Richard Dawkins Weighs In on the Removal of Baylor Professor’s ID Website

_{Galapagos Finch

October 7, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

Maya: Just a few suggestions: 1) "ID FAQ presented by William Dembski to Texas State Board of Education" http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.ID_FAQ.pdf (includes some references to ID papers) 2)"Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" Behe MJ, Snoke DW. Protein Sci. 2004 Oct;13(10):2651-64. Epub 2004 Aug 31 (anticipating some of the themes of "The edge of evolution" 3)"Specification: The Pattern That Signifies intelligence" http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf (one of the fundamental writings of Dembski, about the basic notion of specification) and, obviously, the three works realized by Dembski and Robert Marks II, which have been recently censored at Baylor's site. They are not easy to read, but extremely important in my opinion: 4)"Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success" http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/Publications/CostOfSuccess.html 5) "Active Information in Evolutionary Search" http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/Publications/Hagg.html 6) "Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites" http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/Publications/eev.html and, finally, you can find a much braoder list at this page: 7) "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)" http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Sciencegpuccio_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Tina, I'm happy to do the literature search based on bibliographies and other references, but I have to fit that in with my classes and thesis work. Having a list of the top 10 ID research papers would be a good start. Is there anyone on this blog who can provide them? Thanks!Maya_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Maya - this is encouraging news!But your request can get lost in cyber-space. Try direct e-mail contact with varies ID sites. But a great site is "Evolution Debate News" and "Creation - Evolution" news. Good luck! Even impartial scientists not concerned with this debate are realising Darwinian Theory is not even beginning to explain findings especially in mircbiology/biochemistry. Contact Dr James Bardwell (microbiolagist) and ask him what he meant when it was time to think about "genetic assisted design"Tina_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

I'm not at Baylor and am but a lowly grad student, but my advisor is willing to put up a page with the top 10 ID research papers and a comments section for discussing them. Where can we get a first draft of the list?Maya_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

We can do this free-speech experiment. I’m not at Baylor, but I am a professor at a well-known university.
The "being at Baylor" part is actually important, owing to its history of suppressing ID, and the other part that's important is association with ID supporters. It seems that you can get away with more if you're not associated with any known ID people, because you're less of a threat. I assume that's why non-ID scientists always pay homage to NDE and/or disparage ID when they publish results that are damaging to NDE orthodoxy. They are covering their you-know-whats.
russ_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Lars:
Hmm, could this be a prediction of ID as opposed to RM+NS: some organisms have genetic traits that do not help their own reproductive success, but keep them from overrunning the planet?
This is trying to remind me of something akin to this that I have seen in nature -- limits placed on organisms that seem to offer only disadvantage to the organism, but offer advantage to the ecosystem. The problem is that I am sure I had found some good examples, but I can't remember what they are.bFast_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

bornagain said "My hunch is that the removal of 1/5 of the Mycoplasma genitalium genome will definitely be noticeable in the organism’s fitness for survival..." I was thinking the same... Gene twiddlers will discover that all that "junk DNA" really was important after all. Either important for the organism's survival... or possibly to keep its success within the limits necessary to protect other creatures. Gray goo, anyone? Hmm, could this be a prediction of ID as opposed to RM+NS: some organisms have genetic traits that do not help their own reproductive success, but keep them from overrunning the planet? I guess that's basically like altruism, except not necessarily behavioral.lars_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

MacT - I'm in on this experiment too. Of course nobody reads my pages, so it won't be noticed. :-( BobBob O'H_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Russ: We can do this free-speech experiment. I'm not at Baylor, but I am a professor at a well-known university. Propose the list -- let's say the top 10 ID research publications -- we'll refine it with input from the readers here, and I'll post it publicly. In fact, I believe I could get support from colleagues world-wide to post this list on university-based websites, probably including Baylor, and we could begin to compile information on the relative vigor of institutional censorship in academia.MacT_{October 8, 2007
October
10
Oct
8
08
2007
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

This is definitely ID research.
If some professor compiled a list of similar articles on a Baylor website, would the University censor that site?russ_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

"the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth." Hey that assumes all other life on earth is "natural". They use the word artificial where NDE would use the word "supernatural" for what ID proponents espouse. Specified Information is not natural. It is the product of mind. No one had shown that conscious mind is natural. This is definitely ID research.idnet.com.au_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

People at MIT talk of doing something similar to Venter's project but not as ambitious. It is not a new chromosome but modification of current genomes with functions not found in any form of life. For example, they are talking about a sequence that would act like a counter in a computer program that would measure how often the genome did something and possibly when it reached a point stop the process. They are also talking about modifying the ability of a genome to evolve and limiting the types of changes that can happen to this genome. Not quite new life and the rationale is to design genomes to accomplish specific tasks which is along the lines of what is being done with medicines and genetically modified foods. Apparently they have attracted the interests of the venture capitalists. The people behind this project are engineers and essentially they are building new life forms using engineering principles.jerry_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Although Venter's laboratory work is very impressive in this endeavor,,One has to seriously consider the validity of his statement of "I am creating artificial life" when in fact his work is actually based on: "The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition." Thus, his work seems to beg the question "HOW ,many actual novel proteins did his team actually create?" From first glance of the article, I am fairly confident that Venter's team has not created even one novel protein in the "New Artificial Life" that he claims he is creating!!! My hunch is that the removal of 1/5 of the Mycoplasma genitalium genome will definitely be noticeable in the organism's fitness for survival so will comport to Genetic entropy and thus His work cannot even be used to support the plausibility of evolution, since the fitness will be less than the original genome!!!bornagain77_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Here is another article about the creation of artificial life: US scientist heralds 'artificial life' breakthrough Despite the title: "We have not achieved what some have speculated we have in synthetic life," Kowalski said. "When we do so there will be a scientific publication and we are likely months away from that."EndoplasmicMessenger_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Yes [idnet.com] and as he looks to the heavens this is what he should say: Oh Darwin - Father of Evolution - help me now!Tina_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

OT: forgive quick post, but found this morning... I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer "Scientist has made synthetic chromosome" "The Guardian can reveal that a team of 20 top scientists assembled by Mr Venter, led by the Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, has already constructed a synthetic chromosome, a feat of virtuoso bio-engineering never previously achieved. Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome that is 381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic code" http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange "The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up." Interesting, "bare essentials" ey. Well, this was predicted and I say it is ID. And so do they legally, becaue they want to patent it.Michaels7_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Richard Dawkins lost for words! Who would have thought it? He looks to heaven for the inspiration he needs. Alas, there was no help from on high for Richard in his moment of silence. No wonder he felt the need to get revenge by saying that God is a delusion.idnet.com.au_{October 7, 2007
October
10
Oct
7
07
2007
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply