Enough Time for Evolution?

[Shermana]

How can you expect to be taken seriously if you think humans are descended from chimpanzees (or apes)?

The trouble with your strategy - selecting such an absurdly specific and inaccessible concept from a paper that is basically gibberish to anybody with a basic layman's grasp of evolution - is that you then go and make comments like this that show you don't even have a grasp of the basics. You're like a student demanding your teacher explain calculus when you haven't even learned how to add and subtract.

Did you not read what I said about "I should have said chimp-thing" or "ape"? I usually say Chimp-thing when discussing this as I've argued in several creation debates. I am well aware that Chimps are considered a close relative, not a direct ancestor. The one time I forget, it obviously creates an easy hole to escape from the issues at stake and focus on me instead. From now on though I will be careful to add "thing" to make sure people don't harp on that as a way of sliding out of the argument with what is essentially ad-hominem.

It's amazing the excuses people will look for to avoid any semblance of debating.

So, 12 pages, nothing that actually addresses specifically what's been at stake, and the one attempt to do so at least admits they didn't read correctly what they thought omitted something. That's at least a start.

 

[dust1n]

I'm still not clear on why the Journal of Bio-Complexity doesn't meet the definition of "Peer--Reviewed", someone please explain.

Vol 2013

Editorial Policies


I looked here for example and I see nothing that actually explains why it doesn't count as Peer-Review by the standard definition. It appears the only argument is that they are selective which outside commentary they publish. Which isn't too far off the mark from how other journals work too. I wonder if he'd call other journals that refuse to submit comments which disagree with their ideology (for whatever reason) as 'dishonest', or thinks that no others do that. If we want to talk about dishonesty, it's saying that all comments are always published in all other peer-reviewed journals.



This is not peer-review | of trees, birds and other things

It appears the argument is that if it supports ID, it can't be "Peer-reviewed".

I mean, if you want to say they're lying and committing fraud by calling themselves "Peer-reviewed" because they aren't affiliated with other organizations that you agree or with, or because they promote ID, I think you're having a True Scotsman fallacy and confirmation bias.

BIO-Complexity’s opinion on intelligent design isn’t complex | Homologous Legs

I created a list of all the editorial board members, complete with their status in the ID movement and links to evidence that supports this status. These statuses come in six flavours:

• Proponent: This person is actively involved in the ID movement. Includes explicit creationists.
• Supporter: This person has shown support for ID, but is not as actively involved in the movement as others.
• Sympathetic: This person hasn’t explicitly supported ID, but shows signs that they do.
• Neutral: This person is exactly neutral about ID – they neither support it nor are critical.
• Critic: This person is critical of ID.
• Unknown: Not enough information is known about this person to make a decision on their ideas about ID.

When a person’s viewpoint was ambiguous based on available data, I awarded multiple statuses, with their true viewpoint lying somewhere on a spectrum between the two.
———
Matt Leisola: Proponent – Based on this.
Douglas Axe: Proponent – Based on this.
Ann Gauger: Proponent – Based on this.
David Abel: Supporter/Sympathetic – Based on this.
William Basener: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Walter Bradley: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Stuart Burgess: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Russell Carlson: Proponent – Based on this.
William Dembski: Proponent – Based on this.
Marcos Eberlin: Proponent – Based on this.
Charles Garner: Supporter - Based on this and this.
Loren Haarsma: Sympathetic – Based on this and this.
Peter Imming: Proponent – Based on this and this.
James Keener: Sympathetic – Based on this.
David Keller: Supporter – Based on this and this.
Branko Kozulic: Unknown – “Based” on this.
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Supporter – Based on this.
Jed Macosko: Supporter/Proponent – Based on this.
Robert Marks: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Scott Minnich: Proponent – Based on this.
Norman Nevin: Supporter/Proponent – Based on this.
Edward Peltzer: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Colin Reeves: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Siegfried Scherer: Sympathetic – Based on this and this.
Ralph Seelke: Proponent – Based on this and this.
David Snoke: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Richard Sternberg: Sympathetic/Supporter – Based on this and this.
Scott Turner: Supporter – Based on this and this.
Jiří Vácha: Sympathetic/Supporter – Based on this.
John Walton: Supporter/Proponent – Based on this and this.
Jonathan Wells: Proponent – Based on this and this.

As you can see, all of the editorial board members (except one) are either sympathetic to or supporters or proponents of intelligent design. The odd one out is Branko Kozulic, about whose ID viewpoint I could find very little. I doubt he’s a hardcore ID critic, however.


So, make up your own mind: do you think BIO-Complexity is a journal with an editorial board that has “a wide range of views on the merit of ID”, or is it simply another place for ID proponents to submit “research” to uncritical peer review and pass it off as legitimate science?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's amazing the excuses people will look for to avoid any semblance of debating.

It's even more amazing when they do this under the guise of starting a "debate," in an embarrasing attempt to convince themselves of their irrational an factually unsupported views.

 

[Oz-Man]

How can you expect to be taken seriously if you think humans are descended from chimpanzees (or apes)?

The trouble with your strategy - selecting such an absurdly specific and inaccessible concept from a paper that is basically gibberish to anybody with a basic layman's grasp of evolution - is that you then go and make comments like this that show you don't even have a grasp of the basics. You're like a student demanding your teacher explain calculus when you haven't even learned how to add and subtract.

He also claims to hold a degree in Psychology yet he does not know what "peer-reviewed" means......not too much credibility here

 

[Shermana]

He also claims to hold a degree in Psychology yet he does not know what "peer-reviewed" means......not too much credibility here

I very much do know what Peer-Review means, you however apparently don't.

Apparently you don't know what True Scotsman means either.

If you'd like, I can explain to you the difference between a Technical definition and a definition you'd like to apply as it fits with your confirmation bias. Otherwise, writing off a place because its members are associated with Biologos and the Discovery Institute is by no means a valid attack on its technical definition as "peer reviewed".

Now if the posters can please stop making this about me and actually address the subject at hand, that would be great!

 

[Shermana]

It's even more amazing when they do this under the guise of starting a "debate," in an embarrasing attempt to convince themselves of their irrational an factually unsupported views.

What's embarassing is the way you keep looking for ways to smear and handwave the request to discuss the specifics of the article.

So sad that almost everyone here is looking for excuses to avoid actually providing anything substantial, but I shouldn't have expected anything less. I guess I should have made it more clear in the OP that we're not looking for drive by smears by those who don't want to actually contribute anything.

 

[Shermana]

BIO-Complexity’s opinion on intelligent design isn’t complex | Homologous Legs

I created a list of all the editorial board members, complete with their status in the ID movement and links to evidence that supports this status. These statuses come in six flavours:

• Proponent: This person is actively involved in the ID movement. Includes explicit creationists.
• Supporter: This person has shown support for ID, but is not as actively involved in the movement as others.
• Sympathetic: This person hasn’t explicitly supported ID, but shows signs that they do.
• Neutral: This person is exactly neutral about ID – they neither support it nor are critical.
• Critic: This person is critical of ID.
• Unknown: Not enough information is known about this person to make a decision on their ideas about ID.

When a person’s viewpoint was ambiguous based on available data, I awarded multiple statuses, with their true viewpoint lying somewhere on a spectrum between the two.
———
Matt Leisola: Proponent – Based on this.
Douglas Axe: Proponent – Based on this.
Ann Gauger: Proponent – Based on this.
David Abel: Supporter/Sympathetic – Based on this.
William Basener: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Walter Bradley: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Stuart Burgess: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Russell Carlson: Proponent – Based on this.
William Dembski: Proponent – Based on this.
Marcos Eberlin: Proponent – Based on this.
Charles Garner: Supporter - Based on this and this.
Loren Haarsma: Sympathetic – Based on this and this.
Peter Imming: Proponent – Based on this and this.
James Keener: Sympathetic – Based on this.
David Keller: Supporter – Based on this and this.
Branko Kozulic: Unknown – “Based” on this.
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Supporter – Based on this.
Jed Macosko: Supporter/Proponent – Based on this.
Robert Marks: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Scott Minnich: Proponent – Based on this.
Norman Nevin: Supporter/Proponent – Based on this.
Edward Peltzer: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Colin Reeves: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Siegfried Scherer: Sympathetic – Based on this and this.
Ralph Seelke: Proponent – Based on this and this.
David Snoke: Proponent – Based on this and this.
Richard Sternberg: Sympathetic/Supporter – Based on this and this.
Scott Turner: Supporter – Based on this and this.
Jiří Vácha: Sympathetic/Supporter – Based on this.
John Walton: Supporter/Proponent – Based on this and this.
Jonathan Wells: Proponent – Based on this and this.

As you can see, all of the editorial board members (except one) are either sympathetic to or supporters or proponents of intelligent design. The odd one out is Branko Kozulic, about whose ID viewpoint I could find very little. I doubt he’s a hardcore ID critic, however.


So, make up your own mind: do you think BIO-Complexity is a journal with an editorial board that has “a wide range of views on the merit of ID”, or is it simply another place for ID proponents to submit “research” to uncritical peer review and pass it off as legitimate science?

So as we can see everyone, the problem isn't about the title of "Peer Reviewed", it's about what you think of their viewpoints and interpretations and conclusions in particular. Meanwhile, any other Peer-Review doesn't have to have a wide range of views to count. Does the confirmation bias get any more glaring? At least let's stop misrepresenting what Peer Review means, and let's stick to the actual subject of the Review, that would be great! So basically, as long as their board supports the idea of ID, it can't be Peer-Reviewed.

Quite ironic when people tell me I don't know what Peer Review means apparently.

So far we have about 2 replies that have actually come anywhere close (And still not very close) to getting into the details. I guess that's better than nothing.

 

[Oz-Man]

I very much do know what Peer-Review means, you however apparently don't.

Apparently you don't know what True Scotsman means either.

If you'd like, I can explain to you the difference between a Technical definition and a definition you'd like to apply as it fits with your confirmation bias. Otherwise, writing off a place because its members are associated with Biologos and the Discovery Institute is by no means a valid attack on its technical definition as "peer reviewed".

Now if the posters can please stop making this about me and actually address the subject at hand, that would be great!

Peer review is the process by which colleagues critically appraise each other's work.
When the manuscript of an article is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, independent experts are asked to read and comment on the manuscript. If approved by the reviewers, the manuscript is accepted for publication as an article in the journal.
The peer review process is applied to both primary articles (i.e. articles which present findings from original research) and to review articles that summarize primary research.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure a high level of scholarship and to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript.

What is Peer Review? - Peer Review - Research guides at University of Toronto

So basically "actual" biologists consider your article to not fit the standards of the "peer-review" process which is why its not relevant nor credible in the first place.

As I reiterated before; you might as well post an article on how the earth is 10 000 years old and then complain that people are not attempting to debunk it (even though many people on this forum have already debunked that ridiculous article).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I guess I should have made it more clear in the OP that we're not looking for drive by smears by those who don't want to actually contribute anything.

What can be meaningfully contributed to a dishonest, sham thread posted by someone who hasn't actually said anything of substance, nor is open to discussing or debating anything which opposes their pre-formed, irrational conclusion? But keep trying to convince yourself that you're actually "debating" something of substance by your linking and quote-mining of hacky, biased claptrap.

 

[Oz-Man]

Hey guys im just going to post some additional information about "BIO-Complexity".

Despite the intention to have one article per month, it took from May 2010 until December 2010 for another article to be published (by William Dembski, a member of the editorial team). Only one article was published in 2011, and three total are by Douglas Axe. For 2012, the Panda's Thumb blog points out
“”...the 2012 volume contains exactly two research articles, one “critical review” and one “critical focus”, for a grand total of four items. The editorial board has 30 members; they must be kept very busy handling all those papers.[7]

The journal looks to be headed in the direction of Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, the ID journal that lasted for three years.[8]
Despite its lackluster performance, the journal proclaimed, "Over 2,000 PDFs downloaded... In its first two months, BIO-Complexity has attracted a large readership."[9] The journal was panned in a review by young earth creationist and baraminologist Todd C. Wood:

“”In the larger scheme of things, I am sensing a discouraging pattern to BIO-Complexity publications. As I quoted above, the journal is supposed to be about "testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life," which is a great goal. But this is the fifth paper published by BIO-Complexity, and it's the fifth paper that focuses on perceived inadequacies of evolution. So when are we going to test "the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life?"[10]

If a young earth creationist doesn't like it, who does?

BIO-Complexity - RationalWiki

 

[Shermana]

What can be meaningfully contributed to a dishonest, sham thread posted by someone who hasn't actually said anything of substance, nor is open to discussing or debating anything which opposes their pre-formed, irrational conclusion? But keep trying to convince yourself that you're actually "debating" something of substance by your linking and quote-mining of hacky, biased claptrap.

Apparently I'm not interested in discussing or debating anything which opposes my pre-formed conclusions.... because....?

Meanwhile, I don't see how that doesn't apply to your side.

And I'd love to see some of this "Quote mining" in action, but somehow I'm guessing expecting an actual substantation of a claim is going to see the same result as other drive-by smear-assertions.

Oh Irony, you're having such a field day today!

13 Pages now. Hopefully SOMEONE will provide some substantiation eventually. Where's Painted Wolf when you need her?

 

[Shermana]

What is Peer Review? - Peer Review - Research guides at University of Toronto

So basically "actual" biologists consider your article to not fit the standards of the "peer-review" process which is why its not relevant nor credible in the first place.

As I reiterated before; you might as well post an article on how the earth is 10 000 years old and then complain that people are not attempting to debunk it (even though many people on this forum have already debunked that ridiculous article).

Will the TRUE Scotsmen please stand up?

So basically, if you don't think they are TRUE biologists, it doesn't count as "Peer-Review" if other Biologists don't think they are.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Apparently I'm not interested in discussing or debating anything which opposes my pre-formed conclusions.... because....?

Because your irrational position isn't actually open to information which undermines or challenges it. This is due to your pyschological and emotional need to not "believe" in evolutionary theory, a well-proven, demonstrated and factually-backed process. I don't know what underlying factors led to your unfortunate state.

 

[Revoltingest]

Will the TRUE Scotsmen please stand up?

Did someone call a Scotsman?
Creationists are poopy heads!

 

[Revoltingest]

Did someone call a Scotsman?
Creationists are poopy heads!

It's shallow, crude & uncivil posts like this one which point to the need for a creationism DIR.
They should ban that guy for a week or so.

 

[rusra02]

Think about how you would consider geocentrists. Imagine a geocentrist who works as an astronomy professor at a university.

You can't even take these guys seriously because they are denying something for which there is a huge and undeniable amount of evidence.

There is nothing there that deserves anything but ridicule.

Comparing proponents of ID to geocentrists is itself a form of ridicule. The theory of Macro-evolution lacks evidence to support it, relying instead on speculation, bluster, and a fervent adherence to the theory that seems religious faith to me.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Comparing proponents of ID to geocentrists is itself a form of ridicule.

To be fair, the geocentrists don't seem to mind being ridiculed by being compared to creationists.

 

[rusra02]

Generally because they have not made a credible case beyond faith alone.


That and most of the time dishonesty is part of their arguement. So they are called on it.



Scientifically, and biblically, there is ZERO evidence for ID.

Of course, scientists such as Behe. Lonnig and others disagree that there is no evidence for ID. And to say there is no Biblical evidence for ID is absurd.

 

[LuisDantas]

Comparing proponents of ID to geocentrists is itself a form of ridicule.

Some ideas are indeed ridiculous.

The theory of Macro-evolution lacks evidence to support it, relying instead on speculation, bluster, and a fervent adherence to the theory that seems religious faith to me.

Well, there are the facts and research as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course, scientists such as Behe. Lonnig and others disagree that there is no evidence for ID. And to say there is no Biblical evidence for ID is absurd.

Is it, though? What does the Bible even attempt to say about biology?