From time to time I post on intelligent design (ID) here, as that perspective on origins could be (and has been) offered as a backdrop for any intelligent ET life that might be found out in the universe someday. That is, the Designer would also have designed alien life if it’s real (but that doesn’t comment on the mechanism).
ID often gets criticized for not having an “real” scientists in its support. Here’s a post that lists seven modern Novel Prize winners who didn’t like Darwinism and favored some sort of design argument instead. (Note that one of the commenters adds an eighth). The post is very strong, in that it includes lengthy citations from each one that demonstates their belief in ID.
So it’s established: when creationists and IDers say scientists promote Darwinism because researchers have to follow the establishment line, it’s a total lie.
Good to know.
That’s one of those “mostly true” things that get stretched too far. It’s very difficult (because of antagonism) in many journals to get ID material published, but it’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. ID-friendly articles do appear in mainstream science journals, and so “never” would be a lie (or a misguided notion, more charitably). But this isn’t about publishing, which is where such filters operate most of the time. When one gets to the stature of these scientists– tenured professors, or with scientific reputations so lofty they’d have to be serial killers to lose their positions — then there is little the scientific community can say (“he’s not a real scientist” would sound utterly ridiculous).
Notice something peculiar about most of these scientists listed? They were mostly religious or “spiritual” before being scientists and before winning the Nobel Prize in their respective fields. The atheists on the list may not necessarily believe in a personal god, but they have a faith-based belief in an inherent intelligent force in the universe. Intelligent Design is a type of faith. It’s spirituality mixed with pseudoscience and metaphysics. None of those men came to conclude Intelligent Design through their research; rather, they already held the assumption of an intelligence and then rationalized it with their work.
No scientific paper on intelligent design has been published in a reputable journal, however, intelligent design proponents have published papers in reputable journals that they claim is evidence of their intelligent designer. What intelligent design proponents do is try to rationalize the conclusions of their science to fit with their previously held believe in god or intelligent forces. They’re essentially cherry picking what they want from science and saying it’s evidence of their intelligent designer while ignoring the tons of other evidence and rationale that doesn’t support the conclusion they want to reach, while crying that they’re being persecuted and that evil Darwinists just want to shut them up. They’re clowns.
Notice a logic problem with this response? How is it that the science didn’t dissuade them of their religious beliefs? Oh, wait … they really didn’t know the science adequately for that to happen … ?
Uh, sorry, but you’re dead wrong about no ID papers being published in journals. Given the incoherence of your response I am not surprised. Here’s a list of articles published under peer review in scientific journals, but I don’t imagine you’ll read it or bother to check any of them:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
To be fair, doc, that list has problems. The very first paper in the list was torn to shreds when it was published — not a good start. And about half the papers were published in BIO-Diversity, a Dembski-Behe joint.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity
But your basic point was right, there’s more published work out there than people think. But you guys are framing this entirely in a partisan manner. Aren’t ALL science papers relevant to ID claims?
Similarly, UFO abduction proponents whine that science ignores or ridicules their claims. Of course, it’s mere partisan rhetoric. There are many thousands of papers on functional amnesia, trauma, hypnosis, source-monitoring memory errors, etc., that directly bear on abduction claims. But the abduction buffs ignore them — or don’t even look for them — because they don’t support their views.
yep; not every paper published in peer review in biblical studies is a good one, but it makes it through the process.
I don’t know if I’ve been blacklisted, since I attempted to submit a comment pointing out that the journals they got published in aren’t reputable scientific journals, and in-fact BIO-Complexity is owned and run by the IDers themselves with an agenda to give IDers more credibility with publications. I’m not going to write all the paragraphs pointing out how unscientific the papers are and how lousy the peer-review is on these journals, but do a Google search for BIO-Complexity and intelligent design and you’ll find that it’s basically a publication mill with the sole purpose of allowing IDers to say they have peer-reviewed research.
If you look into any one of those papers, you won’t find any science or research. You’ll find a guy trying to argue his god into existence by saying “Oh life is so complex, I can’t imagine how it’s physical/natural/material, therefore it’s supernatural and my god did it.” Ignoring the fact that the journals they’re published are biased, the papers themselves aren’t even scientific. They’re the same crap you’d get in any book on Creationism, literally, the same arguments from complexity and the same baseless claims like, “There’s no fossils!”
Yes, the reviewers at these journals needed only you as science czar. Give me a break. The scientists who serve as journal referees are credentialed scientists. Get over the fact that they don’t all look at things the way you do. Why so miserable?