Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pattylt said:
I’ve yet to read any scientific ID papers that passed the usual rigid criteria of scientific standards
Click to expand...
As we speak peer review has enormous issues. In any case, here are some.

Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.​

www.discovery.org

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural…
www.discovery.org www.discovery.org
 
Thank you.

Quote: Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves – and is receiving – serious consideration by the scientific community.

Please let this end the accusations of a conspiracy to ignore ID as a valid inquiry. I’m not accusing you but I’ve heard so many ID proponents claim that peer review conspires against them. We can now put that claim to rest!
 
If only we could. Some responses to earlier peer-reviewed articles about ID were emotional. A few questioned the validity of the review and the integrity of publisher. The word conspiracy does not apply. And in the US, a court ruling has added to the confusion.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
Please let this end the accusations of a conspiracy to ignore ID as a valid inquiry. I’m not accusing you but I’ve heard so many ID proponents claim that peer review conspires against them. We can now put that claim to rest!
Click to expand...
Actually, it still does. However, progress is being made as you can see.
 
The article seemed pleased with the results so far. I’ll consider their self assertion over those that see conspiracies in every nook and cranny.
 
An illogical reply. There is enough evidence here to show that there is, at best, suspicion about ID as science, to obvious hostility.
 
While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. — Wernher von Braun, rocket pioneer, 1972.
 
Science is encountering design in life. Contrary to what some scientists think, this is reality. That means scientists are literally taking the human genome apart to find out how it works, to discover sites and processes that cause disease, and to continue to investigate the non-coding region which plays a role.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Science is encountering design in life. Contrary to what some scientists think, this is reality. That means scientists are literally taking the human genome apart to find out how it works, to discover sites and processes that cause disease, and to continue to investigate the non-coding region which plays a role.
Click to expand...
This is something of a mantra for you. But we can take anything apart to see how it works. Ipso facto (according to Ed) everything is designed.

QED?
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Can you have evolution w/o an evolver, a cause for cell replication?
Click to expand...
Yes. The cause of cell replication is not an external entity, it is built into the DNA of the cell, and stopped by the DNA of the cell. You might usefully learn about the role of telomeres in cell reproduction.
 
edwest211 said:
Science is encountering design in life.
Click to expand...
How do you know this? Where is your tried and tested design detector? Where is the paper laying our the double blind tests of your design detector?

As I am sure you realise, saying the equivalent of: “It sure looks designed to me.” is not going to cut it scientifically.

Without a tested and verified design detector, ID is going to have a very hard time being accepted by the scientific community. At the moment the best detector for designed DNA we have is a look through Monsanto’s patents. What does ID have that is better than that.

You may as well know that IC has failed as a design detector since IC systems can evolve. CSI has also failed since the Specification “S” is too ill-defined to be of any practical use. I am not aware of any other ID proposals for a design detector, though I am open to being corrected on that.
 
Richard Dawkins must be god then. It only looks designed, it actually isn’t. Facts are facts. If scientists could use evolution, they would. The fact is, evolution provides zero help in solving real-world problems as quickly as possible.

I know all about Monsanto. Most people reading do not. Nice dodge.

The practical use you refer to is happening right now. It involves taking apart machinery that is very highly complex. That has processes that operate at the femtosecond level.
 
rossum said:
Yes. The cause of cell replication is not an external entity, it is built into the DNA of the cell, and stopped by the DNA of the cell. You might usefully learn about the role of telomeres in cell reproduction.
Click to expand...
No, simply saying cells replicate without an external entity does not make it so. The link to telomeres was interesting but not useful.
 
o_mlly said:
No, simply saying cells replicate without an external entity does not make it so.
Click to expand...
No, simply saying cells cannot replicate without an external entity does not make it so. Where is your evidence to match telomeres?
 
rossum said:
No, simply saying cells cannot replicate without an external entity does not make it so. Where is your evidence to match telomeres?
Click to expand...
I made no claim. I asked a question. You made the claim. And telomeres do not cause replication.
 
o_mlly said:
And telomeres do not cause replication.
Click to expand...
They do stop replication. They are one of the mechanisms that stop us growing when we reach adult size. Faulty telomeres are one of the possible causes of cancer: cells keep on dividing when they should stop.
 
rossum said:
They do stop replication. They are one of the mechanisms that stop us growing when we reach adult size. Faulty telomeres are one of the possible causes of cancer: cells keep on dividing when they should stop.
Click to expand...
As I read your link, I thought the natural progression of telomeres was to shorten over time and previous replications so as to cause the cell’s death. Are such telomeres faulty or natural?
 
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
(Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top