Posted on 01/28/2005 6:50:34 AM PST by Heartlander
O.K. Maybe he wasn't lying. I was a member of creationist group myself for awhile, as a friendly critic and observer. However the guy sounds pretty flakey. I thought I was reading output from the Chomskybot for a few sentences. But then I'm easily irritated by anyone who prattles about being "in the postmodern predicament". I'd have to either run away or, if trapped, surrender myself to catatosis.
Agreed. It's also stupid. There's no basis for getting worked up about this, particularly over a arm-waving "fluff piece" like the Meyer paper. It's not like ID is going anywhere. It'll always be fluff and armwaving.
Let 'em get their occasional journal paper. If every once in a great while one is substantive and useful, all the better. Save the smack downs for when antievolutionists go after the secondary school and undergrad curricula. If they want to try to do real science, then stand back and let them try. (Be polite and don't laugh out loud.)
INTELLIGENT DESIGN [John Derbyshire] Either before, after, or while reading my article on Intelligent Design in YOUR SUBSCRIPTION COPY OF NRODT, you might want to read David Klinghoffer's piece in Opinion Journal.
Incidentally, a little back-story to my piece: I showed it round to some academic biologists before signing off with NR editors on it. One of these professionals objected that I had used the phrase "I.D. theory" at one point. Whatever you may think of I.D., she pointed out, it's not a theory. After some cogitation I agreed, and asked the editors to drop the word "theory."
I mention this because there is a school board in Georgia (Cobb County, IMS) that has had stickers put on all its biology textbooks to the effect that standard-model evolution theory is "not a fact, but a theory." This is of course correct! Facts are what scientists observe; theories are the arguments they cook up to explain the facts they have observed. The fact (wait a minute... yes, it's a fact) that the Georgia school board thought it was striking a blow against its enemies by mandating a statement that every one of those enemies would cheerfully agree with, shows the gulf of misunderstanding that exists in this area.
But while indeed the standard model of evolution is not a fact, but a theory, then I.D. is not a theory, but only a critique of a theory. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but let's at least keep our terms straight.
I would like to see some scientifically literate school board somewhere mandate stickers in biology textbooks stating that "INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, BUT A CRITIQUE." Then we might be getting somewhere with this dismal business.
And now, Part Two:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN [John Derbyshire] Following my earlier post, some readers have e-mailed in arguing that David's Opinion Journal piece demonstrates that there is a determination on the part of learned scientific journals to keep I.D. proponents out of their pages.
Well, I should certainly hope so! I hope they will also keep out of their pages proponents of the Flat Earth theory, the Hollow Earth theory, the phlogiston theory of combustion, the theory of the Four Body Humours, and the tooth fairy theory.
Not everything that anyone can think up is worthy of inclusion in a scientific journal. Speaking personally, if I were to open my copy of, say, The Astronomical Journal (supposing I were a subscriber, which I am not) and found myself looking at an article that took UFO abductions seriously, I would cancel my subscription at once.
Lay people don't realize how many pseudoscientific cranks there are out there. The world is swarming with them! A couple of years ago I published a book about an unsolved math problem. You wouldn't believe some of the mail I got -- weird, weird stuff, written in all earnestness, claiming to have solved that problem by dint of techniques from bibliomancy to yoga.
Let me tell you, the world is teeming with lunatics armed with iron conviction and reams of theoretical justification for their crackpot notions. Scientists see themselves as working to expand a little clearing of light, of reason, in a vast chittering black jungle of superstition and madness. Is it any wonder they are defensive?
Science, and its peer-reviewed journals, need solid defenses, constantly manned. I would rather scientists were over-scrupulous about what they let in than otherwise. After all, as numerous examples (e.g. continental drift) have shown, a sound theory will eventually get recognition, however wacky it might seem at first sight.
Nobody knows all this better than working scientists -- which is why (see my current NRODT piece) scientifically-trained I.D.-ers like Michael Behe know better than to submit I.D. pieces to respectable journals of real science. Posted at 02:44 PM
Sounds like the Derb has a written yet another must-read piece.
Oh, he should have been fired as editor for publishing it, no doubt. Irrespective of the content, it wasn't a scientific paper; it was polemic.
Journal editorships are odd positions. They're usually not tied to one's regular job, but they're sufficiently prestigious that often one's employer will give one leave from other duties to act as editor.
You've confused the science world with the circle of folks that Sternberg is pretending he has nothing to do with.
Good post.
Technofascism gone wild?
You're not loopy enough to actually believe that, I think. Or was your seventh grade English teacher a "fascist" because she didn't automatically give everyone an A?
Think again, I call'em as I see'um and what I see here is a tendency toward forceable suppression of those that ain't thinking "right". Or was your seventh grade English teacher a "fascist" because she didn't automatically give everyone an A?
No the proper analogy would be if my seventh grade English teacher was figuratively stoned by her colleagues for having the temerity to accept a paper from me at odds with the NEA. Of course the NEA wasn't a force when I was 10 so thats neither here nor there.
If this editor let in an article on ID into a scientific journal, he should be fired. He has lost touch with what science is all about.
What if it's just a crappy paper, and the guy's in trouble because his job was to keep crappy papers out?
You miss this part??????????
So says Sternberg, who is not exactly a disinterested, neutral outsider.
Is bioengineering intelligent design? Can allele frequencies be changed by a mechanism other than RM/NS, namely a mecahnism that directs?
So Sternbergs a liar?
How would I know? We have two conflicting stories, and not enough information to know what went on behind closed doors, so I'm content to wait to hear more. We do know, though, that this paper blows chunks, which does not speak well to Sternberg's editorial abilities.
OK, what is science all about?
Why not?
We both now why, they have been advised by Counsel to keep their yaps shut because if Mr Coddington did what Mr Sternberg says he did, he is in deep kimchi.
Lawyers tell their innocent clients to say the same thing - don't talk to reporters, especially reporters composing a hit piece.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.