> Unfortunately, this post also is shaping up to be bigger than Ben Hur, so
I
> am cutting it into parts and answering each part in strict chronological
> order. This means I will finish off answering Kevin's original post
before I
> answer any subsequent replies.
>
Steve's style of debate, particularly his penchant for quoting whole sections
from papers and books, makes responding to him as a whole difficult,
especially if I am to provide the "quotes, details and references" he
"requests". So I will have to reply in short bursts, taking individual
topics and dealing with them individually in detail. The problem is that
what a creationist can say in a single sentence usually requires a page or
more to adequately refute. In recognition of that problem, my debate style
is usually to reply as simply and succintly as possible -- in essence with my
own soundbites. I then freely give references to those who ask for them, but
I usually do not present references with my soundbites because I realize that
most people won't bother to look them up in any event. It is only when the
situation demands that I must present a longer rebutal that I then present
references as part of my reply, rather than on request. People who have been
on this listgroup long enough know and understand that about me.
This situation demands that I must respond with longer essays, so I give fair
warning ahead of time in case people want to avoid reading them. However, to
try to save on bandwidth as much as possible I'll deal with only one or a
very limited number of subjects at a time. That does, however, mean that I
will be posting alot of them. I therefore beg everyone's understanding and
indulgence.
This first piece will deal with a few miscellaneous topics.
[snip]
>
> KO>The details of the research are quite simple (references will be
> >provided in a separate post):
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:33:15 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
>
> KO>This bibliography is hardly complete, but each reference has more
> >references that will lead to still more references, so it is a good start
> >for any reading into the relevant research.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to Kevin for this *bibliography*, but it is not what I requested. I
> asked Kevin for "*details*, with references of this `research involving
> proteinoid microsphere protocells'".
>
And that is exactly what I provided. All of the citations in the
bibliography describe "research involving proteinoid microsphere protocells"
and they all provide "*details*" of that research. I just figured it would
be better to provide each reference only once, and as a separate group, than
mutliple times in the same post, thus turning what should be a
straight-forward response into a god-awful long and tedious essay. I also
felt it would be better to limit my details of the research in the body of my
response to summaries containing the most important points, instead of
overloading it with long quotations that contain at best only a few
significant points buried in a ton of verbiage. It may not have been what
Steve was expecting, but it satisfies his request.
>
> What I had in mind initially was the details with references that Kevin
> supplied to Mike Behe when Kevin said: "I wrote to him and described
> the research involving proteinoid microsphere protocells."
>
My apologies for not being able to read Steve's mind. However, the same
details I gave to Behe I have also given to Steve.
>
> I request that Kevin initially post to the Reflector the same info. that
he
> supplied to Behe.
>
I already did, in my first response to Steve. The only difference was that
Steve then asked for references -- which I provided -- while Behe did not.
>
> This should be easy for Kevin because he has already supplied it to Mike
> Behe. But if it turns out that all that Kevin supplied to Behe in order to
> support his claims about "proteinoid microsphere protocells", was a
> "bibliography" with "each reference" having "more references that will
lead
> to still more references" it would not be surprising that Behe declined to
> discuss the matter further with Kevin!
>
In fact it would be surprising to any scientist. If a scientist makes a
claim that a second scientist challenges, the best response the first
scientist can make is to provide the second scientist with a bibliography
that supports the first scientist's claims. Having made a claim to Behe, he
would either accept it or reject it, but in either case he should have asked
for references if he was unfamiliar with the research, just as Steve did.
The fact that Behe did not ask for references indicated that in fact he was
already familiar with the research I was describing.
>
> I certainly am not satisfied in a *debate* being referred to a
> "bibliography".
>
Probably because Steve is too lazy to go to a library, look up the references
and read the details for himself; he expects everything to be spoon-fed to
him. Yet he appears not to be too lazy to find and read critiques of the
research, even if those critiques are misinformed or just plain trash. Maybe
Steve doesn't want to read anything that will disturb his tidy little dogma.
After all, he can summarily reject anything I say without conscience, but to
reject the same thing stated by a scientist in a peer-reviewed journal would
require abandoning every last shred of intellectual honesty he may still have.
>
> After all, *anybody* could respond to questioning of their claims with an
> infinite regress of bibliographical references.
>
It's hardly an infinite regress; more evidence that Steve is no scientist.
The citations in any bibligraphy are meant to address the specific points
raised in the article that the bibliography is attached to. The references
contained within the individual citations are for additional background
information only, in case the citation says something Steve doesn't
understand or doesn't want to believe; in which case he could look up the
citation reference if he wished to. The bibliography I gave him would by
itself be sufficient to answer his request, without ever having to look up
any other references within references within references. Steve is simply
creating a strawman to excuse his having to look up the references to see if
they support my claim.
> By the time Kevin's opponent had returned from researching Kevin's
> "bibliography" with "each reference" that "has more references that will
> lead to still more references", Kevin would have long gone and everyone
> else would have forgotten what the original issue was!
>
More of Steve's strawman. I provided books and review articles first, which
are easier to get ahold of and contain more detail than the individual
research reports. If Steve went to a university library he could have a book
and/or a couple of review articles within a day. If he had to order them
through interlibrary loan he could have them usually within two weeks. I
could even provide him with DPF versions of a few articles if he were
unusually desperate. The point being that Steve could have the information
he wanted soon enough to read it and comment on it in a timely fashion. I
certainly am not going anywhere, and with the Archive, this listserve has an
unusually long memory.
>
> Therefore what I request Kevin to do is support his claims with *details*,
> ie. quotes and references, prefaced with Kevin's own comments.
>
As I have already stated, I have provided details and the references to
support them, so quotes are unnecessary. However, so that Steve cannot
declare victory by default (see his statement immediately below) I will have
to emulate Steve's style. My apologies to the group for any tedium I will
put them through as a result.
>
> I am prepared to do this for my claims, and others on this Reflector are
> prepared to do this for their claims.
>
In point of fact, Steve is the only person I know of who does this regularly;
virtually everyone else follows the same pattern as I do: providing
summaries of information, sometimes with but often without references.
>
> So if Kevin fails to do this, I will
> assume that he does not really have the evidence to support his claims.
>
Another example of creationists moving goalposts in an effort to avoid
capitulation. Steve at first "requested" details and references, which I
provided, though in my own way rather than in imitation of his style. Now,
in an effort to avoid having to admit that I do in fact have evidence to
support my claims, he know demands that I provide quotes from the references
detailing the research. I wonder what will be next: sworn affidavits from
the authors that I quoted them correctly?
[snip]
>
> But in any even, as stated previously, I expect that Behe had no desire to
> carry on a private debate with Kevin.
>
Especially after I challenged him to back up his own claims with references,
something he knew he could not do.
>
> From my enquiries, Kevin is well-
> known in the ID movement for "harassing" ID proponents with private
> emails, and I am told that he has called at least one other leading ID
> scientist who disagreed with him a "liar", and even an "idiot".
>
Steve is engaging in his own version of shoot the messenger here. I will
respond only by saying that if Steve had any evidence to back up these
charges he would have produced it, with long quotes from my e-mails
demonstrating my "harassment" and my supposedly slanderous labels. I
therefore suggest that Steve either back up his claims or admit he has no
evidence and repudiate them.
>
> And it is not as though Kevin is a leading scientist, who professors of
> biochemistry like Behe have to sit up and take notice of.
>
More evidence that Steve is not a scientist; another ad hominem strawman to
boot. In science, the validity of a scientist's claims is not based on his
or her status or reputation, but on the quality of his or her arguments and
the evidence he or she has to back up those arguments. I demonstrated to
Behe that my claims were valid on the basis of the evidence I gave him; he
agreed my claims were valid by not challenging them. He in turn demonstrated
that his own claims were invalid by 1) tacitly agreeing to the validity of my
claims, including my critiques of his claims, and 2) refusing to provide
evidence to back up his claims.
>
> On his web
> page at http://hometown.aol.com/biochmborg/biography.htm....
>
Thanks for the free advertising, Steve. I invite everyone to visit my
homepage, though I suggest you start at
<http://hometown.aol.com/biochmborg/myworld.htm>.
Parts of it are incomplete, but given time I hope to finish it by the end of
the year.
>
> ...Kevin
> describes himself as "...just a lowly research assistant"....
>
Who in fact has done the work that postdocs normally do, since none of the
labs in which I have worked have had postdocs, so I tended to be the most
experienced and the most senior research assistant.
>
> ...who has only
> "personal interests in several unusual subjects"....
>
Now Steve is misquoting me; here is what I actually said: "Though just a
lowly research assistant, I have had personal interests in several unusual
subjects." Note that I do not say "only" as Steve claims; his implication is
that these are little more than casual interests. They are not. I have
strong professional interests in them as well; I use the term personal in
this case to indicate that they are my research interests rather than those
of the lab I currently for. If I were financially independent I would persue
them, but I am not, so the best I can do is read every paper on the subjects
I can lay my hands on. I also correspond regularly with some of the people
who are or have been involved in the research; a couple of them have
acknowledged that I know these subjects better than they do. I did not use
personal to indicate that I have no professional interests in these subjects,
as Steve implies, but to indicate that these are **my** research interests,
if I could pursue them.
>
> ...which include "one
> particular model for the origin of life: the proteinoid microsphere
> model for protocells" and in which "So far" Kevin says he has "been
> unable to do any research in that field".
>
No formal research, but at the insistence of Art Chadwick I have been
repeating some simple experiments in my home, using cooking ware and amino
acids purchased from health food stores. (I'm hoping I might be able to
write an "Amateur Scientist" column for Scientific American based on these
simple experiments.) However, if I am with this current lab long enough, I
have been promised that I can do some of my own projects. So who knows what
the future may hold.
>
> Indeed, I find it significant that Kevin describes "the proteinoid
> microsphere model for protocells" as an "unusual subject". I would have
> thought that if it is as mainstream as Kevin makes out there would be
> nothing "unusual" in a biochemistry graduate like Kevin studying it.
>
There isn't, but that's not what I meant. Steve apparently has not heard of
writing for the audience. I expect that the vast majority of the people who
visit my page will not have heard of proteinoid microspheres or scotophobin,
so for them they will be unusual subjects. They might even be to most
biochemists, but proteinoid microspheres are nonetheless more well known than
Steve tries to imply by misinterpreting my words. My undergraduate
biochemistry professors spent an entire class session lecturing about them,
and in graduate school another biochemistry professor actually reproduced
them as part of a general lab experiment, then gave out samples for us to
analyze. As I understand it, there have been high school students who have
been producing them for school science fairs. You can't get much more
mainstream than that.
[snip]
>
> "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields
of
> chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the
> immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its
> solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments
in
> the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New
lines
> of thinking and experimentation must be tried." (Dose K., "The Origin of
> Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,
> Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p348)
>
I couldn't end without commenting on this quote. Dose has become more
conservative on the issue of proteinoid microspheres than he had once been,
but he recently explained to me that despite his misgivings there still isn't
any better model to replace the proteinoid microsphere protocell. I then
asked him about the above paper. He stated that he would include proteinoid
microspheres in with these comments, but he admitted that he had written them
with gene-first and RNA world research specifically in mind, and that he was
obliquely critisizing them for not being more open to proteinoid microsphere
research. In other words, he still accepts that proteinoid microspheres are
the best current model, he just isn't as enthusiastic about it as he once was.
Kevin L. O'Brien