4
Thomas Cudworth
07/10/2011
11:39 pm
Gil, I hear and I sympathize.
By “competent” I meant competent as understood by current practitioners, i.e., by scientists whose full-time job is evolutionary biology. I’m not implying that evolutionary biology has got very far in explaining anything. I’m implying only that some people are far more versed in the evolutionary biology literature than others, i.e., keep up with the latest theoretical models and the latest data, while others “keep up” only by reading Scientific American.
It’s my working hypothesis that Miller, Falk, Venema, Moran, Myers, Pennock, Scott, etc., would not be considered competent *in current evolutionary theory* by the vast majority of full-time practitioners. They would be thought of as in some cases good scientists in their own special areas, and in other cases as useful popularizers of evolution, but not as making any original contribution to understanding how evolution works.
If I am right, we would expect to find few or no scientific conference papers or refereed secular journal articles on evolutionary biology written by any of these people in the past ten years.
So I’m giving these people the chance to disprove my hypothesis by writing in and telling us what they have published, and what conferences they have read papers at.
I will take silence as confirmation of my hypothesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Working hypothesis? LMAO!
You're just trying to stir up shit over nothing.
Who gives a fuck what you "will take"?
Maybe you'd be kind enough to explain why any of the people you mentioned, including "etc.", would even bother reading your swill on UD, and why they would or should feel the need to respond to your asinine demands?
And I'm waiting for you to show all the papers on evolutionary biology that you and other ID/creationists have published, and presented at any science conferences, ever.
What exactly is a "secular" journal, and why did you include the word "secular"?
