Intelligent design

Jun 6, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Indian Express

As Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi retires, senior BJP leader L.K. Advani has asked the government to reconsider the appointment process to critical constitutional offices.

Comments
1 - 20 of 306 Comments Last updated May 28, 2013
First Prev
of 16
Next Last

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 12, 2012
 
Intelligent design is dead

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

thewordofme wrote:
Intelligent design is dead
I only have one reply to this comment:

Behehehehehehe!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 12, 2012
 
I thought it was stillborn.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Intelligent design is so dead that it is increasingly being published in respected peer review journals. Not bad for being dead. I remember when the argument was....ID is not science because they dont get published in peer review science journals. What will the next ever changing goal post be? At the same time we are seeing more challenges to the modern synthesis in the peer reviewed current science literature.
Even more ironic, design theory is now being used in the field of Systems Biology. Again not bad for being dead.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 12, 2012
 
THEMAYAN wrote:
Intelligent design is so dead that it is increasingly being published in respected peer review journals. Not bad for being dead. I remember when the argument was....ID is not science because they dont get published in peer review science journals. What will the next ever changing goal post be? At the same time we are seeing more challenges to the modern synthesis in the peer reviewed current science literature.
Even more ironic, design theory is now being used in the field of Systems Biology. Again not bad for being dead.
What peer-reviewed journals are those?

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 12, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What peer-reviewed journals are those?
Can you be more specific? I mentioned a few examples including ID and challenges to the modern synthesis? I also spoke of design theory also now being used in systems biology.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 12, 2012
 
You said this:
THEMAYAN wrote:
Intelligent design is so dead that it is increasingly being published in respected peer review journals.
I asked what peer-reviewed journals they were. Not really a trick question.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

THEMAYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you be more specific? I mentioned a few examples including ID and challenges to the modern synthesis? I also spoke of design theory also now being used in systems biology.
List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's largest general scientific society. The AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.

American Association of University Professors

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society (The ACS includes 159,000 chemists and chemical engineers)

American Geophysical Union (The AGU represents over 43,000 Earth and space scientists)

American Institute of Physics

American Psychological Association

American Society of Agronomy (The ASA represents over 10,000 members)

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (The ASBMB is a scientific and educational society representing 12,000 biochemists and molecular biologists)

Botanical Society of America

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (The Federation represents 22 professional societies and 84,000 scientists)

National Association of Biology Teachers

The National Center for Science Education (The NCSE also maintains lists of organizations from around the world that oppose the teaching of creationism, including intelligent design, listing 71 scientific organizations, 23 religious organizations, 43 educational organizations, and 10 civil liberties organizations)

United States National Academy of Sciences

**********

More information, plus State and University, "Other countries and international bodies" that refute Intelligent Design are listed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientif...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

THEMAYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you be more specific? I mentioned a few examples including ID and challenges to the modern synthesis? I also spoke of design theory also now being used in systems biology.
You're bullshitting. The ID/Christian people have now started to publish their OWN 2 or 3 "journals" about ID and thus they can claim they are "publishing in respected, peer-reviewed journals."

Their "peers," in other words, are not scientists at large, but other fundamentalist Christians who want to get ID and Creationism into the public schools to serve Jesus, etc.

