No. of Recommendations: 1
http://biologicinstitute.org/research/

Everyone agrees that life is full of systems and structures that have an appearance of intelligent design. The big question is whether or not that appearance is misleading. Although scientists disagree on the answer to this, they ought to agree that careful science is the best way to resolve scientific disputes. And as with any dispute, ‘careful’ implies ‘fair-minded’—allowing the competing alternatives to be properly developed and presented.


Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Everyone agrees that life is full of systems and structures that have an appearance of intelligent design.

"Everyone", huh?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

Everyone agrees that life is full of systems and structures that have an appearance of intelligent design.

----------------
"Everyone", huh?


maybe not Quite everyone ....

'bout the same number that agrees that life is full of systems and structures that have the appearance of incredibly STUPID design.




=b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?

I don't think anyone's arguing that ID proponents don't (or can't) do scientific research. We're arguing that there is no scientifically valid peer-reviewed published papers that support ID. Some ID proponents may be capable of great research as long as the topic isn't related to ID.

~w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Everyone agrees that life is full of systems and structures that have an appearance of intelligent design."

No, they don't.

"The big question is whether or not that appearance is misleading."

Not if you don't buy the premise.

"Although scientists disagree on the answer to this, they ought to agree that careful science is the best way to resolve scientific disputes. And as with any dispute, ‘careful’ implies ‘fair-minded’—allowing the competing alternatives to be properly developed and presented."

As long as they are done scientifically, and follow the process that all science does. It is when you start out with a conclusion and try to back into the question that you've left the realm of science.

"Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?"

You can do scientific research on anything using whatever method suits you. If it is not peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community as real, valid, research, then it isn't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We're arguing that there is no scientifically valid peer-reviewed published papers that support ID.

Ok.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”

Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.

We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. . .
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?

I think you misunderstand. The charge is that there is no scientific research supporting ID. The information in you link doesn't look very promising. For instance, in the last section, they talk about "design patterns.' Presuming that you can come up with an unbiased method for detecting said pattern (in contrast to the IC), they miss the most obvious question: "Can these 'patterns' be produced by evolution?" If the answer is yes, then these 'patterns' tell them nothing about whether something was designed or evolved.

Too bad it looks like all they're going to do is push the same old fundamentally flawed arguments:

http://biologicinstitute.org/2008/04/03/perspectives/#more-13

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Have you actually checked out the references? You should see this one:

Axe DD, Foster NW, Fersht AR (1996) Active barnase variants with completely random hydrophobic cores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A. 93: 5590-5594. PMID: 8643620

These results imply that hydrophobicity is nearly a sufficient criterion for the construction of a functional core and, in conjunction with previous studies, that refinement of a crudely functional core entails more stringent sequence constraints than does the initial attainment of crude core function. Since attainment of crude function is the critical initial step in evolutionary innovation, the relatively scant requirements contributed by the hydrophobic core would greatly reduce the initial hurdle on the evolutionary pathway to novel enzymes.

His research says one thing, his propaganda says another. Makes one think....

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term)

One can only wonder what the editors of the peer review publications were thinking when they turned these down.

Oh wait, they didn't exist back then.

Good argument.

Peer review has been a touchstone of modern scientific method only since the middle of the 20th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

It's shocking that there wasn't any peer review of scientific literature 400 years ago, before mail delivery made it possible to get a copy to someone else timely, when copies had to be scribed by hand, and when there were an infinitesimally smaller number of people in each discipline, in both real terms and per capita, because most people did not have an education to understand such things.

Ah, the good old days, when "intelligent design" could have thrived.

And did.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. . .
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

I was actually excited that there might be some substance to this ID-stuff so I took a look at the "featured" articles thinking this would have the best examples of peer-reviewed ID research. Here is what I found.

The first three articles are published in the edited book "Darwinism, Design, & Public Education". This is a book of essays dealing with teaching ID in public schools. Coincidentally, one of the editors is Stephen Meyer who, you guessed it, is a member of the Discovery Institute.

The next three papers by Meyer, Lonnig, and Wells, turn out to be review articles. This means these were a discussion of previously published information and do not include any new research.

BTW, the paper by Meyer is the one that Sternberg published on his own as made famous in the movie Expelled. The journal editors have subsequently stated that this paper does not meet the scientific standards of the journal.
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

The final paper by Minnich and Meyer also appears to be a review that was presented at a meeting whose purpose was to compare design in nature with science and engineering. If new research was presented here, I missed it in my quick scan of the pdf. I note that meeting proceedings tend to have less rigorous publishing standards than journals and are often given lesser weight in faculty promotion evaluations.

Since these were the best of the lot, I lost interest in looking at the rest of the list. In short, I'm still not convinced the ID fellas can do credible research on this topic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term).

This list would be a bit more impressive if the most recently published book wasn't 150 years old. Methodology has changed.

Just because leech therapy is making a keen comeback in medicine with the cool kids doesn't mean that retro is always good.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Since these were the best of the lot, I lost interest in looking at the rest of the list. In short, I'm still not convinced the ID fellas can do credible research on this topic.


That may be true, but it misses the point. The list of publications addresses the charge that ID proponents don't publish articles supporting ID in peer-reviewed journals.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That may be true, but it misses the point. The list of publications addresses the charge that ID proponents don't publish articles supporting ID in peer-reviewed journals.

My daughter recently wrote an article on Global Warming. I reviewed it. I'll save everyone the argument and admit it doesn't qualify as peer reviewed under the current criteria set forth for legitimate science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
“We treat organisms—the parts at least—
as if they were manufactured, as if they
were designed, and then try to work out
their functions. End-directed thinking—
teleological thinking—is appropriate in
biology because, and only because,
organisms seem as if they were
manufactured, as if they had been
created by an intelligence and put to
work”—Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design, 268.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Some ID proponents may be capable of great research as long as the topic isn't related to ID.

I would extend this to say that some ID proponents may be capable of great ID research. Yet none has chosen to do so.

Heck, all they have to do is assume the ID hypothesis is true. Then make a prediction of what they might find if ID is true. Finally they must perform a test of their prediction. That's about all it takes.

Why do you think that ID proponents haven't done such a simple thing. After all, some of them ARE scientists...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
That may be true, but it misses the point. The list of publications addresses the charge that ID proponents don't publish articles supporting ID in peer-reviewed journals.

I just wanted to give any nonscience readers of these posts an accurate view of the references listed. I think it relevant to note that of the 8 articles listed as "featured", 3 were published in a book edited by a creationist, 1 was published under false pretences, 1 was simply a proceedings from a meeting, and none presented new research.

Also to put things in perspective, here is a partial list of peer reviewed articles published on astrology in just 2006 and 2007. I think with continued work and effort the ID folks should be able to achieve the productivity of the astrology researchers in a few years.

