Re: More fusillades in the ID wars

Jack Syme wrote:

"...Like I said before, this was a review article. Argue about its scientific claims if you want, but do not hang the editor for publishing it...."

And there's no reason why the author of a review article should not point out what appear to be shortcomings of the science as currently practiced, and even give his views of possible solutions to cited problems.

In this case the proposed solutions lie outside the conventional bounds of science. But what's so bad about stretching conventions if that seems to be what's required?

The emotional tirade of Sahotra Sarkar (of the utexas blog) is exactly the kind of thing you do when someone hits a nerve and you don't know how to respond intelligently. You fly off the handle.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: jack syme<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>
  To: ASA<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; Dick Fischer<mailto:dickfischer@earthlink.net>
  Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:58 PM
  Subject: Re: More fusillades in the ID wars

  Dick Fisher wrote:

  "The editor should have had the good sense to recognize an
  article that lacks any positive evidence for what it asserts, and should
  never have run the article in the first place. He is expected to exercise
  editorial judgment after all. He embarrassed the institution and damaged
  its credibility. "

  So only articles that have positive evidence are worth writing? Do you actually have the same criteria for articles that have nothing to do with science/creationism? What evidence do you have that he embarassed the institution and damaged its credibility? Is that just your opinion or do you have something to back it up?

  I think the point that you are missing, is that the response to this articles publication was a severe overreaction. And, it seems to me, the reason for this overreaction is the atheistic/materialistic paradigm that dominates our culture. And that is the reason we should be supportive of its publication. Like I said before, this was a review article. Argue about its scientific claims if you want, but do not hang the editor for publishing it.

  What chance does anyone, anywhere now have of publishing an article about design, even if it is scientfically accurate and rigorous?
<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
Received on Wed Feb 2 04:18:37 2005