Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?

This isn't the first creationist journal. CRS (Creation Research Society, possibly defunct now) used to host an annual conference that produced a journal. And the ICR website has a lot of articles it calls "research".

But this YEC creationist activity is unrelated to ID or the Wedge Document of the Discovery Institute. I think one of the reasons that neither YEC creationism nor ID is mounting a focused effort at the present time is that they're still regrouping after the defeat at Dover. It was only a defeat for ID, YEC creationism having already been dealt several significant legal defeats in the past, but YEC creationism had been sitting on the sidelines hoping ID, which they don't really buy into, would help tear down the barriers to religious viewpoints in science. They hoped that once ID was in the classroom that YEC creationism wouldn't be far behind.

But the defeat leaves significant obstacles for either viewpoint making significant progress. Efforts promoting ID had the side-effect of throwing into stark clarity the progression from banning evolution to promoting creation science to promoting ID, each just going one step further in removing obvious religious associations from an inherently religious viewpoint. ID also made visible efforts at distancing itself from creation science, tacitly conceding the obvious religious associations for what religious fundamentalists had been arguing for literally decades was science, placing that alternative in even greater shame. ID often came across as, "Well, sure, creation science was actually religion, but this time with ID we're talking actual science!" Yeah, sure. The credibility cost has been enormous, not so much with the general public as much as in terms of increased awareness of the obvious religious associations of creationism and ID by school boards, legislatures and text book publishers.

Not telling you much you don't know, just an opportunity to make these particular points.

--Percy

Beretta writes: I think the biggest problem is the misconceptions that abound about what ID is trying to achieve- they are trying to get a fair hearing and to allow children to hear both sides of the origins debate as well as to explain to them where science and philosophy must be separated.

I think that this will be the third time in this thread that I've asked you to state the testable, falsifiable I.D. hypothesis.

You continually go on and on about the scientific merits of I.D., but yet you seem incapable of even meeting one of the first steps of the scientific method. I mean, you really seem to enjoy writing tomes about I.D., and I realize I'm asking for only a sentence or two...but what do you say, Beretta...why not give it a whirl. Only one or two sentences should do it. You think you could limit yourself to so little...and finally answer the question?

Beretta responds to me:

quote:

---

And what do we have here? Bacteria mutated into bacteria with a mutation.

---

What were you expecting? An ostrich? If we were to get an ostrich out of a petri dish of bacteria reproducing for a week, then that would completely destroy evolutionary theory as we understand it.

You're changing the goalposts. This is a typical creationist tactic. Insist that X has never been seen and when shown that X is seen (and quite often, at that), insist that it isn't an example of Y and hope to high heaven that nobody notices that you didn't ask for Y in the first place.

Of course it's still a dish of bacteria. Evolution doesn't claim you'll get an ostrich from bacteria in a week. Anybody who thinks evolution claims you can clearly doesn't understand how evolution works.

But here's the thing: It's a different "kind" of bacteria. According to creationism, you cannot get a new "kind." But we just did.

Now, are you asking for evolution beyond a new kind? We've got that, too. It'll take a bit longer and requires more equipment. You will remember the constraints on the lab experiment I mentioned at the beginning of the description: It's cheap and easy and can be done by the typical high school student. If you want to see speciation, then you're going to need more time, more equipment, and understanding of biological processes at the college level if not beyond. But we've seen those, too:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Ishikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.
Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79.
PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process]

Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.
Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261.
PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.
Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16.
PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process]

Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.
Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11.
PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process]

Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.
Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85.
PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Tamer AU, Aragno M, Sahin N.
Isolation and characterization of a new type of aerobic, oxalic acid utilizing bacteria, and proposal of Oxalicibacterium flavum gen. nov., sp. nov.
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2002 Dec;25(4):513-9.
PMID: 12583711 [PubMed - in process]

Garner MR, Flint JF, Russell JB.
Allisonella histaminiformans gen. nov., sp. nov. A novel bacterium that produces histamine, utilizes histidine as its sole energy source, and could play a role in bovine and equine laminitis.
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2002 Dec;25(4):498-506.
PMID: 12583709 [PubMed - in process]

Ping W, Zhou D, Sun J, Fan C, Ding Y.
[A new genus of oral bacteria in human]
Wei Sheng Wu Xue Bao. 1998 Apr;38(2):146-51. Chinese.
PMID: 12549377 [PubMed - in process]

Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Steyn PL, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, Sandra P, Kersters K, Joubert JJ.
Classification of heparinolytic bacteria into a new genus, Pedobacter, comprising four species: Pedobacter heparinus comb. nov., Pedobacter piscium comb. nov., Pedobacter africanus sp. nov. and Pedobacter saltans sp. nov. proposal of the family Sphingobacteriaceae fam. nov.
Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1998 Jan;48 Pt 1:165-77.
PMID: 9542086 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

You will notice that we have gone well beyond mere speciation. We have new genera, new families.

Have you heard of a "ring species"? It's the most intriguing thing that shows you exactly how evolution works writ large. It's when you have a species that is distributed geographically over a large area but where the ends meet, like a ring. From the starting point of the ring heading in one direction, adjacent species can interbreed. However, when you complete the ring and return to your starting point, you can no longer interbreed with your original group.

There is a gull ring species running around the Arctic circle. The two ends of the ring are in England. But if you head West, the gull genus of Larus has species that can interbreed with the next population heading West. But when you make your circle back around to England, you find that L. argentatus and L. fuscus cannot interbreed.

Speciation right before your eyes.

quote:

---

That's called variation.

---

No, that's called "evolution." Variation is part and parcel of evolution. The very fact that no organism ever reproduces perfectly every single time means that evolution necessarily has to happen. If you allow variation, you cannot help but have all the rest of evolution coming along for the ride.

quote:

---

it is micro-evolution and it does not imply that macro-evolution is possible.

---

There is no difference between the two. "Macroevolution" is nothing more than a whole bunch of "microevolution." If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to change anymore? What stops it?

quote:

---

Science tells us bacteria can mutate within a range -full stop.

---

Incorrect. Science tells us bacteria can mutate as much as you like, to the point where you don't know what it is anymore and you have to classify it in a new taxon. We've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. Why would you want us to lie about that?

quote:

---

Believing that bacteria could mutate into something other than bacteria would be philosophy not science.

---

Even if we've seen it happen?

Why would you want us to lie?

Serious question. If you respond to anything in this post, I would request that this be the first thing you respond to:

When was the last time you were in a science library, reading biology journals?

If you haven't done the research, if you haven't paid attention, if you haven't done the work required to keep up on the state of the science, what makes you think you have any ability to say what the state of the science is?

Behe had this problem in his book, Darwin's Black Box. He insisted that nobody had ever done any work on the molecular evolution of the blood clot cascade, for example.

The problem is that there were literally dozens of papers on the molecular evolution of the blood clot cascade. He simply didn't bother to look them up. A simple PubMed search would have turned them up in less than a minute. But Behe didn't do that search. He simply declared that it had never been studied and since he couldn't figure out how the blood clot cascade could have evolved, that meant that it was impossible for it to have evolved.

It never occurred to him that his inability to figure it out simply meant he wasn't clever enough to figure it out and that perhaps he should have done the work to find out if someone else had figured it out.

Since we have seen, right before our very eyes, the very things you say have never been seen, why do you want us to lie about it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

We all know that ID and creationism science related papers rarely if ever get into quality peer-reviewed journals.

---

Are you saying there's a conspiracy? You do know that if you were to overturn the dominant paradigm of all biology, we'd be talking Nobel Prize-winning stuff, the world would beat a path to your door, and every journal in the world would be begging you to let them publish it. Every university and laboratory in the world would be clamoring to get you to join their staff and you could write your ticket for the rest of your life.

What on earth would stop someone from publishing such important work?

quote:

---

Imo, my unique Buzsaw hypotheses on origins relative to the Genesis record and scientific laws as I have put forth over the years works to correct some ot the misconceptions of conventional YEC creationists.

---

Then what on earth are you doing holding back? I'm reminded of one of my math profs back as an undergrad. He refused to publish. One of the most brilliant minds in math, but he didn't want to publish. He had the papers and if you were to come to him for assistance with your project, he'd pull out something from his file cabinet showing that he'd already done what you thought was new work, perhaps you could expand on it...but he'd never publish. People jokingly said they were waiting for him to die so they could get their hands on his filing cabinet.

What are you waiting for, Buz? If you have the evidence that overturns the dominant paradigm of all biology, why are you keeping it a secret? Publish, for crying out loud!

quote:

---

So far as the science debate forums, go, if your standard for participation is quality scientific journal sanctioned, you essentially disqualify any ID creationist from the science debates.

---

Ah, you mean there is a conspiracy.

So why does Behe manage to get published? Oh, he never manages to get his "irreducible complexity" past review, but he does manage to get his other molecular biology stuff through. It isn't that he is incapable of the science. It's that he doesn't do it with regard to this one subject. In his book, he made claims that nobody had ever done any study into the molecular evolution pathways for various biological processes.

But it turns out that people had. There were literally dozens of papers on the subject. That is part of the point behind review: To make sure that you have done the appropriate survey of what information currently exists and addressed how your findings fit in with what others have found. For him to say that nobody had ever done any work on the subject when the simplest of PubMed searches would have turned up dozens of papers shows that Behe was exceptionally shoddy in his work.

So help us out, Buzsaw: Why is it those who try to get ID past peer review always seem to fail?

Is it a conspiracy?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Beretta writes:

quote:

---

I think the biggest problem is the misconceptions that abound about what ID is trying to achieve- they are trying to get a fair hearing and to allow children to hear both sides of the origins debate as well as to explain to them where science and philosophy must be separated.

---

I've asked this before and I have yet to have anybody answer. How's this for a method:

Every year, we analyze the various biology journals for their articles regarding the diversification of life on this planet. We'll break it down by those articles that advocate evolution and those that advocate ID, creationism, what have you.

Whatever breakdown we find, that's what we'll teach in school. If only 70% of those articles are advocating evolution, then we'll spend only 70% of the time spent on diversification on evolution. The rest will break down to the other proposed mechanisms.

Is that good enough?

Or are you going to say that there is a conspiracy?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!

Spam.

No, reaching appropriate forums which show an interest in an important subject which I have researched at length. Do I have to rephrase, dilute, or make pablum for the masses? Or can I cut and paste from my own material, rather than de-evolve it?

Posting the same message to a number of different topics where your message has nothing to do with the topic is spam by definition.

eaching appropriate forums which show an interest in an important subject which I have researched at length

Is done by starting a new thread. If you actually have something worth saying you will get responses.

Enjoy.