2006
m Abdel-Khalek A et al. Astrological signs and personality in Kuwaitis a \ Psychological Reports 98(2) 602-7 Apr
c Alam M et al. Envisioning power: The political thoug \ Indian Economic and Social History Review 43(2) 131-161
c Anonymous. Welcome to quantum astrology. Physics World 19(2) 3-3
m Austin PC et al. Testing multiple statistical hypotheses resulted \ J of Clinical Epidemiology 59(9) 964-9 Sep
c Azzolini M. The limits of influence: Pico, Louvain, and the crisis \ J for the History of Astronomy 37 360-361
p Bader C et al. Spiritual Shopping: The Effects of State-Level Demographi \ J of Media and Religion 5(2) 91-109
c Banas J. Albert the great as a scientist. Organon F 13(1) 16-31
c Bechtold C. Augustus and the power of the stars. Ancient astrology an \ Historische Zeitschrift 283(1) 164-165
j Berenbaum H et al. Emotional Correlates of the Different Dimensions of Schi \ J Abnormal Psych 115(2) 359-368
c Bigelow D. He's just not in the stars: Wicked astrology and uncensored advice for ge \ Library J 131(19) 85-85
c Boner PJ. Galileo's astrology. Renaissance Quarterly 59(1) 222-224
w Boner PJ. Kepler on the origins of comets: Applying earthly knowledge t \ Nuncius-J History of Sci 21(1) 31-47
c Brentjes S. Al-Qabisi (Alcabitius): The introduction to astrology. Annals of Sci 63(1) 135-136
p Chico E et al. Belief in Astrology Inventory: Development and validation. Psychological Reports 99(3) 851-863
d Costello BM. Astrology in action: Culture and status in u \ PhD U of Pennsylvania Section0175, Part 0344 210pp
c Cregheur E. The fathers of the church and astrology. Laval Theologique ET Philosophique 62(1) 160-161
d Dauber N. The invention of political science. PhD Mass: Harvard U Section 0084, Part0615 295pp
s Delaney C. Columbus's Ultimate Goal: Jerusalem Comparative Studies in Society and History 48 no 2 pp260-292
p Dilworth C. The metaphysics of scie \ The metaphysics of sci An account of modern science in terms of princi \
j Duffin J. Jodocus Lommius's Little Golden Book and the His \ J History of Medicine & Allied Scis 61(3) 249-287
c Dunn R. John Dee and astrology in E \ John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in English Renaissance Thought 193 \
c Eden B. Simply astrology. Library J 131(2) 92-92
p Endre R. The Paradox of Para-science. [Hungarian]. Erdelyi Pszichologiai Szemle 7(2) 71-95
c Evans J. Sky globes and star maps: Astronomy and astrology in the A \ J for the History of Astronomy 37 239-240
p Faux R. Words at Play: Much Madness Is Divinest Sense. PsycCritiques 51 34
c Fink-Jensen M. Medicine, natural philosophy, and the influence of Mel \ Bull History of Medicine 80(3) 439-464
c Flaherty S. Sunshines: The astrology of being happy. Library J 131(16) 91-91
d Freund PF. Vedic literature reading curric \ PhD Iowa: Maharishi U of Management Section 0947, Part0279 1058pp
m Giralt S. [Spanish] Medicine and astrology in Arnau's Corpus. Dynamis 26 15-38 table of contents
m Glendinning T et al. New ways of believing or belonging: is religio \ British J of Sociology 57(3) 399-414 Sep
p Goodman J et al. Special random numbers: Beyond \ Organizat Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99(2) 161-174
p Goshen C. An Astrological Physician. PsycCritiqueS
d Grimes SL. Zosimus of Panopolis: Alchemy, nature, and r \ PhD New York: Syracuse U Section0659, Part 0320 200pp
p Hall C. The Bridge Between Physical and Psychological. PsycCritiqueS
p Hartmann P et al. The relationship between date of bi \ Personality and Individual Differences 40(7) 1349-1362
s Hicks R. Current Studies in Archaeoastronomy: Conversations across Ti \ American Anthropologist vol 108 pp 586
c Ibn Ezra D. Meanings of (sic) and (sic) in the commentary of Qohele \ Revue Des Etudes Juives 165(3-4) 435-444
c Jacquart D. Al-Qabisi (Alcabitius): The introduction to astro \ Speculum-A J of Medieval Studies 81(3) 908-909
d Jensen D. The science of the stars in Danzig from Rhe \ PhD U of Calif, San Diego Section 0033, Part0585 329pp
c Karanth RV. Astrology and science. Current Sci 91(5) 567-567
p Kasschau R. Psychology: a biographical approach. PsycCritiqueS
c Keymer D. The magic circle of Rudolf II: Alchemy and astrology in Renaissance Pragu \ Library J 131(9) 112-112
j Kuipers E et al. Cognitive, Emotiona \ Schizophrenia Bull Proc Internat Symposium on Schizophrenia Bern 2005 \
m Lee J et al. Sex preferences and fertility in South Korea during the year of the Hor \ Demography 43(2) 269-92
c Lehoux D. Tomorrow's news today: Astrology, fate, and the way out. Representations(95) 105-122
s Lingan E. The theatre of the new religious movements \ Diss Abs Int Secumanities and SocialScis 67 no 01 pp 38
d Lingan EB. The theatre of the new religious movements of \ PhD City U of New York Section0046, Part 0465 273pp
p Mcfadden D. Flim-Flam: the Truth About Unicorns, Parapsychology, and Other Delusions. PsycCritiqueS
p Mitchell D. Sensational Science: Ge \ Mitchell Douglas E Ed New foundations for knowledge in educat administ \
d Murphy JH. Improving the mind and delighting the sp \ PhD New Jersey: Princeton U Section0181, Part 0585 212pp
j Norcross J et al. Discredited Psychological Treatments a \ Professional Psych Research & Practice 37(5) 515-522
d Penn JA. An adult study exploring astrological moo \ PhD Calif: Alliant Internat Uni Section1435 Part0625 106pp
j Perkins S et al. Childhood Physical Abuse and Differential Develo \ J Nervous & Mental Disease 194(5) 349-355
d Pohn KR. Playing the cosmic game: Exploring p \ PhD Calif: Pacifica Graduate Inst Section 1142, Part0326 222pp
c Popper N. "Abraham, planter of mathematics": Histories of mathematics and as \ J History of Ideas 67(1) 87-106
c Reynaert J. Middle Dutch sun zodiology (Sun as \ Tijdschrift Voor Nederlandse Taal-En Letterkunde 122(1) 70-88
j Roland AL. Across Civilizations: Psy \ Psychotherapy Theory Research Practice Training Special Issue Culture \
j Roosli MA et al. Sleepless night, the moon is bright: longitudinal study of l \ J Sleep Research 15(2) 149-153
p Sahn S et al. Wanting enlightenment \ Wanting enlightenment is a big mistake Teachings of Zen master Seung S \
m Sewell R. Star quality. Nursing Standard 20 17 20-1 Jan 4-10
c Seymour P. Sizing up astrology. Physics World 19(8) 19-19
p Sharps M et al. Cognition and belief in paranormal phe \ J Psych Interdisciplinary and Applied 140(6) 579-590
p Smith G. The Five Elements and Chinese-American Mortality. Health Psych 25(1) 124-129
j Smith J. Ex-Gay Reparative Therapy: God, Politics, and Science. PsycCritiques 51 37 13
d Stanfield BB. A synthesis of analytic psychol \ PhD Calif: Pacifica Graduate Inst Section1142, Part 0622 235pp
d Starka DA. Koreshan unity: Vision, experience, \ MA Calif State U, Dominguez Hills Section0582, Part 0337 75pp
j Sterman J. Learning from Evidence in a Complex Wo \ Amer J Public Health Systems Thinking 96(3) 505-514 March
c Szasz T. The pretense of psychology as science: The myth of mental illness in Stat \ Current Psych 25(1) 42-49
j Tang C et al. Delayed Parenthood and the Risk of Cesarean Delivery-Is Paternal Age a \ Birth 33(1) 18-26 March
c Teresi D. The fated sky - Astrology in history. NY Times Book Review 16-16
d Wang Y. A Chinese retail experience in Canada. MID U of Manitoba (Canada) Section 0303, Part0729 108pp
j Watts G. Woolly views on alternative treatments. BMJ 332 7553 1339 3
j Wiseman R et al. Belief in psychic ability and the misattribution hypothesis: A q \ Brit J Psych 97(3) 323-338
c [Anon]. Welcome to quantum astrology. Physics World 19(2) 3-3

2007
j Aarnio K et al. Religious People and Paranormal Believers: Alike or Diff \ J Individual Differences 28(1) 1-9
c Azzolini M. Apologetic discussion for astrology against a certain phy \ Bull History of Medicine 81(2) 451-452
j Bloom P et al. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science. Sci 316 5827 996-997 18
j Colquhoun D. Science degrees without the science. Nature 446 7134 373-374 March 22
c Eddy G. Astrology, science, and culture: 'Pulling down the moon'. J Religious History 31(3) 352-354
c Feinberg LJ. Lesser gods - Pontormo and Medi \ Apollo-The Internat Magazine of Art and Antiques 165(540) 56-59
c Fraser KA. The theatre of the world: Alchemy, astrology and magic in Renaissa \ Dalhousie Review 87(2) 312-313
j Goldacre B. Tell us the truth about nutritionists. BMJ 334 7588 292 10
j Granqvist P et al. Examining Relations Among Attachment, Religiosity, and N \ Developmental Psych 43(3) 590-601
d Heimlich ES. Divination by "The Ten Commandments": Its rhetoric \ PhD U of Kansas Section0099, Part 0321 338pp
b Knight J. Conflict and cancer research in Arizona Nature London 447 7144 MAY 31 528
c Komorowska J. The astrological teachin \ Gnomon-Kritische Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Klassische 79(4) 360-362
c Lazure G. Apologetic discussion of astrology. Sixteenth Century J 38(2) 520-521
m Lower SK. Treating astrology's claims with all due gravity. . Nature 447 7144 528 31
c Lykken JD. The standard model: Alchemy and astrology. Acta Physica Polonica B 38(2) 327-338
c Martines L. The theatre of the world - Alchemy, astrology and m \ Tls-The Times Literary Supplement(5415) 25-25
j Newbold D et al. An analysis of the demarcation problem in scienc \ Internat J Nursing Practice 13(6) 324-330
c North J. Astrology in history. J for the History of Astronomy 38 383-386
j Padian K. The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Desig \ Nature 448 7151 253-254 19
p Penn J. An adult study exploring astrological mo \ Diss Abs Int Sec B The Scis and Engineering 67 10-B pp 6106
p Pohn K. Playing the cosmic game: Exploring play's \ Diss Abs Int Sec B The Scis and Engineering 68 4-B pp 2715
c Rabin SJ. Horoscopes and public spheres: Essays on the history of astrology. ISIS 98(1) 172-173
j Sardar Z. Beyond the troubled relationship. Nature 448 7150 131-133 12
j Shoja M et al. The history of anatomy in Persia. J Anatomy 210(4) 359-378
c Smoller LA. Astrology and the sibyls: John of Legnano's De adventu Christi and t \ Sci in Context 20(3) 423-450
p Stanfield B. A synthesis of analytic psychology, p \ Diss Abs Int Sec B The Scis and Engineering 68 4-B pp 2672
c Tapper J. Planets in play: How to reimagine your life through the language of astr \ Library J 132(13) 103-103
c Tapper J. The imperial guide to Feng Shui & Chinese astrology: The only authentic t \ Library J 132(6) 103-103
c Taylor I. The 'fated sky': Astrology in history. NY Times Book Review 24-24
j Wolf B et al. Paths to Destruction: The Lives and Crimes of Two Seria \ J Forensic Scis 52(1) 199-203 January
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I just wanted to give any nonscience readers of these posts an accurate view of the references listed. I think it relevant to note that of the 8 articles listed as "featured", 3 were published in a book edited by a creationist, 1 was published under false pretences, 1 was simply a proceedings from a meeting, and none presented new research.


“Ok, so I was wrong that they haven't published, but what they've done still isn't good enough, so I win”

Yes, you win. The board is safe from ID for another day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I just wanted to give any nonscience readers of these posts an accurate view of the references listed. I think it relevant to note that of the 8 articles listed as "featured", 3 were published in a book edited by a creationist, 1 was published under false pretences, 1 was simply a proceedings from a meeting, and none presented new research.


“Ok, so I was wrong that they haven't published, but what they've done still isn't good enough, so I win”

Yes, you win. The board is safe from ID for another day.


If the only thing you have to support your claim is a handful of either highly biased or poorly researched review articles, at least one of which was published in an unscrupulous way, and you believe that gives ID scientific credibility.... well, then, 'believe' is the correct word.

I'm still wondering what you think of Dr. Axe, who ignores his own peer-reviewed research when it contradicts the thesis he is trying to promote.

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If the only thing you have to support your claim is a handful of either highly biased or poorly researched review articles, at least one of which was published in an unscrupulous way, and you believe that gives ID scientific credibility

Biased? Why do you say that?

Poorly researched? What do you base this claim on?

Published in an unscrupulous way? I don't agree with you, but what is wrong with the content of the paper? Have you read it?

Believe that gives ID scientific credibility? When did I say that? Please Anthony, I still hold you in high regard because of your accomplishments, knowledge, and your board demeanor. Don't stoop to the level of some on the board and argue against things I never said just to score rhetorical points
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
“Ok, so I was wrong that they haven't published, but what they've done still isn't good enough, so I win”

Yes, you win. The board is safe from ID for another day.


That is an odd response.

What the anti-ID group is questioning is whether the pro-ID group has performed and published any quality research that supports their point of view. Peer-review is one measure of quality, if done conscientiously and objectively. You presented a list of peer-reviewed papers from the ID group. I pointed out that for the papers your web site considered the best of the lot, in some cases the objectivity of the peer-review was questionable and in no case did the paper being peer-reviewed contain substantial new research. So there still doesn't seem to be much evidence of quality research being performed.

This seems relevant to me.

You disagree. Apparently you believe that the only things that matter are that papers were published someplace and reviewed by someone who might or might not have been objective. Whether the papers contain quality research is none of your concern.

I believe that is called missing the forest for the trees.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Biased? Why do you say that?

Poorly researched? What do you base this claim on?

Published in an unscrupulous way? I don't agree with you, but what is wrong with the content of the paper? Have you read it?


