Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2015,16:43) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 10 2015,11:48) | What does "scanned" mean? Does it mean that you didn't read the whole thing carefully and test its results for yourself? Do you consider that to be scientifically ethical--to make a judgment on the basis of "scanning"? Isn't that the same thing you often complain about, that people haven't "studied" your "theory" before deciding it's worthless? Isn't that a bit hypocritical on your part?
You say it should be rejected because it "...contains no theory (explaining how intelligent cause works)..." Was the purpose of the paper to present research results regarding how intelligence works? I don't think so. So it seems you would reject any paper that doesn't present a theory explaining how intelligence works, even if the authors don't make that claim?
On the basis of "scanning" the paper, would you agree with the characterization of the authors as crackpots? Why or why not? |
Scanned means I went through it carefully enough so that if there was useful information pertaining to how intelligent cause works then I would have found it.
In this case giving the odds of something happening is like saying that the odds of winning a lottery drawing are so remote there can be no winner unless God intervened. I would need to see some kind of evidence that intelligence was involved, which would first require explaining how intelligence works then explaining how that is related to genetic systems. Is that in there? |
So you didn't read it completely and evaluate the results for yourself, but you would recommend that it be rejected on the basis of it lacking information that you shouldn't assume would be there. Gotcha. In any event, why shouldn't a researcher be able to assume the existence of intelligence and its relevance to her work without explaining first how intelligence works?
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
