Tim plainly said “their own work”, not the work of those that come before. And yes, researchers would reasonably be expected to possess a better understanding.
3 Likes
But it doesn’t help.
Even assuming the truth or factualness of these “sources they cite” gives no warrant for the automatic assumption that “some ID-Creationist apologist” will not have insights beyond those sources. What it does is rule out beforehand that “some ID-Creationist apologist” can have such insights.
Is there a requirement that that be made clear?
I think it helps tremendously by providing the context you deleted. That wouldn’t help you, of course.
Once again, it’s not about building on the work of others, it’s about misrepresenting the work of others.
You conveniently omitted that part of my response, just as you conveniently omitted the original context.
I do not think you are being straight.
No, but failing to do so reinforces the impression that you are being (unsuccessfully) deceptive.
2 Likes
The history of IDcreationism tells us that there have been zero useful insights from IDcreationist apologists. If there had been, there would be an active research program instead of an endless stream of dishonest apologetics.
4 Likes
Your reply is representative of vacuous partisanship that led Gunter to laugh at the suggestion of Joshua Swamidass that Gunter engage on this platform and for Joshua to apparently concede his point here,
Why, one would wonder would it be necessary to have protected threads?
There is obviously a lot other than “Peaceful Science” taking place.
How do you overstate your case like that? What have I deleted? You and I in particular and anyone else is welcome to read any of the context of the discussion. I have deleted nothing.
Seriously? I’m being deceptive by making a comment on a comment. Get a grip.
More partisan claptrap, that is demonstrably false.
“Michael Behe has done a top notch job of explaining and illuminating one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of the complexity that permeates all of life on this planet. Professor Behe selects an answer that falls outside of science: the original creation of life by an intelligent designer. Many scientists, myself included, will prefer to continue the search for an answer within science. Nonetheless, this book should be on the essential reading list of all those who are interested in the question of where we came from, as it presents the most thorough and clever presentation of the design argument that I have seen.”
-ROBERT SHAPIRO, AUTHOUR OF ORIGINS: A SKEPIC’S GUIDE TO THE CREATION OF LIFE ON EARTH
You sure love to create straw men by omissions.
Here’s the criterion:
In what way is a comment about a book an active research program, Sam? Please demonstrate the equivalence, since you claimed that what I wrote was “demonstrably false.”
2 Likes
In what part of my comment did I suggest that it was?
What would give you the idea that my comment was addressing what you’ve bolded. Nothing but your tendency to see red when anyone might suggest the possibility that even scientists at the discovery institute can have a scientific insight. That just demonstrates your partisanship that can’t read a comment as it was intended.
I quoted you, and then (I’d think it was crystal clear) addressed that quoted portion. The quoted portion only.
Obviously, the atheist Robert Shapiro was able to glean some ‘useful insights’ from Behe’s work. Shapiro was able to maintain his atheism and materialism without having to ignore the valuable work that Behe had done. Work on a problem the partisans wished to ignore.
That kind of a statement puts the hyperbole to the claim that the “Peaceful Scientists” really want to engage.
(54:38 in the linked video above.)
Good grief. Are you kidding?
A useful insight is one that inspires actual work, not words.
Everything.
Your partisan, pseudoscientific intent is perfectly clear.
The text that followed explained the part you quoted. Again, a comment about a book is obviously not a demonstration of a useful scientific insight, because actions speak much louder than words.
None that inspired any actual scientific work. That was the definition that you are trying to ignore.
Behe quit doing scientific work nearly 30 years ago. If you think it’s valuable, do some science. Behe clearly can’t think of anything to do scientifically. Now, he primarily misrepresents the work of others.
Behe’s “work” deceiving gullible laypeople has been addressed in detail here. Do you not know how to use the search button?
Speaking of hyperbole, engagement in a scientific sense starts with talking about plans to do science. Behe clearly has no intention of ever doing so. Ann Gauger’s response to my pointing out an obvious ID hypothesis was hilarious and the antithesis of scientific engagement.
3 Likes
No, the “warrant” comes from their motivation as apologists. Apologists see science simply as building materials for arguments-for-God. Thus, they generally lack the motivation to immerse themselves in the science with any depth, so lack the expertise to generate “insights beyond those sources” (those sources generally having a high level of expertise in the fields under discussion).
A blatant example of this is Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt, where one of Meyer’s cited sources, Charles Marshall, in a review for Science concluded that the book is “compromised by Meyer’s lack of scientific knowledge” (among other flaws).[1]
4 Likes
That is circular.
Accordingly, it is impossible for an apologist to have a scientific insight.
And that is an example of your ‘reasoning’? Nothing I’d be proud of.
That is not a very specific critique is it? What point is he challenging Meyer on? I’m sure that Meyer has much more scientific knowledge than some and much less scientific knowledge than others. Is there some here that don’t fit that description? Myself excepted. Virtually everyone has greater scientific knowledge than I.
I can however spot the circularity in your comment.
And I have no requirement that anyone to have never made an error. I’m sure Meyer has made them. What should I conclude from that?
The issue is that the objective of apologetics is not scientific insight. Discovering a natural mechanism for a phenomena is regarded as spoiling the argument.
4 Likes
How?
I would demur at “impossible”, I’d say rather “highly unlikely”. But then I’d also it’s highly unlikely that a plumber “have a scientific insight” – as a plumber, like an apologist, is not focused on " immers[ing] themselves in the science with any depth".
Is there a reason for this vacuous piece of baiting? Given your carefully context-free original comment, I feel exactly zero interest in what “reasoning” you’d “be proud of.”
I don’t think you understand what a ‘conclusion’ is. 
If you want a “specific critique”, then read the whole review.
Why don’t you read the review, rather than sealioning.
Yes, like all ID apologists, Meyer has just enough scientific knowledge to make his arguments sound sciency to his scientifically-illiterate target audience, but not nearly enough to come even close to convincing the scientific community of their claims.
Is there some relevance to his question? I would suggest that most here either (i) possess considerably more scientific knowledge than Meyer, or (ii) disavow any claim to have any particular scientific expertise.
Then please do articulate it. 
Your repeated bare bald assertion of it is getting somewhat tedious.
Given that I never suggested such a standard, and would doubt that Meyer’s misrepresentations are honest errors, I would “conclude from that” that you are simply throwing red herrings in my path.
2 Likes
I’m not sure I recall a single instance where any of Meyer’s misrepresentations have been plausibly attributed to error. Most of the time it’s very clear that he’s lying. But yes, if he were to commit an error, that would be excusable. Perhaps you have an example in mind? I’ve never seen one.
6 Likes
I would imagine that, unlike Meyer, those of us here who fit the description regarding a particular subject do not write books on that subject. If you want to know what point Meyer needs to be challenged on you could, I suppose, read Marshall’s review, though it’s necessarily short and doesn’t touch on many things. You could also read other reviews, for example this one.
5 Likes
This:
Thanks.
1 Like
You actually responded to the very sentence in which the review of Meyers book, in Science, by Charles Marshall, was mentioned. You said that a quote from it wasn’t very specific. Do you remember that at all?
2 Likes
and,
is not specific.
I had forgotten the name Marshall though and when I came across,
I was unaware of who was being referred to.
I’ll take a look however and see if I can understand any of it.