Discovery Institute loses one

I'll help out with that list.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

shall we start a thread in links and information? compile the list there?

---

אָרַח

Sure. I could spare a little time for this. I think it would be worth the effort and the timing is right.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

alright, i've started another thread for it, in l&i: http://EvC Forum: Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster

---

אָרַח

That assumes that he took a skeptical line and investigated the DI rather than believing whatever representations they made to him. And he would likely be predisposed to believe people presenting themselves as Christians and scientists. Also it's clear from the article that he hadn't considered the theological aspects fully, either.

This is part of the problem that I have with the endorsed statement: it is intentionally couched in reasonable terms that most scientists would agree to, while the USE of the list is hardly on the same terms.Of course people are "skeptical" of the ability to explain "all" mechanismsBut being skeptical is a long way from endorsing pseudoscience in the place of working science.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'm not sure what "representations" were or were not made. As I posted, with the information currently available on the web site, one can easily form an opinion about the org. If you add to that someone with the credentials Davidson has, then he should have had a good idea about what he was getting into beforehand and should not have become "surprised". Most people are more critical of an organization if they send membership dues.Sure, there are legions of willfully blind donors who support the likes of Benny Hinn. They send in money month after month without question. But I wouldn't put Davidson in that category.Still, there could be scenarios where Davidson joined in good faith only to discover later that his perception of DI was not correct. For example:

1. The ID articles at the time Davidson joined were not so blatant towards pushing ID as a controversy between science and religion.
   ​
2. Davidson was never asked whether he agreed to have his name posted on the 400 list.
   ​
3. As a member, Davidson could have been exposed to material not on the website that could have settled his initial concerns.

These questions are why I think our little project would be interesting.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:49 AM

Agreed, when the list is used as an endorsement of ID as science, that's wrong.But the first half of the statement:

quote:

---

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE?

---

Begs the question.What to do about this skepticism? It seems to me that ID may be an avenue to explore that skepticism.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:50 AM

quote:

---

What to do about this skepticism? It seems to me that ID may be an avenue to explore that skepticism.

---

But why do you think that? the main people behind ID haven't actually done anything resembling science with the concept in years. It appears they realised it was a busted flush years ago and that when they switched over to the current tactic of "teaching the controversy".I have no problem with exploring design - but the concept of ID seems to have finished as a scientific effort a while back.

Well, I prefer to keep the door open on the possibility that a brilliant mind may come along to upturn the whole subject and put something forward that scientists can get their teeth into. It's happened before. Consider the long history of changing scientific viewpoints as a result of new discoveries.If our "Truth in ID" project shows that the 400 list is accurate and these scientist do hold skepticism regarding the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Then ID is the avenue to explore it. Frankly, I'm very interested in their comments.The "teach the controversy" tactic was ill conceived and is beginning to do more harm to the cause than good. I suspect it probably does not represent an acceptable approach by the majority of scientific members. Again, our project may shed insights on this if it is included as a question in the e-mail.This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:52 AM

Hi Monk...I am waitng too!I have never had a response to my question aired here @eVC as to a possible probabilistic origin to the "movement". If we are constantly being confused about what the "constituents" of an ID 'event'is are we forever confined to Bill Clinton's "is is" place? I hype and hope not.

Hi Brad Yes, and I doubt that "origin" was solely religious. You know how science abhors leaving questions unanswered. Its an itch that one must attempt to scratch.

That's what I am suspecting...indeed!!

Does it? Or does it suggest that there could be other natural mechanisms possible and that they shouldn't be discounted out of hand just because we already have mutation and natural selection?I would not rule out the possibility of other perfectly natural mechanims that would not fall into either a {mutation} or a {natural selection} category.For instance a virus splicing in a section of {alien} DNA in an infected species gives it a changed genome that is NOT due to a mutation.Again, they did not specifically ask for an endorsement of ID in the statement (yet it is still presented as one) all they did was couch skepticism in seductive phraseology.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why? What give ID any better credibility than uncle bob's crank ideas?Let me rephrase that: what gives ID a single element of credibility compared to uncle bob's crank ideas?If evolution shows why people can't fly, and we cannot explain {theoretical event A} by the current theories of evolution, then we can fly???

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}