Objective science? or Close-minded bullying?

bevets said:

http://www.rsternberg.net/
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...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... all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication...Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

Click to expand...

Arikay said:

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.

Click to expand...

So now we have two conflicting stories. One of the guy getting fired, claiming he did follow standard procedures, one of the magazine claiming they fired the guy because he did not follow standard procedures. Do I have that correct so far?

I think if the paper was the 30th written to confirm that nicotine was dangerous (or something more fitting for the journal) no one would have a problem with it. But being the first of its kind, about such a controversial topic, the editor should have known better than to push it along.

I would expect the same thing in a physics journal. Another confirmation of relativity would most likely be treated differently than an experiment designed to prove string theory.

Arikay said:

I think if the paper was the 30th written to confirm that nicotine was dangerous (or something more fitting for the journal) no one would have a problem with it. But being the first of its kind, about such a controversial topic, the editor should have known better than to push it along.

I would expect the same thing in a physics journal. Another confirmation of relativity would most likely be treated differently than an experiment designed to prove string theory.

Click to expand...

That is very true. Well, I got the article, I'll read it this weekend and post what I think about it.

bevets said:

four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

Click to expand...

And it probably was worthy of publication. In a religious journal. Not in a science journal, because ID is not science.

Tomk80 said:

So now we have two conflicting stories. One of the guy getting fired, claiming he did follow standard procedures, one of the magazine claiming they fired the guy because he did not follow standard procedures. Do I have that correct so far?

Click to expand...

Sternberg was NOT fired over this controversy, as he himself says here:

From Sternberg's site:

"Following my resignation in October 2003, a new managing editor for the Proceedings was selected in May of 2004, and the transition from my editorship to the new editor has taken place over the past few months. By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper. "(emphasis added)

He was due to retire from that position and had done so before any hint of controversy broke out.

What I have noticed is that Bevets and Co. have allowed this misconception to continue throughout this thread. I guess it's easier to portray evolutionists as closed-minded bigots by parading a victim, Sternberg (but he as fired for standing up for truth, justice and the American way don't you know...bad ole EVILutionists!), especially if those mean ole evos actually "crucified" one of their own. Too bad for them that Sternberg was not in anyway "victimized" (fired) because of this controversy. The fact is that he had retired as part of the part of the normal cycle of the magazine before the controversy ever came to light.

Thanks for clearing that up!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gladiatrix again.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I think you put in too much effort Glad.

Have some rep

_Paladin_ said:

Arikay, I do not honestly beleive that you have given the matter fair consideration. Most evolutionists seem to parrot whatever their pro evolution websites say.

Click to expand...

And the irony meter pegged with the above comment...
As opposed to creationists/IDists "parroting" creationist/IDist sites?! Projection, MUCH!

_Paladin? said:

For instance, everyone says "ID has not been published in Journals" (many anti-ID sites say that which seems to be why people make this false claim so consistently) Well that is blatently untrue. There have been a number of Journals published in support of ID. I am getting very frustrated, because it seems everytime I respond to someone's claim that "ID has not been published" What I say is ignored and more people just run around claiming the same thing.

Journals published dealing with ID's predictions:

On searching for specified complexity:

"Exploring the Conformational Properties of the Sequence Space between two proteins with different folds: An Experimental Study" by F. Blanco, I. Angrand, and L. Serrano in Journal of Molecular Biology (1999) 285:741-753

• "Estimating the Entropy of DNA Sequences" by A. Schmitt and H. Herzel in Journal Theoretical Biology (1997) 1888:369-377.

• D.D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595.

• M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417.

• M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342.
On rapid infusions of Genetic information into the bioshpere:
(Meyer 2004) well duh.

(Robert Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 4)

On the function of "junk DNA"

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99:16128-16133, 12/10/02

Nature Vol 418:994-998 for details.

Beaton, M.J. and T. Cavalier-Smith. 1999. "Eukaryotic non-coding DNA is functional: evidence from the differential scaling of cryptomonal genomes" Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 266:2053-2059.

Click to expand...

