Those following the controversy about the ID/creationist volume that was scheduled for publication by Springer that is being further peer-reviewed by Springer should make sure to check out the piece by reporter Kaustuv Basu at Inside Higher Ed. (See previously: PT post #1, PT post #2.)
Here, we get the first reactions from the creationists involved with the project:
This week's furor broke along predictable lines, with the editors of the book criticizing the attitude of the supporters of evolution. John Sanford, one of five editors of the book and a courtesy associate professor at Cornell University's Department of Horticulture, said in an e-mail that he was amazed that anyone could think that the "Darwin Dissidents" were trying to take over academe.
"Obviously we are only trying to exercise academic freedom and freedom of speech, and are challenging a sacred cow," he wrote. "Where are the academics who profess tolerance and open dialog? Where are the academics who would confront 'hate speech' on their own campus?"
There is apparently a lot of confusion about what "free speech" means in the creationist community. Just this week I experienced this with Casey Luskin. I recently emailed him to express my worry that he might have trouble sleeping at night, after he abandoned his oft-stated claims to be environmentalist and pro-science when he wrote this post: "A Friendly Letter to the Heartland Institute and Other Advocates of Free Speech on Global Warming". The post gave all kinds of love to the global-warming deniers, and didn't bother to raise a single finger of criticism for the deniers' numerous shenanigans, even though Luskin agrees with the mainstream that global warming is happening and humans are causing it. Luskin replied that he was just defending freedom of speech, to which I replied:
I think you should repeat after me:
"The right to free speech does not mean that the government,
the schools, or any particular private institution or
publisher are required to promote my views. Nor does
criticism or rejection of my views amount to a violation of
free speech."
"The right to free speech does not mean that the government,
the schools, or any particular private institution or
publisher are required to promote my views. Nor does
criticism or rejection of my views amount to a violation of
free speech."
"The right to free speech does not mean that the government,
the schools, or any particular private institution or
publisher are required to promote my views. Nor does
criticism or rejection of my views amount to a violation of
free speech."
If the government imprisons you or bans your book, that's a
violation of free speech. The government, schools, museums,
publishers, etc. making decisions about what is good science
and what is not, and deciding that your view is not and is
unworthy of promotion with their dime and their time, is
*not* a violation of free speech. It's a simple
*requirement* of these institutions successfully functioning
in the modern age.
It's very simple, I'm surprised a lawyer like you doesn't
know this.
And as for Sanford's talk about "tolerance and open dialog", this can't be the only guiding value, or else we'd have to demand that peer-reviewed science publishers publish Bigfoot, anti-vaxers, HIV deniers, UFOology, and a hundred other forms of crankery. The *whole point* of peer-review is *to exercise critical judgment*. This is entirely meaningless if any criticism or rejection is taken to be censorship. Everyone involved here has freedom of speech -- the creationists, the publisher (which decides what and what not to publish, every day, all the time), the reporters, the other scientists who edit and publish for Springer and who have a state in its credibility, us bloggers commenting on the topic, etc. Freedom of speech does not belong only to the creationists.
Speaking of freedom of speech, perhaps there wasn't room in Basu's short piece, but describing Sanford as "a courtesy associate professor at Cornell University's Department of Horticulture" doesn't quite cover everything one might say. Here is some more relevant information:
Source: "Down - Not Up." Lecture by John Sanford at Loma Linda University. Date uncertain, sometime between June 2011 and the upload date, Feb 20, 2012. Loma Linda, if you didn't know, is a Seventh-Day Adventist institution, and the Seventh-Day Adventists are one of the theological strongholds of young-earth creationism in the U.S., although this effect may decay with distance from Loma Linda, as Wes and I once discovered.
Notes:
1. Sanford discusses the Cornell meeting at 30:20.
2. Cute elephant graphic at 31:40. The elephant is what the different creationist scientists are "discovering". The elephant backbone is molecular biology saying that evolution doesn't work. The elephant's legs represent thermodynamics saying that evolution doesn't work. Etc.
3. The infamous creationist 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument is made throughout, without any mention of the standard criticisms, as far as I can tell (I didn't have time to watch the whole thing.)
4. Don't miss the nice scientific chart at 11:30:
About this graph, Sanford says:
"This particular graph is one of the strongest, as a scientist, one of the strongest evidences for me that Scripture is telling us, not speaking figuratively, not speaking creatively, but telling us history. And it speaks of a decline."
Yep, there's some really critical scientific thinking on display there.
Discovery Institute response
The conclusion of Basu's piece contains a response from John West at the DI:
John West, associate director at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, an organization that advocates for intelligent design, said the critics had not read the book and were bigots. "In the academic world, it is not considered a mark of scholarship to attack books you haven't read," he said, calling Matzke, the blog-poster, a hypocrite. "Intelligent design scientists are criticized for not publishing and then you denounce them for doing just that. It is damned if you do, damned if you don't."
I'll just quote what I said to the reporter who inquired: "And obviously I haven't read the book. But I have read virtually every ID publication ever, and these guys don't change their tune very much." One is not required to disregard prior knowledge when forming an opinion. I am a Bayesian, after all.
If ID folks were seriously interested in gaining honest credibility in science, they would have to change their approach in many ways. A non-exhaustive list would include:
1. Don't try to imply that a private conference held by renting a room at a university is an official meeting sponsored by the university.
2. Don't include theologians, and employees of zookeeper-based evangelical ministries, and young-earth creationists, and then hide the meeting from the general scientific community and from anyone with expertise in the topics you are discussing, and then call it a meeting of a "diverse group of scientists".
3. Heck, just come out and admit that the idea that the Earth is young is as wrong as any idea ever has been in the whole history of science -- as wrong as flat-Earthism -- and that defending it for Biblical reasons is just intellectual dishonesty and ignoring the physical data.
4. Then, come out admit that your view is unpopular, advocated by a tiny minority of people almost entirely not in the correct scientific specialities -- don't try to pretend it's a "rapidly growing" group in academia (if you go back to the identical "rapidly growing in academia" claims which the "creation scientists" made in the 1970s and 1980s, "scientific" creationism has been "rapidly growing" in academia for almost 40 years now!). Admit that to a first approximation you're a bunch of conservative evangelicals with strong prior convictions leading to theological problems with evolution.
5. All that said, you have established some margin of credibility that you actually are interested in evidence, fairly representing the state of academic opinion and academics, and interested in dialog rather than propaganda. (Yes, young-earth creationism is a litmus test about whether or not you are interested in evidence. Being agnostic about the earth being young is not an option. Telling scientists one thing and religious people another thing about the age of the earth is not an option. Endorsing arguments which depend on a young-earth premise is not an option. Not if you want to establish that you care about evidence and that you accept that there are right and wrong answers in science, which is the bare minimum for productive dialog on some dissident issue.) You can then say, "nevertheless, we think we have some interesting arguments that the scientific community should address, in the interests of fully exploring every possibility. Even if the arguments are wrong, we would like to make them as best we are able, and submit them to public scrutiny and rebuttal from those best prepared to address them" -- and then get the actual best experts, not just random somewhat famous people with a vague idea about your position and your argument, or people who superficially appear to have appropriate credentials but who are outside of the relevant field or don't represent the majority view.
6. Finally, to maintain this credibility, you would have to do the above consistently, and not turn around and tell church audiences that your views are Real Science (TM) just because you got raked over the coals by experts. You would have to agree that the scientific community is the proper forum for assessing these issues, and not try to win by fighting a public opinion battle and then getting ignorant politicians to force your views into the scientific curriculum and textbooks.
If your arguments actually had merit, the above approach would work, eventually. The honesty would be refreshing and would attract more attention from serious experts than the currently standard devious tactics, which just make you look like just another group of un-serious cranks. The route above is the route taken by all of the actual revolutionary scientific ideas which have succeeded. They start with one or a few people, they make their arguments, acknowledging the weight of the prior paradigm, and encouraging critical review from relevant experts. They focus only on trying to convince their scientific peers. Only long after they succeed do their views get into the schools.
130 Comments
D P Robin · 1 March 2012
Of mad-folk, a bunch. (Paraphrased from Jack Vance)
dpr
Starbuck · 1 March 2012
It's ironic that the DI complains that this is censorship, but then doesn't allow comments at their own blog. Why they dislike is criticism.
Matt G · 1 March 2012
This is not about free speech! It's about supporting your claims with evidence! You know, like REAL scientists do. It's about having academic standards. Would you let a geocentrist teach this claim in astronomy class?
James · 1 March 2012
So, I had to look up "courtesy associate professor" on wikipedia --- ______________________________________________________ Professor by Courtesy / affiliated professor. A professor who is primarily and originally associated with one academic department, but has become officially associated with a second department, institute, or program within the university and has assumed a professor's duty in that second department as well, could be called a "professor by courtesy." Example: "Dan Jurafsky is Professor of Linguistics and Professor by Courtesy of Computer Science at Stanford University". Usually, the second courtesy appointment carries with it fewer responsibilities and fewer benefits than a single full appointment (for example, affiliated professors rarely have voting rights in their courtesy department). Because affiliated professors are often listed following a partition in the catalog copy or web page for the department, they are often called "professors below the line" or "below the diamonds"[citation needed] or a similar phrase. _________________________________________________________
What is John Stanford's original professorial position? He's only listed as a courtesy ass prof on Cornell's faculty pages. Not that it matters much, but a horticulturalist probably needs to use evolutionary biology at some time in their life.
Douglas Theobald · 1 March 2012
Criticism Is Not Censorship. Let's all repeat that three times.
While we're at it, Peer Review Is Not Censorship. Being published by a journal is not a right, it is a privilege. Think of it as a tentative stamp of approval. If your ideas pass review by peers in your field, then a journal might say "yes, we'll publish this". Some ideas do not deserve that cautious stamp of approval. At least in most democratic countries, like the US, you are free to publish your ideas in your own journal, or on your blog, or whatever. That is freedom of speech. And the intelligent design proponents certainly have that freedom now, have for some time, and will in the foreseeable future.
You do not, however, have the right to have your ideas published by any journal of your choice, nor do you have the right to have your ideas respected or taken seriously -- that must be earned.
Matt G · 1 March 2012
James said:
What is John Stanford's original professorial position? He's only listed as a courtesy ass prof on Cornell's faculty pages. Not that it matters much, but a horticulturalist probably needs to use evolutionary biology at some time in their life.
He was a professor of some sort at the Experiment Station for many years (I think it's on his Wikipedia page). As I mentioned in an earlier post, he was there in the late 80's (which is when I used his prototype gene gun).
Elizabeth Liddle · 1 March 2012
The coefficients on Sanford's graph are sort of funny.
Douglas Theobald · 1 March 2012
Now hang on ... I missed this at first skim. When did our Matzke become a Bayesian??
Nick Matzke · 1 March 2012
What is John Stanford’s original professorial position? He’s only listed as a courtesy ass prof on Cornell’s faculty pages. Not that it matters much, but a horticulturalist probably needs to use evolutionary biology at some time in their life.
Well, creationists since the 1950s have believed not in the special creation of species, but the special creation of "kinds", which are often taxonomic families or whatever (except humans, and despite that allowing the evolution of a family can be a huge amount of evolution). If you are a plant breeder, all you need to do re: evolution is know which plants are close relatives so that you can cross-breed them.
That said, the evidence indicates that Sanford took up creationism only fairly recently (1990s IIRC). Before that he was an "evolutionist" and "atheist". He has a fairly standard conversion story which gets retold a lot. The extremely common pattern with such stories told by fundamentalists is that although the convertee was what one would call a "scientist" or even a "biologist", they are typically a long ways from having any detailed experience with or knowledge of evolutionary biology -- typically only a popular-science level, if that. They are often in some field that is more technical/engineering than about theory and statistics and hypothesis-testing. Then, they have a conversion experience due to a midlife crisis or a marriage or whatever, and soon after that they "discover" the problems with evolution and endorse the creationist view; usually it seems likely that they didn't have detailed experience with creationism or its criticism before that, so it all seems new and shiny to them.
Walter Lammerts was another horticulturalist plant breeder, famous in the creation-science days, see Numbers:
http://books.google.com/books?id=aDmZ5_iUixgC&lpg=PA405&ots=4UXvOdnlI5&dq=William%20J.%20Tinkle%2C%20creationism&pg=PA221#v=onepage&q=plant%20breeder&f=false
And William J. Tinkle was a geneticist of some sort, known for his endorsement of eugenics and race (!) as well as creationism:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/update-on-sprin.html#comment-279730
Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2012
Elizabeth Liddle said:
The coefficients on Sanford's graph are sort of funny.
:-)
Yeah; that initial life span of 5029.2 (what units; years?) at x = 0 was really something, eh?
So Adam and Eve must have been around when Jesus was around?
Oh, maybe they drowned.
I wonder if they watch Noah building the Ark.
Joel Velasco · 1 March 2012
At 24:30 he says that "Dr. Crow" (James F. Crow) "recently passed away". That was Jan 4th, 2012 so the talk must be after that.
Joe Felsenstein · 1 March 2012
Mike Elzinga said:
Yeah; that initial life span of 5029.2 (what units; years?) at x = 0 was really something, eh?
So Adam and Eve must have been around when Jesus was around?
Oh, maybe they drowned.
I wonder if they watch Noah building the Ark.
You have misinterpreted the equations. 5029.2 (years I think) is the life span at x = 1. That's at one century after the Creation. Now there is the interesting question of whether the fall in life span affects individuals born before that. If not, it means that Adam and Eve are still around, if they didn't drown. An interesting conclusion. Maybe we should go find them and ask them what really happened.
Joe Felsenstein · 1 March 2012
Oops, let me withdraw that. x = 0 is the time of Noah, not Adam.
At that time the lifespan was infinite. Before that time it was imaginary.
Which is correct.
Nick Matzke · 1 March 2012
Joe Felsenstein said:
Oops, let me withdraw that. x = 0 is the time of Noah, not Adam.
At that time the lifespan was infinite. Before that time it was imaginary.
Which is correct.
Funniest. Math. Comment. Ever.
Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2012
Joe Felsenstein said:
Oops, let me withdraw that. x = 0 is the time of Noah, not Adam.
At that time the lifespan was infinite. Before that time it was imaginary.
Which is correct.
Yes, thank you for catching that!
My annoying dyslexic tendencies were in operation as I looked away from the equation to start typing and started thinking exponential.
But, as the actual power law equation demonstrates, Adam and Eve should have had infinite lives.
After the Fall, say at four centuries after Creation, would their life expectancy be down to 5029.2 years? That certainly would certainly mean they were around when Jesus was alive, unless they drowned.
Speaking about power law and exponential curves; I believe Sanford mentioned in his talk that this was a typical “biological decay curve.”
I don’t know what he meant, but a term like that usually means exponential.
Joe Felsenstein · 1 March 2012
Oops-squared. Adam was (according to Bishop Ussher) about 1656 years before Noah. If the scale on the graph is centuries, rather than years, then Adam would have about x = -16.56. So Adam's age works out to a complex number:
-19.1 + 88.2 i
which must have made it hard to be him.
Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2012
Joe Felsenstein said:
Oops-squared. Adam was (according to Bishop Ussher) about 1656 years before Noah. If the scale on the graph is centuries, rather than years, then Adam would have about x = -16.56. So Adam's age works out to a complex number:
-19.1 + 88.2 i
which must have made it hard to be him.
Well that serpent certainly made things complex for them.
Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2012
Mike Elzinga said:
After the Fall, say at four centuries after Creation,
Good grief, did I do it again? ONE century please!
I’ve been slammed with so much work lately I can’t even think straight.
Elizabeth Liddle · 1 March 2012
It was only the number of significant figures that tickled me :)
Scott F · 1 March 2012
Mike Elzinga said:
Good grief, did I do it again? ONE century please!
I’ve been slammed with so much work lately I can’t even think straight.
Based on the graph, I'd say your thinking is curved, not straight.
Scott F · 1 March 2012
Elizabeth Liddle said:
It was only the number of significant figures that tickled me :)
Heh, it's what came up on the calculator. It must be right.
Nick Matzke · 1 March 2012
Well, this link someone sent me is preeeetty interesting. "Don", who self-identifies as a YEC from South Carolina, writes in January 2011, 5 months before the Cornell meeting:
Posted 14 January 2011 - 07:36 AM
Hey guys, it's been awhile.
As most of you know, the rant of evos has always been "why don't creos publish their scientific work?"
And as most of you know, many papers are beginning to slip though the cracks and get published. Especially related to ID. The only problem is that they are so sporadic that the scientific community basically ignores them.
But I just wanted you all to know that a historical event is coming soon at a major university within the next six months. (some insider information). A substantial number of papers will be presented, all peer reviewed, and all challenging neo Darwin theory. The evidence is now shifting at the micro level, and the science community is going to have to deal with it. This event will probably be newsworthy and will eventually be the beginning of the end of neo-Darwinianism.
[...]
And then, in the same thread, on June 9, 2011, Don writes:
Posted 09 June 2011 - 05:45 PM
The place: Cornell University
What? A science symposium
Topic: Biological Information New Perspectives.
Date: May31st - June 2 2011
This was an invitation only event to prevent the media hype and evolutionist disrupters at bay. It was strictly science and not creation science. Twenty peer reviewed papers were presented and are in the process of being published now. All papers in some way shape or form present serious problems and even potential falsifications of the neo-Darwinian theory. The science community will be unaware of these papers until they are fully published in a scientific syposium book as is the usual procedure.
I have been asked not to present substantial information regarding this event until the publication is released. I don't know when, but expect 3-6 months. I have copies of all the abstracts and they are brutal regarding evidence against neo-Darwinian theory. Once released, the science community will for the first time have to deal wilth real contrary evidence. And it will open the doors for future symposiums where the scientific journals don't control the publications and peer review process. You will recognize several of the names of presenters. I will have access to all of these papers in the future, and I will make them available as soon as I can.
Sorry for the vagueness, but you all know the forces that work against such events. It looks like this was a success, and it opens many doors for the truth of an intelligent designer to be a real scientific topic that must be dealt with.
(bold added)
apokryltaros · 1 March 2012
Joe Felsenstein said:
Oops-squared. Adam was (according to Bishop Ussher) about 1656 years before Noah. If the scale on the graph is centuries, rather than years, then Adam would have about x = -16.56. So Adam's age works out to a complex number:
-19.1 + 88.2 i
which must have made it hard to be him.
The ghost of Enron called: it doesn't want its funny numbers back.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 1 March 2012
Mike Elzinga said:
Joe Felsenstein said:
Oops, let me withdraw that. x = 0 is the time of Noah, not Adam.
At that time the lifespan was infinite. Before that time it was imaginary.
Which is correct.
Yes, thank you for catching that!
My annoying dyslexic tendencies were in operation as I looked away from the equation to start typing and started thinking exponential.
But, as the actual power law equation demonstrates, Adam and Eve should have had infinite lives.
After the Fall, say at four centuries after Creation, would their life expectancy be down to 5029.2 years? That certainly would certainly mean they were around when Jesus was alive, unless they drowned.
Speaking about power law and exponential curves; I believe Sanford mentioned in his talk that this was a typical “biological decay curve.”
I don’t know what he meant, but a term like that usually means exponential.
You don't have to calculate yourself. Reliable numbers that have been peer reviewed again and again during the last centuries have been available on the internet for years. E.g., here, here and here. Still, one has to concede there is some scientific debate because alternative genealogies like this or this may fit better with the widely accepted main source of scientific information.
Prometheus68 · 1 March 2012
According to the Jewish timeline, Noah was born in about 2700 BC. That was 47 centuries ago. By applying Stanford's lifespan equation, Noah's descendants today should have a lifespan of 20 years.
Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said:
You don't have to calculate yourself. Reliable numbers that have been peer reviewed again and again during the last centuries have been available on the internet for years. E.g., here, here and here. Still, one has to concede there is some scientific debate because alternative genealogies like this or this may fit better with the widely accepted main source of scientific information.
It must be tough having a life without humor.
Maybe someday you will discover it.
fnxtr · 2 March 2012
I'm pretty sure that *was* a joke, Mike.
Dave Luckett · 2 March 2012
Poe's Law strikes!
It was "the widely accepted main source of scientific education" that gave it away.
Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2012
fnxtr said:
I'm pretty sure that *was* a joke, Mike.
Oops; I apologize.
It tells about the sorry state I must be in at the moment. Four highly improbable, independent events; and all are demanding top priority attention within the same time frame. Nothing necessarily horrible, but still very annoying, time-consuming and not pleasant.
I need to get back to retirement where I was having fun.
DiEb · 2 March 2012
Hasn't our life-expectancy increased since the time of the Romans? Are we getting nearer to the next flood?
Robert Byers · 2 March 2012
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days?? I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
NO. We do not have freedom of speech in our fathers homes. Yet the nation is all our home. America does not just have speech freedom relative to political/legal power. America has this freedom for the reasons that she is free from gov't control. Its a great belief and historically held by zillions of Yanks since Independence that truth and justice in order to prevail or hold its own must have freedom of speech and especially in a nation where speech and not physical etc force decides who gets their way. Therefore it must be put up with when there is speech one dislikes or fears its power.
This idea and spirit is today under attack and one of those areas in origin contentions. Creationism(s) are being silenced by many and in many places. They are afraid of us and fear to just take us on. Therefore creationists charge censorship where they smell this spirit or tone or sneaky eyes. Creationists are very suspicious someone is trying to stop them for reasons other then normal . Its the great intellectual lifestyle America is used too on easy free speech that creationists see as being denied them. So censorship fits the hearts thought if not the legal/political fine print.
John · 2 March 2012
Mike Elzinga said:
Elizabeth Liddle said:
The coefficients on Sanford's graph are sort of funny.
:-)
Yeah; that initial life span of 5029.2 (what units; years?) at x = 0 was really something, eh?
So Adam and Eve must have been around when Jesus was around?
Oh, maybe they drowned.
I wonder if they watch Noah building the Ark.
I think the crew of the Starship Enterprise beamed up Adam and Eve and then, using the Kirk slingshot effect, travelled forward in time so that they'd meet their most famous descendant, Jesus.
Dave Luckett · 2 March 2012
Byers, not only do you have freedom of speech in your house, you have it in public. You're even allowed to blather your foolishness here, on a science blog.
Mind, we don't have to put up with you, Byers. We do, because you're a picture-perfect example of the idiocy and incoherence of creationism. But we don't have to, because freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force your way into other people's property and shout in their faces. PT is maintained at the charge of the blog's owners. You have no right to demand that your damnfool nonsense be displayed here. Go post on your own blog. Nobody's stopping you.
And the public schools are maintained at the charge of the American taxpayers, who have agreed, in the Constitution, that they will maintain a secular government with a separation between Church and State. You have no right to demand that your religion be taught there.
But you can get on your soapbox and shout all you like. Take out ads in the papers, radio or TV. Hell, start your own paper, or radio or TV station. Many have. That's freedom, isn't it?
Freedom of speech, Byers? You don't want freedom of speech, because you have it already. What you want is privilege. I read your half-coherent screeds and I hear the wail of frustrated entitlement.
Wail away, Byers.
John · 2 March 2012
Joe Felsenstein said:
Oops, let me withdraw that. x = 0 is the time of Noah, not Adam.
At that time the lifespan was infinite. Before that time it was imaginary.
Which is correct.
I wonder if Sanford will release the data. Would love to try some curvilinear regression technique in SAS or SPSS to see whether I could reproduce his results.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 2 March 2012
Robert, Read the post again for Nick's excellent set of items on what the right to free speech isn't. The book in question could be printed by Intervarsity or iUniverse and none of us would be bothered by that. But the scammers sized up a mark, aiming to steal respectability off the mark, and that does get us exercised.
Karen S. · 2 March 2012
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
Robert Byers, do you think that the non-believers on this site should be allowed to publish articles in, say, Christianity Today?
apokryltaros · 2 March 2012
Wesley R. Elsberry said:
Robert,
Read the post again for Nick's excellent set of items on what the right to free speech isn't. The book in question could be printed by Intervarsity or iUniverse and none of us would be bothered by that. But the scammers sized up a mark, aiming to steal respectability off the mark, and that does get us exercised.
You do realize you're arguing with a grown man who thinks that the First Amendment of the US Constitution forbids the teaching of Evolution in a science class because it's religious, while condoning the teaching of Young Earth Creationism in a science class because it is not religious, right?
TomS · 2 March 2012
I think that it is interesting that when given a forum where one can say whatever he wants, the creationist uses the opportunity to complain about not being free to say what he means, rather than saying what he means.
He chooses "sell the sizzle, not the steak", rather than "tell, don't sell".
W. H. Heydt · 2 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
"Freedom of the press does not mean your freedom of my press."
The same applies to speech.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
John Pieret · 2 March 2012
"I’m surprised a lawyer like you doesn’t know this."
As a lawyer myself, I'm not at all surprised that Casey either doesn't know it or, more likely, knows it but is simply engaged in a ploy to garner sympathy from the the even less informed, such as Robert Byers.
Fortunately for Casey, he has never, as far as I know, actually practiced law. When you are the Gofer General ... opps ... "Research Coordinator" for the Discoveryless Institute, misrepresenting the law can't get you into trouble with your bar association.
harold · 2 March 2012
DiEb said:
Hasn't our life-expectancy increased since the time of the Romans? Are we getting nearer to the next flood?
Mean, median or mode life expectancy from birth, yes.
Life span, no. That has been about the same throughout recorded history.
raven · 2 March 2012
DiEb said:
Hasn’t our life-expectancy increased since the time of the Romans? Are we getting nearer to the next flood?
Average US life spans have increased by 30 years in the last century. Blame modern science and medicine for that.
Genetic entropy doesn't exist. We've sequenced a lot of ancient DNA and never seen it. Among other examples, we sequenced a Neanderthal and a Denisovian that are 6 times (roughly) older than the fundie xian universe.
DavidK · 2 March 2012
Byers said: ... "Creationism(s) are being silenced by many and in many places. They are afraid of us and fear to just take us on." ...
This isn't true. Scientists have confronted creationists and have taken them on and have clearly shown that their assertions are empty, totally religious in nature, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and are repetitious as they can discover nothing new and so rely on critizing science and defaming scientists. On the other hand, creationists like those from the Dishonesty Institute and elsewhere are alive and well within the walls of the churches where they preach their creationist gospel to those who continue to live in total denial of any evidence whatsoever in favor of science, not just evolution.
unklehank · 2 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
NO. We do not have freedom of speech in our fathers homes.
Yet the nation is all our home.
America does not just have speech freedom relative to political/legal power.
America has this freedom for the reasons that she is free from gov't control.
Its a great belief and historically held by zillions of Yanks since Independence that truth and justice in order to prevail or hold its own must have freedom of speech and especially in a nation where speech and not physical etc force decides who gets their way.
Therefore it must be put up with when there is speech one dislikes or fears its power.
This idea and spirit is today under attack and one of those areas in origin contentions.
Creationism(s) are being silenced by many and in many places.
They are afraid of us and fear to just take us on.
Therefore creationists charge censorship where they smell this spirit or tone or sneaky eyes.
Creationists are very suspicious someone is trying to stop them for reasons other then normal .
Its the great intellectual lifestyle America is used too on easy free speech that creationists see as being denied them.
So censorship fits the hearts thought if not the legal/political fine print.
You people are free to say what you want. And you do. Often.
Other people have equivalent freedom to disagree with you, tell you you're wrong (and demonstrate it), call you out when you're dishonest (which is frequently), ignore or refuse to publish your "science" in their publications (also frequent), challenge your endless attempts to force religion into state education (which are in fact illegal, didn't you know) and into other legislation and, in short, not pay you any undeserved attention.
The problem here is not that people feel threatened by creationists and so suppress them; the problem is that creationists think their ideas have more merit than they actually do and act like spoiled brats when the truth is pointed out to them: their "science" is worthless, their claims - all of them - are meritless, mythological or plain mendacious. In addition, this claim of persecution is flat-out paranoid fantasy.
What you need to understand (but likely never will) is that the concept of free speech does not imply that anything anyone says is as true or valuable or interesting or valid as anything anyone else says and so must be given an equal trot in all venues, especially in the world of science. In science, what you say must be supported by facts and evidence or at least carry some prior plausibility. Creationism is not only implausible on its face, it is unsupported by any facts or evidence and is indeed flatly contradicted by all available facts and evidence.
If creationists were as principled and honest and forthright and as interested in TRUTH as they so often and so petulantly claim (or flat-out pretend) to be, they would know why people don't listen to them.
Refusing to listen to someone who's wrong every time they open their mouth is not surpression.
harold · 2 March 2012
raven said:
DiEb said:
Hasn’t our life-expectancy increased since the time of the Romans? Are we getting nearer to the next flood?
Average US life spans have increased by 30 years in the last century. Blame modern science and medicine for that.
Genetic entropy doesn't exist. We've sequenced a lot of ancient DNA and never seen it. Among other examples, we sequenced a Neanderthal and a Denisovian that are 6 times (roughly) older than the fundie xian universe.