No one takes those journals seriously or "respects them" except you small group of fundamentalist Christian science deniers.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
The American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's largest general scientific society. The AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.
American Association of University Professors
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society (The ACS includes 159,000 chemists and chemical engineers)
American Geophysical Union (The AGU represents over 43,000 Earth and space scientists)
American Institute of Physics
American Psychological Association
American Society of Agronomy (The ASA represents over 10,000 members)
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (The ASBMB is a scientific and educational society representing 12,000 biochemists and molecular biologists)
Botanical Society of America
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (The Federation represents 22 professional societies and 84,000 scientists)
National Association of Biology Teachers
The National Center for Science Education (The NCSE also maintains lists of organizations from around the world that oppose the teaching of creationism, including intelligent design, listing 71 scientific organizations, 23 religious organizations, 43 educational organizations, and 10 civil liberties organizations)
United States National Academy of Sciences
This is called an argument of authority. You also assume that they all took a poll among all their members and or voted or that it science itself is based on some kind of democratic principle, but science is no respecter of democratic values. It doesn't and has never worked that way. If it did, nothing would ever be challenged and there would be no change. This is one of the reasons why so many years were wasted writing off so called "junk DNA" even when a few brave souls said that there might be function yet were ignored by the same majority, and now we are only starting to realize the many important functions these non protein coding regions truly have.
This paradigm and failed prediction set us back decades in science, and has been called by some to be one of the biggest blunders in modern biology. Back to your citation which also goes on to say…….
"there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals etc"
If this is their premise, then this statement was either written before ID started getting published in scientific peer review journals. The other possibility is that they were ignorant of the fact of published peer review articles which is quit common, or maybe sometimes even scientist misconstrue or spin the facts for political reasons which would not be the first time. You also seem to be confused with the issue concerning these citations you offer, because they actually deal with the subject of teaching ID in class, and even Casey Luskin of the DI has said that ID should first go through the same peer review process as any other theory before it should be taught, besides the fact that many teachers are not yet knowledgeable enough to teach it accurately.
ID is in fact going through this process as we speak, and the list of those siding with the Discovery institute in agreement that this is a valid alternative hypothesis has been slowly yet steadily growing, even among scholars from American and foreign Academies of Science such as the late Phillip Skell and others including atheist and agnostics alike, and even among atheist philosophers of science such as Bradley Monton and Thomas Nagel.
As I said before, and as cited in your article, the initial excuse was that ID was not published in peer review science literature. Now that they are, again I ask, what will the next goal post be?

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You're bullshitting. The ID/Christian people have now started to publish their OWN 2 or 3 "journals" about ID and thus they can claim they are "publishing in respected, peer-reviewed journals."
Their "peers," in other words, are not scientists at large, but other fundamentalist Christians who want to get ID and Creationism into the public schools to serve Jesus, etc.
No one takes those journals seriously or "respects them" except you small group of fundamentalist Christian science deniers.
I never mentioned their own Journals. I'm speaking of the respected independent journals below. You should get your facts straight before you accuse others of bullshitting. Now you can respond with the ever changing goal post that I spoke of.

THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY
Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution"
Michael J. Behe

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998)
Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series,

• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui,“Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3)(September 2002): 766–775.

Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417
M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall,“The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & 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 (2002): 325–342

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

• 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 12, 2012
 
THEMAYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said before, and as cited in your article, the initial excuse was that ID was not published in peer review science literature. Now that they are, again I ask, what will the next goal post be?
The question was posed by another thread-mate, which I have yet seen answered.

I will reiterate:

What.

Peer.

Reviewed.

Scientific.

Periodicals?

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 12, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The question was posed by another thread-mate, which I have yet seen answered.
I will reiterate:
What.
Peer.
Reviewed.
Scientific.
Periodicals?
I have posted them. They are right above your post. I didn't even include all the peer review publications and press only journaled publications. If you cant find them I will post them again just for you mate.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jun 12, 2012
 
THEMAYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I never mentioned their own Journals. I'm speaking of the respected independent journals below. You should get your facts straight before you accuse others of bullshitting.
Really?

You're the one who just used a mathematician (that would be a NON-BIOLOGIST) publishing in an apologetics house as a "peer-reviewed scientific journal".

So perhaps you can be the first to tell us, ya know, that thing all these dudes you mention with more qualifications than you CAN'T - what exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID?

Thanks in advance for not bothering to answer my questions.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 12, 2012
 
THEMAYAN wrote:
Intelligent design is so dead that it is increasingly being published in respected peer review journals. Not bad for being dead. I remember when the argument was....ID is not science because they dont get published in peer review science journals. What will the next ever changing goal post be? At the same time we are seeing more challenges to the modern synthesis in the peer reviewed current science literature.
Even more ironic, design theory is now being used in the field of Systems Biology. Again not bad for being dead.
What 'respected peer reviewed journals' would that be my friend??

And perhaps you might let me know what subject matter they are researching.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jun 12, 2012
 
THEMAYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I never mentioned their own Journals. I'm speaking of the respected independent journals below. You should get your facts straight before you accuse others of bullshitting. Now you can respond with the ever changing goal post that I spoke of.
THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY
Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution"
Michael J. Behe
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998)
Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series,
• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui,“Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3)(September 2002): 766–775.
Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417
M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall,“The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & 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 (2002): 325–342
Axe, D. D., 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595.
• 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.
I can see religious science degree holders working on and reporting on 'normal' science that doesn't somehow require a 'goddidit', and being able to publish the work.

