RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (10) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Biological Information: New Perspectives, The Springer Book Flap< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4523
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,07:36   

Around June 4, 2011, the usual gaggle of antievolutionists held a closed invitation-only meeting in a rented space at Cornell University. The putative topic of discussion was "Biological Information". After the conference, they set about getting their "conference papers" published by a scientific publisher. In various places around the web, little bits of discussion turned up describing how detractors and critics had been kept out, that the unadulterated antievolution objections would be published by a major publisher not yet to be named, and that all that was needed for this plan to come to fruition was to keep the publisher's name quiet until the volume was printed.

Last week, the major scientific publisher was revealed to be Springer Verlag. Springer automatically generates pre-publication announcements for forthcoming books, so in the course of time going on, the book description popped up on Springer's web site and on Amazon.com. The cat was out of the bag.

Nick Matzke posted on Panda's Thumb that Springer had managed to get suckered by a batch of creationists. Within 24 hours, the Springer page for the book was taken down. In news reports, Springer said that the editorial staff was sending the material out for further review.

On the Discovery Institute blog, a knee-jerk post complaining about "censorship!" went up momentarily, was crawled by the Google bot, and then was taken down. Somebody on the religious antievolution side of the fence figured out, belatedly, that the best shot at getting pretty much what they thought they had in the bag would be aided by not stirring up controversy themselves. And the word appears to be going out to the faithful that it should be so. The various places where gloating comments about the conference and subsequent publication suddenly had the comments or posts deleted. Anything that can provide a record of the intentional subterfuge and misleading material provided to Springer is being expunged even now.

So this thread is open to archive and preserve that record as best we can manage, scraping sources from Google cache to Internet Archive. Please post any finds you make here.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4523
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,07:45   

Over on TheologyWeb, "Jorge" had posted a bit of information about conference. He had requested that the moderators delete his thread, which they did. Then "Tiggy" posted a copy of "Jorge"'s post. "Jorge" has requested that that be taken down. I'll post it here, just in case TheologyWeb is inclined to remove it.

Quote

You last visited: Today at 09:18 AM
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:18 AM.
Forum Science Building Natural Science 301
Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

Page 1 of 3123LastResults 1 to 15 of 43
Thread: Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience
                   
Enrolled: January 17th, 2004 Posts: 7,680
 Male  personal  x
Amen 806 Times in 529 PostsTiggy
Online
Thread Owner
March 3rd 2012  12:48 PM
Post: #1
Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience
This particular bit of Creationist dishonesty needs to be archived.

Jorge recently started a thread, then for some reason demanded that it be deleted:

Jump to Post Originally posted by Jorge

Quote

1. I had promised you that the two papers that I co-authored would soon be published, remember?

Well, publication has occurred and release is supposed to be very soon - within days. However ...

2. ... we may be witnessing in real time another episode of 'EXPELLED'.  

3. The Proceedings from the symposium, contained in a book titled Biological Information: New Perspectives,
is now encountering the usual attempts at censorship practiced by the 'Thought Police' -- you know, the
type of censorship that the Evo-Faithful loudly deny happens at all.  

4. This was strictly a scientific symposium -- I know, I was there from start to finish.
Every paper was scrutinized to be/remain science ... pure science.

5. The publisher is Springer-Verlag. I assure you, the papers were heavily peer-reviewed.
But guess what? They now want to do additional peer-review because of "complaints". OMG !

6. The Evo-Faithful complain that intelligent design isn't science "because it's not peer-reviewed."
When it is peer-reviewed, they say, "It shouldn't have been peer-reviewed because it's not science."

Now where did I put my shotgun?  


7. In passing, do you see why I use the term "dishonest" as often as I do? Do you? Huh? Do you? It fits!  


8. Lastly, wanna guess who's already involved?
Yup, you guessed it, the NCSE : the 'witch' and her broomstick.

9. More details here : http://the-scientist.com/2012.......id-book


10. This could turn ugly, very ugly ... stay tuned ...

Jorge


Turns out the DI and Jorge are attempting to cover up the latest bit of Creationist dishonesty.

The IDCers submitted this batch of "papers" from Jorge's recent Intelligent Design Creation conference to Springer in book form called Biological Information: New Perspectives. Apparently the work was deliberately misrepresented as being from a conference sponsored by Cornell, not merely held on the Cornell campus in publicly available rental space.

The book was mistakenly tentatively accepted by some junior editors at Springer based on the Cornell name. When the truth of the matter became clear, Springer pulled the advance notice of the book.

As reported by Allan MacNeill at Panda's thumb:

Quote


From the very few bits of information I have been able to gather, the “symposium” was apparently held in the Statler Auditorium in the School of Hotel Administration at the Ithaca campus. Unlike most of the large lecture halls at Cornell, the Statler Auditorium can be rented by outside groups for non-university functions. I know this because I have performed there with the Ithaca Ballet, which used to rent the hall for their local performances. Ergo, it appears that John Sanford and the symposium organizers rented the hall and are now claiming that the event was somehow “a Cornell event” rather than an event held in a rented hall at Cornell.

Statler Auditorium has almost 900 seats, but in looking at the housing reservation at one of the links above, there were apparently only 42 attendees (and that may also include the presenters), so the auditorium would have looked a little…well, shall we say “sparse”?



link


Lots more info at

Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

Update on Springer “Biological Information: New Perspectives” Volume

and here

Quote

Score one for science this week. Evolutionary biologists were horrified by the news that a scholarly press was going to publish a work in favor of intelligent design. But a spokesman for the publishing house confirmed to Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that the book’s publication is on hold as it is subjected to further peer review.

Earlier this week, the Panda’s Thumb, a blog about evolutionary theory, posted an item about a forthcoming book from Springer called Biological Information: New Perspectives. The blog-poster and other commenters said the book was a compilation of articles by creationists and intelligent-design proponents and Springer had no business publishing such "creationist pseudoscience."

Eric Merkel-Sobotta, executive vice president of corporate communications at Springer in Germany, said in an e-mail, that the initial proposal for the book was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers. “However, once the complete manuscript had been submitted, the series editors became aware that additional peer review would be necessary,” Merkel-Sobotta said. “This is currently underway, and the automatically generated pre-announcement for the book on Springer has been removed until the peer-reviewers have made their final decision.”


full story

Looks like the DI has gone into full damage control / spin mode.

My guess is that Cornell found out about how its name was being misused and threatened to sue the pants off the DI and the folks who dishonestly misued the connection. All across the web Creationist sites like this one are now erasing all mention of Cornell and issuing disclaimers for CYA purposes.

Too funny!

- T


As someone who has publicly commented on this issue, I find "Jorge"'s "shotgun" comment above to be a palpable threat. I consider this "fair use" of his commentary.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,07:53   

"Jorge" is a particularly strange person. If he was a contributer to this "scientific" conference, I know it was a fraud.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3607
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,08:04   

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y202707

I think this is relevant.



Edited by midwifetoad on Mar. 05 2012,08:05

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
DiEb



Posts: 238
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,08:21   

My favorite: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?....he:http

Sid  Galloway (Just an OLD sheepdog of the GOOD SHEPHERD) describes his attendance of the symposium:
 
Quote
Biological Information -  New Perspectives Symposium


© Sid Galloway BS, M.Div

The following Bio-Info conference was an inspiring example of truly critical, logikos thinking in the scientific community. The symposium was not sponsored by Cornell, though Dr. John Sanford, Cornell geneticist and inventor of the Gene Gun was a principle coordinator.

(Sanford is the inventor of the Biolistic Gene Gun  for genetic engineering, Cornell professor for 30 years, 80 scientific papers,  30 patents, and author of GENETIC  ENTROPY: The Mystery of the Genome.



Thank you to all who prayed for this  event,  and  who helped reduce my expenses.

It was a privilege  being invited to attend the BI-NP Symposium at
Cornell University last summer.   Twenty-three scientists from around the world, representing various  fields of science presented to attendees  from many countries, including Korea, China, Germany, Canada, United Kingdom,  Russia, and the United States.  Among  those attending, 50% were PhD’s, 25% were PhD candidates, and the rest were an  assortment of diverse individuals - the least among them - me.

The BINPS at Cornell University was a purely scientific conference,  with no public elements of religion in the presentations or discussion.  However, there was a great deal of fruitful private dialogue involving philosophical, theological, and teleological  implications among presenters and attendees during our free time. The coordinators’  decision to eliminate any public religious content was understandable  given their sincere commitment as a group to trace only the "science"  evidence to its best and most logical conclusion (IBE – Inference to the Best  Explanation.

(read the rest under the link to the google cache...)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1515
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,08:32   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 05 2012,07:53)
"Jorge" is a particularly strange person. If he was a contributer to this "scientific" conference, I know it was a fraud.

Jorge Fernandez is a real piece of work.  Besides being a YEC, he also went in with Werner Gitt to publish yet another book on why "information" proves ToE impossible.



The funny part was on the book's cover Jorge had himself listed as a PhD.  Turns out his "Doctorate" was purchased from an unaccredited on-line diploma mill.   :p

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3607
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,08:48   

That page really needs to be save in its entirety, because google will clear it from the cache upon request of the author.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,10:09   

I sent this email to one of the senior editors at Springer on the 27th Feb:
Quote
Hi!

(I'm not sure if you're the correct person to contact about this, if
you're not, could you pass this on to whoever is responsible).

I've just found out about your forthcoming book "Biological Information:

New Perspectives"
(http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+comp
lexity/book/978-3-642-28453-3).
This has the potential to be a controversial text (as the editors are
all active in pushing Intelligent Design), so I'm wondering why it's
being published as an engineering text, rather than biology: it would
seem to be a better fit there.

Thanks in advance.


and got a reply from a different senior editor on the 28th:

Quote
Dear Bob,

thank you for your important mail concerning the planned book
"Biological Information: New Perspectives".

The book has been acquired and reviewed by our experienced series
editors of the book series "Intelligent Systems Reference Library"
so it was a natural choice to publish it there under the umbrella of
applied sciences. Thank you for your very valuable remark concerning
Intelligent design, we will doublecheck the situation with the reviewers
and the book editors and definitely will add a suitable Biology code.


Which I read as saying that they weren't previously aware of the ID link.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,10:27   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 05 2012,10:09)
... The book has been acquired ...

Uh-oh - they actually paid in advance for this crap?

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,10:46   

http://liveweb.archive.org/http...........ttp

On that page is this text:



This document has a Mr. Galloway saying (presumably same person who wrote the above):
Quote
PLEASE PRAY FOR MY TRIP TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE:
"BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION - NEW PERSPECTIVES SYMPOSIUM"


http://tinyurl.com/85l3sq7....85l3sq7

Seems the people attending sure thought it was an official Cornell symposium.

Depending on who set it up this could be the clincher:
http://tinyurl.com/7w2cztu....7w2cztu



but maybe it's standard stuff.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,11:32   

Here's a copy of Jorge's post from June 2011:



--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,11:34   

Phanks reaction


and Jorge's reply


ETA link

Edited by sparc on Mar. 05 2012,14:06

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,11:50   

Seriously, anyone who has a clue about what is going on knows who Coppedge is and exactly why he was fired (and what's he trying to do to get the court's to allow ID related testimony in what is, essentially, a harrasement case).

Why withhold his name and then give so much information that anyone can figure it out.

You know once the conference is over, a lot of this stuff is posted on the internet.

Did anyone take video of the speakers?  Anyone get copies of the powerpoint slides?  Maybe even pictures of the attendees at a local hangout (or church in this case)?

Until I get some actual information, I'm not even sure that we can support the claim that this event actually occurred.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Woodbine



Posts: 814
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,13:06   

Here's a link to a thread at FRDB 'bigging' up the event back in June last year (apologies if you're already familiar with it)....

Anti neo-Darwinian papers coming!


  
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,14:16   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2012,07:45)
Over on TheologyWeb, "Jorge" had posted a bit of information about conference. He had requested that the moderators delete his thread, which they did. Then "Tiggy" posted a copy of "Jorge"'s post. "Jorge" has requested that that be taken down. I'll post it here, just in case TheologyWeb is inclined to remove it.

 
Quote

You last visited: Today at 09:18 AM
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:18 AM.
Forum Science Building Natural Science 301
Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

Page 1 of 3123LastResults 1 to 15 of 43
Thread: Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience
                   
Enrolled: January 17th, 2004 Posts: 7,680
 Male  personal  x
Amen 806 Times in 529 PostsTiggy
Online
Thread Owner
March 3rd 2012  12:48 PM
Post: #1
Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience
This particular bit of Creationist dishonesty needs to be archived.

Jorge recently started a thread, then for some reason demanded that it be deleted:

Jump to Post Originally posted by Jorge

 
Quote

1. I had promised you that the two papers that I co-authored would soon be published, remember?

Well, publication has occurred and release is supposed to be very soon - within days. However ...

