Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
- From: fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 Sep 2005 17:48:12 -0700
The question remains, unanswered: Is George Bush drinking?
(And how could you tell)
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>charlie b wrote:
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>> One of the arguements the ID folks present is
> >>> "this organism is extremely complex, too complex
> >>> to merely just happen by accident. therefore
> >>> it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".
> >>
> >> That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
> >> have a Scientific case to make to support that
> >> conclusion. We may well never know, because
> >> the Science Establishment today it putting huge
> >> resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
> >> to avoid having this debate.
> >
> >
> > What on Earth do you mean by "we may never know"? They
> > can certainly establish their own journals, societies and
> > hold their own conferences just like homeopaths, chiropodists,
> > astrologers and polygraphers have.
> >
> > Nobody is silencing them any more than the Southern Baptists
> > silence a polymer chemistry by not inviting a chemist
> > to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes.
>
> You are indulging yourself in some sly rhetorical tricks here
> but it doesn't wash. The IDers are making claims of *science*
> (or at least they say they are).
One of mistakes is accepting that the IDers are making
"claims of science", on their say so alone, and then extrapolating
from that to the conclusion that they are not getting their
articles published because they are being repressed by "Scientific
Orthodoxy".
Instead of invokig conspiracy therory, shouldn't you consider
the likelihood that they are not being published because their
papers do not rise to the standards, or conform to the subject
matter of the journals to which they are submitted?
Shouldn't you read a few of those ostensibly suppressed papers
and compare them to the articles that are being published in
those same Journals beofor accusing editors and peers about whom
you truly know nothing, of malice or iconoclasty?
> "We will never know" whether
> or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific*
> peer review of those claims.
What makes you think there has been no peer review? Maybe
those papers were went out for peer review and the peers
were uninimous in ther comments to the editors that the
papers were crap.
For that matter, can you be so sure than any 'IDer' actrually
submitted any such paper in the first place?
> > ...
> > Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated
> > doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant
> > dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their
> > agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not,
> > in reality, flock together.
>
> Ad hominem
No no, that was guilt by association. It is not ad hominem to call
a dishonest person, a dishonest person.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Today, the ONLY supporters of 'ID' are the likes of Pat Robertson,
> > Oral Roberts (damn I wish that check had bounced) and their
> > minions. Even you don't claim to support ID, you seem only
> > to be arguing for 'equal time' based on some sort of misplaced
> > multicultural sense of fairness that might be appropriate if
> > they wanted to publish in YOUR journal but certainly not in
> > someone else's!
>
> No. I'm arguing that specialists in a field are most suited
> to evaluate claims made in/against their field.
Evidently those experts when acting in their roles as
editors of Journals in their fields, or peers who review
those papers have concluded that the putative papers in
question are not appropriate for publication. So why
don't you accept their evaluation?
>
> >
> > You seem to believe that the 'IDers' at least honestly think
> > they have a legitimate scientific claim but the people you
> > are asking to publish those claims seem to have a different
> > opinion, that they are dishonest, deluded, or both.
>
> No, I think the science establishment appears to be terrified
> the IDers might have a point.
I am by no means sure that I believe you.
Astronomers do not debate Astrologers or accept their
papers for publication in Astronomy Journals, the American
Lung Association does not debate the cigarette companies
or allow them to publish in their literature.
Simply engaging in the debate, no matter how ludricous or
indefensible the position of the opponent may be, lends
credence to the misperception that there is a controversy.
In science, there is no ID controversy because "God did
it that way" puts the issue outside of the boundaries of
science itself.
> >> the discussion about Evolution would
> >> truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment
> >> has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
> >> (experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
> >> a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
> >> Ted Kennedy.
> >
> >
> > And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully
> > ignores the practical matter of the time required for the
> > process to occur.
> >
> > A similar criticism can be made for many other natural processes
> > like plate techtonics or the stellar lifecycle.
> >
> > Speciation is inferred from the fossil record and by extapolation
> > from the natural developement of varietals within a species just
> > like plate techtonics is inferred from the geological record and
> > by extrapolation from present day motion.
>
> All true. The point here is that the science by direct experiment
> is far stronger than science by inferrence or induction alone.
> The science establishment appears to reject even the possibility
> that IDers have a point to make, and is doing so on the weaker
> of the methods available to science.
No the ideas are rejected for publication in a scientific Journal
because they are fundamentally metaphysical in nature. (Or rather,
I presume they are. You have not yet shown that any ID article
ahs ever been written, let alone submitted for publication.)
Whereas Scientific Journals uniformly reject papers confabulating
metaphysics with physical reality there are plenty of Journals
devoted to Metaphysical Considerations that do not mind inclusion
of some physical considerations. The IDers can publish there.
Indeed, since the sine quo non of ID is the inclusion of a
metaphysical element, by your argument it is the metaphysicists
who are most competent to evaluate it. The Evolutionary biologists
freely admit to having no professional expertise in metaphysics.
....
> >
> > If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers
> > on continental drift would THAT upset you?
> >
>
> If the claimants that were rejected argued that they had new
> science to bring to the table and couldn't even get a hearing,
> yes it would.
That arguement adn some above, demonstrate a profound of the
proces sof publication is a Scientific Journal.
Pretty much every paper that is submitted gets a hearing. It
doesn't get to trial (e.g. publication) unless it passes peer
review. Probably most don't make it to peer review for the
same reasons that most lawsuits are returned to the petitioner
by a clerk without even being reviewed by a judge.
Of course we (including you) won't know for sure unless we
see some examples of what you claim to be happening.
--
FF
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bessey Sale - here we go again!?
- Next by Date: Re: penultimate bench
- Previous by thread: Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
- Next by thread: Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
