It clearly is easy to do. Here is the cover pic from my soon to be published Creationist "book."
I can't remember who I got this from, but I do love it!
Posted on 08/17/2006 11:04:51 AM PDT by publius1
It clearly is easy to do. Here is the cover pic from my soon to be published Creationist "book."
I can't remember who I got this from, but I do love it!
Geneticists "R" Us, same as the rest of us I suppose ;)
'Tis easy!
When you sit down at the word processor just pretend that you're Lawrence O'Donnell and the evilutionists were behind the Swift Boat ads. This will ensure that you strike the proper tone and appropriate level of restraint and intellectual honesty.
You should then come up with something like this:
Which was not "peer reviewed". They would take any paper that was submitted:
...And if Annalen der Physik rejected a paper, for whatever reason, any professional German physicist had an alternative: Zeitschrift für Physik. This journal would publish any paper submitted by any member of the German Physical Society. This journal published quite a few worthless papers. But it also published quite a few great papers, among them Heisenberg’s first paper on the Uncertainty Principle, a central idea in quantum mechanics. There was no way in which referees or editors could stop an idea from appearing in the professional journals. In illustration of this, the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr said, according to Abraham Pais (The Genius of Science, p. 307), that if a physicist has an idea that seems crazy and he hesitates to publish so that someone else publishes the idea first and gets the credit, he has no one to blame but himself. In other words, it never occurred to Bohr that referees or editors could stop the publication of a new idea...
Frank Tipler, Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? 2003 p.3
Cordially,
Which was controlled by Darwins friends, and most certainly not judged by 'impartial' referees. I didn't say merely that it wasn't published, I said that it was not published in a peer reviewed publication, which according to freedumb2003's express stipulation is determinative of whether something is meaningless words or not.
Cordially,
Stultis is right; common courtesy dictates a ping when quoting someone. It was an oversight on my part for which I sincerely apologize.
Cordially,
Cordially,
I like it!
But I want a brighter snake.
It would be a minor miracle if someone hit, on the first try, the actual history of the flagellum. The problem for ID is that it asserts there can be no such history. It just got poofed into existence by a designer that takes pleasure in watching children die from dysentery.
My mistake. The disease should be Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli and the like.
However, your statement is still not correct. You're trying to compare modern pratices with practices in place between the world wars.
"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHYSIK" would not print any paper. It would print any paper from a member of the German Physical Society. It was membership in the Society, and the Society's opinion about one's work, that accounted for the peer review.
You are correct in that it is not done that way now. Now there are way too many scientists for such a process to have any chance of success.
I notice you didn't include the previous paragraph about Einstein's submission to "Annalen der Physik". It would have made your point even better. None of Einstein's 4 papers (not 3) were published with modern peer review, either.
Tipler's whole article is here.
Which I have clarified in a subsequent post. Posting something that you know not to be true is considered bad form. Doing it in the thread where the truth is posted is also not very bright.
I will assume this was a mistake on your part and you won't repeat it.
ID does not assert a universal negative. Why is there an attempt to impose an impossible burden of proof on ID to prove a universal negative, in this case that there can be no possible Darwinian pathway? It seems to me the burden of proof is on the Darwinist to present a rigorous, thorough account of its history, since it is the Darwinist who asserts that its history is Darwinian. ID just makes the claim, based on such imponderables as the critical assembly required of the components (not just the chemical 'pathways' required) that the Darwinian mechanism is causally insufficient to produce the result.
It just got poofed into existence by a designer that takes pleasure in watching children die from dysentery.
Is that a there is no designer because a designer wouldn't have done it that way because its wrong to take pleasure in watching children die from dysentery argument? Is that a scientific argument?
Cordially,
Insinuating that one is lying when one is not is bad form, too. Your 'clarification' leaves a lot to be desired.
In #479 you correctly acknowledge that, "The review process wasn't then what it is today." (Of course not - that's why I brought it up; to rebut the notion that anything that is not peer reviewed is meaningless words) You dismiss that historical context as irrelevent. So then in the very next post, your #480, when you state that "Oh and I see your (now shown to be false) assertion about what wasn't peer reviewed"...has been pretty well crushed", does that mean my examples were indeed of scientists that really had been peer reviewed in the modern sense that you intended when you first brought it up? Which is it? Were they peer reviewed or not?
Cordially,
Biology cannot possibly provide a detailed history of every past event, any more than physics can provide a detailed history of the weather going back millions of years.
The question is whether it is reasonable for physicists to teach in high school the possibility that Katrina was sent by an intelligent agency to punish New Orleans for its sins, or whether a particular configuration of alleles was twiched into place by an intelligence, for some purpose.
I am told that one of the halmarks of design is purpose. Since the flagellum is the poster child for intentional design, one has to consider the designer's purpose. We know what the flagellum does: it kills children. this leads to the question of the designer's motives.
LOL! You realize it's obvious that you're just making this up? Which "friends" of Darwin "controlled" (any more than any member did) The Linnean Society of London? You're just saying this. You don't have the slightest idea who was on the board, or who specifically might have passed on this presentation.
Probably any member of the Society in good standing and of sound repute could have had a hearing at their meetings, schedules allowing.
Certainly Darwin had an excellent scientific reputation, both for his work as a geologist and for his zoological work (e.g. his masterful series of monographs on the barnacles). It's rather silly to suggest he would have needed some special "in" to receive a hearing.
I didn't say merely that it wasn't published
No, but the sense of what you wrote implied, incorrectly, that The Origin, Darwin's book, was the first publication of his theory.
I said that it was not published in a peer reviewed publication
There was no formal peer review system in the 1850's. This is like complaining that Jesus Christ couldn't ride a motorcycle.
The peer review process is meant to insure that published papers report work that is original and significant. This is necessary in the context of a scientific community that is larger by at least a couple orders of magnitude than that of the mid 19th Century, and with huge volumes of research reports every year. In the context of the much smaller scientific community of Darwin's day mere membership in a learned society usually represented sufficient bona fides.
which according to freedumb2003's express stipulation is determinative of whether something is meaningless words or not
Yeah. freedumb2003 said that with respect to the YEC's flawed analysis of helium leakage in zircons. Had that study been done in 1858 you'd have a point.
ID does not assert a universal negative.
No, that's exactly what ID does. Granted it doesn't assert a universal negative as a conclusion. It's worse than that. It assumes a universal negative as a premise.
Both the main methods for (putatively) inferring that this or that structure was the result of "intelligent design" -- that its is "irreducibly complex" or that it exhibits "specified complexity" -- purport that structures with either of these characteristic COULD NOT have been developed by ANY series of stepwise modifications, i.e. that there is NO POSSIBLE "naturalistic" path to their formation.
ID offers not a single, solitary spec of positive evidence that anything is the result of "intelligent design". I.e. the only "evidence" offered is that the something (supposedly) designed could (supposedly) not have been developed by stepwise modification.
What's worse is that there's no proposed research program that would develop such (positive) evidence; and no apparent interest among ID'ers in developing such a research program.
Added to that is the universal resistance among ID'ers to proposing, even speculatively, and sort of "boundary conditions" to ID. IOW ID'ers won't say -- or even speculate -- about when, where, why, how, in what order, under what conditions, etc instantiations of "intelligent design" actually occur.
Expanding a bit on your argument. If the proposed path for the flagellum is wrong, it is up to an honest researcher to propose an alternate path.
Science does not proceed by asserting that a natural explanation cannot be found.
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.