@Victor Marshall: Victor, our “Academic” friend would say that all …

Comment on Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design by Roger Seheult.

@Victor Marshall:

Victor, our “Academic” friend would say that all these people have drunk the “cool aid” for ID and while this is not statistically probable, statistics and probability have never stopped them from clinging on to delusions before.

Roger Seheult Also Commented

Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
It is Academic that is being tautological

Sean using the argument that ID papers are not allowed in by the peer review process because of the conclusions that they draw and Academic is trying to prove him wrong by citing evidence upheld by the very peer review process.

Academic said:
“And I don’t believe that there’s a single paper that refutes the possibility. ”

You are right, academic, there is not one but three I could find in a brief search:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qu6VFJQ31RQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=evolution+mathematics+disproved&ots=7JID_uqKdU&sig=Ex23MWzncbxeAaZZ9fVmmhZdVVY#v=onepage&q=evolution%20mathematics%20disproved&f=false

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/47/6/713.pdf

http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/The%20Origin%20of%20Life%20David%20Berlinski.pdf


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
Academic has proved once again that you can find anyone on the internet that agrees with your opinion. The above posting is no exception. In case you doubt this realization I will further the discussion (and proof of this fact) although with the opposite viewpoint:

Regarding Intelligent design and peer review process:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design-peer-reviewed-faq.htm
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/peer-review-process-cannot-be-agreed-upon-by-peers/
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/20644

My favorite:

“Peer revue is a scandal. The editor alone controls all peer revue as he is the one who picks the referees, thereby insulating himself from all responsibility. Most editors are no longer doing research and have abandoned science in order to promote their own agenda which, with rare exceptions, is atheist Darwinism. Anonymity is a further problem and should not be allowed in any step of peer revue or in any form of internet communication. It is one of my pet peeves. It is nothing but ideological cowardice spawned by intellectual insecurity. The same can be said for summary deletion and banishment from internet forums and blogs. I know all about it as I have been there and done that! …”

-Kazmer Ujvarosy

“To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological … There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.”

– Sir Karl Popper (Unended Quest (Oxford: Rutledge, 1991))

Happy Sabbath!


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design

I believe that Meyer’s paper is a great embarrassment to science and that no one here is qualified to discuss it.

The fact that academic would say this and that we would all read this statement the same (elite) way says volumes.

I don’t think after a statment like this I can take anything academic says seriously.


Recent Comments by Roger Seheult

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
There are too many of them. Where do I start. https://www.swau.edu/dinosaur-research-draws-world-wide-acclaim-inspires-new-tv-series
Mary Schweitzer’s T-rex.

That’s just off the top….
wait another one –
Walter Veith….
wait more….


Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Ad hominum attack means that no other better arguments were available at the time of writing. I win.


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Ervin Taylor:

I literally have not logged on to this website in years. It looks like the same arguments are going back and forth which means that if you haven’t been able to solve them by now, you aren’t going to convence each other of your points. What is really amazing to me and anyone intersted in the topic, however, is the tone of the comments, which usually reveal the maturity of the writer especially if they include absolutes:

Examples:
“vast majority of scientifically-informed Adventists will thank Dr.Kent ”

“this misnamed web site”

“Dr. Kent has done a masterful job”

These are usually tip-offs to a lot. Also, it makes me wonder that if Sean Pitman is so ill-informed, and he operates on such a mis-leading web site, why does the good Dr. Taylor waste his time coming to this website, reading the material and then commenting on it? In fact I can bet that Dr. Taylor has spent more time on this web site then I have in the last year – and that speaks volumes about what Dr. Taylor really thinks of this website – perhaps the good Dr. Kent as well.


The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?


Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Most of the blogs that are critical of this site aren’t interested in what this site is really out to do. They simply want to demonize it ergo Alinsky’s rule of indetify, demonize, and marginalize. Hence their cherry picking from the comments for their own purposes.

Thanks for the recap though.