I cannot see a religious scientist being able to publish anything at all in ANY reputable peer reviewed scientific journal if it somehow calls up magik to explain the results.

We do know that AiG and ICR have programs wherein they help the religious dopes get higher degrees so they can use them on their letterheads and try to sneak into reputable science houses. This has been going on for years.

I would bet if you look into the individual papers, that if they are in-fact published in reputable journals, the papers themselves will be religion 'neutral', that is there will not be anything in the paper referencing religion or magik.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 12, 2012
 
OK folks just go to talkorigins and you will find where the above crap comes from and the rebuttal.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4...

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
You're the one who just used a mathematician (that would be a NON-BIOLOGIST) publishing in an apologetics house as a "peer-reviewed scientific journal".
So perhaps you can be the first to tell us, ya know, that thing all these dudes you mention with more qualifications than you CAN'T - what exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID?
Thanks in advance for not bothering to answer my questions.
I can only respond to what was coherent, and please do not accuse me of not answering. It is you who has not answered and thanks for doing exactly what I expected and changing the goal post. You didn't seem to criticize the person who posted a bunch of organizations that had nothing to do with biology as long as they spoke out against ID in non peer review. It seems that was OK. Oh the dual standards.

Mathematics and statistic are used in bioinformatics and systems biology all the time as is design theory. Again speaking of the ever changing goal post. It never ceases to amaze me that everyone is always trying to propagates this macro evolutionary paradigm by saying that all science agrees, therefore it must be true, but when it comes to criticism, all of a sudden only biologisy count, and the real kicker, is that I also gave you examples of biologist and biochemist and you pretended that they didn't exist and implied weren't qualified.

This is called BS in the highest order. You cherry Picked one guy who is a mathematician and who was published in a relevant field, and in a peer review journal and conviently left out the others. This kind of maneuvering only attest to the weakness of your case. PS. If you think the distinguished Cambridge Monograph Series does not qualify as peer review, then your in the wrong discussion. You should argue on what you understand. I guess the second strategy is just to deny that these are examples peer reviewed literature. Like I said before, run and change the goal post. I can only imagine what the next excuse will be.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jun 12, 2012
 
THEMAYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I have posted them. They are right above your post. I didn't even include all the peer review publications and press only journaled publications. If you cant find them I will post them again just for you mate.
Lying for Jesus...sad

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
OK folks just go to talkorigins and you will find where the above crap comes from and the rebuttal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4...
No thats not where I got it from. That may be your only source but its not mine, but thanks for pointing out that even Talks Origins states......"Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books. As of December 2005, intelligent design supporters offer, in support of this claim, the following articles".

It even offers more citations than I did. Thanks for pointing that out.
The sad thing is that with just a few minutes of research these same name callers could have found out the truth for themselves.

The later opinion piece is irrelevant. The question was one of ID being published in peer review science literature which just a few minutes ago people were accusing me of lying about. Yet again thanks for pointing out that even Talks origins has documented this fact. Run for that goal post one more time.

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.

and books (Discovery Institute 2005):

Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
Campbell, John Angus and Stephen C. Meyer. 2003. Darwinism, Design, and Public Education. Michigan State University Press.
Denton, Michael. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler and Adler.
Dembski, W. A. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dembski, William. 2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Gonzalez, Guillermo and Jay W. Richards. 2004. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Regnery Publishing.
Minnich, Scott and Stephen C. Meyer. 2004. Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design and Nature, Rhodes, Greece, ed. M. W. Collins and C. A. Brebbia, WIT Press.
Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. 1984. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Philosophical Library.(4th ed., Lewis and Stanley, 1992).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 16
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

8 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 min KAB 134,681
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 3 min In Six a Days 497
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr DanFromSmithville 113,284
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 4 hr MikeF 171,611
Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution? 5 hr Dogen 91
art & intelligence (Mar '11) Thu THE LONE WORKER 68
Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Thu THE LONE WORKER 3,391
•••
•••