If the Fool's search engine worked, I'd pull up the thread for you. But, as I best recollect, the discussion was on ID-proponents who'd been supposedly fired/persecuted for their beliefs. When asked to provide examples someone (I think you) gave three or four names. The first was a guy who had been the editor of some journal who supposedly was fired after he allowed the publication of a pro-ID review (by Dembski, IIRC). The reality was that he had already tendered his resignation long before that, refused to list the referees for the paper (even though the journal had done so throughout its history), and didn't follow all of the steps that the journal required for the publication of a paper. This seems unscrupulous to me. I did read the paper, and it was fundamentally flawed. Basically, it was a rehash of the usual creationism/ID arguments. For instance, they argue that it's impossible for proteins to evolve because their function is so highly dependent on its sequence, with exactly one example of a protein to make this point. Without trying very hard, I found half a dozen other papers on different proteins that have very loose requirements with regards to protein sequences (and I can now add the Axe paper to that list). Either the authors didn't really do much research into the field (otherwise they would have found these papers as well, and thus the review was poorly researched) or they knew about them and chose not to include them (which would make them biased). This theme ran the length of the paper.

Believe that gives ID scientific credibility? When did I say that? Please Anthony, I still hold you in high regard because of your accomplishments, knowledge, and your board demeanor. Don't stoop to the level of some on the board and argue against things I never said just to score rhetorical points

What exactly is your point, then? Why is it important to you that there were a few (lousy, IMO) review articles supporting ID?

Maybe part of the problem is that your point seems to keep changing. First it was:

Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?

Then it was:

The list of publications addresses the charge that ID proponents don't publish articles supporting ID in peer-reviewed journals.

A review article in not scientific research.

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You disagree. Apparently you believe that the only things that matter are that papers were published someplace and reviewed by someone who might or might not have been objective. Whether the papers contain quality research is none of your concern.

I believe that is called missing the forest for the trees.


You may be right. But when you play "move the goalposts" I'm tempted to believe that nothing would satisfy you.

Let's review. Someone posted that ID proponents don't publish papers in peer-reviewed journals. So I linked to the DI page that lists the published works, with no further comment.

Then you and others come back with comments like "it doesn't prove ID does legitimate research". Not the point in question.

in no case did the paper being peer-reviewed contain substantial new research

And when I link to a paper that does, you'll respond with "That's not substantial enough", or "It's not published in a prestigious journal", or "Well, I question the objectivity of the reviewer, whoever it was that let this idea I don't agree with pass review".

I've pretty much heard it all and know what you'll say before you say it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe part of the problem is that your point seems to keep changing. First it was:

Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?

Then it was:

The list of publications addresses the charge that ID proponents don't publish articles supporting ID in peer-reviewed journals.

A review article in not scientific research.


Thats not what happened in this thread. I started off with a post on the Biologic Institute's research page: http://biologicinstitute.org/research/, which was when I asked the first question you quoted above.

Then someone made a comment about no papers being published, and the whole rest of the thread has been one non-sequitor after another about the nature of the papers published in the DI list I linked.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
You may be right. But when you play "move the goalposts" I'm tempted to believe that nothing would satisfy you. Let's review. Someone posted that ID proponents don't publish papers in peer-reviewed journals. So I linked to the DI page that lists the published works, with no further comment. Then you and others come back with comments like "it doesn't prove ID does legitimate research". Not the point in question.

What in the world are you talking about?

Let me break it down for you in more detail.

1. You assert in your original post that IDists do scientific research by linking to a site that describes all the things IDists claim to be doing. You end with: "Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?"

2. Windchasers comments: "We're arguing that there is no scientifically valid peer-reviewed published papers that support ID. Some ID proponents may be capable of great research as long as the topic isn't related to ID."

I put in bold parts that seem relevant. Note that the focus of the comment is on the lack of valid research in the topic area, not simply peer-review.

3. You respond with a web site listing peer-reviewed papers from IDists.

4. I reply with a short critique of the major papers and the comment: "...for the papers your web site considered the best of the lot, in some cases the objectivity of the peer-review was questionable and in no case did the paper being peer-reviewed contain substantial new research. So there still doesn't seem to be much evidence of quality research being performed."


I've pretty much heard it all and know what you'll say before you say it.

The question is whether you understand any of it. It's apparent you can't even follow the gist of your own thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
1. You assert in your original post that IDists do scientific research by linking to a site that describes all the things IDists claim to be doing. You end with: "Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?"


This part you got right, and from there on it is not addressing my point.

I assert research being done; you assert that there is no evidence of research being published that meets your criteria. Ok, I concede that some of the papers you critiqued don't meet your standards. Be that as it may, it doesn't address directly my point.

Let me state my point another way: ID proponents are doing research. The Biologic Institute is an example of that research. Whether they've published it according to your standards is a different issue.

It's apparent you can't even follow the gist of your own thread.


It wouldn't be the first time
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
What the anti-ID group is questioning is whether the pro-ID group...

If I may pick a nit here...

I clearly an NOT in the "pro-ID group", but I take issue with being called "anti-ID". I'm not. I'm anti-pseudoscience. If ID can present a coherent hypothesis that explains all the data, and further can make testable (and subsequently verified) predictions, then I will accept it as worthy of consideration as science.

However, to-date all they have is an appeal to incredulity ("How can the flagellum NOT have been the result of design?!") and appeal to authority ("It says so right here in the Bible"). Neither of those things cut it with me (or any other scientist).

Evolution has met the aforementioned criteria, and so is a part of science.

QED.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 43
You may be right. But when you play "move the goalposts" I'm tempted to believe that nothing would satisfy you.

Let's review. Someone posted that ID proponents don't publish papers in peer-reviewed journals. So I linked to the DI page that lists the published works, with no further comment.

Then you and others come back with comments like "it doesn't prove ID does legitimate research". Not the point in question.


