JLT
Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008
|
| Quote (sparc @ May 02 2010,06:08) | | WIll the journal thus be open to YEC and OEC? |
I checked some people on that board whose names I hadn't heard before.
Peter Imming is listed for organic chemistry, but is actually a prof for pharmaceutical chemistry. He questions common descent especially for humans and apes.
| Quote | | Nun ist an der Evolution der Hominiden allerdings nur unumstritten, dass sie umstritten ist, was angesichts der wenigen Fossilien auch kein wissenschaftliches Wunder ist. [...] Bedenkt man, dass es kein einziges wirklich für alt gehaltenes Schimpansenfossil gibt, so wird der Wagemut mancher Forscher offenbar, aus den oft dünnen Daten ein Modell Millionen Jahre langer Abstammungsgeschichte von Menschen und Tieren zu konstruieren. Darüber hinaus wird hier ein Gedankensprung sichtbar, der vielen Organismen-Vergleichen innewohnt und normalerweise nicht klar benannt wird. Man findet Ähnlichkeiten und interpretiert sie als Beweis für Evolution. Die Ähnlichkeiten haben aber eo ipso diese Beweiskraft nicht, sondern man war in die ganze Überlegung mit der Annahme eingestiegen, dass alle Lebewesen durch ungelenkte Evolution auseinander entstanden seien. Und diese Annahme findet man zwangsläufig wieder. Die alternative Folgerung, dass die Ähnlichkeiten auf einen gemeinsamen Baumeister zurückgehen, wird aus meist nicht erläuterten Gründen nicht erwogen. |
Source: Affen sind anders - aber wie?
William Basener seems to have a problem with scientific naturalism (and proof reading).
| Quote | I believe in a a Bible-based God Who is the Creator of the univesre: [...]
Isn't this old fashioned? In this day of modern Science, do we still need God? Modern science has brought us great knowledge and power, but not great love and morality. When modern science brings us nuclear weapons, I am certain I need God. When science provides efficiently deadly chemicals, I am certain I need God.
There is a logical flaw in believing that science superscedes faith. Science is knowlege obtained by experimentation and faith enables us to handle that knowlege. Today's modern culture often confuses the philosophical belief system of scientific naturalism with true science. Scientific naturalism is the belief that the experimental universe is all that exists. It is illogical to conclude that science, which deals soley with experiements, can demonstrate the validity of scientific naturalism, a system of faith concerning things beyond the experimental universe. |
Source
Edward T. Peltzer was at the Kansas evolution hearings:
| Quote | Q. First of all, I would like to have your opinion as to what the age of the world is.
A. The-- the best scientific evidence for this is based on the age of meteorites. This-- this was determined by Clair Patterson.
Q. Sir, I-- I'm just asking you what the age is, I'm not interested in the process right now. What is your opinion as to what the age of the world is.
A. I'm-- I'm getting to that.
Q. Just if-- please, I'm asking you, just tell me what you think the age is. I'm not interested in an explanation, I'm just interested in what you believe the age of the world is.
A. I'm-- I'm trying to do that, if you would--
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Abrams, the question, as we agreed, is a direct question. It calls for simply an age.
Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) If you know it, say so. If you don't, say you don't.
A. Very well. 4.596 billion years.
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related to the beginning of life? Yes or no.
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no.
A. No.
Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence if you do not accept common descent?
A. Are you going to allow me to do an explanation?
Q. I'm asking you just to answer the question, please. Would you like for me to repeat it?
A. Yes.
Q. If you do not accept common descent as an explanation for the human species, how did we come into existence?
A. That is the question that science is trying to answer--
Q. No, sir--
A. -- I don't know.
Q. -- my question is, how do you explain it?
A. I don't know. That is the question. There are serious problems with common descent. There are serious problems. It hasn't been demonstrated. There are serious questions there.
Q. I'm not asking you, sir-- I'm only asking you if you do not accept common descent, do you have an explanation for it? Yes or no.
A. As a chemist, I do not. I do not study this.
Q. The minority report says that, "In science we must compare competing hypotheses." Is there a competing hypothesis to common descent that you're aware of?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. And what is that?
A. That would be intelligent design. |
Of course, that doesn't make the journal ID-friendly, because, as Atom puts it:
| Quote | | Just that fact that a journal allows for papers presenting ID findings is, I guess, enough to make us feel it is ID friendly. Friendly, of course, is a relative term when journal editors hostile to ID abound. |
Abound. Indeed.
ETA: The names that I know from that list are either directly involved with ID or just old-fashioned creationists (mainly Europeans that do not need to pretend that their position is not religious):
Abel, Axe, Behe, Carlson, Dembski, Marks, Peltzer, Seelke, Snoke, Sternberg, Wells and
Bradley, Burgess, Imming, Lönnig, Scherer.
Bradley is listed at CreationWiki, Carlson was a witness at the Kansas evolution hearings:
| Quote | Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, which is that all of life is biologically related back to the beginning of life?
A. I-- no. I believe that, as I said, with the term evolution I think common descent is also one where there's-- you know, there's no problem with-- in--
Q. Sir, my question was whether you agree--
A. My comments on--
Q. I'm just asking you whether you agree or not. Do you-- let me repeat the question. I'm not interested in an explanation.
A. Well--
Q. Do you accept-- just please listen to me.
A. I would like--
Q. This is a yes or no question.
A. Yeah.
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no.
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no.
A. I don't accept that as a fact.
Q. I did not hear you.
A. I don't accept that as being a fact, a scientifically-proven fact.
Q. If that is not acceptable to you, what alternative explanation do you propose for how the human species came into existence?
A. That's-- I don't-- I don't have an alternative position on that. That's not my area.
Q. So would it be fair to say that you do not agree with evolutionary theory as far as the common descent principles for the human species, but you do not have an answer as to how it happened?
A. I do not-- I do not have a scientific answer as to how it happened, no.
Q. Is it your opinion that it happened as a result of intelligent design?
A. I believe that design is a-- is-- is a possible-- possible explanation and it should be investigated, yeah.
Q. But you are not suggesting that intelligent design is the answer?
A. Well, scientifically I don't think that's been determined yet, but I think it should be one that's considered. |
--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner
|
