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

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Wed Oct 10 2007 - 10:52:16 EDT

I am not sure what a Christian believer is. Either you are a Christian
or not. Perhaps you can explain. What role does your God play in all
that there is?

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:35 AM
To: James Mahaffy
Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: This is a list of Christian scientists was: Re: [asa] Peer
review of ID

Forgot the link http://richard.blumberg.org/2006/01/

Wesley Elsberry: I'm a Christian believer, a member of the United
Methodist church. I think that the assertion that one must give up
belief if one accepts the findings of evolutionary biology is a
misguided attack on the faith that I and many others hold. Certainly
the "intelligent design" advocates have advanced this notion, saying
that "intelligent design" is no friend of theistic evolution. If one
looks at the transcripts of the 2005 Kansas board of education
hearings with their antievolution advocates, one will see this
reflected in particularly virulent form.

On 10/9/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

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 11:01:39 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 10 2007 - 11:01:39 EDT