Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Biological Information: New Perspectives started by Wesley R. Elsberry


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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”?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Dr.GH on 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.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 05 2012,08:04

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

I think this is relevant.




Posted by: DiEb on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(read the rest under the link to the google cache...)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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.
Posted by: Bob O'H on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which I read as saying that they weren't previously aware of the ID link.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 05 2012,10:27

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


Uh-oh - they actually paid in advance for this crap?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< 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.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 05 2012,11:32

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


Posted by: sparc on Mar. 05 2012,11:34

Phanks reaction


and Jorge's reply


ETA < link >


Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
Posted by: Woodbine on 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! >


Posted by: sparc on 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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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”?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Tiggy > re-posted Jorge's post which d< rives 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis by Jorge)

Luckily the moderators denied to delete Tiggy's thread because he only cited what Jorge already disclosed.
Posted by: sparc on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


The reply I obtained was similar.
Posted by: Starbuck on Mar. 05 2012,14:41

The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a sure bet that there's money and lawyers involved.  The only real question is who's suing who.
Posted by: Dr.GH on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It won't be Dover II. It cannot be.
Posted by: JohnW on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh dear designer please let it be so


Posted by: noncarborundum on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recently saw this referred to as dismissal on the grounds of "what the fuck is wrong with you?"
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on 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.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DiEb on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis by Jorge)
Posted by: sparc on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Mar. 06 2012,08:43

Quote (sparc @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This person seems confused. On the one hand, he says "I don't think the group did anything wrong in scheduling or publicizing their symposium," then he quotes Cornell as saying "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."

It's pretty clear that the intent was to create the impression that Cornell was somehow officially complicit.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 06 2012,09:09

They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
Posted by: Freddie on Mar. 06 2012,10:27

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and if it hadn't been for those meddling kids ...
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 06 2012,11:05

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that says a lot about the review process at Springer.
Posted by: eigenstate on Mar. 06 2012,11:43

Just putting this in the thread, in case Tiggy's thread eventually gets nuked -- a Cornell reference in Dembski's CV on the boondoggle:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No less that head IDiot William Dembski has gone the same route. From his CV:

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
2011 “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search,” presented 31 May 2011 at Biological Information: New Perspectives (international conference at Cornell University, 31 May – 2 June 2011).

link

The whole Intelligent Design Creation movement is based on such intellectual dishonesty.

- T
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's the link Tiggy supplied:

< http://www.designinference.com/documen....ski.pdf >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 06 2012,12:14

Huh... there's irony for you.

I just discovered that David Dunning of Dunning-Krueger fame works at... Cornell.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people’s ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: khan on Mar. 06 2012,14:56

The event was held at Cornell University

Is that the same as staying at Holiday Inn Express?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 06 2012,21:17

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it was Springer's automated marketing apparatus lurching into motion that spoiled their plan.

I suppose asking for an additional paragraph in the contract requiring the publisher to keep quiet about the volume until the copies are actually printed would be a bit suspicious.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 06 2012,22:47

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 06 2012,21:17)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it was Springer's automated marketing apparatus lurching into motion that spoiled their plan.

I suppose asking for an additional paragraph in the contract requiring the publisher to keep quiet about the volume until the copies are actually printed would be a bit suspicious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've learned about the book from < Dembski's CV on February 27 (in the US it was still the 26th). >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BOOKS
in preparation
Biological Information: New Perspectives (co-edited with Robert J. Marks II, John Sanford, Michael Behe, and Bruce Gordon). Under contract with Springer Verlag.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's more to come:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Substantially revised 2nd edition of No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (with Robert J. Marks II as new co-author). Under contract with Rowman & Littlefield.

Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails as Science and Theology (coauthored with Denyse O’Leary, mounting a fundamental challenge to theistic evolution). Under contract with Broadman & Holman.

Mind Altering: How Culture is Changing Our Brains (co-authored with Baylor neuroscientist Matthew Stanford).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baylor again, his unrequited love. But how deep can one sink to co-author a book with DO'L. After all who if not Dembski must be aware of her logic and her writings. OTOH, IIRC it was Dembski who hired her for UD.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2012,23:11

WRITING!: WHAT DENYSE DOES? WELL!
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 07 2012,03:12

Quick - I've written a blog post that's going to go up on a Major UK (and international) newspaper's web pages about this and it needs a picture. Can anyone suggest something, e.g. from the AtBC archives, that would be suitable, free to use, and not too offensive? I don't want to get sued.
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 07 2012,03:22

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,01:12)
Quick - I've written a blog post that's going to go up on a Major UK (and international) newspaper's web pages about this and it needs a picture. Can anyone suggest something, e.g. from the AtBC archives, that would be suitable, free to use, and not too offensive? I don't want to get sued.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A picture of what?
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 07 2012,03:41

Bob, I'm just asking for an idea of what you're looking for. Maybe I can help.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 07 2012,04:06

Something to illustrate the BI:NP story. I know there have been a few amusing photoshops done over the years here, and one of those might be suitable.

Other than that I'm fairly flexible. This is a last minute job (the post should go up in a couple of hours), so I'm happy for people to suggest previous work. Or a LOLcat.
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 07 2012,05:18

Bob, don't feel obligated to use any of these, but you can if you want.





If you like the picture but want different words, tell me what you want and I'll make it. Better hurry though because I'll be going to sleep soon.

You can also make your own < here >
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 07 2012,05:49

I like the first one. I almost said "no LOLDembskis", but now I'm glad I didn't.
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 07 2012,05:55

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,03:49)
I like the first one. I almost said "no LOLDembskis", but now I'm glad I didn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a smaller version of it, that looks a little better:


Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 07 2012,06:20

If we can get it passed the lawyers, it looks like we'll go for this. Who should get the credit? "The Whole Truth", or do you want your real name used?

You're not David S. Springer are you?
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 07 2012,06:36

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,04:20)
If we can get it passed the lawyers, it looks like we'll go for this. Who should get the credit? "The Whole Truth", or do you want your real name used?

You're not David S. Springer are you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't have to give me any credit, but if you want to just use The whole truth. Nope, I'm not David Springer.
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 07 2012,06:40

I just want to add that I'll accept full responsibility when it comes to any legal matters for any pictures or text that I post here or anywhere else.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 07 2012,07:08

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,17:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah they fluffed it
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 07 2012,07:19

OK, sparc, what I saw in the UD thread was you pointing out the Springer page for the book. Thanks for the explanation.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 07 2012,08:28

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 07 2012,08:08)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,17:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah they fluffed it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what a waste, a whole department of fluffers for a couple of permanent priapisms
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 07 2012,12:12

Bob's post on BI:NP is up at the < Guardian >.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 07 2012,12:40

Should have known someone would get there first - I was sent to the cellar to get the incubator.

I had lots of links here and to PT, but they were removed by The Guardian.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 07 2012,12:43

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,12:40)
Should have known someone would get there first - I was sent to the cellar to get the incubator.

I had lots of links here and to PT, but they were removed by The Guardian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still very insightful and useful to the wider audience.

Well done.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 07 2012,13:21

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,10:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In this case premature ejubilation.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 07 2012,14:08

Bob O'H must be Dembski's nightmare:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
conducting research at the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre in Germany
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Biodiversity and Climate Research, as if biodiversity weren't enough
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 07 2012,15:21

I guess I should start working on vaccines too, and complete the set.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2012,16:13

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,12:40)
Should have known someone would get there first - I was sent to the cellar to get the incubator.

I had lots of links here and to PT, but they were removed by The Guardian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EXPELLED! EVOMAT THOUGHT POLIC... wait, what?
Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 07 2012,16:16

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I beg to differ: they have kept exceptionally quite about the whole thing, only the (automatically generated?) announcement by Springer derailed their plan.

Look how their modus operandi has changed over the last years: Marks's and Dembski's  paper "Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success" was available as a preprint on Marks's homepage, it was announced a couple of times at UncommonDescent, and after years of struggle it appeared in some unrelated journal.

This disadvantage is obvious: public criticism. And boy, they didn't like it.

Nowadays, they try to sneak in their articles in a kind of peer-reviewed journal first. Then they will ignore any critique which isn't itself in form of a peer-reviewed paper. And no one bothers to do so, their math is generally debunked some levels below, in  blogs, wikis, etc.

What does this mean if you find an error in their publications? They don't bother! And if you try to correct them via email, you get an answer (if any!)  like  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of me or my work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 07 2012,21:57

The DI held a closed conference in SoCal in 1996 (collection of essays published as "Mere Creation"). They followed that up with a conference in Austin, Texas early in 1997 where they issued a public call for papers and solicited participation of people they believed would hold views counter to their own. The CFP failed to mention "intelligent design". The essays to that conference were posted online, but never collected and formally published.

IIRC, it was in 2000 that the "Polanyi Center" at Baylor hosted the "Nature of Nature" conference that invited in a bunch of big name philosophers. They didn't bother to mention their grinding ax then, either, and still hold a grudge against Barbara Forrest, who wrote a letter to various participants letting them know what they were getting themselves into. A volume finally got published with essays from that conference, but not solely material presented at the conference (again, IIRC).

In 2002, I was denied permission to attend a closed conference at Biola (the "RAPID" conference).

The IDC advocates seem to shift between including and excluding critics. I don't know that we can identify any trend in this from this latest scam.
Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 08 2012,02:14

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 07 2012,21:57)
[...]The IDC advocates seem to shift between including and excluding critics. I don't know that we can identify any trend in this from this latest scam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see, I inferred a trend because my window of observation was to small. But in reality they are switching between two strategies which both don't work...
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 08 2012,05:32

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 07 2012,21:57)
The IDC advocates seem to shift between including and excluding critics. I don't know that we can identify any trend in this from this latest scam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trend that is evident is the renting of publicly available meeting space at various respected science organizations in order to give their movement a veneer of respectability by basking in the reflected glow of that organization's hard earned reputation.

They did it with their Academic Freedom Day at Sam Noble Museum of Natural History at the University of Oklahoma.  They tried to do it with their attempt to show "Darwin's Dilemma" at the California Science Center.  And now they did so with Cornell.


Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 08 2012,05:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 08 2012,00:13)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,12:40)
Should have known someone would get there first - I was sent to the cellar to get the incubator.

I had lots of links here and to PT, but they were removed by The Guardian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EXPELLED! EVOMAT THOUGHT POLIC... wait, what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're all worried Julian is just the begining.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 08 2012,05:44

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 08 2012,13:32)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 07 2012,21:57)
The IDC advocates seem to shift between including and excluding critics. I don't know that we can identify any trend in this from this latest scam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trend that is evident is the renting of publicly available meeting space at various respected science organizations in order to give their movement a veneer of respectability by basking in the reflected glow of that organization's hard earned reputation.

They did it with their Academic Freedom Day at Sam Noble Museum of Natural History at the University of Oklahoma.  They tried to do it with their attempt to show "Darwin's Dilemma" at the California Science Center.  And now they did so with Cornell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well .....really now that just leaves "Scientific American" ....right?

In between the sit on lawn mower and Viagra ads.

It's a pity BYTE busted years ago they could have had a field day.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 08 2012,07:29

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 08 2012,05:32)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 07 2012,21:57)
The IDC advocates seem to shift between including and excluding critics. I don't know that we can identify any trend in this from this latest scam.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trend that is evident is the renting of publicly available meeting space at various respected science organizations in order to give their movement a veneer of respectability by basking in the reflected glow of that organization's hard earned reputation.

They did it with their Academic Freedom Day at Sam Noble Museum of Natural History at the University of Oklahoma.  They tried to do it with their attempt to show "Darwin's Dilemma" at the California Science Center.  And now they did so with Cornell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think that one can support a trend in dishonesty, either. I did mention that their 1997 and 2001 conferences-with-critics did not bother to disclose to the critics just what they were getting into.

And you missed the Smithsonian rental flap from 2005.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 08 2012,11:57

At least there is a trend to decracy because there was at least a second meeting on which only very little information has been disclosed. What we know is from the videos of Berlinski's daughter Cleire. According to < Jeff Shellit's summary > at least the following people joined the    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
by-invitation only conference in Italy entitled "Great Expectations". It's hard to find anything about this conference online because, you see, it was "secret". But it's not hard to figure out the agenda. After all, the people present seem to have been
- Paul Nelson [...]
- Robert Marks [...]
- David Berlinski [...]
- Moshe Averick [...]
- Stephen Meyer [...]
- Richard von Sternberg [...]
- Michael Denton [...]
- perhaps Jonathan Wells [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since the meeting took place in Italy I was curious if Rivista di Biologica that  < ID-proponents used befor to publish their drivel > might be used to publish conference proceedings. However, from its < former home page > I've learned that    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With volume 2010 the publication of the journal by Tilgher is over. The journal will be published by Publisher Fabrizio Serra (www.libraweb.net).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since <a href="www.libraweb.net" target="_blank">libraweb</a> doesn't list the journal and it's already 2011 it appears likely that Rivista silently passed away.
Posted by: Jkrebs on Mar. 08 2012,12:10

And they tried to use the "Kansas Science Standards Hearings" as a way to get equal time with mainstream science in a high profile venue.  Real scientists refused to play the game, and so the results (the transcripts were published by the state of Kansas) mainly served to highlight the positions (mostly YEC, and/or deniers of common descent) of the ID advocates who came.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 08 2012,12:35

There's a trend. It just happens to be flat.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 08 2012,13:06

From < Todd's blog >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, over at Panda's Thumb, Nick Matzke is in an uproar over the publication of a book called Biological Information: New Perspectives (BI:NP). In his usual blunt style, Matzke is upset because "Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience." For those of you who don't know, Springer is a well-known academic publisher, the kind that puts out books that cost hundreds of dollars that almost no one will ever read. (May I add, if you think he's upset now, wait till he gets a list of the contributing authors. He might go into an apoplectic seizure.) According to Matzke,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The major publishers have enough problems at the moment ... it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesn’t even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility – if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not interested in discussing the merit of the work published in BI:NP, but I am struck by the interesting parallel between Matzke's and Redfield's complaints. From the information I have, the content of BI:NP has largely to do with natural selection, population genetics, and evolutionary biology. Yet it's being published in an engineering publication called "Intelligent Systems Reference Library." Other titles in the series cover subjects like how to solve math problems with software, robotics for assisting wheelchair navigation, and artificial neural networks. So it's a computer engineering series, not really something that would normally publish on pop genetics and evolutionary biology. I suppose technically, "biological information" falls within the extended periphery of the "Intelligent Systems Reference Library," but the publication of BI:NP leaves me a bit unsettled.

On the one hand, I understand that the authors of this volume probably believe that they cannot get their work published in conventional biology journals, because of their controversial, anti-evolution conclusions. I completely sympathize. I would love to be able to have some of my creationist ideas intelligently read and critiqued by knowledgeable individuals, rather than dismissively scoffed at by "howler monkeys" (you gotta be a real oldtimer to remember that reference). On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in the value of peer review and scientific publication. If a work is rejected, there's probably a reason for the rejection that we should take seriously. Scientific publication isn't just some political game, where friends get published and enemies get punished. It's not an inalienable right either. If we don't respect the process of peer review and publication, then what's the difference between a scientific publication and a propaganda piece? The price tag?

So I'm feeling unsettled, and I'm prepared for all sorts of rants to be directed my way. My email's listed below. Have at it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: sparc on Mar. 08 2012,22:43

Does anybody know Jonathan D.H. Smith from Iowa State University? According to his web pages (< link >) he contributed to BI:NP


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hierarchical information theory and the modeling of biological systems, pp. 419-512 in "Biological Information: New Perspectives" (eds. R.J. Marks II et al.), Springer Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Berlin, 2012.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He even provides < a link to a copy of the article >.
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 08 2012,23:31

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,10:40)
Should have known someone would get there first - I was sent to the cellar to get the incubator.

I had lots of links here and to PT, but they were removed by The Guardian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bob, thank you for writing that article and helping to get the word out about the shenanigans of the IDiots. The more people learn of their sneaky games, the better.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 09 2012,11:53

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 08 2012,20:43)
Does anybody know Jonathan D.H. Smith from Iowa State University? According to his web pages (< link >) he contributed to BI:NP
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hierarchical information theory and the modeling of biological systems, pp. 419-512 in "Biological Information: New Perspectives" (eds. R.J. Marks II et al.), Springer Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Berlin, 2012.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He even provides < a link to a copy of the article >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just scanned it, and it looked OK.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Mar. 09 2012,12:10

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 09 2012,11:53)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 08 2012,20:43)
Does anybody know Jonathan D.H. Smith from Iowa State University? According to his web pages (< link >) he contributed to BI:NP
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hierarchical information theory and the modeling of biological systems, pp. 419-512 in "Biological Information: New Perspectives" (eds. R.J. Marks II et al.), Springer Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Berlin, 2012.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He even provides < a link to a copy of the article >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just scanned it, and it looked OK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr. GH, without your comment I would not have looked, assuming it was the usual IDiocy.

I wonder what he thought of the YEC papers at the "conference".
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 10 2012,00:00

Another BI:NP talk was from J Scott Turner, Professor at the State University of New York, Syracuse, College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry, Department of Environmental and Forest Biology:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A Multiplicity of Memory. Toward a Coherent Theory of Adaptation.
Biological Information—New Perspectives. Cornell University. June 2011
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

According to his < CV > it was an invited presentation.

For a start < here's > what Jeffrey Shallit had to say about Turner back in 2007.

(cross posted at PT)

ETA: based on another source PT already listed him as a contributor to BI:NP


Posted by: sparc on Mar. 10 2012,00:54

Can it be just coincidence that < Springer's newest German title > is:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lügner - Die Wahrheit über das Lügen
(Liars - The truth about lying)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 10 2012,05:02

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 09 2012,10:10)
I just scanned it, and it looked OK.[/quote]
Dr. GH, without your comment I would not have looked, assuming it was the usual IDiocy.

I wonder what he thought of the YEC papers at the "conference".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that there could have been a handful of actually OK papers. These could have been the bulk of the "review" material.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 13 2012,23:49

Here's the story in < French >.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 15 2012,13:21

< Ian Iuby’s take on the issue >
(posted at PT before)
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 15 2012,13:37

The link resulting from a google search for < "biological information: new perspectives" site:amazon.de > results in an empty page ON amazon's German pages. Before it looked like < this >. Searching directly on < Amazon.de > doesn't give any hit for the book either. However, the book is still listed at < Amazon.com >.

(cross posted at PT)
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 16 2012,03:38

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 15 2012,13:37)
However, the book is still listed at < Amazon.com >.

(cross posted at PT)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Available for Pre-order. This item will be released on March 31, 2012
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can this be true? Springer couldn't be planning to make some bucks selling the book to the US creationists while bashfully hiding the mess from their German customers?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 16 2012,07:41

It's more likely that Amazon's (or Springers') system has got screwed up because the book has been delayed.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 17 2012,01:14

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 09 2012,22:54)
Can it be just coincidence that < Springer's newest German title > is:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lügner - Die Wahrheit über das Lügen
(Liars - The truth about lying)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wouldn't be a translation of Al Franken's book, would it?
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 18 2012,01:40

Mariano Grinbank describing himself as      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
an Argentinean-American Jewish Christian
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

who      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
attended private Jewish school and had Bar Mitzvah in Israel
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
is involved in Judeo-Christian apologetics as a researcher, essayist and lecturer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and is a self-proclaimed      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Worldview and Science Examiner
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

examines the "Biological Information: New Perspectives" story at < examiner.com >- From his self-description and this picture

it was already obvious that he would blow ID's horn -
Nothing new just the usual ID spin.

I don't understand his judo-christian apologetics thing, though. Is he developing his own new bizarre private religion?  His disturbing webpage is < http://www.truefreethinker.com/....ker....ker.com > where we learn that he lectured for the < New Mexico devision of the Intelligent Designe network > and that before he turned hard core religious he was  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
was also involved in the New Age Movement and was a practitioner of Reiki, Tai Chi Chuan, Chi Kung and the I'Ching.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 18 2012,08:47

that is motherfucking hilarious

i bet we know this genius by some other name
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 27 2012,11:04

just to push this thread further up again:
We are approaching the scheduled publication date for "BI:NP" (March 31, 2012)
What do you think will happen?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Mar. 27 2012,11:46

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 27 2012,11:04)
What do you think will happen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 27 2012,12:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think will happen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have that information!
Posted by: sparc on April 01 2012,00:25

April 1st just started in the US and at Amazon the book is still in < pre-order status >. < Another site > lists it as just published. However, the link there will redirect you to the above mentioned Amazon pages.
Posted by: snorkild on April 02 2012,07:32

I can't find the book on Springer's homepage. Do I lack searching skills?
Posted by: sparc on April 02 2012,22:53

While the book is still not available Tom English raises an eyebrow at < Springer series editor Janusz Kacprzyk >.
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 03 2012,02:37

Quote (snorkild @ April 02 2012,07:32)
I can't find the book on Springer's homepage. Do I lack searching skills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not really, they took it down once a few people pointed out to them the editors were IDists/creationists
Posted by: sparc on April 09 2012,00:59

More from the Biological Information: New Perspectives "conference" from < Bob Marks' wife's Christmas 2011 greetings: >  

---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

On page 3 of the pdf you will find that picture of Marks, Walkup, Ewert and Montañez at the conference in front of some poster.
She also mentions the other not as secret ID conference (Berlinski's daughter reported on it) held in Italy 2011  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Winston Ewert went to Italy with Bob. (I wish I could have gone, but I wanted to see Tristan more that Italy.) In Italy, Bob met Greg Chaitin who is a founder of algorithmic information theory and Chaitin’s number. Bob
and Winston were both very excited to meet him. David Berlinski (The Devil’s Delusion) and Steve Myer (Signature in the Cell) were also there. After the conference, Bob was interviewed by Berlinski’s daughter for the Ricochet blog. The interview is on YouTube.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Doc Bill on April 09 2012,07:54

Wow, almost makes them seem human.  Almost.

And that's what they want you to think.
Posted by: sparc on April 10 2012,22:58

During < another discussion > of the Biological Information: New Perspectives "conference" < John Colliers reported on the 2007 ‘Wistar Retrospective Symposium’ >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A few years ago I was sucked into a conference run by the Discovery Institute. Some the ID people were sincere and perhaps naive. One had done their PhD at Cambridge, and another at Northwestern, under David Hull, my own mentor. I was a bit annoyed at finding I had been duped, but was pleased to renew friendships with Dan Brooks, Bob Ulanowicz, Bruce Weber and some others, as well as meeting Gunther Wagner and Steve Chaitin, and hearing Stuart Kauffman's confusion once again about spontaneous self-organization (Prigogine style self organizing systems) and movement to a minimal energy point.

Michael Behe was there, and we talked. He is a nice guy, unlike the cads at the Discovery Institute. I had refereed a paper of his responding to criticism in Philosophy of Science. Since the criticism was both wrong and poorly argued, I thought he must have his say (as did the other reviewer, a prominent philosopher of biology whose name I am pledged not to reveal). A warning to those attacking ID: these people are much brighter than your garden variety creationists, and do be careful that you know what you are talking about, or else you guarantee them a refereed publication. In this case the original paper should never have been published.

Behe conveniently missed my talk in which I mentioned recent work showed that rotary "motors" in bacteria resulted from just two mutations, contrary to Behe's argument that they are too complicated for evolution to produce. I also showed how Rosen's non-reducibility argument applied to the resulting network, which Chaiting remarked was the clearest expression of the idea he had seen. So the meeting was worthwhile. But I still resent being duped.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


cross posted at < Panda's Thumb >
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 28 2012,04:47

I guess I'm not the only one to sign up for a review cop of BI:NP, so a few of us have probably got an email saying that our online review copy is reserved for us:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Some time ago you reserved an electronic book review copy of "Biological Information: New Perspectives", 978-3-642-28453-3 for you. We are sorry to inform you that this book is not yet available online, but is being reserved for you. You will be informed by email as soon as online access is available.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly they haven't yet decided to ditch the book: my guess is that no decision has been made yet and this is just administrative.
Posted by: sparc on April 28 2012,23:59

I wonder if Springer doesn't have access to Google. It seems quite likely that most of the volume's content has been published before. Thus, critical in depth reviews that are likely to cover most of each of its chapters are already available on the web. E.g., since the announcement of BI:NP < Tom English > pointed out the fallacy at the core of Dembski's and Marks' active information and < Bob Lloyd > shredded Sewell's second law musings.
OTOH, Springer is currently experiencing what happens if they don't fulfill the demands of the DI and they may be afraid of additional censorship allegations however unsubstantiated they may be.
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 29 2012,04:08

I think that would be the job of reviewers, not Springer per se. But I'm sure they were careful about who they asked to review the book this time.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 28 2012,01:32

Today (here in Germany we have August 28 already) it is 150 days that BI:NP's scheduled publishing date passed.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 15 2012,22:59

Limiting Google searches for „Biological Information: New Perspectives“ to one week usually leaves us with links to a single web site, TrueFreethinker, which is one of the most bizarre pages  I have encountered. This week self-described Agentinean-American Messianic Jew Mariano Grinbank who was mentioned earlier in this thread posted about the devil and rock  music < here > and < here >.
< Another highlight >.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 23 2012,04:10

Granville Sewell takes scientific discussion to new heights: He has published a < YouTube video > in which he tells the sad story of "How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained".

Some minutes into the video, he tells his viewers about    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a 2011Cornell University symposium entitled Biological Information - New Perspectives. .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And later, he repeats this misinformation. By the way, although ID friends were present,    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... I don't recall that Intelligent Design was ever mentioned in the talks ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then he whines about the Elsevier's Applied Mathematics Letters affair (mean David vun Kannon! waaah!) and the Springer affair.

Next: Nasty Bob Lloyd attacked him in the Mathematical Intelligencer in March 2012, and Sewell's letter to the editor was rejected - unfair!

Then, he boringly reads out that letter as published in EN&V.

Last complaint: American Journal of Physics  rejected his paper, too; it's a conspiracy, surely?

That's the content of 15 minutes of whining, comments are disabled, of course, as they are on UD where he announced the video.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 23 2012,10:10

Or in other words, the scientific consensus is maintained by keeping bad creationist arguments and self-plagiarism out of journals tasked with doing exactly that.

Oh yeah, the jerk whining about censorship isn't even allowing UD's selective commenting to occur in response to his post.  Cry another river about not having any right to reply, hypocrite.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 23 2012,12:07

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 23 2012,04:10)
Granville Sewell takes scientific discussion to new heights: He has published a < YouTube video > in which he tells the sad story of "How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained".

Some minutes into the video, he tells his viewers about    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a 2011Cornell University symposium entitled Biological Information - New Perspectives. .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And later, he repeats this misinformation. By the way, although ID friends were present,    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... I don't recall that Intelligent Design was ever mentioned in the talks ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then he whines about the Elsevier's Applied Mathematics Letters affair (mean David vun Kannon! waaah!) and the Springer affair.

Next: Nasty Bob Lloyd attacked him in the Mathematical Intelligencer in March 2012, and Sewell's letter to the editor was rejected - unfair!

Then, he boringly reads out that letter as published in EN&V.

Last complaint: American Journal of Physics  rejected his paper, too; it's a conspiracy, surely?

That's the content of 15 minutes of whining, comments are disabled, of course, as they are on UD where he announced the video.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the link and the summary. I don't have the nerve to listen to the whole thing.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 23 2012,12:40

Over at The Skeptical Zone, there is a new post about the video.
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 05 2012,22:20

According to < buecher.de > Springer says that "Biological Information: New Perspectives" will not be published:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Erscheint nicht laut Verlag
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





< Velbrück >, a second online book dealer says the same



So does < Lehmanns > the biggest German book dealer for science books although in other words:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Titel wird leider nicht erscheinen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Looks like Demski has to update his < CV/resume > which still says:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BOOKS

in preparation

• Biological Information: New Perspectives (co-edited with Robert J. Marks II, John Sanford, Michael Behe, and Bruce Gordon). Under contract with Springer Verlag.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



edited to correct link to the third image


Posted by: sparc on Dec. 05 2012,23:11

Springer seems to have dismissed BI:NP for quite some time already:
According to < Lehmanns > BI:NP was planned as #38 of the Springer series Intelligent Systems Reference Library which is now occupied by the < Handbook of Optimization >. According to < Amazon > the later has already been published on August 19, 2012.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Dec. 05 2012,23:16

And the Fourth Reich wins!

At least if you believe the high thin whine of outraged incompetence.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 06 2012,21:56

The news has spread at < theoplogy web and triggered some predictable reaction >. After the book had been described as    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
fraudulently misrepresenting itself as work from Cornell University
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Jorge got mad:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was NOT "fraudulently misrepresented", you lying piece of recycled trash. Every title had been submitted to Springer months BEFORE the Symposium. This included authors, abstracts ... etc. Springer approved all materials submitted to them prior to the event and agreed to publish.

What happened was something entirely different than your lying reporting.
It is essentially another example of intellectual censorship based on religious ideology, not on science... another example of EXPELLED.

I certainly am not expecting for you - sick carcass that you are - to comprehend nor accept any of this.

Jorge
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Dec. 07 2012,01:49

Granville Sewell's recent < whining > about the Biological Information: New Perspectives desaster can be read as if he already knew then that Springer abonded the publication of the proceedings:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since AML still refused to publish my accepted article I went ahead and presented it at the May 2011 Cornell symposium as originally planned and submitted a revised version for inclusion in the proceedings. Nearly a year later in March 2012 the proceedings had been peer reviewed and type set and the book was ready to be printed in accordance with the signed publication agreement with Springer were like. But once again a[???] Darwinist discovered that Springer was about to publish the proceedings and pressured the publisher into delaying and re-considering publication. According to this < article > these critics admitted not knowing anything about the contents of the proceedings they just noticed that the editors were known intelligent design supporters and based on this alone brought pressure on Springer to withdraw the book. In fact, although the editors and most of the participants were ID-friendly I don’t recall that intelligent design was ever mentioned in the talks though most were critical of Darwinism’s ability to explain the development of biological information. Although this time the protests were not directed specifically against my writing, the protesters didn’t know what was in the book, remember, for a second time my article had been peer reviewed and accepted and close to publication when people who had no reason to be involved in the editorial process succeeded, at least temporarily, in suppressing it. As of today seven later the < Amazon.com page > for these proceedings still says “sign up to be notified when this item becomes available”. Here is the Amazon.com description of the conference:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. […]Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) Biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There you are, you know more about the proceedings than those who demanded it the publisher withdraw the book in March.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(all emphasis mine, links added)


Posted by: damitall on Dec. 07 2012,03:54

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 06 2012,21:56)
The news has spread at < theoplogy web and triggered some predictable reaction >. After the book had been described as    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
fraudulently misrepresenting itself as work from Cornell University
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Jorge got mad:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was NOT "fraudulently misrepresented", you lying piece of recycled trash. Every title had been submitted to Springer months BEFORE the Symposium. This included authors, abstracts ... etc. Springer approved all materials submitted to them prior to the event and agreed to publish.

What happened was something entirely different than your lying reporting.
It is essentially another example of intellectual censorship based on religious ideology, not on science... another example of EXPELLED.

I certainly am not expecting for you - sick carcass that you are - to comprehend nor accept any of this.

Jorge
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't looked at TWeb for some time, but IIRC, Jorge is permanently irate.

It's his ground state.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 07 2012,09:06

Quote (damitall @ Dec. 07 2012,04:54)
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 06 2012,21:56)
The news has spread at < theoplogy web and triggered some predictable reaction >. After the book had been described as      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
fraudulently misrepresenting itself as work from Cornell University
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Jorge got mad:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was NOT "fraudulently misrepresented", you lying piece of recycled trash. Every title had been submitted to Springer months BEFORE the Symposium. This included authors, abstracts ... etc. Springer approved all materials submitted to them prior to the event and agreed to publish.

