Is Intelligent Design dead?

[Meleagar]

Quote by: dan4reason Maybe there is a reason that intelligent design does not have any peer reviewed papers. .

ID researchers have had several papers peer-reviewed and published.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Meleagar Well, if you say so.

Just because you can prove evolution wrong does not mean you will. The idea that the earth is round is falsifyable because you can go into space and see if it is.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Meleagar ID researchers have had several papers peer-reviewed and published.

Can I see them?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: dan4reason Can I see them?

Actually meleagar is correct, some have slipped through the next.

CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review

[Meleagar]

Quote by: dan4reason Just because you can prove evolution wrong does not mean you will. The idea that the earth is round is falsifyable because you can go into space and see if it is.

Apparently, you haven't been following the debate. ID isn't in competition with "evolution", nor is any IDer "trying to prove evolution wrong". ID is a disagreement with a specific Darwinian interpretation of one particular aspect of modern evolutionary theory: that random mutation & natural selection are the best explanations for the origin and development of functionally specified complex biological information. ID doesn't have anything to say about common descent or the time period involved, nor does it claim that RM & NS are "non-factors" in evolution.

A finding that ID was involved in the advent and development of that kind of biological information wouldn't disprove evolution; it would just be another explanatory feature of evolutionary theory which would at least partially replace RM & NS in some areas.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: dan4reason Can I see them?

In addition to those chris linked to, I linked to some previously in this thread. You might try actually researching a subject before you reiterate what others have told you about it. If you're interested in informing yourself about ID, I suggest you begin here, with a list of frequently used weak arguments against ID that have been repeatedly refuted.

If anyone wants to read an excellent case for why ID is science, and why ID is not creationism, and a strong evidence and logic-based argument for ID as "best explanation" for the FSCI we find in biology, I strongly suggest reading "Signature in the Cell" by Meyer.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Meleagar I strongly suggest reading "Signature in the Cell" by Meyer.

And I strongly suggest you read a bit of Dawkins to cast some light on such superstition and denial of the facts.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: GeminiBrian And I strongly suggest you read a bit of Dawkins to cast some light on such superstition and denial of the facts.

There's a difference between denying a fact, and offering a different interpretation of what facts mean. ID isn't based on any "superstition"; it's entirely predicated upon known facts.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Meleagar There's a difference between denying a fact, and offering a different interpretation of what facts mean. ID isn't based on any "superstition"; it's entirely predicated upon known facts.

Trouble is, all these 'alternative explanations' are never based on any research, just theorising - and that's probably why such arguments are so easy to refute compared to regular science, which actually does the hard graft.

If it wasn't for the inescapable challenge presented by advancing science, the people who now espouse Creationism would still be happy to believe in the Garden of Eden myth in the most literal sense because they prefer simplistic answers.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Trouble is, all these 'alternative explanations' are never based on any research, just theorising - and that's probably why such arguments are so easy to refute compared to regular science, which actually does the hard graft.

False. ID theorists conduct their own research in their own lab, and get papers published in mainstream venues. In any event, all scientific ID theories are based on research (whether their own or someone else's), and such research is cited and quoted in their work.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Meleagar False. ID theorists conduct their own research in their own lab, and get papers published in mainstream venues. In any event, all scientific ID theories are based on research (whether their own or someone else's), and such research is cited and quoted in their work.

Even if this is the case, I'm not very impressed... Any research that sets out with a particular agenda to prove is flawed from the start, since the conclusions have already been reached, and are therefore not amenable to open-minded, disinterested interpretation such as proper science demands.

On that basis, what I have found so far in a keen reading of both sides of the argument is that Creationism is more than capable of both ignoring many vital facts, and of blatantly distorting others to fit the ready-made scenario it so recklessly promotes.

That is not science, and never will be.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Even if this is the case, I'm not very impressed... Any research that sets out with a particular agenda to prove is flawed from the start, since the conclusions have already been reached, and are therefore not amenable to open-minded, disinterested interpretation such as proper science demands.

The agenda of the scientists is irrelevant to the work they produce and have peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals. I can make a similar claim about Darwinist research and papers; motive-mongering isn't a viable debate when it comes to making rational inferences from peer-reviewed facts and conclusions.Newton had an agenda when he sought to discover the laws god instilled in the universe; does that make Newton's work worthy of dismissal?

Appealing to agendas and motivations is simply a red herring ruse to divert attention from the fact that ID theorists do research and publish, like any other scientific endeavor.

On that basis, what I have found so far in a keen reading of both sides of the argument is that Creationism is more than capable of both ignoring many vital facts, and of blatantly distorting others to fit the ready-made scenario it so recklessly promotes.

ID isn't creationism. It is the job of the peer-review process and ensuing professional rebuttals and criticisms to uncover and refine the value of the research and the theory.

That is not science, and never will be.

Then how is it their work gets published in mainstream journals and survives the peer-review process?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Meleagar False. ID theorists conduct their own research in their own lab, and get papers published in mainstream venues. In any event, all scientific ID theories are based on research (whether their own or someone else's), and such research is cited and quoted in their work.

Wrong, on every count. As the link I provided shows.

[Jack]

The agenda of the scientists is irrelevant to the work they produce and have peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals.

Then why all the fuss about the "materialistic suppositions" made by mainstream scientists? If agendas and motivations don't matter, it shouldn't matter for everyone.

Then how is it their work gets published in mainstream journals and survives the peer-review process?

If that's the case why does the Discovery Institute (and Ben Stein) whine so incessantly about ID being ignored by mainstream science?

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Jack Then why all the fuss about the "materialistic suppositions" made by mainstream scientists? If agendas and motivations don't matter, it shouldn't matter for everyone.

It is made to point out the double standard.

If that's the case why does the Discovery Institute (and Ben Stein) whine so incessantly about ID being ignored by mainstream science?

I've never heard anyone whine about ID being ignored. I don't think that any ID theorist believes that ID is being "ignored", when mainstream science talks about ID constantly, issue edicts and advisories about ID, and make references to it in published work, books, blogs, etc.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Wrong, on every count. As the link I provided shows.

Right, on every count, as your link clearly demonstrates.

•Axe, D. D., 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595.
•Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.
•Chiu, D. K. Y. and T. H. Lui. 2002. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 4(3): 766-775.
•Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417.
•Denton, M. J., J. C. Marshall and M. Legge. 2002. The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219: 325-342.
•Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119. Research Signpost.
•Lönnig, W.-E. and H. Saedler. 2002. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements. Annual Review of Genetics 36: 389-410.
•Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239.
•Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62.

If you look up those papers or go to the ones I've referred to in this thread, you'll find that they quote and use findings of fact to supplement their own findings or theories, and cite that work.

Once again, if ID isn't science, how does it get published in peer-reviewed journals?

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Actually meleagar is correct, some have slipped through the next. CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review

One reason IDers have not really been peer reviewed is because many scientists are often harassed and persecuted for even challenging evolution. biologist Richard Sternberg, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, and Baylor University engineering professor Robert Marks have faced harassment, intimidation, or persecution for challenging evolution. This is inhibiting the peer review process.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Meleagar Apparently, you haven't been following the debate. ID isn't in competition with "evolution", nor is any IDer "trying to prove evolution wrong". ID is a disagreement with a specific Darwinian interpretation of one particular aspect of modern evolutionary theory: that random mutation & natural selection are the best explanations for the origin and development of functionally specified complex biological information. ID doesn't have anything to say about common descent or the time period involved, nor does it claim that RM & NS are "non-factors" in evolution. A finding that ID was involved in the advent and development of that kind of biological information wouldn't disprove evolution; it would just be another explanatory feature of evolutionary theory which would at least partially replace RM & NS in some areas.

Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design Take a look around this site. ID has plenty to say about common decent. It is impossible.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: dan4reason Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design Take a look around this site. ID has plenty to say about common descent. It is impossible.

Feel free to provide actual quotes and locations from that site that support this assertion of yours. I'm not going to research a huge site like that for you.

However, this is from a link on that site (fifth link down on this page under "Other Faqs On Intelligent Design"):

Note that the faq referred to is titled: Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design - IOW, this FAQ was set up to rebut weak arguments against ID (or mischaracterizations) like the one you are attempting to make that ID rejects common descent.

10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design [as a frequently raised but weak argument agaist ID - Mel] ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication. CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that. ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.

It seems your own reference site links to a fact that directly contradicts you. It states that many ID proponents believe in Common Descent, and that whether or not common descent is true is irrelevant to the main theory of ID.

[tengers]

Quote by: Meleagar Right, on every count, as your link clearly demonstrates. •Axe, D. D., 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595. •Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13: 2651-2664. •Chiu, D. K. Y. and T. H. Lui. 2002. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 4(3): 766-775. •Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417. •Denton, M. J., J. C. Marshall and M. Legge. 2002. The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219: 325-342. •Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119. Research Signpost. •Lönnig, W.-E. and H. Saedler. 2002. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements. Annual Review of Genetics 36: 389-410. •Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239. •Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62. If you look up those papers or go to the ones I've referred to in this thread, you'll find that they quote and use findings of fact to supplement their own findings or theories, and cite that work. Once again, if ID isn't science, how does it get published in peer-reviewed journals?

Think of Intelligent Design like Art or maybe Philosophy,but it is not Science. Science is something that you intend to test and prove using the tools of mathematics and experiment. ID is not Science by any stretch of the imagination. This does not mean that a person who believes in the supernatural cannot write papers and get them published., but no Science article that says that a supernatural force did it, can be tested, and therefore is not Science and it does not belong in Science Journals. Those articles belong in the Church bulletin, or maybe a book on the supernatural. When we are able to experiment with the supernatural and get experimental results, we can put it in the Science Journals..

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia