randman writes:
Uh huh? So scientists getting published are half-wits if they are not evos? Is that by definition, Adequate?
Speaking of definitions, what's an "evo"? Looking at the arguments put forward by most creationists, Michael "common descent" Behe could be called one. And I think there are a few "front loader" I.D. people who go further than Behe, and are complete "evos". They just aren't "abios", as their intelligent designer created the initial life form. I.D. is a broad church, and inevitably always will be, because sectarianism is a characteristic of religion (anyone can make up different evidenceless versions of what the intelligent designer actually does and doesn't do, so theological differences automatically happen, as we can see in the entire history of the Abrahamic religions and their numerous sects).
But directly on to the topic, and I think there are problems with the O.P.
randman writes:
I really cannot debate the research itself and so am not proposing it for a thread topic except to mention it in the "In the News" section to show that as far as the author of the paper, right or wrong, he considers the paper and research to be evidence in favor of Intelligent Design.
Fine, perfectly correct, and we can all agree on that, but:
To simply claim no ID research or papers are done is false.
The problem sentence. If Dr Axe is wrong, and none of his papers show evidence for intelligent design, then it could be correct to claim that no I.D. research or papers are done, and, more importantly, there would be nothing in the O.P. that backs that single sentence up. It should have read "if Dr. Axe is right, then to simply claim no I.D. research or papers are done is false."
Keep in mind I am not saying anything about the veracity of his paper except it was published, is in the news, and the author considers it ID research and publication.
That would be correct, except that with the sentence I italicized, you are, in a sense, assuming that Axe's paper supports I.D.
So, this thread is obsolete, as a technical discussion of the paper in relation to I.D. is required, and, understandably
randman does not want to do that here (or anywhere, I would guess).