N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
From Robert Byers,
| Quote |
There are excellent women who give their minds and energy to organized YEC work. There are ID women kicking around and write for these forums.
Women have sincerely successfully applied themselves to conquoring “science” subjects and getting the rwrds.
There is however a liberal establishment with a agenda to promote women and this means over more deserving men. Affirmative action , openly/secret, is powerful in nOrth america.
They want women to be as smart as men in these perceived smarter things.
They think it should be at least 50/50.
However it ain’t and it never will.
Women do not have the same motivation for achievement as men and this is the explanation for failure to keep up with men intellectually.
Its a effort.
Science fields are just more fields that demonstrate female lack of interest in stuff.
So the great campaign to push them in , and over male rights, will in the end fail.
In fact it must be already interfering with progress in paid circles.
The bible teaches man is to be the one with ambition and women to be wives to support him.
woman deeply feel this and it comes out in lack of motivation.
Despite a society pushing them to be equal.
In reality only entry level teenage women for a while can kkep up to males.
Beyond studying women will always come up shiort.
Not dumber but not on the make.
I see , relatively, few women who would interest me or show me they have something to offer in Science.
Not many men but few women.
yet lets welcome all, as long as no interference with men, and see what mankind can do. |
Hey Bobbie,
(1) don't judge women's abilities to contribute in science on the basis of what you know about Denyse - she's not representative,
(2) so I guess from your example that writing is not one of those intellectual "perceived smarter things" that men are inherently better at?
(3) if there are any women in your life, please give them my condolences, and let them know that if I end up on their jury, I'll vote to acquit.
Somehow I doubt that Byers and the rest of the UD crew constitute the team that Dembski had hoped to field in his showcase for ID - from Dembski at http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm in 2002: | Quote | 5. Objective Measures of Progress (OMP)
How do we gauge how well we are doing in developing ID as a scientific research program? We need some objective measures of progress. Rather than lay out such measures in pedantic detail, let me indicate what they are under four rubrics, each followed by a series of questions:
Intellectual Vitality. Have we become boring? Have we run out of things to say? Is the fount of fresh ideas drying up? Are we constantly repeating ourselves? Are people who once were excited about what we're doing no longer excited? Or do we have the intellectual initiative? Are we setting the agenda for the problems being discussed? Are we ourselves energized by our research? Is there nothing we'd rather be doing than work on intelligent design? Are our ideas strong enough to engage the best and the brightest on the other side?
Intellectual Standards. Are we holding ourselves to high intellectual standards? Are we in the least self-critical about our work? Are we sober or immodest about our work? Do we demand precision and rigor from our each other? Do we examine each other's work with intense critical scrutiny and speak our minds freely in assessing it? Or do we try to keep all our interactions civil, gentlemanly, and diplomatic (perhaps so as not to give the appearance of dissension in our ranks)? Does the mood of our movement alternate between the smug and the indignant -- smug when we hold the upper hand, indignant when we are criticized? Do we react to adverse criticism like first-time novelists who are dismayed to discover that their masterpiece has been trashed by the critics? Or do we take adverse criticism as an occasion for tightening and improving our work?
Exiting the Ghetto. Do we refuse to be marginalized within an intellectual ghetto or second-class subculture? Are scholars and scientists on the other side actually getting to know us? Once they get to know us, do they still demonize us or do they think that we have an interesting, albeit perverse, point of view? Is intelligent design's appeal international? Does it cross religious boundaries? Or is it increasingly confined to American evangelicalism? Who owns ID? Are we trying to get our ideas into the scientific mainstream? Are we continuing to plug away at getting our work published in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature (despite the deck being stacked against us)? Or are we seeking safe havens where we can publish our work easily, yet mainly for the benefit of each other? At the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, for instance, we encourage contributors to the society's journal also to submit their articles to the mainstream literature. John Bracht, for instance, recently had his lengthy design-theoretic appraisal of Stuart Kauffman's latest book, Investigations, accepted in the Santa Fe Institute's journal Complexity. This is precisely what needs to happen.
Attracting Talent. Are we continually attracting new talent to intelligent design's scientific research program? Does that talent include intellects of the highest caliber? Is that talent distributed across the disciplines or confined only to certain disciplines? Are under-represented disciplines getting filled? What about talent that's been with the movement in the past? Is it staying with the movement or becoming disillusioned and aligning itself elsewhere? Do the same names associated with intelligent design keep coming up in print or are we constantly adding new names? Are we fun to be around? Do we have a colorful assortment of characters? Other things being equal, would you rather party with a design theorist or a Darwinist? |
|
