[tacticalogic]

In this case, I feel that they are not. You have had every chance to produce your version of a valid functional test with rationale for the test of "arrowheadness". You have failed to do so.

As I said, this is commonly considered good, sound practical research methodology for testing these types of artifacts. I shouldn't have to justify it to you.

[js1138]

At the suggestion of AndrewC I have downloaded the list of signers to the Discovery Institute’s “Scientific Dissent to Darwinism.” I am in the process of loading the names and credentials into a relational database. What we have in the published list is people’s names, their advanced degrees, if any, and their occupation at the time of signing.

What I will do is google each name and see if there are any accounts of their being fired or demoted, find out if their occupations have undergone any drastic change, and record this in my database.

I estimate this could take a month or two in my spare time. I will get it published on DarwinCentral and make the database available to other bloggers.

I’m sure there will be marginal cases where people have had their feelings hurt, and I will find a way of coding claims of discrimination that do not involve loss of paying jobs.

I haven’t counted the signers, but there are are more than 500. That’s approaching the sample size of polling populations for presidential elections. These people are not just sympathetic to ID. They have painted bull’s eyes on their foreheads. It will be illuminating to see what percentage have been Expelled.

[AndrewC]

As I said, this is commonly considered good, sound practical research methodology for testing these types of artifacts. I shouldn't have to justify it to you

What good sound practical research methodology have you provided?