Re: The Reasonable Minority

Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Evopeach:
On Dec 25, 6:45 pm, er...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:56 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





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?

So, we are supposed to respect your opinions, when your world
evidently consists of strange constructs such as "female haters,"
"arch evolutionary true believers" and when you imagine that the
"haters" are on the pro-science instead of the pro-creationism side?
How are we to discuss  things reasonably with you when you foam at the
mouth and we have to work hard to ignore the cuckoo-birds popping in
and out of your ears?  As long as you live in a strange fantasy world
in which you imagine that the pro-science people are the ones who are
crazy, there is no use discussing things with you.

Eric Root- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee I wonder how anyone who has followed this debate since 1973, has
met about half of the major players of my persuasion, watched the
vicious personal attacks on them year after year, seen firsthand the
attempts to discredit, persecute, and economically sanction academics
who dare to step out of line with the evo dogma could possibly think
there just might be some real chinks in your armour, some
irrationality to your positions, some mass psychosis at work and yes
some money related national mission abroad in the land.

Or, it could be that the loud proponents of creationism and ID
actually are stupid and/or extremely dishonest. Have you considered
that theory?

Not excepting the tired dogma of a failing theory does not translate
into hating science..I have read and studied the field all of my adult
life, met many, supported their work directly and indirectly and
particulalry love the history of science. There was a lot before
brother Darwin was even thought about.

If a copy of Remine's Biotic Message was in every library in America
including schools and if it were read by young students with interest
or better yet taught as an elective in science Darwinism would fall in
one decade.

After a year or two of Remine's idiocy in this froup, I think that schools wouldn't
be changed at all. Are you Remine?

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Barry Goldwater: "Every good Christian should line up
\ and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

.