Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BTB & FFT: Is it true that “ID has no . . . recognised scientists, predictive qualities, experiments, peer reviewed publications, evidence, or credibility scientifically”?


H’mm, pretty devastating — if true.

But, is it true?

I doubt it.

Let us start with this response to a certain objector who keeps providing lists of typical objector talking points (and who evidently wishes to be able to do so on UD’s nickel, without effective response).

Not on our watch, gentilhombre:

>>13 kairosfocus 

F/N: DI’s opening remarks on the annotated list of ID professional literature updated to March 2017:


While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. As of 2015, the peer-reviewed scientific publication count had reached 90. Many of these papers are recent, published since 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.

Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.

Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming ”points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

Other pro-ID scientists around the world are publishing peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Complexity, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Physics Essays, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Bacteriology , Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves — and is receiving — serious consideration by the scientific community.

The purpose of ID’s budding research program is thus to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design. And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field . . .

So, let us see for ourselves.>>

Let’s discuss. END

Chirp, chirp, chirp go the tree-frogs in the night . . . kairosfocus
tip-toe through the tulips . . . kairosfocus
Notice, who are tip-toeing away quietly? (What do you think are the odds that we will see a retraction of the headlined accusation? My guess: slim to none. The no publications accusation, sadly, is one of the main talking points of the narrative seeking to discredit the scientific inference to design, and to close minds and hearts to the question. That such has remained the case over years and years despite repeated correction speaks saddening but utterly telling volumes.) kairosfocus
Seems to me that SETI has been ignoring the most obvious evidence for extraterrestrials, i.e. ID. I know that most UD folks are religious and that's OK but ID does not attempt to define a designer or to insist that there be only one designer. Perhaps there are very old civilizations out there who have visited earth and designed life here as experiments. Earth could be an experimental lab. I know, that just pushes the question back to "who designed the ETs but at least it's better than just ignoring the obvious evidence. smordecai
harry: IOW, "intelligence" is an actual form of "potential energy." PaV
Intelligence is known to be a reality. Therefore it is entirely legitimate for science to consider it as a causal factor in a given phenomenon coming into being. Nobody argues that prehistoric cave paintings depicting various animals are just the mindless and accidental, albeit peculiar, coloration of cave walls. In five thousand years nobody will be arguing that the faces on Mt. Rushmore might be a peculiar instance of natural erosion, just as we do not doubt that the Great Sphinx of Giza was intelligently designed. Everybody knows that laptop PCs and robotic equipment could never come about mindlessly and accidentally. In other words, there are phenomena that everyone knows can only come about with intelligent agency as a causal factor. Technology is defined as the application of scientific knowledge for a purpose because it never comes about mindlessly and accidentally. Sorry atheists, but life turned out to be digital information-based nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond our own. Science that hasn't been perverted by atheism, without identifying the intelligent agent or needing to do so, admits that currently there is no plausible explanation for the emergence of life that does not include intelligent agency as a causal factor. Scientists who won't admit that simple fact are destroying the credibility of science. People understand that science isn't defined as that which seems to affirm atheistic belief. harry
D, interesting:
Living cells make decisions based on information processing genetic programmes. Many of these programmes execute digital functions1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. The capability to build synthetic digital systems in living cells could allow engineers to build novel decision-making regulatory networks for use in a variety of applications9, ranging from gene therapies that modify cell state based on sensed information10,11 to entirely new developmental programmes for tissue engineering12,13. In electronics a compositional approach has allowed the construction of digital circuits of great complexity to be quickly designed and implemented. Here, we have developed set of low-variability genetic parts that can be routinely composed to create large digital circuits in yeast cells.
NOR is of course essentially complete as to constructing gate functions, as is NAND. Genetic programmes is highly interesting too. KF kairosfocus
Well Einstein (and almost certainly his contemporaries in the QM pantheon) believed in ID obsessively and like Planck, was witheringly scornful of the Foot-in-the-Door Gang. But then, whose Einstein.. compared to, say, our FITD Gang ? Axel
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15459 Dionisio
Most biology research papers unwittingly point to ID at an accelerated pace. Perhaps one thing missing is more top-down research instead of the ongoing reductionist bottom-up reverse engineering. But even that is pointing in the direction that seems to frustrate some folks out there who keep barking up the wrong trees and getting angry. Poor things. Let's show compassion for them. Dionisio
For the record, re ID's scientific track record. kairosfocus

Leave a Reply