Re: Post-Darwinist: Neutrality in science? Apparently not when it counts

I have read Denyse's 'arguments' as well as did some
research on this topic.

Of course Denyse's 'arguments' are easily refuted by
actually reading what the petition stated

<quote>But 544 brain researchers have signed a
petition urging the society to cancel the lecture,
because, according to the petition, "it will highlight
a subject with largely unsubstantiated claims and
compromised scientific rigor and objectivity."</quote>

and

<quote>
The critics also point out that there are flaws in the
2004 experiment that the researchers have
acknowledged: The monks being studied were 12 to 45
years older than the students, and age could have
accounted for some of the differences. The students,
as beginners, may have been anxious or simply not
skilled enough to find a meditative state in the time
allotted, which would alter their brain wave patterns.
And there was no way to know if the monks were adept
at generating high gamma wave activity before they
ever started meditating.</quote>

So much for your claim that

<quote>
became a target of bigotry by politically or
ideologically motivated neuroscientists.
</quote>

As scientists including Davidson have pointed out

<quote>The experienced meditators also showed
increased gamma activity while at rest and not
meditating. The results of the study do not make clear
whether meditation training creates this activity or
if individuals with high gamma activity are attracted
to meditation. (Lutz & Davidson, 2004).</quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation

That Denyse confuses science with materialism is
regrettable. Someone refresh my memory, did Denyse not
comment or her qualifications to address scientific
claims of ID?

Oh Yes

'As a journalist, I am in no position to evaluate the
science claims of ID. I have said that repeatedly."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/designorchance/message/1217

Does Denyse considers herself in a position to
evaluate science claims in general? Or is this
limitation just restricted to intelligent design?

Btw what did you consider bigoted in the examples you
quoted?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

As I see it, these scientists are worried that a
single disputed paper may be (ab)used. I assume you
have read the paper and the rebuttals in order to
reach the conclusion of bigoted?

If not, here is your chance

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/46/16369

Furthermore, why does Denyse not object to science
trying to explain the effects of meditation on the
body? After all, would that not be a materialistic
approach?

--- Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <quote>In my view, materialists in science are
> currently digging themselves a big hole to fall into
> because they have forgotten one of the fundamental
> laws of Wisdom, which is true for everyone, whether
> Christian or not: "It is not good to have zeal
> without
> knowledge. … " (Proverbs 19:2 NIV).</quote>
>
> How ironic since the Dover trial has shown how
> intelligent design matches this wisdom quite
> accurately. Zeal without knowledge...
>
> Thanks Denyse for a good laugh
>
Received on Sat Oct 29 23:58:32 2005