper and impartial manner at the moment.
I'm quite happy if shipmates qualified in US law can correct me in my assessment of the reliability of the sources, and of the legal stage this has reached, and if they can show me that the report should be treated as reliable, I'll change my opinion, but what we appear to have here is a one sided document from a not-very reliable source which has never been tested in court.
If an 'Office of Special Interspecies Counsel' notorious for hiring cats, sent me a report on the rabid and untrustworthy nature of sheepdogs, (despite the matter being outside their jurisdiction and the known animus of some of their counsel against sheepdogs) I doubt you would be describing me as contemptible for refusing to immediately agree with them that sheepdogs are rabid.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
For those who are still interested in discussing the trial and its aftermath, especially the fury with which the religious right has turned on Judge Jones, I can recommend a piece quoted approvingly by the Disco Institute and written by Phyllis Schalfly.
It may be most of interest to those who consider that the judiciary should be independent, those who've actually read his judgement or those who consider that the constitutional issues raised include whether ID is science or religion. Schalfly is incandescent with rage - alas, she doesn't quite manage to give any quotes to back up her many accusations, and despite my familiarity with the judgement I've been unable to match what she says with what JJ wrote.
It's a shame that those who disagree with the judgement aren't able to progress beyond this sort of diatribe. But hey, go read. It's highly recommended.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I thought the opening paragraph was priceless:
quote:
Judge John E. Jones III could still be chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the president who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Never mind the facts, you owe us big time!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I see. You claimed that Judge Jones 'went well past what was legally necessary' and that was apparently a very bad thing,
Don’t put words into my mouth. I said no such thing. I quoted the Discovery Institute’s words and then said I thought they were fair comments. I gave a reason for my opinion.
quote:
but when the Office of Special Counsel acts outside its jurisdiction,
That overstates and misrepresents the situation. Furthermore, you have cited no evidence to define the precise brief of the OSC under the American legal system.
The nature of Sternberg’s contract at the Smithsonian may only have become clear to the OSC at a later stage in the investigation and that may simply have meant that the OSC could not force the Smithsonian to cooperate further. That does not mean that the Smithsonian could not cooperate voluntarily, as it clearly did do in the early stages of the investigation.
quote:
that's somehow a very good thing
Again, don’t put words into my mouth. Stop misrepresenting me.
quote:
and they must be believed,
I haven’t said that either. This is getting very tiresome.
I consider that the evidence provided by Sternberg’s detailed account and the further evidence found by the OSC’s investigation to be of a very high quality and to present a very substantial case. I hope that Sternberg has a good lawyer working for him now that the OSC has bowed out. I would like to see this evidence tested in court.
The only contrary evidence is the statement from the BSW that is clearly flawed and deeply inadequate. Since when, in any organisation, has the full editor of a journal been required to defer to an assistant editor? There may be circumstances when that is desirable, or even advisable, but it cannot be said to be compulsory without demoting the editor and removing his editorial authority.
Other then this bald assertion that flies in the face of common sense, the BSW have produced no other evidence about their required internal operating procedures and the alleged lack of compliance. To my mind they are clearly engaging in irresponsible blame-shifting and character assassination that has had a very deleterious effect on Sternberg’s reputation and career. At worst it is a cynical exercise in corporate lying.
quote:
despite evidence from another government body which investigated them that they're not doing their job in a proper and impartial manner at the moment.
You overstate your case markedly. In this particular affair there is no evidence that the OSC acted improperly or incompetently. If you want to discuss the OSC in more general terms, then start a new thread. Stop trying to divert this one.
quote:
…what we appear to have here is a one sided document from a not-very reliable source...
Actually, what we have here is Louise’s contentious opinion about the inner workings of an American government body based on nothing more than a quick Google search.
quote:
If an 'Office of Special Interspecies Counsel' notorious for hiring cats, sent me a report on the rabid and untrustworthy nature of sheepdogs, (despite the matter being outside their jurisdiction and the known animus of some of their counsel against sheepdogs) I doubt you would be describing me as contemptible for refusing to immediately agree with them that sheepdogs are rabid.
That is a disguised personal attack based around my shipname. Please will the host adjudicate accordingly.
I have also started a Styx thread with respect to Rex Monday’s consistent corruption of the name of the Discovery Institute.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I like the collection of mixed metaphors there. 'Stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance especially.' I can now see why some people refer to the 'Disco Institute.'
ETA: This in reply to Callan. Neil, I'd never have come down to this thread if it weren't for your post in the Styx. Thank you.
[ 05. January 2006, 09:24: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Rex Monday
I agree with you and Callan. In its own emetic way, the article is a classic. I searched the DI website and found only one reference to Ms Schlafly (in a list of names) so I'm not sure about DI endorsement. They would be pretty foolish to do so - particularly given the excerpt Callan quoted.
Formally, the judgement stands as a matter of law until it is knocked down. If it is uncontestable legally, then there is scope for political action. Rubbishing the judge does absolutely nothing for the credibility of those who find the judgement to be faulty. The "best" they are doing is reassuring themselves.
A final comment on Sternberg. It seems pretty clear from the e-mails that he was targetted. It seems pretty clear from the review essay as published that he painted the target on himself. If the Meyer review essay had had an effective peer review, then the critics on Pandas Thumb (my earlier link) would not have been able to score such easy hits. And that, of course, is one of the real values of critical peer review. It leads to an improvement in what is published. Unless of course your intention is only to get something - anything - published, just to make a point.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think there are two issues being muddled here.
First is a proceedural and an editorial dispute. This seems to revolve around whether a previous editor of the journal should have edited the paper alone (as it says he did with many other papers). I doesn't seem that there is any argument that the paper was actually peer reviewed (although there are questions about who the reviewers were).
Second is a dispute regarding the science and the writing of the paper.
I am not qualified to comment on either issue. However, it does seem to me that there is an inbuilt inertia built within the frame of reference of any journal - and papers are only normally published that fit within that framework. It would be extremely difficult to publish something with the best science and written in the best way that went against the prevailling view.
Publishing papers that others disagree with is hardly new nor a reason in itself to doubt the veracity of the writer. Any literature research over any time will produce papers that will flatly disagree with each other yet have been published.
Generally I'd agree with the statement at the end of the Panda's Thumb website
quote:
There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom — continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations.
Although I'd suggest that Mayer has produced an incomplete paper rather than being deliberately malicious (of course that is a matter of opinion -but then that is part of the point of a review paper isn't it?).
I think we all need to get over ourselve here a bit. If the ID crowd can produce interesting papers with reasonable evidence and argument then let them. To flatly dismiss them because you don't happen to like the conclusions smacks of nescience rather than science.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Cheesy*
I do agree so much with your "getting over ourselves" point. The problem I think is that the two separate issues interrelate because;
a) publication space by reputable organisations is a scarce resource, requiring proper discipline and control over its filling, and
b) a perceived failure of quality control damages the reputation of the publication (for accuracy, impartiality, truthfulness etc) and its sponsoring organisations.
Frankly, I would be amazed if both Sternberg and Meyer did not see now that there had been some failure of quality control in the peer review process prior to publication. Regardless of whether it was procedurally appropriate, the peer review as carried out did not do a good job. Meyer's essay is an interesting read, but should not have been published without some attention to the holes in it which were so easily found afterwards. When handling a hot topic, great care is required.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
If an 'Office of Special Interspecies Counsel' notorious for hiring cats, sent me a report on the rabid and untrustworthy nature of sheepdogs, (despite the matter being outside their jurisdiction and the known animus of some of their counsel against sheepdogs) I doubt you would be describing me as contemptible for refusing to immediately agree with them that sheepdogs are rabid.
That is a disguised personal attack based around my shipname. Please will the host adjudicate accordingly.
I'll do you one better, actually.
Community editor hat on
Faithful Sheepdog, we have hosts here for a reason. If we find that they are unfit for the job, we take steps to remove them from their position. In light of the fact that Tony has been the host of DH since its inception oh, about eleventy years ago, the Powers That Be clearly think he's doing a damned fine job.
If you do not stop trying to do his job for him, especially in light of the fact that you simply do not understand anything about hosting, I won't wait for an admin to suspend you, I'll send your ass overboard myself.
Cease and desist the constant appeals to Tony. If there's a problem, he'll deal with it. There are enough admins and ex-admins on this thread that even if he misses something, it will be caught out by others.
Erin
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It seems pretty clear from the review essay as published that he painted the target on himself.
Barnabas62, this statement makes the victim of abuse responsible for the abuse that he has suffered. Is that really what you meant to say?
quote:
If the Meyer review essay had had an effective peer review, then the critics on Pandas Thumb (my earlier link) would not have been able to score such easy hits.
We will have to disagree that the Panda's Thumb have scored "easy hits". I will limit myself to one comment on their extensive review. Their comments on genetic algorithms are completely wrong. Whether a target sequence is explicitly specified or is implicitly given in some another form, it is nevertheless always there in these algorithms. That is why they work so well, and why they are evidence not for Darwinism, but for ID.
Also, please note how you have shifted the ground of the argument about the review process of the Meyer paper, both here and in your later post. The argument now is not that the paper received no review at all, or that it did not receive a review to the proper BSW procedures, but that it did not receive an effective review.
I would like to know what you mean by an "effective review" in relation to its oposite, an ineffective review.
I cannot see that publishing an academic paper that contains a controversial viewpont or is vulnerable to counter arguments does not mean that the review process was thereby automatically ineffective, or that the paper should not have been published. On those criteria most academic publishing would come to a grinding halt.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
We will have to disagree that the Panda's Thumb have scored "easy hits". I will limit myself to one comment on their extensive review. Their comments on genetic algorithms are completely wrong. Whether a target sequence is explicitly specified or is implicitly given in some another form, it is nevertheless always there in these algorithms. That is why they work so well, and why they are evidence not for Darwinism, but for ID.
