Intelligent Design as a respectable hypothesis

Can anybody point out even one article published in a respectable scientific journal arguing the case for Intelligent Design Theory?

Much obliged.

SJEG

To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to publish an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[43]

A critical review of the article found it to contain poor scholarship, in that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and [constructed] "a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations." [44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Scientific_peer_review

Giles J. Related Articles, Links
Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design.
Nature. 2004 Sep 9;431(7005):114. No abstract available.
PMID: 15356591 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed

Other articles came up when I searched PubMed for "intelligent design" but the phrase was used in a different context; for example, intelligent design of molecules by humans.

Originally posted by sjeg
Can anybody point out even one article published in a respectable scientific journal arguing the case for Intelligent Design Theory?

Much obliged.

SJEG

The American Museum of Natural History ran an article on the ID v Evolution argument, and a kind of i-say, you-say way in their magazine.

It is biased towards Evolution, as it is a posit from an ID theorist, followed by an Evolutionists response. Then another ID posit, followed by response. The ID guys are never allowed to respond to the Evolutionists, and surprisingly, the conclusion is against ID.

It is interesting to hear a valid argument for ID put forward, however, instead of just a religious rant, even if it is biased...

Originally posted by tojo
The American Museum of Natural History ran an article on the ID v Evolution argument, and a kind of i-say, you-say way in their magazine.

It is biased towards Evolution, as it is a posit from an ID theorist, followed by an Evolutionists response. Then another ID posit, followed by response. The ID guys are never allowed to respond to the Evolutionists, and s ...[text shortened]... argument for ID put forward, however, instead of just a religious rant, even if it is biased...

That one word is the crux of it, the word VALID. ID'ers have no
valid arguments which is why there have been no peer reviewed
papers published. The ID'ers are not interested in real scientific
crash bang paper for paper debate in a real science journal, wanting
only one thing: the forcing of education boards to teach faith based
dogma side by side with evolution as if it were real science which it
was not, is not, and never will be a VALID science. For instance,
one biologist when asked what kind of evidence would kill evolution,
responded, find a solid fossil from the time before the cambrian, when
there were only bacteria and other single celled organisms around.
Nothing like that has ever been nor will ever be found because
virus and single celled life came first then evolutionary experiments
with multicelled forms.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That one word is the crux of it, the word VALID. ID'ers have no
valid arguments which is why there have been no peer reviewed
papers published. The ID'ers are not interested in real scientific
crash bang paper for paper debate in a real science journal, wanting
only one thing: the forcing of education boards to teach faith based
dogma side by side w ...[text shortened]...
virus and single celled life came first then evolutionary experiments
with multicelled forms.

I would say that it is not for a lack of valid arguement, but rather a lack of empirical evidence. ID by it very nature is incapable of being verified or disproved by observatior or experiment.

As such, it is futile to attempt to force it to meet the criteria of a system based upon empirical evidence. The theorum is not based upon emirical evidence, and as such can not be fairly evaluated by means of empirical evidence. While it is certainly logical and fair to refute the theory based upon its nature lacking such evidence, it is fallacious to attempt to utilize such completely differing methods of rational as proof for or against the other.

In regards to the motive of "ID'ers", I would like to politely request that you not generalize us. I understand your statement is likey based upon frustration at a segment of ID'ers who invasively proselytize, intolerant of alternative views. Let me assure you they do not speak for all believers of ID.

Best Regards,
Omnislash

Originally posted by Omnislash
As such, it is futile to attempt to force it to meet the criteria of a system based upon empirical evidence. The theorum is not based upon emirical evidence, and as such can not be fairly evaluated by means of empirical evidence.

Given that context, ID is not science. Should public school boards still be forced to add ID to their science curriculum?

Originally posted by David C
Given that context, ID is not science. Should public school boards still be forced to add ID to their science curriculum?

Of course not.
Only retards would try to argue otherwise.

(Watch)

Originally posted by Omnislash
I would say that it is not for a lack of valid arguement, but rather a lack of empirical evidence. ID by it very nature is incapable of being verified or disproved by observatior or experiment.

As such, it is futile to attempt to force it to meet the criteria of a system based upon empirical evidence. The theorum is not based upon emirical evidence, an ...[text shortened]... views. Let me assure you they do not speak for all believers of ID.

Best Regards,
Omnislash

I join David C when I ask; If ID is not based on empirical evidence then why call it science at all?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I join David C when I ask; If ID is not based on empirical evidence then why call it science at all?

TheSkipper

Adding my voice to the chorus.

(& if'n it aint science what is it?)

Originally posted by Omnislash
I would say that it is not for a lack of valid arguement, but rather a lack of empirical evidence. ID by it very nature is incapable of being verified or disproved by observatior or experiment.

As such, it is futile to attempt to force it to meet the criteria of a system based upon empirical evidence. The theorum is not based upon emirical evidence, an ...[text shortened]... views. Let me assure you they do not speak for all believers of ID.

Best Regards,
Omnislash

I quote myself in order to make myself clear, in that my assertion is not that ID is science, for it certainly is not. As my posts states, ID can neither be verified nor disproved by empirical evidence. Thusly, it can not be scientific.

Whether or not the theory of ID should be taugh in public schools is really just a matter of opinion. As it is a prevalent theory upheld throughout the world I think it may be worthy of noting in our public education system. Probably not in science class (as there is nothing scientific about it), but perhaps somewhere (like theology, or world culture, whatever).

Best Regards,
Omnislash

ps pardon the edits, can't type tonight. 😀

Interesting posts- thank you all very much.


Doesn't this come down to the fact that science and faith are irreconcilable?

Question: can one be a scientist and a religious man?

I remember my biology teacher in school- a staunch Methodist, of all things (you know, the fellows who can't gamble, and use blackcurrant cordial in their "Eucharist", as they can't drink) and also a great fan of Charlie Darwin.

I asked him the above question, as I had difficulty understanding him at the time.

As I understand it, once one marvels at the beauty of this universe, all is possible. So- if you go infinitely outwards, into the depths of the universe, there are things which are beyond our comprehension. If you go inwards, to cells, molecules, what have you, there are things which are beyond our comprehension. And just when someone comes up with one theory which explains something, then it just opens up a whole load of other things we may never understand.

So we are pretty clueless, really. But one thing that stands out is the amazing perfection of this world, and how it all works together. And whether we put that down to coincidence, or a creator, I suppose the important thing is to appreciate the beauty around us, because either way, we are blessed.

That's my humble 2 farthings. What say ye?

Originally posted by David C
Given that context, ID is not science. Should public school boards still be forced to add ID to their science curriculum?

Is reading science, is home ec, is history, philosophy, and so on?
Why does it have to be called science to be allowed in schools?
It can be part of the world religions as far as I'm concern, it is
a matter of faith, but than again I believe evolution is too.
🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by sjeg
Interesting posts- thank you all very much.


Doesn't this come down to the fact that science and faith are irreconcilable?

Question: can one be a scientist and a religious man?

I remember my biology teacher in school- a staunch Methodist, of all things (you know, the fellows who can't gamble, and use blackcurrant cordial in their "Eucharist", as ...[text shortened]... ty around us, because either way, we are blessed.

That's my humble 2 farthings. What say ye?

Sjeg: "Doesn't this come down to the fact that science and faith are irreconcilable?"

No, on the contrary. True Science and True Faith are both searching for the Truth.

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM

Sjeg: "Question: can one be a scientist and a religious man?"

Oh yes, there are many religious scientists.

John Polkinghorne is one of them.

http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/

http://www.templetonprize.org/


EDIT: Roman-Catholic teachings do NOT oppose evolution theory.

Originally posted by Omnislash
I would say that it is not for a lack of valid arguement, but rather a lack of empirical evidence. ID by it very nature is incapable of being verified or disproved by observatior or experiment.

As such, it is futile to attempt to force it to meet the criteria of a system based upon empirical evidence. The theorum is not based upon emirical evidence, an ...[text shortened]... views. Let me assure you they do not speak for all believers of ID.

Best Regards,
Omnislash

Here is my main argument: I am making the assumption you
believe in god, a god, some kind of god, right?
If so, why do you insist on this god having to constantly tweek
evolutionary trends to get humans if in fact this god had that goal?
A god capable of creating a whole universe should have no trouble
setting up the rules of physics and chemistry such that life
can form on any planet with a stable metal heavy star not too close
and not too far away from the galactic center where the planet
has liquid water so by definition lies in a sweet spot of radiation.
Then the stuff of life maybe coming from comets whacking the
planet, adding complex proteans to the mix and sitting back to
watch. Why do you suppose such a god to be so inept as to NEED
to constantly watch out for evolutionary trends on every planet
so possesing such life? It would seem to me such a god would have
much bigger things to worry about, having just made an entire
universe, just setting up the rules so it doesn't have to be bothered
with the day to day running of things. That is MY idea of a real god.
The Christian version of god limits the powers of god to their
preconcieved ideas, and thin ones at that.

Originally posted by sjeg
Can anybody point out even one article published in a respectable scientific journal arguing the case for Intelligent Design Theory?

Much obliged.

SJEG

No.