Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 04-16-2003, 07:17 AM

To my knowledge, neither Dembski nor Behe has made any serious attempts at publishing their work in scientific journals. They take whatever rejection letters they get and blow their significance way out of proportion -- any beginning scientist can tell you the difficulties of publishing significant work in a competitive environment.

But, fine, let's grant these people the fact that Dembski and Behe do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Of the top of my head, I can think of two: PCID (from Dembski's ISCID), and Origins and Design (from Paul Nelson's ARN group).

Now, after having taken a look at these, we have to ask: why aren't these people even publishing the supposed volumes and volumes of ID data and models?

Take a look at PCID, for instance -- they're simply recycling Dumbski's rants against his critics. Better question: why aren't more people reading these journals and discussing their content?

PS: An interesting thread at AE, where the manager of PCID, Micah Sparacio puts up a weak defense for PCID.

gcameron · 04-16-2003, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Better question: why aren't more people reading these journals and discussing their content?

Well, obviously because the high priests of Metaphysical Naturalism are suppressing any dissent...

pz · 04-16-2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia
An interesting thread at AE, where the manager of PCID, Micah Sparacio puts up a weak defense for PCID.

That is a statement in which the adjective "weak" is simultaneously the most significant term, and the one most inadequate in its scope. Flaccid, lame, insipid, feeble, sickly, shallow, or some inclusive combination of similar terms would be more appropriate.

Oolon Colluphid · 04-16-2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
That is a statement in which the adjective "weak" is simultaneously the most significant term, and the one most inadequate in its scope. Flaccid, lame, insipid, feeble, sickly, shallow, or some inclusive combination of similar terms would be more appropriate.

'Ineffectual'?

Or maybe just 'crap'?

Oolon

pz · 04-16-2003, 09:11 AM

We have to face the unfortunate inadequacies of the English language here. No one word is sufficient.

Oolon Colluphid · 04-16-2003, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
We have to face the unfortunate inadequacies of the English language here. No one word is sufficient.

True. However, much as I know you hate these things, there's always:
:banghead:

and indeed

(Sorry, I thought just banghead would do it, then I found that the others are right too. Back to the drawing board: words just don't encompass the feelings that unadulterated horseshit produces!)

Oolon

RufusAtticus · 04-16-2003, 10:22 AM

A List of Nature papers authored by Darwin C* in the 1800s that have been cited in the ISI database.

Code:

 Hits  Cited Author          Cited Work                Volume      Page      Year
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   3   DARWIN C              NATURE                        25       529      1882  
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                        25       597      1881 
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                        24       257      1881 
   3   DARWIN C              NATURE                        23        32      1880 
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                        21       207      1880 
   2   DARWIN C              NATURE                        21       237      1880 
   4   DARWIN C              NATURE                        18       120      1878 
  20   DARWIN C              NATURE                        15        18      1876 
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                        10        24      1874 
   2   DARWIN C              NATURE                         9       460      1874 
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                         9       482      1874 
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                         8       132      1873 
   5   DARWIN C              NATURE                         8       431      1873 
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                         8       505      1873 
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                         7       281      1873 
   2   DARWIN C              NATURE                         7       360      1873 
   1   DARWIN C              NATURE                         7       414      1873 
  28   DARWIN C              NATURE                         7       417      1873 
   6   DARWIN C              NATURE                         3       502      1871 
   1   DARWIN CR             NATURE                        19       462      1879 
   1   DARWIN CR             NATURE                        17        78      1877  
   1   DARWIN CR             NATURE                         9       308      1874 
   1   DARWIN CR             NATURE                         8       244      1873

ps418 · 04-16-2003, 11:45 AM

In some ways, Darwin was unluckly because he tends to be remembered only for OOS, and not for all the other important observations he made. For instance, he was the first to accurately surmise, in The Voyage of the Beagle, that atolls formed via subsidence of seamounts. You can see from Darwin's correspondance that one of his favorite animals were the barnacles. Incidentally, there is a new book out called Darwin and the Barnacle: The Story of One Tiny Creature and History's Most Spectacular Scientific Breakthrough, about Darwin's years obsessed with barnacles. Check out this review.

Patrick

Doubting Didymus · 04-16-2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

In some ways, Darwin was unluckly because he tends to be remembered only for OOS, and not for all the other important observations he made.

Yeah, poor guy. I can hear his ghostly voice now:

"Look, you lot. I know that the theory of evolution is currently the single most significant theory in the whole of modern biology, right? I know it provided the underpinning that transformed biology from a curious and unproductive field largely dealing with the taxonomy and taxidermy of exotic beetles. I'm aware that my theory accidentally uncovered the meaning of all life on earth.

But I did barnacles, too. Someone give me the credit I deserve for the barnacles."

Valentine Pontifex · 04-16-2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
A List of Nature papers authored by Darwin C* in the 1800s that have been cited in the ISI database.

That was a fairly large list of papers still being cited a century after his death. Especially for a guy who was extremely ill at the time living long before "publish or perish."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-16-2003, 07:17 AM	#11
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	To my knowledge, neither Dembski nor Behe has made any serious attempts at publishing their work in scientific journals. They take whatever rejection letters they get and blow their significance way out of proportion -- any beginning scientist can tell you the difficulties of publishing significant work in a competitive environment. But, fine, let's grant these people the fact that Dembski and Behe do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Of the top of my head, I can think of two: PCID (from Dembski's ISCID), and Origins and Design (from Paul Nelson's ARN group). Now, after having taken a look at these, we have to ask: why aren't these people even publishing the supposed volumes and volumes of ID data and models? Take a look at PCID, for instance -- they're simply recycling Dumbski's rants against his critics. Better question: why aren't more people reading these journals and discussing their content? PS: An interesting thread at AE, where the manager of PCID, Micah Sparacio puts up a weak defense for PCID.

04-16-2003, 09:11 AM	#15
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	We have to face the unfortunate inadequacies of the English language here. No one word is sufficient.

04-16-2003, 11:45 AM	#18
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	In some ways, Darwin was unluckly because he tends to be remembered only for OOS, and not for all the other important observations he made. For instance, he was the first to accurately surmise, in The Voyage of the Beagle, that atolls formed via subsidence of seamounts. You can see from Darwin's correspondance that one of his favorite animals were the barnacles. Incidentally, there is a new book out called Darwin and the Barnacle: The Story of One Tiny Creature and History's Most Spectacular Scientific Breakthrough, about Darwin's years obsessed with barnacles. Check out this review. Patrick

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.