Are you saying the scientists did not behave badly towards Sternberg for not deleting the comment about ID?
Speciation leads to, and explains, common descent.
You really should be speaking to the issues of Speciation⌠I think Iâm going to have to flag your ongoing refusal to engage your correspondents on the relevant issues, and that you, instead, just keep repeating the same phrases, without coherence and without a conclusion.
http://trolls.visitdenmark.com/sites/default/files/poppy2.jpg
2 Likes
No. I am just pointing out that the source YOU provided makes it abundantly clear the problem was not the ID content of the paper.
1 Like
You speak in riddles, @davidroemer.
So what do you think was the problem with the paper? Or are you asserting that there was no problem at all with the paper, and the problem was in the person who wanted to âburyâ the ID content?
Just to expand your comprehension in general on the I.D. context ⌠Theistic Evolutionists reject the ID premise that science can demonstrate what is a miraculous action by God and what is a natural process of God. We think this is an inherently religious viewpoint, and thus not an appropriate scope of activity for professional or academic scientists.
I canât think of anyway to say more clearly what I have already said. Your mistake may be that you are assuming I am in favor of ID and/or creationism so you misconstrue everything I say. I just gave a negative review a book by a âtheistic evolutionist,â Ted Peters and Marty Hewlett on Amazon.com. BioLogos and the American Scientific Association are made up of âtheistic evolutionists.â What âtheistic evolutionistsâ have in common is that they hate advocates of ID and Creationism more than they hate the atheistic science establishment. The atheistic science establishment disseminates misinformation of evolutionary biology to promote atheism, and âtheistic evolutionistsâ go along with the misinformation. The misinformation I am addressing is this topic is this:
- Natural selection, Lamarkism, natural genetic engineering, and facilitated variation explain only adaptation, not speciation and common descent.
- Biologists, like Michael Behe do not disagree with mainstream biologists, like Kenneth Miller about biology. There is only a conflict between them about ID, which you are right to say is not science.
- It is absurd to say ID is not testable. This is just a trick to avoid an honest rational discussion about biological evolution. ID is irrational because there is no evidence for it. ID does not satisfy our need to know and understand everything.
- ID is motivated by religious enthusiasm. It is just an understandable mistake. Hating ID and doing to Sternberg what his colleagues did at the Smithsonian is disgusting behavior.
Why do you persist in your assertion that there is hatred toward ID proponents, Creationists, OR atheists? Even thought I believe all three are wrong, I certainly donât hate atheists for their beliefs. And the ID Proponents and Creationists are my Christian brothers and sisters!
2 Likes
What problem are you talking about? 1) There are two issues: Was Sternberg wrong to publish the paper without deleting the reference to ID? 2) Was his colleaguesâs behavior at the Smithsonian deplorable?
Why do you just say false thing after false thing? What are you trying to accomplish here?
Wrong. He was wrong to publish the paper without proper peer review.
Again, based on your source no.
@gbrooks9
There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason, you know something is true because it is supported by evidence or because you see it with your eyes. In faith, you know something is true because God is telling you. I would not call the gift of faith a âprocess.â Processes occur in science, not in metaphysics or theology.
An easy mistake to make since you have never clearly stated what YOUR position is. All we have to work with is your reaction to various and sundry quotes.
@Bill_II
It is my understanding that there were three peer-reviewers. They thought the mention at the end of ID was just a philosophical comment that did not detract from the scientific value of the paper. Sternbergâs mistake was not to delete the reference to ID. Also, he did it behind the backs of the other editors at the journal.He was publicly criticized for his behavior. But I am criticizing the behavior of his colleagues at the Smithsonian.
I am not so sure about that. While the beginning of faith or being led to faith is a gift, we speak of faith growing, of life experiences strengthening faith, of building faith. Those sound like processes.
1 Like
I congratulate you on making some of your position more understandable. You really could have sped up the process. But thatâs water under the bridge.
I have highlighted your point (1):
- Natural selection, Lamarkism, natural genetic engineering, and facilitated variation explain only adaptation, not speciation and common descent.
You still arenât âgetting itâ.
A} Common Descent results from a repeated sequence of speciation.
B] Speciation results from an accumulation of genetic changes in a sub-population that once interbred with members of the original species.
C] Adaptation is a term that can apply to Speciation, or just changes in the ratios of alleles in a population (without triggering speciation) in response to Natural Selection.
As for your comments about Atheists, I have noticed that BioLogos supporters sometimes get along with Atheists better than with Creationists, because Atheists donât believe the Earth was created in six 24 hour periods. But only if the Atheists donât challenge BioLogos supportersâ views on God and his involvement in divinely guided Evolution or other special activities in the natural world.
I donât believe I have used the phrase âgift of faithâ in this thread. So I donât know why you are bringing it up in your response to my posting.
I would find your writings about natural processes more persuasive . . . once you have demonstrated a familiarity with how terminology used in the study of Evolution actually ties together in a specific way ⌠and that you are actually listening to what the professionals are saying to you on this thread.
If you use the phrase âCommon Descentâ inappropriately and erroneously just one more time, I will know you really have no interest in learning what is true and not true - - and Iâll leave you to your own devices.
So you agree he should have been criticized correct? Then what makes the behavior of his colleagues so bad? Much of what has been said about this has been overblown and since I wasnât there I really canât judge what may or may not have happened. In cases such as this I tend to believe the true lies somewhere in the middle. He was justly criticized by his colleagues and that is pretty much the extent of the dust up.
@gbrooks9
I am having trouble understanding how this forum works. The phrase âgift of faithâ came up because someone suggested that the Resurrection of Jesus was a âsupernatural process.â I said it was an historical event. The faith response to the Resurrection is a gift from God. This is not a supernatural process.
Why donât you read the report. It is on the Discovery website:
âIntolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonianâs Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.â
I brought this up because it illustrates how irrational people are about evolution. My topic is very simple and easy to understand. I proved, by quoting from a non-biologists. that a lot of people think 100 million decades is plenty of time for elephants to descend from bacteria because of natural selection. Biologists know better. They know that natural selection only explains adaptation to the environment. The only way I can make any sense of the response Iâm getting from this simple truth, is that BioLogos wants to perpetrate the pseudoscience that natural selection explains how elephants descended from bacteria in 100 million decades. I am not using the phrase âcommon descentâ because I have been threatened for using this word.
Processes refer to scientific observations. We observe embryoâs transforming into adults in 2 decades. That is a process. I observe also that I have free will. That is not a scientific observation. It is a metaphysical observation.
@gbrooks9
Wow. I am not a biologist. But I thought I knew what common descent meant. Please explain to me what it means. My guess is that what is upsetting you is that I am saying we donât know what caused âŚopps. I canât complete the sentence without using the phrase.