RE: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Wed Apr 23 2008 - 19:29:12 EDT

In order to judge, we have to hear all sides. Who are these 3
reviewers? If they are afraid to be identified, then there is a serious
problem. Why are they hiding? And they really are hiding if they don't
come forward, since this is a high-profile issue and a foundational
point on the 'expelled' movie. Why can't they defend their position?
Are they afraid it can't stand the light of day?

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Don Nield
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Donald F Calbreath
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)

We do not know who the reviewers were. It is possible (in the
circumstances I would say quite likely) that none was a regular reviewer

for that particular. journal.
Don N.

Donald F Calbreath wrote:
> Yes, the BSW statement says that no associate editor was involved.
What they did not say was that there was no peer-review. There is a
difference. Three scientists reviewed the paper and recommended some
changes. The changes were made and the paper was published - all
according to standard scientific practice. I've done a lot of
peer-reviewing for both chemistry and medical journals. One question
that is usually asked is "Is this paper appropriate for this journal or
do you recommend another journal for it?" The three reviewers had the
opportunity to say that the paper should not be published in that
journal. Apparently, they all felt it was OK.
>
> Don
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Marcio Pie [pie@ufpr.br]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:36 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RES: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)
>
> I'd invite anyone who's interested in this issue to actually get the
paper
> and to read it critically. It will become clear to anyone with even
modest
> training in biology will notice that (1) the paper is both weak in
argument
> and devoid of any original data; and (2) the topic has nothing to do
with
> the scope of the journal, which is mostly on simple taxonomic articles
and
> notes. Check out the current table of contents:
>
>
http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-toc&issn=0006-324X&volum
e=12
> 1&issue=1
>
> Also, I'd like to remind people of the actual statement by BSW:
>
> http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
>
> " Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published
without
> review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review
process.
> The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past
> presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper
> inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject
matter
> represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely
systematic
> content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year
> history."
>
>
> Marcio
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] Em
nome
> de Donald F Calbreath
> Enviada em: quarta-feira, 23 de abril de 2008 19:14
> Para: asa@calvin.edu
> Assunto: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)
>
> Here is Sternberg's statement about the peer-review process for
Meyer's
> paper:
>
> "In the case of the Meyer paper, I followed all the standard
procedures for
> publication in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington. As
> managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would
work
> directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I
chose
> myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In
order to
> avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial
paper,
> however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with
another
> member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a
> scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this
> colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible
controversy.
>
> The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three
qualified
> scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists
teaching
> at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial
criticism and
> feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper
in
> response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy
McDiarmid,
> President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and
> concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an
email
> message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and
agree
> that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."
>
> If we're going to discuss issues, let's at least get the facts
straight.
>
> Don
> ________________________________________
> From: Dennis Venema [Dennis.Venema@twu.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:09 PM
> To: Donald F Calbreath; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)
>
> Meyer's paper was handled by Sternberg alone, and the paper was a
marked
> departure from the style of papers the journal normally published (it
would
> have been odd even if it hadn't espoused ID).
>
> Also, why did Sternberg wait until the end of his editorship to
publish it?
> Seems he knew he would catch heck for it.
>
> dv
>
>
> On 4/23/08 3:02 PM, "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
wrote:
>
>
>> As I recall, Meyer's paper underwent normal peer-review before
appearing
>>
> in
>
>> print. Hardly smuggling, wouldn't you say?
>>
>> Don
>> ________________________________________
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of
>> George Murphy [gmurphy@raex.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:50 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)
>>
>> There was a panel discussion on ID at the Messiah meeting in 2005.
Two
>> notable features of it were:
>>
>> 1) The organizer deliberately excluded ant specifically theological
>> critiuque of ID.
>>
>> 2) Dembski said irenically in the course of the discussion that he
didn't
>> think that it was necessary to rule out theistic evolution. His
>>
> performance
>
>> since then gioves good reason to wonder how sincere he was about
that.
>>
>> ID is a failed research program both scientifically and
theologically. It
>> has failed every attempt to make any positive contribution in either
area
>>
> &
>
>> its attempt to give itself some credibility by such devices as
smuggling
>> Meyer's term paper into a peer-reviewed journal shows how pitiful it
>>
> really
>
>> is.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:35 AM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)
>>
>>
>> That would be a good debate to have at the annual mtg- I would find
it
>> interesting.
>>
>> Invite an ID guest to debate:
>>
>> "Science is only natural, not supernatural."
>>
>> Debate the pro's/con's, with Q & A.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
On
>> Behalf Of Donald F Calbreath
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:42 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID
>>
>> But isn't this what the ID folks have been saying all along? They
are
>> looking for ways to identify design. From what has been said, you
imply
>> that design is a testable hypothesis. Yes, it is. But mainstream
>> scientists attack ID as being non-scientific. They can't have it
both
>> ways.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by your last phrase ".. science hasn't
>> concluded". Both the NAS and AAAS apparently have concluded. They
rule
>> out any possible explanation that is not "natural". Sounds like they
>> have already made up their minds.
>>
>> Don (ASA member)
>> ________________________________________
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf
>> Of David Clounch [david.clounch@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 PM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>>
>> skrogh,
>>
>>
>>> "Since there is no lab test that can be used to tell what is
designed
>>>
>> or what isn't"
>>
>> I think I actually agree with you somewhat here. I've been saying for
>> years that first we must be able to measure design. Then and only
then
>> should we worry about what the implications might be if we obtained a
>> result from the measurement.
>>
>> But if someone is going to claim that something is all natural (ie,
due
>> to all natural processes) shouldn't one first be able to measure the
>> difference between a natural phenomenon and a non-natural phenomenon?
If
>> science cannot measure this then how can science reach a conclusion
>> that everything is natural?
>>
>> The answer is, science hasn't concluded.
>>
>> But there are design detectors. These exist between the ears of
humans.
>> Now, if one is going to tell people that "science says they are
wrong",
>> shouldn't one be able to at least have science objectively measure
what
>> is designed and what isn't? If your premise is correct, then those
>> making this claim that "science says they are wrong", (or perhaps
even
>> that believers in design are being irrational) have a serious
>> credibility problem with the public.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:44 PM, skrogh.
>> <panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>>
>> wrote:
>> Thanks for the input, but that is not what we are really talking
about
>> with my modicum of sarcasm. I am talking about Design in the ID
movement
>> in trying to compete with legit sciences, not as in that 70's song
>> "Master Designer." Since there is no lab test that can be used to
tell
>> what is designed or what isn't or nothing that can falsify it.
Similar
>> to trying to falsify Omphalism. Hope that clears it up.
>>
>> =========================================
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Opderbeck
>> [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:34 PM
>> To: panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>
>> Cc: D. F. Siemens, Jr.; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>>
>> Whatever you think if ID, "bad design" is a poor response if you
believe
>> in a creator God at all. However God created, this is we He did,
"bad"
>> designs and all. Unless you profess a God who isn't in control over
>> whatever procesess He used to create.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM, skrogh.
>> <panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Bad designs haven't seemed to gotten through the ID design detector.
>> =========================================
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
>>
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]On
>> Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
>> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:35 PM
>> To: panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>
>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>>
>> I think there is one which does so in principle. It's opposite would
>> justify ID. If we have sequenced the genomes of all the species, or
at
>> least all the species in one kingdom, and figured out exactly how all
>> the various parts work, if we discover some genes/control
>> sequences/whatever else comes up that cannot be derived from others
>> earlier in the evolutionary development, we presumably have evidence
>> that they were introduced by the deity or some superior power. This
is
>> sure evidence for ID. However, the current indication is that we have
>> sequences in genomes that simply preserve stuff from the past, which
is
>> clear evidence against ID. Things are too sloppy to be designed,
unless
>> the designer intends to mislead us.
>>
>> Generally, given the state of human knowledge, proof and
falsification
>> are claims too strong to be supported.
>> Dave (ASA)
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:46:02 -0500 "skrogh."
>> <panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>>
>> writes:
>> Also, can one conceive of a potential observation that would falsify
ID?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
>>
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]On
>> Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
>> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:39 PM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID
>>
>>
>> ID is saying it is "science" so it can be more serious. To make it
>> science, you have to bear on scientific things, such as math
>> (statistics) and biology. So they are appealing to the hard sciences
to
>> bring it into the scientific realm.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, they have no scientific hypothesis. "God made it" is not a
>> hypothesis, since it can't be tested. By definition, the scientific
>> method requires a hypothesis that can be tested. You also can't test
>> evolution per "origin of life," but there are other parts of
evolution
>> which are testable... ID has nothing testable. They think by
disproving
>> known naturalistic methods, God is then the default answer-but it
isn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
>>
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]
>> On Behalf Of Mountainwoman
>> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:10 PM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> Subject: [asa] Expelled and ID
>>
>>
>>
>> Having just seen Ben Stein's "Expelled," one thought that occurred to
me
>> is the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> Is Intelligent Design a modern incarnation of the classic
teleological
>> argument for the existence of God and therefore belongs in the
>> philosophy and/or theology departments of universities rather than in
>> the science departments?
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Bruggink (ASA Member)
>>
>> Clarington, PA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David W. Opderbeck
>> Associate Professor of Law
>> Seton Hall University Law School
>> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> 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.
>

-- 
Donald A. Nield
Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland 1142, NEW ZEALAND
ph  +64 9 3737599 x87908 
fax +64 9 3737468
Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/dnie003/
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 Apr 23 19:30:54 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 23 2008 - 19:30:54 EDT