With the exception of the Meyer paper, the above papers you posed have NOTHING to do with ID. Scientists who are also IDists continue publish and have published papers in their area of expertise, but what they don't publish is any experimental data supporting ID. What is NOT in the above papers is evidence supporting ID. No one has ever claimed that these men don't publish at all, just that they don't publish on ID, let alone do any experimentation/research that supports ID. If you disagree, why not show us, using the papers you list, just what these guys have published supporting ID.

What is really funny here is that the Robert Carroll book is a textbook that strongly supports evolution:

Cambridge Press
This new text provides an integrated view of the forces that influence the patterns and rates of vertebrate evolution from the level of living populations and species to those that resulted in the origin of the major vertebrate groups. The evolutionary roles of behaviour, development, continental drift, and mass extinctions are compared with the importance of variation and natural selection that were emphasised by Darwin. It is extensively illustrated, showing major transitions between fish and amphibians, dinosaurs and birds, and land mammals and whales. No book since Simpson’s Major Features of Evolution has attempted such a broad study of the patterns and forces of evolutionary change. Undergraduate students taking a general or advanced course on evolution, and graduate students and professionals working in evolutionary biology and palaeontology will find the book of great interest.

Click to expand...

Now where in the above textbook is there ANY experimental data supporting ID?

It looks like you prefer to parrot your ID site which lists these papers, but what you don't seem to grasp is that none of them contain any experimental work that supports ID.

Even the Meyer paper has NO DATA in it that supports ID, it's a review paper only. From a critique of Meyer's paper from Panda's Thumb:

EXCERPT
“Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article” that folds the various lines of “intelligent design” antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools. It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists. This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile. Only through this route — convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas — can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.

Unfortunately, the ID movement will likely ignore the above considerations about how scientific review actually works, and instead trumpet the paper from coast to coast as proving the scientific legitimacy of ID. Therefore, we would like to do our part in the review process by providing a preliminary evaluation of the claims made in Meyer’s paper. Given the scientific stakes, we may assume that Meyer, Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the major organization promoting ID, has put forward the best case that ID has to offer. Discouragingly, it appears that ID’s best case is not very good. . . . We cannot review every problem with Meyer’s article in this initial post, but we would like to highlight some of the most serious mistakes. These include errors in facts and reasoning. Even more seriously, Meyer’s paper omits discussion or even citation of vast amounts of directly relevant work available in the scientific literature.

Summary of the paper

Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of “intelligent design” presented, just as in all previous work on “intelligent design”. Just as a detective doesn’t have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn’t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. “An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.

Meyer’s paper, therefore, is almost entirely based on negative argument.

Click to expand...

Note the last sentence "Meyer’s paper, therefore, is almost entirely based on negative argument. " In other words, he has no "affirmative" defence of ID, meaning he presents NO experimental data supporting ID which is in reality nothing but Paley's Watchmaker, tricked out in pseudo-scientific garb. Dressing it up with in 21st century scientific garb and renaming it "Intelligent Design/Irreducible Complexity doesn't make into a scientific notion, despite Dembski's denial to the contrary. It's not a surprise there's no "affirmative defence" of ID because there is no way to gather scientific support for 200 year old idea whose primary premise is "God-did-it"(the supernatural is not a testable hypothesis). In additon there is no methodology for recognizing "design" (Dembski's method is a philosopical one, not a scientific one, his book on the subject was reviewed by philosophers, not scientists). Where's the beef? (evidence that ID is really a science and not simply philosophy attempting to masquerade as science)

The ball's in your court now, Paladin. Where is the data from the above papers that supports ID? Perhaps you would like to refute this excellent critique of ID set forth here in these posts by Lucretius, using this alleged support of ID....

Intelligent Design Is Not Science (OP)
Part Two of "Intelligent Design Is Not Science"
Part Three of "Intelligent Design Is Not Science"

Tomk80 said:

Thanks for clearing that up!
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gladiatrix again.

Click to expand...

Sanguine said:

Sometimes I think you put in too much effort Glad.

Have some rep

Click to expand...

Thanks, guys! I appreciate that...

bevets said:

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)...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... all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication...Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

Click to expand...

Electric Sceptic said:

And it probably was worthy of publication. In a religious journal. Not in a science journal, because ID is not science.

Click to expand...

Pot, Meet Kettle

Intelligent Design, in any event, is hardly a made-to-order prop for any particular religion. When the British atheist philosopher Antony Flew made news this winter by declaring that he had become a deist--a believer in an unbiblical "god of the philosophers" who takes no notice of our lives--he pointed to the plausibility of ID theory.

Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ Michael Ruse National Post May 13, 2000

Hence, Huxley saw the need to found his own church, and evolution was the ideal cornerstone. It offered a story of origins, one that (thanks to progress) puts humans at the center and top and that could even provide moral messages. The philosopher Herbert Spencer was a great help here. He was ever ready to urge his fellow Victorians that the way to true virtue lies through progress, which comes from promoting a struggle in society as well as in biology--a laissez-faire socioeconomic philosophy. Thus, evolution had its commandments no less than did Christianity. And so Huxley preached evolution-as-world-view at working men's clubs, from the podia during presidential addresses, and in debates with clerics--notably Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford. He even aided the founding of new cathedrals of evolution, stuffed with displays of dinosaurs newly discovered in the American West. Except, of course, these halls of worship were better known as natural history museums. ~ Michael Ruse Science Mar 7 2003 p.1524

_Paladin_ said:

Objective science? or Close-minded bullying?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

Click to expand...

bevets said:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001173.html
http://www.rsternberg.net/

Click to expand...

Tomk80 said:

So now we have two conflicting stories. One of the guy getting fired, claiming he did follow standard procedures, one of the magazine claiming they fired the guy because he did not follow standard procedures. Do I have that correct so far?

Click to expand...

gladiatrix said:

What I have noticed is that Bevets and Co. have allowed this misconception to continue throughout this thread.

Click to expand...

http://www.shadowboxing.com/
Note: To fully appreciate this link sound should be turned on.

Mr. Sternberg's editorship has since expired, as it was scheduled to anyway, but his future as a researcher is in jeopardy--and that he had not planned on at all. He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned. He now rests his hope for vindication on his complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirms that the OSC is investigating. Says Mr. Sternberg: "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

bevets said:

<snip uninteresting quote mines>

Mr. Sternberg's editorship has since expired, as it was scheduled to anyway, but his future as a researcher is in jeopardy--and that he had not planned on at all. He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned. He now rests his hope for vindication on his complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirms that the OSC is investigating. Says Mr. Sternberg: "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

Click to expand...

And not surprisingly. If the review of Panda's Thumb is anywhere near accurate (I'm working on both the review and the original article now) Meyer's review was very poor work indeed and shouldn't have passed peer-review. Not because of the viewpoints it sets forth, but because of the poor research and poor lines of reasoning. Gladiatrix already set out some of the main points, but there seem to be many more. So that his future as a researcher could be in jeopardy (although I still have to check whether that is correct also), is not at all surprising.

The only way for a "design inference" to work, is if we already have a known model of what force is doing the designing.

Basically, this says to me, ID claim to know God, they know all about God, they have wisdom that can encompass and consume God-- therefore, they don't need Faith, they can infer his actions through reality.

As a Christian, this seems dangerous to me. Christ cannot be mirrored in the interplay of material things. We can't presume to know the heart and mind of God. If God is playing with reality, then it necessarily must be a mystery beyond our human comprehension.

For me, when and IDer says I have seen God in the world, they are basically saying: i have named and defined God, therefore God is less than me-- the power that knows and describes him. Its a lunge for power through knowledge, not through love of Christ.

Sanguine said:

Sometimes I think you put in too much effort Glad.

Click to expand...

One thing's certain...when I see a post with "gladiatrix" at its head I know that the post will cut to the heart of the matter, citing references and sources to establish the facts of the issue under debate, "clearing the floor" and allowing us to re-focus on what is really at issue, rather than someone's spurious claims about it.

I immensely enjoy and value your posts, glad, and am very glad for the (obviously large) amount of research you do.

MVP (Most Valuable Poster) - gladiatrix.

bevets said:

Intelligent Design, in any event, is hardly a made-to-order prop for any particular religion. When the British atheist philosopher Antony Flew made news this winter by declaring that he had become a deist--a believer in an unbiblical "god of the philosophers" who takes no notice of our lives--he pointed to the plausibility of ID theory.

Click to expand...

ID is exactly a made-to-order prop for christianity. That's ALL it is. Its proponents are all christians; they have announced that they view ID as a 'wedge' to get christianity back into the classroom.

bevets said:

Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.

Click to expand...

Darwinism is not an essential ingredient to anything. Evolution is an essential ingredient - of biological science. Evolution is not a faith, it is not quasi-religious.

bevets said:

Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ Michael Ruse National Post May 13, 2000

Click to expand...

Evolution is not a religion. This lie has been told often enough. Consult any dictionary.

But, of course, it's a waste of time even posting this, since bevets is incapable of debate and will just post more quotes, many of them out-of-context, which will demonstrate absolutely nothing.

In some ways I respect professional creationists more than professional IDists. At least creationist readily admit they will be delving into logical fallacy land and religious support.

Bevets post,
1) I find it interesting he would cite Flew as an example of how ID isn't just christian. Although I would agree, ID is deist as well (Something that creationists often hate it for) quoting Flew isn't the best idea, since it was just shown in another thread that he admitted he was wrong.

2) The Ruse quote. I always find it interesting when searching for a quote by creationists that I find the same quote in the same format on dozens of sites.
Someone on TWeb decided to actually contact Ruse to find out about it,
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5477

bevets said:

Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

Click to expand...

Which demonstrates the authors foolishness, since secularism predates Darwinism.

bevets said:

Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ Michael Ruse National Post May 13, 2000

Click to expand...

FWIW, from http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/rusem/canadbac.htm
"Michael Ruse does not begin his book from neutral ground. The first sentences are:
Let me be open. I think that evolution is a fact and that Darwinism rules triumphant. []Ruse begins with chapters defining Darwinism and Christianity, before exploring the ways in which these are thought to clash, the ways in which they do clash, and how they can reconciled."

Whatever the point Ruse was trying to get across by the quotes you provide he clearly does not see a major conflict between Darwinism and Christianity and while he may view Darwinism in some fashion as a religion he also views it as science.

Matthew777 said:

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

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting God is a Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

_Paladin_ said:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

This person was not even an ID.

Click to expand...

ISCID stands for International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
From http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php.

_Paladin_ said:

Now that [evolutionists] are the ones in power, they seem to have the same close-minded mentality that the creationists did.
[]

Click to expand...

I don't have time to debate the fine points of ID here, I just wanted to clarify one point, the article in question was peer reviewed, but it appears that the editor, who is an IDist, may have cherry picked the reviewers. Basically he was given a position of trust and so they trusted him. He appears to have taken that opportunity and published a paper of questionable merit that was outside the normal purview of the journal.

Robert the Pilegrim said:

ISCID stands for International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design


From http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php.

Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) have distinguished themselves for their work in complex systems. In addition to fostering the society's intellectual life and guiding its various programs, fellows serve as the editorial advisory board that peer-reviews the society's journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID).

Richard Sternberg Systematics NCBI-GenBank (NIH)
​

I don't have time to debate the fine points of ID here, I just wanted to clarify one point, the article in question was peer reviewed, but it appears that the editor, who is an IDist, may have cherry picked the reviewers. Basically he was given a position of trust and so they trusted him. He appears to have taken that opportunity and published a paper of questionable merit that was outside the normal purview of the journal.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, not necessarily. Sternberg may be a fellow at the ISCID, but one of the people at the Panda's Thumb made a valid remark on this, stating that he may actually be playing the devil's advocate there. On Sternberg's site he published a letter from the 'baraminology study group' (or something like that) stating something in that direction. So, despite being a fellow, he may not necessarily be an ID-ist. At this point I'm getting a bit curious on who the reviewers where.