The Significance of the Dover Decision

As I remember it some of the DI experts - including Dembski - demanded their own lawyers and when the TMLC refused, pocketed the money they'd already been paid and left the case.
Others, notably Behe, stayed and testified (and it would have been better for the DI if he hadn't).I'm not sure that the DI as an organisation was formally involved.

I've read big chunks of it.It's interesting that Randman doesn't understand that the transcripts are a good source for what went on at the trial - and some very interesting points came out of it.For instance, without the trial we certainly wouldn't know that "Of Panda's and People" started out as an explicitly Creationist text. It really does illustrate the fact that ID began as a replacement for the failed "Creation Science" strategy.And I would add that William Dembski seemed to think that a legal setting was a good way to bring out the truth. Or at least he did before the trial. The Vise Strategy

Yes, I certainly see a contradiction in your posts.

quote:

---

IDers are publishing articles, discussing theory, etc, etc,....

---

But they're mainly publishing press releases, blogs, popular level materials and very few scientific papers. If ID was really about science you'd see very little BUT scientific papers at this stage. You certainly wouldn't see school textbooks being written !

quote:

---

The people trying to silence them are evolutionists. They have even resorted to using the courts to silence proponents of Intelligent Design, and yet there appears to be little self-awareness among evos of what they are trying to do.

---

Nobody's trying to silence them. Although I can certainly imagine ID supporters trying to hush up information they don't like. Consider the case of Christine Comer in Texas - forced to resign for simply telling people about a lecture critical of ID.

quote:

---

Think about it.

​

Scientists who use courts to protect their theory are likely to find, in the long run, their theory cannot stand on it's own merits.

---

That would apply to any "science" that tries to step around the procedures of science and appeal to politics or public opinion, too. Which is exactly what ID is doing.And it is the side that stoops to abuse of power to step around that process - as the Dover School Board did - that need to worry. Not those who appeal to the courts to stop such abuses - as happened in Dover. And the parents won because evolution does stand on its merits and ID does not.

quote:

---

Scientists who seek to silence other scientists with scorn, derision, persecution, etc,....probably don't have a very strong case to begin with, or else they would relish the publication and dissemination of their opponent's ideas provided their's could be presented along-side it or rebut it with later publications.

---

The ID movement doesn't seem to have trouble in publishing their books. Or in pouring out scorn and derision. What they do have a problem with is doing science. The mere fact that you attempted to commandeer QM as "ID research" rather proves that.

No more off-topic than the post I replied to.

quote:

---

If you want to discuss whether and what IDers have published, why not propose a thread for doing so?

---

I don't want to discuss what IDers have published because that includes a good many irrelevant papers (Behe's published quite a lot of papers in his career - but very few of his papers are relevant to ID). Discussing what has been published about ID would be more to the point - but there really doesn't seem to be anything much to discuss. The facts are pretty well known.

quote:

---

You mean the fact that there are more ID papers about ID or related to ID themes seeking to establish basic tenets of ID than they are about evolution in terms of it's basic claims and assumptions.....because that's the fact.
In defense of evo's, part of that is evos largely accepted Darwinism prior to the current standards within the peer-review system.

---

I have seen no convincing case that it is a fact - or even that it is a true like-for-like comparison, or - given your caveat that it is significant even if it is true. If it's important to you - and it seems to be the way you keep bringing it up - you should start a thread.

Simple points.1) Is false. As I pointed out earlier it is ID that relies on evading the scientific process, not evolution. There are no court cases trying to maintain the dominance of evolution in science. The court cases are because ID is failing as science and its supporters are using other means - which are being stopped by the courts.2) Teleology doesn't seem to be enjoying much of a revival in science. Let us note that you make an explicit appeal to religious belief, too.3) Represents an open admission that ID is going to use public opinion to sabotage science education.4) Confirms that ID is based in religion, not science.Let me add that the vague idea that a creator did something somehow in the course of evolution is not science and never can be. You can't get productive research from that, it makes no predictions and it isn't falsifiable. If ID wants to be science it's going to have to get specific about what the creator DID do. And the ID movement - which in reality regards science as just a sideshow to the religious and political elements - does not want to do that.

quote:

---

depends on what you mean by "creator" and what the "somehow" is.

---

My point is that they DON'T say. ID is incredibly and intneeionally vague for political reasons. (Except before religious audiences where they are usually clear that the creator is God).In that respect ID is less scientific than "Creation Science".

To deal with the first list."Darwinism, Design, & Public Education" is a volume in the "Rhetoric and Public Affairs" series. An odd choice for scientific papers.The Meyer paper has been dealt with elsewhere. There is good reason to suppose that the peer review process was rigged to ensure publication.The Wells paper raises a hypothesis which has no clear connection to ID and has been falsified. It's venue of publication is a (very) low-quality journal with an anti-evolution editor. The other paper referring to it was at a conference mainly dedicated to applying ideas from biology to engineering.It is not clear that any of these represents original research. Certainly the Meyer paper did not.The Vle paper just sounds weird. I'd be interested in seeing it but I don't have high hopes that it contains anything really relevant.THe second does include some research.The Behe and Snokes paper is more anti-evolution than pro-ID (and not very successful at that). It is a theoretical analysis which was raised in the Dover case - again you should read the transcript.The 2000 Axe paper is known for being mis-cited as support for ID.I am less familiar with the remainder but at this stage I will point out that the postscript of a book is an odd place to find original scientific research !This list seems to confirm that I was correct - the scientific literature about ID is very small - even if every item is correct (and I have doubts there, too).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

you don't like the papers....big surprise there.

---

Most of my comments had nothing to do with liking them or not.

quote:

---

Point is they are publishing, contrary to the claims by evos here on this site.

---

But not contrary to what I said. And there are very few of them, fewer still that are original research, and most of those are more about evolution than ID.

The Vle (or Voie) paper may be found online Biological function and the genetic code are interdependentIt is definitely NOT a research paper. It is evidence though - of how the list of ID "research" has to be heavily padded with poor-quality non-research papers.

That's already on your list. And if your list wasn't exhaustive then why not do some quality control on it ? Since the sub-title is "ID research as it relates to Dover" you could take out all the non-research papers for a start.