What happened was something entirely different than your lying reporting.
It is essentially another example of intellectual censorship based on religious ideology, not on science... another example of EXPELLED.

I certainly am not expecting for you - sick carcass that you are - to comprehend nor accept any of this.

Jorge
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't looked at TWeb for some time, but IIRC, Jorge is permanently irate.

It's his ground state.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


those are the best kinds of tard.  permarage
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 07 2012,10:27

Jorge is an anagram for r JoeG. Any similarities in style?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 07 2012,10:38

Dembski still hasn't produced the book he was supposed to write to < fulfill his Templeton grant obligation > from 12 years ago.

ETA: He presently lists Being as Communion as "long overdue" on his CV.  :O
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 07 2012,22:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I haven't looked at TWeb for some time, but IIRC, Jorge is permanently irate.

It's his ground state.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So his parents grounded him?

Henry
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 09 2012,02:56

While Amazon.com and many other US sites still list BI:NP as available or in print UK < pickabook > states:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We believe that this item is permanently unavailable, and so we cannot source it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




South-Africa's < Red Pepper Books > says it more directly:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Availability: Cancelled
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: The whole truth on Dec. 09 2012,03:24

sparc, thanks for the updates. It appears that Springer isn't going to publish BI:NP. The IDiots are probably looking for another publisher, and I can't help but wonder if they're considering or planning a lawsuit against Springer. Even if they have no chance of winning such a suit they might push it anyway just to get as much 'Expelled' publicity as they can milk from it.
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 09 2012,11:37

Wesley Brewer has removed the four articles planned to be part of the BI:NP proceedings from his < webpage >. According to < Google cache > they were still present on November 19, 2012:


Posted by: fusilier on Dec. 09 2012,13:25

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 07 2012,11:27)
Jorge is an anagram for r JoeG. Any similarities in style?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't think so.

Jorge once said his eyes were opened by Kent Hovind videos - and he's a fundigelical Christian.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 09 2012,15:04

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 09 2012,01:24)
Even if they have no chance of winning such a suit they might push it anyway just to get as much 'Expelled' publicity as they can milk from it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only the movie had been called "Expressed" there'd have been a pun in there somewhere.

Hardly worth it.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 09 2012,15:47

I don't see the point in writing a book like this other than to say "we have a book coming out soon" and then forget about it.

Who's going to buy a $100-plus book of bullshit essays?

I can't imagine that Marks or Behe want a POS like this on their resume;  they get enough from their colleagues as it is.  It's not going to further Dr. Dr.'s "career" as an adjunct professor at a bible diploma mill.

So, no money, no bragging rights, no fame - what's the point?
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 10 2013,15:56

< Darwin's Dead Idea and the Man Who Helped Kill It > contains a modified version of John Barnham's interview with William Dembski first published on his < TheBestSchools.org blog >.
At the time of the interview (it was published on  January 12, 2012) Dembski was expecting that the proceedings of the secret meeting of ID-creationists at Cornell University would be published by Springer. Luckily, Biological Information: New Perspectives didn't appear and they thus removed Dembski’s following statement from the current version of the interview:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For instance, I have a very substantial anthology coming out with a major academic publisher, but I’m not at liberty to say where until it actually comes out, because Darwinists have the disturbing habit of trying to get publication agreements for ID-friendly literature revoked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope he knows that we found the first evidence for Biological Information: New Perspectives in his CV on his own designinference.com pages.

(edited to correct tags)


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 10 2013,17:06

oh god sparc that book description at amazon is hilarious



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Book Description
Publication Date: January 4, 2013
"Darwin’s Dead Idea and the Man Who Helped Kill It" makes for highly engaging reading. Witness the fascinating journey of a smart, inquisitive adolescent rejecting his school’s ask-no-questions religious indoctrination into a mathematician, philosopher, and scientist of the highest order, one who today is powerfully and persuasively challenging academia’s reigning answer to the questions that haunt us all: Where did we come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? A leading spokesman for the scientific theory that is shattering materialist assumptions about reality and the origin of life, Dr. William Dembski responds to probing questions from James Barham, general editor of TheBestSchools.org. That interview forms the core of DDI. Dembski’s forthright and humbly restrained responses reveal the courage, perseverance, and original thinking that have made him a lightning rod in the scientific community. The heated controversy surrounding intelligent design theory dramatically confirms Machiavelli’s observation that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. DDI introduces readers to one of the stellar lights of the new order of things now emerging on the horizon.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wonderfully 'humbly restrained' of them, ain't it?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 10 2013,17:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
made him a lightning rod in the scientific community
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



One kind of rod, anyhow.

And really, like he's anything in the scientific community.  Not even much of anything in the kook community, the only one that cares about him at all, aside from those of us who apparently enjoy laughing at old jokes.

Somehow I keep expecting slightly more honesty from these buffoons, mainly because the lies haven't done much for them.  But lying seems to be all that they know to do.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 10 2013,18:16

I guess we're not at rock bottom!  And here I thought being an adjunct "professor" at a North Carolina correspondence Bible college was rock bottom!

Just think, when collecting unemployment is a step above what you're currently doing is not rock bottom, that's a rocky bottom.

So, Dembski is reduced to charging $5 for a Kindle version of a year-old blog posting freely available, still, on the Internet.  Srsly, Dembski, this is "leading edge" stuff?  And edited by the folks who brought you Of Pandas and People, how nice!

For five bucks, Dembski, you should at least create an ID app.  Call it:

Angry Tards
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 10 2013,19:13

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 11 2013,10:06)
oh god sparc that book description at amazon is hilarious
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And guess who has turned up in the reviewers' comments there? Hint: "ID is NOT anti-evolution."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 10 2013,23:34

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2013,18:06)
oh god sparc that book description at amazon is hilarious

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Book Description
Publication Date: January 4, 2013
"Darwin’s Dead Idea and the Man Who Helped Kill It" makes for highly engaging reading. Witness the fascinating journey of a smart, inquisitive adolescent rejecting his school’s ask-no-questions religious indoctrination into a mathematician, philosopher, and scientist of the highest order, one who today is powerfully and persuasively challenging academia’s reigning answer to the questions that haunt us all: Where did we come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? A leading spokesman for the scientific theory that is shattering materialist assumptions about reality and the origin of life, Dr. William Dembski responds to probing questions from James Barham, general editor of TheBestSchools.org. That interview forms the core of DDI. Dembski’s forthright and humbly restrained responses reveal the courage, perseverance, and original thinking that have made him a lightning rod in the scientific community. The heated controversy surrounding intelligent design theory dramatically confirms Machiavelli’s observation that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. DDI introduces readers to one of the stellar lights of the new order of things now emerging on the horizon.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wonderfully 'humbly restrained' of them, ain't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


50 bucks says he wrote it

ETA It's monopoly money, bitches, I don't actually GAF :D


Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 11 2013,00:36

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 10 2013,21:34)
50 bucks says he wrote it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Witness the fascinating journey of a smart, inquisitive adolescent rejecting his school’s ask-no-questions religious indoctrination into a mathematician, philosopher, and scientist of the highest order, one who today is powerfully and persuasively challenging academia’s reigning answer to the questions that haunt us all: Where did we come from? Why is there something rather than nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's an O'Leary sentence, or I'm a duck.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 11 2013,08:32

Yeah, that sounds Dense enough;  highly compacted bullshit.

Besides, the original interview was posted on the blog where Dense hangs out now.

Just imagine a threesome between Dumbski, Dense and Buell.

(I know, Jon or Linda - doesn't matter.)
Posted by: DiEb on Feb. 11 2013,09:20

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 11 2013,14:32)
Yeah, that sounds Dense enough;  highly compacted bullshit.

Besides, the original interview was posted on the blog where Dense hangs out now.

Just imagine a threesome between Dumbski, Dense and Buell.

(I know, Jon or Linda - doesn't matter.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Denyse < uses the handle "news" at UncommonDescent... >

5.08$ for 74 pages Dembski? *Shudder*


Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 11 2013,12:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....and a scientist of the highest order,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fuck me.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 11 2013,13:25

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2013,12:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....and a scientist of the highest order,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fuck me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, of course.

Theology being the queen of sciences, Dembski's apologetics make him into a scientist of the highest order.

In ID terms...

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 11 2013,13:56

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 10 2013,19:13)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 11 2013,10:06)
oh god sparc that book description at amazon is hilarious
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And guess who has turned up in the reviewers' comments there? Hint: "ID is NOT anti-evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor Joe:

Initial post: Feb 10, 2013 6:59:29 AM PST
Joseph Gallien says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again.  (Show all unhelpful posts)]

Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
0 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?  Yes No
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 11 2013,14:08

Quote (Robin @ Feb. 11 2013,13:56)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 10 2013,19:13)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 11 2013,10:06)
oh god sparc that book description at amazon is hilarious
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And guess who has turned up in the reviewers' comments there? Hint: "ID is NOT anti-evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor Joe:

Initial post: Feb 10, 2013 6:59:29 AM PST
Joseph Gallien says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again.  (Show all unhelpful posts)]

Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
0 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?  Yes No
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I voted it down.  I chose not to engage with Joe anymore.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Feb. 11 2013,17:37

I signed into my Amazon account and voted Joe G's comments down, too.

They're disappearing so fast you'd think DaveScot was running Amazon!
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 09 2013,00:42

Searching for BI:NP doesn't result in much news but I found a nice (if true) story about J. Sandford in an still < ongoing discussion >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is also a beautiful story about John Sanford, I have a friend who was a post doc at Cornell and on one of the few occasions Sanford went there, he was met with a queue of Bioscience students, who all wanted him to sign a book. I guess he thought, one of his books. No, they all had books such Barney the Dinosaur and the Junior Dinosaur picture book. After about 2 minutes he went bright red (as I imagine longloadr does!) and ran from the campus in tears, so upset he could not drive his own car, and had to be driven home by campus security.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA: Today's the first anniversary of this thread.


Posted by: sparc on Mar. 30 2013,16:38

One day before the first aniversary of the publication of BI:NP that never happend Granville Sewell anounced at < UD > that he has published yet another updated version of the bitter video in which he complains about the fact that he cannot publish his views on the SLoT again.
In the meantime he tried to get his paper published it in the American Journal of Physics and received the answer he diserved (one wonders what he actually expected) although IMHO the reply was still much to kind:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Dr. Sewell,
We have reviewed your submission „Poker Entrpoy and the Theory of Compensation” (our manuscript 24445) and determined that it is not appropriate for publication  in the American Journal of Physics. Please refer to the “Information for Contributors” and the “Statement of Editorial Policy” at the AJP homepage (http://www.kzoo.edu/ajp/).

We do not see any educational value in your manuscript. Because it is well established in the physics community that there is no conflict between the second law of thermodynamics and evolution, we can consider manuscripts which help students understand why. However, papers that promote views that are contrary to accepted understandings in physics should be sent to research journals not to AJP.

Therefore, I regret to inform you that we will not pursue the publication of your manuscript.

Ian Tobochnik
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(taken from G. Sewels video < How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained >)

ETA: I posted this here because in the original video Sewell complained that Springer didn't publish BI:NP. I will leave a copy at the uncommonlydense thread-


Posted by: sparc on June 05 2013,23:16

They've finally made it: After Springer denied "Biological Information: New Perspectives" ID-creationists somehow must have convinced < World Scientific Publishing Company > to publish it. O'Leary linked to its < Amzon page > at < UD > and < Best Schools >.
Posted by: sparc on June 06 2013,01:08


Posted by: sparc on June 06 2013,01:12

Maybe you want to re-tweet < this >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
@worldscientific are you really going to publish unscientific creationist Biological Information: New Perspectives? < http://tinyurl.com/car2h3v....car2h3v >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Bob O'H on June 06 2013,02:16

I tweeted this to them:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
@worldscientific Are you aware that you are about to publish creationist "science"? < http://www.worldscientific.com/worldsc........818 > see < http://www.guardian.co.uk/science....ce....2 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a bit torn on this: I don't like the idea of censorship, so I'd rather this was published somewhere, but I think it's wrong for a reputable press to publish this as science, unless it's been through a thorough peer review. I hadn't heard of the press before, so I don't know how reputable they want to be. I guess we'll find out.

BTW, I've downloaded the book (from < the publishers >, it's free folks) and can send it to anyone who wants 20Mb of nighttime reading. Personally, I'm sticking to The Complete Sherlock Holmes for the moment.

ETA: I also tweeted Cornell, to ask if they were aware the book was being advertised as from a symposium at Cornell.


Posted by: Quack on June 06 2013,03:24

Must each pdf be downloaded separately; the select all checkbox didn't do much?
Posted by: sparc on June 06 2013,05:38

I wonder if Dr. Dr. Dembski is aware of what Denyse is doing. As of today he still lists "Biological Information: New Perspectives" as  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Under contract with Springer Verlag. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA forgotten second PhD


Posted by: Cubist on June 06 2013,06:23

Have downloaded all 20-something PDFs. According to the colophon, the publisher, World Scientific, is a Singapore-based publisher with offices in the US (Hackensack, NJ) and UK (London, England). It would be interesting to know whether anyone at World Scientific is aware of the track records of the various editors/contributors.

The book is credited to five editors…
• Robert J. Marks II (Baylor U.)
• Michael J. Behe (Lehigh U.)
• William A. Dembski (Discovery Institute)
• Bruce L. Gordon (Houston Baptist U.)
• John C. Sanford (Cornell U.)
…with assistance from two other persons:
• Franzine D. Smith, Technical Editor
• Chase W. Nelson, Editorial Assistant

Here's the table of contents, sans page numbers:

Section One: Information Theory & Biology
• Introductory Comments / Robert J. Marks II
• Biological Information — What is It / Werner Gitt, Robert Compton, and Jorge Fernandez
• A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search / William A. Dembski, Winston Ewert, and Robert J. Marks II
• Pragmatic Information / John W. Oller, Jr.
• Limits of Chaos and Progress in Evolutionary Dynamics / William F. Basener
• Tierra: The Character of Adaptation / Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II
• Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation / George Montañez, Robert J. Marks II, Jorge Fernandez and John C. Sanford
• Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems / Granville Sewell
• Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems / Andy C. McIntosh
Section Two: Biological Information and Genetic Theory
• Introductory Comments / John C. Sanford
• Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information / Jonathan Wells
• Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? / Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, and John C. Sanford
Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations / John C. Sanford, John R. Baumgardner, and Wesley H. Brewer
• Using Numerical Simulation to Test the “Mutation-Count” Hypothesis / Wesley H. Brewer, John R. Baumgardner, and John C. Sanford
• Can Synergistic Epistasis Halt Mutation Accumulation? Results from Numerical Simulation / John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, and John C. Sanford
• Computational Evolution Experiments Reveal a Net Loss of Genetic Information Despite Selection / Chase W. Nelson and John C. Sanford
• Information Loss: Potential for Accelerating Natural Genetic Attenuation of RNA Viruses / Wesley H. Brewer, Franzine D. Smith, and John C. Sanford
• DNA.EXE: A Sequence Comparison between the Human Genome and Computer Code / Josiah Seaman
• Biocybernetics and Biosemiosis / Donald Johnson
Section Three: Theoretical Molecular Biology
• Introductory Comments / Michael J. Behe
• An Ode to the Code: Evidence for Fine-Tuning in the Standard Codon Table / Jed C. Macosko and Amanda M. Smelser
• A New Model of Intracellular Communication Based on Coherent, High-Frequency Vibrations in Biomolecules / L. Dent
• Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations / Michael J. Behe
• The Membrane Code: A Carrier of Essential Biological Information That Is Not Specified by DNA and Is Inherited Apart from It / Jonathan Wells
• Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism versus Design / Douglas D. Axe and Ann K. Gauger
Section Four: Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory
• Introductory Comments / Bruce L. Gordon
• Evolution Beyond Entailing Law: The Roles of Embodied Information and Self Organization / Stuart Kauffman
• Towards a General Biology: Emergence of Life and Information from the Perspective of Complex Systems Dynamics / Bruce H. Weber
Posted by: olegt on June 06 2013,07:12

Quote (sparc @ June 05 2013,23:16)
They've finally made it: After Springer denied "Biological Information: New Perspectives" ID-creationists somehow must have convinced < World Scientific Publishing Company > to publish it. O'Leary linked to its < Amzon page > at < UD > and < Best Schools >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's usually the other way around: World Scientific has to convince you to write a book. Every time I give a talk at a visible conference, they send me their < CD with Nobel lectures > and prod me to write a review. Their requests promptly end up in trash.