Do you have any specialist knowledge of that or evidence you can provide or are we supposed to take your word over theirs?
At least the response is properly referenced and footnoted, unlike yours FS.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
If an 'Office of Special Interspecies Counsel' notorious for hiring cats, sent me a report on the rabid and untrustworthy nature of sheepdogs, (despite the matter being outside their jurisdiction and the known animus of some of their counsel against sheepdogs) I doubt you would be describing me as contemptible for refusing to immediately agree with them that sheepdogs are rabid.
That is a disguised personal attack based around my shipname. Please will the host adjudicate accordingly.
I'll do you one better, actually.
Community editor hat on
Faithful Sheepdog, we have hosts here for a reason. If we find that they are unfit for the job, we take steps to remove them from their position. In light of the fact that Tony has been the host of DH since its inception oh, about eleventy years ago, the Powers That Be clearly think he's doing a damned fine job.
If you do not stop trying to do his job for him, especially in light of the fact that you simply do not understand anything about hosting, I won't wait for an admin to suspend you, I'll send your ass overboard myself.
Cease and desist the constant appeals to Tony. If there's a problem, he'll deal with it. There are enough admins and ex-admins on this thread that even if he misses something, it will be caught out by others.
Erin
I've replied to this in the Styx.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
UKCanuck
Shipmate
# 10780
|
Posted
I just wanted to stand up for Faithful Sheepdog and thank him for posting in the Styx forum. Otherwise I wouldn't have come to this thread and been so very well entertained by the Disco Institute. Thanks FS.
--------------------
"No, the Canadian flag does not look like a giant nosebleed, so put that thought out of your mind right now." - Will & Ian Ferguson
Posts: 148 | From: Cardiff, Wales | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Do you have any specialist knowledge of that or evidence you can provide or are we supposed to take your word over theirs?
Yes, I do have evidence. Read Chapter of 4 Dembski's Book No Free Lunch, which is cited by Meyer in his paper. It contains an extensive mathematical discussion of genetic algorithms and supports my viewpoint.
And yes, I do have sufficient mathematical knowledge to understand what I am talking about. I actually reached my viewpoint on these algorithms before reading that chapter in Dembski's book, so I also refer you to the numerous posts I have made on this thread in Summer 2004 in respect of an electronics experiment using a genetic algorithm and in Summer 2005 regarding the AVIDA software.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
cited by Meyer in his paper.
Read my lips FS: that aint evidence.
You're in a minority position against all the established knowledge. You aren't going to get anywhere by claiming that they are wrong and you are right because they have the mount and weight of considered science on their side . That isn't infallible but if they are wrong you need to come up with some bloody good explanations and evidence.
ETA: and until you have an academic position and can justify your statements within the proper peer reviewed environment, nobody is going to listen to you and nor should they.
C
[ 05. January 2006, 13:21: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
cited by Meyer in his paper.
Read my lips FS: that aint evidence.
It is common academic practice for one author to cite another. Of course that means Meyer's argument depends on the correctness of Dembski's argument. Dembski's argument in turn is based on the mathematics of probability and information theory applied to genetics and biology. That sounds like evidence to me.
quote:
You're in a minority position against all the established knowledge.
Congratulations, you have spotted that I am in a minority position. I am used to it. Are you?
quote:
You aren't going to get anywhere by claiming that they are wrong and you are right because they have the mount and weight of considered science on their side.
Who is this "they"? I have not simply made assertions. I have actually provided a lot of arguments, evidence and documentation for my position. Please interact with that instead of fallacious appeals to authority.
quote:
That isn't infallible but if they are wrong you need to come up with some bloody good explanations and evidence.
Careful Cheesy, even the meerest hint of a doubt about Darwinism can be enought to let ID slide in and seduce your mind. At that point the Wedge can chalk up another victory and the ID Plot™ moves forward. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
ETA: and until you have an academic position and can justify your statements within the proper peer reviewed environment, nobody is going to listen to you and nor should they.
Actually, Cheesy, I have no formal academic position, and even my engineering career is in on hold due to illness. When you have read chapter 4 of Dembski's book, perhaps then we can discuss the mathematics of genetic algorithms and their relevance to this debate.
[edited for typos]
Neil
[ 05. January 2006, 13:49: Message edited by: Faithful Sheepdog ]
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
cited by Meyer in his paper.
Read my lips FS: that aint evidence.
It is common academic practice for one author to cite another. Of course that means Meyer's argument depends on the correctness of Dembski's argument. Dembski's argument in turn is based on the mathematics of probability and information theory applied to genetics and biology. That sounds like evidence to me.
