Re: The Reasonable Minority

Evopeach wrote:
On Dec 13, 7:28 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
On Dec 13, 6:06 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:57:37 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<b233da1e-1aac-4fc2-808e-898b2ae86...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Dec 13, 4:14 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<0f01c0e0-dc25-408e-b3b1-a36bacae2...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> writes
On Dec 13, 3:18 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:10:02 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<7f858f0d-ff88-48da-85d5-9cb79e821...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Dec 12, 8:45 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
So your lumping anyone associated with ID, IC, SC with snake oil
salesmen and apparently all politicians etc. is somehow a vailid
inference and not just a sophomoric fallacy.
Well, not all politicians are full of shit. But otherwise, your statement
rings true. Says a lot, doesn't it?
You see saying that none of the DI people do any science is just
ignorance and stupidity on the plain face of it because one can review
the works of several hundred scientists identified with the concept
and the DI who publish in scientific journals regularly.
Cite!
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=...
Pick out 100 PhDs in the biological sciences from the list and review
their CV ...I don't do homework for your team.
That particular lie of the Discovery Institute was debunked long ago.
They just aren't honest enough to admit that they were caught.
You are a fool defending them. I hope they are paying you to do it,
because you have no other possible excuse for being sucked in by
them.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So let's just clarify your claim:
A review of the people in the DI list in disclines in the biological
sciences will have zero published works in peer reviewed journals for
their research efforts.
That's a mighty strange interpretation of the material you are
responding to. For a start it would be premature to assume that the
persons listed therein are all supportive of ID, or have an association
with the DI, other than having signed that list.
They are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and
natural selection to account for the complexity of life." and advocate
that "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
There's nothing about support of ID in there. In fact it's a remarkably
weak statement - they are merely skeptical of what any biologist worth
his or her salt knows to be false.
--
alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So lets see, an examination of the list includes prominent members of
the ID community, DI fellows, creationists of several stripes, and its
an integral pdf link from the DI/CSC site and listed in a letter by
link on the CSC site.
The context to be clear is that the PhD types that signed the DI list
no not publish in peer reviewed journals, do not do real research, are
pseudo-scientists, not real scientists in a biological or evolutionary
allied discliplinary sense and likely incompetent.
So even though I pulled a random sample of 50 names from the list with
PhDs in biology and biological science related fields and then
reviewed their university based CVs and found that each was indeed
published in peer reviewed journals, they would be summarily judged as
"scientists not worth their salt".
See this is why I am 100% certain that the entire face of science,
public funding of such, the publics view of the evolutionary
scientific community and public education is going to be massively
changed by the attitude displayed by the posters herein and you for
sure.
As the word gets out and it is getting out every day to the public as
in taxpayers, parents, grandparents, politicians, etc. a sea change in
this situation is on the horizon.
We'll see if Steins movie , the DI, the various books, films, CD's ,
various University hostile environment cases have the effect I predict.
First you have to show that any of them actually support ID. Their
papers do not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No I don't... their signature is sufficient to put them at odds with
the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory
Wrong. The statement

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and
natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

is not at odds with mainstream evolutionary theory at all. Skepticism
and careful examination should be encouraged in all things. And almost
no-one thinks that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient
to account for the complexity of life. Neutral drift is at least one
other cause.

and that such should be
investigated. One investigation is to see if the current paradigm
should be on the basis of evidence, analysis, experimentation, etc.
should be expanded to include the possibiity that intelligent design
in inherent in the origin and development of life and needless to say
the universe.
Feel free to explain what experiments you would do to detect ID, and
what results would constitute a failure to do so.

Now since this is the position of the DI and the
scientists signed a statement by invitation from that organization and
DI supports not other theoretical additions to the theory it is
axiomatic that the signors support ID as a worthwhile approach to
correcting and /or completeing TOE.
Either that or they didn't know who the DI were when they agreed to the
statement. However, even if they do support ID, none of them has
published any research in a peer-reviewed journal that supports ID.

WIKIPEDIA
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or Dissent From Darwinism, is a
list of signatories attesting to a statement, produced by the
Discovery Institute, expressing skepticism about the ability of
natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and
encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian
theory". This list is published in a document together with an
introductory statement claiming that its signatories dispute
assertions that evolution fully explains the complexity of life and
that all known scientific evidence supports evolution.[1


And remember just signing the decent means "they are not worth their
salt as scientists". Scientists "not worth their salt" would
presumably not be published in peer review journals..period.
Again, you are mis-quoting Ernest.

>>>> There's nothing about support of ID in there. In fact it's a
>>>> remarkably weak statement - they are merely skeptical of what any
>>>> biologist worth his or her salt knows to be false.

Perhaps you mis-understood him? He's saying that any biologist worth his
or her salt knows that random mutation and natural selection alone do
not account for the complexity of life. Being skeptical of claims that
they do does not indicate support for ID.
-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
------------------ Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's see first there were only a 100 of these people. Then 400 then
700 and then they were not real scientists because they weren't
biologists, then they were too stupid to know what they were signing,
but actually just plenty smart and in the mainstream of all biologists
who believe the same thing. The why don't all biologists named Steve
sign it as well sense it's just a confirmation of the position of all
biologists?

Because they know that the DI will claim their support for the statement implies support for ID, which it doesn't.


"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of
the scientific theory that governs modern biology," says dissent list
signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and
pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-
winning brain surgeon named one of New York's best doctors by New York
Magazine.

Do you people know it when you're getting pistol whipped
intellectually and looking like dwarf spider monkeys?

Yes, I do. That's not what's happening. For a start, you just refuted a claim that I didn't make (that no-one on the list supports ID).


Is this a new random search algorithm for evos lost in their own fog?


Oh and all this mutual love society self congratulatory gibberish is
wasted. See I used to run 40 million dollar annual budget IT org and
constantly had to listen to IBM salesmen..."Gee Bob that was a
brilliant statement you just made...Thanks Sam, yes but it pales in
the after glow of yoiur inciteful remarks . What crap!!


I used to work for IBM. The salesmen do tend to look and sound like preachers.
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... natural selection to account for the complexity of life." ... no not publish in peer reviewed journals, do not do real research, are ... pseudo-scientists, not real scientists in a biological or evolutionary ... but actually just plenty smart and in the mainstream of all biologists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... no not publish in peer reviewed journals, do not do real research, are ... pseudo-scientists, not real scientists in a biological or evolutionary ... PhDs in biology and biological science related fields and then ... First you have to show that any of them actually support ID. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... no not publish in peer reviewed journals, do not do real research, are ... pseudo-scientists, not real scientists in a biological or evolutionary ... First you have to show that any of them actually support ID. ... but actually just plenty smart and in the mainstream of all biologists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... no not publish in peer reviewed journals, do not do real research, are ... pseudo-scientists, not real scientists in a biological or evolutionary ... PhDs in biology and biological science related fields and then ... >> There's nothing about support of ID in there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: History of "Evolution Science"
    ... Nowhere do I support Naziism. ... The biogeneic law was an error, not a fraud. ... Promoted by the great scientists of the day. ... they try to correct their mistakes. ...
    (talk.origins)