Is Intelligent Design dead?

[Meleagar]

Quote by: tengers Think of Intelligent Design like Art or maybe Philosophy,but it is not Science.

When you reject publication in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals as evidence that something is scientific, and refer to Wikipedia instead, nothing more need be said, except: the goal-posts have been moved; first, it wasn't science because it does no research and publishes no papers; now, after research is done and papers have been increasingly published, it has become necessary to find validation from Wikipedia to be considered "scientific".

Obviously, this has nothing to do with a dispassionate examination of the facts; it has to do with threatened ideology.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: dan4reason In the documentary expelled, they cite examples where scientists and educators have been ruined by even mentioning intelligent design. Maybe there is a reason that intelligent design does not have any peer reviewed papers.

If that were the case, then ID creationists would have piles of rejection letters from scientific journals that document this oppression. At least then they could say "Hey, we're trying to get our ID papers published, but they keep getting arbitrarily rejected".

And the movie "Expelled" took several liberties with the facts, which is standard practice for creationists.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Meleagar is playing a shell game.

No one is disputing that ID creationists publish papers and conduct research.

The question is, where are the published papers describing the research that's actually research into ID?

Meleagar has done everything he can to dodge, evade, and ignore this question. And for good reason....there aren't any.

The other thing that's funny is how Meleagar keeps saying that ID creationism isn't in competition with evolution, yet when you look at the list of publications by ID creationists, what are they? They're attempts to knock down evolution!

Again, the cognitive dissonance on display is through the roof.

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: tengers Well that is primarily because there is no time or space or anything to work with. I am actually more of an advocate of Maffatt's idea on Modified gravity where there is an antisymetric part to gravity that exists with large masses and over great distances. Under Modified Gravitational Theory, there is no singularity, no Big Bang and there are no black holes or dark matter needed. There are very dense grey superstars though. In Moffat's work G/c remains a constant over time, but G and c, both vary with time. I have not seen his calculations, but they say it is quite elegant, if you can follow it and it gets rid of some nasty assumptions, including the Singularity..

Thankyou for introducing me to Maffatt. Sounds interesting. I will investigate.

The thing that disturbs me greatly is the Big Bang theory is taught in public schools. To my knowledge, Maffatt's theory has not been taught. We learn best when we know all the information pro, con, and alternatives. Teaching the Big Bang theory in school without the cons and alternatives tends to make students believe it is fact not theory. I know teachers are obligated to tell students it is a theory, but without dissenting opinions it becomes a fact in the minds of children. My science teacher forbid anyone even mentioning the word "God." One girl did and was sent to the hall for the remainder of class.

[tengers]

Quote by: Meleagar When you reject publication in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals as evidence that something is scientific, and refer to Wikipedia instead, nothing more need be said, except: the goal-posts have been moved; first, it wasn't science because it does no research and publishes no papers; now, after research is done and papers have been increasingly published, it has become necessary to find validation from Wikipedia to be considered "scientific". Obviously, this has nothing to do with a dispassionate examination of the facts; it has to do with threatened ideology.

Oh I was just referring to the National Science Foundation portion or whatever that is in the beginning of the article that gives their viewpoint on ID. I think that you are trying to join a Chess Club and you want to change the rules of the game by allowing the King to move like the Queen. There's nothing wrong with that, and it might even lead to an interesting game, its just not the same game that the members of the Chess Club play and they want you to go and play somewhere else.

[tengers]

Quote by: PlatoNot Thankyou for introducing me to Maffatt. Sounds interesting. I will investigate. The thing that disturbs me greatly is the Big Bang theory is taught in public schools. To my knowledge, Maffatt's theory has not been taught. We learn best when we know all the information pro, con, and alternatives. Teaching the Big Bang theory in school without the cons and alternatives tends to make students believe it is fact not theory. I know teachers are obligated to tell students it is a theory, but without dissenting opinions it becomes a fact in the minds of children. My science teacher forbid anyone even mentioning the word "God." One girl did and was sent to the hall for the remainder of class.

Well, in fairness, the Big Bang was and perhaps remains, Science's best shot. Moffatt's thoughts are relatively recent, although you will find a popular book now that is called "Reinventing Gravity" or something like that. I would also suggest Laughlin's work on "Emergence of Physical Laws". Usually the argument about the "Big Bang" is being fought by Creationists who want Creationism taught in the Science room. Most Science people want that taught in a Philosophy class or in religious schools. Big Bang was the work of Scientist, Creationism is not. That is the work of philosophers.

[Chris the Chees]

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?

Obviously you didn't read the link I provided, which goes through the list, paper by paper exposing creationist myth making. Noting how many of those papers on the list don't even discuss 'design', and how all but one are not actually based on any actual research, poor if even existant peer-review, etc.

To provide you with a quote from the article:

"* Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).

* Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).

* Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.

* Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.

* Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis."

Try again.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Obviously you didn't read the link I provided, which goes through the list, paper by paper exposing creationist myth making.

What the site says about them is irrelevant. The point is that they are peer-reviewed, published ID papers which can be looked up by anyone to see their use and citation of existing research. A site can characterize something any way it wants.

More ID publications:

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success" ]IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART A: SYSTEMS AND HUMANS, VOL. 39, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2009

From the ID Lab "Bilogic Institute""

Design patterns and hallmarks. The way that humans go about designing complex things is open to scientific investigation. Are there universal principles of complex design? What are they? What stamp, if any, do they leave on things manufactured according to a complex design specification? Are any of these stamps present in living systems? Are there consistent aesthetic aspects of design—aspects of designed things that are neither functional nor logical necessities, but which are reliably present in human designs? Are any of these present in life? Questions of this kind are amenable to scientific exploration. They also happen to be particularly interesting, which is why we are addressing them.

Selected Publications

D’Andrea-Winslow L, Novitski AK (2008) Active bleb formation is abated in Lytechinus variegatus red spherule coelomocytes after disruption of acto-myosin contractility. Integrative Zoology 3: 106-113.

Axe DD, Dixon BW, Lu P (2008) Stylus: A system for evolutionary experimentation based on a protein/proteome model with non-arbitrary functional constraints. PLoS ONE 3: e2246.

Sternberg RV (2008) DNA codes and information: Formal structures and relational causes. Acta Biotheoretica doi:10.1007/s10441-008-9049-6.

Gonzalez G (2008) Parent stars of extrasolar planets - IX. Lithium abundances. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Online Early Articles

Duren RW, Marks II RJ, Reynolds PD, Trumbo ML (2007) Real-time neural network inversion on the SRC-6e reconfigurable computer. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 18: 889-901.

Gonzalez G, Laws C (2007) Parent stars of extrasolar planets VIII. Chemical abundances for 18 elements in 31 stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 378: 1141-1152.

Gravagne IA, Marks II RJ (2007) Emergent behaviors of protector, refugee and aggressor swarms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 37: 471- 476.

Weinschenk JJ, Combs WE, Marks II RJ (2007) On the avoidance of rule explosion in fuzzy inference engines. International Journal of Information Technology and Intelligent Computing 1, #4.

Gonzalez G (2006) Condensation temperatures trends among stars with planets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 367: L37-L41.

Gonzalez G (2006) The sun’s interior metallicity constrained by neutrinos. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 370 : L90–L93.

Gonzalez G (2006) The chemical compositions of stars with planets: A review.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 118: 1494-1505 (invited review paper).

Gonzalez G (2005) Habitable zones in the universe. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 35: 555-606.

Keller D, Brozik JA (2005) Framework model for DNA polymerases. Biochemistry 44: 6877-6888.

Shapiro JA, von Sternberg R (2005) Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function. Biological Reviews 80: 227-250. Review. [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15921050?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

von Sternberg R, Shapiro JA (2005) How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 110: 108-116.

Axe DD (2004) Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology 341: 1295-1315.

Lu H, Macosko J, Habel-Rodriguez D, Keller RW, Brozik JA, Keller D (2004) Closing of the fingers domain generates motor forces in the HIV reverse transcriptase. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279: 54529-54532.

Keller D, Swigon D, Bustamante C (2003) Relating single-molecule measurements to thermodynamics. Biophysical Journal 84: 733-738.

von Sternberg R, Cumberlidge N (2003) Autapomorphies of the endophragmal system in trichodactylid freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Eubrachyura). Journal of Morphology 256: 23-28.

Bustamante C, Keller D, Oster G (2001) The physics of molecular motors. Accounts of Chemical Research 34: 412-420.

D’Andrea-Winslow L, Strohmeier G, Rossi B, and Hofman P (2001) Identification of a Na/K/2Cl cotransporter (NKCC) in sea urchin coelomocytes: microfilament dependent surface expression mediated by hypotonic shock and cAMP. Journal of Experimental Biology 204: 147-156.

Gonzalez G, Brownlee D, Ward P (2001) The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic chemical evolution. Icarus 152: 185-200.

Axe DD (2000) Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595.

von Sternberg R (2000) Genomes and form. The case for teleomorphic recursivity.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 901: 224-236.

Wuite GJ, Smith SB, Young M, Keller D, Bustamante C (2000) Single-molecule studies of the effect of template tension on T7 DNA polymerase activity. Nature 404: 103-106.

Axe DD, Foster NW, Fersht AR (1998) A search for single substitutions that eliminate enzymatic function in a bacterial ribonuclease. Biochemistry 37: 7157-7166.

Axe DD, Foster NW, Fersht AR (1996) Active barnase variants with completely random hydrophobic cores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 93: 5590-5594.

Gauger AK, Goldstein LS (1993) The Drosophila kinesin light chain. Primary structure and interaction with kinesin heavy chain. Journal of Biological Chemistry 268: 13657-13666.


The argument that ID theorists don't do research, aren't really scientists, and/or don't get their ID research work published is only tenable via denial and using red herrings like pointing out that they don't use the term "intelligent design" in their publications, even after admitting that the NAS and the court has decreed that ID is "not science".

[Uncle Rhynchus]

And which one of those is actual research into ID?

That's right....you've spent the last month dodging that question, for obvious reasons.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Meleagar What the site says about them is irrelevant. The point is that they are peer-reviewed, published ID papers which can be looked up by anyone to see their use and citation of existing research. A site can characterize something any way it wants.

On the contrary, pointing out that they either do not support ID or do not use the peer-review process, contradicts the claim that ID is a legitimate science with genuine research that has produced research articles that have gone through the peer review.

So let us go through your list:

"D’Andrea-Winslow L, Novitski AK (2008) Active bleb formation is abated in Lytechinus variegatus red spherule coelomocytes after disruption of acto-myosin contractility. Integrative Zoology 3: 106-113."

A discussion of the article notes, that it "is hardly a breakthrough for the “Intelligent Science” that the Biologic Institute espouses.

The Biologic Institute, Bill Dembski, and ID Research in 2008 « a simple prop

"Axe DD, Dixon BW, Lu P (2008) Stylus: A system for evolutionary experimentation based on a protein/proteome model with non-arbitrary functional constraints. PLoS ONE 3: e2246."

From the ink above. The "paper describes a computer program (Stylus) for the study of protein evolution using Chinese characters, and the paper does not seem to offer any support for ID. Indeed, Konrad Sheffler (the PloS editor for the manuscript) explicitly notes that he “did not detect any such [ideological] bias [towards ID] in this manuscript; nor do the results support intelligent design in any way.”

Sternberg RV (2008) DNA codes and information: Formal structures and relational causes. Acta Biotheoretica doi:10.1007/s10441-008-9049-6.

Again, from the same page, "Sternberg’s paper is a theoretical one in which he takes a structuralist approach and proposes “that a variety of structural realism can assist us in rethinking the concepts of DNA codes and information apart from semantic criteria.” Empirical data is no where to be seen."

Gonzalez G (2008) Parent stars of extrasolar planets - IX. Lithium abundances. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Online Early Articles

And again,

"Gonzalez’ paper confirms “recent claims that the Li abundances of stars with planets are smaller than those of stars without planets near the solar temperature.” It’s empirical but no design-related."

Real-time neural network inversion on the SRC-6e reconfigurable computer

Not about ID.


Need I go on? The fact is you have just copied and pasted a list of research papers which, for whatever reason, the 'The Biologic Institute', a wing of the Discovery Institute (an ID institution), proclaims to support the conclusions of individuals such as yourself. A cursary examination soon proves otherwise.

Try again.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus If that were the case, then ID creationists would have piles of rejection letters from scientific journals that document this oppression. At least then they could say "Hey, we're trying to get our ID papers published, but they keep getting arbitrarily rejected". And the movie "Expelled" took several liberties with the facts, which is standard practice for creationists.

It did? Interesting yet not surprising. What facts did it twist in relation to educators and scientists who were persecuted for mentioning and backing intelligent design?

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Rather than go through all the distortions, I'll offer a very comprehensive look at the film and its claims, via this website: Expelled Exposed

On case mentioned in the film that I found fascinating was that of Caroline Crocker. The film claims that merely mentioning ID in her cell biology class at George Mason University caused "her sterling academic career" to come to "an abrupt end".

The facts are somewhat different that the ID creationists claim. First, even after students complained about her instruction and class material, she fully completed her contract at GMU. That's hardly "an abrupt end".

Further, Crocker participated in this article at the Washington Post. The article describes a lecture she gives at N. Virginia Comm. College, which she claims is the same lecture that caused the problems at GMU. Here are the descriptions of some of that lecture...

Crocker, who wore a light brown sweater and slacks, flashed a slide showing a cartoon of a cheerful monkey eating a banana. An arrow led from the monkey to a photograph of an exceptionally unattractive man sitting in his underwear on a couch. Above the arrow was a question mark.... ...While such small changes are well established, Crocker said, they are quite different from macroevolution. No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory. ... Many scientists, Crocker added, believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer. The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans. (my comment: Huh. And here Meleagar's been telling us that ID is perfectly compatible with common descent!) ...But Crocker was not done. From this ill-conceived theory, she concluded, much harm had arisen. Nazi Germany had taken Darwin's ideas about natural selection, the credo that only the fittest survive, and followed it to its extreme conclusions -- anti-Semitism, eugenics and death camps. "What happened in Germany in World War II was based on science, that some genes and some people should be killed," Crocker said quietly. "My grandfather had a genetic problem and was put in the hospital and killed." Nguyen was among the first students to speak. "With so many things disproving evolution and evolution having no proof, why is it still taught?" he asked. "Right now, in our society, we have an underlying philosophy of naturalism, that there is a material explanation for everything," Crocker replied. "Evolution came with that philosophy."

You get the idea (there's more at the article). Crocker was not fired. Her contract was not renewed, but not for "mentioning intelligent design", but for teaching standard, false, and ridiculous creationist talking points.

Simply put, the ID creationists associated with "Expelled" lied their asses off.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Try again.

No, I'm satisfied with the current state of the discussion about ID publications in peer-reviewed journals. I think the facts on display speak for themselves.

The over-arching case for ID is made in Book format (much like Origin of the Species) with titles like The Edge of Evolution and Signature in the Cell, while specific research on very specific subjects builds - brick by brick - a larger case framework that supports ID as "best explanation" for the "fine-tuning" argument, and for the creation or generation of biological information (FSCI).

I think any unbiased person can see that is exactly what is going on with the above research, and can easily understand why references to "ID" are kept out of submissions.

I appreciate your time.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus Rather than go through all the distortions, I'll offer a very comprehensive look at the film and its claims, via this website: Expelled Exposed On case mentioned in the film that I found fascinating was that of Caroline Crocker. The film claims that merely mentioning ID in her cell biology class at George Mason University caused "her sterling academic career" to come to "an abrupt end". The facts are somewhat different that the ID creationists claim. First, even after students complained about her instruction and class material, she fully completed her contract at GMU. That's hardly "an abrupt end". Further, Crocker participated in this article at the Washington Post. The article describes a lecture she gives at N. Virginia Comm. College, which she claims is the same lecture that caused the problems at GMU. Here are the descriptions of some of that lecture... You get the idea (there's more at the article). Crocker was not fired. Her contract was not renewed, but not for "mentioning intelligent design", but for teaching standard, false, and ridiculous creationist talking points. Simply put, the ID creationists associated with "Expelled" lied their asses off.

There is a rebuttal to that. Evolution News & Views: "Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: dan4reason There is a rebuttal to that. Evolution News & Views: "Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled

I'm sure there is. There's "rebuttals" to all sorts of things on the internet...the holocaust, the moon landing...

Is there anything there in particular you find compelling?

[Jack]

Too funny. Most of the links to their "refutations" are simply posts on their website (Discovery Institute). "See we weren't lying, here's a link to where we say we weren't lying." For theists, circular reasoning is par for the course. The rest of us don't accept it, though.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Meleagar No, I'm satisfied with the current state of the discussion about ID publications in peer-reviewed journals. I think the facts on display speak for themselves. The over-arching case for ID is made in Book format (much like Origin of the Species) with titles like The Edge of Evolution and Signature in the Cell, while specific research on very specific subjects builds - brick by brick - a larger case framework that supports ID as "best explanation" for the "fine-tuning" argument, and for the creation or generation of biological information (FSCI). I think any unbiased person can see that is exactly what is going on with the above research, and can easily understand why references to "ID" are kept out of submissions. I appreciate your time.

Quote by: Mel No, I'm satisfied with the current state of the discussion about ID publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Then, quite frankly, you know nothing about the peer review process. As I have shown most 'articles', purpotedly to show the scientific validity of ID, either do not support ID or, in many cases, are not even peer reviewed. On the other hand, acual scientific papers providing evidence of evolution, etc, are produced on a regular basis. What say you?

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: tengers Well, in fairness, the Big Bang was and perhaps remains, Science's best shot. Moffatt's thoughts are relatively recent, although you will find a popular book now that is called "Reinventing Gravity" or something like that. I would also suggest Laughlin's work on "Emergence of Physical Laws". Usually the argument about the "Big Bang" is being fought by Creationists who want Creationism taught in the Science room. Most Science people want that taught in a Philosophy class or in religious schools. Big Bang was the work of Scientist, Creationism is not. That is the work of philosophers.

I am a fundamental Christian. I don't want religion taught in public schools period. There are many problems arising from such an endeavor.
1. Who would teach it? An atheist, a priest, a rabbi, a ayatollah, a science teacher?
2. Which brand would be taught. As a fundamentalist, I consider some of the religions abreast in the world today as dangerous as atheism.
3. Who would be required to attend? Religion should never be taught to anyone other as an elective.
No religion taught in public schools. Its too dangerous.
No evolution taught in public schools. Its too dangerous and unsubstantiated.
No abiogenesis taught in public schools. Its too stupid.
Teach physics, math, electronics, etc. Settled sciences that have mountains of evidence to back them up.

The impetus for teaching evolution and abiogenesis in public schools is to teach a basis for doubting the existance of God.

[Century 25]

The cultists will do anything they are asked to do. Think of 'heavens gate' and the people that strap on a bomb and walk into a bus or crowd.

So, constantly chanting their mantra of the nonsensical is a walk in the park to them.

Why they 'believe' the garbage.. ? Look up 'Cults' and see. Also, when they are 'taught' from their earliest possible cognitive age.. what else would one expect..?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: PlatoNot The impetus for teaching evolution and abiogenesis in public schools is to teach a basis for doubting the existance of God.

Sounds like a perfectly sensible reason to teach them, I would say, especially in America, which is still in the grip of a theistic time-warp, amazingly, given that we have reached the 21st Century.