Excuse me, I'm quite aware of this. I have no access to the resources and neither of us really know what we are talking about (possibly me even less than you) it is a pointless discussion, wouldn't you say. It'd be like me taking a book off a shelf in my room and saying 'here, it says so on page x.' That isn't evidence FS. Unless you have studied mathematical genetics in an academic institution at a high level, it is second or third hand information is it not.
quote:
quote:
You're in a minority position against all the established knowledge.
Congratulations, you have spotted that I am in a minority position. I am used to it. Are you?
I don't know what you are on about FS. You're in a minority position gassing about things you don't understand nor have any opportunity to study in an academic context. It'd be like me making some sweeping statement about King Henry VII because I read a few historical novels about him, and I'd expect to be given about the same notice as you.
quote:
quote:
You aren't going to get anywhere by claiming that they are wrong and you are right because they have the mount and weight of considered science on their side.
Who is this "they"? I have not simply made assertions. I have actually provided a lot of arguments, evidence and documentation for my position. Please interact with that instead of fallacious appeals to authority.
'They' being the scientific community. 'You' being one bloke shouting that the moon is made of cheese.
quote:
quote:
That isn't infallible but if they are wrong you need to come up with some bloody good explanations and evidence.
Careful Cheesy, even the meerest hint of a doubt about Darwinism can be enought to let ID slide in and seduce your mind. At that point the Wedge can chalk up another victory and the ID Plot™ moves forward.
If you can produce good science, then there are vehicles to do it. Continually posting on a board things you don't understand is not the way to do it. Go get some doctorates and publish a few dozen papers in respected journals and someone might listen to you.
quote:
quote:
ETA: and until you have an academic position and can justify your statements within the proper peer reviewed environment, nobody is going to listen to you and nor should they.
Actually, Cheesy, I have no formal academic position, and even my engineering career is in on hold due to illness.
[edited for typos]
I rest my case.
quote:
When you have read chapter 4 of Dembski's book, perhaps then we can discuss the mathematics of genetic algorithms and their relevance to this debate.
I have no access to said book and if I had no interest.
C
[ 05. January 2006, 13:59: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
It is common academic practice for one author to cite another. Of course that means Meyer's argument depends on the correctness of Dembski's argument. Dembski's argument in turn is based on the mathematics of probability and information theory applied to genetics and biology. That sounds like evidence to me.
Has Dembski ever published his argument in a peer reviewed publication? (I'm assuming that his book wasn't peer reviewed, as that would be highly unusual). I freely admit that my maths isn't upto determining the correctness, or otherwise, of Dembski's argument. That's the point of peer review - to put a paper through a first stage of comment by people who are qualified to comment before publishing it so people who aren't knowledgable enough to spot errors but might still be interested in the paper can read it. Of course, peer review doesn't actually stop with publication - there's always the option of others to offer rebuttals, corrections to be published etc.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
A quick Google search brought up:
A Wisconsin University review of the book
and this miscellany of responses and counter responses to Dembski's work. I haven't had much chance to go into detail, but clearly people are engaging with him.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
I'm still waiting to see details of how I misrepresented people by reading their own words in the trial transcript, but while we're waiting...
quote:
Their comments on genetic algorithms are completely wrong. Whether a target sequence is explicitly specified or is implicitly given in some another form, it is nevertheless always there in these algorithms. That is why they work so well, and why they are evidence not for Darwinism, but for ID.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of genetic algorithms in particular and the basic principles of modelling in general.
What those sequences represent is fitness. They are analogous to evolutionary features in living organisms that render those organisms better able to survive in a particular environment.
In an animal, that may be the ability to metabolise a particular compound or to run slightly faster; in Avida, it's the ability to perform an arbitrary function which has been predetermined. This is an analogy of natural selection in real life.
Perhaps it might be easier to understand if you look at it another way. Assuming you are right, and the presence of a pattern to be evolved towards is an indication of intelligence, how would you program a model so that this was avoided? What model of evolution excludes a test for fitness - or how would you have a test for fitness that doesn't involve an algorithmic comparison?
In short: if Avida gets it wrong, how would you create a computerised analogy that _accurately_ tests the principles of Darwinian evolution?
As I've said before, that would be an excellent way for IDers to actually demonstrate that there is a problem.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Go get some doctorates and publish a few dozen papers in respected journals and someone might listen to you.
This is a good description of Richard Sternberg who has two PhDs in the biological field and a record of published peer-reviewed academic papers. And just look at what has happended to him.
quote:
and until you have an academic position and can justify your statements within the proper peer reviewed environment, nobody is going to listen to you and nor should they.
In the my former engineering career I worked in a specialist field and peer-reviewed the work of others. So I have confidence in my technical and mathematical abilities.
Of course, that doesn't mean that I don't have things to learn or that I am automatically right. This is a huge subject and my reading list is growing faster than I can deal with at present. However, I am happy for Cheesy not to listen to me if he so chooses.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
A quick Google search brought up:
A Wisconsin University review of the book
Actually, this is a reference to Dembski's previous opus magnum The Design Inference. This was published by Cambridge University Press in an academic monograph series and was definitely subject to a rigorous peer-review process that lasted about a year (I think). I have posted Dembski's description of that process earlier on this thread.