Ok, let me state outright that the person who said "ID proponents don't publish papers in peer-reviewed journals." When the "Rivista" paper was published, I wrote at the time that this simple truism no longer applied, and that the reality was more complicated. I have done my best to stick to this statement, and I personally have never since then made the blanket claim "ID proponents don't publish papers in peer-reviewed journals."

At the same time, I don't believe that this is moving the goal posts. And I'll tell you why.

Suppose that I was on the board of directors for a large company, and there was a proposal to choose a five-year-old as their new CEO. I think my very first objection to the nomination is: "Why in the world would you suggest a five-year-old for this job? He can't even READ!"

Now, suppose that his backers come to me two weeks later, saying "Your claim that little Johnny can't read is false now! Watch this!" Little Johnny then proceeds to slowly, haltingly read the first two pages of "Green Eggs and Ham."

At that point, I would probably say, "Okay, fine, he can read Dr. Seuss, but that doesn't mean that he can read our company's financial statements." Am I moving the goal posts?

Being able to read is definitely a requirement of heading a large company, but very obviously it's not the ONLY requirement. It's just that if somebody can't read at all, that problem is such an enormous hurdle to begin with that it kind of trumps everything else. But even after that objection is overridden, there are obviously a lot more issues to cover before the kid becomes a CEO.

By the time he's ten, Johnny might be able to read financial statements, but that doesn't mean he can reproduce the math in them on his own. Moving the goalposts? And once he can do that kind of math, he's still got a long way to go before he can make competent decisions on that basis. Moving them again?

I think the problem is that science has high standards to begin with, and perhaps the "goal post" problem is that you don't see where the goal posts are to begin with. In order for something to get accepted as a theory, there is a multi-stage process. Publishing in a journal is a necessary first step in that process, but as centromere showed with his post about astrology in journals, there is still plenty of awful bunk that gets accepted in such journals. The real test is when this work starts getting citations from other papers as a useful solution to a known problem.

Science is a network of different studies that mutually build on each other. The difference between "a paper" and "a well-established theory" is like the difference between one computer and "the internet." On the web, the success of single web page is not a single true/false value, where the page is either successful or not successful. The popularity of a page is measured in "traffic," or page hits. If enough people like an article, they all link to it, which leads to a big spike in traffic, which further boosts the page's visibility, generating more links. After a certain point, a really popular video on YouTube might become so well-known that most authors can feel free to refer to it, and assume that everybody will know what they're talking about.

The analogy to science isn't perfect, of course, because science is not meant to function as a simple popularity contest. What makes a YouTube video "go viral" is extremely subjective, and any random person who has a blog can contribute to its popularity. With science, there's an extra layer of hurdles in the sense that the "bloggers" (i.e., published scientists) are generally expected to be highly educated, and at least trained in understanding the scientific method and critical thinking. If an idea "goes viral" with that crowd, based on less subjective criteria such as repeatability and falsifiability, then an idea is well on its way to becoming a theory: a framework which other scientists can refer to which is known to explain problems in a useful way.

Evolution has achieved that status, over the course of 150 years. Intelligent Design has not. Intelligent Design is a twelve year old girl with a hand held camcorder lip-syncing a Hillary Duff song in her house. She can complain from the rooftops that she has been "censored" because her video is not regularly featured on CNN and the front page of MySpace. But the reality is that her video hasn't gained widespread attention because it is a bad video. It is neither useful nor interesting to most people, and no amount of whinging or publicity-hounding will change that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
and appeal to authority ("It says so right here in the Bible"). Neither of those things cut it with me (or any other scientist).

Evolution has met the aforementioned criteria, and so is a part of science.


If I could document that some people claim "evolution is right here in the bible!" would you then abandon it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
and appeal to authority ("It says so right here in the Bible"). Neither of those things cut it with me (or any other scientist).

Evolution has met the aforementioned criteria, and so is a part of science.


If I could document that some people claim "evolution is right here in the bible!" would you then abandon it?


Non sequitor alert and a misleading use of quoting of the original author. The original sentence, in its entirety was (emphasis mine):

However, to-date all they have is an appeal to incredulity ("How can the flagellum NOT have been the result of design?!") and appeal to authority ("It says so right here in the Bible"). Neither of those things cut it with me (or any other scientist).

How do you logically get from one to the other?

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think the problem is that science has high standards to begin with. . .

Actually, I think the problem is sticking out right there in your statement. Well, not really a problem, but an explanation for the miscommunication that goes on here.

Everything I bring to the board is automatically put by the "ID is not science" side (there, how about that 1poorguy?) into the frame "Does this establish ID as science beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore it should now be taught in public schools". Most of the reactions I get seem to have this common thread, even if I'm answering a simple question.

And like you said, publication in journals is not the end of the story.

The real test is when this work starts getting citations from other papers as a useful solution to a known problem.

I can't help but think of the poor deluded SETI researchers who have published nothing about finding proof of ETs, nothing useful for the identification of ETs, and no articles that describe any repeatable or useful experiments on ETs.

People might start to question whether its science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Actually, I think the problem is sticking out right there in your statement. Well, not really a problem, but an explanation for the miscommunication that goes on here.

Everything I bring to the board is automatically put by the "ID is not science" side (there, how about that 1poorguy?) into the frame "Does this establish ID as science beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore it should now be taught in public schools". Most of the reactions I get seem to have this common thread, even if I'm answering a simple question.


Actually, I don't think it's really my position or anyone else's here that everything supporting ID must establish ID beyond a reasonable doubt and qualify it for school curricula. The issue is that when you come in with a story that says "Look at great this pro-ID story!" the implication is that you think it constitutes good, rigorous research that provides evidence supportive of ID.

