RESPONSE TO GOAT.
Before I go on let me quickly adress your responses that were worth responding too. (and by the way I dont require you to paraphrase what you think I really meant,) but I digress. I asked you to provide proof that these people were religiously motivated concerning their scientific views, and you know that is exactly what the challenge was about. Instead of meeting the challenge. You send me evidence that they are Christians. Is this the smoking gun? So by this same standard does this make atheist scientist unqualified to be objective in doing science because they are motivated by atheism or secular humanism? I believe we already went ove this before. So now let me adress your citation.
Quote mining doesn't not mean quoting a person. Quote minning means quoting someone out of context.
This article that you cited (and by the way thank you for citation) is written so badly and filled with so many inaccuracies. I don't even know where to begin. Your own citation seems to do it's own fare share of quote mining. The only difference is, instead of quoting out of context, it paraphrases out of context and actually contradicts itself. Let me give you some examples. In fact I would have preferred if they had used more actual quotes from those defending ID. I guess they found it easier to paraphrase out of context.
Casey Luskin did not quote the Judge out of context. What Talks Origins is trying to do is write an unofficial post trial brief by implying and without any proof and in spite of the judges own words, that what the judge really meant was something else. They claim he is being unfair, but don't blame Luskin. Blame the judge. Those were his words. T.O. criticizes Luskin for leaving out the words in small case letters as follows….
IT HAS FAILED TO PUBLISH IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.
I contend that he has not left out those words in his writings and if he ever did anywhere else, then it is still non relevant and a moot point because Luskin has never even tried to imply that ID held a majority consensus and in fact has continuously said that ID is in the minority, and as for research. Many article are published making correlation's based on the previous work of others. Dawkins and even Eugenie Scott have done this many times before. Furthermore, Bill Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer's have done extensive research and testing of ID theory. I may add that ID has gained acceptance in the science community even if that acceptance only represents a small but growing minority. I also find it very interesting that in another article posted by T.O., they admit and provide a partial list of peer review data published by ID theorist concerning the subject of ID as early as 2005. The trial started in sept of 2005 and some of these articles predate the trial..
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html This seems to contradict their take that there were no peer review articles published on ID.
T.O's response is……
Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
Again a moot point since science is not based on a majority rule. They also try to marginalized, cherry pick and quote mine from these articles themselves. And contrary to their claim, intelligent design has a very short history compared to neo Darwinism and has nowhere near the funding. Furthermore, since then, the amount of peer review articles has increased several fold. I also might add that no one disputes that some type of evolution takes place if we are to define evolution as change over time. Notice how they did not use the word neo Darwinism evolution, or evolutionary change as defined by the modern synthesis which is the current axiom. I already explained these terms in previous threads. If you have any questions concerning these distinctions then see previous threads.
The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues." (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (Citations omitted)
This may have been the one article reference by Behe but it wasn't the only article submitted by the DI. This fact is virtual ignored by T.O. article.
The paragraph does not even provide citation for said review, and the fact that Behe did not rule out evolutionary mechanics does not pertain to its likely hood or statistical probability, hence plausibility, and the phrase "if a biologically realistic population size were used" does not even attempt to define what would be considered "realistic". This is inferred and another attempt to quote out of context. I may add that even Eugenie Scott who was an adviser for the plaintiff in Dover admits that irreducible complexity is a valid scientific term as used by ID theorist. Another little known fact that T.O. has also failed to mention. Also note that there are at least a few mainstream scientist today who are opposed to Behes construct of irreducible complexity and are currently attempting to falsify it, but with still little success. This in itself proves that IC is a scientific construct. Again, a fact that even Eugenie scott admits too.
We see from this that the Judge, in fact, discussed a peer-reviewed article by Behe and Snoke but found it did not support ID. Instead, the article tried (unconvincingly) to rule out one common genetic mechanism of evolution but not all such mechanisms. For a more detailed discussion about this, see the article "Theory is as Theory Does" at The Panda's Thumb.
They actual contradict the judge who said….
In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals.
Here they admit that there was indeed "a peer-reviewed article by Behe and Snoke" Again a distortion and a classic case of quote mining itself by paraphrasing. I will clarify below.
Behe never said or claimed that some evolutionary mechanisms were not valid and in fact I know of no one who does make this claim. So trying to use this next sentence as a non qualifier only makes my point.….. E.g. '
Instead, the article tried (unconvincingly) to rule out one common genetic mechanism of evolution but not all such mechanisms"
This is also another example of cherry picking Behe's work. It is also an example of a judge who is not even qualified as a scholarly peer, to peer review an article that already passed an initial peer review by referee scholars just to get it published.
T.O. goes on to quote mine this statement….
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe))
What they don't tell you is that Behe has said the same about the lack of rigorous detailed accounts for a Neo Darwinian causation. What else I find interesting is that to people who are not court savvy. This quote would leave them with the impression that those were Behes words, when they were actually the words of a sharp lawyer, and we all know that lawyers are not paid to accommodate the opposing parties contextual explanations. They're paid to win cases by any means possible including quote mining.
SUMMARY
You have not provided any proof that Casey Luskin or anyone else quoted anyone out of context. And again, if he has ever left the out the words concerning the fact that ID was a minority, or that neo Darwinist are in the majority, or any other way you want to phrase it. Its a moot point since a majority consensus has never been the claim, and the DI has repeated this over and over.
I may add that of to date there are now at least 50 peer review articles and growing concerning intelligent design.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Last but not least, let me supply proof that Casey Luskin has not cherry picked or quote mined the judges ruling, and in fact includes these word in his own articles. Again I repeat that Casey Luskin has written in his own words what the judge actually said, including the full quote and omitting nothing as shown in link below. Therefore the writer of the T.O. article that you cited is either ignorant or a liar.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1475
I also suggest you actually watch the video Traipsing Into Evolution: which is what T.O. is belly aching about. Forty two minutes into the video he also cites full quote which T.O. accuses him of omitting. The book actually goes into further detail.
