an example of ID research and paper

If I remember I can dig it up in work tomorrow.I do know of one paper that was published and presented in the Dover trial as evidence for Intelligent Design. Dembski had gushed over it, saying that "this may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution." Details here.Yes, IDists do publish a few scant papers that they say supports Intelligent Design, but generally they aren't very good.

I downloaded the papers and am trying to find time to look through them. If anyone wants a copy, feel free to PM me or send me an email.

quote:

---

Generally it is claimed there are no ID papers, and then when confronted with ID papers, what is your argument?

​

You try to say you don't consider them ID research and papers but the scientists conducting such research and publicizing them do. There is a nice list of some ID papers on the Discovery Institute's site. Imo, it is patently false to go about claiming no ID research and papers are done.

​

Are you guys going to continue to make that false claim now that you are aware such research and papers are done?

---

It really depends on the content of the paper. If the conclusions of the paper match the claims of ID, then sure, you could say that ID papers are being published, albiet very few.However, the problem with Intelligent Design isn't just a lack of evidence, it's an utter lack of a proper, well-formulated research paradigm. Michael Behe is just about the only biologist who tried to develop standards for data that would constitute evidence for ID (irreducible complexity), but the definition he first developed was proven to be unworkable by Miller. When he revised it to circumvent criticism, he redefined Irreducible Complexity so that it became totally divorced from biological reality.If you can't formulate workable benchmarks for what would count as "evidence" for ID, you can't say that any particular research paper supports ID.Edited by BeagleBob, : Added a "however" into the second paragraph for readability.

quote:

---

I could restate what the author says but I did not start the thread to get into the particulars of the paper. Otherwise, it'd be a proposed topic, but just pointing out that the attempt to claim no ID papers and research are done is incorrect, and that attempts to claim this doesn't relate to ID conflict with the author's concept of what the paper does, nor does it reflect the funding as it came from an ID organization.

​

If you want to claim that, yes, ID papers and research are done but in YOUR OPINION, the work doesn't properly address ID, that is fine. My point is to correct the oft-repeated slur by so many evos in pretending ID scientists are not doing research and publishing in areas they believe relate to ID. I would not expect evos to admit that the work is valid since they are so predisposed to rejecting any ID concepts a priori, but I do expect some honesty in admitting that it is wrong to smear such scientists as not doing research and publishing in areas they believe relate to Intelligent Design.

---

A paper on protein dynamics isn't necessarily supportive of ID, nor is necessarily supportive of evolution.Before you can say that a paper supports a particular idea, you have to have established a clear benchmark to detail why that idea is supportive. ID doesn't have this at all... the major attempt was Irreducible Complexity and it utterly collapsed under examination on all fronts.If you had a proposal for a research project without a clear idea of how to reach an end goal, you're never going to get funding for it from anyone of any degree of critical intelligence. Sure you could say "Hey, in YOUR OPINION my work doesn't seem capable of reaching a solid conclusion," but frankly that's still not gonna cut it, Evo/ID bias or no.

I'm sure you don't take evolutionary biologists at face value until you read the research yourself. Please allow me the same benefit now that I have the papers.

As a theory, yes. As an attitude, apparently not.Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" centered around the idea that there are some structures that are so complex that they no longer function when one component is removed (thereby making a stepwise construction through evolution grotesquely improbable). His favorite example was the bacterial flagellum.Behe's hypothesis was put to the test, and failed utterly. Researchers like Ken Miller later showed that the flagellum can, in fact, be built from more primitive precursors (in this instance, the type 3 secretory system that bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells).Behe was unperturbed, and in the Dover trial rewrote his thesis so that an irreducibly complex structure cannot retain its current function when one component is removed. While this definition certainly entails that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, it's meaningless since evolutionary processes can account for its development, regardless of its "irreducibly complex" nature.This is where ID as an attitude is unfalsifiable. Behe is stubborn and adamant that his thesis is true, and will bend over backwards to make sure it is so by ignoring all other relevant data.