Objective science? or Close-minded bullying?

Arikay · Mar 4, 2005

From what I understand of SC, it tells the difference between something that is designed and something that came about through randomness. ID seems to suggest that if something is SC and we don't have a way to explain it, then it must be Intelligently designed.

Sorry, but that is from ignorance, and thus it does not logically follow.

All parts of ID need to be peer reviewed, in which case, where are the papers that come to the conclusion of an Intelligent designer?

_Paladin_ said:
Specified complexity as Dembski defines it is evidence that life was intelligently designed. If it was intelligently designed it logically follows that there is an intelligent designer.

notto · Mar 4, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
Specified complexity as Dembski defines it is evidence that life was intelligently designed. If it was intelligently designed it logically follows that there is an intelligent designer.

I believe what you have provided is a list of references that Dembki or other ID proponents use in their articles. They do not have a methdology of ID and do not conclude ID as requested. If that is the best you can do, they you have not fulfilled what you said was on those websites.

Let's take a look at the abstracts and see what we find.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=9344742&dopt=abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9878441&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10966772

In the first three, no mention of ID or specified complexity. Perhaps you can tell me which one relates to ID or ID methodology.

None of the things you listed deal with ID methodology or conclude ID.

Dembski is a mathematician who has never applied his method to any original research related to biology.

Loudmouth · Mar 4, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
Specified complexity as Dembski defines it is evidence that life was intelligently designed. If it was intelligently designed it logically follows that there is an intelligent designer.

Dembski defines CSI as something that can only come from an intelligence. He has yet to support that assertion. Dembski has never shown that CSI can only come from an intelligence, therefore it can't be used as evidence for an intelligence.

Loudmouth · Mar 4, 2005

notto said:
Dembski is a mathematician who has never applied his method to any original research related to biology.

Which puts Dembski on the same level as scammers claiming they have a "Craps System" or a "Roulette System" that can't fail. The proof is in the pudding. Either Dembski applies his CSI and EF to biology or he should take his ball and go home.

_Paladin_ · Mar 4, 2005

Loudmouth said:
Dembski defines CSI as something that can only come from an intelligence. He has yet to support that assertion. Dembski has never shown that CSI can only come from an intelligence, therefore it can't be used as evidence for an intelligence.

I suppose that the way Dembski planned to show this was through the probability calculations, and not just the argument that it could not be evolved.

Notto: I would assume that they would have no mention of specified complexity, or Intelligent design I am afraid that if such words were used that terminology too many people would start screaming "religion!" and not allow it to be published.

I know everyone says there is not witch hunt against IDs, but even they have to admit that many atheists, and others would consider anything that has to do with intelligent design detection to be some form of religious pseudo-science.

PS. I hope everyone saw my apology. I am really sorry about all that.

notto · Mar 4, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
Notto: I would assume that they would have no mention of specified complexity, or Intelligent design I am afraid that if such words were used that terminology too many people would start screaming "religion!" and not allow it to be published.

Actually, if you look at the papers in question, the have absolutely nothing to do with specified complexity or intelligent design at all. They are standard research articles that have no new methodology and have nothing to do with showing IC or ID. Those that propose ID or IC have simply used them as references in their arguments. They are not done by ID researchers.

_Paladin_ · Mar 4, 2005

I can't see the entire articles, I don't have a membership, but I will read over the abstracts. One thing though is Denton is certainly an ID, but another one I didn't cite is the Design inference. That book was peer reviewed by Cambridge University Press. It was done by Dembski, and it is all about specified complexity.

Loudmouth · Mar 4, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
I suppose that the way Dembski planned to show this was through the probability calculations, and not just the argument that it could not be evolved.

That would be testing his theory. Why hasn't he done it?

The quick answer is that for his theories to apply we must know the entire causal history of the information in question. We do not have the entire causal history of life on this planet so his equations, thereoms, etc. are useless.

PS. I hope everyone saw my apology. I am really sorry about all that.

We all pop off once in a while. Thanks for the apology.

Loudmouth · Mar 4, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
I can't see the entire articles, I don't have a membership, but I will read over the abstracts. One thing though is Denton is certainly an ID, but another one I didn't cite is the Design inference. That book was peer reviewed by Cambridge University Press. It was done by Dembski, and it is all about specified complexity.

Publishing houses don't peer review, they edit. Big difference.

_Paladin_ · Mar 4, 2005

The Design Inference was published by Cambridge University Press as part of a Cambridge monograph series: Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory.

It was also peer reviewed and not an editorial review.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.10.Scott_Response.htm

michabo · Mar 4, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
It was also peer reviewed and not an editorial review.

Dembski seems to think that a peer review is just a book review done by someone that may be a peer. What a joke.

Loudmouth · Mar 4, 2005

_Paladin_ said:
The Design Inference was published by Cambridge University Press as part of a Cambridge monograph series: Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory.

