Saturday, November 18, 2006

Bad Arguments Convince Me

Bad arguments in support of macroevolutionary theory have contributed to my skepticism. Of course, it is not the bad arguments themselves that convince me, but the lack of good arguments. However, the constant reliance on bad arguments by proponents of macroevolutionary theory indicates to me that there are no better arguments to be made.

Here is an example relating to judging intelligent design on the basis of articles in peer reviewed scientific publications:
To sum up, science journals that are wedded to Darwinian evolution refuse to publish authors who explicitly advocate intelligent design. Then Darwinists attack intelligent design as unscientific because it isn't published in peer-reviewed journals. As Borat might say, "very nice."

Are we living a Borat movie? Or perhaps in a Joseph Heller novel? This kind of logic may seem comical, but it is actually used in some form by many mainstream scientists.

By the way, there actually have been peer reviewed books and articles published that support ID.

The quote above is from a post that discusses a series of posts on the peer review system in science. I have not read the entire series, so I cannot comment further on that.

I discuss whether ID is science in my previous post "Is It Science? Does It Matter?"

Friday, November 17, 2006

Weekend Humor #11: But Enough About Me, Let's Talk About My Quotes

Here is a link to a wide variety of important quotes, courtesy of Mike Gene. Lest you think on initial review that all the quotes are from one person, scroll to the bottom of the page. This indicates that the page is intended as a collection of quotes from a variety of people.

You can read previous editions of the Weekend Humor series by typing in "humor" in the search screen above. Richard Dawkins figures prominently.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Cornelia Dean, Cornelia Dean: What Was She Thinking?

After commenting recently, I read again John West's post that includes excerpts of an email exchange with Cornelia Dean, and the following comments by Dean struck me:
I did not intend to say, and I do not believe a reasonable reader would conclude, that Dr. Owens Fink asserted in those sentences that creationism is an ideological cousin of creationism. However, as a precaution and in the interests of fairness, I consulted colleagues here who are more knowledgeable about grammar than I am. They agree.

Intelligent design IS an ideological cousin of creationism. To say otherwise would be to mislead our readers.

The curious thing about this is that she seems not even to consider the alternative of simply saying nothing. "To say otherwise . . ."? Why not leave out the editorializing completely? Why not preface the opinion with "Some believe . . ."? The reality is that ID has some similarities with creationism, but it also has important differences. Dean also has the option of mentioning the similarities and the differences, if avoiding misleading her readers was her concern. Mentioning one without the other is the source of the bias. It is also a textbook example of how to stereotype a group of people.

Finally, Evo News has another post about an editorial Cornelia Dean wrote, which I am sure was a cathartic experience for her. Her desire to express her personal opinion is reflected in much of her "news" articles. That piece can now be found here, and you may want to read my post about it: "Oh Yeah, That Deity Who does Not Transcend Nature."