Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,08:48)|
|In a formal debate you would get no points for that argument. Don't get me wrong I do agree with you in every point but:|
1) You have not shown that the articles are "unscientific"
We've hashed Behe's article to death. It's not horribly unscientific (though is categories of loss, modification and gain are pretty subjective), but we've explained repeatedly how his paper doesn't show what it's proponents claim. Wesley linked to discussions of Axe's paper, showing why it's a crock. Quite a few other ID papers have been extensively debunked in various places as well. At some point, it becomes a game of junk-paper whack-a-mole.
|2) the measure of citation for items which are on the cutting edge of science might be expected to be low and is in any case really a subjective measure of the value of a study.|
Not so. Every scientist wants to be on the cutting edge. If this stuff were perceived as actually cutting edge, it would get more citations, not less. True, citation rates are not an objective measure of importance, but they are a very good indication of whether other scientists consider important.
|3) If I write a theory of the spaghetty flying monster that explains string theory with the use of Zibibop power. Someone with a normal mind has got to denouce the fact that I've lost it especially since I have an organisation that supports the SFM and that I call myself a respectible scientist.|
No. Nobody has any obligation to say a word about it. You're theory would be bogus either way. If enough people started believing you, and that affects others, then perhaps respectable people will start to denounce you. And that's exactly the case with ID & "scientific" creationism. Respectable scientists (like Elsberry) have taken the time to denounce this stuff as the crap that it is.
|4) If you're ignoring something you either don't know that it exists or if you do it just means that you:|
a) Can't find the time to call it rubbish (shameful)
b) Can't find a reason to call it rubbish (verry worring)
c) Can't find a problem with the item and just don't know what to do with it, which would not mean that it is not useful but that you can't understand it. (I believe that this is not the case with the Bio-complexity articles which are in fact junk).
It's not being ignored. It has been called rubbish, and the reasons that it's rubbish have been given repeatedly.
|5) Just because google scholar / pub-med do not indicate results it does in no way demish the particular value that a study may have.|
True, but it's another indication that the study is not considered valuable.
I'm not quite sure what you're expecting here. Even if the NAS came out with a list saying "These journals and these papers are junk," so what? ID proponents would claim conspiracy, just like they have already. The real issue is whether these papers and claims hold up to scientific scrutiny, and they don't.