Obviously we don't disagree, but just to clarify, I use the term life "span" to mean the maximum recorded ages for individuals and the term life "expectancy" to indicate a mean or median age at death.
There have always been some very old people, and maximum human life span isn't changing, it's just that a lot more people are not dying at younger ages.
PaulP · 2 March 2012
Quotemongers note:
the science community will for the first time have to deal wilth real contrary evidence.
Creationist acknowledges no such evidence ever existed before? I love it ...
DiEb · 3 March 2012
harold said:
raven said:
DiEb said:
Hasn’t our life-expectancy increased since the time of the Romans? Are we getting nearer to the next flood?
Average US life spans have increased by 30 years in the last century. Blame modern science and medicine for that.
Genetic entropy doesn't exist. We've sequenced a lot of ancient DNA and never seen it. Among other examples, we sequenced a Neanderthal and a Denisovian that are 6 times (roughly) older than the fundie xian universe.
Obviously we don't disagree, but just to clarify, I use the term life "span" to mean the maximum recorded ages for individuals and the term life "expectancy" to indicate a mean or median age at death.
There have always been some very old people, and maximum human life span isn't changing, it's just that a lot more people are not dying at younger ages.
Well, there was this nice French lady, living for more than 120 years. OTOH, I don't know of any Roman who lived for more than 100 years (or and medieval person for that matter). So we are only slowly getting nearer to the next Noah: I expect a slight increase in the level of the oceans :-)
robert van bakel · 3 March 2012
(and less but so for the rest of British peoples)?? Where to begin? Who are, 'the rest of British peoples'? And what does, 'less but so' mean? I think I can interpret.
'Chrisitians in the USA discovered not only a continent but also freedom. We same Christians are now patronisingly allowing that other, fair skinned people also had, or indeed have a modicom of freedom, although if these same 'fair skinned' people had a choice they would soon abandon their lands for the perfection of freedom that is, Evangelical Christian America, where I live:) I say 'British peoples' because the smallness of my mind cannot allow that other peoples living in other countries can possibly understand the concept of freedom so wonderfully explained by the open, tolerant masses of fundamental christianity in my, 'land of the free and home of the knave'.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 3 March 2012
Christian blogs start getting at it. Predictably, they judge the issue as censorship
When Scientists Are Censors
Author: ADF Legal Counsel David J. Hacker
Inside Higher Ed reports that evolutionists have censored a forthcoming book on intelligent design.
Score one for science this week. Evolutionary biologists were horrified by the news that a scholarly press was going to publish a work in favor of intelligent design. But a spokesman for the publishing house confirmed to Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that the book’s publication is on hold as it is subjected to further peer review.
Earlier this week, the Panda’s Thumb, a blog about evolutionary theory, posted an item about a forthcoming book from Springer called Biological Information: New Perspectives. The blog-poster and other commenters said the book was a compilation of articles by creationists and intelligent-design proponents and Springer had no business publishing such “creationist pseudoscience.”
I have a sense of how the book authors must feel. In law school, I wrote a law review article on academic freedom and the teaching of evolution. The mere idea that I might have criticized evolutionary theory, or at least opened a legal door for others to do so, caused leftist evolution bloggers to criticize not my legal reasoning, but my intellect.
Of all the scientific fields, evolutionary biology has become fiefdom where academic freedom is dead and detractors are thrown out and publicly lambasted. And they protect their mandatory orthodoxy with vigor. It’s no wonder so many people refuse to buy into it.
Has someone at your university criticized your Christian beliefs about human origins? Let us know by commenting below.
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
Wesley R. Elsberry said:
Robert,
Read the post again for Nick's excellent set of items on what the right to free speech isn't. The book in question could be printed by Intervarsity or iUniverse and none of us would be bothered by that. But the scammers sized up a mark, aiming to steal respectability off the mark, and that does get us exercised.
The people are confident that their stuff is respectable and worthy.
So they size up the "marks" to hit their mark.
No stealing but a sincere dead aim in public display.
its seen as very unreasonable the rejection and it follows a neo tradition of a spirit of censorship.
If your side is convinced its not worthy well my side is.
So whats the big earthquake to interfere?
The aggressive opposition is the evidence to us, and for us to demonstrate to everyone, that there is a deeper opposition to all this that is beside regular criticism of ideas in matters of research.
It is very apparent that the contention passion is the larger part of the censorship spirit.
it is a accusation,of motivation but its won its spurs amongst the creationist(s).
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
Karen S. said:
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
Robert Byers, do you think that the non-believers on this site should be allowed to publish articles in, say, Christianity Today?
No. Yet the analogy is not accurate.
'Today" is about the settled conclusions of cHristianity.
Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects.
ID or YEC researchers satisfy the motive for discovery in these matters and make their case on the exact principals.
The accusation is that a secret motivation is at work and not business as usual.
This forum exists because these ideas are not just other opinions on matters in "science".
Its a greater thing and this is and can be factored into affecting motivations.
Creationists do and the passion shown to STOP their stuff is more evidence to them.
We have a Educated Suspicion.
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
"Freedom of the press does not mean your freedom of my press."
The same applies to speech.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
If the press is presented to the public to allow publications on met requirements then to deny some one who has met those requirements is censorship in all its historic infamy.
In this case its about the merits and not about private property.
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
DavidK said:
Byers said:
... "Creationism(s) are being silenced by many and in many places. They are afraid of us and fear to just take us on." ...
This isn't true. Scientists have confronted creationists and have taken them on and have clearly shown that their assertions are empty, totally religious in nature, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and are repetitious as they can discover nothing new and so rely on critizing science and defaming scientists. On the other hand, creationists like those from the Dishonesty Institute and elsewhere are alive and well within the walls of the churches where they preach their creationist gospel to those who continue to live in total denial of any evidence whatsoever in favor of science, not just evolution.
Some take us on but I say there is much fear of creationisms persuasiveness in the public and dear of it making a place at the table within these subjects.
I see fear and everywhere I see ID(very less so YEC) as a perceived serious intellectual threat about conclusions in certain subjects dealing with origins.
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
unklehank said:
Robert Byers said:
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
NO. We do not have freedom of speech in our fathers homes.
Yet the nation is all our home.
America does not just have speech freedom relative to political/legal power.
America has this freedom for the reasons that she is free from gov't control.
Its a great belief and historically held by zillions of Yanks since Independence that truth and justice in order to prevail or hold its own must have freedom of speech and especially in a nation where speech and not physical etc force decides who gets their way.
Therefore it must be put up with when there is speech one dislikes or fears its power.
This idea and spirit is today under attack and one of those areas in origin contentions.
Creationism(s) are being silenced by many and in many places.
They are afraid of us and fear to just take us on.
Therefore creationists charge censorship where they smell this spirit or tone or sneaky eyes.
Creationists are very suspicious someone is trying to stop them for reasons other then normal .
Its the great intellectual lifestyle America is used too on easy free speech that creationists see as being denied them.
So censorship fits the hearts thought if not the legal/political fine print.
You people are free to say what you want. And you do. Often.
Other people have equivalent freedom to disagree with you, tell you you're wrong (and demonstrate it), call you out when you're dishonest (which is frequently), ignore or refuse to publish your "science" in their publications (also frequent), challenge your endless attempts to force religion into state education (which are in fact illegal, didn't you know) and into other legislation and, in short, not pay you any undeserved attention.
The problem here is not that people feel threatened by creationists and so suppress them; the problem is that creationists think their ideas have more merit than they actually do and act like spoiled brats when the truth is pointed out to them: their "science" is worthless, their claims - all of them - are meritless, mythological or plain mendacious. In addition, this claim of persecution is flat-out paranoid fantasy.
What you need to understand (but likely never will) is that the concept of free speech does not imply that anything anyone says is as true or valuable or interesting or valid as anything anyone else says and so must be given an equal trot in all venues, especially in the world of science. In science, what you say must be supported by facts and evidence or at least carry some prior plausibility. Creationism is not only implausible on its face, it is unsupported by any facts or evidence and is indeed flatly contradicted by all available facts and evidence.
If creationists were as principled and honest and forthright and as interested in TRUTH as they so often and so petulantly claim (or flat-out pretend) to be, they would know why people don't listen to them.
Refusing to listen to someone who's wrong every time they open their mouth is not surpression.
Yes ID and YEC think our ideas have merit. Yes we do.
Your judgement we don't doesn't end our confidence and then complaints of a spirit(and so deeds) of censorship are thrown.
Who is angry here. Us being told we are wrong (which is our manna) or the tellers being frustrated and nervous about our rejection of their correction?!
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
robert van bakel said:
(and less but so for the rest of British peoples)?? Where to begin? Who are, 'the rest of British peoples'? And what does, 'less but so' mean? I think I can interpret.
'Chrisitians in the USA discovered not only a continent but also freedom. We same Christians are now patronisingly allowing that other, fair skinned people also had, or indeed have a modicom of freedom, although if these same 'fair skinned' people had a choice they would soon abandon their lands for the perfection of freedom that is, Evangelical Christian America, where I live:) I say 'British peoples' because the smallness of my mind cannot allow that other peoples living in other countries can possibly understand the concept of freedom so wonderfully explained by the open, tolerant masses of fundamental christianity in my, 'land of the free and home of the knave'.
A little off thread but I mean my own people and Great britain and so on. America had and established the spirit and belief and legal protection for freedom of speech in important matters of public interest.
This was a unique contribution and only later, if so, did the world slowly mossy up to the bar.
Yes this freedom at root came from Evangelical minorities trying to stop opposition but then it became a general good idea.
It was born of a need to get the truth and the reality of being too weak to do so in usual ways.
So everybody gets to be free but not as the goal but only truth as the goal. Then one must put up with the freedom which always, and more so today, is not welcome by almost everyone.
Just us minorities less so.
dalehusband · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers, I fail to understand how fraud (which is all Creationism ever has been) should be taken seriously in public forums of any kind just because that fraud happens to support your extremist views.
Truth is meaningless to you. No wonder you accuse us of censorship. We know that is a lie.
John Pieret · 3 March 2012
Hey, Nick! Have you seen this?
An Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel, David J. Hacker, has complained about evolutionists who have "censored" this book:
http://blogs.christianpost.com/liberty/2012/03/when-scientists-are-censors-02/
... and asks:
Has someone at your university criticized your Christian beliefs about human origins?
The interesting thing is that the ADF is the same outfit that is representing David Coppedge in his suit against Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory on the grounds that:
... intelligent design is a scientific theory, but JPL has illegally discriminated against him on the basis of what they deem is 'religion.'
In other words, ID is both religious and non-religious at the same time, depending on what is most advantageous at the moment.
I know, coals to Newcastle. But every example is worth collecting.
harold · 3 March 2012
DiEb said:
harold said:
raven said:
DiEb said:
Hasn’t our life-expectancy increased since the time of the Romans? Are we getting nearer to the next flood?
Average US life spans have increased by 30 years in the last century. Blame modern science and medicine for that.
Genetic entropy doesn't exist. We've sequenced a lot of ancient DNA and never seen it. Among other examples, we sequenced a Neanderthal and a Denisovian that are 6 times (roughly) older than the fundie xian universe.
Obviously we don't disagree, but just to clarify, I use the term life "span" to mean the maximum recorded ages for individuals and the term life "expectancy" to indicate a mean or median age at death.
There have always been some very old people, and maximum human life span isn't changing, it's just that a lot more people are not dying at younger ages.
Well, there was this nice French lady, living for more than 120 years. OTOH, I don't know of any Roman who lived for more than 100 years (or and medieval person for that matter). So we are only slowly getting nearer to the next Noah: I expect a slight increase in the level of the oceans :-)
There were some very long lived people during the middle ages. There are some good records from the period, for example http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/002219599551949. And there's always the example of Luigi Cornaro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cornaro. Cassiodorus lived to be about 100 during the a very turbulent period about 1000 years earlier than that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiodorus
The distribution of "age at death" is what has changed. Many, many fewer childhood and early deaths. The maximum age at death has not necessarily changed.
This is actually evidence AGAINST creationism, since claims of relatively recent human ages in the hundreds of years cannot be taken literally.
DS · 3 March 2012
Robert,
I have written a book about the scientific evidence for evolution. You must publish it. If you refuse, it is censorship. You see you have no choice, you must do as I demand. If you do not publish this book, you are guilty of persecution. It doesn't matter that the book is completely opposed to everything you believe in. It doesn't matter if you think the book is a complete lie. It doesn't matter if you think it will ruin your reputation. It doesn't matter if it promotes something you detest. It doesn't matter if you lose money on the deal. You must publish this book or be guilty of persecution and censorship. And don't tell me I can just publish it somewhere else. You are the one who must publish it, or it might never be published anywhere else.
So how about it Robert? Are you going to publish my book? If so, put up the money. If not, STFU.
Karen S. · 3 March 2012
No. Yet the analogy is not accurate. ‘Today” is about the settled conclusions of cHristianity. Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects. ID or YEC researchers satisfy the motive for discovery in these matters and make their case on the exact principals. The accusation is that a secret motivation is at work and not business as usual. This forum exists because these ideas are not just other opinions on matters in “science”. Its a greater thing and this is and can be factored into affecting motivations. Creationists do and the passion shown to STOP their stuff is more evidence to them. We have a Educated Suspicion.
But Robert, who gets to make the "settled conclusions"? Besides, so much is not settled! Christians are all over the map on many things. The editorial staff at Christianity Todaycensors non-Christian articles. Shouldn't they be more open to different theological opinions?
harold · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers -
I agree with DS.
I am also going to write a book summarizing the evidence for evolution.
Since your standard for being "censored" is that you are "censored" if everyone does publish your views in private venues, at their own expense, I request that you allow me the same "rights".
I demand that you publish and promote my book at your own expense.
I also demand that you read from my book, uncritically, in your church.
I don't care what it costs, what it does to your reputation, or whether you just don't want to.
You must do this uncritically. You cannot extensively review my book, or consult expert in your religion about it.
If you refuse, you'll be "censoring" and "persecuting" me, by your own standards.
It makes perfect sense. According to you, and the attendees of this conference, if Springer-Verlag doesn't publish what you want them to publish, they are "censoring" you. Actually, in fact, if they merely do additional peer review, that alone is censorship.
By your logic, the private entity Springer-Verlag is not allowed to choose what they publish, or even how much they review something before publishing.
Therefore, by logical extension, neither is the private entity Robert Byers.
You aren't demanding special privileges are you? You say you're just demanding equal rights, as you see them.
Okay, then, so let's see you prove that by respecting the rights of others.
Publish and promote anything I tell you to, whenever I tell you to, without even delaying anything for review, or else you're guilty of "censoring" and "persecuting" me, probably because you are "afraid" of my material.
And remember - any criticism of my book is also "censorship". By your own standards.
(For full disclosure, I prefer a system in which I, Robert, and Springer Verlag all have our own freedom of expression, but only freedom of our own expression. However, creationists want a system in which others are obliged to publish their material. And they endorse the idea that criticism of speech is the same as censorship of speech. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/01/13/civility_is_the_new_censorship This example can't be more clear. Rush Limbaugh is broadcasting on national radio during this exchange, and the remarks he refers to have been massively publicized, yet he says that he is "censored")
Alright then, creationists, let's do it your way. I'm obliged to avoid criticizing anything you say, and provide venues for your speech at my own expense. But let's be fair. It works both ways. You have to provide private venues for my speech and refrain from criticizing me.
I'm going to want about 200,000 copies printed, Byers, on vellum, in gold-embossed leather bindings, so cash out your lifesavings, max out your credit cards, and get those presses rolling. I'm only asking that creationists show the same respect for my rights, that they demand I show for theirs.
Paul Burnett · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers said: Yes ID and YEC think our ideas have merit. Yes we do.
Similarly, the ignorant and the uneducated who believe UFOs and Bigfoot and such think their ideas have merit. But society realizes they are fools and refuses to suffer them gladly.
W. H. Heydt · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
"Freedom of the press does not mean your freedom of my press."
The same applies to speech.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
If the press is presented to the public to allow publications on met requirements then to deny some one who has met those requirements is censorship in all its historic infamy.
In this case its about the merits and not about private property.
Others have shown where your approach leads. Whether or not you understand how it logically follows...who knows. You certainly haven't shown such understanding in the past.
The first error you make is mistaking restrictions on the *government*--the *government* may not restrict speech or the press--for a restriction on *private* actions. There is nothing in the freedoms of press and speech that constrains private actions against speech or press access when the venue or the press belong to individuals (or companies...or, for that matter, churches). I am free to pick and choose what I wish to print if I own a "press" and if I don't wish to publish what you write, that's too bad for you. Go get your own "press".
In this case, the merits are solely those of private property. Springer-Verlag is perfectly free to consider their reputation among authors and readers as part of their criteria for whether or not to publish a given work. Spring has chosen to do further peer review to help them determine if they still wish to publish this work.
Now, as it happens, I've seen actual book publishing contracts. Such contracts give the publisher the final choice to publish or not publish. If an advance against royalties has been paid and *then* the publisher decides to NOT publish the book, the authors (in the contracts I've seen) get to keep that advance...at least so long as the submitted manuscript is what the author said it was (copy someone elses book and submit it and all bets are off). Without knowledge of the specific contract involved, the editors of the book under discussion are probably going to have to live with whatever decision Springer makes and nothing you or I say will aid or hinder then in any way.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
tallgrass05 · 3 March 2012
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
Isaac Asimov
Helena Constantine · 3 March 2012
Byers,
Please show us exactly which base pairs were changed by the designer, tell what the evidence is in each individual case, as well as when he did it, and especially how. It shouldn't be that difficult. It should be something like: "The designers took a human female 85.000 years ago onto their spaceship, altered the genetic information in one of her eggs using technique X similar to what is being done today in genetic engineering, fertilized it, and then released the offspring back into the wild population where its superior genetic information spread, replacing the inferior, non-engineered individuals." Be sure to give the evidence from genetics as well as from archaeology that supports whatever it is you assert. If you can't do that and just want to say 'the designer did it' just shut up because that wouldn't convince a child.
DS · 3 March 2012
Come on Robert, I'm waiting for your check in the mail. You aren't by any chance3 a hypocrite are you?
Dave Lovell · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
No. Yet the analogy is not accurate.
'Today" is about the settled conclusions of cHristianity.
Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects.
Are we making progress here Robert? Is there some doubt about when and how we were created? You seem to be conceding that you think God doing it all in six day is still open to doubt.
TomS · 3 March 2012
One thing that I have wondered about is the precursors to the designed things.
Take as an example the design of the vertebrate eye. Were there vertebrates that didn't have eyes before the eye was designed? There were those eyeless vertebrates that did manage to make a living, and then there was the instantaneous design of the eye (nothing gradual, of course). That must have been a tremendous advantage to those newly eyed vertebrates. Similarly for bacteria without flagella and animals without the adaptive immune system or blood-clotting system.
And were those pre-design living things themselves designed? Or did they arise from purely natural processes? If they were designed, why did they need further design?
Karen S. · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers, where did you go? What church do you attend and where is it? I think the good folks here at the P.T. should be permitted to preach at your church with no censorship allowed!! Okay?
Tenncrain · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers, are you still working on showing us the boatload of fossils used within evo-devo?
What about your criticism to the Gordon Glover and Glenn Morton links and other things you have run away from? Remember when you said, "Not the place and I don’t want to get into a million points about these things." ?
You might want to post your answers in the Bathroom Wall since all this is a bit offtopic in this thread - if you post here, it may get moved to the BW anyway.
raven · 3 March 2012
Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects.
Assertion without proof. It's also wrong.
"Origins research" which is a field only a few creationists sects know about by that name is a settled field.
We have spent billions of dollars on space telescopes looking back to the Big Bang. And looking at the remnants, the Cosmic Microwave background. There is a new Cosmic Microwave background satellite orbiting right now.
Same thing with evolution. Creationism was dead a century ago in the only place that matters, educated adults without religious problems. The young earth was dead even before that. It only takes rudimentary knowledge to see that the earth just looks old. Valleys and canyons are common. In the bottom of each one is a...river. It doesn't take much brains to see that the river made the valley.
Karen S. · 3 March 2012
It only takes rudimentary knowledge to see that the earth just looks old.
And any creationist can visit the National Ice Core Lab and count the annual layers for themselves.
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
Karen S. said:
No. Yet the analogy is not accurate. ‘Today” is about the settled conclusions of cHristianity. Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects. ID or YEC researchers satisfy the motive for discovery in these matters and make their case on the exact principals. The accusation is that a secret motivation is at work and not business as usual. This forum exists because these ideas are not just other opinions on matters in “science”. Its a greater thing and this is and can be factored into affecting motivations. Creationists do and the passion shown to STOP their stuff is more evidence to them. We have a Educated Suspicion.
But Robert, who gets to make the "settled conclusions"? Besides, so much is not settled! Christians are all over the map on many things. The editorial staff at Christianity Todaycensors non-Christian articles. Shouldn't they be more open to different theological opinions?
No.
Its their baby. They come from settled conclusions.
Scientific research is about an openness to discovery that can over turn previous ideas.
To censor off the bat is to say their is settled conclusions by publications saying nothing settled.
So suspicion takes root.
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said:
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
"Freedom of the press does not mean your freedom of my press."
The same applies to speech.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
If the press is presented to the public to allow publications on met requirements then to deny some one who has met those requirements is censorship in all its historic infamy.
In this case its about the merits and not about private property.
Others have shown where your approach leads. Whether or not you understand how it logically follows...who knows. You certainly haven't shown such understanding in the past.
The first error you make is mistaking restrictions on the *government*--the *government* may not restrict speech or the press--for a restriction on *private* actions. There is nothing in the freedoms of press and speech that constrains private actions against speech or press access when the venue or the press belong to individuals (or companies...or, for that matter, churches). I am free to pick and choose what I wish to print if I own a "press" and if I don't wish to publish what you write, that's too bad for you. Go get your own "press".
In this case, the merits are solely those of private property. Springer-Verlag is perfectly free to consider their reputation among authors and readers as part of their criteria for whether or not to publish a given work. Spring has chosen to do further peer review to help them determine if they still wish to publish this work.
Now, as it happens, I've seen actual book publishing contracts. Such contracts give the publisher the final choice to publish or not publish. If an advance against royalties has been paid and *then* the publisher decides to NOT publish the book, the authors (in the contracts I've seen) get to keep that advance...at least so long as the submitted manuscript is what the author said it was (copy someone elses book and submit it and all bets are off). Without knowledge of the specific contract involved, the editors of the book under discussion are probably going to have to live with whatever decision Springer makes and nothing you or I say will aid or hinder then in any way.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
I said "met requirements".
I mean they offer to the world to fairly publish ideas on standards they put forth.
My side fulfills these standards but is denied.
So we cry censorship and this because of the special passion behind origin issues.
It is accusation of secret motivations.
Yet the climate is upon us.
It is our educated suspicion.
We say we are being EXPELLED without just cause.
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
Dave Lovell said:
Robert Byers said:
No. Yet the analogy is not accurate.
'Today" is about the settled conclusions of cHristianity.
Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects.
Are we making progress here Robert? Is there some doubt about when and how we were created? You seem to be conceding that you think God doing it all in six day is still open to doubt.
I don't mean that.
I mean professional research on origin subjects is not settled but is open to new insights, research, and smarter people.
I just mean paradigms can change in anything in science. So these publications agree with that and sponsor research ideas.
Creationist ideas are being rejected for reasons other then merit is the suspicion and accusation.
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
raven said:
Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects.
Assertion without proof. It's also wrong.
"Origins research" which is a field only a few creationists sects know about by that name is a settled field.
We have spent billions of dollars on space telescopes looking back to the Big Bang. And looking at the remnants, the Cosmic Microwave background. There is a new Cosmic Microwave background satellite orbiting right now.
Same thing with evolution. Creationism was dead a century ago in the only place that matters, educated adults without religious problems. The young earth was dead even before that. It only takes rudimentary knowledge to see that the earth just looks old. Valleys and canyons are common. In the bottom of each one is a...river. It doesn't take much brains to see that the river made the valley.
Great heaps of North Americans and ID and YEC researchers say it ain't settled.
All very educated and more then in all the past.
Your case is not on solid ground.
The earth does not look old but looks simply beaten up. like people old before its time.
In ontario great numbers of the valleys were not made by the rivers or streams of present watersheds but by entirely different watershed regimes during the breakup of the ice age . the present rivers are just utilizing the great valleys created before and are not the origin of the valleys.
They call them underfit valleys .
Few big valleys were ever created by present rivers.
One needs peer review on these matters.
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
Karen S. said:
It only takes rudimentary knowledge to see that the earth just looks old.
And any creationist can visit the National Ice Core Lab and count the annual layers for themselves.
Don't count your layers until you have seen how they were laid.
they only show layering and not mechanism.
I have offered that the ice core things are only showing freezing rain/quickly freezing landed rain episodes from a nuclear type winter that occurred due to great earth upheavals especially the great volcanic eruptions that are also the origin of the post flood (above the k-t line) fossil assemblages.
There are always options if ones presumptions are based on biblical boundaries.
dalehusband · 4 March 2012
Don't you ever get tired of lying outright, you worthless hypocrite? You have NOTHING that supports those claims. You making up $#it is not an argument to be taken seriously.
Robert Byers blabbed uselessly:
No.
Its their baby. They come from settled conclusions.
Scientific research is about an openness to discovery that can over turn previous ideas.
To censor off the bat is to say their is settled conclusions by publications saying nothing settled.
So suspicion takes root.
I said “met requirements”. I mean they offer to the world to fairly publish ideas on standards they put forth. My side fulfills these standards but is denied. So we cry censorship and this because of the special passion behind origin issues. It is accusation of secret motivations. Yet the climate is upon us. It is our educated suspicion. We say we are being EXPELLED without just cause.
I don’t mean that. I mean professional research on origin subjects is not settled but is open to new insights, research, and smarter people. I just mean paradigms can change in anything in science. So these publications agree with that and sponsor research ideas. Creationist ideas are being rejected for reasons other then merit is the suspicion and accusation.
Great heaps of North Americans and ID and YEC researchers say it ain’t settled. All very educated and more then in all the past. Your case is not on solid ground.
The earth does not look old but looks simply beaten up. like people old before its time.
In ontario great numbers of the valleys were not made by the rivers or streams of present watersheds but by entirely different watershed regimes during the breakup of the ice age . the present rivers are just utilizing the great valleys created before and are not the origin of the valleys. They call them underfit valleys . Few big valleys were ever created by present rivers. One needs peer review on these matters.
Don’t count your layers until you have seen how they were laid. they only show layering and not mechanism. I have offered that the ice core things are only showing freezing rain/quickly freezing landed rain episodes from a nuclear type winter that occurred due to great earth upheavals especially the great volcanic eruptions that are also the origin of the post flood (above the k-t line) fossil assemblages. There are always options if ones presumptions are based on biblical boundaries.
Dave Luckett · 4 March 2012
Have you noticed that Byers always posts in the wee small hours of the morning, Ontario time? Is insomnia another one of his many problems? Or does he come off his meds then?
harold · 4 March 2012
Byers says it all
No. Its their baby. They come from settled conclusions.
Here he's talking about Christianity today. According to him, Christianity Today can publish whatever they want. I agree. "They come from settled conclusions". That's true as well.
Scientific research is about an openness to discovery that can over turn previous ideas.
Also true.
To censor off the bat is to say their is settled conclusions by publications saying nothing settled.
Here's where the problem lies. With all due respect, Byers, the baby here is you. The whining, spoiled, egocentric, demanding baby.
I'm sorry, my inconsiderate friend, but free speech about scientific research is still free speech, and private property that publishes scientific research is still private property.
The ultimate standard for inclusion in a Springer-Verlag publication is the same as the ultimate standard for inclusion in Christianity Today. If the editors and publishers want to include it, it gets published, otherwise, it does not.
No-one in the world is ever, ever obliged to publish what you tell them to, to say what you tell them to, or to treat your ideas (or my ideas) with respect.
You have some choices here.
You can be grateful for your freedom, live your creationist life, and stop the fake complaints about "censorship". Of course, some of your fellow fundamentalists would be annoyed, but as Christians, they'd forgive you. Right?
You can set up your own printing press, radio station, web site, public access show, or whatever. You can control the speech in that venue.
Or you can convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia. Everything there is exactly as you want it here, except that it's fundamentalist Islam instead of fundamentalist Christianity. You should consider it. One extra prophet. How big of an adjustment is that?
So suspicion takes root.
You know, Robert, you are right to be suspicious that some venues would not publish your Protestant Christian Fundamentalist theology, regardless of its merit. Catholicism Today. Judaism Today. Wiccanism Today. Wahabbism Today. Animism Today. Hinduism Today. They don't have to and they don't want to, because, like you, they come from "settled conclusions" - and they don't like YOUR "settled conclusions".
Scientific journals, published by Springer Verlag or anyone else, are, ironically, the one place you could get your stuff published - if you had any evidence for it. However, there is a barrier of quality, and you can't meet that barrier of quality.
Dave Lovell · 4 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
Dave Lovell said:
Robert Byers said:
No. Yet the analogy is not accurate.
'Today" is about the settled conclusions of cHristianity.
Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects.
Are we making progress here Robert? Is there some doubt about when and how we were created? You seem to be conceding that you think God doing it all in six day is still open to doubt.
I don't mean that.
I mean professional research on origin subjects is not settled but is open to new insights, research, and smarter people.
I just mean paradigms can change in anything in science. So these publications agree with that and sponsor research ideas.
Creationist ideas are being rejected for reasons other then merit is the suspicion and accusation.
Still not clear on you position Robert. Is the Jury still out on "origin subjects" or are you just waiting for the world to realise you know all the answers already?
DS · 4 March 2012
So Robert that would be a no, you won't publish my book. Thanks for answering my question. So now everyone can see that you are just another hypocrite crying foul while shooting the opposing team. You have no facts, you have no research, you have only misconceptions and misrepresentations. And yet you presume to dictate what real publishers can and cannot publish.
TomS · 4 March 2012
The only thing I find interesting about the comments from the anti-evolution side is that, given the opportunity to go on and on about anything whatever, we get nothing about what the alternative is to evolutionary biology.
That is because there is no alternative.
raven · 4 March 2012
I've skipped most of this thread because of a minor illness, troll fatigue.
But science is always open to new findings that overturn or modify old theories. That is the heart of science, discovering new and different things on a daily basis.
But creationism isn't new. Creationism is old and wrong. Creationism was the wild guess of Iron Age farmers in the Middle East 2500 years ago. It was overturned by...science.
Using creationism to oveturn evolution, the Big Bang, and Heliocentrism is like using The Demon Theory of Disease to overturn The Germ Theory of Disease. Which a few xians are still trying to do anyway, sometimes with preventable deaths as a result.
DS · 4 March 2012
Dave Lovell said:
Robert Byers said:
Dave Lovell said:
Robert Byers said:
No. Yet the analogy is not accurate.
'Today" is about the settled conclusions of cHristianity.
Origin research is not settled but must stand any and all serious research on origin subjects.
Are we making progress here Robert? Is there some doubt about when and how we were created? You seem to be conceding that you think God doing it all in six day is still open to doubt.
I don't mean that.
I mean professional research on origin subjects is not settled but is open to new insights, research, and smarter people.
I just mean paradigms can change in anything in science. So these publications agree with that and sponsor research ideas.
Creationist ideas are being rejected for reasons other then merit is the suspicion and accusation.
Still not clear on you position Robert. Is the Jury still out on "origin subjects" or are you just waiting for the world to realise you know all the answers already?
His position is the same as it always was and always will be:
:You don't know everything, therefore I don't have to believe any of the findings of science.
It's the perfect excuse to remain ignorant and deny reality, because science will never have all of the answers. So you found a bacteria that causes disease, great, but that doesn't mean that all diseases are caused by bacteria. So, I can just ignore germ theory and keep believing in ghosts and curses and such. Same with "origin subjects". There will never be a gap too small for a god to fit into.
John · 4 March 2012
Dave Luckett said:
Have you noticed that Byers always posts in the wee small hours of the morning, Ontario time? Is insomnia another one of his many problems? Or does he come off his meds then?
I'm inclined to think the latter. Fortunately for me I'll be listening to two great classical music concerts today, and won't even have a chance to think anew about his ongoing breathtaking inanity bordering on insanity.
Scott F · 4 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
Karen S. said:
But Robert, who gets to make the "settled conclusions"? Besides, so much is not settled! Christians are all over the map on many things. The editorial staff at Christianity Todaycensors non-Christian articles. Shouldn't they be more open to different theological opinions?
No.
Its their baby. They come from settled conclusions.
Scientific research is about an openness to discovery that can over turn previous ideas.
To censor off the bat is to say their is settled conclusions by publications saying nothing settled.
So suspicion takes root.
Robert, based on what at least we see on this web site, the very existence of your God is not a "settled conclusion". There are, "Great heaps of North Americans and [ ... ] researchers [who] say it ain’t settled. All very educated and more then [sic] in all the past. Your case is not on solid ground", as you so eloquently put it.
So, by your definitions alone, Christianity Today should publish atheist articles challenging those unsettle "great ideas" of yours. By your definitions. Unless, you intended to mean that the only people who get to decide what is, and is not a "settled conclusion" in science are "ID and YEC researchers".
So, by your statements, Christianity Today can refuse to publish articles based on "settled conditions" that "ID and YEC researchers" define as "settled conditions". You say this is *not* censorship.
Yet, when another private publisher refuses to publish articles based on "settled conditions" that all researchers except "ID and YEC researchers" define as "settled conditions", you say that this is censorship.
Do you not see a contradiction in these two positions that you appear to hold?
Scott F · 4 March 2012
Sorry, proof-reading error. Replace all occurrences of "settled conditions" with "settled conclusions". Robert didn't say "settled conditions", though it doesn't change the sense of the comment.
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
No. Its their baby. They come from settled conclusions.
Again, Robert, who gets to make "settled conclusions"? Everyone has their own conclusions but they don't all agree, even among people of faith. Why should the editorial staff of Christianity Today have the privilege of deciding what is published in their own magazine? (What an idea!) Shouldn't they be open to the "settled conclusions" of other faith positions? What happened to the spirit of discovery?
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
Great heaps of North Americans and ID and YEC researchers say it ain’t settled.
Evidently planking has really caught on.
ksplawn · 4 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
Don't count your layers until you have seen how they were laid.
they only show layering and not mechanism.
I have offered that the ice core things are only showing freezing rain/quickly freezing landed rain episodes from a nuclear type winter that occurred due to great earth upheavals especially the great volcanic eruptions that are also the origin of the post flood (above the k-t line) fossil assemblages.
There is a lot of very strong, tell-tale evidence that a global flood and global volcanic winter would necessarily leave behind if they happened. That evidence is simply not there. There is plenty of evidence for life going on pretty much as normal the whole time before, during, and after. So not only is there no evidence for your explanation, there is a lot of evidence against it. You have absence of evidence as well as evidence of absence in this case. Only by being extremely selective about what evidence you accept while simultaneously loosening the requirements for evidence supporting your hypothetical alternative, to the point that any lack of evidence doesn't count against it, could you maintain these Bible-inspired (not Bible-based) explanations for any length of time. Even a casual once-over reveals enormous challenges that you are not going to overcome. Please try to develop a little more self-skepticism.
There are always options if ones presumptions are based on biblical boundaries.
If you're basing presumptions on Biblical boundaries, you only need one option to explain everything we do see, everything we don't see, and everything that could conceivably happen even if it didn't: a miracle. All possible (and IMPOSSIBLE) evidence is consistent with this explanation, even/especially mutually contradictory things.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 4 March 2012
When Scientists Are Censors
We read:
“Evolutionary biologists were horrified by the news that a scholarly press was going to publish a work in favor of intelligent design. But a spokesman for the publishing house confirmed to Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that the book’s publication is on hold as it is subjected to further peer review.
Earlier this week, the Panda’s Thumb, a blog about evolutionary theory, posted an item about a forthcoming book from Springer called Biological Information: New Perspectives. The blog-poster and other commenters said the book was a compilation of articles by creationists and intelligent-design proponents and Springer had no business publishing such “creationist pseudoscience.”
Of all the scientific fields, evolutionary biology has become fiefdom where academic freedom is dead and detractors are thrown out and publicly lambasted. And they protect their mandatory orthodoxy with vigor. It’s no wonder so many people refuse to buy into it.
Source
As an atheist I obviously don’t believe in creation. But I have also looked closely at evolutionary theory and find many holes in it. There are both logical and factual holes in it.
The logical hole is that “fittest” is not explained independently of “survival”, so “survival of the fittest” is a circular and hence meaningless statement.
The factual hole is that all observed mutations seem to be destructive yet we are told that we are the product of an amazing cascade of beneficial mutations. How come even a minor version of such a cascade has never been observed in any organism?
There may be some truth in the theory of evolution but as it stands it is not a theory that makes sense or fits the facts. And when a true scientist finds that no theory fits the facts he says simply: “I don’t know” — which is what I say. I don’t know how we all got here and I can face that with perfect calm. There is an infinity of things that we don’t know and I don’t need to make up things in a pretence that I know more than I do.
So you can see why evolutionists are so incredibly defensive about their theory. They know its holes but fear those holes becoming generally known. If they had more confidence in their theory they would greet challenges to it with amusement and patient explanation — not censorship.
But what is going on of course is religious. The theory is used in an effort to discredit religion. But if the evolutionists were intellectually capable atheists, they would study Carnap. He has a far better argument against religion than putting up a theory that is full of holes. But analytical philosophy does require some brains so many atheists might not be up to reading Carnap.
Belief in evolution is nearly as religious as belief in creation. Those who proclaim it as an unquestionable truth are modern-day Torquemadas (a leader of the Spanish Inquisition)
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
Don’t count your layers until you have seen how they were laid.
Baloney. They are seasonal layers. They faithfully record events such as the Clean Air Act and the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. They match up well with sediment cores. But if you believe in a trickster god who fakes evidence, what reason do we have to trust anything at all?
unklehank · 4 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
unklehank said:
Robert Byers said:
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
NO. We do not have freedom of speech in our fathers homes.
Yet the nation is all our home.
America does not just have speech freedom relative to political/legal power.
America has this freedom for the reasons that she is free from gov't control.
Its a great belief and historically held by zillions of Yanks since Independence that truth and justice in order to prevail or hold its own must have freedom of speech and especially in a nation where speech and not physical etc force decides who gets their way.
Therefore it must be put up with when there is speech one dislikes or fears its power.
This idea and spirit is today under attack and one of those areas in origin contentions.
Creationism(s) are being silenced by many and in many places.
They are afraid of us and fear to just take us on.
Therefore creationists charge censorship where they smell this spirit or tone or sneaky eyes.
Creationists are very suspicious someone is trying to stop them for reasons other then normal .
Its the great intellectual lifestyle America is used too on easy free speech that creationists see as being denied them.
So censorship fits the hearts thought if not the legal/political fine print.
You people are free to say what you want. And you do. Often.
Other people have equivalent freedom to disagree with you, tell you you're wrong (and demonstrate it), call you out when you're dishonest (which is frequently), ignore or refuse to publish your "science" in their publications (also frequent), challenge your endless attempts to force religion into state education (which are in fact illegal, didn't you know) and into other legislation and, in short, not pay you any undeserved attention.
The problem here is not that people feel threatened by creationists and so suppress them; the problem is that creationists think their ideas have more merit than they actually do and act like spoiled brats when the truth is pointed out to them: their "science" is worthless, their claims - all of them - are meritless, mythological or plain mendacious. In addition, this claim of persecution is flat-out paranoid fantasy.
What you need to understand (but likely never will) is that the concept of free speech does not imply that anything anyone says is as true or valuable or interesting or valid as anything anyone else says and so must be given an equal trot in all venues, especially in the world of science. In science, what you say must be supported by facts and evidence or at least carry some prior plausibility. Creationism is not only implausible on its face, it is unsupported by any facts or evidence and is indeed flatly contradicted by all available facts and evidence.
If creationists were as principled and honest and forthright and as interested in TRUTH as they so often and so petulantly claim (or flat-out pretend) to be, they would know why people don't listen to them.
Refusing to listen to someone who's wrong every time they open their mouth is not surpression.
Yes ID and YEC think our ideas have merit. Yes we do.
Your judgement we don't doesn't end our confidence and then complaints of a spirit(and so deeds) of censorship are thrown.
Who is angry here. Us being told we are wrong (which is our manna) or the tellers being frustrated and nervous about our rejection of their correction?!
Noone's nervous about your creationist fantasy - but many are frustrated about your endless attempts to have your fantasy taught as fact to children. Frustrated about you claiming censorship every time your fantasy isn't printed in a scientific journal. Frustrated when you pay absolutely no attention to things said to you in plain, clear language.
Thanks for missing the entire point of every paragraph I wrote. With intellects like yours I can see the future of creationism is in good hands.
unklehank · 4 March 2012
Byers
Would it be ok with you if Islamic creationists, Catholic creationists and Native American creationists both got the "equal time" you want in journals and schools and other venues for whatever your particular brand of Christian creationism is?
Presumably those groups have as much interest in The Truth as your bunch does and might have lots of research and interesting ideas to put out there. Would it be ok with you if Islamic creationists etc. published their findings in Christianity Today? Or is that only for Christians?
Just Bob · 4 March 2012
Dave Luckett said:
Have you noticed that Byers always posts in the wee small hours of the morning, Ontario time? Is insomnia another one of his many problems? Or does he come off his meds then?
A third alternative: I believe someone has established that he has some sort of low-level (unsurprising) bureaucratic job. I submit that he works nights in an undemanding job, with lots of free time and access to a provincial computer.
raven · 4 March 2012
John J. Ray:
As an atheist I obviously don’t believe in creation.
Hard to believe. You are channeling christofascist religionists word per word.
But I have also looked closely at evolutionary theory and find many holes in it. There are both logical and factual holes in it. The logical hole is that “fittest” is not explained independently of “survival”, so “survival of the fittest” is a circular and hence meaningless statement.
Assertions without proof. It is also wrong. Fitness is determined and dependent on survival. They don't have to be determined independently and in fact, aren't independent.
BTW, survival of the fittest isn't evolution. Evolution is random mutations plus survial of the fittest. It really makes no sense to talk about fitness without talking about variation.
But what is going on of course is religious. The theory is used in an effort to discredit religion.
This is a common lie of fundie xians.
Evolution is a scientific theory of how and why life changes through time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
h ttp://thinkingmeat.net/2007/12/20/john-j-ray-ma-phd-and-lying-censored word
John J. Ray: M.A., Ph.D., and Lying censored word December 20, 2007 in Political Animals | No comments
It seems that John J. Ray has a hard time writing about anything without lying.
Read what the Philadelphia Jewish Voice wrote, beginning with a quote from sex-obsessed former congressweenie Rick Santorum (who is quoting Barack Obama):
Seems John J. Ray has been around the blogosphere, has at least one fan, and is some sort of far right wing extremist. I'll let someone else google his writings and let the sunny day entertain me instead.
Tenncrain · 4 March 2012
Karen S. said:
Robert Byers said:
Don’t count your layers until you have seen how they were laid.
Baloney. They are seasonal layers. They faithfully record events such as the Clean Air Act and the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. They match up well with sediment cores.
In addition, radiometric dating can be used on material within the ice layers (pollen, etc). This provides independent conformation of the ages of each sequence.
