Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News

A classic in citation bluffing, in this case, to discredit Meyer’s Signature in the Cell

Spread the love

Darwin's Doubt Here:

Hurd cites nine papers to show that Meyer’s discussion of the composition of the earth’s pre-biotic atmosphere “is outdated.” Yet there are good reasons that Meyer did not cite these papers: six fail even to discuss the composition of the earth’s prebiotic atmosphere (contrary to Hurd’s claim); two make highly controversial claims contradicted by leading authorities in more recent publications; and one confirms two key claims that Meyer himself had already made (and carefully documented) in Signature.

Citation bluffing is one of the refuges of a dying orthodoxy and it goes down well with “aren’t I good?” girls, male and female, reliving them of the burdens of and thinking, knowing, and growing. They say, you may have evidence, but we have Professor Boofus and Professor Doofus and Professor Goofus. Who can beat that?
File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Meanwhile, re Darwin’s Doubt:

After all this time.

As noted earlier, at this point, no one cares whether Christians for Darwin choose to trash the book or read it or neither or both.

Hat tip: Sri Nahar Ha-Limmud

Note: Apparently, Signature in the Cell, Meyer’s earlier work, praised by intelligent people, was the original target of troll rage, as noted in Comment 1 below. Sorry, we are so used to hearing from and about trolls on Darwin’s Doubt, it is hard to keep the attacks straight.  Trolls hate accounting of any kind.

3 Replies to “A classic in citation bluffing, in this case, to discredit Meyer’s Signature in the Cell

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    News, I think you meant ‘Signature in the Cell’ in this case,,,,,, Matzke did try his usual tactic of citation bluffing with Darwin’s Doubt:

    Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html

    also see:

    A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
    Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin’s theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. “Phylogenetic systematics,” the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, “relies on the theory of evolution.” To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air.

    Tight fit, major fail.7

    No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that “phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever.”8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Citation bluffing is one of the refuges of a dying orthodoxy

    True. “Bluffing” is a friendly term for “lying”. People who use this tactic may get some short-term benefits. They’ll convince some people. But when the lies are exposed, they end up losing more than they gained.

    I think anyone can see that if opponents have to tell lies in order to attack Darwin’s Doubt, then Meyer’s work must be pretty good indeed and the opposition has nothing to say about it.

    But reading the book alone made that very clear to me.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    It shows however that ID books like Meyer’s are a unique threat in the modern world.
    The more reveiews/attacks the better I say.
    Indeed I wish ID/YEC did more great books like this. it seems, maybe, a tipping point is coming on origin matters.
    the bad guys really have not done well in debunking ID/YEC and it shouldn’t be hard if iD/YEC were soooo wrong.

Leave a Reply