SciPolicy opens up archives because of heavy demand

| 23 Comments

Heavy Demand for Intelligent Design and Science Wars Articles Prompts SciPolicy Journal to Give Free and Open Access to Archives Haverford, PA (PRWEB) November 21, 2005 – SciPolicy – The Journal of Science and Health Policy – announced today that all of its articles are now free and open access on-line.

The public service move is prompted by a recent ten-fold increase in demands on its already busy website (http://scipolicy.net) for articles related to its Amicus Curiae brief in Federal Court (the case of Kitzmiller, et al v Dover Area School District and Dover Area School District Board of Directors) and for its editorial opposing government mandates to teach of intelligent design in public schools, and its numerous articles on the Science Wars.

23 Comments

Congratulations, applause, and thanks to them!

Question for the panda’s thumb people:

I’m an open minded person. I don’t have any bias toward ID and darwinism. If anything I’m agnostic on the issue. Nonetheless, I like to learn from both sides. Anyways, if evolution is true why do we see massive speciation in practically every geological column. Common ancestry is, indeed, not apparent. I’ve just finished reading a list of quotes from many eminent Paleontologists who say the same thing. Now, please don’t interpret my question as something emanating from a subversive creationist. Moreover, I’ve read many putative reports of common ancestors such as Kathleen Hunt’s “There are no transitional fossils.” This paper was not helpful whatsoever. It didn’t show anything but random guessing.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Thomas Howell

I’m an open minded person. I don’t have any bias toward ID and darwinism.

May I suggest that this formulation is going to raise hackles? Referring to evolution as “darwinism” is like referring to gravity as “newtonism.” It’s a straight creationist formulation used by nobody else. Were you not aware of this?

If anything I’m agnostic on the issue. Nonetheless, I like to learn from both sides.

There is only one scientific side, the side that rests on the evidence. There are two political sides, but all you’ll learn there is that some people are allergic to evidence that conflicts with preference.

Anyways, if evolution is true why do we see massive speciation in practically every geological column.

Because that’s how evolution works?

Common ancestry is, indeed, not apparent.

Sure it is, at least in broad strokes. Common ancestry was apparent 150 years ago, even before it was soundly supported by genetic and molecular methods, mostly on the basis of morphological similarity of living organisms (though seeing how the parts of ancestors that occasonally fossilized were somewhat different helped as well).

I’ve just finished reading a list of quotes from many eminent Paleontologists who say the same thing.

This is in itself suspicious. Creationists tend to “support” their position with long lists of quotes, rather than (indeed, in sharp contrast to) long lists of links to the actual studies. Since paleontologists have been saying for half a dozen generations that common ancestry is apparent, one wonders where this list of quotes came from. Do YOU have a link?

> I’m an open minded person. I don’t have any bias toward ID and darwinism.

How would you characterize someone who didn’t have any bias towards flat Earth theorists and the rest of the world, being an agnostic on the issue of the shape of Earth?

Commenters who have posted from the same IP address as “Thomas Howell”:

Bobby Novak Bobby Stapp Steve is Wrong Burn the Heretic Darwin Lover Mark Copen I CAN’T MAKE SENSE OF THE EVIDENCE Y E C Stephen J. Gould G.G Simpson T.H Huxley Charles Darwin anti-darwinist

If this is one person posting under all these aliases, it’s a Rule 6 violation. If this is just coincidence, then these folks won’t be bothered much by having the IP banned.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Yet another person who posts something and doesn’t bother to stick around for the discussion.

I’m an open minded person. I don’t have any bias toward ID and darwinism. If anything I’m agnostic on the issue.

I’m an open-mouthed person. I don’t have any bias towards the inedible or edible. If anything, I’m likely to starve waiting for food to enter my mouth.

If this is one person posting under all these aliases, it’s a Rule 6 violation. If this is just coincidence, then these folks won’t be bothered much by having the IP banned.

Maybe there is just connection available to serve the entire 7th grade class.

things only creationists ever say:

“I don’t have any bias [in the evolution/creationism debate]”

“I’m undecided on the issue”

“but if evolution is true…”

“I’ve just read something which seems to put a nail in the evolution coffin and I’d just like to have my confusion cleared up”

“I’ve just read something supporting evolution, and despite the personal ignorance I just mentioned, it was complete crap”

practically as soon as these people draw breath on the first sentence their sympathies are obvious to people who are familiar with creationist arguments (viz most PT readers). it’s kind of funny to see people with so little clue that their disingenuousness is so clear to everyone else, but it gets tiring after the first few hundred times.

You forgot constantly using the term “Darwinist” or “Darwinism”.

things only creationists ever say:

“I don’t have any bias [in the evolution/creationism debate]”

“I’m undecided on the issue”

“but if evolution is true…”

“I’ve just read something which seems to put a nail in the evolution coffin and I’d just like to have my confusion cleared up”

“I’ve just read something supporting evolution, and despite the personal ignorance I just mentioned, it was complete crap”

practically as soon as these people draw breath on the first sentence their sympathies are obvious to people who are familiar with creationist arguments (viz most PT readers)

I kind of wonder what the whole point is to all this gee-whiz-shucks-and-golly trolling. To disengenously draw us into a debate and then to flatten us with their devastating arguments? Like we haven’t heard about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and we’ve never thought about the thorny issue of how useful half an eyeball is…

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 23, 2005 06:26 PM (e) (s)

Like we haven’t heard about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and we’ve never thought about the thorny issue of how useful half an eyeball is…

Oh my god I just realized how half an eyeball could never evolve! All the aqueous humor would fall out. Thank you arden chatfield! I owe an apology to David Heddle.

;-)

I don’t have any bias toward ID and darwinism.

Baloney.

Anyways, if evolution is true why do we see massive speciation in practically every geological column. Common ancestry is, indeed, not apparent.

And yet every paleontologist alive today, each of whom long ago forgot more about the fossil record than you ever even knew in the first place, sees that it *is* apparent. Crushingly so.

What on earth makes YOU think your opinion counts more than THEIRS? Do you give your plumber advice on how to fix your toilet? Do you tell your doctor what instruments to use during your surgery? Do you advise your car mechanic how to work on your engine? Then why do you predsume to tell paleontologists what the fossil record shows?

With all due respect, your uninformed opinion on the matter doesn’t mean didley-squat. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. At all. It doesn’t even appear on the radar. It simply doesn’t matter.

Sorry if you don’t like that. (shrug)

I kind of wonder what the whole point is to all this gee-whiz-shucks-and-golly trolling.

They function as decoys. Effort spent responding to them is effort not spent elsewhere, and it takes less time to copy-paste this drivel than it does to read it and respond. On the other hand, if it is left to stand without response, it leaves the impression to naive observers that there are many rational “open-minded” individuals who’ve thought about evolution seriously and rejected it. It may not be a hugely effective tactic, but it’s cheap.

“You forgot Darwinist”

In the current Newsweek there’s an article about evolution, and in it, a scientist says that “Darwinist” is a rhetorical ploy to make it look like a believer such as “Maoist”.

Paul C is right, which is why the best response to creationists is to paste the appropriate prewritten TalkOrigins response to the particular complaint. Doing so, rather than typing afresh, has several benefits.

Only Falwellists, Robertsonists, Wilberforcists and Stalinists use “Darwinist.”

Go figure.

“I kind of wonder what the whole point is to all this gee-whiz-shucks-and-golly trolling. “

It’s just possible that some of them might actually think that if only they can “get past your defenses”, they might be able to convince you. More likely, they just want attention, or to pump up their Google hits, or just to take your time away from doing your Eeevil Science Stuff.

But the upshot is, they keep doing it because folks here keep responding. So Don’t Feed The Trolls!

Yet another PT thread completely derailed by a small banana peel dropped on the tracks.

There is a lot of good analysis in the SciPolicy documents just opened to the public, but it seems that will have to be discussed elsewhere.

Congratulations, “Thomas Howell” - did you earn a prize for this?

Yet another PT thread completely derailed by a small banana peel dropped on the tracks.

There is a lot of good analysis in the SciPolicy documents just opened to the public, but it seems that will have to be discussed elsewhere.

Congratulations, “Thomas Howell” - did you earn a prize for this?

This may be the exact answer to my earlier question of why creationists bother with this sort of stealth trolling. Sigh.

Ed, you forgot Beheists, Dembski-ists, Johnsonist, Calvertist .……

Posted by steve s on November 23, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)

Paul C is right, which is why the best response to creationists is to paste the appropriate prewritten TalkOrigins response to the particular complaint. Doing so, rather than typing afresh, has several benefits.

Amen to that! Would be much quicker for somebody genuinely coming to this question for the first time.

When I first visited here it was from an ID perspective. I was not trolling; but the questions that are “old hat” here, were new to me.

The negative response made me think “maybe ID is right”, luckily (for me) I stuck around. I doubt most people would do that. I think the majority will scuttle back to an ID site thinking “yes Evolution is in trouble; or I would have gotten a more reasoned response”.

Doing so, rather than typing afresh, has several benefits.

As most who have been watching me for a while already know, most of my responses are cut-and-pasted canned responses. Fundies ALWAYS give the same tired old BS. In response, the same answer suffices every time. No need to keep reinventing the wheel. (shrug)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on November 22, 2005 11:19 PM.

Wexler Responds to Beckwith was the previous entry in this blog.

Yet another controversy - the Intelligent Deceiver 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