Re: DI's Bibliography of Peer-Reviews & Peer-Edited Publications...

On 13 Aug 2005 14:13:22 -0700, "Frank Sullivan" <gimbal.locked@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>> Yes, dishonest. Ignore everything but the section on what has appeared
>> in scientific journals, and most of those claims were addressed here
>> within the past week or so.
>
>Interesting. By that I suppose you mean ignore the philosphy journal
>stuff too?

Only if you want to get slapped upside your head by Wilkins.

>I don't know what those journals are all about but they
>don't seem relevant to science, am I right?

Philosophy of science should be relevant to science but every philosophy
journal has to be individually evaluated, just as every scientific journal
has to be. Take a look at the article Behe's article was in response to,
for example:

Shanks, N. and Joplin, K.H. "Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of
Intelligent Design in Biochemistry", PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 66 (June 1999),
pp. 268-298).
<http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm>

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen

- Emily Dickinson -

.