Re: The Reasonable Minority

On Dec 11, 9:48 am, Gary Bohn <gary.b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:32fad6de-0cb3-4015-950e-710aecd5752c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:







He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in
1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an
S.M. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in
1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a
postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics from the National Science
Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and
philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992-1993. He
was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same
subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton
Theological Seminary, also in 1996

Heh. No credentials in Information Theory, in other words.

In other words you can't read english....apparently. Meyer, S. C.
DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and
explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State
University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.

<snip>

I think you forgot part of the title. It should be:
Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Rhetoric and Public Affairs
Series)

It was written by Stephen C. Meyer not Bill Dembski. I believe you were
discussing Dembski's qualifications were you not?

Here is a quote from Barbra Forrest on the book which directly addresses
its science content:

[q]
"Nineteen of the twenty-seven essays are by ID creationists and their
supporters, not one of whom is a working evolutionary biologist. Among
the eight pro-evolution essays, only four are by scientists. Of those,
only two are by evolutionary biologists. There is a preponderance of
humanities scholars; some, like rhetorician John Angus Campbell, are ID
proponents while others are pro-evolution." [/q]

That ain't a peer reviewed publication by any stretch of the
imagination.

The last thing the editors of that book want to do is critically review
a pro-ID article.

As Mark Isaac once said about the book "Anthologies and conference
proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards" ...
"reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The
purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant
omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the
reviewers are uncritical"

--
Gary Bohn

NOW COMPLETELY SIG FREE!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So I should be surprised that the female hater disagrees with certain
review standards. Here's a clue ...rehearsing demagogary from sources
well identified with the haters, cynics, arch evolutionary true
believers is simply poisoning the well and has no standing with true
rhetoric but great standing in sophistry.

Quoting that lady as an expert in editorial standards, peer review
policies, or anything outside the occult studies she specializes in is
a really bad way to try an appeal to authority.

Is that your best shot?

.