Re: [asa] The Myth of the Rejected ID Paper

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Jul 07 2008 - 20:38:33 EDT

Quite a jump in logic from unsuitable for inclusion in the science
curriculum to "they would not publish anything supportive of ID in
science". Especially since they are clear that the problem with ID is

"They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are
no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant
scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these
hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals..."

Same with PNAS

"The National Academy of Sciences in 1999 stated "Creationism,
intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in
the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not
testable by the methods of science."

Not testable by the methods of science. Seems more like an a
posteriori rejections of ID rather than a "a priori" rejection of ID.

Don: There's a start. No, nothing explicit about publishing (I'd
look further, but it's dinner time and I'd like to have some time with
my wife), but when a group says "this is not science", I feel it is
safe to assume they would not publish any papers supporting the idea
in their science journals. I suppose we could email the editors and
ask - that might prove interesting.

Seems that you had indeed not done your research when you made your
claims. Let me ask you a question: Should science/nature/pnas publish
a non scientific contribution of ID? Would they reject a
scientifically relevant contribution of ID, assuming that such may be
forthcoming in the near or not so near future?

So let's not blame the journals for the lack of scientific
contributions from ID. There appears to be a far more likely
explanation.

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Donald F Calbreath
<dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> wrote:
> The AAAS in 2002 adopted a resolution on October 18, 2002 that said "Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
> Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
> Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;"
> Since they don't consider ID appropriate, I can only assume that they would not publish anything supportive of ID in Science.
>
> The National Academy of Sciences in 1999 stated "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." So, we can assume that there will not be any ID papers in PNAS.
>
> The American Chemical Society rejects the validity of ID, so we won't see any ID papers in the 30+ different ACS journals.
>
> There's a start. No, nothing explicit about publishing (I'd look further, but it's dinner time and I'd like to have some time with my wife), but when a group says "this is not science", I feel it is safe to assume they would not publish any papers supporting the idea in their science journals. I suppose we could email the editors and ask - that might prove interesting.
>
> Don Calbreath
>
> Don
> ________________________________________
>
> From: PvM [pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 5:07 PM
> To: Donald F Calbreath
> Cc: ASA list
> Subject: Re: [asa] The Myth of the Rejected ID Paper
>
> Never wanting to shy away from some research I visited the AAAS site
>
> <quote>
> What is intelligent design?
>
> "Intelligent design" consists of two hypothetical claims about the
> history of the universe and of life: first, that some structures or
> processes in nature are "irreducibly complex" and could not have
> originated through small changes over long periods of time; and
> second, that some structures or processes in nature are expressions of
> "complex specified information" that can only be the product of an
> intelligent agent.
>
> Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary
> evolutionary theory?
>
> No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but
> they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful
> tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on
> these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is
> no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant
> scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated
> to be a scientific theory. While living things are remarkably complex,
> scientists have shown that careful, systematic study of them can yield
> tremendous insights about their functions and origins (as it has in
> the past).
>
> Intelligent design necessarily presupposes that there is an
> "intelligent designer" outside of nature who, from the beginning or
> from time to time, inserts design into the world around us. But
> whether there is an intelligent designer is a matter of religious
> faith rather than a scientifically testable question.
> </quote>
>
> notice the
> ...They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there
> are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant
> scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these
> hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals...
>
> But nothing about refusing to publish... Perhaps you have had more success?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:43 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So despite there being a pro-ID peer reviewed journal, which failed
>> due to lack of content, the argument is now that the Discovery
>> Institute website surely must have some relevant material.
>>
>> Your claim is that I am in denial and yet the facts seem to be
>> strangely on my side. Perhaps you may want to take your own advice
>> more seriously.
>>
>> Please tell us what journals refuse to consider ID papers.
>>
>> So far the accusation appears to be nothing more than intellectual
>> laziness on the part of ID proponents to actually present the research
>> and/or supporting evidence.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Donald F Calbreath
>> <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> wrote:
>>> The ID journal you mentioned has been replaced by other material. Go to the Discovery Institute web site and look around a little. It's all right there. You still are in denial that the major journals refuse to consider ID papers. Ask them yourself or look at their stated editorial policies. Then tell me the accusation is "not credible". Do the research.
>>>
>>> Don Calbreath
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: PvM [pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:29 PM
>>> To: Donald F Calbreath
>>> Cc: ASA list
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] The Myth of the Rejected ID Paper
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the easiest excuse for having no ID research published.
>>> But of course ID has its own peer reviewed journal PSCID and after a
>>> few publications it went defunct due to lack of content.
>>>
>>> If ID can show scientific contributions, journals will publish it.
>>>
>>> The deck stacking accusation is just not credible.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Donald F Calbreath
>>> <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> wrote:
>>>> And where would ID supporters get their papers published? The major scientific organizations have declared ID to be "persona non grata" by definition. So who would consider a paper that suggested that ID was credible? Sems to me that the deck is stacked against ID research getting published most places.
>>>>
>>>> Don Calbreath
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Campbell [pleuronaia@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:48 PM
>>>> To: ASA
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] The Myth of the Rejected ID Paper
>>>>
>>>> I'm also curious about the myth of the accepted ID paper, i.e. the
>>>> claim that published papers prove the scientific credibility of ID and
>>>> then when you look them up the publication is obscure and peculiar.
>>>> Is someone actively searching the world for places to publish that are
>>>> unlikely to give the same scrutiny as a conventional journal that
>>>> focuses on evolutionary biology? I've certainly tried more than one
>>>> journal for a particular paper, but I want it to be somewhere that
>>>> people can find it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. David Campbell
>>>> 425 Scientific Collections
>>>> University of Alabama
>>>> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>>>>
>>>> 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 Mon Jul 7 20:39:13 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 07 2008 - 20:39:13 EDT