Nick Matzke – Book Burner?

_{Barry Arrington
June 30, 2013

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Nick Matzke famously got the publishing company Springer to suppress the publication of the papers of a conference held at Cornell. See here. He did this without having seen, much less read, any of the papers. Obviously, his motivation could not have been the content of the papers. He was motivated by the mere fact that several of the conference participants were well-known ID proponents.

Let us do a little thought experiment. Suppose that Nick had published his famous piece on Panda’s Thumb a few days later, and the head of Springer had called him up and said, “Hey, Nick, I’ve got some bad news and some good news. The bad news is that it is too late to stop publication of the book. The printer has done his work and the first printing of the book is finished. The good news is that not a single copy has left the printer’s warehouse, and they are all in a pile that has been drenched in gasoline. Nick, all you have to do is come over and toss a match on the pile of books and it will be as if they were never published in the first place.”

Nick follows UD and posts here from time to time, so I have two questions for him:

(1) Nick would you have tossed the match?

(2) If the answer to (1) is “no,” are you not a hypocrite? After all, the ultimate outcome from tossing the match would be identical to what you actually did – i.e., no book out there for people to buy.

BKA: Updated in response to Dr. Sewell’s comment @ 2.

Comments

Words are powerful. For good or evil they truly changed the world. There is a list, my list , your list, of good or evil single people who using words and them written down too have changed everything. Truth or error is overthrown by words. Who in history did not censor if they had the power?? The great conclusion in america, later the rest of English civilization, was that to ENSURE the truth and so important truth then freedom to speak/write must be allowed and demanded by a free people who desire truth. Even if powerful words hurt all of us as we score it. Darwin hurt truth. Creationists hurt Darwin. The winner welcomes freedom of write . The loser doesn't. The loser smells a lose by the power of the writer. Whether that writer is finally right/good is beside the point. Origin censorship in spirit and fact is too be expected and more to come. I ask fellow creationists WOULD you rather find elements of the opposition at perfect peace with our writings?? So confident we can't advance the intellectual revolution! A sincere dismissal of our words effectiveness. I welcome their fear and actions as prroof they really think there's a serious threat. Its encouraging for your opposites to feel you are a unique threat in these days. They are right.Robert Byers_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

Granville,
If this is really just garbage, why is it so important to you to stop it from being published, why not just let everyone see what garbage it is?
Read my comment again:
Publication is fine. The problem is the dishonest attempt to pass the conference off as serious science sponsored by a prestigious university and published by a reputable scientific publisher.
keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

CS3 says:
You conveniently left out the first part of the sentence you quoted:
CS3 is referring to the bolded part here:
Thus unless we are willing to argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable, we have to conclude that at least the basic principle behind the second law has in fact been violated here.
CS3 then asks:
So, do you argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable? If so, you have no disagreement with Sewell’s paper.
Umm, CS3, it's the opposite. Granville doesn't think that the influx of solar energy makes those things "not extremely improbable." Thus, he actually does believe that the principle behind the second law has been violated here. Seriously. So of course I disagree with his paper. Notice that his rejection of the compensation argument implies that plants violate the second law by using sunlight to grow. Thus the cornstalks shooting up in my home state of Indiana are cosmic scofflaws, according to Granville's view. If he's right, then we're surrounded by violations of the second law. Now do you begin to see why scientists find Granville's position ridiculous?keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

However, one thing that is not done, and would be considered completely out of line, is for someone to directly interfere with the editorial process of a conference or journal for which they are not a reviewer or editor in order to preemptively prevent the publication of a paper.
Excellent point CS3. Darwinists are the ONLY people who feel they have to resort to this tactic.Granville Sewell_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Keiths, You conveniently left out the first part of the sentence you quoted:
Thus unless we are willing to argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable, we have to conclude that at least the basic principle behind the second law has in fact been violated here.
So, do you argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable? If so, you have no disagreement with Sewell's paper. If not, can I assume that you view Styer and Bunn's compensation argument of expressing evolution in Joules per degree Kelvin per second as completely beyond reproach? Also, do you consider Applied Mathematics Letters as a serious journal? Similar arguments were made in that paper, and it was accepted by that journal's peer-review process (before its later infamous withdrawal "not because of any errors or technical problems found by the reviewers or editors, but because the Editor-in-Chief subsequently concluded that the content was more philosophical than mathematical").CS3_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

Great post Barry! Nick would gladly toss the match. He did so already just by his actions. He had never read the book, which was peer reviewed and ready for publication by Springer, and put pressure on them to pull the book. The panda people were calling for a boycott of Springer just for publishing Biological Information–New Perspectives. They feel they have the right to intimidate publishers from putting out books they don't agree with. If there are mistakes in a book, attack it after it comes out, not before you have even read it. There is much more to this than mere academic freedom. Nick wants to destroy the careers and incomes of those people who promote Intelligent Design. He's putting people on notice that if you come out in support of ID, you will suffer the consequences. Look at how bad Granville Sewell was treated. We have seen this in history before and it never ends well. No matter what your beliefs are, you should speak out against this form of censorship, but I'm afraid most will not. They are either complicit in censorship, or they are a useful idiots.julianbre_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Look no further than your own paper, Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems, for evidence that the BI gathering was not a serious scientific conference
Keiths, Well, here is my paper. It certainly challenges the scientific consensus on this issue, but maybe some people might want to read it before ridiculing it. I have received positive (and negative) feeback from a lot of intelligent scientific minds on this. If this is really just garbage, why is it so important to you to stop it from being published, why not just let everyone see what garbage it is?Granville Sewell_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Ipadron: Agreed. The fact that the objections to the publication of this volume came *before any of the papers* were available, and therefore *before any of the objectors could have read any of the papers* proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the objection concerned *who was involved in the conference*, not *what was presented at the conference*. This is the attitude that is associated with the logical fallacy of *argumentum ad hominem*. The idea is of course that "anything published by *those* guys can't possibly be scientific, so I object to the appearance of those papers in a book by a reputable scientific publisher." Certain people simply decided in advance that the papers wouldn't have any scientific merit; and deciding in advance is what is known as PREJUDICE. (Latin: "*pre*-judgement.") In the Panda's Thumb article linked above, Nick repeats his standard lie -- and in Nick's case, given his level of knowledge, it is not a mere misunderstanding but an actual lie, i.e., a willful misrepresentation -- that ID is creationism, and implies that the conference overall was creationist in intent. His evidence? The fact that John Sanford is a YEC. So if one contributor to an ID conference is a creationist, all the others are, as well? Is that the kind of "logic" that earns one a Ph.D. in biology these days? In any case, I echo Granville Sewell's remark: the conference was not in any direct way an ID conference, even though many ID proponents were there. It was about biological information. And it was a serious academic conference. Many of the papers were very dry and technical, and could be understood fully only by those with graduate training in genetics or computer/information science. The conference was, however, interdisciplinary in attitude, and the contents of papers ranged widely: defining information, computer simulations of evolutionary processes, holistic versus atomistic understandings of biological systems, non-gene-determined aspects of embryonic development, methods of intracellular communication, etc. I should add that not all of the papers presented ended up in the proceedings, and that some excellent papers are not represented -- though I expect those papers will be published elsewhere, and in fact in one case I know this to be true. No religious positions were advanced in any of the papers, and in the opening remarks the conference participants (both presenters and audience members) were admonished not to bring religious matters into the discussions. And they didn't. Without prior knowledge, you couldn't possibly have discerned what anyone's religious beliefs were, any more than you could at any other scientific conference. As for the unwarranted whining about mentioning the name of Cornell: the wording, "a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University…" does not imply that the conference was organized or sponsored by Cornell University. It is simply a fact that the conference took place on the Cornell campus, and the sentence as written is the most natural way in English of expressing that. There was a diverse group of scientists with a common interest in biological information, and they met at Cornell to exchange views on that subject. How else would you express that idea in a short, simple, English sentence?Timaeus_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

Granville, Look no further than your own paper, Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems, for evidence that the BI gathering was not a serious scientific conference. In the paper, you claim that the compensation argument is invalid and that spaceships, computers and the Internet are evidence that "at least the basic principle behind the second law has in fact been violated here." That is so ridiculous, so unsupportable and so bizarre that it would get you laughed out of any reputable physics conference in the world. Yet the BI folks accepted your paper. It was obviously not a serious scientific conference.keiths_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Once again we see evolutionists silencing their critics because they can't refute them. R.I.P scienceBlue_Savannah_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

I (and I imagine there are others here like me) am a scientist who works primarily in a field that, fortunately, is not very politicized. As my work is often interdisciplinary, I also have some familiarity with the literature in a few other fields. Thus, I am familiar with how the "normal" scientific publication and peer-review process works when unencumbered by philosophical implications. I am always amazed how crucial the neo-Darwinists appear to view their claim that ID is not published in peer-reviewed literature, even perfectly willing to justify circumventing the normal peer-review process in ways unheard of in virtually any other (non-politicized) field, in order to attempt to prevent exceptions to this claim. In cases such as the "Biological Information - New Perspectives" proceedings, this apparently extends beyond even anything explicitly ID to anything critical of neo-Darwinism, at least if it is by someone potentially associated with ID. This claim, of course, is not really true. However, whether or not it is true shouldn't really be of much concern to proponents of any theory that rests on solid ground. In my field, as in most if not all others, there are a few major conferences and journals where an accepted paper may be legitimately considered to have some degree of prestige and acceptance within the field, although of course there are often problems even with these. However, there are hundreds, presumably thousands, of conferences, symposia, and journals in my field, many run by fairly small groups of like-minded academics focused on a particular sub-field or a particular approach. There is of course a wide range of quality in the papers published in all these venues. It is not unusual for some of these to be viewed skeptically by many in the field. Even in the best of these, the peer-review process is often flawed in many ways; the scores of reviewers often vary widely from each other and are influenced by human factors, and the chance of acceptance of a paper often depends as much on the luck of which reviewers were chosen as on the quality of the paper. Many, of course, have very high acceptance rates. That is not to say that I do not support the peer-review process, or that I have a better alternative; it is, as they say, the worst process - except for all the others. The bottom line, though, is that no one familiar with the literature in the field would deny that there are many papers that have gone through the peer-review process that nevertheless are pretty much useless, flawed, or, in some cases, contain major errors. This is just among "reputable" academic journals and conferences published by Springer and the like; I am not even considering the shady for-profit conferences and those that have accepted computer-generated "papers" of random nonsense. Now, some may say that this situation, caused largely by the vast proliferation in the number of conferences and journals, is undesirable, and I might well agree, but the fact is this is the current reality. I suspect the case is not much different in the field of evolutionary biology. Thus, in my (non-politicized) field, we have several ways of dealing with the inevitable potential for error in the literature. First, if a paper is relevant to someone's research, he/she will examine it critically him/herself. Useless or erroneous papers will not be cited and will eventually die out, while papers with good ideas will be cited and live on through further research based on them. Survival of the fittest, if you will. Secondly, if someone is enlisted as a reviewer or editor for a particular paper and finds it to be erroneous or of low-quality, he/she will of course give it a poor review and recommend rejection. Thirdly, in some cases, someone may publish a paper or letter to the editor attempting to correct an error. In very rare cases a published paper with egregious or fraudulent errors may be withdrawn. However, one thing that is not done, and would be considered completely out of line, is for someone to directly interfere with the editorial process of a conference or journal for which they are not a reviewer or editor in order to preemptively prevent the publication of a paper. Now, the neo-Darwinists will claim that they want to prevent publications critical of neo-Darwinism in order to preserve the integrity of the scientific literature against such "errors". First, the notion that the peer-reviewed literature is a pure, flawless entity that needs to be protected from any potential error is clearly an exalted and inaccurate view of the scientific process. That, of course, is not to say that one should be apathetic to publishing content that is perceived to be erroneous, but, as described in my previous paragraph, there are well-established ways to do that in the normal scientific process, and none of them involve thuggery, intimidation, or interfering in editorial processes in which you have no role. Yes, just as our "innocent-until-proven-guilty" criminal justice system inevitably means some criminals will go unpunished, this civilized scientific publication process means some errors will inevitably appear in the literature, but that is certainly much preferable to a system ruled by vigilante justice and lynch mobs. Furthermore, in most cases, the claim of protection against specific "errors" is clearly vacuous. How could Matzke have been protecting against specific "errors" in the "Biological Information - New Perspectives" proceedings when he had not even seen the papers? The only thing he knew was the identity of the authors. The very idea of accepting or rejecting a paper based purely on the identity of the author is so repugnant to the normal scientific review process that it is the motivation for the double-blind system used by most reputable journals and conferences. Most (probably all) of the "Biological Information - New Perspectives" authors have had non-controversial articles published in the peer-reviewed literature on topics not specifically related to neo-Darwinism, so they clearly could have written articles worthy of publication by anyone's standards; while he may have had his suspicions, Matzke had no way to know whether their papers in this particular conference would contain his perceived "errors." In the case of Sewell's AMR paper, the journal explicitly admitted that it was withdrawn "not because of any errors or technical problems" - even though I am sure they would have loved to have found an error they could cite in order to save face in their bizarre and virtually unprecedented disregard of their own publication policies. The "Biological Information - New Perspectives" conference was just like countless other relatively small conferences held by like-minded academics on specific topics. The credentials of the authors were indisputably comparable to those at many other conferences. Just like all those other conferences, the fact that it was held, and that the papers were published (even had it been by Springer), does not necessarily mean that it was free of errors, nor that it has wide acceptance in the broader community. But, they have just as much right as any other conference to conduct it free of outside interference from those who have no business being involved. Furthermore, the claim that holding the conference at Cornell was a deceptive attempt to lend credibility by associating it with a major university represents another gross misunderstanding, or, more likely, misrepresentation of academia. Of course the fact that it was at Cornell does not necessarily mean that the university officials read all the papers and officially endorsed it or that the majority of faculty support it. Universities host all kinds of academic conferences, religious activities, athletic events, etc., all the time, and people often mention such events with reference to where they occurred, without anyone ever thinking that implies that the university officially endorses the specific content (so long it is legal and abides by the university policies). Yet the neo-Darwinists are apparently afraid of even this morsel of meaningless "credibility" being lent to it. What's next - will the authors be criticized for listing their academic positions because it would "deceptively" imply endorsement of their papers by their entire universities? In the normal scientific process, we prevent perceived errors in the literature to the extent possible according to standard procedures, and accept that some errors may creep in, with the belief that, when exposed to the community, good ideas will survive while bad ones will eventually die out. Whether true or not, when people such as Matzke engage in such thuggery that would not be tolerated in virtually any other (non-politicized) field, it certainly gives the appearance that they believe deep down that their scientific case is too weak to survive the normal scientific process, and thus can only be defended through ad hominem attacks, including denying any semblance of credibility to critics, and suppression of their arguments.CS3_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

