Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 18 2011,09:58)|
|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.|
Yes all points taken and used to the fullest but my reference in the case was to the Bio-complexity org. As an organization to promote "science".
|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.|
Yes Point taken, I agree totally with you. Do you have some links specific to the Bio-complexity org. I would need them on my front.
|It's not being ignored. It has been called rubbish, and the reasons that it's rubbish have been given repeatedly.|
That's great can you send me some links specific to the Bio-complexity org. The only link I had was from panda's thumb that was posted here. Do you have other links?
|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.|
Yes I understand, but you would have them on the defensive, they would be the ones who once again play the conspiracy card but that's their move.
Let me put it to you this way here's kind of how the debate is going on my front:
Someone has confronted me with 2 papers by D. Axe saying well see this proves that what we say is true. A respectable scientist has articles in a peer reviewed science journal which is of the highest standards as can be viewed in it's peer review standards.
Marty answers: Peer review my ass, D.Axe is the MD of the place and is also the author/co-author of the papers. That's one heck of a peer review that you got there.
Answer: Well so what, it's the science that counts right? and these papers show what they show and no one can deny that they are not science. They have passed a peer review (by definition of the term) the organization is bent on promoting real science, all the people involved are honest scientists that hold posts in universities. Which by the way goes to show that not all of science agrees with the evolution theory. (this last point is one of their wedges, ie. create impression that science is not unanimous on evolution theory)
Here are the specific "papers" being quoted:
"The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations"
"The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway"
Seeing as I consider, and as I presume you too think, that all papers of this institute should be identified as codswallop, there must be more than one site that denounces this organization.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin