Posted on 01/17/2006 1:40:30 PM PST by truthfinder9
You know, it's kind of a shame the some of these scientists don't see Intelligent Design every time they look in the mirror. If they don't see themselves as a product of intelligence, well.... It makes me wonder why we should listen to them on other subjects if their judgement is that bad.
You know you have point there..,
zzzziiinnnnGG!!
ROTFKLLAO!!
Wolf
See # 23. So much for "censorship".
February, huh? No urgency for these characters.
1992 is ancient in the scientific world. What has he published recently?
Well, he certainly seems to have stopped publishing scholarly work before the time-frame covered by Google Scholar (I checked because his publication list contained exactly five papers--the number the NSF asks you to trim your publication list to, so it was possible that the posted cv was incomplete).
Still, in post 11 silverleaf gave an example of his popular pro-creation work. Perhaps the thread could stop being based on ad hominem centered on the article author's rather silly characterization of Ross as 'world renowned', and discuss content.
The table linked in post 11 is primarily a summary of anthropic cosmology, together with most of the specifics of the 'habitable planets are rare' argument. Ross is neither flogging the usual 'the Bible is true, so we've got to read it the way ordinary post-Enlightenment science and history books are read' argument of the six-day literalists, nor does he seem to be arguing for a 'tinker god' who hand-designs molecular machines. The last few points on Ross's table are actually arguments for the specialness of Earth's environment as a context for evolution!
Check the link in # 23. 5 articles in 2005, and a lot of other stuff. None of it particularly PC.
Popularization work does not a scholar make, nor does it count to scholarly outlook. Popularizers are not scholars per se, and if they are scholars [like Hawking with his "Brief history of time"] it is NOT because of popularizations. And the argument is not quite "ad hominem", for it goes to the root question of the guy's qualifications [and thus credibility] as a scientist. IMHO, as a scientist he is marginal at best.
On the other hand, fine tuning is not anti-evolution. It is just mind candy for those who want to believe it.
BTW, his '92 ratings I quoted from the cover of one of his books I happened to have at hand. The book was published in the late 90s.
And that's why my knee-jerk response to all biblers is "not a penny".
You mean, peer-reviewed like that world-renowned Korean stem-cell scientist who just resigned in disgrace? He was peer-reviewed by Science magazine--and he turned out to be a big fake. Looks like peer-review isn't what it's cracked up to be...we may need to peer-review the peer-reviewers.
And it was precisely his peers, and not some public advocacy fart, who caught and exposed him. Thus the system IS, indeed, self-policing, and rather effectively.
Actually the system failed becuase it's supposed to catch the frauds before they are published. It consistently fails to do do.
"I doubt they had something scientific to present. They could easily publish their thoughts on the net."
They have put a lot of it on the internet. But most of the world doesn't want to sit around reading book-length discussions on a computer screen. Hence the reason book stores still make millions of dollars.
"They only thing they want is to sell their books."
That's just a stupid unfounded statement.
"Ross is neither flogging the usual 'the Bible is true, so we've got to read it the way ordinary post-Enlightenment science and history books are read' argument of the six-day literalists, nor does he seem to be arguing for a 'tinker god' who hand-designs molecular machines. The last few points on Ross's table are actually arguments for the specialness of Earth's environment as a context for evolution!"
Ross details why "six-day literalists" aren't literal at all in books like "A Matter of Days." In his books he does detail the unique and sudden appearance of compex life forms. Using the uniqueness of Earth to point to evolution would be a big stretch because according to chance, evolution should have never produced such a world. See Ross' "A Creator and the Cosmos."
Intelligence is a good conversation. But the Universe is more than just ID'd it is Scientifically Designed. For so many may of its truths are discovered by using what has come to be called in today's era "Science". So to say I suggest "Scientifc Design" as a better moniker.
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.