For scientists who accept evolution

[JamesM]

The idea that a group could have so much power as to punish an editor for "allowing" one of these papers through the iron curtain, is itself pretty damning.

Why? ID is unscientific junk, it has no more place in a scientific journal than Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

"unbiased" Darwinism community

Who says they're unbiased? They're certainly going to be biased against unscientific junk with a hidden religious agenda.

their claims of a scientific dictatorship are not too far fetched.

That's not controversial - there is a scientific dictatorship, it's called reality. Unscientific junk isn't given an equal hearing compared to real science.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk,



Assuming that the numbers are in fact accurate and that no other factors are masking these numbers, let's apply the same formula to some other theory, say general relativity. Surely there are 68 physicists out there who question whether the theory of relativity is the best theory to fit the data, maybe more. Even if there were six, not sixty, the issue really boils down to whether or not the dominate group of scientists has the right to form an anti-group against those skeptics, and further to bar their publications from scientific journals. This is scientific imperialism, not good science as groups like the discovery institute claim.

The idea that a group could have so much power as to punish an editor for "allowing" one of these papers through the iron curtain, is itself pretty damning. I would merely link to this editor as the first example of what the "unbiased" Darwinism community does with anyone appearing to dissent with its fundamentalist tenants. Even the Office of Special Counsel verified his claims upon investigation:

http://www.rsternberg.net/


Sad thing is that the guy is not even a creationist.

Flick

ETA - I'm not claiming the discovery institute is "good science" only pointing out that their claims of a scientific dictatorship are not too far fetched.

So, name the dictator. This rhetoric is a ruse. The fact is, ID is indefensible from a scientific standpoint, and so its proponents are trying to get public opinion on their side with dog and pony tricks.

ETA:

Even if there were six, not sixty, the issue really boils down to whether or not the dominate group of scientists has the right to form an anti-group against those skeptics, and further to bar their publications from scientific journals.

Wrong. The issue boils down to whether or not the six dissenters are doing good science. (Not, for instance, trying to redefine science [the very tool, I mean, not the body of knowledge] to make their theory workable.)

 

[Bronze Dog]

So, name the dictator. This rhetoric is a ruse. The fact is, ID is indefensible from a scientific standpoint, and so its proponents are trying to get public opinion on their side with dog and pony tricks.

So true. In fact, as it stands now, ID can't stand the simplest logical scrutiny, and can be dismissed by the magic words "Argumentum ad ignoratium". A "hypothesis" as flimsy as ID isn't even strong enough to crawl up to the plate, much less bat.

 

[delphi_ote]

I would merely link to this editor as the first example of what the "unbiased" Darwinism community does with anyone appearing to dissent with its fundamentalist tenants.

"Darwinism community," huh?

That sounds like the vocabulary of uneducated creationism to me...

 

[CapelDodger]

If Pastafarianism is a joke, what does that make all those other denominations?

Old jokes. Ah, there's the rub ...

 

[CapelDodger]

"Godless atheists and unbelievers support Darwinism."

That we do. And Darwinism supports us.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Are there any good debates between these groups online that a person can actually read-- I mean real debates? Or do they never debate each other?

Saladin debates Gish

However, debating a creationist is a specialist job. Consider a paeleontologist put in such a position. He will know a lot about geology and fossils and animal morphology. He will be faced with an opponent who bases his arguments on false statements about the Big Bang, comets, the Moon, information theory, thermodynamics, the speed of light, comets, gravity, the imaginary "law of cause and effect", the position of God in scientific thought, the law of conservation of angular momentum, basic chemistry, and other things which have nothing to do with either the paelontologist's area of expertise nor with evolution. If you think I'm exaggerating, these all all topics covered in one single creationist tract, the title of which was "Evolution 101".

The paeleontologist would, of course, be unable to reply. Of course, the creationist is also singularly unqualified to talk about the subjects on which he discourses so glibly. But he doesn't know it.

To debate a creationist well, then, it is necessary to be an expert, not merely in biology, but also in creationist nonsense.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, utilization is the key here? That hardly seems "scientific" in and of itself.

It seems eminently scientific to me. The test of a theory is in its use. Any man can believe that there are faries at the bottom of his garden if he carefully refrains from going to the bottom of his garden and looking.

Consider Glen Morton's account of why he stopped being a YEC:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

He and his fellow-students could believe what they liked about rocks --- until they had to do some geology.

The test of a theory is whether it survives experience. The 83% may be very clever, but they have not had the experience: nor does their profession as scientists mean that they are familiar with the great mass of data supporting evolution.

The fact that a man is, say, a solid-state physicist does not give his opinion any particular weight in questions of evolutionary biology any more than in questions of, say, botany. Why should it? But the opinions of a man whose business it is to examine the facts of biology carry a lot more weight with me.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Of course, I prefer to ignore the people making the assertions and focus on the evidence behind those assertions. ID has none.

 

[RichardR]

Damn, I'd have gone in and added myself as a serious entry, but it's too late now, and I was sunning myself in the middle of the Mediterranean at the seminal moment....

Rolfe.

You still can:

The petition has two phases. The first phase was the Four Day Petition, which was a symbolic reference to the Discovery Institutes A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism which took four years to generate just over 400 signatures. The Four Day Petition generated 8,000* signatories of concerned scientists. The second phase is an ongoing petition which will build upon the Four Day Petition, read more about this in "What Happens Now" below.


...

What Happens Now? The official version of the petition that will be presented to the media in a press release this coming week and submitted as an amicus legal document if any future Intelligent Design court battles occurs is officially cut off of 4:09PM Oct 1st, 2005. However because of the popularity of this petition I will not be shutting it down. Instead, after the final tally is made there will be a link to that official document here. On this page the entry form for the petition will stay active as a running tally and public display of our concerns.

​

Also note:

​

*The Four Day Petition is being examined for duplicate and fake entries. This task should be completed the week of Oct 3, 2005.​

 

[Jyera]

On this site they are trying to see how many scientists in four days they can get to sign up to say they accept evolution. The four days ends 2.09pm EST tomorrow (Saturday Oct 1).

They are going to compare the number they get with the Discovery Institute’s (that's the intelligent design group) 400 scientists they say signed to oppose evolution - except that it took them FOUR YEARS.

So far they have over 4500 signatures. If you’re a scientist go there and sign!

I would say this is a good piece of action!

 

[stamenflicker]

Einstein didn't sign a petition asserting his position regarding someone else's ideas. He did science.

Einstein generated a mathematical theory that to this date has withheld experimental scrutiny. There are some out there however who feel the theory may one day be overturned. Are they barred from scientific journals for merely holding this viewpoint?

So, name the dictator. This rhetoric is a ruse. The fact is, ID is indefensible from a scientific standpoint, and so its proponents are trying to get public opinion on their side with dog and pony tricks.

So did you even read the link I provided? It is so obvious that the "first" paper from an ID theorist that made it to print in a scientific journal was met with a "shock and awe" campaign of proportions not equitable to other fields of inquiry outside the dominant purview. That's my only point and that is scientific imperialism... no different than religious fundamentalism going after a homosexual who published a book in your local feel good Christian bookstore.

Wrong. The issue boils down to whether or not the six dissenters are doing good science.

No sir. The issue is that they are damned even if they do.

Flick

 

[Bronze Dog]

No sir. The issue is that they are damned even if they do.

We won't know that until they do good science.

 

[stamenflicker]

Saladin debates Gish

Surely 1988 isn't as good as it gets. YEC was peaking in its ignorance during the conservative 80's. I didn't read the link, but I will if you think its indicative of today's debates.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

We won't know that until they do good science.

And you won't know if they do if they are barred from publication. Have you read the article in Proceedings? I've seen some good reviews from both sides of the fence on the article. I'll try to find a link. O but wait, its from an ID theorist, so it can't be any good, right? I may not be a scientist, but as a Christian, I am all too familar with dogma. And it sours my taste no matter what field of inquiry I find it.

Flick

 

[Bronze Dog]

And you won't know if they do if they are barred from publication. Have you read the article in Proceedings? I've seen some good reviews from both sides of the fence on the article. I'll try to find a link. O but wait, its from an ID theorist, so it can't be any good, right? I may not be a scientist, but as a Christian, I am all too familar with dogma. And it sours my taste no matter what field of inquiry I find it.

Flick

Stop putting words into my mouth. That's a dirty tactic.

Here's a start: What's the testable hypothesis IDers go by?

 

[CplFerro]

Science is not decided by consensus. The whole idea of this list is risible.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Science is not decided by consensus. The whole idea of this list is risible.

Agreed, though there is some level of non-intellectual satisfaction if the numbers turn out your way... Or against, since woos love the Galileo Gambit.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Einstein generated a mathematical theory that to this date has withheld experimental scrutiny. There are some out there however who feel the theory may one day be overturned. Are they barred from scientific journals for merely holding this viewpoint?

Yes. If the science is no good.

So did you even read the link I provided? It is so obvious that the "first" paper from an ID theorist that made it to print in a scientific journal was met with a "shock and awe" campaign of proportions not equitable to other fields of inquiry outside the dominant purview. That's my only point and that is scientific imperialism... no different than religious fundamentalism going after a homosexual who published a book in your local feel good Christian bookstore.

I read it. But it's irrelevant to whether or not ID has any validity.
Your comparison is bad. People don't publish books in specific stores. The store has the option of not carrying a book. It would be more like customers coming down on the store owner for carrying a gay book because a Christian book store is not an appropriate venue. Which is irrelevant to whether or not ID has any validity.

No sir. The issue is that they are damned even if they do.

"Damned"? ID proponents have had no trouble publishing and getting public venues. Don't pity the poor ID proponent. If further work is done and the science turns out to be good (don't hold your breath) then they'll get in their precious science journals, don't worry your little head about that. You can't whine your way into legitimacy.

Let me ask you something: do you read these journals? Because most people don't. They're rather dry and boring. And yet, there's no lack of opportunity to find out about ID.

ETA: Which is irrelevant to whether or not ID has any validity.

These guys just love playing the martyr. Pi$$es me off.

 

[stamenflicker]

I read it. But it's irrelevant to whether or not ID has any validity.

While certainly the "validity" of ID might have some bearing on the discussion, it is more or less irrelevant to me in that I'm not an ID proponent. Once again, let me reiteriate that what is of importance to me is:

ID theorist have their ideas attacked in ways that are not even remotely similar to other fields of inquiry which are generated outside the dominant purview. The "dissent" form that scientists signed when ID really got getting merely said this:

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwianian theory should be encouraged.

I realize that this group has alterior motives, which is why I'm not a fan. However, the above statement at face value should generate zero alarm for either the healthy skeptic or the convinced scientist. The healthy skeptic is free to doubt anything that lacks observability and testability with regards to complexity. The convinced scientist is free to allow the weight of evidence and faith in future scientific discovery to reach a conclusion regarding complexity.

Given the above statement, personal agenda aside, how is it not "good science" to point out weaknesses of any theory?

don't worry your little head about that. You can't whine your way into legitimacy.

I'm merely pointing out the facts regarding one man's treatment after allowing an ID paper into print. This is the atmosphere, and like any and every fundamentalist I have ever met, most of the Darwinian community is unwilling to admit it exists.

Let me ask you something: do you read these journals?

Not often.

ETA: Which is irrelevant to whether or not ID has any validity.

Again, ID and validity. I'm not a proponent. I believe I am a healthy skeptic.

Flick