And Byers, before you try any 'radiometric dating is inaccurate/fraudulent' act, a few of the pioneers in radiometric dating were Christian (e.g., John Laurence Kulp, who helped develop radiometric dating in general and radiocarbon dating in particular).
But if you believe in a trickster god who fakes evidence, what reason do we have to trust anything at all?
Don’t count your layers until you have seen how they were laid.
Baloney. They are seasonal layers. They faithfully record events such as the Clean Air Act and the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. They match up well with sediment cores. But if you believe in a trickster god who fakes evidence, what reason do we have to trust anything at all?
Really? Cool. I can understand Vesuvius, or any other volcano leaving large amounts of specific kinds of dust. What kind of signature(s) were observed to change with the Clean Air Act? I can guess, but it sounds like you might be familiar with the data. Thanks.
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
Really? Cool. I can understand Vesuvius, or any other volcano leaving large amounts of specific kinds of dust. What kind of signature(s) were observed to change with the Clean Air Act? I can guess, but it sounds like you might be familiar with the data. Thanks.
I heard about it here. I imagine they probably found less pollution in the layers for the years after the Clean Air Act went into affect. It really is very cool what they can tell about ancient climates from these cores. See also the site for the National Ice Core Lab. Interesting that it's open to visitors, where a creationist would be able to learn the science behind it, and even count more than 6000 annual layers. I don't imagine they ever go.
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
At least most scientists at the Christian oriented American Scientific Affiliation speak up for real science (in this case supporting radiometric dating) while rejecting the idea of a God that loves to yank the chains of us mere mortals.
I'm a person of faith, but not the Robert Byers variety.
Steve P. · 4 March 2012
If only Harold didn't whine and wail, the publishers just might get on with the business of publishing.
But like trying to get a spoiled brat to er...STFU, most publishers would rather just let the kid have its candy.
Hopefully, in this case, the publishers would not let a great marketing opp slip away. Let harold et al whine, and whine, and whine, till they're blue in the face.
Then publish, baby, publish.
The ultimate standard for inclusion in a Springer-Verlag publication is the same as the ultimate standard for inclusion in Christianity Today. If the editors and publishers want to include it, it gets published, otherwise, it does not.
Richard B. Hoppe · 4 March 2012
Steve P. said:
If only Harold didn't whine and wail, the publishers just might get on with the business of publishing.
But like trying to get a spoiled brat to er...STFU, most publishers would rather just let the kid have its candy.
Hopefully, in this case, the publishers would not let a great marketing opp slip away. Let harold et al whine, and whine, and whine, till they're blue in the face.
Then publish, baby, publish.
Um, at $179 list price, which IIRC was what was listed on the Springer site, that's not a real live candidate for broad marketing.
harold · 4 March 2012
If only Harold didn’t whine and wail, the publishers just might get on with the business of publishing.
That's exactly what happened. I control the contents of all major scientific journals that way.
No, just kidding.
So anyway, Steve P., let's go with the "private entities are obliged to uncritically publish anything that creationists demand" model.
I'll grant you that, as long as you grant me the same right.
I'm working on a book called "Everything Steve P. Ever Says is Wrong".
I demand that you publish it at your own expense.
We agree, right? Failure to publish whatever creationists demand is censorship. Extra peer review is censorship. Criticism is censorship.
So I want you to live by your own standards. If I demand that you publish something and you don't do it, it's censorship. Surely an advocate of dynamic cutting edge design science such as yourself would not stoop to censorship.
I want a first run of 200,000 beautiful copies, on vellum in gold-embossed leather binding.
If you do anything else, you're guilty of censoring and persecuting me.
You better sell a LOT of textiles.
Publish, baby, publish.
DS · 4 March 2012
The funny thing is, that even if these lying bastards get their way and the book is published, it will only get the ridicule it so richly deserves from the scientific community. If creationist supporters want to buy it, they will have to give the money to a publisher who will use it to publish real science. So go ahead, publish the piece of crap, then let the feeding frenzy begin. We'll see about the claim that everything in it is "science".
Maybe a disclaimer would be a good idea. You know something like:
Creationism is not a scientific idea, It has no evidence to support it. This volume does not represent the views of either the publisher or any rational member of the scientific community. You should keep an open mind and judge for yourself if these papers are actually presenting any real evidence or not.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 4 March 2012
THE FRAGILITY OF ACADEMIC NORMS: THE CASE OF SPRINGER V. THE DARWINOIDS
Posted on March 5, 2012 by Steve Fuller
The relevant news item is here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/01/book-intelligent-design-proponents-upsets-scientists
Why, oh why, have the self-appointed epistemic vigilantes at the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) decided to subvert the already fragile academic norm of peer review by declaring that one of the top three European publishers of scientific journals and books has mistakenly allowed intelligent design (ID) sympathisers to publish a book in their information science series? That two positive peer reports in the original book proposal was insufficient to discover the allegedly heinous nature of its content must mean, of course, that more peer reviewing is needed – not that perhaps the content is not as heinous as the scent of ID might have suggested.
No, this is not a lame joke: It is Public Darwinism in full throttle. The fact that no one at the NCSE seems to have read the book in question appears to be immaterial to the overriding fact that many, if not most, of the contributors are sympathetic to ID. To be sure, ID enthusiasts are endlessly berated about their (again alleged) failure to publish in mainstream peer reviewed publications. Springer Verlag does not come any more mainstream – yet that then generates its own problems.
Of course, Springer plans to have the final manuscript peer reviewed, which is only to be expected. Yet, there is now the further expectation that the manuscript will be rejected, given the discovery of its ID-friendly editors. Interestingly, a blurb for Biological Information: New Perspectives has been ‘automatically generated’ for Amazon, which says something about when peer review normally makes a difference to Springer — and they are not alone in presuming that a passed proposal means a publishable manuscript.
Whatever else the NCSE has succeeded in doing by delaying – if not completely derailing – publication of Biological Information, it has drawn attention to the ease with which the integrity of peer review can be compromised, if it produces unwanted outcomes. After all, its name notwithstanding, the NCSE’s institutional standing is no different from its arch-nemesis and mecca for ID, Seattle’s Discovery Institute: Both are special interest groups promoting a certain ideological spin on the development of science.
It will be interesting to see the final peer review report on Biological Information. Even after a favourable report, most manuscripts need a bit of work before final publication. But because the publisher is typically already committed to publication, authors/editors will be allowed discretion in which criticisms they take seriously upon revision. Hopefully the same standard is applied in this case. Among the areas of discretion allowed to authors/editors is the conceptual framework in which they organise the book’s contents. One can easily imagine intelligent design as a framing device here in the way that Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene hypothesis might frame a more Darwinist text. Both frameworks stray beyond the data, but in so doing provide a motivation and direction for the research recounted in each book’s pages.
In any case, we may hope that Spinger’s final peer report will be somehow made publicly available.
Surprisingly the ID in CSID doesn't stand for intelligent design. The name is the abbrevation for Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity which is located at the University of North Texas and seemingly published resonable papers before.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 5 March 2012
Somehow my last comment was visible in preview but didn't finally show up.
Thus, here's a link to some complaints by Jorge as conserved by Tiggy: http://tinyurl.com/6vwrw8q
Don't miss Jorge's reply (post #8 further down the page)
I do not know why this thread / OP is still active. I have TWICE requested the mods to remove it.
I requested that they remove my thread and they complied. In Tiggy's typical unethical style, he
circumvented the intent of the law by reposting in his own thread my OP -- an OP that had been
previously REMOVED by the mods.
I am hereby requesting for the THIRD TIME that the moderators of this forum remove this thread
or at the very least my words (Items 1-10) which have previously been deleted from this forum.
Thank you.
Jorge
Luckily, it seems as if his words just will not vanish from the internat.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 5 March 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q said:
The CSID weighs in:
THE FRAGILITY OF ACADEMIC NORMS: THE CASE OF SPRINGER V. THE DARWINOIDS
Posted on March 5, 2012 by Steve Fuller
The relevant news item is here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/01/book-intelligent-design-proponents-upsets-scientists
Why, oh why, have the self-appointed epistemic vigilantes at the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) decided to subvert the already fragile academic norm of peer review by declaring that one of the top three European publishers of scientific journals and books has mistakenly allowed intelligent design (ID) sympathisers to publish a book in their information science series? That two positive peer reports in the original book proposal was insufficient to discover the allegedly heinous nature of its content must mean, of course, that more peer reviewing is needed – not that perhaps the content is not as heinous as the scent of ID might have suggested.
No, this is not a lame joke: It is Public Darwinism in full throttle. The fact that no one at the NCSE seems to have read the book in question appears to be immaterial to the overriding fact that many, if not most, of the contributors are sympathetic to ID. To be sure, ID enthusiasts are endlessly berated about their (again alleged) failure to publish in mainstream peer reviewed publications. Springer Verlag does not come any more mainstream – yet that then generates its own problems.
Of course, Springer plans to have the final manuscript peer reviewed, which is only to be expected. Yet, there is now the further expectation that the manuscript will be rejected, given the discovery of its ID-friendly editors. Interestingly, a blurb for Biological Information: New Perspectives has been ‘automatically generated’ for Amazon, which says something about when peer review normally makes a difference to Springer — and they are not alone in presuming that a passed proposal means a publishable manuscript.
Whatever else the NCSE has succeeded in doing by delaying – if not completely derailing – publication of Biological Information, it has drawn attention to the ease with which the integrity of peer review can be compromised, if it produces unwanted outcomes. After all, its name notwithstanding, the NCSE’s institutional standing is no different from its arch-nemesis and mecca for ID, Seattle’s Discovery Institute: Both are special interest groups promoting a certain ideological spin on the development of science.
It will be interesting to see the final peer review report on Biological Information. Even after a favourable report, most manuscripts need a bit of work before final publication. But because the publisher is typically already committed to publication, authors/editors will be allowed discretion in which criticisms they take seriously upon revision. Hopefully the same standard is applied in this case. Among the areas of discretion allowed to authors/editors is the conceptual framework in which they organise the book’s contents. One can easily imagine intelligent design as a framing device here in the way that Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene hypothesis might frame a more Darwinist text. Both frameworks stray beyond the data, but in so doing provide a motivation and direction for the research recounted in each book’s pages.
In any case, we may hope that Spinger’s final peer report will be somehow made publicly available.
Surprisingly the ID in CSID doesn't stand for intelligent design. The name is the abbrevation for Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity which is located at the University of North Texas and seemingly published resonable papers before.
Please note that the cited text is from Steve Fuller of Kitzmiller vs. Dover fame.
raven · 5 March 2012
Please note that the cited text is from Steve Fuller of Kitzmiller vs. Dover fame.
LOL. Steve Fuller is one of the last Postmodernists who hasn't realized it doesn't work for science. There is only one real world.
He isn't very bright (I'm being polite here) and he isn't a very nice person either (I'm being really polite here).
Oh forget it. He's an idiot and a jerk, citations available from google.
ksplawn · 5 March 2012
Google tells me that virtually anybody who knows anything about the subjects discussed in the books he writes has nothing positive to say about them.
Karen S. · 5 March 2012
That’s exactly what happened. I control the contents of all major scientific journals that w
Just as I suspected!
John · 5 March 2012
harold said:
If only Harold didn’t whine and wail, the publishers just might get on with the business of publishing.
That's exactly what happened. I control the contents of all major scientific journals that way.
No, just kidding.
So anyway, Steve P., let's go with the "private entities are obliged to uncritically publish anything that creationists demand" model.
I'll grant you that, as long as you grant me the same right.
I'm working on a book called "Everything Steve P. Ever Says is Wrong".
I demand that you publish it at your own expense.
We agree, right? Failure to publish whatever creationists demand is censorship. Extra peer review is censorship. Criticism is censorship.
So I want you to live by your own standards. If I demand that you publish something and you don't do it, it's censorship. Surely an advocate of dynamic cutting edge design science such as yourself would not stoop to censorship.
I want a first run of 200,000 beautiful copies, on vellum in gold-embossed leather binding.
If you do anything else, you're guilty of censoring and persecuting me.
You better sell a LOT of textiles.
Publish, baby, publish.
I'd be interested in seeing whether Steve P.'s potential bestseller might rival that of "Angela's Ashes" or any of the "Harry Potter" books in sales. I am willing to bet a brand new Taiwanese rug that it won't.
Karen S. · 5 March 2012
Google tells me that virtually anybody who knows anything about the subjects discussed in the books he writes has nothing positive to say about them.
Which also means that the DI folks just love the books.
Robert Byers · 6 March 2012
Scott F said:
Robert Byers said:
Karen S. said:
But Robert, who gets to make the "settled conclusions"? Besides, so much is not settled! Christians are all over the map on many things. The editorial staff at Christianity Todaycensors non-Christian articles. Shouldn't they be more open to different theological opinions?
No.
Its their baby. They come from settled conclusions.
Scientific research is about an openness to discovery that can over turn previous ideas.
To censor off the bat is to say their is settled conclusions by publications saying nothing settled.
So suspicion takes root.
Robert, based on what at least we see on this web site, the very existence of your God is not a "settled conclusion". There are, "Great heaps of North Americans and [ ... ] researchers [who] say it ain’t settled. All very educated and more then [sic] in all the past. Your case is not on solid ground", as you so eloquently put it.
So, by your definitions alone, Christianity Today should publish atheist articles challenging those unsettle "great ideas" of yours. By your definitions. Unless, you intended to mean that the only people who get to decide what is, and is not a "settled conclusion" in science are "ID and YEC researchers".
So, by your statements, Christianity Today can refuse to publish articles based on "settled conditions" that "ID and YEC researchers" define as "settled conditions". You say this is *not* censorship.
Yet, when another private publisher refuses to publish articles based on "settled conditions" that all researchers except "ID and YEC researchers" define as "settled conditions", you say that this is censorship.
Do you not see a contradiction in these two positions that you appear to hold?
No I don't.
"Today" is from a settled and particular belief.
Its not about investigation other options to that belief.
A science journal is about investigation of nature.
It offers itself and its credibility based on investigation of nature as long as proper form is done.
Creationists say they do proper form but are denied.
Then a accusation is made about why they are banned.
This is another storyline in the origin contentions.
Robert Byers · 6 March 2012
Karen S. said:
No. Its their baby. They come from settled conclusions.
Again, Robert, who gets to make "settled conclusions"? Everyone has their own conclusions but they don't all agree, even among people of faith. Why should the editorial staff of Christianity Today have the privilege of deciding what is published in their own magazine? (What an idea!) Shouldn't they be open to the "settled conclusions" of other faith positions? What happened to the spirit of discovery?
Religious magazines are only for religious ideas behind the existence of the magazine.
"science" mags are for investigating nature using science.
They are publishing this action and not just publishing conclusions they approve.
They couldn't then claim to be investigation nature with openness to different results.
They offer to all and want the intellectual prestige of being for all serious investigation of nature.
They can't bann stuff just because they don't like the conclusions.
They can only say the methodology was not right.
Otherwise they are not a scientific publication.
Mike Haubrich · 6 March 2012
They can't bann stuff just because they don't like the conclusions.
They can only say the methodology was not right.
Otherwise they are not a scientific publication.
For creationists the methodology is consistently not right. If creationists really wanted to get published then they would try to do some science, show some work, justify their conclusions with analysis. You know, real sciency stuff.
Karen S. · 6 March 2012
Religious magazines are only for religious ideas behind the existence of the magazine.
But don't the editors of religious magazines get to decide which ideas are fit for their magazines? Or should they be open to all religious ideas? For example, shouldn't Christianity Today be open to printing articles by Mormons?
DS · 6 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
Religious magazines are only for religious ideas behind the existence of the magazine.
"science" mags are for investigating nature using science.
They are publishing this action and not just publishing conclusions they approve.
They couldn't then claim to be investigation nature with openness to different results.
They offer to all and want the intellectual prestige of being for all serious investigation of nature.
They can't bann stuff just because they don't like the conclusions.
They can only say the methodology was not right.
Otherwise they are not a scientific publication.
Thanks Robert, for admitting that religious magazines are not about seeking the truth, but only about publishing the things that agree with them. Thanks also for admitting that science journals take a fundamentally different approach. Thanks for admitting that they are required to check to make sure that the science was done correctly.
Now Robert, here is the question: if they find that the science was not done correctly, if the only thing in the articles is long refuted misconceptions with no experiments, no data and unwarranted conclusions, what should they do? Should they be forced to publish the crap anyway? What if the guys submitting the articles lied about the conference and deliberately tried to fool the publisher by hiding their true agenda? If you say that kind of nonsense must be published, then the exact same reasoning will apply to religious magazines as well. Since you refuse to publish my book, I can assume you wouldn't like that.
Look Robert, the guys you are defending are dishonest charlatans who don't even want to do any real science and couldn't even if they tried. By your own criteria, they deserve nothing but to be excluded. The very fact that you think that "biblical conclusions" are "settled" removes those ideas from the realm of science. Fortunately, no one cares what you think. The charlatans were caught. they aren't going to get away with it. They will get the peer review they so richly deserve. You won't have any place to complain when they are found out for the frauds they are.
If the publishers were smart, they would publish the reviews instead. I'm sure that would make much more interesting reading.
Paul Burnett · 6 March 2012
Robert Byers said: Religious magazines are only for religious ideas behind the existence of the magazine.
Exactly. That explains why "World Magazine" named Stephen Meyer, director of the Dishonesty Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of the infamous anti-science / pro-intelligent design creationism book Signature in the Cell, as their "Man Of The Year" - proving that intelligent design creationism is more about religion than science.
("World Magazine," a "Christian news magazine," has a declared perspective of conservative evangelical Protestantism. Its mission statement is "To report, interpret, and illustrate the news…from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.")
See http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16170 - or even better, my putdowns before I got kicked off Uncommon Descent at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stephen-c-meyer-world-magazines-person-of-the-year/
Robert Byers · 7 March 2012
DS said:
Robert Byers said:
Religious magazines are only for religious ideas behind the existence of the magazine.
"science" mags are for investigating nature using science.
They are publishing this action and not just publishing conclusions they approve.
They couldn't then claim to be investigation nature with openness to different results.
They offer to all and want the intellectual prestige of being for all serious investigation of nature.
They can't bann stuff just because they don't like the conclusions.
They can only say the methodology was not right.
Otherwise they are not a scientific publication.
Thanks Robert, for admitting that religious magazines are not about seeking the truth, but only about publishing the things that agree with them. Thanks also for admitting that science journals take a fundamentally different approach. Thanks for admitting that they are required to check to make sure that the science was done correctly.
Now Robert, here is the question: if they find that the science was not done correctly, if the only thing in the articles is long refuted misconceptions with no experiments, no data and unwarranted conclusions, what should they do? Should they be forced to publish the crap anyway? What if the guys submitting the articles lied about the conference and deliberately tried to fool the publisher by hiding their true agenda? If you say that kind of nonsense must be published, then the exact same reasoning will apply to religious magazines as well. Since you refuse to publish my book, I can assume you wouldn't like that.
Look Robert, the guys you are defending are dishonest charlatans who don't even want to do any real science and couldn't even if they tried. By your own criteria, they deserve nothing but to be excluded. The very fact that you think that "biblical conclusions" are "settled" removes those ideas from the realm of science. Fortunately, no one cares what you think. The charlatans were caught. they aren't going to get away with it. They will get the peer review they so richly deserve. You won't have any place to complain when they are found out for the frauds they are.
If the publishers were smart, they would publish the reviews instead. I'm sure that would make much more interesting reading.
The complaint by creationists is that they are being banned just because of the conclusions and not sincere complaints about methodology.
Thats the accusation.
Robert Byers · 7 March 2012
Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: Religious magazines are only for religious ideas behind the existence of the magazine.
Exactly. That explains why "World Magazine" named Stephen Meyer, director of the Dishonesty Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of the infamous anti-science / pro-intelligent design creationism book Signature in the Cell, as their "Man Of The Year" - proving that intelligent design creationism is more about religion than science.
("World Magazine," a "Christian news magazine," has a declared perspective of conservative evangelical Protestantism. Its mission statement is "To report, interpret, and illustrate the news…from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.")
See http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16170 - or even better, my putdowns before I got kicked off Uncommon Descent at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stephen-c-meyer-world-magazines-person-of-the-year/
Off thread but No.
The magazine simply reports on ideas from scientific investigation that aid christianity in its truth.
ID and YEC employ methodology that makes us scientific investigators.
Its not religion but research into nature.
Dave Luckett · 7 March 2012
So, Byers says that the magazine's declared mission statement is wrong. It is so "research into nature", even though it specifically says that it isn't.
So one of you is lying, Byers. Which one is it...?
Decisions, decisions.
Paul Burnett · 7 March 2012
Robert Byers said: ID and YEC employ methodology that makes us scientific investigators.
Here's the first sentence from intelligent design creationism's manifesto, the infamous Wedge Document: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." Does that sound more like religion or science, Robert?
patrickmay.myopenid.com · 7 March 2012
DS said:
If the publishers were smart, they would publish the reviews instead. I'm sure that would make much more interesting reading.
That would be great reading. I wonder if the contract would allow Springer to publish the "conference" proceedings accompanied by refutations of each paper by real scientists.
DS · 7 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: Religious magazines are only for religious ideas behind the existence of the magazine.
Exactly. That explains why "World Magazine" named Stephen Meyer, director of the Dishonesty Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of the infamous anti-science / pro-intelligent design creationism book Signature in the Cell, as their "Man Of The Year" - proving that intelligent design creationism is more about religion than science.
("World Magazine," a "Christian news magazine," has a declared perspective of conservative evangelical Protestantism. Its mission statement is "To report, interpret, and illustrate the news…from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.")
See http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16170 - or even better, my putdowns before I got kicked off Uncommon Descent at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stephen-c-meyer-world-magazines-person-of-the-year/
Off thread but No.
The magazine simply reports on ideas from scientific investigation that aid christianity in its truth.
ID and YEC employ methodology that makes us scientific investigators.
Its not religion but research into nature.
Well then, you are going to have to conform to the rules for publishing scientific papers. You cannot follow the rules you outlined for publishing in religious publications. Seems simple enough. If you want to pretend you are doing real science you have to follow the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, don't try to pretend you are doing science.
DS · 7 March 2012
patrickmay.myopenid.com said:
DS said:
If the publishers were smart, they would publish the reviews instead. I'm sure that would make much more interesting reading.
That would be great reading. I wonder if the contract would allow Springer to publish the "conference" proceedings accompanied by refutations of each paper by real scientists.
Sounds great. Then the creationists would get the publicity they so richly deserve. Unfortunately, they would probably have to get the permission of the authors to include their articles in the publication. They would probably not agree to that. After all, you shouldn't really change the rules of publication form those stipulated on submission. You know, stuff like the authors tried to pull.
On the other hand, if the publisher does decide to publish the articles, for whatever reason, then they would certainly be obligated to publish rebuttal articles as well. So these guys just can't win. Maybe that's why they are being so quiet. Maybe they have figured that out already.
Oh well, this is what happens when creationists try to pretend they are dong science. When they come out from under their slimy rocks they are exposed to the harsh light of reality. Too bad, they asked for it.
Just Bob · 7 March 2012
Robert Byers said:
ID and YEC employ methodology that makes us scientific investigators.
Hmm... I noticed the personal pronoun there: US.
Robert, are YOU a scientific investigator? If so, what have you investigated scientifically, and what was your scientific methodology?
If you, personally, don't do scientific investigation, then it's inappropriate (if not to say lying), to use US.
apokryltaros · 7 March 2012
Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said:
ID and YEC employ methodology that makes us scientific investigators.
Hmm... I noticed the personal pronoun there: US.
Robert, are YOU a scientific investigator? If so, what have you investigated scientifically, and what was your scientific methodology?
If you, personally, don't do scientific investigation, then it's inappropriate (if not to say lying), to use US.
Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian, and, as far as I know, whatever job he holds, if he holds one at all, has absolutely nothing to do with science, let alone scientific research or investigation.
Then again, he's also confessed at one point that scientific discussion (in addition to research and or investigation) is of absolutely no interest or concern to him. Of course, this begs the question of why he constantly insists that Young Earth Creationists are superior scientists, while simultaneously denigrating actual scientists as being stupid and incapable of doing science.
John · 7 March 2012
apokryltaros said:
Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said:
ID and YEC employ methodology that makes us scientific investigators.
Hmm... I noticed the personal pronoun there: US.
Robert, are YOU a scientific investigator? If so, what have you investigated scientifically, and what was your scientific methodology?
If you, personally, don't do scientific investigation, then it's inappropriate (if not to say lying), to use US.
Robert Byers claims to be a Canadian, and, as far as I know, whatever job he holds, if he holds one at all, has absolutely nothing to do with science, let alone scientific research or investigation.
Then again, he's also confessed at one point that scientific discussion (in addition to research and or investigation) is of absolutely no interest or concern to him. Of course, this begs the question of why he constantly insists that Young Earth Creationists are superior scientists, while simultaneously denigrating actual scientists as being stupid and incapable of doing science.
Over a year ago, someone else at PT was able to look up him and found out that he's some Ontario provincial bureaucrat.
Just Bob · 7 March 2012
So I guess he is lying about including himself among scientists.
About this graph, Sanford says:
130 Comments
D P Robin · 1 March 2012
Of mad-folk, a bunch. (Paraphrased from Jack Vance)
dpr
Starbuck · 1 March 2012
It's ironic that the DI complains that this is censorship, but then doesn't allow comments at their own blog. Why they dislike is criticism.
Matt G · 1 March 2012
This is not about free speech! It's about supporting your claims with evidence! You know, like REAL scientists do. It's about having academic standards. Would you let a geocentrist teach this claim in astronomy class?
James · 1 March 2012
So, I had to look up "courtesy associate professor" on wikipedia ---
______________________________________________________
Professor by Courtesy / affiliated professor. A professor who is primarily and originally associated with one academic department, but has become officially associated with a second department, institute, or program within the university and has assumed a professor's duty in that second department as well, could be called a "professor by courtesy." Example: "Dan Jurafsky is Professor of Linguistics and Professor by Courtesy of Computer Science at Stanford University". Usually, the second courtesy appointment carries with it fewer responsibilities and fewer benefits than a single full appointment (for example, affiliated professors rarely have voting rights in their courtesy department). Because affiliated professors are often listed following a partition in the catalog copy or web page for the department, they are often called "professors below the line" or "below the diamonds"[citation needed] or a similar phrase.
_________________________________________________________
What is John Stanford's original professorial position? He's only listed as a courtesy ass prof on Cornell's faculty pages. Not that it matters much, but a horticulturalist probably needs to use evolutionary biology at some time in their life.
Douglas Theobald · 1 March 2012
Criticism Is Not Censorship. Let's all repeat that three times.
While we're at it, Peer Review Is Not Censorship. Being published by a journal is not a right, it is a privilege. Think of it as a tentative stamp of approval. If your ideas pass review by peers in your field, then a journal might say "yes, we'll publish this". Some ideas do not deserve that cautious stamp of approval. At least in most democratic countries, like the US, you are free to publish your ideas in your own journal, or on your blog, or whatever. That is freedom of speech. And the intelligent design proponents certainly have that freedom now, have for some time, and will in the foreseeable future.
You do not, however, have the right to have your ideas published by any journal of your choice, nor do you have the right to have your ideas respected or taken seriously -- that must be earned.
Matt G · 1 March 2012
Elizabeth Liddle · 1 March 2012
The coefficients on Sanford's graph are sort of funny.
Douglas Theobald · 1 March 2012
Now hang on ... I missed this at first skim. When did our Matzke become a Bayesian??
Nick Matzke · 1 March 2012
Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2012
Joel Velasco · 1 March 2012
At 24:30 he says that "Dr. Crow" (James F. Crow) "recently passed away". That was Jan 4th, 2012 so the talk must be after that.
Joe Felsenstein · 1 March 2012
Joe Felsenstein · 1 March 2012
Oops, let me withdraw that. x = 0 is the time of Noah, not Adam.
At that time the lifespan was infinite. Before that time it was imaginary.
Which is correct.
Nick Matzke · 1 March 2012
Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2012
Joe Felsenstein · 1 March 2012
Oops-squared. Adam was (according to Bishop Ussher) about 1656 years before Noah. If the scale on the graph is centuries, rather than years, then Adam would have about x = -16.56. So Adam's age works out to a complex number:
-19.1 + 88.2 i
which must have made it hard to be him.
Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2012
Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2012
Elizabeth Liddle · 1 March 2012
It was only the number of significant figures that tickled me :)
Scott F · 1 March 2012
Scott F · 1 March 2012
Nick Matzke · 1 March 2012
apokryltaros · 1 March 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 1 March 2012
Prometheus68 · 1 March 2012
According to the Jewish timeline, Noah was born in about 2700 BC. That was 47 centuries ago. By applying Stanford's lifespan equation, Noah's descendants today should have a lifespan of 20 years.
Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2012
fnxtr · 2 March 2012
I'm pretty sure that *was* a joke, Mike.
Dave Luckett · 2 March 2012
Poe's Law strikes!
It was "the widely accepted main source of scientific education" that gave it away.
Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2012
DiEb · 2 March 2012
Hasn't our life-expectancy increased since the time of the Romans? Are we getting nearer to the next flood?
Robert Byers · 2 March 2012
How is it that such a concept as free speech that has been the pride of the American people for centuries (and less but so for the rest of British peoples) be such a contention in these days??
I thought this was all settled centuries ago?!
NO. We do not have freedom of speech in our fathers homes.
Yet the nation is all our home.
America does not just have speech freedom relative to political/legal power.
America has this freedom for the reasons that she is free from gov't control.
Its a great belief and historically held by zillions of Yanks since Independence that truth and justice in order to prevail or hold its own must have freedom of speech and especially in a nation where speech and not physical etc force decides who gets their way.
Therefore it must be put up with when there is speech one dislikes or fears its power.
This idea and spirit is today under attack and one of those areas in origin contentions.
Creationism(s) are being silenced by many and in many places.
They are afraid of us and fear to just take us on.
Therefore creationists charge censorship where they smell this spirit or tone or sneaky eyes.
Creationists are very suspicious someone is trying to stop them for reasons other then normal .
Its the great intellectual lifestyle America is used too on easy free speech that creationists see as being denied them.
So censorship fits the hearts thought if not the legal/political fine print.
John · 2 March 2012
Dave Luckett · 2 March 2012
Byers, not only do you have freedom of speech in your house, you have it in public. You're even allowed to blather your foolishness here, on a science blog.
Mind, we don't have to put up with you, Byers. We do, because you're a picture-perfect example of the idiocy and incoherence of creationism. But we don't have to, because freedom of speech doesn't mean you can force your way into other people's property and shout in their faces. PT is maintained at the charge of the blog's owners. You have no right to demand that your damnfool nonsense be displayed here. Go post on your own blog. Nobody's stopping you.
And the public schools are maintained at the charge of the American taxpayers, who have agreed, in the Constitution, that they will maintain a secular government with a separation between Church and State. You have no right to demand that your religion be taught there.
But you can get on your soapbox and shout all you like. Take out ads in the papers, radio or TV. Hell, start your own paper, or radio or TV station. Many have. That's freedom, isn't it?
Freedom of speech, Byers? You don't want freedom of speech, because you have it already. What you want is privilege. I read your half-coherent screeds and I hear the wail of frustrated entitlement.
Wail away, Byers.
John · 2 March 2012
Wesley R. Elsberry · 2 March 2012
Robert,
Read the post again for Nick's excellent set of items on what the right to free speech isn't. The book in question could be printed by Intervarsity or iUniverse and none of us would be bothered by that. But the scammers sized up a mark, aiming to steal respectability off the mark, and that does get us exercised.
Karen S. · 2 March 2012
apokryltaros · 2 March 2012
TomS · 2 March 2012
I think that it is interesting that when given a forum where one can say whatever he wants, the creationist uses the opportunity to complain about not being free to say what he means, rather than saying what he means.
He chooses "sell the sizzle, not the steak", rather than "tell, don't sell".
W. H. Heydt · 2 March 2012
John Pieret · 2 March 2012
"I’m surprised a lawyer like you doesn’t know this."
As a lawyer myself, I'm not at all surprised that Casey either doesn't know it or, more likely, knows it but is simply engaged in a ploy to garner sympathy from the the even less informed, such as Robert Byers.
Fortunately for Casey, he has never, as far as I know, actually practiced law. When you are the Gofer General ... opps ... "Research Coordinator" for the Discoveryless Institute, misrepresenting the law can't get you into trouble with your bar association.
harold · 2 March 2012
raven · 2 March 2012
DavidK · 2 March 2012
Byers said:
... "Creationism(s) are being silenced by many and in many places. They are afraid of us and fear to just take us on." ...
This isn't true. Scientists have confronted creationists and have taken them on and have clearly shown that their assertions are empty, totally religious in nature, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and are repetitious as they can discover nothing new and so rely on critizing science and defaming scientists. On the other hand, creationists like those from the Dishonesty Institute and elsewhere are alive and well within the walls of the churches where they preach their creationist gospel to those who continue to live in total denial of any evidence whatsoever in favor of science, not just evolution.
unklehank · 2 March 2012
harold · 2 March 2012
PaulP · 2 March 2012
DiEb · 3 March 2012
robert van bakel · 3 March 2012
(and less but so for the rest of British peoples)?? Where to begin? Who are, 'the rest of British peoples'? And what does, 'less but so' mean? I think I can interpret.
'Chrisitians in the USA discovered not only a continent but also freedom. We same Christians are now patronisingly allowing that other, fair skinned people also had, or indeed have a modicom of freedom, although if these same 'fair skinned' people had a choice they would soon abandon their lands for the perfection of freedom that is, Evangelical Christian America, where I live:) I say 'British peoples' because the smallness of my mind cannot allow that other peoples living in other countries can possibly understand the concept of freedom so wonderfully explained by the open, tolerant masses of fundamental christianity in my, 'land of the free and home of the knave'.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers · 3 March 2012
dalehusband · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers, I fail to understand how fraud (which is all Creationism ever has been) should be taken seriously in public forums of any kind just because that fraud happens to support your extremist views.
Truth is meaningless to you. No wonder you accuse us of censorship. We know that is a lie.
John Pieret · 3 March 2012
harold · 3 March 2012
DS · 3 March 2012
Robert,
I have written a book about the scientific evidence for evolution. You must publish it. If you refuse, it is censorship. You see you have no choice, you must do as I demand. If you do not publish this book, you are guilty of persecution. It doesn't matter that the book is completely opposed to everything you believe in. It doesn't matter if you think the book is a complete lie. It doesn't matter if you think it will ruin your reputation. It doesn't matter if it promotes something you detest. It doesn't matter if you lose money on the deal. You must publish this book or be guilty of persecution and censorship. And don't tell me I can just publish it somewhere else. You are the one who must publish it, or it might never be published anywhere else.
So how about it Robert? Are you going to publish my book? If so, put up the money. If not, STFU.
Karen S. · 3 March 2012
harold · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers -
I agree with DS.
I am also going to write a book summarizing the evidence for evolution.
Since your standard for being "censored" is that you are "censored" if everyone does publish your views in private venues, at their own expense, I request that you allow me the same "rights".
I demand that you publish and promote my book at your own expense.
I also demand that you read from my book, uncritically, in your church.
I don't care what it costs, what it does to your reputation, or whether you just don't want to.
You must do this uncritically. You cannot extensively review my book, or consult expert in your religion about it.
If you refuse, you'll be "censoring" and "persecuting" me, by your own standards.
It makes perfect sense. According to you, and the attendees of this conference, if Springer-Verlag doesn't publish what you want them to publish, they are "censoring" you. Actually, in fact, if they merely do additional peer review, that alone is censorship.
By your logic, the private entity Springer-Verlag is not allowed to choose what they publish, or even how much they review something before publishing.
Therefore, by logical extension, neither is the private entity Robert Byers.
You aren't demanding special privileges are you? You say you're just demanding equal rights, as you see them.
Okay, then, so let's see you prove that by respecting the rights of others.
Publish and promote anything I tell you to, whenever I tell you to, without even delaying anything for review, or else you're guilty of "censoring" and "persecuting" me, probably because you are "afraid" of my material.
And remember - any criticism of my book is also "censorship". By your own standards.
(For full disclosure, I prefer a system in which I, Robert, and Springer Verlag all have our own freedom of expression, but only freedom of our own expression. However, creationists want a system in which others are obliged to publish their material. And they endorse the idea that criticism of speech is the same as censorship of speech. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/01/13/civility_is_the_new_censorship This example can't be more clear. Rush Limbaugh is broadcasting on national radio during this exchange, and the remarks he refers to have been massively publicized, yet he says that he is "censored")
Alright then, creationists, let's do it your way. I'm obliged to avoid criticizing anything you say, and provide venues for your speech at my own expense. But let's be fair. It works both ways. You have to provide private venues for my speech and refrain from criticizing me.
I'm going to want about 200,000 copies printed, Byers, on vellum, in gold-embossed leather bindings, so cash out your lifesavings, max out your credit cards, and get those presses rolling. I'm only asking that creationists show the same respect for my rights, that they demand I show for theirs.
Paul Burnett · 3 March 2012
W. H. Heydt · 3 March 2012
tallgrass05 · 3 March 2012
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
Isaac Asimov
Helena Constantine · 3 March 2012
Byers,
Please show us exactly which base pairs were changed by the designer, tell what the evidence is in each individual case, as well as when he did it, and especially how. It shouldn't be that difficult. It should be something like: "The designers took a human female 85.000 years ago onto their spaceship, altered the genetic information in one of her eggs using technique X similar to what is being done today in genetic engineering, fertilized it, and then released the offspring back into the wild population where its superior genetic information spread, replacing the inferior, non-engineered individuals." Be sure to give the evidence from genetics as well as from archaeology that supports whatever it is you assert. If you can't do that and just want to say 'the designer did it' just shut up because that wouldn't convince a child.
DS · 3 March 2012
Come on Robert, I'm waiting for your check in the mail. You aren't by any chance3 a hypocrite are you?
Dave Lovell · 3 March 2012
TomS · 3 March 2012
One thing that I have wondered about is the precursors to the designed things.
Take as an example the design of the vertebrate eye. Were there vertebrates that didn't have eyes before the eye was designed? There were those eyeless vertebrates that did manage to make a living, and then there was the instantaneous design of the eye (nothing gradual, of course). That must have been a tremendous advantage to those newly eyed vertebrates. Similarly for bacteria without flagella and animals without the adaptive immune system or blood-clotting system.
And were those pre-design living things themselves designed? Or did they arise from purely natural processes? If they were designed, why did they need further design?
Karen S. · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers, where did you go? What church do you attend and where is it? I think the good folks here at the P.T. should be permitted to preach at your church with no censorship allowed!! Okay?
Tenncrain · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers, are you still working on showing us the boatload of fossils used within evo-devo?
What about your criticism to the Gordon Glover and Glenn Morton links and other things you have run away from? Remember when you said, "Not the place and I don’t want to get into a million points about these things." ?
You might want to post your answers in the Bathroom Wall since all this is a bit offtopic in this thread - if you post here, it may get moved to the BW anyway.
raven · 3 March 2012
Karen S. · 3 March 2012
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
Robert Byers · 4 March 2012
dalehusband · 4 March 2012
Dave Luckett · 4 March 2012
Have you noticed that Byers always posts in the wee small hours of the morning, Ontario time? Is insomnia another one of his many problems? Or does he come off his meds then?
harold · 4 March 2012
Dave Lovell · 4 March 2012
DS · 4 March 2012
So Robert that would be a no, you won't publish my book. Thanks for answering my question. So now everyone can see that you are just another hypocrite crying foul while shooting the opposing team. You have no facts, you have no research, you have only misconceptions and misrepresentations. And yet you presume to dictate what real publishers can and cannot publish.
TomS · 4 March 2012
The only thing I find interesting about the comments from the anti-evolution side is that, given the opportunity to go on and on about anything whatever, we get nothing about what the alternative is to evolutionary biology.
That is because there is no alternative.
raven · 4 March 2012
I've skipped most of this thread because of a minor illness, troll fatigue.
But science is always open to new findings that overturn or modify old theories. That is the heart of science, discovering new and different things on a daily basis.
But creationism isn't new. Creationism is old and wrong. Creationism was the wild guess of Iron Age farmers in the Middle East 2500 years ago. It was overturned by...science.
Using creationism to oveturn evolution, the Big Bang, and Heliocentrism is like using The Demon Theory of Disease to overturn The Germ Theory of Disease. Which a few xians are still trying to do anyway, sometimes with preventable deaths as a result.
DS · 4 March 2012
John · 4 March 2012
Scott F · 4 March 2012
Scott F · 4 March 2012
Sorry, proof-reading error. Replace all occurrences of "settled conditions" with "settled conclusions". Robert didn't say "settled conditions", though it doesn't change the sense of the comment.
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
ksplawn · 4 March 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 4 March 2012
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
unklehank · 4 March 2012
unklehank · 4 March 2012
Byers
Would it be ok with you if Islamic creationists, Catholic creationists and Native American creationists both got the "equal time" you want in journals and schools and other venues for whatever your particular brand of Christian creationism is?
Presumably those groups have as much interest in The Truth as your bunch does and might have lots of research and interesting ideas to put out there. Would it be ok with you if Islamic creationists etc. published their findings in Christianity Today? Or is that only for Christians?
Just Bob · 4 March 2012
raven · 4 March 2012
Tenncrain · 4 March 2012
Scott F · 4 March 2012
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
Karen S. · 4 March 2012
Steve P. · 4 March 2012
Richard B. Hoppe · 4 March 2012
harold · 4 March 2012
DS · 4 March 2012
The funny thing is, that even if these lying bastards get their way and the book is published, it will only get the ridicule it so richly deserves from the scientific community. If creationist supporters want to buy it, they will have to give the money to a publisher who will use it to publish real science. So go ahead, publish the piece of crap, then let the feeding frenzy begin. We'll see about the claim that everything in it is "science".
Maybe a disclaimer would be a good idea. You know something like:
Creationism is not a scientific idea, It has no evidence to support it. This volume does not represent the views of either the publisher or any rational member of the scientific community. You should keep an open mind and judge for yourself if these papers are actually presenting any real evidence or not.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 4 March 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 5 March 2012
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 5 March 2012
raven · 5 March 2012
ksplawn · 5 March 2012
Google tells me that virtually anybody who knows anything about the subjects discussed in the books he writes has nothing positive to say about them.
Karen S. · 5 March 2012
John · 5 March 2012
Karen S. · 5 March 2012
Robert Byers · 6 March 2012
Robert Byers · 6 March 2012
Mike Haubrich · 6 March 2012
Karen S. · 6 March 2012
DS · 6 March 2012
Paul Burnett · 6 March 2012
Robert Byers · 7 March 2012
Robert Byers · 7 March 2012
Dave Luckett · 7 March 2012
So, Byers says that the magazine's declared mission statement is wrong. It is so "research into nature", even though it specifically says that it isn't.
So one of you is lying, Byers. Which one is it...?
Decisions, decisions.
Paul Burnett · 7 March 2012
patrickmay.myopenid.com · 7 March 2012
DS · 7 March 2012
DS · 7 March 2012
Just Bob · 7 March 2012
apokryltaros · 7 March 2012
John · 7 March 2012
Just Bob · 7 March 2012
So I guess he is lying about including himself among scientists.
(I already knew that.)