My responses to the ID 'Quiz' made it posted. This is a first. Every other submittal to Uncommon Descent got lost in the ether somewhere. But the 'quiz' promoter doesn't like my responses, oh well.
He did respond to my first comment, about this is not being a quiz. Here is his response:
"[vjtorley responds: This is a rather pedantic quibble. OK, maybe I should have said "questionnaire" rather than "quiz". And no, I am not planning on using this survey for marketing. I simply wanted to get people's opinions.]"Aw, he thinks it's a pedantic quibble. So what? I take it any form of Master's level research skills are not in your background. If you ever tried to defend your thesis and called your 'survey' a 'quiz', you probably wouldn't not have made it past the first page. It's called rigor in your methodology. Maybe it is a quibble-- but try and do a better job next time.
Here is the rest of his response. It's pretty funny."
Hmm, you dislike my tone? Oh well, interesting how you ask my opinion and then criticize what you assume to be my tone. Sounds like you are revealing your own prejudices.
Well, I have posted your response, T.H., although I have to say that its sneering, arrogant, know-it-all tone only confirms my belief that you're blustering.
T.H., you state on your Website that Information Technology and computer programming are your areas of expertise, and that you teach at a college. Fine. I'd like you to have a look at the Website of Dr. Don Johnson, who has Ph.D.s in both informational and natural sciences, who taught 20 years in universities in Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Europe, and who once believed anyone not accepting the "proven" evolutionary scenario was of the same mentality as someone believing in a flat Earth. Now he's an ID supporter. Please tell me why I should believe you instead of Dr. Johnson. It seems that he has a lot more academic experience than you do. By the way, have you read his book, "Programming of Life"?
You talked about "real Science, Biology, Evolution, Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Chemistry." Funny. There are real scientists in all those fields who support Intelligent Design. How do you explain that?
You say ID proponents should get out in the lab more often. Have you ever heard of a guy named Douglas Axe, and the work he's doing with proteins? And there are dozens more people doing good scientific work like Dr. Axe. Have a look here, to see just a few names: http://biologicinstitute.org/people/ . You're saying all these people are deluded, and you're not?
By the way, your own post contains one spelling mistake and one major grammatical error. I won't even bother mentioning the other minor ones.
"Evidenciary" is a mis-spelling. The correct spelling is "evidentiary". And "dissociate" is preferable to "disassociate".
Finally, we say "bereft of", not "bereft from".
I dislike pedantry myself, but I won't tolerate being lectured by you in that tone, thank you very much. Goodbye.]
No, I am not familiar with Dr. Don Johnson or his website, I have no idea what his thinking is when it comes to Intelligent Design. I am also not asking you to believe me. You were asking for my opinion, I didn't realize I was supposed to temper it for your sensibilities.
I am familiar with the Discovery Institute owned-and-operated Biologic Institute. I am also quite familiar with the lack of scientific work that has come out of that Institute. Oh they have published a few things, but how much their actual peer-reviewed scientific publications have supported ID? However they are as guilty as the rest of the DI who publish ID marketing materials in the popular press rather than scientific or academic press, present their 'work' in front of supporters at religious gatherings, and have an annoying tendency of failing to support their popular press writings with any sort of scientific methodology or even visibility.
The Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at SMU, Dr. Mark A. Chancey has this to say about ID:
- Intelligent Design originated within certain religious circle.
- [ID] has credibility only within those same circles-mostly theologically conservative Christian groups that find aspects of evolutionary theory threatening.
- Few ID advocates hold full-time professorial positions in pertinent fields at mainstream colleges and universities.
- Many ID proponents with academic positions work at religious institutions devoted to promoting particular theological views.
- ID proponents have published very few articles in peer-reviewed journals.
- They have created their own in-house journals that they describe as "peer-reviewed." . . . universities do not consider a self-serving house organ as truly peer-reviewed; such venues are regarded as fake journals.
- IDers sometimes publish books-but most of these are with religious, not academic, presses.
- ID research is not rigorous, substantial or convincing enough to be published in genuine academic venues.
- Unable to publish their work in legitimate academic venues, they nonetheless present it as cutting-edge science.
- Unable to gain acceptance in the scientific community, they nonetheless claim to be gaining momentum
- They deny or obscure the fact that ID is grounded in a particular religious worldview and yet regard it as a tool to promote socially and theologically conservative Christian positions.
"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."You obviously are a drinker of the particular kool-aid and you can call my comments blustering or not -- but I did notice you did not address the meat of any of my comments. Why is that? You point me to Biologics and yet you fail to recognize their own lack of ID research. You toss Don Johnson under the bus, yet you never explain why ID cannot be explained without eventually resorting to religion and belief. You certainly never addressed the lack of visibility and methodology in the popular press publications that claim to be cutting edge science?
Obviously you are less interested in opinions that do not already support your position, because you also failed to note why Uncommon Descent is your choice of venue.
No, instead of addressing it, you correct a spelling and grammar error.
BTW, 'evidenciary' is a term frequently used in legal circles and is an accepted alternate spelling for evidentiary -- neither of which is frequently found in spell-checkers. Also 'Bereft' is frequently used with 'of', but that is not its only use, simply a very common one. Thanks for nothing. Bye!