Re: Erik Andrulis Gyres concept and Natural Selection

On 2/8/2012 9:29 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 2/8/2012 5:30 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 3:45 pm, Kalkidas<e...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/2012 2:04 PM, backspace wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This paper by Andrulis is an example of Delusion induced by
>>>>> rejecting the pattern/design dichotomy. PZ Myers in his review is
>>>>> correct, it is erroneous. Andrulis has indeed gone of the rails,
>>>>> one feels very sorry for the poor man and I pray that he comes to
>>>>> his senses.
>>>>
>>>>> In any case, the first thing I did was F3 , looking for Natural
>>>>> Selection :
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1/
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Although Myers can't resist a gratuitous swipe at the Discovery
>>>> Institute in his review, the DI's review of the Andrulis paper is
>>>> well worth the read.
>>>>
>>>> See it
>>>> athttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/oh_now_we_under055641.html
>>>
>>> Just read it. It struck me as little more than petulant sarcasm,
>>>
>>> "A biologist at Case Western Reserve demonstrates why peer-review
>>> really is the gold standard of scholarly credibility, just as
>>> Darwinists have been telling us for so long."
>>>
>>> "It kind of makes you think of Michael Ruse, talking to Ben Stein in
>>> Expelled and explaining how life got its start "on the backs of
>>> crystals" and chastising Stein for not grasping why this is more
>>> believeable than intelligent design."
>>>
>>> Rather than "worth the read," the whole post strikes me as an
>>> exercise in junior-high spitballing, including such incisive
>>> arguments as, - taking an extreme (and unfortunate, considering Andrulis'
>>> previously productive career) example of peer-review and insinuating
>>> that the entire process can be judged on the basis of this anomaly
>>> - the oblivious suggestion that an idea based upon natural processes,
>>> however improbable, can be a less credible alternative than an
>>> inference to magic
>>> - snidely mocking Ruse for being over-imaginative (in the process
>>> missing the irony of such prodigious projection)
>>>
>>> I don't know who wrote it, but the whole thing is such an immature
>>> bit of fluff I figure it's got to be Crowther.
>>
>> Ah, another case of "the creationists are wrong even when they're
>> right".
>
> Ah, another case of "insert some snarky one-line comment when you have no
> substantive argument".
>
> If you disagree with Camp why not give your own review and demonstrate where
> he is wrong.

OK. Here's my review of Robert Camp's review of the review:

Just read it. It struck me as little more than petulant sarcasm. For example:

"the whole post strikes me as an exercise
in junior-high spitballing, including such incisive arguments as,..."

The whole post strikes me as an exercise
in junior-high spitballing, including such incisive arguments as, for example:

"Just read it. It struck me as little more than petulant sarcasm."

.

Relevant Pages