His later mathematically-oriented book No Free Lunch was not published by CUP but by the American publishers Rowman and Littlefield. Dembski explains the reasoning for this change somewhere on his own website. I will have to do some digging to find out what peer-review process (if any) that later book went through.
Dembski engages extensively with the comments of his critics here.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I have to say peer review often seems pretty over rated. Two or three random experts get chosen - who may pass the manuscript onto a less busy junior colleague.... sometimes they miss things that should be picked up on, sometimes they seem to be having bilious days... you get some comments back, the editor looks at them, and your answers - perhaps he/she will ask for revision, perhaps feed back to the referees, perhaps not.
When it works well it's fantastic, but in many biological journals it's a bit hit and miss.
While we're on that subject, this proceedings of whichever Washington society that Meyer's paper appeared in is not a terribly high-profile runner. It's not a big deal if they publish something dodgy every so often. I've seen worse papers accepted in higher profile places. I'd leave the poor editor alone to eek what's left of his career in peace, myself.
I note Meyer's not published anything else peer reviewed in a searchable place... certainly doesn't seem to have ever come up with any data.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I note Meyer's not published anything else peer reviewed in a searchable place... certainly doesn't seem to have ever come up with any data.
Meyer's academic discipline is the History and Philosophy of Science, in which he has a Cambridge PhD. That may explain the results of your search. His page at the Discovery Institute website is here.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I note Meyer's not published anything else peer reviewed in a searchable place... certainly doesn't seem to have ever come up with any data.
Meyer's academic discipline is the History and Philosophy of Science, in which he has a Cambridge PhD. That may explain the results of your search. His page at the Discovery Institute website is here.
Neil
So what is a historian/philosopher doing publishing in a biological journal? Shouldn't that be ringing alarm bells on its own?
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I note Meyer's not published anything else peer reviewed in a searchable place... certainly doesn't seem to have ever come up with any data.
Meyer's academic discipline is the History and Philosophy of Science, in which he has a Cambridge PhD. That may explain the results of your search. His page at the Discovery Institute website is here.
Unfortunately the list of 72 articles doesn't allow them to be sorted by type. But going through the first few one at a time there are several newspaper articles, an essay in a book (which he edited), that article, an article in the proceedings of a design conference (no information about if the proceedings were peer-reviewed), and a letter Nature wouldn't publish. Not much that would turn up in a BIDS search.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Unfortunately the list of 72 articles doesn't allow them to be sorted by type. But going through the first few one at a time there are several newspaper articles, an essay in a book (which he edited), that article, an article in the proceedings of a design conference (no information about if the proceedings were peer-reviewed), and a letter Nature wouldn't publish. Not much that would turn up in a BIDS search.
Don't forget, many technical journal articles do not appear on the web because of copyright issues and other restrictions. So Meyer's other peer-reviewed publications may not show up in that list at the DI. He had to give (or obtain) special permission to put "that article" on the web in the light of the furious controversy that broke out over it.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I note Meyer's not published anything else peer reviewed in a searchable place... certainly doesn't seem to have ever come up with any data.
Meyer's academic discipline is the History and Philosophy of Science, in which he has a Cambridge PhD. That may explain the results of your search. His page at the Discovery Institute website is here.
Unfortunately the list of 72 articles doesn't allow them to be sorted by type. But going through the first few one at a time there are several newspaper articles, an essay in a book (which he edited), that article, an article in the proceedings of a design conference (no information about if the proceedings were peer-reviewed), and a letter Nature wouldn't publish. Not much that would turn up in a BIDS search.
If this website is accurate the Dr Mayer has the artiles in the following Journals (in addition to the famous one)
Trends in Ecology and Evolution March 2004 (letter)
First Things: Journal of Religion, Culture and Public life April 2000
Utah Law Review Feb 2000
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Jan 1999
Journal of Rhetoric and Public Affairs (I kid you not) October 1998
Intercollegate Review 1996
Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 1994 and 1986
The rest are newspapers, books and self-published articles.
So that'll be nothing at all then.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The norm on university websites when giving lists of publications is to just give the reference details, and sometimes the abstract. I don't see any reason why the Discovery Institute couldn't do likewise for those articles that it can't reproduce in full. Then anyone who has access to the relevant journals (eg: university staff and students) can get them if interested.
[response to Faithful Sheepdog, not Cheesy who slipped his post in while I was typing]
[ 05. January 2006, 15:34: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 1994 and 1986
That one's interesting, because the UK equivalent of that journal ( Science and Christian Belief) has a peer-review process for articles.
And, a quick check shows that the same is true for PSCF
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Unfortunately the list of 72 articles doesn't allow them to be sorted by type. But going through the first few one at a time there are several newspaper articles, an essay in a book (which he edited), that article, an article in the proceedings of a design conference (no information about if the proceedings were peer-reviewed), and a letter Nature wouldn't publish. Not much that would turn up in a BIDS search.
