I already quoted you a top evo biologist putting on record “we can’t let the divine foot in the door”.
You make some good points. But I still think we need a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies.
You know all this, how?
You’re right in that I did not present both sides of the peer-review issue.
So you don’t know Dembski’s justification is ‘acceptable’ because you don’t know what the justification is.I think if you want to draw conclusions about “Dembski’s justification” you ought to look into what “Dembski’s justification” is and whether it is a warranted one. You cannot rely on what I say to make any conclusions about whether Dembski is justified or not.
Take on the pirate not the parrot, if you have the courage to. But don’t claim you’ve defeated the pirate because you have subdued the parrot.
I am not going to turn to my grandmother and ask her to show me why I ought to believe Dembski has sufficiently accounted for all possible interactions since the universe began by including exponents dealing with elementary particles, Planck time and calculations on the duration of the universe and then decide whether Dembski is correct by the impressions of my grandmother.
For you to place your “trust” regarding such judgements on relative amateurs in the field is telling. If you can’t, on your own, make sense of it, and you find “crude translations” unhelpful, that does not provide an iota of reason for you to claim it’s all nonsense.
This is the Farsight method, which, as far as I can tell, is profoundly myopic, since he cannot seem to tell the difference between the pirate and the parrot. Of course, Mr. Magoo had similar issues and managed quite well, although those around him didn’t fair so well.
Agreed, peer review is now being questioned because of fraud and money.
[The case of the Danish Cohort](http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34518/title/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/)Post #848
This represents the highest frequency of interactions (transitions) possible at the highest possible number of times per second. Planck time is the smallest theoretical unit of time so any transition CANNOT possibly occur faster.
That’s interesting. I’m not convinced, partly based on new discoveries, different ways of viewing the data and the quasi-religious fervor expressed here. I just don’t think anyone can call this proven since new discoveries are being made, and the defense of this theory, with all due respect, is far out of proportion to its practical use, for which I see none on the macro, what happened allegedly years ago, level.
Nontheists do what you claim, that is true, but nontheist is not synonymous with scientist. Scientists should not attack
Everything there is a deceitful exaggeration, so shame on you and all who swear to that position. Schools are under no obli-
Maybe because the divine doesn’t want to get his foot in through the doors of science.
First, I can outline how we know ID is science. We know ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments. The purpose is to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental researchers uncover irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. For some nice, easy articles that further discuss why ID is science, please see any of the following links:
Or, let’s keep looking for natural explanations (even though we know we won’t find one) to keep the grants and funding going. We have an entire industry supporting thousands going here. Let’s not rock the boat. If we insist enough we can keep it going. (laugh all the way to the bank)
This still doesn’t answer my question.
Ah yes, more mockery and belittlement instead of answering questions. And you still seem to be missing some rather important things. First of all, I have already tackled the pirate and found him to be quite wrong. I’m just trying to get the parrot to see that.I think if you want to draw conclusions about “Dembski’s justification” you ought to look into what “Dembski’s justification” is and whether it is a warranted one. You cannot rely on what I say to make any conclusions about whether Dembski is justified or not.
Take on the pirate not the parrot, if you have the courage to. But don’t claim you’ve defeated the pirate because you have subdued the parrot.
I am not going to turn to my grandmother and ask her to show me why I ought to believe Dembski has sufficiently accounted for all possible interactions since the universe began by including exponents dealing with elementary particles, Planck time and calculations on the duration of the universe and then decide whether Dembski is correct by the impressions of my grandmother.
For you to place your “trust” regarding such judgements on relative amateurs in the field is telling. If you can’t, on your own, make sense of it, and you find “crude translations” unhelpful, that does not provide an iota of reason for you to claim it’s all nonsense.
This is the Farsight method, which, as far as I can tell, is profoundly myopic, since he cannot seem to tell the difference between the pirate and the parrot. Of course, Mr. Magoo had similar issues and managed quite well, although those around him didn’t fair so well.
So you’re not going to answer the question, then?
Which is meaningless. Scientifically, we CAN’T. Even if God appeared before us all right now, we still couldn’t. Its not that they don’t want to allow it. Its that it is literally impossible, which is something we have explained to you repeatedly.
They have that, actually. Journals are supposed to have a person or persons whose job it is to look at all the peer-reviews and scrutinize them.
My reference was not aimed at what is taught at schools but at what those teenagers will be exposed to for years after they leave school. In the recent past and the present, the position of the media is partly to attack the Church based on science. When the Church has said anything that the mainstream media can partly quote in favor of this theory, the Church is praised, even though, in at least one case, the media leaves out the full statement. If the Church says anything negative, it is not praised; quite the opposite. So much for a fair reporting of the news which should define journalism. If an unbiased answer is sought, both sides should be examined. Again, I’m puzzled by the fervor over an allegedly long process that has no bearing whatsoever on the macro level, i.e. human beings.
By reading his stuff - a courtesy you clearly do not afford to the evolutionary biologists.
And I did that by pointing out that he failed to address many extremely important questions and completely failed to explain or address dozens upon dozens of factors that he chose not to include in his calculations. I’d obviously have to sit down and go through the effort myself, but it seems like his “equation” for something so complete and universal should have hundreds of variables, not 3. But regardless, a properly researched and prepared issue like this would explain why he included what he did AND why he didn’t include what he didn’t. He failed utterly to explain this, or even to acknowledge this. That is a huge problem and hugely unprofessional.
Because my failure to remember what an acronym stands for is proof that I haven’t read his material? I can’t even remember what it normally stands for half the time. Does that mean I’ve never watched football on tv? What a joke.