World Scientific's journals that I know are crap.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 06 2013,09:42

Quote (Cubist @ June 06 2013,04:23)
Have downloaded all 20-something PDFs. According to the colophon, the publisher, World Scientific, is a Singapore-based publisher with offices in the US (Hackensack, NJ) and UK (London, England). It would be interesting to know whether anyone at World Scientific is aware of the track records of the various editors/contributors.

The book is credited to five editors…
(snip)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember how MAD magazine used to list their contributing artists and writers? :-)


eta artists not editors.
Posted by: Freddie on June 06 2013,10:57

From the Front Matter PDF:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Original scientific
research was presented and discussed at this symposium, which was then written
up, and constitute most of the twenty-four peer-edited papers in this volume.
These papers are presented in four sections: Information Theory and Biology,
Biological Information and Genetic Theory, Theoretical Molecular Biology, and
Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Peer-Edited".  That's just like Peer-Reviewed, yes?
Posted by: JohnW on June 06 2013,11:28

Quote (Cubist @ June 06 2013,04:23)
• Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems / Granville Sewell
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing says "serious academic publisher" quite like 2LOT denialism.  I assume the Journal of Perpetual Motion is in the pipeline.
Posted by: OgreMkV on June 06 2013,11:43

Quote (Freddie @ June 06 2013,10:57)
From the Front Matter PDF:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Original scientific
research was presented and discussed at this symposium, which was then written
up, and constitute most of the twenty-four peer-edited papers in this volume.
These papers are presented in four sections: Information Theory and Biology,
Biological Information and Genetic Theory, Theoretical Molecular Biology, and
Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Peer-Edited".  That's just like Peer-Reviewed, yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep and the flu is "just like" HIV.  I mean, they're both viruses right?

And I see Macintosh on this list.  How awesome.  I trashed one of his papers that was published in the Journal of Design (industrial design that is).
Posted by: Bob O'H on June 06 2013,14:35

I'm reading one of Mark's chapters. In it he writes


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information of two disjoint events should be additive. That is, if the word “stuttering” conveys information I1 and “professor” conveys information I2, then “stuttering professor” should convey information I1 + I2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To me disjoint events are ones that cannot both happen, so there would be no such thing as a "stuttering professor". In engineering, is "disjoint" often used to mean "independent"?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 06 2013,14:55

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 06 2013,14:35)
I'm reading one of Mark's chapters. In it he writes


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information of two disjoint events should be additive. That is, if the word “stuttering” conveys information I1 and “professor” conveys information I2, then “stuttering professor” should convey information I1 + I2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To me disjoint events are ones that cannot both happen, so there would be no such thing as a "stuttering professor". In engineering, is "disjoint" often used to mean "independent"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A disjointed idea is one that lacks logical continuity or contains irreconcilable contradictions.  A non sequitur is a form of disjointed construction.
Posted by: Henry J on June 06 2013,14:56

But "stuttering" and "professor" aren't events; they're descriptions of people.
Posted by: Bob O'H on June 06 2013,15:28

Quote (Henry J @ June 06 2013,14:56)
But "stuttering" and "professor" aren't events; they're descriptions of people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sigh*
Posted by: sparc on June 06 2013,21:22

< Tom English's > comment on BI:NP.
Posted by: fusilier on June 07 2013,06:10

Quote (olegt @ June 06 2013,08:12)
Quote (sparc @ June 05 2013,23:16)
They've finally made it: {snip of details}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's usually the other way around: World Scientific has to convince you to write a book. Every time I give a talk at a visible conference, they send me their < CD with Nobel lectures > and prod me to write a review. Their requests promptly end up in trash.

World Scientific's journals that I know are crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this a vanity press?
Posted by: olegt on June 07 2013,07:54

Quote (fusilier @ June 07 2013,06:10)
Is this a vanity press?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it's a real publisher. It's just that < the journals > it puts out are not exactly coveted by scientists, at least in my field. They are at the bottom of the pecking order. Some articles are OK, most are crap.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 07 2013,09:24

Disjoint?  ETA: The intersection of disjoint sets contains elements?

Jebus effing xmas,  that man needs to visit Intelligent Reasoning and learn himself some set theory.


Posted by: sparc on June 07 2013,21:28

If one considers what the IDiots would have made out of Biological Information: New Perspectives back in 2005 one can only conclude that UD and the whole ID business is dead. Judging from the comments over there the troops went back to pure creationism which is understandable: Why choose a tasteless surrogat meal if you can have the real Christian beef.

edited for spelling


Posted by: sparc on June 10 2013,14:08

Tiggy has opened a new Biological Information: New Perspectives thread at TheologyWeb  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Clucky and the Tooters “Creation Science” available online! >
Last year about this time the Discovery Institute began crowing about their science-shaking Cornell Symposium in Biological Information and its coming publication by prestigious science publishing house Springer. The Disco Tooter crowd included the usual Creationist IDiot suspects – Behe, Dempski, Marks, Sanford, Wells, Gitt – as well as our own Clucky Fraudnandez.

Only problems were, 1) the symposium had nothing to Cornell except that’s where the Tooters rented some space, and 2) Springer had been misled into thinking this was a conference on Information Theory, a legitimate mathematical topic.

Springer soon found out the truth and canceled the publication while Cornell didn’t take too kindly to having its name associated with such pseudo-scientific claptrap and threatened heavy duty legal action. Bottom line is the Tooters took all their “Cornell” name-dropping offline beat a hasty retreat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It took some time but after plinythedumber asked  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where is Jorge? (Not that I care much).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Clucky Fraudnandez couldn't hold back any longer and provided his views for why Springer didn't publish the book:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the two papers that I co-authored, plus the many others that were part of the symposium, I challenge anyone to point out how they could be called "Creationist" or "Religious". They were pure science and WSPC
agreed. Springer merely folded in the face of financial considerations, said financial considerations brought about by those that would have EXPELLED Springer. As I once wrote, EXPELLED is both a threat and occurs at many levels.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)


Posted by: midwifetoad on June 10 2013,14:39

Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on June 10 2013,15:10

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,14:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be Jorge Fernandez, a rather clueless and obnoxious YEC who posts regularly at TheologyWeb and who co-authored some of the BI:NP papers.   Think Joe Gallien but without the obscenities.

He has such a reputation for chickening out and running from all attempts to get him to back up his YEC bluster the regulars often refer to him as "Clucky".
Posted by: fusilier on June 11 2013,08:02

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 11 2013,08:54

Quote (fusilier @ June 11 2013,08:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be an interesting link to include in a review.
Posted by: JohnW on June 11 2013,11:52

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 11 2013,06:54)
Quote (fusilier @ June 11 2013,08:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be an interesting link to include in a review.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Filed under "things to ask Joe about on a slow Friday afternoon".
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 11 2013,12:30

Well, someone illustrious to carry the banner for ID alongside Dembski and Behe deserves a Best Of.
Posted by: Dr.GH on June 11 2013,20:36

Quote (fusilier @ June 11 2013,06:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, when I was 19 and stoned, that made some sort of sense.

43 years later, it is just stupid.
Posted by: Henry J on June 11 2013,23:13

Maybe to somebody who's never heard of Einstein or relativity?

Prior to that insight, it might well have been considered common sense.

Henry
Posted by: fusilier on June 12 2013,07:50

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 11 2013,09:54)
Quote (fusilier @ June 11 2013,08:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,15:39)
Pardon me if I don't know who Clucky Fraudnandez is. Doesn't come up with a lot of google hits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jorge is a Kent Hovind acolyte.  Over on CARM, a few years ago, he actually said that light from the headlamps of a spaceship travelling at 0.9c would be traveling at 1.9 c.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be an interesting link to include in a review.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like at UD, inconvenient posts disappear on a fairly regular basis.
Posted by: sparc on June 13 2013,14:12

I just left the following review at the German Amazon pages:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had the chance to read the online version of the chapter "Biological Information — What is It?" by Werner Gitt, Robert Compton and Jorge Fernandez. It seems to be a short version of their book "Without Excuse" which is also availble at Amazon.com. They refer to their book 17 times while the other 13 reference together are mentioned 18 times. Unfortunately, "in Biological Information — What is It?" the authors kept quiet about the main conclusion they draw in their book namely (cited from the Amazon blurb of "Without Excuse"):

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"With his co-authors, information scientist Dr Werner Gitt provides the most rigorous and useful definition of information thus far. He distinguishes this Universal Information (real information) from things often mistakenly called information, and shows how ultimately all biological information comes from God."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on June 23 2013,23:27

Looking forward to the series of reviews on the content of Biological Information: New Perspectives Tom English announced on his < DiEBlog >.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on June 29 2013,23:57

Quote (sparc @ June 13 2013,14:12)
I just left the following review at the German Amazon pages:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had the chance to read the online version of the chapter "Biological Information — What is It?" by Werner Gitt, Robert Compton and Jorge Fernandez. It seems to be a short version of their book "Without Excuse" which is also availble at Amazon.com. They refer to their book 17 times while the other 13 reference together are mentioned 18 times. Unfortunately, "in Biological Information — What is It?" the authors kept quiet about the main conclusion they draw in their book namely (cited from the Amazon blurb of "Without Excuse"):  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"With his co-authors, information scientist Dr Werner Gitt provides the most rigorous and useful definition of information thus far. He distinguishes this Universal Information (real information) from things often mistakenly called information, and shows how ultimately all biological information comes from God."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's ought to be a lot of down votes.
Posted by: sparc on June 30 2013,22:57

Granville Sewell has to remind < Barry Arrington > not to  leave the party line:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Barry,
Please don’t refer to the Cornell proceedings as an “ID-oriented” book. I was at the conference, and while a majority (but certainly not all) of the presenters were ID proponents, I don’t recall that ID was ever mentioned by any of the talks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


However, as DiEB points out it's too late already:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Biological information–new perspectives : proceedings of a symposium held May 31, 2011 through June 3,
2011 at Cornell University / Robert J. Marks II, Baylor University, USA, Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University,
USA, William A. Dembski, Discovery Institute, USA, Bruce L. Gordon, Houston Baptist University,
USA John C. Sanford Cornell University, USA.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-9814508711 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Genomics–Congresses.
2. Molecular genetics–Congresses.
3. Cell interaction–Congresses.
4. Mutation (Biology)–Congresses.
5. Intelligent design (Teleology)–Congresses. I. Marks, Robert J., II (Robert Jackson), 1950–QH426.B58 2013 572.8’629–dc23
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on July 01 2013,09:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

7
Granville SewellJune 30, 2013 at 5:19 pm
DiEb,
I don’t know who included the ID tag, I didn’t have anything to do with the Library of Congress tags for any of my books, perhaps the publisher (World Scientific) did write this. But it is an inaccurate tag, whoever added it. I guess any paper that criticizes Darwinism, without including an alternative materialistic theory of evolution, is automatically tagged as ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Derp!
Posted by: sparc on July 01 2013,14:33

Barry Arrington gets mad about the fact that Springer decided not to publish BI:NP in several posts and of course he couldn't resist to play his usual Nazi card:
< Nick Matzke – Book Burner? >
< Will Our Darwinist Friends Be Telling Us Next That “Arbeit Macht Frei”? >
< It Gets Even Better >

What I really enjoy though, is seeing Granville Sewell being pissed off because when I wrote to Springer to ask them if they were serious I choose him as an example of what they were going to publish and pointed out that his article is unlikely to match their usual standards. I wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
E.g., the talk "A second look at the second law of thermodynamics" is likely by Granville Sewell who has published the same story under similar titles at least three times, partially self-plagiarized. The last time the editors of Applied Mathematics Letters retracted the article (Unfortunately, they agreed to pay Sewell's legal fees in the aftermath). You will find some information on this on the Pandasthumb.org and on retractionwatch.com.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on July 01 2013,15:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
98 julianbre < July 1, 2013 at 1:43 pm >
Dr. Liddle, you said “As much right as Springer had to offer to publish them, having not read them. And indeed to rescind the offer when alerted as to the nature of the conference.” The book had been peer reviewed by two reviewers at Springer and was ready for publication. You think Springer publishes books, especially ones that cost over $100.00 with out even reading them? Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If they hadn't ban me I would ask UDists for the names of these reviewers. I am afraid we will neither learn who they were nor who suggested them. In addition, it would be interesting to know if the same two peers reviewed the book for World Scientific again. Or will World Scientific publish it without being peer reviewed?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Springer pulled the book after the panda people contacted them and threatened a boycott of their company if they went ahead with the publication of Biological information–New Perspectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Does this IDiot really think that Pandasthumb has so much power?  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How is that not censorship since Nick and his buddies had never read the book and had no idea what was in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did he not read the Nick's post? Nick and the commenters concluded from the titles of the different chapters who would be the most likely author and what they would most likely be writing about. Based on experience nothing much new was to be expected and it turned out that we were right. The only news was that they managed to not mention the designer. At least they claim so.
Posted by: sparc on July 01 2013,15:19

Meanwhile Nick < keeps calm and asks about onions >.
Posted by: sparc on July 01 2013,23:08

Quote (sparc @ July 01 2013,14:33)
Barry Arrington gets mad about the fact that Springer decided not to publish BI:NP in several posts and of course he couldn't resist to play his usual Nazi card:
< Nick Matzke – Book Burner? >
< Will Our Darwinist Friends Be Telling Us Next That “Arbeit Macht Frei”? >
< It Gets Even Better >

What I really enjoy though, is seeing Granville Sewell being pissed off because when I wrote to Springer to ask them if they were serious I choose him as an example of what they were going to publish and pointed out that his article is unlikely to match their usual standards. I wrote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
E.g., the talk "A second look at the second law of thermodynamics" is likely by Granville Sewell who has published the same story under similar titles at least three times, partially self-plagiarized. The last time the editors of Applied Mathematics Letters retracted the article (Unfortunately, they agreed to pay Sewell's legal fees in the aftermath). You will find some information on this on the Pandasthumb.org and on retractionwatch.com.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rather than discuss with Liddle in the comments section of his first post Barry Arrington prefers to act as the loudspeaker in the ceiling and fills UD's front page declaring victory:

< Liddle doubles down >
< Liddle Finally Comes Around (Kind of) >

(edited to separate fused links)


Posted by: Febble on July 02 2013,06:09

Does anyone know who did write to Springer?

Bob O'Hara did, I know.

Sparc?  Did you post the text of your letter and/or the response?

I don't see where Nick did.  Anyone?  And what about that boycott?

Not accusing people, I just like facts.

And yes, the irony of being accused of being a fascist and a censor, goaded with jeers of "Arbeit macht frei" in the same thread/topic as I am simultaneously accused of NOT censoring a post at TSZ in which OMagain responds to Kairosfocus's likening of Alan Fox to a German Nazi enabler, and which he noted Kairosfocus' anti-homosexuality was also a Nazi agenda, is not lost on me.

Or, at, any rate, renders any irony meter within a few million miles non-functional.

As Tom Lehrer said, when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize: satire is dead.
Posted by: sparc on July 02 2013,06:49

Quote (Febble @ July 02 2013,06:09)
Does anyone know who did write to Springer?

Bob O'Hara did, I know.

Sparc?  Did you post the text of your letter and/or the response?

I don't see where Nick did.  Anyone?  And what about that boycott?

Not accusing people, I just like facts.

