Joined: Dec. 2007
|Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)|
|Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again. I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.|
I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility. I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc. Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.
Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August. Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.
One quick reply, about the use of quotations in scientific writing. I agree that quoted material occurs very rarely in primary research publications. Quotes occur frequently in science books, however: take a look, for instance, at Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale.
I'll check back in from my hotel in Rome.
P.S. to Lenny and JAM: if you can specify terms, with a dollar cap of $1,000 and some practical way to set up an escrow account where both parties' money will be on deposit, your bet sounds very attractive. But let's see precise terms.
How did that turn out? Did the Discovery Institute ever host a lightly moderated discussion of Explore Evolution? I'm betting not.
...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016