2. ... we may be witnessing in real time another episode of 'EXPELLED'.  

3. The Proceedings from the symposium, contained in a book titled Biological Information: New Perspectives,
is now encountering the usual attempts at censorship practiced by the 'Thought Police' -- you know, the
type of censorship that the Evo-Faithful loudly deny happens at all.  

4. This was strictly a scientific symposium -- I know, I was there from start to finish.
Every paper was scrutinized to be/remain science ... pure science.

5. The publisher is Springer-Verlag. I assure you, the papers were heavily peer-reviewed.
But guess what? They now want to do additional peer-review because of "complaints". OMG !

6. The Evo-Faithful complain that intelligent design isn't science "because it's not peer-reviewed."
When it is peer-reviewed, they say, "It shouldn't have been peer-reviewed because it's not science."

Now where did I put my shotgun?  


7. In passing, do you see why I use the term "dishonest" as often as I do? Do you? Huh? Do you? It fits!  


8. Lastly, wanna guess who's already involved?
Yup, you guessed it, the NCSE : the 'witch' and her broomstick.

9. More details here : http://the-scientist.com/2012.......id-book


10. This could turn ugly, very ugly ... stay tuned ...

Jorge


Turns out the DI and Jorge are attempting to cover up the latest bit of Creationist dishonesty.

The IDCers submitted this batch of "papers" from Jorge's recent Intelligent Design Creation conference to Springer in book form called Biological Information: New Perspectives. Apparently the work was deliberately misrepresented as being from a conference sponsored by Cornell, not merely held on the Cornell campus in publicly available rental space.

The book was mistakenly tentatively accepted by some junior editors at Springer based on the Cornell name. When the truth of the matter became clear, Springer pulled the advance notice of the book.

As reported by Allan MacNeill at Panda's thumb:

 
Quote


From the very few bits of information I have been able to gather, the “symposium” was apparently held in the Statler Auditorium in the School of Hotel Administration at the Ithaca campus. Unlike most of the large lecture halls at Cornell, the Statler Auditorium can be rented by outside groups for non-university functions. I know this because I have performed there with the Ithaca Ballet, which used to rent the hall for their local performances. Ergo, it appears that John Sanford and the symposium organizers rented the hall and are now claiming that the event was somehow “a Cornell event” rather than an event held in a rented hall at Cornell.

Statler Auditorium has almost 900 seats, but in looking at the housing reservation at one of the links above, there were apparently only 42 attendees (and that may also include the presenters), so the auditorium would have looked a little…well, shall we say “sparse”?



link


Lots more info at

Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

Update on Springer “Biological Information: New Perspectives” Volume

and here

 
Quote

Score one for science this week. Evolutionary biologists were horrified by the news that a scholarly press was going to publish a work in favor of intelligent design. But a spokesman for the publishing house confirmed to Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that the book’s publication is on hold as it is subjected to further peer review.

Earlier this week, the Panda’s Thumb, a blog about evolutionary theory, posted an item about a forthcoming book from Springer called Biological Information: New Perspectives. The blog-poster and other commenters said the book was a compilation of articles by creationists and intelligent-design proponents and Springer had no business publishing such "creationist pseudoscience."

Eric Merkel-Sobotta, executive vice president of corporate communications at Springer in Germany, said in an e-mail, that the initial proposal for the book was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers. “However, once the complete manuscript had been submitted, the series editors became aware that additional peer review would be necessary,” Merkel-Sobotta said. “This is currently underway, and the automatically generated pre-announcement for the book on Springer has been removed until the peer-reviewers have made their final decision.”


full story

Looks like the DI has gone into full damage control / spin mode.

My guess is that Cornell found out about how its name was being misused and threatened to sue the pants off the DI and the folks who dishonestly misued the connection. All across the web Creationist sites like this one are now erasing all mention of Cornell and issuing disclaimers for CYA purposes.

Too funny!

- T


As someone who has publicly commented on this issue, I find "Jorge"'s "shotgun" comment above to be a palpable threat. I consider this "fair use" of his commentary.

Tiggy re-posted Jorge's post which drives Jorge mad:
Quote
I do not know why this thread / OP is still active. I have TWICE requested the mods to remove it.

I requested that they remove my thread and they complied. In Tiggy's typical unethical style, he
circumvented the intent of the law by reposting in his own thread my OP -- an OP that had been
previously REMOVED by the mods.

I am hereby requesting for the THIRD TIME that the moderators of this forum remove this thread
or at the very least my words (Items 1-10) which have previously been deleted from this forum.


Thank you.

Jorge
(emphasis by Jorge)

Luckily the moderators denied to delete Tiggy's thread because he only cited what Jorge already disclosed.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,14:32   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 05 2012,10:09)
I sent this email to one of the senior editors at Springer on the 27th Feb:
 
Quote
Hi!

(I'm not sure if you're the correct person to contact about this, if
you're not, could you pass this on to whoever is responsible).

I've just found out about your forthcoming book "Biological Information:

New Perspectives"
(http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+comp
lexity/book/978-3-642-28453-3).
This has the potential to be a controversial text (as the editors are
all active in pushing Intelligent Design), so I'm wondering why it's
being published as an engineering text, rather than biology: it would
seem to be a better fit there.

Thanks in advance.


and got a reply from a different senior editor on the 28th:

 
Quote
Dear Bob,

thank you for your important mail concerning the planned book
"Biological Information: New Perspectives".

The book has been acquired and reviewed by our experienced series
editors of the book series "Intelligent Systems Reference Library"
so it was a natural choice to publish it there under the umbrella of
applied sciences. Thank you for your very valuable remark concerning
Intelligent design, we will doublecheck the situation with the reviewers
and the book editors and definitely will add a suitable Biology code.


Which I read as saying that they weren't previously aware of the ID link.

The reply I obtained was similar.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Starbuck



Posts: 18
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,14:41   

The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1515
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,14:51   

Quote (Starbuck @ Mar. 05 2012,14:41)
The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?

It's a sure bet that there's money and lawyers involved.  The only real question is who's suing who.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,15:00   

Quote (Starbuck @ Mar. 05 2012,12:41)
The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?

It won't be Dover II. It cannot be.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
JohnW



Posts: 2319
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,15:17   

Quote (Starbuck @ Mar. 05 2012,12:41)
The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?

Suing a publisher because they chose to reject something would be... interesting.  I'm sure the outcome would be eagerly awaited by the Timecube guy, and green-ink-on-the-back-of-napkin MS writers everywhere.  I don't think the rest of us need to be concerned.

My father-in-law was a law professor.  He maintained that judges should have a third verdict option in lawsuits: "finding for the plaintiff", "finding for the defendant", and "get out of my court."  This would be a good example of option 3.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,15:25   

Quote (Starbuck @ Mar. 05 2012,15:41)
The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?

Oh dear designer please let it be so



--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,15:36   

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 05 2012,15:17)
 
Quote (Starbuck @ Mar. 05 2012,12:41)
The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?

Suing a publisher because they chose to reject something would be... interesting.  I'm sure the outcome would be eagerly awaited by the Timecube guy, and green-ink-on-the-back-of-napkin MS writers everywhere.  I don't think the rest of us need to be concerned.

My father-in-law was a law professor.  He maintained that judges should have a third verdict option in lawsuits: "finding for the plaintiff", "finding for the defendant", and "get out of my court."  This would be a good example of option 3.

I recently saw this referred to as dismissal on the grounds of "what the fuck is wrong with you?"

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4523
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,18:36   

From Creation/Evolution Headlines there's this at-the-time brag:

Quote

Biological Information Symposium a Success
Posted on June 4, 2011 in Biology, Biomimetics, Cell Biology, Darwin and Evolution, Education, Genetics, Humanity, Intelligent Design, Issues, Microbiology, Mind and Brain, Origin of Life, Origins, Philosophy of Science

Friday morning June 4, participants were on their way homes across America and in Europe from a successful conference entitled Biological Information: New Perspectives.  They had come to hear leading lights in the Intelligent Design movement deliver 27 scientific presentations on a variety of subtopics under the umbrella theme of information in biology.  From all appearances, everyone had a great time of fellowship, encouragement and intellectual stimulation.  No protestors or critics detracted from the event—partly because it was not widely advertised, in order to protect the identity of those wanting to take part without jeopardizing their careers.  The event was held at Cornell University beginning Monday night May 30 and concluding Thursday June 2.