And when someone comes along with that kind of claim, what a scientifically inclined audience loves to do is nitpick it. It's not just picking on ID; it's part of the process. If Einstein showed up here and made a claim, we'd probably start asking "How do you know?" (Right after we finished asking "Hey wait a minute, aren't you dead?")

I can't help but think of the poor deluded SETI researchers who have published nothing about finding proof of ETs, nothing useful for the identification of ETs, and no articles that describe any repeatable or useful experiments on ETs.

People might start to question whether its science.


They're doing science. But they're in the hypothesis stage, and they have never claimed anything else. They've asked a question: "IF there were ET's, how would we identify them?" They've come up with tests, but so far those tests have failed to yield any worthwhile results. Also part of the process, as long as this is presented in an honest way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If Einstein showed up here and made a claim, we'd probably start asking "How do you know?" (Right after we finished asking "Hey wait a minute, aren't you dead?")


Great, so basically I could die and come back to life, and you'd still say "Yeah, but is there any published papers or scientific research that backs up your claims about the afterlife?" Tough crowd <g>

But seriously, thats a good reminder to not take things too personal here.

They're doing science. But they're in the hypothesis stage, and they have never claimed anything else. They've asked a question: "IF there were ET's, how would we identify them?" They've come up with tests, but so far those tests have failed to yield any worthwhile results. Also part of the process, as long as this is presented in an honest way.


ID is doing science then. They've asked the question: "If an intelligence designed something in biology, can we detect it?". They've come up with some tests, but so far nothing convincing, and no worthwile results.

I can live with that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They're doing science. But they're in the hypothesis stage, and they have never claimed anything else. They've asked a question: "IF there were ET's, how would we identify them?" They've come up with tests, but so far those tests have failed to yield any worthwhile results. Also part of the process, as long as this is presented in an honest way.


ID is doing science then. They've asked the question: "If an intelligence designed something in biology, can we detect it?". They've come up with some tests, but so far nothing convincing, and no worthwile results.


There is a distinction. SETI is looking for signs of ET's, a different, yet still fully natural being.

ID is not trying to prove panspermia. It's trying to prove that a creator outside of the existing universe made it all happen. This creator is supernatural pretty much by definition, and has been repeatedly brought up, beyond the scope of science.

As much as that may be annoying, it is what is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ID is doing science then. They've asked the question: "If an intelligence designed something in biology, can we detect it?". They've come up with some tests, but so far nothing convincing, and no worthwile results.

To an extent, yeah. If you want to be as inclusive as possible, I believe that young children are "doing science" when they put things in their mouths to see what they feel like. In a broad sense, anything you do to learn about the world can be regarded as scientific inquiry.

In the context of "doing science that is widely cross-referenced in journals," or "doing science that can eventually be taught in high school science classes" (yes yes, I know this is not what you are after), you have to go significantly beyond that.

As far as what SETI is doing and what level of acceptance the science has, I have no idea. Certainly we don't teach kids that aliens are real. It might be interesting if you went and picked out some individual reviewed papers that SETI has generated, and maybe then we could discuss whether and how that specific work differs from the work done by the Discovery Institute.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They're doing science. But they're in the hypothesis stage, and they have never claimed anything else. They've asked a question: "IF there were ET's, how would we identify them?" They've come up with tests, but so far those tests have failed to yield any worthwhile results. Also part of the process, as long as this is presented in an honest way.


ID is doing science then. They've asked the question: "If an intelligence designed something in biology, can we detect it?". They've come up with some tests, but so far nothing convincing, and no worthwile results.

I can live with that.


I'll give you the point that they've asked the question. However, I will challenge the claim that they've come up with a meaningful test. SETI is looking for a pattern that shouldn't (to the best of our knowledge) be produced naturally. I don't remember what they're looking for, but for the purposes of this argument, let's say they're looking for a long string of prime numbers. The reason one might look for this is that there is no mathematical way to produce a list of prime numbers (unless something has changed in the last few years). Thus, to produce such a list, you need to be able to factor numbers and throw out the nonprime numbers. To the best of our knowledge (again, which could be wrong), this requires some sort of intelligence.

What the ID community has produced, the test for IC, could be likened to a "prime number descriminator" (PND), to work with the analogy. The PND works by dividing the input number by two. If the number is evenly divisible by 2 (and is not 2 itself), then the PND says that the number is not a prime. All other numbers produce a "prime" output. I (waiting to jump on the error) point out that '9' is predicted by the PND to be prime, but '9' is easily shown to be the product of 3x3, and thus is not prime. The maker of the PND responds, "Well, it's only designed to work for really large numbers. Your example of '9' doesn't count." This, obviously, is a silly response.

IC is much the same. IC asks, "If we take a piece away, does a complex still have some of the original function?" (Of course, this question is also flawed, but we've been over that already, I think.) If it does, then it's not IC. If it does not, then it is IC and likely requires a designer. I pointed out previously that I can produce a complex with three subunits that the test says is IC but was produced using a few simple evolutionary steps. This is analogous to the example of '9' with the PND. The response to this point, as above, was that the system isn't "complex enough.'' The test only works with larger complexes. With out any rationale to make support this claim, it's as silly as the response to the number '9' in the PND example.

You're not doing science until you have a test that has a reasonable expectation to identify what you're testing for. The 'tests' put forth by the ID community, like the PND, do not meet this requirement. I suspect that if you look into the methodology used by SETI, you'll find that it does meet this requirement.

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
bdhinton says

I can't help but think of the poor deluded SETI researchers who have published nothing about finding proof of ETs, nothing useful for the identification of ETs, and no articles that describe any repeatable or useful experiments on ETs.

People might start to question whether its science.


I don't think anyone claims it to be science. They are just looking for evidence, in case it exists. If it is found, that might be the basis for some science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you die and come back to life, document and let me know.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you die and come back to life, document and let me know.

I have one case study of such an occurance that was documented (not me, someone else).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you die and come back to life, document and let me know.
----
I have one case study of such an occurance that was documented (not me, someone else).




What was the date it happened?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have one case study of such an occurance that was documented (not me, someone else).

Bring it on! Please be sure to provide evidence of both the life and the death (and the coming back to life). I'm sure I speak for many when I say I'd love to see it!

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I assert research being done; you assert that there is no evidence of research being published that meets your criteria.

Has nothing to do with my criteria. I am asserting that no research performed by an IDist and directly supporting ID has been published in a peer-review review journal.

The papers you cite that I looked at are review articles. They reinterpret research done by other people and try to give it an ID spin. That's not the same thing.

But I could be wrong. I certainly haven't done an exhaustive examination. Since you are so sure on this point I probably am. So it shouldn't be hard describe to me one specific experiment performed by an IDist that directly supports the ID proposal and that has been published in a peer-review journal.

In fact, I don't care if it has been published. You've probably mentioned some in the past, but I've forgotten. Just tell me about one experiment performed by an IDist that is claimed to support ID.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you die and come back to life, document and let me know.
----
I have one case study of such an occurance that was documented (not me, someone else).
------------

What was the date it happened?



Newton thought it was April 7
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I assert research being done; you assert that there is no evidence of research being published that meets your criteria.
----------
Has nothing to do with my criteria. I am asserting that no research performed by an IDist and directly supporting ID has been published in a peer-review review journal.


I'm sure you can see how what you are asserting does not answer what I am asserting, no matter how you phrase it.


In fact, I don't care if it has been published. You've probably mentioned some in the past, but I've forgotten. Just tell me about one experiment performed by an IDist that is claimed to support ID.

http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bring it on! Please be sure to provide evidence of both the life and the death (and the coming back to life). I'm sure I speak for many when I say I'd love to see it!


http://tinyurl.com/3rbw7w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Oh...that Jesus guy for whom there is no evidence he actually lived (or died, or lived again). Bummer. And here I got all excited for nothing.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And here I got all excited for nothing.


snort



(>:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Maybe part of the problem is that your point seems to keep changing. First it was:

Does this answer the charge that ID proponents don't do scientific research?

Then it was:

The list of publications addresses the charge that ID proponents don't publish articles supporting ID in peer-reviewed journals.

A review article in not scientific research.



Thats not what happened in this thread. I started off with a post on the Biologic Institute's research page: http://biologicinstitute.org/research/, which was when I asked the first question you quoted above.


Ok, let's look at the Biologic Institute. It's website goes all the way back to..... April 2008!!! This month. I'm sure they've done a lot of research in the last 27 days. So, maybe they're planning on doing some research. They're going to have some trouble, though. The address they list is an office building, filled with insurance salesmen, accountants, computer repair people, etc. Not the place you'd expect to find cutting edge science being done. It looks more like something that's a front for the Discovery Institute to trick people into thinking that there is actually being research done in the "field" of ID. Oh, wait... It is a front for the Discovery Institute:

http://biologicinstitute.org/contact/

Press inquiries should be directed to:
Robert L. Crowther, II
Director of Communications
Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok, let's look at the Biologic Institute. It's website goes all the way back to..... April 2008!!! This month. I'm sure they've done a lot of research in the last 27 days. So, maybe they're planning on doing some research.

It's been around since at least 2005. There was an article on it in New Scientist magazine in late 2006 or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic_Institute
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ok, let's look at the Biologic Institute. It's website goes all the way back to..... April 2008!!! This month. I'm sure they've done a lot of research in the last 27 days. So, maybe they're planning on doing some research.

It's been around since at least 2005. There was an article on it in New Scientist magazine in late 2006 or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic_Institute


So, from your link:

The scientific community remains skeptical and commentators note that no publications containing results which support intelligent design have yet appeared.

They haven't published anything in three years. What have they been doing all this time?

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They haven't published anything in three years. What have they been doing all this time?

Careful where you swing that sledgehammer, you might hit some of your fellow scientists.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, you're conceding that you original assertion was wrong?

-Anthony
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They haven't published anything in three years. What have they been doing all this time?
--------------
Careful where you swing that sledgehammer, you might hit some of your fellow scientists.
---------------
So, you're conceding that you original assertion was wrong?

-Anthony



Since the original assertion is that ID proponents are doing research, no.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
They haven't published anything in three years. What have they been doing all this time?



<Guy at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark>

"We've got Top Men™ working on it."

</Guy at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, wait... It is a front for the Discovery Institute:

http://biologicinstitute.org/contact/

Press inquiries should be directed to:
Robert L. Crowther, II
Director of Communications
Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute

-Anthony


This is pretty funny.

I'm starting to think that Expelled! is Stein's This Is Spinal Tap and sometime in the near future he'll out himself with a monotoned chuckle.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm starting to think that Expelled! is Stein's This Is Spinal Tap


I've seen Spinal Tap live in concert. Unlike Stein, they actually performed some original work.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement