Denyse O'Leary has posted a four part article on peer review at The ID Report and also at Post-Darwinist.
Mike Dunford of "The Questionable Authority" responds in a well-reasoned and well-researched article. The bottom line is, peer review isn't perfect but it's way better than the second choice (whatever that is).
12 comments :
What's an "Intelligent Design Creationist"?
I know there are IDists and there are Creationists. I also know there are differences in the two. Therefore wouldn't only an intellectual coward try to conflate the two?
Intelligent Design and Creation(ism)
Ignorance is bad. But the brand of willful ignorance spewed by Larry is uncalled for.
And if peer-review is broken- as evidenced by the Korean debacle- it needs to be fixed.
When you can create an ID textbook by taking a Creationism textbook (Of Pandas and People) and replacing "creationism" with "intelligent design", it's reasonable to say that there's not a lot of difference between the two. See also the Kitzmuller vs Dover case, in which the judge determined that there is no substantive difference between the two.
The Korean situation actually demonstrates that the current system functions well (though not perfectly). Occasional errors (or in some cases fraud) get published and then are caught by other scientists who try to replicate their work. This is why we say science is self correcting; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The judge didn't "determine" anything. He obviously had his mind made up before the trial started. If he didn't he would have allowed the publishers of "Of Pandas and People" testify- or at least he would have read their brief. He did neither. IOW he wasn't interested in any finding of facts.
And if James had bothered to read what I linked to he would easily see the differences between ID and Creation. That he did not just means he doesn't care and instead chooses to argue from ignorance- which is the typical anti-ID position.
And Cameron, if the current system worked there wouldn't have been a Korean debacle.
And extraordinary evidence is required if one wishes to demonstrate that bacteria can evolve into anything other than bacteria- or any population of single-celled organisms evolving into anything but single-celled organisms. Guess what- such evidence does not exist.
joe g, speaking of intellectual cowards, do your ID friends Bill and Denyse believe in a supernatural creator—also called God?
Show me a significant number of intelligent designers who don't believe that God is the designer. The connection between Intelligent Design Creationism and religion is so obvious that anyone who attempts to deny it is an IDiot.
BTW, you're part of the B team, right? Why not go back to the dark side and ask them to send over a first-stringer?
Larry:
do your ID friends Bill and Denyse believe in a supernatural creator—also called God?
I don't know and I don't care as it is irrelevant to ID.
Larry:
Show me a significant number of intelligent designers who don't believe that God is the designer.
How or why is that even relevant? Gonzalez told the AP that ID does NOT require a belief in God.
Larry:
The connection between Intelligent Design Creationism and religion is so obvious that anyone who attempts to deny it is an IDiot.
There isn't any connection between ID and religion. Anyone who knew anything about ID knows that. Does the name Anthony Flew mean anything to you? He was an atheist, now he accepts ID. Go figure...
BTW I am not a christian, yet I am an IDist.
As for someone else coming here- don't hold your breath- I can more than handle your nonsense and unsupported claims.
And why is it that IDists and Creationists know and understand the differences between the two yet only a few people who know very little of either try to conflate them? To me that says it all...
Joe G said...
Therefore wouldn't only an intellectual coward try to conflate the two? [ID & Creo]
You mean like to authors of "Of Pandas and People" where they searched on Creationism and replaced it with ID before publishing?
Differences between ID and creationism? Yeah, sure, just like there are differences between various sects of Fundamentalist Christianity (but at least they all agree that the other is going straight to hell). But to the rest of us those differences don't matter much. The essence of ID/creationism is the same: start with the conclusion you want to draw (that evolution is false and the Bible is true), and commit every logical, ethical and statistical fallacy you can to make the case to yourself and your likeminded brethren.
And of course if an impartial group of expert accomplished observers who have functioned very efficiently for many years decides you are full of falafals, don't dare check your premises. No, accuse the system of being biased against you, and invent a fictional conspiracy of mean ol' atheists out to get you and squish The Truth (tm).
Every crackpot out there, the flat earthers, the perpetual motion designers, the Hutchison guys, the UFO nuts, the psychics, all of them, claim some sort of conspiray to suppress the truth they alone hold. Welcome to the club.
Joe G chewed up and spit out his sour grapes: The judge didn't "determine" anything. He obviously had his mind made up before the trial started.
And you know this how, exactly? [eye roll]
Then he goes on to show his hilarious ignorance of his own movement: There isn't any connection between ID and religion.
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."
--William Dembski, Introduction to Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology
Hmm. Bridge. Science. Theology. Seems a pretty clear connection to me.
You're fighting well below your weight class here, Joe.
Joe G declared:
BTW I am not a christian, yet I am an IDist.
No, just a Muslim and Young Earth Creationist. It's good that we have a wide variety of views on origins coming from the ID camp.
There is another reason why Creationism is inseparable from ID. ID implies that some species did not evolve, but were designed. The question is how do "designed" species get "implemented"? If they didn't evolve, they must have been created, right?
I am an atheist, but I truly believe that there are religious people who believe that religion can bring people together and make a better world. I don't agree but I understand, and if all religious people were like that the world would be a better place.
The fundamentalists who come here to troll are of a second group. For them, it's about being right. And even more importantly, it's about being acknowledged as being right by their enemies. They claim they want us to kneel to God, or Jesus, or Allah, or whoever, but what they really want is for us to say, "You were right and we were wrong." That will be their triumph. Especially if we end up in Hell anyway. That would be the cherry on top. They don't want to save us, they want to beat us.
They never will. They defeat themselves every time they lie, and they lie a lot. They fight for a petty prize, and they are their own worst enemy.
They sure can be funny, though.
Post a Comment