Inside Higher Ed on creo/ID volume

| 130 Comments

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:

Sanford_talk_Loma_Linda_decay_of_lifespan_in_OT.png

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 ™ 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

Of mad-folk, a bunch. (Paraphrased from Jack Vance)

dpr

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

The coefficients on Sanford’s graph are sort of funny.

Now hang on … I missed this at first skim. When did our Matzke become a Bayesian??

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=aD[…]p;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/201[…]mment-279730

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

It was only the number of significant figures that tickled me :)

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]vtiF0BBqF10Q 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.

I’m pretty sure that *was* a joke, Mike.

Poe’s Law strikes!

It was “the widely accepted main source of scientific education” that gave it away.

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.

Hasn’t our life-expectancy increased since the time of the Romans? Are we getting nearer to the next flood?

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/inte[…]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.

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.

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?

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.

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/inte[…]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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I guess he is lying about including himself among scientists.

(I already knew that.)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on March 1, 2012 12:52 PM.

Freshwater: RNCSE article published online was the previous entry in this blog.

Freaks of Nature: book review by Paul R. Gross 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 4.38

Site Meter