Re: This is a list of Christian scientists was: Re: [asa] Peer review of ID

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Oct 10 2007 - 01:32:02 EDT

Just in case my statements may have suggested that Wesley is an
atheist, he is a Christian just like you and me.
So James, how does that affect your 'statement'?

Cheers.

On 10/9/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/07, James Mahaffy <Mahaffy@dordt.edu> wrote:
> > Pim,
> >
> > First it is uncritically defending Dawkins, then it was approvingly citing PZ Meyers
>
> Both are excellent scientists and often misrepresented.
>
>
> >. Both of these are militant atheists preaching a gospel
> diametrically apposed to what we > Christians cherish. And now you
> want us to read Wesley Elsberry. Now I can see
>
> I want you to learn about how Marks and Dembski made an incredible
> error which led to claims which were clearly inspired not by their
> science but more by their faith. Not just that but ID proponents were
> citing their work without obviously having studied it and now it seems
> that they were wrong, the paper disappeared from the web site but no
> explanation or apology or even recognition.
>
>
>
> > reading Dawkinns (he is important and a decent thinker) - but please Pim there are plenty
> > of Christian academicians who would share your distaste for ID. You can use better
> > sources.
>
> None of these Christian academicians have found the errors in the
> paper. Why should I search for something that does not exist when
> Wesley Elsberry is an excellent resource on rebutting ID?
>
>
>
> > And no Pim these folks are NOT neutral and their world and life view does affect what
> > they say. This is a list of scientists who stand redeemed by the blood of our Lord and
> > some of the folks you cite without much criticisms have made undermining our faith an
> > important part of their agenda.
>
> What a silly effort to avoid reading the embarassing facts about
> recent ID research which claimed to disprove Ev, the work by
> Schneider.
> Would it not be the Christian thing to acknowledge and thank those who
> have found the errors, lest the error would have continued and be used
> by ID proponents to make flawed claims?
> Of course, in this case the flawed claims are more straightforward
> than when ID conflates concepts of design or information but some
> excellent people have done science and faith a favor by exposing them.
> Sure there are also capable Christians who have done much to show the
> vacuity of Intelligent Design (Ryan Nichols) and I have quoted them as
> well.
>
> Explain to me in a logical or reasonable manner why I should not point
> out the excellent research by atheists or non-atheists? Why should I
> defend Christians misrepresenting science or the position of atheists
> such as Dawkins? Do we not all benefit from accurately portraying
> facts?
> This has nothing to do with Christianity or atheism, but all with good
> science. Sure, people's worldviews may be coloring their perspectives
> on science but I have not seen Wesley or PZ Myers cloud their
> scientific perspectives because of their worldviews. I wish I could
> say the same for many of the ID proponents I have been discussing with
> recently.
>
> No, when it comes to issues of science I believe that atheism has the
> better track record, of course with so many Christians endeared by YEC
> and Global Warming Denial, this seems to be a tough act to follow.
> As a Christian and a scientist, I intend to speak out fully and loudly.
>
> So, anything to say about Marks and Dembski's major faux pas? Do you
> think they should acknowledge those who found the error or is it
> better that we allow Dembski to abuse the 'peer review' of the web, as
> he explained in his own words?
>
> As Wesley remarks
>
> <quote>
> Now what remains to be seen is whether in any future iteration of
> their paper they bother to do the scholarly thing and acknowledge both
> the errors and those who brought the errors to their attention.
> Dembski at least has an exceedingly poor track record on this score,
> writing that critics can be used to improve materials released online.
> While Dembski has occasionally taken a clue from a critic, it is
> rather rarer that one sees Dembski acknowledge his debt to a critic.
> </quote>
>
> Dembski and Marks knew about the errors as they withdrew the paper.
> But no acknowledgement beyond that, no effort to correct the damage
> already done.
>
> In Christ
>
> > --
> >
> > James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
> > 498 4th Ave NE
> > Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198
> > Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
> >
> > >>> On 10/9/2007 at 11:13 AM, in message
> > <20071009162803.E11CB71102F@gray.dordt.edu>, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Wesley Elsberry has published a posting on PT describing how various
> > > people discovered orders of magnitude errors in a recent paper by
> > > Marks and Dembski, supposedly showing that Ev (Schneider's program)
> > > performed worse than random search.
> > > http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/unacknowledged.html
> > >
> > > What is fascinating that as early as august, Schneider had already
> > > found the errors
> > >
> > > <quote>2007 Aug 03. In An Interview with Dr. William A. Dembski
> > > Dembski complains:
> > >
> > > Perhaps the most striking instance of silence is that of Thomas
> > > Schneider, whose article on the evolution of biological information in
> > > Nucleic Acids Research (2000) claims to refute my colleague Michael
> > > Behe. When Robert Marks and I recently showed that his evolutionary
> > > program was equivalent to a neural network and that it works worse
> > > than pure chance (http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/T/ev2.pdf),
> > > he too fell silent though in the past he would reply in a day's time
> > > on his own website to any challenge from me. I have found that
> > > Darwinists make a habit of staying quiet about problems with their
> > > theory and ignore the best criticisms of it.
> > >
> > > Several people told me about that paper soon after it came out in
> > > early June 2007. The paper has no date, no authors and is on a
> > > personal web site. It was presented initially as a draft of a paper.
> > > As such it is a moving target so I decided to wait for it to be
> > > properly published in a peer reviewed journal. As for not responding,
> > > I had other much more important things to work on, rebutting Dembski's
> > > obviously incorrect arguments is low priority and I will respond in
> > > time. As of August 4, 2007, the original page, with link
> > > http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/eil/Publications/ev/index.html
> > > is gone. So how can Dembsky complain about me not responding? (NOTE:
> > > please do NOT send me this or any other document - I have my own
> > > copies!) On the other hand, Dembski has had 6 years to deal with
> > > these:
> > >
> > > * Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information"
> > > * Effect of Ties on the Evolution of Information by the Ev program
> > >
> > > but as far as I can tell, he ignored them.
> > >
> > > Clearly Dembski has not run the Evj program or he would have seen that
> > > it does not work "worse than pure chance". Here's what you do. Run the
> > > Evj program with 'Pause on Rseq >= Rfreq' turned on, max out the speed
> > > and let it evolve until Rs >= Rf. This standard run completes in 675
> > > generations on any computer and takes under 8 seconds on a 3 GhZ Mac
> > > Pro. That evolutionary run is supposedly, according to Dembski, "worse
> > > than chance". </quote>
> > >
> > > http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html
> > >
> > > When finally on september 26, another poster sent an email, the paper
> > > was taken down without any notice. Another paper which references the
> > > findings was left undisturbed.
> > >
> > > The question is will Marks and Dembski acknowledge the errors and
> > > those who discovered them? Will a future paper correct the perception
> > > that Marks et al disproved Ev? Given that ID proponents were quick to
> > > herald the paper and findings, what does this mean for their ability
> > > to do 'peer review' ?
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 10 01:33:30 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 10 2007 - 01:33:30 EDT