I always wonder what atheists like Mr. Matzke have in mind when they do this kind of thing. Do they believe they're doing it for the good of their fellow man? Upholding the sanctity of their field? When Keith writes: "What I objected to was the idea of its publication by Springer, a respected scientific publisher. That would have created the impression that the symposium was on a par with the serious scientific conferences whose proceedings are also published by Springer.", Or when Mr. Matzke writes: "It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer.", I almost reflexively think: "you have 70, 80 maybe 90 years of life after which you will immediately be forgotten along with everything you did. Who gives a s*** if Springer publishes this thing? How does this affect mankind and why do you care about what happens to mankind after you're gone anyway? How is this worth your getting upset over (in Keith's case) or being a complete tool about it (as is often case with Mr. Matzke)?" I suppose the answer could be something along the pursuit of truth and all that other gobbledy gook that makes little sense from their POV (my opinion, of course). But at no point have I ever gotten the impression that this battle for the truth of darwin or science or whatever else is really about the good of their fellow man. Maybe someone could help me out with this.lpadron_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Keiths in #10
What I objected to was the idea of its publication by Springer, a respected scientific publisher. That would have created the impression that the symposium was on a par with the serious scientific conferences whose proceedings are also published by Springer.
Keiths, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with this kind of, for lack of better word, drivel! This conference was by any standard a serious scientific conference. If you think otherwise, then tell us what was unscientific about it and be sure to elucidate in detail what definition of science you are using to justify denying this conference was both serious and scientific!! For that matter tell us in detail which of the scholars who presented had credentials of any less worth or note than any other scholars at any other serious scientific conference. Your comment is utter nonsense! As Granville has already pointed out, the conference wasn't even about ID, a little detail that Nick 'I'm-the-smartest-guy-in-the-room' Matzke completely overlooks in all his diatribes, fulminations and ranting about this conference. The sciencepresented at this conference was just as serious and just as scholarly as anything else published by Springer or any other science publisher. Sorry to be so blunt, but this kind of nonsense isn't going to fly any more! If this is the best you and Matzke and those of your ilk can muster, then your little pet theory of evolution is in deeper weeds than anyone realizes! Try arguing the science for a change instead of appealing to disguised ad hominems, genetic fallacies and the like. Try putting together an actual argument with, you know, facts, logic and reason!DonaldM_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

Every time I read about someone burning books, I come back to Sean Connery's great line in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: "Goose-stepping morons such as yourself should try reading books instead of burning them!" I was reading an article online today about the most common children's books that are asked to be banned in libraries. I was deeply surprised not to see Judy Blume's name on the list. I was also surprised to see Maurice Sendak's name on the list. It takes great intellectual cowardice to ask for a book to be banned or burned.Barb_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

What I objected to was the idea of its publication by Springer, a respected scientific publisher. That would have created the impression that the symposium was on a par with the serious scientific conferences whose proceedings are also published by Springer.
Keiths, The symposium WAS on a par with other conferences whose proceedings are published by Springer. You want to look through the resumes of the contributors (mine is here ) and tell me who was not on a par with attendees of other scientific conferences? The fact is, those who demanded Springer not publish the proceedings had no idea what was in the proceedings, they just saw Dembski, Marks, Stanford, Behe, et al, names and blacklisted them (see this report ). The talks were mostly (there are always some that are better than others) very high quality, you have no idea what you are talking about.Granville Sewell_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

semi OT: How Not To Defend Atheism - Crazy gay, jewish Atheist goes postal at street preacher - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43WJ4AlOI2Ybornagain77_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

There's a difference between censorship and non-endorsement. I'd never ban a book. Controversially, I don't even delete things from my blog site. I'm all for putting things in the public domain where they can be critiqued by all. That doesn't mean I think that things should have the imprimatur of rigorous peer-review if they haven't had it, or of a prestigious university if all the authors did was rent a room in the hospitality suite. And btw, Granville, Meyer's book was published under the HarperOne imprint, which is a religious imprint; on its website it says it publishes:
The most important books across the full spectrum of religion, spirituality, and personal growth, adding to the wealth of the world's wisdom by stirring the waters of reflection on the primary questions of life while respecting all traditions.
So I wouldn't entirely blame Amazon for the mis-categorisation. They are trying to sell books, and the imprint strongly suggests that people seeking Christian books will be interested in buying it.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

I also have two questions for Nick Matzke. Which of the following is more appropriate to pose to the person who authored this moral and intellectual train-wreck of a post: (1) "Do you think this post represents UD's biggest shark-jump ever, or do you think UD can go even bigger?" (2) "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"LarTanner_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Barry, I can't speak for Nick, though I suspect he (and many ID critics) would agree with my take on this. I didn't and don't object to the publication of the book, per se. I'm glad that it's being published and I've downloaded the PDFs myself. What I objected to was the idea of its publication by Springer, a respected scientific publisher. That would have created the impression that the symposium was on a par with the serious scientific conferences whose proceedings are also published by Springer. For the same reason, I objected to statements like this:
In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University...
The reader is being invited -- begged, even -- to infer that the event was sponsored by Cornell. In reality, Cornell's only involvement was to rent the organizers a room in the School of Hotel Administration. Publication is fine. The problem is the dishonest attempt to pass the conference off as serious science sponsored by a prestigious university and published by a reputable scientific publisher.keiths_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Mr. Arrington, let's extend this hypothetical situation out a bit shall we. Nick if you back several centuries ago and had the chance to burn Principia before it was released to the public would you do it? Sir Isaac Newton's book 'Principia' is considered by many the most important scientific work of all time that had the greatest impact on transforming Western culture. The book contains a General Scholium (General Interpretation) that reads in part,,,
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present: Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book "Principia" http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm
Would you have suppressed Principia if you would have had the chance Nick? Supplemental notes:
On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011 Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_the_fundamental_difference_050451.html Intelligent Design Supporter Expelled from Civil Liberties Organization - podcast - January 2013 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-01-18T19_01_00-08_00
Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a peer-reviewed paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:
Anti-ID Philosopher: "Ad hominem" Arguments "Justified" When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents - Casey Luskin - June 4, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/anti-id_philoso060381.html
Moreover, contrary to what atheists dogmatically claim, it is impossible to do science without theistic presuppositions in the first place:
The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 debate available on the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://theresurgence.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist "Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain." Creation-Evolution Headlines http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110227a At this year's National Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast, University of Oxford professor John Lennox reiterated C.S. Lewis's words: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver”: http://ow.ly/mux2H
bornagain77_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Well, I messed up my link in comment 7, let me try the link again, here Granville Sewell_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

DiEb, I don't know who included the ID tag, I didn't have anything to do with the Library of Congress tags for any of my books, perhaps the publisher (World Scientific) did write this. But it is an inaccurate tag, whoever added it. I guess any paper that criticizes Darwinism, without including an alternative materialistic theory of evolution, is automatically tagged as ID. And of course, even if it were an ID conference, this does not justify outsiders pressuring the publisher to drop it, as was done twice to my paper . By the way, if you read my contribution, you may also claim it is ID. In fact, it is an entirely scientific, logical, paper, there is no appeal to the supernatural, it does not even conclude that the second law has been violated by evolution (see the conclusions) it only criticizes the absurd but still widely used "compensation" argument.Granville Sewell_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

@Granville Sewell, I thought that the publisher generates the data in consultation with the Library of Congress. After all, this is the data you'll find printed in your book!DiEb_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

DiEB, The fact that the library of Congress catalog includes "Intelligent Design" as a classifer does not mean it had anything to do with ID. Someone at amazon.com got "Darwin's Doubt" classified under "Christian Books and Bibles" at first (looks like someone got them to remove that now). In the list of titles, I only see one that mentions Design, and that one was included in the proceedings but was not actually presented at the conference. It was certainly not an ID conference.Granville Sewell_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

He wouldn't do it because his ex boss at the NCSE will give him flak for contributing to global warming. Well maybe she'd make an exception for these papers.scordova_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Biological information--new perspectives : proceedings of a symposium held May 31, 2011 through June 3, 2011 at Cornell University / Robert J. Marks II, Baylor University, USA, Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University, USA, William A. Dembski, Discovery Institute, USA, Bruce L. Gordon, Houston Baptist University, USA John C. Sanford Cornell University, USA. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-9814508711 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Genomics--Congresses. 2. Molecular genetics--Congresses. 3. Cell interaction--Congresses. 4. Mutation (Biology)--Congresses. 5. Intelligent design (Teleology)--Congresses. I. Marks, Robert J., II (Robert Jackson), 1950– QH426.B58 2013 572.8'629--dc23
DiEb_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Barry, Please don't refer to the Cornell proceedings as an "ID-oriented" book. I was at the conference, and while a majority (but certainly not all) of the presenters were ID proponents, I don't recall that ID was ever mentioned by any of the talks. Even if you consider that ID is not science, this was a scientific conference. Since my presentation was basically the same as my withdrawn Applied Mathematics Letters paper, this was the second time this paper had been peer-reviewed, accepted and close to publication when people who had no reason to be involved in the editorial process managed to get it censored. And of course he would burn the books, people like him have shown for 150 years that they would rather intimidate, ridicule or censor opponents, than debate them. BKA: Point taken and the OP has been updated accordingly. Granville Sewell_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

I don't know how I missed that story back in Feb. Shame on him! Clearly when suppression of concepts that contradict the "official" line take place, we are no longer dealing with Science but dogma. So, Nick, tell us in detail, SCIENTIFIC detail how you know scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe anywhere in Nature can not be actual design even in principle? No theology, no philosophy, no metaphysics. Just science. Go Nick...ball is in your court! (hint: I already know you have no scientific answer to my question, because there is none!) Its time for you and all your sycophantic Panda's Thumbsters to fess up and admit you're protecting your philosophical worldview. Banning a book from publication is ample proof of that. If it were otherwise, you'd be content to let the Science speak for itself.DonaldM_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply