|
|
|
Will, You must know that the very publication of Meyers' article by a self-admitted shit-disturber who violated editorial policy by publishing the piece on his own -- even as he himself thought Meyers was thinking was "fatally flawed" is -- was, to say the least, highly contentious. Read this from the Skeptic's Dictionary: Intelligent Design A reader was concerned that the scientific community hasn't given the intelligent design (ID) folks a fair shake. The evidence put forth was the recent fiasco involving a paper by Stephen Meyer that was published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and was soon afterward repudiated by the group that published it. The spin being put on the affair by the ID folks is that the scientific community has played foul with them. (See, for example, Chuck Colson's article on the subject. He has links to several other articles in the same vein from the Discovery Institute folks.) According to the spin, the scientific community demands that ID be represented in peer-reviewed literature. Then, when an article is accepted in a peer-review journal, the scientific community roars and demands that it be removed. The truth is that the paper, while published in a peer-reviewed journal, was not peer reviewed. It was published without review by a former editor. Here is a statement issued by the biological society of Washington: The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings. We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.
The Panda's Thumb, your one-stop website for material on evolution and the antievolutionists, has several items on the Meyer controversy, including a detailed critique of Meyer's paper by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry. I also recommend Chris Mooney's article on the Meyer paper fiasco and TalkDesign.org for a critical examination of the ID movement. Hot off the presses...The Feathered Onion: Creation of Life in the Universe by Clive Trotman (Wiley 2004)...According to The Guardian, Trotman "bats down some of the creationist objections: the one about the eye, for instance, and the one about the sheer improbability of life assembling itself by chance."
I would suggest that you refrain from posting such contentious material here if you don't want a the protracted debate you keep saying you're not looking for.
Modified by Jim at Tue, Jan 03, 2006, 10:44:09
|
|
|
|
Well, it certainly does get people all riled up, doesn't it! I guess you're right.
|
|
|
|
I personally think that Evolution and Intelligent Design are fascinating topics. I also have a clear opinion myself, which I won't get into here since I am posting with my Admin hat on.You are right Will, this topic certainly does get people riled up, both here on this Forum and in the wider world. But could we keep it off this Forum in future? The last time it generated a big thread, very interesting posts but also got people riled up, as you say, and I could not see many points made about Maharaji. Can we keep this Forum roughly on topic? A bit of wiggle room here and there, no problem, but not another mammoth OT thread - please! Thanks. -- Mike
Modified by Mike Finch-Admin at Tue, Jan 03, 2006, 11:09:59
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike! I agree--and don't want to add anything here beyond my "take" on this issue, which is just this: if God is really omniscient, omnipotent, and (what was the other one?) then why couldn't s/he have created evolution? Yeah for process as opposed to the blitz-with-a-wand idea! I'm not being as flip as I may sound--esp. since the U.S is currently in the grip of the fundamentalist right. Cheers, Shelagh, who has just had a first-class cup of tea--exactly what God had in mind when s/he said, Let there be tea!
|
|
|
|
But Shelagh, if God is really
"omniscient, omnipotent, and (what was the other one?)" - er, omnipresent? ... "...then why couldn't s/he have created evolution?" Wouldn't be a problem for a figment of human imagination. But that God would also have created monsters s/he was powerless over. Bang goes the omnipotence. Would also have known where Adam was in the Garden of Eden. Bang goes the omniscience. As for omnipresence - s/he would have been there every time an innocent has suffered, but yet was powerless to prevent their suffering. Logical conclusion? - God likes us to suffer. Well, if that's the case, I wish the church wouldn't bang on about Him being "Prince of Peace" and "Lord of Love". Or are love and suffering meant to be synonymous? (thinks: that's a tough one).
|
|
|
|
Hi cq! Omniprsent, of course! And not just in a marble palace in Malibu! What was I thinking! Yes, I think your conclusion that love is suffering is probably correct. But it might depend on what you mean by "love", on the one hand, and what you mean by "suffering" on the other. Now here's a lovely chance for a long long OT thread that will have Mike and John chasing us off the forum! Ah well, there's still tea! Cheers, Shelagh
|
|
|
|
Most particularly, it is an integral part of the sort of Protestant Fundamentalism that insists on the literal truth of Genesis.
According to Judge Jones who heard the recent Dover Case ...
"It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."
The reason that Intelligent Design is not science is really quite easy to understand. It is quite simply this: one can never rule out the possibility that there is, in fact, an "Intelligent Designer". If there is no possible way of ruling out a notion, then it is not a scientific idea. Simple.
Here's Judge Jones again, let's let him have the last word, shall we?
... many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
So, is this a place which is informed by rational discussion -- or a place to promote one's pet religious theories?
I think we should be told! 
Modified by jonti at Tue, Jan 03, 2006, 11:54:40
|
|
|
|
Let's see....Rawat disproves both theories all by himself! He's both stupid AND un-evolved. If he is the "Crown of Creation" God/science help us all. Premies look up to him as if he were the example of something to strive for and attain. Let's all examine just how highly evolved rawat is. Does lots of money equal evolution? If I had to choose among the wealthy to keep me company, it wouldn't be some Nuevo Riche asshole that dresses like a mafia Don. Hell, the Robber Barons of a hundred years ago had a lot better taste than he does. Does education equal evolution? 'Nough said. 8th grade education and vocabulary. Do a man's habits indicate his evolution? Ha ha ha ha! Here we look at someone enslaved by his addictions. Does the car make the man? I think rawat thinks so (watches too). How evolved is he? Jesus said that "what you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." I think that how he treats those that stand "below" him is the measure of his evolution. He treats them very badly. Yes he does. So if you look at all the Great Masters through out history, whoever you admire, Jesus, Krishna, Moses, Mohammad etc., and you compare them to rawat, he disproves both the theory of Intelligent Design and evolution all by himself. Karen
|
|
|
|
Brilliant, Karen! Let's see--how could you put that in mathematical formula? Let M be you-know-who, let E be evolution, and let C be creationism, then M=EC squared? (technical question--how do you put that little upper case 2 next to the appropriate letter or number? John?). Well, I'm not a mathematician as you can tell..but it's fun to play. Shelagh
|
|
|
