Precisely that
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexanian, Moorad
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Is Peer-Review the Be All and End All of Science?
I am defending neither Denyse nor ID. However, what do you Christians understand by the statements that "God created the universe and sustains His creation?"
Moorad
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Roberts
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 5:43 AM
To: Pim van Meurs; Janice Matchett
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Is Peer-Review the Be All and End All of Science?
Frankly I take no notice of any of Denyse O'Leary's journalistic capers as she is remarkably slipshod in all she writes.
Oh for the day when ID has just one little nugget of scientific argument!
Peer reviewing does have its faults as all of us know of papers which have got through the net and shouldn't and vice versa. It's also happened to many of us.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Pim van Meurs
To: Janice Matchett
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Is Peer-Review the Be All and End All of Science?
So now ID is whining that peer review is broken or that peer review is not that important. Perhaps if ID could point to any non begging ID relevant papers? But of course they cannot and thus have to find an alternative explanation as to why ID remains scientifically vacuous.
Behe's refused 'paper' was about a 'rebuttal' , Meyer's paper about the Cambrian was of dubious quality.
On Nov 16, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:
Someone just posted this on FR. ~ Janice :)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 17 09:43:54 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 17 2006 - 09:43:54 EST