Subduction Zone
Regular Member
The sad thing is that it is true. We can show you where they were caught and how.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Prove it or remove it challenge
- Thread starter FutureAndAHope
- Start date
- Status
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
I skipped ahead a bit. I noticed that they tried to blow off peer review, and they are right in a sense. Peer review is not absolutely necessary for a new idea. But if you don't go the peer review route you better be sure that there is no doubt at all about your work and that is clearly not the case here. Their dishonesty showed on page 12 where they listed a "ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS" implying that the below were peer reviewed articles. The problem is that not every article in a professional journal is peer reviewed and the first one by Stephen C. Meyer was clearly not peer reviewed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Butterfly99
Getting ready for spring break. Cya!
Op, are you even going to let your son learn about this for himself? Are you going to let him take legit science classes? Cause what's the point in all this if you're just gonna tell him he's not allowed to "believe" in evolution? A kid here said that's what creationists are instructed. Sounds like nothing is going to change your mind so what's the point in all this?
Upvote
0
You take that back!!! Ha ha!
From wiki: In 2004 the Biological Society of Washington made headlines for the Sternberg peer review controversy when the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a peer-reviewed paper in support of intelligent design.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
I couldn't get past the "Bio-Complexity" journal before I burst out laughing. An open access journal that was funded by the Discovery Institute. You can't be serious. Here is a quote from a creationist who reviewed the journal.
"In the larger scheme of things, I am sensing a discouraging pattern to BIO-Complexity publications. As I quoted above, the journal is supposed to be about "testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life," which is a great goal. But this is the fifth paper published by BIO-Complexity, and it's the fifth paper that focuses on perceived inadequacies of evolution. So when are we going to test "the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life?"
Skimming through it quickly, I counted 18 of the 90. That's 20% that need to be thrown out right now. Creating your own journal and funding it with a creationist site is dishonest.
They then make the erroneous claim that Meyer had a "ground breaking" article in Biological Society of Washington. I guess they failed to mention that this article was removed after it there was no consultation with the associate editor. That's a big no-no. I'm not surprised that a creationist site would lie about it. They are famous for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
I see a Douglas Axe citation in there. He actually has credentials. None of the very few papers he has written attempt to refute evolution. The Discovery Institute seems to think his research supports their views. Not even Axe himself agrees with that. He is also on record stating that some data that cannot be explained is evidence for intelligent design. What's the fallacy he's committing here......that would be a false dichotomy. Do I even need to go through the rest of this nonsense?
Oh, I see he co wrote an article with Ann Gauger. She is an author on "Science and Human Origins". Fully debunked by Paul McBride. Yikes, this is not going well for you.
David Snoke? He's a physicist, not a biologist. Try again.
I'm not even a quarter of the way through this and have already pointed out a lot of nonsense. Would you care to link the best one?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No way. It was not peer reviewed. It was published in a peer review journal. The article that you linked even says that:
"Meyer's article was a literature review article, "
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
So you are admitting that you are just a poe and that this was all a lark? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
About what? I pointed out the dishonesty in the link to "peer reviewed research" and I wasn't even a quarter of the way through it. Perhaps you'd like to try again? Perhaps in the form of citing the best paper in that entire list, a quotation from it, a demonstration that you understood the paper and a link to the entire paper. Otherwise, you're just playing a game of pigeon chess.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
And that article was not even peer reviewed as the link that Pater supplied showed so nicely. It was " Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design. "
How would one do peer review on a literature review article? Yes the journal was embarrassed for their stupidity and axed the article after the fact. But it was never a peer reviewed article. Neither are letters to the editor, or even editorials in a peer reviewed journal. Just because an article appears in a peer reviewed journal does not gurantee that it is peer reviewed.
Upvote
0
Ha ha straight off of rationalwiki - did you notice that he heads up the Biologic Institute? That's the research arm of the Discovery Institute.
Upvote
0
I gotta go to bed. Long drive early tomorrow.
Look in the mirror guys. Decide if you're going to be men.
Look in the mirror guys. Decide if you're going to be men.
Upvote
0
To the word that you gave. You said that there aren't "any" peer reviewed articles on ID. I asked if you would admit you are wrong when I prove you are wrong. I have proven you were wrong.
Time to admit it.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