It was also peer reviewed and not an editorial review.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.10.Scott_Response.htm

Taking a quote from your linked webpage:

"What about Scotts claim that The Design Inference does not present scientific research -- Dembskis book was published as a philosophy book. It is true that Cambridge University Press officially lists this book as a philosophy monograph. But why should how the book is listed by its publisher be relevant to deciding whether it does or does not contain genuine scientific content?"

It matters because Cambridge Press is supposedly the source for peer review. If they didn't consider it to be a scientific paper then they didn't review it as a scientific paper. They reviewed it as a philosophy paper. TDI does not count as a peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC paper.

Later, Dembski writes "I submit that the book makes a genuine contribution to the statistical literature, laying out in full technical detail a method of design detection applicable to biology."

The question remains, if Dembski believes this THEN WHY HASN'T HE TRIED TO USE HIS OWN THEORY AND APPLY IT TO BIOLOGY? Why does Dembski do all of this posturing and in the end ignore his own theory?

aziel92 · Mar 4, 2005

GoSeminoles! said:
I am really sick and tired of ID proponents and their insufferable whining. Any scientist who believes ID is a scientifically viable hypothesis is free to write up his argument with the supporting evidence and submit it to a reputable science journal for review and potential publication. But they do not. Why?

Why do ID proponents not put up or shut up? Why do they not go through the normal channels of scientific review?

Because ID is scientific nonsense and they know it.

Hey, ID guys! You want a seat at the scientific table? You want ID to have a "fair chance?" Then do what every other scientist has to do and go through the peer-review process. Your failure to do so allows only one conclusion:

ID scientists are intellectual cowards.

The article sites a man who did, and the flak that the EDITOR got for publishing it and he doesnt even support the theory!

Its the scientists who behave like this who are the cowards since they do not have the courage to respond to the article scientifically but instead resort to questioning the man's integrity and sabotaging his career.
Plus there have been numerous books written about it too

Lucretius · Mar 4, 2005

aziel92 said:
The article sites a man who did, and the flak that the EDITOR got for publishing it and he doesnt even support the theory!

Its the scientists who behave like this who are the cowards since they do not have the courage to respond to the article scientifically but instead resort to questioning the man's integrity and sabotaging his career.
Plus there have been numerous books written about it too

We still bantering back and forth about ID being science when it isnt? Read my posts. I think I did a good job of showing ID isn't science.

So what if ID is written about in books? Santa is in tons of books. He must be real! Same with the Easter Bunny! He has been in a ton of books!

Loudmouth · Mar 4, 2005

aziel92 said:
The article sites a man who did, and the flak that the EDITOR got for publishing it and he doesnt even support the theory!

Its the scientists who behave like this who are the cowards since they do not have the courage to respond to the article scientifically but instead resort to questioning the man's integrity and sabotaging his career.
Plus there have been numerous books written about it too

It doesn't matter what the article was about. It was entered in to the journal through editorial fiat. All of the rest of the articles had to go through a review process, except for the ID article. Secondly, the ID article was not even within the scope of the journal. It was an underhanded move by whoever did it. It was plainly an attempt to make ID look like it was being accepted by the scientific community when it is not. Even worse, the article didn't even present new scientific research. It was a rehash of the normal litany of logical fallacies that comprise the theory of ID. The entire article could be distilled down to "Wow, look how complex that is. It must have been designed." That is not science.

Arikay · Mar 4, 2005

It's amazing the people that imediatly shout "bias" when the article is rejected because it didn't follow the rules. Is ID really strugling so much that it has to sneak papers into journals and then complain when they are caught and removed?

Anyone who supports the paper should go and read it. I have read many better papers writen by IDists and Creationists. It is very poor, jumps around, and pulls its conclusion out of nowhere. If this is the best ID can do, then it is not ready to be part of science.

Peiper · Mar 4, 2005

I wish people had a better understanding of science.

Paladin get over it, "Intelligent Design" is a metaphysical concept. It cannot, by definition, be falsified. This is a moot topic.

bevets · Mar 4, 2005

notto said:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333190/posts

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON (ON THE MEYER ID PAPER)

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings. We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004. Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")

...

After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

Matthew777 · Mar 4, 2005

ObbiQuiet said:
It failed as a theory before it even got off the ground. There isn't a way to prove or disprove that something's been designed. It's a superfluous theory.

God created man in His own image.
God is not an Australopithecine.
Therefore, evolutionism is a failure.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Arikay · Mar 4, 2005

I think some reviewers need to be fired if that story is true. Sorry but if it is the paper that I remember reading, it was horrible, and not worthy of a good grade in a high school biology class. He supported very little, and came to conclusions based on opinion.

Objective science? or Close-minded bullying?

HI

Legend

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Member

reason, evidence

Contributor

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

HI

rationalist libertarian

Active Member

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

HI

Similar threads