So what, exactly, is bad about this particular ruling?Nothing, at least for people who don't like "judicial activism"; but that doesn't stop DI and others from being firm belivers in Crybabyism
Posted on 03/24/2006 4:03:39 AM PST by PatrickHenry
STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF 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.
So what, exactly, is bad about this particular ruling?
So what, exactly, is bad about this particular ruling?Nothing, at least for people who don't like "judicial activism"; but that doesn't stop DI and others from being firm belivers in Crybabyism
Except, of course, that the Thomas More Law Center specifically asked him to rule on the merits of ID.
That was their strategy, that was why they went looking for a school board to enact policy guaranteed to provoke a court challenge.
Blame the Thomas More Law Center for the harshness of the ruling, not the judge.
What?!?!?!?!? You're suggesting that an ID-supporter presented partial information, without "the rest of the story"? I'm shocked, I tell you....shocked.
Thanks for that.
"Darwinist" is a word coined to have negative connotations. A Darwinist is presumably a supporter or practitioner of a doctrine called "Darwinism" (which is a companion word coined for the same purpose). It's a subtle thing, and I imagine it works only in English. It's similar to words like: Chauvanist, Leninist, Maoist, Marxist, Mesmerist, Onanist, Papist, and Satanist.
Interesting. I don't find the term to be in the least bit offensive, just hilariously inaccurate. I honestly don't know a whole lot about Darwin as a person; most of what we know about evolution now has little to do with his own personal research, anyway. It's as if antagonists think the modern theory of evolution hasn't moved forward since the man passed away and adhere to his ideas blindly without the benefit of any further research. Quite strange.
So the school board could have this put on a sticker and apply it to all of their biology books to "teach the controversy".
A novel and perceptive idea you have there...
I wonder if these are from the same people that gave Paul Mirecki a beating.
Thanks for the ping!
LOL!!
That's a great tagline!
Naming a movement or doctrine after the man who founded or led it often has pejorative connotations. The suffix "ite" has a similar usage: Luddite, Millerite, etc. Thus, some creationists also use "Darwinite."
I noticed that you didn't mention that the school board members who caused this lawsuit were voted out of office by the electorate.
Seems like the voters had their say.
And why would anyone need two Ph.Ds in similar fields? Is that supposed to be impressive? Nobody who is serious about a career in science would do that.
As in, compress a tennis ball to the space of its schwartzfield radius and it would become a black hole?
No. There is a certain minimum amount of mass required to distort space enough for light to be trapped.
If you squashed a tennis ball to the size of an atom, there still wouldn't be enough mass.
For example, our sun is too small to become a black hole.
He's probably a consultant.
So when it is said that scientists who support intelligent design don’t publish in peer reviewed journals, at least if the experience of Sternberg is any indication, the aim is to keep it that way.
Cordially,
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.