The symposium centered around three themes: (1) Information theory and biology, (2) information and genetic theory, and (3) theoretical biology.  Speakers from disciplines as diverse as thermodynamics, mathematics, linguistics, computer science, genetics, and of course biology presented their experimental findings and theories.  Attempts were made to define information in robust ways, to compare and contrast cybernetic and biological information, and to describe levels of information coding in the cell.  Computer models of evolution were critiqued, as were attempts to generate information by non-intelligent causes.  Not every speaker was a proponent of intelligent design, but all believed it is an idea worth taking seriously.

Speakers and the audience had been instructed to steer clear of religious issues.  The focus was on the science, and the content was as rigorous as that of any science symposium. While many well-known spokespersons for intelligent design led the way, there was a notable presence of young scientists with even more enthusiasm for the new design-based approaches to biology than the seniors.  Their energy was palpable in breakout sessions and lunchtime conversations.  Because of potential harm to careers of some participants, names of all are being withheld from this review.

Quote

One thing is clear from this symposium: design scientists have more fun.  It was an upbeat event.  There was no lack of argumentation and disagreement, but it was all constructive and respectful, with the energetic give-and-take producing light, not heat.  The social events were delightful, too.  Cornell is a beautiful campus.  There’s evidence for intelligent design all over the grounds, especially in the university’s gardens and native plant collections.  A river runs through the middle of the campus and pours over several cascades.

Interestingly, there was a notable absence of participants from Cornell or the Ithaca area. It appears very likely that many who might have otherwise have attended were afraid of negative professional consequences arising from being associated in any way with this event of its participants..

Take heart, though.  It was like that before Soviet communism fell.  The last years of the Iron Curtain were fierce; many individuals suffered persecution, and many lived in a state of fear.  The Soviet bloc seemed impregnable.  Then, perestroika and glasnost came as reality set in that communism wasn’t working. Within just a couple of years, thanks to pressure from Reagan and internal pressure from freedom loving unions, the Berlin wall fell.  The world watched in astonishment as the Soviet Union unraveled in a precipitous and momentous collapse, and long-denied freedoms saw the light of a new day.  It can happen with Darwinism—unless vigilance gives way to complacency, challenge to comfort, love for truth to fear of criticism.  This is no time to cower in retreat; it’s time to charge!



--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4523
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,18:40   

From EvolutionFairyTale, here's a "how we're going to pull off the big one" brag:

Quote

performedge
Don - a Child of the King

Veteran Member

400 posts
Gender:Male
Location:South Carolina
Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
Age: 48
Christian
Young Earth Creationist
Rock Hill, SC
Posted 09 June 2011 - 05:45 PM

Spectre, on Jun 9 2011, 12:53 AM, said:
Quote

Good question, I was trying to search through google for such conventions but I have not found any results at all.



Yes, sorry guys.

The place: Cornell University
What? A science symposium
Topic: Biological Information New Perspectives.
Date: May31st - June 2 2011

This was an invitation only event to prevent the media hype and evolutionist disrupters at bay. It was strictly science and not creation science. Twenty peer reviewed papers were presented and are in the process of being published now. All papers in some way shape or form present serious problems and even potential falsifications of the neo-Darwinian theory. The science community will be unaware of these papers until they are fully published in a scientific syposium book as is the usual procedure.

I have been asked not to present substantial information regarding this event until the publication is released. I don't know when, but expect 3-6 months. I have copies of all the abstracts and they are brutal regarding evidence against neo-Darwinian theory. Once released, the science community will for the first time have to deal wilth real contrary evidence. And it will open the doors for future symposiums where the scientific journals don't control the publications and peer review process. You will recognize several of the names of presenters. I will have access to all of these papers in the future, and I will make them available as soon as I can.

Sorry for the vagueness, but you all know the forces that work against such events. It looks like this was a success, and it opens many doors for the truth of an intelligent designer to be a real scientific topic that must be dealt with.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4523
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,18:49   

From the Mountain Daily News, David "I'm-suing-JPL-for-religious-discrimination-but-there's-nothing-religious-about-intelligent-design-nosirree-bob" Coppedge has a brag that looks like the source for the Creation/Evolution Headlines article:

Quote

Biological Information Symposium a Success

Despite threat of professional retaliation

by David F. Coppedge

Friday morning June 4, participants were on their way to homes across America and in Europe from a successful conference entitled Biological Information: New Perspectives.  They had come to hear leading lights in the Intelligent Design movement deliver 27 scientific presentations on a variety of subtopics under the umbrella theme of information in biology.  From all appearances, everyone had a great time of fellowship, encouragement and intellectual stimulation.  No protestors or critics detracted from the event—partly because it was not widely advertised, in order to protect the identity of those wanting to take part without jeopardizing their careers.  The event was held at Cornell University beginning Monday night May 30 and concluding Thursday June 2.

The symposium centered around three themes: (1) Information theory and biology, (2) information and genetic theory, and (3) theoretical biology.  Speakers from disciplines as diverse as thermodynamics, mathematics, linguistics, computer science, genetics, and of course biology presented their experimental findings and theories.  Attempts were made to define information in robust ways, to compare and contrast cybernetic and biological information, and to describe levels of information coding in the cell.  Computer models of evolution were critiqued, as were attempts to generate information by non-intelligent causes.  Not every speaker was a proponent of intelligent design, but all believed it is an idea worth taking seriously.

Speakers and the audience had been instructed to steer clear of religious issues.  The focus was on the science, and the content was as rigorous as that of any science symposium. While many well-known spokespersons for intelligent design led the way, there was a notable presence of young scientists with even more enthusiasm for the new design-based approaches to biology than the seniors.  Their energy was palpable in breakout sessions and lunchtime conversations.  Because of potential harm to careers of some participants, names of all are being withheld from this review.

One thing is clear from this symposium: design scientists have more fun.  It was an upbeat event.  There was no lack of argumentation and disagreement, but it was all constructive and respectful, with the energetic give-and-take producing light, not heat.  The social events were delightful, too.  Cornell is a beautiful campus.  There's evidence for intelligent design all over the grounds, especially in the university’s gardens and native plant collections.  A river runs through the middle of the campus and pours over several cascades.

Interestingly, there was a notable absence of participants from Cornell or the Ithaca area. It appears very likely that many who might have otherwise have attended were afraid of negative professional consequences arising from being associated in any way with this event of its participants..

Take heart, though.  It was like that before Soviet communism fell.  The last years of the Iron Curtain were fierce; many individuals suffered persecution, and many lived in a state of fear.  The Soviet bloc seemed impregnable.  Then, perestroika and glasnost came as reality set in that communism wasn’t working. Within just a couple of years, thanks to pressure from Reagan and internal pressure from freedom loving unions, the Berlin wall fell.  The world watched in astonishment as the Soviet Union unraveled in a precipitous and momentous collapse, and long-denied freedoms saw the light of a new day.  It can happen with Darwinism—unless vigilance gives way to complacency, challenge to comfort, love for truth to fear of criticism.  This is no time to cower in retreat; it’s time to charge!



This entry was posted Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 12 p.m. by David F. Coppedge and is filed under the category titled Science in the News section. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Read our Commenting Policy before you post.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2012,23:22   

I've already mentioned this on PT but I guess it is worth to put here again:

Mrs Johnson reported on her Johnson and Johnson blog that her husband attended the meeting and even included pictures from the Cornell campus:
 
Quote
After leaving Heather and Andrew, we traveled about 3 1/2 hours north to Ithaca, New York.  Howard was fortunate enough to be able to attend a conference on "Biological Information: New Perspectives".

Howard and I were fortunate to share a picnic dinner with this gentleman, Werner Gitt and his daughter, Roma,  from Germany.  He was one of the speaker's at the meeting Howard went to held on Cornell University's campus.  Delightful people.



--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
DiEb



Posts: 238
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2012,00:54   

At the site of <a href="www.bobmarks.org/" target="_blank">Robert Marks II</a>, you can find a short description of the conference, as seen by his wife:
Quote
Cornell University: Next we drove to Cornell University where Bob was part of a conference called Biological Information – New Perspectives. Bob was a coorganizer along with famous ID people like William Dembski (The Design Inference and No Free Lunch), Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution), John Sanford (Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome) and Bruce Gordon (The Nature of Nature). The proceedings of the conference will be published in 2012. Bob thought the conference was a grand success. Bob’s Ph.D. advisor, John Walkup, also came. John and his wife Pat are full time with Campus Crusade’s professor ministry in the Bay Area focusing on Stanford, Berkeley and San Jose State. Two of Bob’s graduate students, Winston Ewert and George Montañez, were also there so we got a wonderful three generation picture.

   
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2012,01:05   

While he couldn't force Tiggy to remove the quotes from his his own deleted thread Jorge at the same time cannot shut upe:
Quote
I keep my promises - or at least try my best to do so.

Your remark above, "... let alone one pursuant of creationist claims" is asinine.

You swallow Atheist claims of Evolution, gigayears and other anti-scriptural claims with little to no problems. At this Symposium were presented numerous solid-science papers showing that Materialistic views of information - particularly as these relate to biology - are not even wrong (that would be too kind). How do you respond?
"... pursuant to creationist claims". I'm sad to say that people like you are not only ignorant, but you appear destined to remain that way. I have an entire section of my home library containing books from NON-Biblical Creationists, including Atheists.
I've spent thousands of dollars collecting those books, magazines, journals, etc.
That's because I want to LEARN the other POVs so that I know what I'm talking about.
Like I said, your remark was asinine.

As for future updates, you can get them from Panda's Thumb or from Tiggy.
You seem to have much more in common with them than you do with me.

Jorge


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2012,01:12   

More from Jorge::
Quote
Honestly, it's hard to imagine* how you people manage to sleep at night with the things you say.

This applies to you, Tiggy, O-Mudd, Terror, R06, and a host of others here at TWeb. It's mind-boggling!!!

This event was held AT Cornell University - period. Choke on it if you must but that is what happened and that was the way it was reported. What you people suggest is ludicrous, lunacy and falling-drunk stooooopid. "DISCLAIMER : The conference will be held at Cornell University but it's not 'really' at Cornell University. This is because even though the facilities are on the campus grounds, belong to Cornell, and the service staff all work for Cornell University, the Big Wigs at Cornell do not agree with anything against Evolution. Therefore, though this conference is at Cornell University, it's "not really" at Cornell University. Did everybody get that?"


*Come to think of it, it isn't that hard to imagine at all. The more that people spend time promoting falsehoods, the easier it becomes for those people to not lose any sleep by any falsehood.
Ergo, you people probably sleep like the proverbial baby after a nice bath and warm milk.

Jorge
(emphasis by Jorge)

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2012,01:21   

KBertsche investigates Cornell's role:
Quote
I see both sides of this issue, but I would put as much or more blame on Cornell than on groups that rent Statler Hall from them. Cornell, as a private university, has no obligation to rent their space to anyone. They try to attract rentals as a source of income. And the Cornell name is a selling point for their rentals. Cornell can't have it both ways; if they want to attract rental groups with the Cornell name, they must expect that these same groups will use the Cornell name to publicize their events.

According to the information sheet about renting Statler Hall, "The Hotel School reserves the right to refuse requests for use of space in Statler Hall that it believes is not in keeping with the mission and goals of the school." If Cornell is embarrassed by this situation, they should change their rental policy or make their approval process tighter.

Cornell's event planning information sheet shows concern about using their name or logo on "merchandise" "(i.e. shirts, hats, pens, etc.)" but specifically says, "Note that this policy does not apply to information printed on paper (i.e. posters, program booklets, etc.)."

I don't think the group did anything wrong in scheduling or publicizing their symposium. On the other hand, in attempting to use Cornell's name in the publication of their proceedings, the may well have violated Cornell's policy statement on Use of Cornell's Name, Logos, Trademarks, and Insignias. These sections of the statement are pertinent:
Quote
Cornell University


Responsibility for use of Cornell’s name and marks in the ordinary course of university business rests with the unit head. Questions regarding such use should be directed to the unit head. Examples of such use:
1. Official unit names. For example, “Cornell Institute for Public Affairs.”
2. Official event names. For example, “Cornell Conference on Law,” or “Cornell Nutrition Conference,” when approved by the appropriate dean or unit head and operated as a university event.
...
Except as specifically authorized in writing, use of Cornell’s name and marks in advertising and other promotional vehicles is prohibited when such use is likely to be perceived as an endorsement, even if such an endorsement is not the intention of the person or organization seeking to use Cornell’s name or marks.
...
Except those uses included in the “Ordinary Course of University Business” segment of this policy, the use of the name “Cornell University” or “Cornell,” in non-student organization names implying or tending to imply some official connection with the university, is prohibited except with the written permission of the university and under such restrictions as it may impose.


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
  290 replies since Mar. 05 2012,07:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (10) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]