Don't forget, many technical journal articles do not appear on the web because of copyright issues and other restrictions. So Meyer's other peer-reviewed publications may not show up in that list at the DI. He had to give (or obtain) special permission to put "that article" on the web in the light of the furious controversy that broke out over it.
Neil
That is no excuse.
Look at this random academic's homepage
He is on top of his game and has published papers coming out of his ears. He doesn't put the paper online but he does list where they are published.
Dr Mayer doesn't, in contrast, because he has published only 10 papers of any note in the whole of his career.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
May I suggest that if anyone is honestly concerned to get Meyer's full publication record including stuff not on the web and stuff that has been peer-reviewed, that they contact the Discovery Institute and ask for a full list.
When you get it don't forget to add in all his professional work as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield oil company.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
May I suggest that if anyone is honestly concerned to get Meyer's full publication record including stuff not on the web and stuff that has been peer-reviewed, that they contact the Discovery Institute and ask for a full list.
When you get it don't forget to add in all his professional work as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield oil company.
Neil
Good idea.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
The range of papers Dr Meyer has published (I'm no academic, so I won't enter the argument as to whether size matters in his particular case) illustrates for me a fundamental point about this whole controversy - ID is being discussed as if it were science when it is in fact philosophy. Discuss it all you want in Philosophy class, or in RE (or whatever it's called these days) or Social Studies, alongside other Christian responses to science (e.g. Polkinghorne, or the Vatican's relationship to science over the centuries). Give it half an hour in biology to demonstrate the presence of alternative theories, making it clear how it's as much an interdisciplinary philosophical approach than pure science (because I think people would benefit from knowing that there's a whole lot of that going on in science too - you could include it in a module that covers people like Popper and Polanyi, too).
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The range of papers Dr Meyer has published (I'm no academic, so I won't enter the argument as to whether size matters in his particular case) illustrates for me a fundamental point about this whole controversy - ID is being discussed as if it were science when it is in fact philosophy. Discuss it all you want in Philosophy class, or in RE (or whatever it's called these days) or Social Studies, alongside other Christian responses to science (e.g. Polkinghorne, or the Vatican's relationship to science over the centuries). Give it half an hour in biology to demonstrate the presence of alternative theories, making it clear how it's as much an interdisciplinary philosophical approach than pure science (because I think people would benefit from knowing that there's a whole lot of that going on in science too - you could include it in a module that covers people like Popper and Polanyi, too).
I don't think it belongs in biology, because it's only one of very many non-scientific takes on a scientific subject.
I think there should be more time spent in school, even at secondary level, teaching how to think - practical philosophy, I guess, comes close.
That could easily include the philosophy of science, techniques of criticism, a look at what theology actually is, and so on. It would be the natural place to put ID, alongside the huge number of other non-empirical theories of existence.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Also, please note how you have shifted the ground of the argument about the review process of the Meyer paper, both here and in your later post. The argument now is not that the paper received no review at all, or that it did not receive a review to the proper BSW procedures, but that it did not receive an effective review.
I would like to know what you mean by an "effective review" in relation to its oposite, an ineffective review.
I cannot see that publishing an academic paper that contains a controversial viewpont or is vulnerable to counter arguments does not mean that the review process was thereby automatically ineffective, or that the paper should not have been published. On those criteria most academic publishing would come to a grinding halt.
Neil
You are confusing me with Rex Monday I think. I never said that the Meyer essay had not been peer reviewed. I think it had been. I am questioning how well it was done, that is all.
What is an effective review? Well, just as an example, the section in Meyer's paper entitled "Novel Genes and Proteins" looks particular vulnerable to the criticism that it ignores a large number of papers on the subject of the evolution of novel genes. See the section in the Pandas Thumb criticism, headed "The origin of novel genes/proteins". Meyer's scepticism is expressed this way
quote:
Many scientists and mathematicians have questioned the ability of mutation and selection to generate information in the form of novel genes and proteins. Such skepticism often derives from consideration of the extreme improbability (and specificity) of functional genes and proteins.
And he does indeed develop that argument. But if there is research work pointing in the other direction, it would be have been prudent to acknowledge the existence of this work. Meyer does not need to abandon his understanding just because of this work, but he weakens his own case by not acknowledging it. It makes him look ignorant, or dismissive. I suggest that an effective peer review might have identified this possibility and resulted in a modification of the paper. That way, a legitimate criticism of the paper as published, and that about a central point of his argument, could have been mitigated or avoided.
I could give other examples along similar lines. I am not claiming the advantage of 20/20 hindsight either. As I said in another post, the "hot issue" factor should encourage a cautious approach, recognising the controversial elements of the paper.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
...
Compare the following nuanced sentence from the Wedge Document:
quote:
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
...
This sounds so incredbily reminiscent of "Soviet science" like Lysenko that it's hard to believe anyone could say it with a stright face.
ETA: and Phyllis Schafly is still alive, amazing!
[ 05. January 2006, 16:54: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494
|
Posted
I've read about a third of this thread - good reading.
Incidentally, in case it has not appeared in this thread - a few other links regarding ID
http://www.uncommondescent.com
(this is the daily web log of Dr. William Dembski)
Also,
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php
This (above) is an ongoing discussion on ID and goes beyond many of the usual basics or initial discussions of ID.
I personally believe that ID has merit, but needs development. The matter of Dr. Richard Sternberg http://www.rsternberg.net/ speaks of his ordeal a little more.
I read also that he actually didn't agree with ID, but introduced it because he felt that science grows from controversy.
I believe the dilemma of ID probably won't be concluded for years - I've discussed it at length at other boards as well.
If ID does advance, it will not be from sermons, but from science.
Another dilemma facing ID is the reflexive reaction against creationism (by a wide variety of groups/people/etc).
A debate is not necessarily the best place to have enlightenment - too often the topic doesn't get plumbed much past it's surface.
If (and I mean "if") ID is to advance, it must be from the workhorse of science. Not debates, courtrooms or the pulpit but true science. To the joy of ID critics, this will likely (IMO) take much longer than the ID proponants would wish.
While I personally believe this world was created - to find empirical proofs to instantiate ID and quantify it enough to show evidences to quench the critics will take the time that science usually requires (many years).
While from my own research over months leads me to believe there's merit to ID, I also believe it has a distance to go - many years and patience for it's science to be able to speak for itself.
--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"
Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494
|
Posted
or perhaps decades
--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"
Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastian:
I've read about a third of this thread - good reading.
If ID does advance, it will not be from sermons, but from science.
Indeed. Which is why the curious lack of ID proponents actually proposing or executing scientific experiments is doing nobody any favours.
quote:
Another dilemma facing ID is the reflexive reaction against creationism (by a wide variety of groups/people/etc).
I don't think it's creationism per se, it's creationism that claims to be scientific that gets people going -- and that mostly because of past experience. A genuinely new idea, even if it's completely against orthodoxy, will always get a hearing. ID is at the moment almost entirely a collection of criticisms against evolution, very few of which are new.
quote:
If (and I mean "if") ID is to advance, it must be from the workhorse of science. Not debates, courtrooms or the pulpit but true science. To the joy of ID critics, this will likely (IMO) take much longer than the ID proponants would wish.
It would help if they got started! I've never, ever seen a proposal for an ID experiment, let alone a full course of research. There are no predictions made, no theoretical framework being hypothesised. They've got support, they're well funded... what's stopping them?
quote:
While I personally believe this world was created - to find empirical proofs to instantiate ID and quantify it enough to show evidences to quench the critics will take the time that science usually requires (many years).
While from my own research over months leads me to believe there's merit to ID, I also believe it has a distance to go - many years and patience for it's science to be able to speak for itself.
That's the frustrating thing. There's nothing to stop ID from proving itself: you can't ban people from doing science, nor would anyone want that. If ID is correct, then we should take it seriously - and I'd rather know that sooner than later, there's no pleasure in seeing the truth delayed.
But a science without a single repeatable experiment or testable prediction to its name cannot make that claim - and there seems so little pressure within ID to change that. ID proponents' conviction that ID is correct seems curious in that context.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
But a science without a single repeatable experiment or testable prediction to its name cannot make that claim - and there seems so little pressure within ID to change that. ID proponents' conviction that ID is correct seems curious in that context.
R
And it is even more curious that anyone would push for addition to the basic evolutionary biology science curriculum anything that has not one repeatable experiment or testable prediction.
These things move slowly and should. I have an Earth Science textbook from the year boo that reflects the not-yet-acceptance of the exciting new theory of plate tectonics, now widely accepted, peer-reviewed, tested. Anyone familiar with the field knows how long it took that shift to occur and that was for something testable and tested. But other than personal reputation, there was very little ideological investment in either outcome. Where, as here, the proposed alleged "science" is untested and largely untestable, and there is a powerful non-scientifically based ideological force behind it, great piles of salt and caution are due before letting it anywhere near a school, unless it's into the philosophy department.
Personally, my main concern with anything that is essentially creationism in disguise is the theodicy problem. But that's been covered, I'm sure, extensively on this thread.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
And it is even more curious that anyone would push for addition to the basic evolutionary biology science curriculum anything that has not one repeatable experiment or testable prediction.
I would recommend that you check out the factual basis for your comment. You will find that it is another misrepresentation.
From the highly recommended blog Telic Thoughts there is a very good example of a clear prediction from ID theory that is both testable and repeatable. See here. This is a rather technical post about a specific part of the genes of modern organisms called "tool-kit genes".
The most relevant paragraph, with my bolding, is:
quote:
If we assume that eukaryotes were designed with the purpose of giving rise to multicellular organisms, we can make certain predictions. For one, we would expect the first eukaryotes to have contained a predecessor to the modern tool kit, and it’s possible that some unicellular eukaryotes still possess it. It will probably not be the full set possessed by modern organisms (or rather, full sets, as several organisms differ in the number of genes they have), as some genes may have been generated through gene duplications, but I definitely expect genes that are clear precursors to modern tool kit genes to be found in unicellular eukaryotes.
To me that looks like a clear prediction that is both testable and repeatable. It is open to refutation by subsequent knowledge.
You will find more testable predictions from ID theory if you go looking.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The most relevant paragraph, with my bolding, is:
quote:
If we assume that eukaryotes were designed with the purpose of giving rise to multicellular organisms, we can make certain predictions. For one, we would expect the first eukaryotes to have contained a predecessor to the modern tool kit, and it’s possible that some unicellular eukaryotes still possess it. It will probably not be the full set possessed by modern organisms (or rather, full sets, as several organisms differ in the number of genes they have), as some genes may have been generated through gene duplications, but I definitely expect genes that are clear precursors to modern tool kit genes to be found in unicellular eukaryotes.
To me that looks like a clear prediction that is both testable and repeatable. It is open to refutation by subsequent knowledge.
You will find more testable predictions from ID theory if you go looking.
Neil
OK now we are talking something I might understand. Explain how that proves ID.
All it shows is that there might be a mechanism for the one to be a predecessor of the other. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Has anyone actually looked for precursors to modern tool kit genes in unicellular eukaryotes? And, if not, why not?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
OK now we are talking something I might understand. Explain how that proves ID.
My link doesn't "prove" ID. All it shows is that ID-theoretical ideas can be used to generate predictions that are capable of being tested and refuted.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Has anyone actually looked for precursors to modern tool kit genes in unicellular eukaryotes? And, if not, why not?
I suspect the answer is "not yet". As to why, I suspect the problem is a lack of money.
Academic research lives or dies by its funding. A hotly controversial idea that is presently a minority opinion may not be in a position to obtain many research funds. That, incidentally, is one reason why the Discovery Institute exists, to fund research in ID and other areas that are of interest to it.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
OK now we are talking something I might understand. Explain how that proves ID.
My link doesn't "prove" ID. All it shows is that ID-theoretical ideas can be used to generate predictions that are capable of being tested and refuted.
Yes, yes, but I don't see how - even if one was to prove it - one couldn't use the explanation within conventional accepted evolutionary theory.
In which case it becomes rather redundant.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
To me that looks like a clear prediction that is both testable and repeatable. It is open to refutation by subsequent knowledge.
You will find more testable predictions from ID theory if you go looking.
Neil
Nope. It still would not and could not establish that intelligent design must be behind such a change. Nothing could or would. It might be interesting for other reasons, but it would not establish the principle for which you propose it.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Academic research lives or dies by its funding. A hotly controversial idea that is presently a minority opinion may not be in a position to obtain many research funds. That, incidentally, is one reason why the Discovery Institute exists, to fund research in ID and other areas that are of interest to it.
Neil
To an extent. Funding is only normally forthcoming to research that has potential and falls within the normal bounds of science.
Seems to me highly likely that yon Discovery Institute is nothing more than a propaganda tool, producing nothing approaching original science by people with very little credibility.
If it isn't let us see the original science. ISTM that we can't because there isn't any. Yes, there are some interesting books and ideas - but nothing that would stack up in a court of law or a scientific journal. I'm afraid that even this paper we've been discussing hardly counts as a scientific paper FS - apart from anything else it is a review paper and includes no original science.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
OK now we are talking something I might understand. Explain how that proves ID.
My link doesn't "prove" ID. All it shows is that ID-theoretical ideas can be used to generate predictions that are capable of being tested and refuted.
Yes, yes, but I don't see how - even if one was to prove it - one couldn't use the explanation within conventional accepted evolutionary theory.
In which case it becomes rather redundant.
C
Exactly. One would expect precursors - albeit with a different function - in unicellular prokaryotes. No-one is suggesting that a mutation occured in a Paramecium one day and the next it became a sponge. New functions arise constantly in evolutionary history from pre-existing structures with a different function.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Nope. It still would not and could not establish that intelligent design must be behind such a change.
I didn't say that it obligated a conclusion of intelligent design. I said it was a prediction made on the basis of ID theory that was capable of being tested and potentially open to being refuted.
quote:
Nothing could or would. It might be interesting for other reasons, but it would not establish the principle for which you propose it.
Laura, you can't have the argument both ways. Eiher ID theory can generate testable and refutable predictions, or it can't. I have given you one such example and shown that it can do so.
No one is claiming that if the specific prediction concerning tool-kit genes proves to be correct, it thereby establishes ID theoretical ideas in toto. Science simply does not work that way.
By the same token, if the specific prediction proves to be false, that would not comprehensively falsify all ID ideas.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
