Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:04 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
BTTT
Really? Does the American Physical Society have the abstract posted on their website?
I don't have the review requirements for the AGU meeting that these were presented at, but the ones that I can find say "Abstracts must focus on scientific results or their application. The Program Committee may decline to consider abstracts with other focus." I don't think that they would allow abstracts for a numerological proof of Jesus Christ's second coming.
I think that is an excellent point.
I can't comment on the situation in the US; here in the UK, RE (relgious education) is part of the national schools curriculum, and covers the scriptures and tenants of the major religions of the world with particular emphasis on Christianity. This is of value, IMHO, and does not conflict with the science curriculum, which is distinct. Here, the only lobby that objects to this is in fact a part of the Muslim population, who wish to develop a science curriculum which does not conflict with their Qu'ran (which strikes me as a dreadful bit of intellectual pretzeling, but I'm no authority).
Certainly, as a rational conservative, I do not wish to see religionists of any persuasion tinkering with the science curriculum. And as a committed (but not a literalist) Christian, I can scarecly think of a more wrong-headed notion than applying empirical analysis to issues of faith. My own faith has no conflict whatsoever with science, but it is clear there are some whose religious beliefs could not stand that crucible; if they choose therefore to ignore science, that is certainly their right, but they do not have the right to change the proven methodology of science in order to make it compatible with some particular religious faith. The madness of such an endeavour is particularly apparent when one considers how utterly incomptabile with one another are the various religious persuasions which cannot accommodate the findings of science.
This is news to the Anglican Communion, and I believe to the Roman Catholic Church as well; I would not like to think your posting excludes the spokesmen of these congregations from the body of "honest folks." I think you need to be more specific about which particular Christians find an incompatibility here, it is by no means all--nor am I persuaded that it is a majority of Christians.
Yes, and meanwhile children most cope with teachers unskilled in their art, a self absorbed NEA, a totally failed public school curriculum (which should be oriented to this world and not the next), and lack of school-room discipline.
So lets continue to sweep math, chemistry, and physics under the table and focus on Darwinism vs creationism while the children sink.
Most public schools in this country are beyond hope and the public's willingness to accept it is sad.
I have no idea. My wife is a member, and I used to leaf through the abstract book. Their policy was not to reject abstracts unless they were libelous. They simply put all of the crank stuff into a session called 'General Physics'.
I don't have the review requirements for the AGU meeting that these were presented at, but the ones that I can find say "Abstracts must focus on scientific results or their application. The Program Committee may decline to consider abstracts with other focus." I don't think that they would allow abstracts for a numerological proof of Jesus Christ's second coming.
Possibly not, but that doesn't mean they don't have a great deal of latitude in accepting abstracts. Many societies, if space/time are not limiting, will tend to err on the side of accepting pretty much anything, letting the members of the society figure out for themselves what the trash is.
"Darwinism" is really indifferent to the claims of religion. I know there are people writing books that are hostile to religion, but these are books, not journal articles. And they are hostile to only one more religion than the average FReeper. I haven't seen anyone defending the right of Islam to teach its version of things in science classrooms. Muslims certainly will insist on it if "alternatives" become mandated. They already do in other countries.
Not everyone accepts it and not all public schools are bad. I was able to choose my kids' schools simply by providing my own transportation for them. The rules didn't officially permit this, but no one ever questioned it.
African-American illegitimacy rates in 1960 were 23.6%. This was in a largely religious community, with very low rates of completing high-school; hard to blame it on public schools.
If we fully privatized, we would have to ensure that parents didn't choose a zero-dollar option, sending kids to some pseudo-school to get around a compulsory education requirement. Private schools would have to be far more carefully regulated.
If it's regulated, then it's not private.
The regulation on private schools will be the results.
Despite all the angst over standardized tests, they do say something significant about what has been learned. A 99 percentile on the SAT or ACT speaks volumes about the ability of that test taker.
Likewise, private college graduates competing on graduate tests for graduate programs says something significant.
I love standardized tests.
The 99th percentile kids aren't what worries me. It's the kids of the bottom 25th percentile. They got dealt a bad hand to start with; compulsory schooling is one thing that prevents them from being totally neglected.
So, your answer is yes. Yes, Behe's books and Phillip Johnson's books on evolution are peer-reviewed -- according to the your own peer-review standard. Welcome aboard!
Cute.
There are a number of ID believers publishing legitimate stuff in peer reviewed journals. They aren't being censored. They just don't have anything that causes problems for evolution.
It turns out someone I know is a member of the AGU, so I asked him about it. He basically said that the requirements are:
* You must be a member of the AGU
* You submit an abstract to the chairman of the session
* The chairman submits the abstracts to a committee of other geoscientists in that specialty
* The committee then gives a thumbs-up or thumbs-down
He said that while this isn't as rigorous as peer-review, it has kept the flakes out of the meetings for the most part.
If you want to read the research that was presented, you should check out their book, which is a compendium of their research:
http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&cPath=20_30&products_id=2655
A lay version of that book is here:
http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&cPath=20_30&products_id=2643
"If it were, then there would be some potential observation that would falsify it, like a Precambrian rabbit or an ERV found in the same position in the genome of chimps and gorillas, but not in people would falsfy ToE."
Then the theory of evolution has been falsified!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11378389&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
Don't worry, I know you didn't really mean it anyway. Darwinists like to pretend that evolution is falsifiable, but they don't actually follow through with it. I don't necessarily blame them per se, except for being self-deluded enough to think that such things would actually falsify the theory of evolution.
If you consider scathing reviews as reviews, I guess so, but most people correct the errors their reviewers find before publishing.
That's interesting. Thanks.
If I understand correctly, this would mean that the human-chimp split is closer than anyone thought to the split from gorillas.
But all the other ERVs track the phylogenetic tree...
I'll have to study the paper and see if they can find the approximate time it happened.
Sigh. More problems to be solved.
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.