More academic journals discussing ID

I predict that the ID folks will quote-mine these articles and claim them as examples of favorable mentions of ID in 'peer-reviewed journals'.

I just read about this paper (Howard, J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1094) in the latest issue of the Chemical and Engineering News. Apparently a University of Alaska YEC chemistry professor managed to slip a paper into the Journal of Chemical Education that apparently portrays potassium/argon dating as innacurate, in the guise of a critical thinking exercise for undergraduates. This isn't even IDC but pure YEC.

Here is a creationist response to the NEJM article...

Here is a creationist response to the NEJM article...

OK, one more time and repeat after me ... The MN Academic Standards in Science do not promote or allow the teaching of non-scientific theories in science class.

Otherwise, Ushma Neill's article was pretty good. I sent a response to the Journal of Clinical Investigation and directed their readers to the earier link posted here (Brief History of MN Science Stds).

Good to see that non-biologists are bothering to enter the fray in defence of science.

"If we don't hang together we'll hang seperately."

- JS

Here is a creationist response to the NEJM article...

Tara, one of your nitpicks was a statement that "not all flagella are complicated." And you said that you would argue the opposite.

But it's a silly argument. "Complicated" is not a meaningful descriptor in the context of the extraordinary claims of the ID peddlers. You might as well argue whether flagella are "cute" or "scary."

One question of fact: does every known bacterial flagella consist of the identical number of protein subunits and/or amino acids? Do some flagella contain less subunits and/or amino acids? If so, the those flagella might reasonably be argued to be less complicated under commonly accepted definitions of the term "complicated."

All of this, of course, is just further evidence that Michael Behe is an idiot and a professional obfuscator who happily lies and contradicts himself whenver he is asked to explain in precise terms what the hell he is talking about.

Wow! The AiG article is so full of bullshit, it was painful to sit through.

I'm sure this is old news to the PT veterans out there, but amongst all the crap being tossed about,3 things struck me as particularly irritating.

1. The implication that since many practicing biologists are not explicitly involved with evolutionary mechanisms on a daily basis, this somehow renders evolutionary theory "irrelevent." So I guess, since I'm not determining wave functions or calculating ground state energies on a daily basis during my duties as an industrial chemist, that this renders Quantum Mechanics irrelevent. Damn! All that tuition wasted!

Which reminds me....the AiG guys might want to take a closer look at this Quantum Mechanics stuff. As I recall, the Schrodinger Equation doesn't mention God. I think I've uncovered another Atheist conspiracy to keep God out the science classroom!

2. The personal beliefs of people like Pasteur and Lister are irrelevent. I don't know offhand what Pasteur or Lister believed, but their work, not their beliefs, was scrutinized and reproduced by others and thus came to be accepted as scientific knowledge. Who the hell cares what their personal beliefs were?

Maybe the author of this article would also like to include Galileo and Archimedes in his list of Guys Who (Supposedly) Wouldn't Have Agreed with Darwin.

3. The really irritating claim that Evolution = Atheism = Nazism = Communism. Apparently AiG's knowledge of history is as bad as their knowledge of science. But then again, why let pesky things like facts, whether they're scientific or historical, get in the way of your dogma?

Tara, one of your nitpicks was a statement that "not all flagella are complicated." And you said that you would argue the opposite. But it's a silly argument. "Complicated" is not a meaningful descriptor in the context of the extraordinary claims of the ID peddlers. You might as well argue whether flagella are "cute" or "scary." One question of fact: does every known bacterial flagella consist of the identical number of protein subunits and/or amino acids? Do some flagella contain less subunits and/or amino acids? If so, the those flagella might reasonably be argued to be less complicated under commonly accepted definitions of the term "complicated."

— Registered User

One question of fact: does every known bacterial flagella consist of the identical number of protein subunits and/or amino acids? Do some flagella contain less subunits and/or amino acids? If so, the those flagella might reasonably be argued to be less complicated under commonly accepted definitions of the term "complicated."

Not germane to this post, but I wanted to confess a transgression:

I surreptitiously introduced my religious beliefs into a science classroom, of 300+ freshman chemistry students.

I drew a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the board, but renamed it "The Homework Monster (FEED ME!)" in an ill-considered bid to avoid charges academic misconduct. I may even have blasphemed--can other pastafarians tell me where in our sacred texts it discusses the worship of our deity under a different name? Oh, I'm afraid I'm going to boil in bolognese sauce AND lose my graduate position!

No problem: 20 Hail Marinaras and 10 Pasta Nosters ought to do it.

RAmen, brother. Go in peace.

3. The really irritating claim that Evolution = Atheism = Nazism = Communism. Apparently AiG's knowledge of history is as bad as their knowledge of science.

Comment #54062 Posted by rdog29 on October 27, 2005 01:39 PM (e) (s) Wow! The AiG article is so full of bullshit, it was painful to sit through.

I can think of one thing. Heddle's Sensitivity...

I recant---you have rendered all my arguments null and void by your stunning observation that whether a physical constant is small or large depends on the units one employs. I can find no satisfactory rejoinder.