More on Meyer

| 12 Comments
I was delighted to see The Scientist mention the Panda's Thumb's crew's posts regarding the Stephen Meyer article.

12 Comments

It’s a shame they did it with no links attached, had to use Google to come here.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 81, byte 81 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Glenn Branch Wrote:

[Sternberg] also expressed concern that “some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists.”

If Sternberg doesn’t like being labeled a creationist all he needs to do is elaborate on his origins model and show that it differs from those of the mutually-contradictory creationisms.

I am one of the few who respect the wishes of IDers who do not want to be labeled “creationists.” But they are nevertheless pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists, and IMO, worse than creationists, who at least commit to a testable origins model.

The link list on The Sciencist article is badly out of whack.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 2, column 68, byte 174 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Calm down Gary. I understand your frustration but Sternberg is in an uneviable position right now. We have a saying in the Netherlands ‘a cat when cornered will make unpredictable moves’. You made your point. There is much speculation and I am sure the Biological Society of Washington will help resolve many of these issues soon.

Pim wrote: Sternberg is in an uneviable position right now. We have a saying in the Netherlands ‘a cat when cornered will make unpredictable moves’.

Let us not forget, though, this particular cat is entirely responsible for his own en-cornered-ment.

Mark Gene on ARN

Mike Gene Wrote:

Someone e-mailed me to let me know that Elsberry commented about my reply over at Panda’s Thumb. He quotes where I write, “I find the above excerpt to be quite deplorable. Once again, the critics resort to subtle character assassination.” Apparently, he replied as follows:


Wesley Wrote:

When someone makes as many errors as we have documented Stephen Meyer does, one naturally does wonder about his scholarship and character. But we didn’t invent these problems in Meyer’s work; he did that to himself. As “Dave” says, we’re just doing the post-mortem.


Mike Gene Wrote:

I guess we are supposed to think that Elsberry, Gishlick, and Matzke had no idea who Meyer was before they approached his article. Then, as they sat down to objectively and fairly weigh it, they were stunned to find so “many errors.” Only then did it occur to them to wonder about his scholarship and character. If Elsberry expects us to believe that, he’s been hanging out in his personal echo chamber too long. [Smile]

An interesting response for many reasons. Primarily because the amount of problems in Meyer’s work does not depend on what Gishlick et al expected. The paper was touted by the DI and was given an evaluation of its claims and a detailed report of some of its problems. Mike’s distraction has no relevance to the accuracy of Wesley’s claim namely that they did not invenr the problems in Meyer’s work, he did that to himself. In other words, Mike is creating and knocking down a strawman of his own creation. Secondly, the response is interesting in that Mike has chosen to create this strawman. That is quite telling since Mike Gene could have chosen to actually read the papers but that would be at a significant risk. Is the creation of a strawman preferable to actually analysing the evidence?

Mike Gene Wrote:

Look, over here, we all know this trio are deeply political and heavily invested in defeating the DI. Their minds define ID in terms of the DI. We all know Meyer’s relationship to the DI. We all know this trio also knows Meyer’s relationship to the DI. Thus, we all know how this trio approached the article. We all likewise know this trio most likely had preconceptions about Meyer’s “scholarship and character” prior to reading one word of his paper. [Razz]

And thus Meyer lived up to the expectations of this ‘trio’? Lets blame the ‘trio’ shall we for Meyer being so accomodating… And at the same time letst admire the stereoptyping and type casting by Mike Gene.

Is there anybody who is going to stand up and defend the Meyer paper, or at least make a real attempt to present an ID relevant hypothesis which is not based on ignorance? I can understand Mike’s frustration though, as a self proclaimed ‘minor player in the ID movement’ he has to watch mostly powerlessly how the DI seems to be squandering or undermining the hopes of ID becoming a respectable scientific contributor. But perhaps rather than attacking the messengers of this bad news, Mike could surprise ID critics (and proponents? alike) by presenting a positive ID relevant hypothesis.

As Del Ratzsch argued:

I think that some are certainly too far in the materialist direction, and they claim that science backs them up on that. ID can at least serve a ‘keeping em’ honest’ function, even if nothing else. I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so. I don’t think that it is just obvious that ID will contribute substantively to science, but I think it has that potential, and that it should be pushed as far as it can be made to legitimately go.

Del Ratzsch: ID can at least serve a ‘keeping em’ honest’ function, even if nothing else.

How ironic! In light of the Meyer debacle and subsequent spewage from the DI and “Mike Gene” - who’s going to keep the “honest-keepers” honest?

Sternberg Wrote:

Sternberg said he was concerned that some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists. “It’s fascinating how the ‘creationist’ label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory,” he said.

Only a creationist would say that. :)

[/shorter Gary Hurd]

I’m sorry, I just had to re-post over at ARN. Maybe Mike Gene can either answer my simple questions, or give me the benefit of his amateur psychoanalysis. I hadn’t looked at that site for a year or more. It was just like I remembered- different day same BS.

Steve Reuland quotes Richard Sternberg above:

“It’s fascinating how the ‘creationist’ label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory … “

In the “ID Creationism” thread Wesley Elsberry quotes Phil Johnson:

“Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old, and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are ‘creationists’ if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only initiated this process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose.”

What are the odds that Sternberg will specifically cite Johnson as one who “falsely applies” the creationist label on him?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on September 4, 2004 3:49 AM.

Neurulation in zebrafish was the previous entry in this blog.

Scurvy, Guinea Pigs, and You is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter