Author
|
Topic: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
Message 24 of 112 (186828)
02-19-2005 5:18 PM
|
|
|
first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
I guess you all know about this, but just in case; The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories | Discovery Institute. IDers seemed rather pleased to get this published, though it was swiftly retracted by the journal ’’—
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Well, that was a reply to my post so I think I have a right in responding. All I can ask is that you give a worked example of how carrying out modular arithmetic on the gene frequencies reported by Mendel in his pea experiments tell us anything about complexity. I gather from your other posts that you think that you can decompose gene frequencies into distinct sets of numbers that represent "kinds" though I may be wrong. I want a worked example! Mick
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
Message 50 of 112 (205886)
05-07-2005 5:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by Limbo 05-07-2005 5:08 PM
|
|
Hi Limbo,
Limbo writes: it could be years before we seem anything NEW Perhaps you could describe some of the research projects that may take years to complete? In a different thread, Jerry Bauer has suggested that the SETI project is a good example of intelligent design research, in that it seeks the signal of intelligent design in the physical universe. Are we awaiting the results of a "bio-SETI"? Does such a project exist?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 49 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:08 PM | | Limbo has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 51 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:30 PM | | mick has replied |
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
Message 52 of 112 (205898)
05-07-2005 5:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by Limbo 05-07-2005 5:30 PM
|
|
Im hardly qualified to speculate on what the ID leadership may or may not have in store for us I thought it was science, not a cult!
A weekly cable program specifically for the ID vs Evolution debate. Each week influencial people from each camp could debate, and update the public on current developments That wouldn't quite constitute research now, would it? In any case, what developments do you have in mind?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 51 by Limbo, posted 05-07-2005 5:30 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
Message 60 of 112 (212177)
05-28-2005 6:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H 01-22-2005 10:32 AM
|
|
Origins & Design journal
Hi holmes, You guys may already know about this, and I haven't read through every post on this thread so it may already have been discussed, but i came across the "Origins and Design" journal published by ARN, which contains a few articles (mainly comment but a couple of "science" articles as well). Recent issues identify an irreducably complex system ( bacterial cell division) and a hypothesis explaining why the mammal eye is not badly designed. This latter article is very silly. The argument, boiled down is
Michael Denton writes: If the non-inverted retina works so well for the cold-blooded cephalopods why did evolution go to such trouble to invert the retina in cold-blooded vertebrates? In other words, inverting the retina is such a silly thing to do that it must have been directed by an intelligent agent, because there's no rational selective explanation for it. It appears that inefficiency is now also evidence of intelligent design. It's all pretty laughable stuff, to be frank, and they are extremely defensive. Most of the articles are "darwin versus ID" rants. Mick
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by Silent H, posted 01-22-2005 10:32 AM | | Silent H has not replied |
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
Message 62 of 112 (212185)
05-28-2005 8:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by CK 05-28-2005 8:09 PM
|
|
Re: Origins & Design journal
Yup, I've been posting on their forums a bit (under the same name). Somebody there put me onto http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php which is another rather silly journal you folks may wish to investigate. I recommend Complex Specification (CS): A New Proposal For Identifying Intelligence as one of the sillier articles. Apparently, when faced with a random five-letter word, we can tell whether that word was intelligently designed or not by looking it up in an english dictionary. For those who want to know, of the 13 bits of information that make up a five-letter word in english, 10 are specified intelligence and the remainder are unintelligent. Cool! Mick This message has been edited by mick, 05-28-2005 08:28 PM
This message is a reply to: | | Message 61 by CK, posted 05-28-2005 8:09 PM | | CK has not replied |
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
Re: Johnathan Wells (Not a dealer in magic and spells at all in fact)
Hi WK, I've seen a few articles like this. The authors toss the word "design" about but don't actually discuss intelligent design, which is of course the contentious point. It is perfectly reasonable to think that centrioles, lungs, white blood cells etc. are well designed. But it has nothing to do with the idea that intelligent agency was behind that design. Daniel Dennett has been referring to evolution by natural selection as "design work" for decades now, and he definitely isn't into ID! Mick
This message is a reply to: | | Message 64 by Wounded King, posted 06-03-2005 6:53 AM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
Re: Johnathan Wells (Not a dealer in magic and spells at all in fact)
Hi wounded king,
WK writes: I wonder why he thinks there is no interest in Centrosomes or centrioles amongst biological researchers Perhaps he is submitting to the wrong journals or something? If he submitted his article to molecular biology journals then perhaps they wouldn't be interested in the "ultimate causation" behind the system as much as the molecular machinery involved. But there are of course plenty of integrative biology journals that would be happy with this kind of issue. I think he was being a little disingenuous in the quote you provided. It's a bit strange to claim that Darwinism doesn't permit one to use the metaphor of the turbine. We use metaphors all the time! He appears to be accusing evolutionary biologists of reductionism at the molecular level, which is kind of interesting as the "inability" of evolutionary theory to account for the translation of genotype into phenotype is usually one of the arguments they level against us. In any case, the argument for design that he provides is not very strong. He describes a highly functionalist philosophy (the thing is what it does, the reason the thing exists is to perform the action it does, etc.). This is exactly the kind of thinking that got sociobiologists into trouble a decade or two ago. When evolutionary biologists use this kind of thinking, we are criticized for telling "just-so stories". But when IDists do it, it is a refreshing new paradigm! Mick
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
Message 92 of 112 (224243)
07-17-2005 3:44 PM
|
|
|
discovery institute blog
I'm still searching for cutting edge ID research. Readers of this thread may be interested/irritated/bored by the blog, Intelligent Design: The Future run by the Discovery Institute. It appears that their imagination is still largely exercised by the existence of the bacterial flagellum. Mick
|