Replies

The first two questions restate the afterthought disclaimer:

1. Did the Supplementary Bibliography, or Meyer and Wells, say that the authors of the cited articles thought they were providing “scientific evidence for intelligent design?”
2. Did the Supplementary Bibliography, or Meyer and Wells, say that the cited articles “provide scientific evidence against evolution?”

The answer to both is supposedly "No." When convenient, however, Meyer pretends that the answer is "Yes." Again, from the NCSE page:

Moreover, in light of Stephen C. Meyer's declaration that the Bibliography contains publications "that raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution" — a declaration that significantly postdates the disclaimer — the sincerity of the disclaimer may be doubted.[8]

And one has to wonder what the idea of listing a bunch of articles many of which in fact support evolution and not ID would have been, given the goals of Discovery Institute.

The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.

Even that low bar is not crossed, according to most of the authors. This rebuttal quibbles endlessly about the word-for-word accuracy of its quotes, meaning only that everything they did say is based on something in the article. I haven't checked carefully enough to see if even that is true. They and you make a point of not getting something that this thread is about:

You can't just take the parts you want to make a false impression.

Don't like ad hominem? Here's Discovery on the authors who repudiate Discovery's use of their material:

5. Then why are these scientists so upset about the Supplementary Bibliography?
In three words: fear, intimidation, and politics.

Just turn the situation around and accuse everyone else of dishonesty! You're OK, it's the word that accuses you which is lying!

In the individual commentaries, author Erwin had raised this charge:

“Citing a paper from 1994 is decidedly poor scholarship, however, given how fast this field has moved. The rapid advances in comparative developmental biology have rendered much of this pretty outdated. We now have a very well substantiated metazoan phylogeny, at least in general outline, allowing some of the tests suggested at the end of the cited passage. Moreover, comparative developmental studies have only served to emphasize the fundamental unity of bilaterian animals.”

The attempted reply:

Erwin does not challenge the accuracy of the summary. Rather, he says that his article is “pretty outdated.” Erwin’s colleagues, however, continue to cite this 1994 publication. In a major review article published in 2000, for instance, paleontologist David Jablonski of the University of Chicago cited the article (D. Jablonski, “Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolution biology and paleobiology,” Deep Time (Paleontological Society, 2000), pp. 15-52; see pages 23 and 44). Graham Budd, a paleontologist at the University of Uppsala, cited the paper in another major review published in 2000, “A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla,” Biological Reviews 75 (2000): 253-295; see pages 257 and 290.
Jablonski and Budd say nothing about the paper being out of date. Both refer to the paper in the context of ongoing debates in paleontology.

Merely citing that someone else cited the article two years ago without a quote of what was cited looks suspicious. Is the article mentioned in a historical context? It is possible to mention old articles when describing an "ongoing" debate, especially when providing "context." And what about this part of Erwin's objection?

We now have a very well substantiated metazoan phylogeny, at least in general outline, allowing some of the tests suggested at the end of the cited passage. Moreover, comparative developmental studies have only served to emphasize the fundamental unity of bilaterian animals.

Not a word addressing the core issue. The real problem is that Discovery is still trying to paint a picture of things not adding up, at least not in an evolutionary way. That's a false picture and it's not right to do that no matter how artful your weasel-wording gets.

I could go on, but I find I don't have patience for this. The truth isn't anything you want it to be. A lie is a lie, no matter how you tell it.

Man you are predictable!

A little Vade quote-mining
I've said it already and it's still true. Meyer is a charlatan and a cradle-robbing charlatan at that.
Mindell is dismayed to find himself, however accurately quoted, wielded by Luddites against science,…
Playing dumb does not give you the right to lie for the Lord. I get pretty disgusted with what He seems to be telling some people to do.

Vade,
I could go on and on and even point out your apparent need to invoke the term ‘creationist’ but I don’t have the patience for this.

Cynical lawyers have a maxim: When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, question the motives of the opposition.

The latter seems to be the strategy of die-hard defenders of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, now that the State Board of Education in Ohio agreed to allow local districts to bring critical analysis of Darwin's ideas into classrooms.
- Steven Meyers

You seem to think you know something about lawyering …
And still my favorite from your article:
Further, some people are deluded, perhaps to the point of fanaticism.

I posted the DI article and you rambled on and on from your apparent rebuttal from NCSE who seem a little upset that they didn’t get their way. You seemed to think that you struck gold with all of your quote-mining (and as an extra bonus – your extremely subjective opinions and personal attacks). I posted DI’s answers to NCSE’s allegations but you still continue. You must continue… you have no options within the walls you have put up and ignore simultaneously.

By the way Vade, don’t you attempt to sell fiction to people as part of your living and you seem a little frustrated that people aren’t buying it…
Isn’t it strange how life imitates art? (or is it life imitates life) LOL!

I suggest you get out of other peoples faces and take a long look at your own. Confront your apparent demons and, by all means, stop with the projection.

Hey, before you take a look at yourself in the mirror you might want to wipe that rabid naturalistic ‘fanaticism’ foam off the side of your mouth. LOL!!!

PatrickHenry Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Vade has rabies, though he exhibits all the signs. I do however suggest an old fashion rabies test just to make sure. LOL!