Bob

Re: I’m genuinely surprised by how little has been published since 2005.

Oh: y’mean, like, ahm . . . — post-Sternberg, and now post-Gonzalez?

GEM of TKI

I’m genuinely surprised by how little has been published since 2005.

Bob

Oh, I know what you mean. But it’s kind of like pointing out another instance of an alligator doing alligator things.

I have been wondering lately why ID-friendly scientists don’t just start some of their own peer reviewed journals. Sometimes it’s impossible to put new wine in old wine skins, and all that.

The noteworthiness is that scientific and intellectual lightweights like Scott and Matzke get published in PNAS on the basis of academic philosophical correctness, and that brilliant biochemists and molecular biologists like Michael Behe, who actually do science and follow the evidence where it leads, would never stand a chance of being published in such a journal, regardless of the weight of evidence or the solidity of the argumentation or logic.

This

http://www.isi.org/lectures/le.....f30e049aec

is an excellent debate between two BIG guys, Dr. William Dembski and Dr. Lee Silver.

Unlike many of these dabates, this one does not plunge in to ad hominem and appeals emotion but stays on track; a pleasure to watch.

Many thanks to both the debaters for giving us this debate!

“A new research paper is creating some buzz about the roles of computer engineering in biology. Historically, computational techniques in genome sequencing have proved useful in predicting which DNA sequence produces which amino acid and which amino acid sequence produces which protein. Now, this new research is leading towards a robust model of proteins and their messaging systems. This is one step further in understanding the basics of life and, consequently, pushes us closer to being able to emulate organisms entirely from the bottom up instead of our failed prior approaches of from the top down. A long way from perfect, but an opening into a wide field of study and maybe even a new division of biology.”

My experience has mirrored yours, and I have come to the same conclusion. Honestly, I really don’t know what I believe anymore, but at least I can spot these types from a mile away. IMO Darwinists are clearly some of the most “religious” folks I’ve ever encountered.

I grew up in what some people consider a pseudo-Christian cult. When I left this sect in my early twenties, I began a furious investigation into many religious and philosophical points of view. This quest led to many interesting conversations with many people, and to many interesting books. One thing I found interesting was the zeal and confidence that so many adherents had with respect to their particular views – views I often considered patently ridiculous and unsubstaniated – despite these folks having perfectly normal, and often above normal, intelligence.

Each group has it’s army of apologist writers whose essential punchline was that all was well, that all of the criticisms had been “answered long ago”, etc, etc. This is the common theme.

Eugenie is no different than any other dogmatic apologist I’ve encountered. She’s an apologist for a particular ideology that she probably has quite an investment in. Her statements don’t surprise me.