And yes, the irony of being accused of being a fascist and a censor, goaded with jeers of "Arbeit macht frei" in the same thread/topic as I am simultaneously accused of NOT censoring a post at TSZ in which OMagain responds to Kairosfocus's likening of Alan Fox to a German Nazi enabler, and which he noted Kairosfocus' anti-homosexuality was also a Nazi agenda, is not lost on me.

Or, at, any rate, renders any irony meter within a few million miles non-functional.

As Tom Lehrer said, when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize: satire is dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The quote is part of the mail I wrote to Springer in which I asked them if they were aware of what they are publishing.
I don't feel accused and I still think I was right in doing so. They could have easily published the articles at UD if they were feeling being censored. But they kept quiet until they managed to get it published by World Scientific.
Posted by: stevestory on July 02 2013,09:38

Quote (sparc @ July 01 2013,15:33)
Barry Arrington gets mad about the fact that Springer decided not to publish BI:NP in several posts and of course he couldn't resist to play his usual Nazi card:
< Nick Matzke – Book Burner? >
< Will Our Darwinist Friends Be Telling Us Next That “Arbeit Macht Frei”? >
< It Gets Even Better >

What I really enjoy though, is seeing Granville Sewell being pissed off because when I wrote to Springer to ask them if they were serious I choose him as an example of what they were going to publish and pointed out that his article is unlikely to match their usual standards. I wrote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
E.g., the talk "A second look at the second law of thermodynamics" is likely by Granville Sewell who has published the same story under similar titles at least three times, partially self-plagiarized. The last time the editors of Applied Mathematics Letters retracted the article (Unfortunately, they agreed to pay Sewell's legal fees in the aftermath). You will find some information on this on the Pandasthumb.org and on retractionwatch.com.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




We Can Haz FullText?
Posted by: sparc on July 02 2013,12:59

I asked the recipents for permission.
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 02 2013,14:08

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 08 2012,22:43)
Does anybody know Jonathan D.H. Smith from Iowa State University? According to his web pages (< link >) he contributed to BI:NP
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hierarchical information theory and the modeling of biological systems, pp. 419-512 in "Biological Information: New Perspectives" (eds. R.J. Marks II et al.), Springer Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Berlin, 2012.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He even provides < a link to a copy of the article >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting - he didn't make it into the final version. Although he < is listed on the German Amazon page >. And it's not the only one...
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 02 2013,14:19

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 10 2012,00:00)
Another BI:NP talk was from J Scott Turner, Professor at the State University of New York, Syracuse, College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry, Department of Environmental and Forest Biology:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A Multiplicity of Memory. Toward a Coherent Theory of Adaptation.
Biological Information—New Perspectives. Cornell University. June 2011
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

According to his < CV > it was an invited presentation.

For a start < here's > what Jeffrey Shallit had to say about Turner back in 2007.

(cross posted at PT)

ETA: based on another source PT already listed him as a contributor to BI:NP
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Turner's chapter is also not in the final version (and isn't on the German Amazon either).
Posted by: DiEb on July 13 2013,11:49

At last, we have a discussion about one of the articles at Uncommon Descent: Winston Ewert < reacted to some questions > which < I raised at my blog > about William Dembski's, Winston Ewert's and Robert Marks's article "A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search". Any thoughts?
Posted by: sparc on July 16 2013,13:08

Seemingly World Scientific is going to publish another ID book:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligible Design: A Realistic Approach to the Philosophy and History of Science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Paul Braterman > has more on his excellent < Old Earth - Young Earth Blog >. And he has good reasons to be interested in these issues:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< I would not wish to share a publisher with a crypto-creationist manifesto. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA I am not sure if the title really implies ID


Posted by: sparc on July 16 2013,14:47

One chapter of Intelligible Design: A Realistic Approach to the Philosophy and History of Science is availble at < arxiv.org >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fernando Sols: Uncertainty, incompleteness, chance, and design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.
He starts by citing Dembski and claims that there is a contoversy:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this often unnecessarily bitter controversy, chance plus natural selection on the one hand and intelligent design on the other hand, compete as possible driving mechanisms behind the progress of species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Bob O'H on July 16 2013,15:33

Quote (sparc @ July 16 2013,14:47)
One chapter of Intelligible Design: A Realistic Approach to the Philosophy and History of Science is availble at < arxiv.org >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fernando Sols: Uncertainty, incompleteness, chance, and design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.
He starts by citing Dembski and claims that there is a contoversy:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this often unnecessarily bitter controversy, chance plus natural selection on the one hand and intelligent design on the other hand, compete as possible driving mechanisms behind the progress of species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it makes sense in the way it's framed. He argues that we can't ultimately ascribe chance to any event (which is fine), and thus he allows for a Designer, albeit one that can't be refuted. It's sort-of interesting, but doesn't really help ID, as he argues that its ultimately not scientific, because it can't be refuted: essentially, a Designer can create something that looks random.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 16 2013,19:10

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 16 2013,13:33)
(snip)essentially, a Designer can create something that looks random.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Woodcarver: "I made this. It used to be round."
Frank Burns: "It looks like a two-by-four."
Woodcarver: "Thank you."
Posted by: Henry J on July 16 2013,22:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
essentially, a Designer can create something that looks random.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course. Human engineers can do that. And, a skilled designer could "design" something to follow some set of constraints even if those constraints are optional (for that designer). But in that case, somebody studying the result might as well make use of those constraints in any endeavors to figure out what comes next.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Frank Burns: "It looks like a two-by-four."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Good bye, Ferret face." - B.J.

(But don't ask what "B.J." stands for!;)

Henry
Posted by: sparc on July 16 2013,22:53

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 16 2013,15:33)
Quote (sparc @ July 16 2013,14:47)
One chapter of Intelligible Design: A Realistic Approach to the Philosophy and History of Science is availble at < arxiv.org >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fernando Sols: Uncertainty, incompleteness, chance, and design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.
He starts by citing Dembski and claims that there is a contoversy:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this often unnecessarily bitter controversy, chance plus natural selection on the one hand and intelligent design on the other hand, compete as possible driving mechanisms behind the progress of species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it makes sense in the way it's framed. He argues that we can't ultimately ascribe chance to any event (which is fine), and thus he allows for a Designer, albeit one that can't be refuted. It's sort-of interesting, but doesn't really help ID, as he argues that its ultimately not scientific, because it can't be refuted: essentially, a Designer can create something that looks random.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds catholic to me.
Posted by: Cubist on July 17 2013,03:23

Quote (Henry J @ July 16 2013,22:17)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
essentially, a Designer can create something that looks random.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course. Human engineers can do that. And, a skilled designer could "design" something to follow some set of constraints even if those constraints are optional (for that designer). But in that case, somebody studying the result might as well make use of those constraints in any endeavors to figure out what comes next.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Frank Burns: "It looks like a two-by-four."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Good bye, Ferret face." - B.J.

(But don't ask what "B.J." stands for!)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was an episode where they actually did say what B. J. stands for. As it happens, B. J. was named after his aunt Bea, and his uncle Jay. I am not making this up…
Posted by: Henry J on July 17 2013,14:33

Yup, that sounds like what I remember, now that you mention it.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 12 2013,01:29

< Amazon's August BI:NP sales may result in a new record: >



Impressing. Especially, the willingness to support the ID movement financially. Therefore, I nominate this buyer for IDURC's Casey Luskin Award 2011. BTW, did anybody hear anything about the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center lately?

ETA link


Posted by: sparc on Aug. 12 2013,14:40

< Somebody realized that BI:NP indeed needs some help: >        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientific Proceedings Published, Challenging Conventional Neo-Darwinian Theory

"This is by far the most rigorous and in-depth re-examination of the sufficiency ofneo-Darwinian theory. Never have so many well-credentialed scientists, representing so many disciplines, united so effectively to look beyondthe standardmutation-selection paradigm." - The Editors

WACO, Texas, Aug. 12, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- World Scientific Publishing has just released the proceedings of a symposium held in the spring of 2011, where a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to critically re-examine neo-Darwinian theory. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.

This is a milestone book. For over 100 years, it has been very widely believed that the mutation/selection process is sufficient to explain virtually everything within the biological realm. The 29 contributors to this volume bring into serious question this neo-Darwinian paradigm. They use their wide-ranging expertise to carefully examine a series of fundamental theoretical problems that are now emerging.These problems all relate to the exploding field ofbiological information. Biological information is becoming the primary focus of 21stcentury biological research. Within each cell there are information systems surpassing the best human information technologies. These systems create what is essentially a biological internet within each cell. The authors, although holding diverse philosophical perspectives, unanimously agree that the mutation/selection process is not adequate to explain the labyrinth of informational networks that are essential for life.

Several clear themes emerged from the research papers within this volume: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is; 2) Biological information is more than the molecular structures that embody it; 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms are insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life.

The book, Biological Information – New Perspectives, was edited by R. Marks, M. Behe, W. Dembski, B. Gordon, and J. Sanford. This volume presents 24 technical papers summarizing the research findings of 29 contributing scientists. The 24 technical papers are open access, and can be freely downloaded from < http://www.worldscientific.com/worldsc....8#t=toc > . Additional information about the book is available at the same site. The book is available from World Scientific Publishing, Amazon.com, and FMSpub.org.

Source: FMS Foundation, sponsor of the proceedings. For more information contact Dr. Robert Marks at Baylor University ([...]).

SOURCE FMS Foundation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Too bad, that announcing the free download pages won't help to sell more books.

Initially I misread the foundations name for FSM. I don't know what FMS stands for but Flying Monster Spaghettis seems unlikely. Since there is nothing but BI:NP on the foundation's pages it seems likely that its sole purpose is to promote BI:NP without linking it to sites where the link to ID-creationism would be instantly obvious. As a Google search for BI:NP limited to the last 24 hours resulted in 10 pages with news articles just copied from FMS's above cited press release this strategy might work.

< whois > identified Jimmie Pamplin as the site's registrant who is also the page owner of
< logosresearchassociates.org > which has the following statement on its openening page:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who are we?

We are a fellowship of scholars and scientists who faithfully hold to the teachings of Jesus Christ and all of his Word, and also faithfully hold to the scientific method and the need for scientific integrity.
What is our goal?

As Ambassadors for Christ we seek to encourage others to believe in Jesus, to faithfully and deliberately believe what Jesus taught, and to believe God’s revealed Word – the Bible – which is the power of God to salvation. We use scholarship, logic, and the scientific method to show that the historical claims of the Bible are not only credible, but are superior to evolutionary theory to explain the origin of the world we see. We freely acknowledge our own fallibility, the inherent limits of “historical science”, and the need for “faith” by adherents of any view about ultimate origins. We urge all people to NOT put their faith in us, or any other form of human authority, but ultimately to put their faith in Jesus Christ.
How can we help you?

There is a great deal of misinformation, deception, and confusion surrounding the origins debate, which should not surprise us, as this is a key spiritual battleground. We at Logos do not have all the answers, but we can offer you strong, logical, and scientific reasons to embrace Biblical history. A large part of accepting Biblical history is rejecting what is popularly taught as “evolutionary history”. Evolutionary theory can now largely be discredited, and we can show you this to be true. We stand by Christ’s claim when He said “I am the Truth”. Are you seeking the Truth? Then we have information which can help you!
What do we do?

As scholars and scientists we delve deeply into the scientific controversies which affect Christian belief and unbelief. We are doing high quality original research that can challenge many academic dogmas of our day – in areas such as cosmology, geology, genetics, and archeology. We are building national and international collaborative research teams. We wish to effectively communicate our findings, and the findings of others, to people like you.
What can you do?

Please consider our evidences. Please be encouraged in your Christian faith. Please decide to be more faithful to Christ – by deliberately choosing to believe Him, and follow Him. If you are a scholar or scientist, share our vision, and feel you can contribute to our work – please contact us by

   email at logosresearchassociates@gmail.com, or

   phone (714) 425-9474, or

   write to: Logos Research Associates, 3232 W. MacArthur Blvd, Santa Ana, CA 92704

If you wish to contribute financially to this unique ministry, please know we very much need your support. Please see our donations page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's what logos says about Pamplin:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jim Pamplin

B.A. (Biology)

Secretary-Treasurer of Logos Research Associates, Senior Ambassador

Active in creation science circles, Jim became acquainted with a number of Bible-believing scientists. When several found themselves displaced from the research they loved, Jim introduced them to < Pastor Chuck Smith > of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa.  After prayerful consideration and with encouragement from Pastor Chuck and the Calvary Chapel board, the group incorporated as Logos Research Associates.  Jim now serves Logos as office administrator, (i.e., paper-shuffler/pencil-pusher/bean-counter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA link to < wikipedia article > on Pastor Chuck Smith

ETA link to Google search for "Scientific Proceedings Published, Challenging Conventional Neo-Darwinian Theory"


Posted by: Doc Bill on Aug. 12 2013,20:37

Logos Research Associates is the fruitcake of creationism!  Chock full of crackpots and nuts.

Our pal Coppedge is a member, as is Steve Austin and others.  A Who's Who of Loons.

Brilliant idea.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 12 2013,22:46

Sanford, Coppedge and colleagues surely appreciate the science friendly < atmosphere open for discussion > Pastor Chuck Smith and his Calvary Chapel provide.

edited for spelling


Posted by: sparc on Aug. 14 2013,22:49

Just wondering why user RJMarksII felt the need < to add himself, Dembski, Behe, Gauger and Axe > to wikipedia's article on the < Erdös-Bacon number >.
Maybe to let Biological Information: New Perspectives and other ID papers appear as serious scientific sources for once. Although in a hidden remote place of the internet only. Since the following bit Marks added was later removed Axe and Gauger cannot be found in the current entry anymore:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Electrical engineer Robert J. Marks II appeared in Ben Stein's movie ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''. Stein appeared with Bacon in ''Planes, Trains and Automobiles'' giving Marks a Bacon number of two. Marks has published with Donald C. Wunch II (D.C. Wunsch II, T.P. Caudell, C.D. Capps, R.J. Marks II and R. A. Falk, "An optoelectronic implementation of the adaptive resonance neural network", IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol.4, no.4, pp.673-684 (1993)) who published with Frank Harary (Harary, Frank; Lim, Meng-Hiot; Agarwal, Amit; Wunsch, Donald C. Algorithms for derivation of structurally stable Hamiltonian signed graphs. Int. J. Comput. Math. 81 (2004), no. 11, 1349—1356) who has coauthored with Erd?s. Marks therefore has an Erd?s number of three and Erd?s–Bacon number of five. Intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski also appeared in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed|Expelled. He has published with Marks William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success" IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, vol.5, #5, September 2009, pp.1051-1061) and therefore has an Erd?s–Bacon number of six. Biologist Ann K. Gauger has also published with Marks (Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, Robert J. Marks II. "Time and Information in Evolution," Biocomplexity, vol 2012, #4, pp.1-7) giving her an Erd?s number of 4. Gauger appeared in the documentary ''Metamorphosis'' ( MetamorphosisTheFilm.com) which also starred Paul Nelson (creationist) Paul Nelson who, like Marks, appeared in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Expelled. Gauger's Bacon number is therefore 3 and her Erd?s–Bacon number is 7. Biologist Douglas D. Axe has published with Gauger (Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe. "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway," Biocomplexity, Volume 2011, #1 pp. 1-17) and appeared in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed|Expelled also giving him a Erd?s(2)–Bacon(5) number of 7.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(all wikipedia tags and links removed, references italicized, emphasis mine)
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 16 2013,09:16

EN&V just reproduced the press released by the FMS foundation  I've < linked to on August 12 >. Casey insists that the DI was involved in the "Cornell" "conference" or BI:NP

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Discovery Institute did not organize or fund this conference. In fact, until now, we have deliberately said very little about the resulting volume -- even as anti-ID activists were working hard to prevent its publication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing new except for the fact that he starts preparing Springer's dismissal of the book contract as an act against academic freedom forced by evil materialist and that lawyer Luskin calls this decesion illegal. There is more tard to come:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reasons for our temporary silence may or may not be obvious -- I'll say more about it later.  

[...]

One final note in this introduction: There has been some speculation that World Scientific is a vanity publishing house. That is false. It's a respected academic and scientific publishing house based in Singapore that publishes many other respectable scientific publications, including over 150 scientific journals, literally thousands of academic books, and many scientific textbooks.

Because the book challenges neo-Darwinism, no doubt World Scientific will be harshly attacked simply for publishing Biological Information: New Perspectives. That is all the more reason the publisher should be commended for supporting the academic freedom of scientists to disseminate research that challenges mainstream Darwinian theory. You see, originally Biological Information: New Perspectives was set to be published by Springer, but Springer illegally violated the book's publication contract by cancelling it late last year under pressure from Darwin lobbyists. Do what you can to support World Scientific for not caving into the censors.

In fact, attacks on academic freedom are a very important part of the story behind the publication of Biological Information: New Perspectives, and it's a story that now deserves to be told truthfully. This I will do in forthcoming articles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, World Scientific
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 16 2013,12:01

if there actually was research that challenged some currently accepted theory, scientists would be studying that research, not suppressing it.

That's what scientists do.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 16 2013,12:25

Interesting on the Erdos-Bacon numbers.

I have a credit in the PBS NOVA "Judgment Day" documentary. The narrator of that appeared with Kevin Bacon, which if a credit is sufficient, gives me a Bacon number of two. This one could be argued.

I am a co-author with Jeff Shallit of a critique of Dembski's CSI that appeared in Synthese. Shallit co-authored a paper with Erdos, giving me an Erdos number of two. This might be argued on the basis that the paper appears in a philosophy journal rather than a mathematics journal, but it would be bad form for the IDC advocates to so argue since it is one of the few papers that even cites Dembski's CSI at all.

Together, I have an Erdos-Bacon number of four.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 16 2013,12:25

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 16 2013,10:01)
if there actually was research that challenged some currently accepted theory, scientists would be studying that research, not suppressing it.

That's what scientists do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, but the audience for all this isn't scientists.  It's religious fundamentalists with delusions of persecution.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 18 2013,00:41

Just in case this pre-conference discussion has not been documented here: < Peer Reviewed Papers Coming! >

ETA soory guys, this was linked to on page 1 already


Posted by: sparc on Aug. 18 2013,00:53

John Sanford has updated his < Cornell homepage >. He still misrepresents the BI:NP meeting as a Cornell event:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lead editor of new 2013 book: Biological Information – New Perspectives.
Primary organizer of 2011 Cornell symposium: Biological Information – New Perspectives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Aug. 20 2013,23:25

Jorge Ferndez left his version of the BI:NP story at < Theology Web >.
(cross posted on the EN&V thread)
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 28 2013,21:54

Why did < Joel Kontinen > omit William Dembski when he listed the BI:NP editors?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The editors, Robert J. Marks, John C. Sanford, Michael J. Behe and Bruce L. Gordon, are distinguished professors or associate professors at major US universities and the other contributors are also well-credentialed scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 28 2013,22:04

Behe is distinguished by a disclaimer.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 29 2013,22:15

< Mike Keas >, another participant of the Biological Information: New Perspectives meeting. One may wonder though, why a  professor of history & philosophy of science would join a conference which is said to have brought together  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

OTOH, we know that an online preaching animal caretaker and a Canadian wannabe science writer have been there too.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 23 2013,10:32

Another contributor, < Chase W. Nelson >, announces< the BI:NP chapter he co-authored >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Check out < my new book chapter > with Dr. John C. Sanford in the volume Biological Information: New Perspectives, published with World Scientific. Click PDF to see the full text.

Then read < Casey Luskin’s no-nonsense documentation > of how the book was delayed in its publication for nearly two years because a few flamboyant Darwinists weren’t happy about it. Really, folks — these guys have nothing better to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)
Surprisingly, he is a biologist.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 05 2013,23:04

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 12 2013,14:40)
< Somebody realized that BI:NP indeed needs some help: >              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientific Proceedings Published, Challenging Conventional Neo-Darwinian Theory

"This is by far the most rigorous and in-depth re-examination of the sufficiency ofneo-Darwinian theory. Never have so many well-credentialed scientists, representing so many disciplines, united so effectively to look beyondthe standardmutation-selection paradigm." - The Editors

WACO, Texas, Aug. 12, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- World Scientific Publishing has just released the proceedings of a symposium held in the spring of 2011, where a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to critically re-examine neo-Darwinian theory. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.

This is a milestone book. For over 100 years, it has been very widely believed that the mutation/selection process is sufficient to explain virtually everything within the biological realm. The 29 contributors to this volume bring into serious question this neo-Darwinian paradigm. They use their wide-ranging expertise to carefully examine a series of fundamental theoretical problems that are now emerging.These problems all relate to the exploding field ofbiological information. Biological information is becoming the primary focus of 21stcentury biological research. Within each cell there are information systems surpassing the best human information technologies. These systems create what is essentially a biological internet within each cell. The authors, although holding diverse philosophical perspectives, unanimously agree that the mutation/selection process is not adequate to explain the labyrinth of informational networks that are essential for life.

Several clear themes emerged from the research papers within this volume: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is; 2) Biological information is more than the molecular structures that embody it; 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms are insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life.

The book, Biological Information – New Perspectives, was edited by R. Marks, M. Behe, W. Dembski, B. Gordon, and J. Sanford. This volume presents 24 technical papers summarizing the research findings of 29 contributing scientists. The 24 technical papers are open access, and can be freely downloaded from < http://www.worldscientific.com/worldsc....8#t=toc > . Additional information about the book is available at the same site. The book is available from World Scientific Publishing, Amazon.com, and FMSpub.org.

Source: FMS Foundation, sponsor of the proceedings. For more information contact Dr. Robert Marks at Baylor University ([...]).

SOURCE FMS Foundation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Too bad, that announcing the free download pages won't help to sell more books.

Initially I misread the foundations name for FSM. I don't know what FMS stands for but Flying Monster Spaghettis seems unlikely. Since there is nothing but BI:NP on the foundation's pages it seems likely that its sole purpose is to promote BI:NP without linking it to sites where the link to ID-creationism would be instantly obvious. As a Google search for BI:NP limited to the last 24 hours resulted in 10 pages with news articles just copied from FMS's above cited press release this strategy might work.

< whois > identified Jimmie Pamplin as the site's registrant who is also the page owner of
< logosresearchassociates.org > which has the following statement on its openening page:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who are we?

We are a fellowship of scholars and scientists who faithfully hold to the teachings of Jesus Christ and all of his Word, and also faithfully hold to the scientific method and the need for scientific integrity.
What is our goal?

As Ambassadors for Christ we seek to encourage others to believe in Jesus, to faithfully and deliberately believe what Jesus taught, and to believe God’s revealed Word – the Bible – which is the power of God to salvation. We use scholarship, logic, and the scientific method to show that the historical claims of the Bible are not only credible, but are superior to evolutionary theory to explain the origin of the world we see. We freely acknowledge our own fallibility, the inherent limits of “historical science”, and the need for “faith” by adherents of any view about ultimate origins. We urge all people to NOT put their faith in us, or any other form of human authority, but ultimately to put their faith in Jesus Christ.
How can we help you?

There is a great deal of misinformation, deception, and confusion surrounding the origins debate, which should not surprise us, as this is a key spiritual battleground. We at Logos do not have all the answers, but we can offer you strong, logical, and scientific reasons to embrace Biblical history. A large part of accepting Biblical history is rejecting what is popularly taught as “evolutionary history”. Evolutionary theory can now largely be discredited, and we can show you this to be true. We stand by Christ’s claim when He said “I am the Truth”. Are you seeking the Truth? Then we have information which can help you!
What do we do?

As scholars and scientists we delve deeply into the scientific controversies which affect Christian belief and unbelief. We are doing high quality original research that can challenge many academic dogmas of our day – in areas such as cosmology, geology, genetics, and archeology. We are building national and international collaborative research teams. We wish to effectively communicate our findings, and the findings of others, to people like you.
What can you do?

Please consider our evidences. Please be encouraged in your Christian faith. Please decide to be more faithful to Christ – by deliberately choosing to believe Him, and follow Him. If you are a scholar or scientist, share our vision, and feel you can contribute to our work – please contact us by

   email at logosresearchassociates@gmail.com, or

   phone (714) 425-9474, or

   write to: Logos Research Associates, 3232 W. MacArthur Blvd, Santa Ana, CA 92704

If you wish to contribute financially to this unique ministry, please know we very much need your support. Please see our donations page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's what logos says about Pamplin:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jim Pamplin

B.A. (Biology)

Secretary-Treasurer of Logos Research Associates, Senior Ambassador

Active in creation science circles, Jim became acquainted with a number of Bible-believing scientists. When several found themselves displaced from the research they loved, Jim introduced them to < Pastor Chuck Smith > of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa.  After prayerful consideration and with encouragement from Pastor Chuck and the Calvary Chapel board, the group incorporated as Logos Research Associates.  Jim now serves Logos as office administrator, (i.e., paper-shuffler/pencil-pusher/bean-counter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA link to < wikipedia article > on Pastor Chuck Smith

ETA link to Google search for "Scientific Proceedings Published, Challenging Conventional Neo-Darwinian Theory"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FMSpub.org will automatically forward you to < biologicalinformationnewperspectives.org > now. They've added biography sketches of the < editors > and the < authors >.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 06 2013,22:49

Unfortunately, < TheologyWeb > from which we've learned a bit about the fake Cornell conference becuase pompous poser Jorge Fernandez couldn't keep his mouth shut until Springer published BI:NP went silent:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TheologyWeb has died horribly! As has the other associated sites: opentheism.info, preteristpodcast.com, theologywebsucks.com and so on and so on.
You can find things out about our status over at our facebook group or by e-mailing me+tweb [at] christophertaylor [dot] net
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But there is < hope >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theologyweb is working on coming back; the server is online but the forums are not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 07 2013,10:45

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 06 2013,22:49)
Unfortunately, < TheologyWeb > from which we've learned a bit about the fake Cornell conference becuase pompous poser Jorge Fernandez couldn't keep his mouth shut until Springer published BI:NP went silent:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TheologyWeb has died horribly! As has the other associated sites: opentheism.info, preteristpodcast.com, theologywebsucks.com and so on and so on.
You can find things out about our status over at our facebook group or by e-mailing me+tweb [at] christophertaylor [dot] net
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But there is < hope >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theologyweb is working on coming back; the server is online but the forums are not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TWeb had a major disk crash about a week ago.  They've sent the disk to a company that specializes in data recovery which reports almost all the files should be recoverable.  That process is due to be done by the end of this week, they hope to be back online shortly after.

They have a Facebook site < here > to keep track of status.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 07 2013,19:58

Data recovery costs about 300 time the price of a backup disk.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 07 2013,21:39

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 07 2013,19:58)
Data recovery costs about 300 time the price of a backup disk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus is their backup disk.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 08 2013,06:57

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 07 2013,21:39)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 07 2013,19:58)
Data recovery costs about 300 time the price of a backup disk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus is their backup disk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but have you seen the access time?
Speed matters, and he's WAY overdue.
:p
Posted by: JonF on Oct. 08 2013,07:00

Yeah, I just can't believe they had no redundancy or backup. Both are cheap and simple. I don't feel comfortable unless critical data is in at least three places.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 08 2013,23:32

< The Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University obtained Biological Information: New Perspectives >. Let's hope that they didn't pay for it and that they file it under pseudo-science.
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 13 2013,01:17

Why ddin't the < Google map for Biological Information: New Perspectives > mention Cornell University. Honi soit qui mal y pense.


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 13 2013,01:40

Stop the presses:
Logos research associates new blog states      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Encouragement for Believers - Science Update
Good science affirms Scripture!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Referring to BI:NP its current headline says:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
NEO-DARWINAN THEORY COLLAPSING...
Breakthrough Scientifc Publication Sheds New Light on the Origin and Nature of Biological Information...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if they want to say that pre-1940 evolution fits to their YEC world views.

ETA: Link: < http://www.logosra.org/....sra.org > (the content of their home page may change over time. Unfortunately, the post on biological information is the most current one and doesnÄt seem to have a permanent link yet).


Posted by: sparc on Nov. 13 2013,01:54

These guy are real bastards. Do you remember that Jorge Fernandez said there is no mentioning of God or even an undefined designer in the book? Now we read:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the Bible-believing Christian, we have an obvious explanation for these incredible scientific findings. As Christians we have a supremely intelligent, all powerful, Creator-God. Life is very clearly programmed, and the living God of the Bible is clearly the Great Programmer (the Author of Life – see Acts 3:15). This is exciting news for Christians – science is strongly affirming Scripture!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And they don't gvie a shit for their readers  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Check back with us soon to learn more about the second conclusion that emerged from this landmark publication, Biological Information—New Perspectives. This book can be purchased at a discounted price from BINP.org (caution - this a very technical book). On the same website a less technical, reader-friendly summary of this publication is available (and can be downloaded as a free PDF).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They just want to milk them while the whole book is freely available at World Scientific.

Disgusting.
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 04 2013,22:24

I am not an expert on John Sanford's  Mendel’s Accountant and his Genetic Entropy but I wonder how his "Biological Information: New Perspectives" co-author Chase Nelson can claim that < evolution cannot create new genetic information > and complain that the book didn't receive a warm welcome while at the same time he co-authored an  < article > which says that mutations and natural selection can lead to new forms of bird flu virusses that can be transmitted within the human population.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 01 2014,23:30

Biological Information: New Perspectives is < #7 > of the DI's Top-Ten Evolution creationist stories of 2013.
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 07 2014,09:49

I had an evil idea.

The entire content of BI:NP is free for the downloading, right? So why not do that, and create a 'companion volume' which points out all the glaring errors, and explains in detail why those errors are errors? Copyright isn't an issue, because copyright law allows people to quote portions of a protected work in order to comment on that protected work, and boy howdy will this project ever comment on BI:NP.

I don't have the necessary background to disassemble BI:NP, but there are people around here who do have the necessary background, and I can at least do typesetting and page layout and etc, so that the final product ends up looking as good as its content. Anybody want to give it a go?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 07 2014,12:55

I didn't find it possible to download all, only a 48 page synopsis, 7 pages introduction and 15 pages chapter 1.
Posted by: Febble on Jan. 08 2014,05:00

I have it all.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 08 2014,06:23

Me too, somewhere. Unless I deleted it to make space for episodes of DangerMouse.
Posted by: DiEb on Jan. 08 2014,10:12

I still have it, too - though I only read three chapters. Uncommon Descent started a series of posts on each chapter of the book, but stopped AFAIK with < Chapter 2.4 Using Numerical Simulation to Test
the “Mutation-Count” Hypothesis > (Chapter 14 in UD's counting), giving up  halfway through the book.

I had an interest in chapter 1.1.2 (or chapter 3) "A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search", until < I got convinced > that this is a pure philosophical speculation and  not mathematics - and therefore doesn't need clear and usable definitions.

Judging from my experience it will be hard work to hunt down the little substance which is hidden in the articles....
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 08 2014,13:27

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 08 2014,06:23)
Me too, somewhere. Unless I deleted it to make space for episodes of DangerMouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAR HAR YOU ARE PENFOLD.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 08 2014,13:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2014,13:27)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 08 2014,06:23)
Me too, somewhere. Unless I deleted it to make space for episodes of DangerMouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAR HAR YOU ARE PENFOLD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Greatest Secret Agent ever were.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 08 2014,14:01

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2014,11:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2014,13:27)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 08 2014,06:23)
Me too, somewhere. Unless I deleted it to make space for episodes of DangerMouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAR HAR YOU ARE PENFOLD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Greatest Secret Agent ever were.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shush.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 09 2014,09:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2014,13:27)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 08 2014,06:23)
Me too, somewhere. Unless I deleted it to make space for episodes of DangerMouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAR HAR YOU ARE PENFOLD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cor, Chief. You think so?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 09 2014,11:31

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 09 2014,09:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2014,13:27)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 08 2014,06:23)
Me too, somewhere. Unless I deleted it to make space for episodes of DangerMouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAR HAR YOU ARE PENFOLD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cor, Chief. You think so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good Grief! Penfold, shush.



(I bet you read that in 'the voice')
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 29 2014,22:59

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 07 2014,12:55)
I didn't find it possible to download all, only a 48 page synopsis, 7 pages introduction and 15 pages chapter 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jason B. Ladd (Christian, husband, father of five, and Marine fighter pilot. Seeking Peace, Waging War, Defending the Faith.) < informs us > that FMS publised a 48 pages < Synopsis and Limited Commentary > on Biological Information: New Perspectives.
To my best knowledge FMS are the same guys that run <a href="BINP.org" target="_blank">BINP.org</a> who shamelessly still try to sell the book which eberybody can download freely from < World Scientific >. They even sell the above mentioned synopsis for $10 while you can download it freely from their own site.
BTW, we and evolution theory are obviously doomed:

< source >
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 29 2014,23:12

BTW, here's how the BI:NP announcemnet looked on the Springer web pages:

< source >
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 30 2014,01:01

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 08 2014,12:23)
Me too, somewhere. Unless I deleted it to make space for episodes of DangerMouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Best theme tune ever.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 30 2014,03:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
eberybody can download freely from World Scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is the download button?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 30 2014,07:02

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2014,22:59)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 07 2014,12:55)
I didn't find it possible to download all, only a 48 page synopsis, 7 pages introduction and 15 pages chapter 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jason B. Ladd (Christian, husband, father of five, and Marine fighter pilot. Seeking Peace, Waging War, Defending the Faith.) < informs us > that FMS publised a 48 pages < Synopsis and Limited Commentary > on Biological Information: New Perspectives.
To my best knowledge FMS are the same guys that run <a href="BINP.org" target="_blank">BINP.org</a> who shamelessly still try to sell the book which eberybody can download freely from < World Scientific >. They even sell the above mentioned synopsis for $10 while you can download it freely from their own site.
BTW, we and evolution theory are obviously doomed:

< source >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So they like the idea of hockey stick graphs?




Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 30 2014,08:20

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 30 2014,07:02)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2014,22:59)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 07 2014,12:55)
I didn't find it possible to download all, only a 48 page synopsis, 7 pages introduction and 15 pages chapter 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jason B. Ladd (Christian, husband, father of five, and Marine fighter pilot. Seeking Peace, Waging War, Defending the Faith.) < informs us > that FMS publised a 48 pages < Synopsis and Limited Commentary > on Biological Information: New Perspectives.
To my best knowledge FMS are the same guys that run <a href="BINP.org" target="_blank">BINP.org</a> who shamelessly still try to sell the book which eberybody can download freely from < World Scientific >. They even sell the above mentioned synopsis for $10 while you can download it freely from their own site.
BTW, we and evolution theory are obviously doomed:

< source >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So they like the idea of hockey stick graphs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW.

At least.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 30 2014,09:05

seconded
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 30 2014,14:54

My answer to that:

Never mind "power to explain", give us the alleged explanation already!!!!  :p
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 30 2014,14:59

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 30 2014,12:54)
My answer to that:

Never mind "power to explain", give us the alleged explanation already!!!!  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poof!
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 30 2014,18:01

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 30 2014,03:53)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
eberybody can download freely from World Scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is the download button?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The < World Scientific > webpage for the book does not seem to include any way to download the whole thing with one click. However, that webpage does include a list of every chapter in the book, and each such list-item includes a clickable link whose text fits the pattern PDF ([number] KB). Clicking on that link should let you download the PDF for that list-item's section of the book.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 30 2014,18:21

Yes, it isn't instant or painless, but probably less mental agony than reading it.
Posted by: Lethean on Jan. 31 2014,07:18

Hello AtBC'ers,

I thought I'd delurk to offer a collated PDF of BINP.

There's no cover page available so I added in the "springerforgot_2013_screenshot.pdf" sparc linked to from EN followed by the "general introduction" from the "about this book" tab on the Springer page. Sadly, my other machine that has Acrobat on it has some booting issues at the moment so I couldn't create chapter tabs.

The archive also contains a copy of the "Synopsis and Limited Commentary" by Sanford. To download the archive go to < this page >, then scroll down and select your host.

P.S. - I don't claim to have much of a scientific background but I did read chapter one "Biological Information - What is It?" and found Figure 1 pretty amusing. It's a bit Freudian IMHO. Cheers!



Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 31 2014,09:35

Quote (Lethean @ Jan. 31 2014,15:18)
Hello AtBC'ers,

I thought I'd delurk to offer a collated PDF of BINP.

There's no cover page available so I added in the "springerforgot_2013_screenshot.pdf" sparc linked to from EN followed by the "general introduction" from the "about this book" tab on the Springer page. Sadly, my other machine that has Acrobat on it has some booting issues at the moment so I couldn't create chapter tabs.

The archive also contains a copy of the "Synopsis and Limited Commentary" by Sanford. To download the archive go to < this page >, then scroll down and select your host.

P.S. - I don't claim to have much of a scientific background but I did read chapter one "Biological Information - What is It?" and found Figure 1 pretty amusing. It's a bit Freudian IMHO. Cheers!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amusing?

I'm guessing the point was Lithuanians didn't invent morse code....Georgians can't speak Hungarian..no, no wait, the Bible was written from Shorthand?

Who do these guys think they are, geniuses?

Really if they want to appeal to the Joes of this world they need get out of their ivory towers and tap into the roots of identity homophobe politics. Why can't Joe get any lesbian action? He only likes cock.
Posted by: sparc on June 17 2014,22:57

I just wonder why Sanford didn't mention his latest research on the age of the patriarchs in BI:NP. In his latest piece < Genetic Entropy Recorded in the Bible? > on the pages of the fms-foundation which promotes BI:NP he states:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We do not normally think of the Bible as a source of scientific data. However, the recorded ages of the Patriarchs do in fact constitute real data, which can be analyzed scientifically. Numerous scholars have done this (Holladay and Watt, 2001). We likewise have done this – going a bit further than previous analyses (see table 1). The results are fascinating, and have incredible implications.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One may also ask why they made such a fuss about publishing BI:NP if everything is already laid out in this other book.
Posted by: olegt on June 18 2014,00:00

Quote (Lethean @ Jan. 31 2014,07:18)
Hello AtBC'ers,

I thought I'd delurk to offer a collated PDF of BINP.

There's no cover page available so I added in the "springerforgot_2013_screenshot.pdf" sparc linked to from EN followed by the "general introduction" from the "about this book" tab on the Springer page. Sadly, my other machine that has Acrobat on it has some booting issues at the moment so I couldn't create chapter tabs.

The archive also contains a copy of the "Synopsis and Limited Commentary" by Sanford. To download the archive go to < this page >, then scroll down and select your host.

P.S. - I don't claim to have much of a scientific background but I did read chapter one "Biological Information - What is It?" and found Figure 1 pretty amusing. It's a bit Freudian IMHO. Cheers!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Russian translation is botched. It should have been радоваться, rather than радовать.

It is similar to the Polish version, radovat se.
Posted by: fnxtr on June 18 2014,09:51

Vis-a-vis the conflation of "information" with "meaning", is this another case of "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"?
Posted by: Henry J on June 18 2014,12:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The results are fascinating, and have incredible implications.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like implying that Methusalah drowned because he was evil?
:p
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 18 2014,12:02

I think incompetent malice remains a distinct possibility.
Posted by: KevinB on June 18 2014,13:47

Quote (Henry J @ June 18 2014,12:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The results are fascinating, and have incredible implications.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like implying that Methusalah drowned because he was evil?
:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wikipedia says that, depending on the version of the text, he died before the flood.

Mind you, this leads one to ask whether whether the operatives of the springs of the great deep and the floodgates of heaven were champing at the bit waiting for him to pop his clogs, or whether he was humanely euthanised.
Posted by: sparc on July 06 2014,04:22

Even without suckering Springer by selling BI:NP as the proceedings of a Cornell conference rather than a private meeting John Sanford already diserved to be included < Encyclopedia of American Loons >.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Aug. 19 2014,10:53

Marks has an item in Human Events online. It has a link to the text of "Biological Information: New Perspectives."

< http://humanevents.com/2014....-design >
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 19 2014,11:35

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 19 2014,10:53)
Marks has an item in Human Events online. It has a link to the text of "Biological Information: New Perspectives."

< http://humanevents.com/2014.......-design >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In his piece Marks cites what < Baltimore said back in 2000 when the draft of the human genome was published >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Modern biology is a science of information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Like < Dembski, Witt et al. > Marks omits the rest of the paragraph and Baltimore's concluding remarks for good reasons:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The sequencing of the genome is a landmark of progress in specifying information, decoding it into its many coded meanings and learning how it goes wrong in disease. While it is a moment worthy of the attention of every human, we should not mistake progress for a solution. There is yet much hard work to be done.

It will take many decades to fully comprehend the magnificence of the DNA edifice built over four billion years of evolution and held in the nucleus of each cell of the body of each organism on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DiEb on Aug. 19 2014,13:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert J. Marks II: A diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University in 2011 to discuss their research into the nature and origins of biological information. The symposium brought together experts in computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. The proceedings of this symposium have recently been published for public consumption in a book
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. How immersed have you to be in the Creationistic world-view  not to see that anyone knowing the circumstance of the symposium will regard this intro as carefully designed deception? Why not just say: "a diverse group of scientists gathered in Ithaca in 2011"?
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 19 2014,15:13

Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 19 2014,11:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert J. Marks II: A diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University in 2011 to discuss their research into the nature and origins of biological information. The symposium brought together experts in computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. The proceedings of this symposium have recently been published for public consumption in a book
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. How immersed have you to be in the Creationistic world-view  not to see that anyone knowing the circumstance of the symposium will regard this intro as carefully designed deception? Why not just say: "a diverse group of scientists gathered in Ithaca in 2011"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because they would never have countenanced renting a room at, say, the Ithaca Elks' Lodge.  If they couldn't rent space at Cornell, they'd have tried at MIT, Yale, Stanford...  Being able to say "we met at [insert prestigious institution here]" was the point of the exercise.  I doubt it's fooling anyone other than their fellow creationists, but they're the ones who buy the T-shirts.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 19 2014,22:05

He also has an interesting concept of "diverse".
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 20 2014,02:16

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 19 2014,22:05)
He also has an interesting concept of "diverse".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the very same diversity that led to the Thirty Years' War.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 20 2014,23:15

I am pretty sure they are creationists but why did somebody chose a picture of < Men attend a three-hour Mass at the St. Jacob Syrian Orthodox Antioch Church on Assumption Day > for Marks' article?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Aug. 21 2014,05:19

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 19 2014,22:13)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 19 2014,11:35)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert J. Marks II: A diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University in 2011 to discuss their research into the nature and origins of biological information. The symposium brought together experts in computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. The proceedings of this symposium have recently been published for public consumption in a book
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. How immersed have you to be in the Creationistic world-view  not to see that anyone knowing the circumstance of the symposium will regard this intro as carefully designed deception? Why not just say: "a diverse group of scientists gathered in Ithaca in 2011"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because they would never have countenanced renting a room at, say, the Ithaca Elks' Lodge.  If they couldn't rent space at Cornell, they'd have tried at MIT, Yale, Stanford...  Being able to say "we met at [insert prestigious institution here]" was the point of the exercise.  I doubt it's fooling anyone other than their fellow creationists, but they're the ones who buy the T-shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it's fooled Springer.
Posted by: DiEb on Aug. 21 2014,05:41

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 21 2014,11:19)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 19 2014,22:13)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 19 2014,11:35)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert J. Marks II: A diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University in 2011 to discuss their research into the nature and origins of biological information. The symposium brought together experts in computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. The proceedings of this symposium have recently been published for public consumption in a book
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. How immersed have you to be in the Creationistic world-view  not to see that anyone knowing the circumstance of the symposium will regard this intro as carefully designed deception? Why not just say: "a diverse group of scientists gathered in Ithaca in 2011"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because they would never have countenanced renting a room at, say, the Ithaca Elks' Lodge.  If they couldn't rent space at Cornell, they'd have tried at MIT, Yale, Stanford...  Being able to say "we met at [insert prestigious institution here]" was the point of the exercise.  I doubt it's fooling anyone other than their fellow creationists, but they're the ones who buy the T-shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it's fooled Springer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. I think that their "fellow creationist" are as aware of their typical shenanigans as we who became cynics while interacting with IDers, never trusting anything which is only implied, looking at  each grandiose announcement for the grain of truth which may be hidden in it.

No, such misleading statements are meant for Johnny Public - and for (science) journalists who are to lazy (or inexperienced) to check everything...
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Aug. 21 2014,08:32

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 19 2014,10:53)
Marks has an item in Human Events online. It has a link to the text of "Biological Information: New Perspectives."

< http://humanevents.com/2014.......-design >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To add a cherry to the IDiot sundae, GaGa has now shown up there and is shitting up the thread with his usual "intelligence" babble.  :D
Posted by: k.e.. on Aug. 21 2014,09:26

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 21 2014,16:32)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 19 2014,10:53)
Marks has an item in Human Events online. It has a link to the text of "Biological Information: New Perspectives."

< http://humanevents.com/2014.......-design >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To add a cherry to the IDiot sundae, GaGa has now shown up there and is shitting up the thread with his usual "intelligence" babble.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



howlin' howlers.

"[over at  AtBC where on 400 pages] ....Gaga's brains have been beaten into a fine pink mist"

And accused of being a Liar!

dear o dear

That Shirley must prove intelligence doesn't reside in the brain but in the [forked] tongue.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 22 2014,07:03

Kinghoffer is celebrating the first anniversary of "Biological Information: New Perspectives". He seems still pissed off because Springer cancelled its publication.
< link >.


Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 22 2014,07:41

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 22 2014,07:03)
Kinghoffer is celebrating the first anniversary of "Biological Information: New Perspectives". He seems still pissed off because Springer cancelled its publication.
< link >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love this paragraph:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information defies easy characterization, for Darwinists as for intelligent-design advocates. Yet the former are in denial of the basic enigma, while the latter's investigation fuels their thinking about what could potentially explain its origin, a vital question given that information underlies all of the study of biology:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reminds me of Justice Potter's methid for IDing pornography.
Posted by: sparc on Aug. 24 2014,01:18

< Tom English on Robert Marks' latest complaints about the treatment of BI:NP >. It should be noted that Marks uses a title they omitted for good reasons when they had to deal with Springer and neither dared to use when they finally convinced World Scientific to publish the book:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biological information: New perspectives from intelligent design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Aug. 24 2014,08:49

Jeffrey Shallit points out that he already addressed the "< Nonsense from Marks >" years before.
Posted by: Turncoat on Aug. 24 2014,16:46

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 22 2014,07:41)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 22 2014,07:03)
Kinghoffer is celebrating the first anniversary of "Biological Information: New Perspectives". He seems still pissed off because Springer cancelled its publication.
< link >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love this paragraph:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information defies easy characterization, for Darwinists as for intelligent-design advocates. Yet the former are in denial of the basic enigma, while the latter's investigation fuels their thinking about what could potentially explain its origin, a vital question given that information underlies all of the study of biology:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reminds me of Justice Potter's methid for IDing pornography.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The obscenity I see is promiscuous use of the "i word." The easiest way to weed out a lot of ID woo is to insist on using the term data whenever appropriate. We all know that data [mass noun] is stored on optical discs. If an audio-visual signal is highly compressed prior to storage on a DVD, you'll have a hard time rejecting the null hypothesis that the pits on the tracks correspond to an i.i.d. uniform process, unless you know the coding system.

I am sure that the EE department at Texas Tech trained Marks, as a doctoral student, to distinguish data from information. (I worked next-door for 8 years, and I know some of his former professors.) But now that he's joined the ID movement, he's placed the socio-political agenda ahead of scholarship. There's no other way to account for the bull... malarkey that he's spewing.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Aug. 25 2014,01:17

Quote (DiEb @ Aug. 19 2014,11:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert J. Marks II: A diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University in 2011 to discuss their research into the nature and origins of biological information. The symposium brought together experts in computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. The proceedings of this symposium have recently been published for public consumption in a book
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. How immersed have you to be in the Creationistic world-view  not to see that anyone knowing the circumstance of the symposium will regard this intro as carefully designed deception? Why not just say: "a diverse group of scientists gathered in Ithaca in 2011"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So who's their "expert on thermodynamics"?   Sewell?
phbbt.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 26 2014,06:30

As sparc has already pointed out, < I've been outed an an evil Darwinist censor >.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 26 2014,20:15

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 26 2014,05:30)
As sparc has already pointed out, < I've been outed an an evil Darwinist censor >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shame on you!
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 05 2014,02:18

Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: sparc on Oct. 05 2014,02:37

Giem states that he has been informed that the book is now (it's not clear when he gave the talk but it must have been after World Scientific finally published it) from Springer in e-book format. However, while BI:NP still has its < own Springer page > the eBook link on that page is dead.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 05 2014,02:49

I should have mentioned that Giem added links to the relevant PT and AtBc threads to his video and to the video page at  < youtube >.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 05 2014,06:39

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2014,02:18)
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just skipped to that, guess it must have been the best part...
Posted by: snorkild on Oct. 06 2014,05:30

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2014,02:18)
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, but we're not shown how very much younger the audience was at the beginning of the presentation.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 06 2014,10:36

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 05 2014,06:39)
 
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2014,02:18)
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just skipped to that, guess it must have been the best part...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who was the old geezer sitting next to Gauger in the second row?  He sure did a lot of whining.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Oct. 06 2014,12:11

They helpfully made "Cornell" one of the keywords on the post. Just in case anyone forgot it's the CORNELL UNIVERSITY Symposium on Biological Information, <tinyfont> not affiliated with Cornell University </tinyfont>.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 06 2014,12:40

Quote (Learned Hand @ Oct. 06 2014,10:11)
They helpfully made "Cornell" one of the keywords on the post. Just in case anyone forgot it's the CORNELL UNIVERSITY Symposium on Biological Information, <tinyfont> not affiliated with Cornell University </tinyfont>.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They inexplicably forgot to include "School of Hotel Management."
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2014,14:42

In the video, Dr. Giem calls me out specifically as calling for "persecution" in this thread.

That's right up there with suggesting Barbara Forrest should be on Haldol.

Update: Well, Giem was just channeling Casey Luskin on that, but he did seem happy to do so.


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2014,14:43

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 06 2014,10:36)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 05 2014,06:39)
 
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2014,02:18)
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just skipped to that, guess it must have been the best part...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who was the old geezer sitting next to Gauger in the second row?  He sure did a lot of whining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another commenter mentioned "Dr. Roth", who might be the person in question.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 06 2014,15:04

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2014,14:43)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 06 2014,10:36)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 05 2014,06:39)
     
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2014,02:18)
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just skipped to that, guess it must have been the best part...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who was the old geezer sitting next to Gauger in the second row?  He sure did a lot of whining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another commenter mentioned "Dr. Roth", who might be the person in question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like it's this guy.

< Ariel Roth >

Long time professional YEC.  But ID has nothing to do with Biblical Creation, honest!   :D
Posted by: socle on Oct. 06 2014,16:42

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 06 2014,15:04)

Looks like it's this guy.

< Ariel Roth >

Long time professional YEC.  But ID has nothing to do with Biblical Creation, honest!   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




"Yep, it's rock"
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2014,20:50

Dr. Giem claims that Casey Luskin's article on the origin of the School of Hotel Management conference refutes the concerns of critics. Giem focuses on whether the IDC advocates contacted Springer, or Springer contacted the IDC advocates. Giem ignores the concern that the inappropriate use of Cornell's name was a factor in Springer's involvement.

Giem quotes Casey on saying that someone at Springer solicited a book proposal from Bill Dembski. This apparently is supposed to make everything A-OK in how things went down. Here's an email that Luskin quotes concerning what went to Springer to introduce that proposal:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dear [Snip],

It's been over a year since we've been in touch. I hope this finds you well.

Back in September of last year you invited me to propose a volume to your ISRL series (see below). This spring (31 May to 3 June 2011) some of my colleagues are holding a symposium at Cornell University on new directions in biological information: "Biological Information -- New Perspectives." John Sanford, a biologist at Cornell, is hosting the event.

[...]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Giem skips over that part entirely. (Luskin dismisses it parenthetically at the start.) He moves forward to Luskin's timeline showing Springer signing off on the proposal and ready for things to move forward. But the bit documented by Luskin shows that in the initial offering of a proceedings volume to Springer, rather than a Dembski monograph as solicited, Dembski used the Cornell imprimatur to pitch it, which is one of the problems that concerned critics. This is not paranoia. It is not "persecution" to want to make sure that what religious antievolutionists say is preserved for posterity. If they don't want the things they say now to bite them in the butt later, rather than try to wipe the record clean, they might consider that they might stop lying so much.

Maybe Springer would have been on board with Dembski saying that a batch of his buddies were having a science-and-BBQ meetup at his restaurant in Riesel, TX, or any other not-usually-associated-with-scholarship locale. We don't know how that might have been received. What we do know to a certainty now is that the Cornell name was used in making the pitch to have Springer take on the conference proceedings, despite the fact that Cornell can't be stated to have sponsored the content of the event, no more than they sponsor any of the weddings that take place in the same rented space.

Edit: grammar.


Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 06 2014,22:31

Quote (Learned Hand @ Oct. 06 2014,10:11)
They helpfully made "Cornell" one of the keywords on the post. Just in case anyone forgot it's the CORNELL UNIVERSITY Symposium on Biological Information, <tinyfont> not affiliated with Cornell University </tinyfont>.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -- Tom Waits
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 16 2014,03:15

Quote (snorkild @ Oct. 06 2014,13:30)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2014,02:18)
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paul Giem tells the censor tail in this video on Biological Information: New Perspectives you will find at < archive.org >. At the end of his talk you can see the audience: ID the future, indeed. Or as William Dembski said:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< give us your young people . . . >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, but we're not shown how very much younger the audience was at the beginning of the presentation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha, I missed this. WHY didn't it get POTW?
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 16 2014,03:26

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 07 2014,06:31)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Oct. 06 2014,10:11)
They helpfully made "Cornell" one of the keywords on the post. Just in case anyone forgot it's the CORNELL UNIVERSITY Symposium on Biological Information, <tinyfont> not affiliated with Cornell University </tinyfont>.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -- Tom Waits
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's simple double entry accounting. Justice = Truth - Lies.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 19 2014,22:35

Seems like Paul Giem is on a roll. He just published his third presentation on "Biological Information: New Perspectives" on youtube.
We currently have:
< Biological Information: The Book >
< Biological Information - What is It? >
< Biological Information - Reverse Conservation >
If he continues at this speed with one chapter per week he will  finish his series about end of April 2015.
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 21 2014,09:35

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 20 2014,06:35)
Seems like Paul Giem is on a roll. He just published his third presentation on "Biological Information: New Perspectives" on youtube.
We currently have:
< Biological Information: The Book >
< Biological Information - What is It? >
< Biological Information - Reverse Conservation >
If he continues at this speed with one chapter per week he will  finish his series about end of April 2015.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder what the next chapter will be?
Time goes backwards
Lost searches
Entropy goes up a hill
Shannon's meanings in the noise
How many bits could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck bits
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 22 2014,12:46

Entropy - not just a good idea, it's the law!
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 22 2014,18:18

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 22 2014,12:46)
Entropy - not just a good idea, it's the law!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've got that t-shirt from the 80's.

Einstein dressed as a cop.  "The speed of light.  Not just a good idea.  It's the law."
Posted by: sparc on Dec. 14 2014,09:29

Paul Giem adresses Dan Graur's "On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE" (< Youtube link >). Especially, the discussion at the end is quite telling - and depressing.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 25 2015,02:23

The only good thing about Ken Ham's < AIG > is they don't want to fool anybody about ID:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There has also been more published by creationists in the field of population genetics, including papers presented at the Biological Information: New Perspectives Symposium held at Cornell University in 2011 (Marks et al. 2013).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Mar. 30 2015,23:22

From the comments of a < PT thread > in which Joe Felsenstein and Tom English shred Dembski's < “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search” > we learn that Worldscientific mis-spelled the name of one of the BI:NP editors in his contribution to the very same book  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keiths | < March 30, 2015 6:51 PM > | Reply

The paper even misspells Dembski’s name:

   (*Corresponding author: dempski@discovery.org)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Oct. 31 2015,01:40

Must be science because Articles of Biological Information: New Perspectives do get cited:
< God, Family, and Genetics – A Biblical Perspective
Part One: Genetic Evidences Supporting the Divine Origin of Man and Family > by Dr. J.C. Sanford and Dr. Robert Carter cites              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sanford, J.C., et al., Selection threshold severely constrains capture of beneficial mutations; Biological Information:New Perspectives (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 264-297, 2013
Gibson, P., et al. Can purifying natural selection preserve biological information? Biological Information: New Perspectives (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 232-263, 2013
Brewer, W., et al., Using numerical simulation to test the “mutation-count” hypothesis, Biological Information: New Perspectives (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 298-311, 2013
Baumgardner, J., et al., Can synergistic epistasis halt mutation accumulation? Results from numerical simulation, Biological Information: New Perspectives (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 312-337, 2013
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< God, Family, and Genetics – A Biblical Perspective
Part Two: Genetic Evidences Refuting the Evolution of Man and Family > Dr. J.C. Sanford and Dr. Robert Carter            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sanford J., Biological Information and Genetic Theory: Introductory Comments, Biological Information – New Perspectives(Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), World Scientific, 2013
Sanford, J.C., et al., Selection threshold severely constrains capture of beneficial mutations, in Biological Information: New Perspectives, (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 264-297, 2013
Nelson, C.W., and Sanford, J.C., Computational evolution experiments reveal a net loss of genetic information despite selection, in Biological Information: New Perspectives, (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 338-368, 2013
Brewer, W., et al., Using numerical simulation to test the “mutation-count” hypothesis, in Biological Information:
New Perspectives
(Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 298-311, 2013
Baumgardner, J., et al., Can synergistic epistasis halt mutation accumulation? Results from numerical simulation, in Biological Information: New Perspectives (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 312-337, 2013
Montañez, G., Marks, R., Fernandez, J., and Sanford, J., Multiple overlapping genetic codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation, in Biological Information – New Perspectives (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), 139-167, 2013
Sanford J., Biological Information and Genetic Theory: Introductory Comments, Biological Information – New Perspectives (Marks, R.J. III, et al., eds.), World Scientific, 2013
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< GENETIC ENTROPY     Recorded in the bible?     Did Noah Live to 950 Years Old? >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Baumgardner J., W. Brewer and J. Sanford. 2013. Can Synergistic Epistasis Halt Mutation Accumulation? Results from Numerical Simulation, In: Marks II RJ. et al., (eds) Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 312-337)
Brewer, W., J. Baumgardner and J. Sanford. 2013a. Using Numerical Simulation to Test the “Mutation-Count” Hypothesis, In: Marks II RJ, et al., (eds) Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 298-311)
Brewer, W., F. Smith and J. Sanford. 2013b. Information loss: potential for accelerating natural genetic attenuation of RNA viruses, In: Marks II RJ, et al., (eds) Biological Information – New Perspectives (369-384)
Gibson, P., J. Baumgardner, W. Brewer, and J. Sanford. 2013. Can Biological Information Be Sustained By Purifying Natural Selection? In: Marks II RJ et al., (eds) Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 232-263)
Sanford, J. (2013). Session II Chair - Biological Information and Genetic Theory: Introductory Comments, In: Marks II RJ et al., (eds) Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 203-209)
Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, and W. Brewer. 2013. Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations, In: Marks II RJ et al., (eds) Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 264-297)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Jan. 03 2016,02:20

Over at the < The Sensuous Curmudgeon > < DiEB > points to the fact that < Casey Luskin in his last post as Research Coordinator at DI > keeps misrepresenting their fake non-Cornell conference:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Later in 2011, I was privileged to attend an ID-research conference at Cornell University where dozens of ID-friendly scientists presented their work. The aftermath of this conference provided valuable insights that exposed the Darwin lobby's true aims, as well as their limitations. Many of the papers at this conference were supposed to appear in the book Biological Information: New Perspectives, to have been published by Springer-Verlag, a prestigious science publishing house. But ID-critics apparently felt threatened by the volume, so they mounted a campaign to pressure Springer to not publish the book. This was extremely revealing. How many times have we heard ID critics say things like "ID can't be taken seriously because it doesn't present research at science conferences and doesn't publish scientific papers." But then what happens when ID proponents do exactly what the critics demanded? What happens when we present pure research papers at a science conference at a top university and then seek to have it published by a world-class scientific publisher? Do Darwin lobbyists applaud us? No. Instead, they try to censor our work. This showed that the true goal of many Darwin lobbyists is to stifle academic freedom for ID at all costs, not to invite real scientific dialogue, and not to seek the truth.

Unfortunately, Springer capitulated to the censors and refused to publish the book, illegally violating their contract. But in the end, the Biological Information: New Perspectives volume was published by another well-respected publisher, World Scientific. The message here is that Darwin lobbyists don't have enough confidence and security in the merits of their viewpoint to allow critics to publish credible alternative viewpoints. It also shows that there are forces in the mainstream scientific community who are willing to seek the truth even in the face of political threats from the Darwin lobby. The whole episode was a major win for ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 03 2016,06:52

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 03 2016,10:20)
Over at the < The Sensuous Curmudgeon > < DiEB > points to the fact that < Casey Luskin in his last post as Research Coordinator at DI > keeps misrepresenting their fake non-Cornell conference:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Later in 2011, I was privileged to attend an ID-research conference at Cornell University where dozens of ID-friendly scientists presented their work. The aftermath of this conference provided valuable insights that exposed the Darwin lobby's true aims, as well as their limitations. Many of the papers at this conference were supposed to appear in the book Biological Information: New Perspectives, to have been published by Springer-Verlag, a prestigious science publishing house. But ID-critics apparently felt threatened by the volume, so they mounted a campaign to pressure Springer to not publish the book. This was extremely revealing. How many times have we heard ID critics say things like "ID can't be taken seriously because it doesn't present research at science conferences and doesn't publish scientific papers." But then what happens when ID proponents do exactly what the critics demanded? What happens when we present pure research papers at a science conference at a top university and then seek to have it published by a world-class scientific publisher? Do Darwin lobbyists applaud us? No. Instead, they try to censor our work. This showed that the true goal of many Darwin lobbyists is to stifle academic freedom for ID at all costs, not to invite real scientific dialogue, and not to seek the truth.

Unfortunately, Springer capitulated to the censors and refused to publish the book, illegally violating their contract. But in the end, the Biological Information: New Perspectives volume was published by another well-respected publisher, World Scientific. The message here is that Darwin lobbyists don't have enough confidence and security in the merits of their viewpoint to allow critics to publish credible alternative viewpoints. It also shows that there are forces in the mainstream scientific community who are willing to seek the truth even in the face of political threats from the Darwin lobby. The whole episode was a major win for ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Haha World Nonscientific 0 Springer 1
Posted by: sparc on Nov. 11 2016,00:48

Will the IDiots abuse Cambridge like they did with Cornell?
Although they are absolutely unaware of the target and the direction of the original they refer to this is exactly what they are intending according to their announcement:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< British Invasion: ID Scholars to Gather at Cambridge University for "Beyond Materialism" Conference >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's the same people as always (Meyer, Gauger, Axe et al.) plus some Europeans.
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 11 2016,03:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....there is only so much one can do within the walls of naturalism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And yet they never, ever manage come up with one fucking thing to do outside naturalism. They just moan. And blog.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.