Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Darn Funny!

Well I told myself I wasn't going to mention religion for a bit, since I'm quite tired of being told 'God loves me' and other such non-sence (I will never believe so stop trying. Your arguments never make sense to me.) But I was reading Stupid Evil Bastard and thought this was really fun so go here!

If you can say what the funniest part is, you win a cookie (which can be found in your cupboard, convenient, huh.) If your a hard core creationist without a sense of humor you might want to skip this one.

11 comments:

steve said...

Pretty funny stuff! Just another example of the use of a straw man argument to attack Christians rather than actually using facts. I guess creationists and IDers will always be misrepresented as anti-science since it is easier than actually taking the time to read and figure out what they believe. Mockery is an easier path than understanding. Oh well, bring back the giant spaghetti monster and let the yucks begin. Meanwhile us simpletons will be content to rely on the geological information provided by the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, the pre-Cambrian period, and irreducibly complexity of design. Not to mention the works of people like Dawkins and Gould who in their own words claim creation looks designed.

Brett said...

Well this was just supposed to be funny (you did hit the funny part the fossilized plate of pasta.) There is NO evidence to support either creation 'science' (adding science to the end does NOT make it science) OR Intelligent design. NONE, ZIP, NADA. There are about 6 'scientists' (most of whom have degrees in other fields like Theology, who basically aren't either putting in the time for real research OR are working a field they know nothing about. The Discovery Institute is a sham.) But instead of working harder to try to figure things out they just say "it's too complicated, God did it." There is no science involved since they don't really have to do any, God did it. These people are not real scientists. We have PLENTY of fossil evidence and geologic evidence to support evolution. IDer's will never get the respect they want because they don't deserve it. All there papers have been refuted by actual scientists, all there 'science' is garbage. Just because it might look designed is not a scientific argument (Dawkings is an Atheist and Gould was the man for Natural Selection, don't try to cast doubt by mis-quoting them or taking them out of context.) Nor is seeing something that looks similar to a turbine engine in a cell make it a turbine engine. But don't ask me, why not ask a right wing judge that Bush placed o the bench why he sided with evolution and not ID in court? Because you simply have no evidence.

Creationists and ID's are made fun of because they should be made fun of. They are simple wrong on this. The fact that they ignore all the evidence we have is just buffoonery at the highest level. The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Carbon Dating and Nuclear dating prove this. We have LOTS of transitional fossils. For crying out loud, we have a fossil amphibian with arms on the front and fins on the back, how is that not a transitional fossil?

I can deal with the fact that some people think God started the big bang and the ways he works is through Evolution. It's supported by evidence. But just ignoring the science that our whole culture is based off of because of some antiquated view that has no evidence, is to me insane. Without our understanding of biology and the sciences we'd be back in the Dark Ages with people being burned as witches, stoned as unbelievers.

Brett

steve said...

Actually it is science which casts doubt on the transitional fossils, not fanatic religous beliefs. Stratigraphic position does not point to a clear lineage (often supposedly ancestoral fossils overlap or appear out of order), but scientists refer to how they should appear for evolution to be true and go ahead and order them accordingly. Anyways,the real problem is not the few possible transitional fossils, but the lack of hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils. No, just because a scientist finds a jawbone or a tooth or part of a toe he is not given free reign to recreate the rest of the animal based on his evoutionary belief system. That is not science. Just state the facts, you have a tooth, part of a jaw, and a foot. The precambiran fossil beds which were ideal for fossilizing worms and invertebrates show no ancestoral forms which the bountiful Cambrian period sprung from. Even a highly optimistic understanding of evolution would not allow enough time for the higher life forms to have arisen.

For evolution to be fact it would have to be falsifiable and empirically proven, but last I checked it is still a theory. In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.



But the big question is why so much emphasis on the anti-religion stuff? God can co-exist with evoution. Why such hatred of a belief system, which when science is honest it is not allowed to comment on for or against anyways? Creationism is possible, but it is a religous belief and should be covered in Religion class. Intelligent Design is possible and uses scientific methods as long as it doesn't preach who the designer is. Evolution is an unproven theorized belief system based on faith in a particular closed Naturalistic world view which crosses over into meta-philosophical beliefs. It should be taught up until the point it tries to overstep the boundaries of emprical science and is viewed as fact.

Don't tell me that the Discovery institute is not a real science think tank when you accept people like Dawkins and his bold face lies about things like "the computer model of the evolution of the eye," which he made up to support his so called objective beliefs. All scientists are men and they will cheat, misrepresent, and lie to get grants or tenure. You are accepting on faith when you take these scientists at their word even though the history of evolutionary theory is similar to the keystone cops shinanagins when you add up all the misinformation they have slung over the years: Peltdown man, peppered moths, Galapagos finches, Haeckel's embryos, poison eating fruit flies, the Miller-Urich experement, Inherit the Wind, etc, etc. What emerges is a scientific community which is willing to misrepresent facts and to do whatever it takes to advance a theory rather than admit its limitations.

muffinhunter said...

Evolution is "still a theory" like gravity is "still a theory". You may be surprised to realize how little we actually understand gravity, but I doubt you'd call its entire existence as a natural phenomena into question based on that fact. Every single argument you have made here is easily answerable. The fact that I'm not going to waste too much of my precious day off from work to answer each point is something you are free to take as an evasion if you choose, for it really matters little to me.

steve said...

Yes, gravity like black holes and quantum mechanics are theories based off of observations. Evolution is not observed, all evidence from how science works goes against the fundamental tenant of evolution that mutations are beneficial. Which known germline mutations increase the DNA code and are beneficial?

Brett said...

Muffinhunter is correct. I'll hit a few points here but have more work to do than I want to admit.

Steve, your basic understanding of Theory in a scientific context is completely and utterly wrong. I'm actually sick of having to keep retyping this. In Science you form a hypothosis (which is what you are calling a theory.) Once the hypothosis has been tested and proven then it becomes a fact. A group of relate facts are put together to form a theory, like Evolution and the Big Bang. Things evolve, that's a fact, how they evolve wether through random mutations or environmental changes or whatnot, those ideas that have been proven are put together to form a Theory. In Science, Theory is just facts strung together.

Actually I know very little of Dawkins work. I have never read his books and am not really interested since most will probably go over my head. Just because your creation 'scientists' can't figure out how the eye evolved doesn't mean others haven't. In fact the evolution of the eye was quite early since all vertebrates share the same basic form and function. No real scientists take ANYTHING the DI says seriously, they have NEVER published per-reviewed papers. They are a laughing stock.

You want to know why I'm suddenly so pissed about this stuff. Well it's not really sudden but the states in the US are now trying to get evolution removed and the ID/Creationism junk science taught. It's completeley out of control. The US is now the butt of many Jokes from the rest of the 3rd world. They have no problems with evolution it's the backwater US that has a problem.

I have no problem with Christians/Muslims/Jews or whatnot that believe in evolution. It's the ones that keep harping on about ID and creationism that are pissing me off.

As for all the transitional fossils. We have loads but you refuse to accept them. In fact we are all transitional fossils. Everything has evolved. Look at the fossil record, simple at first then more complex. almost as if they changed over time.

You started this conversation not I. I have a ton more ammo but have got to finish Frankenstein this week so I'm off.

Best,

Brett

steve said...

Well for peer reviewed articles do these count? All from IDists who got peer reviewed articles:

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302


Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of “irreducible complexity.” Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the “no end in view” mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.


Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.


Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self –Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)


Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.


Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)


This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
COMPLETE LIST:

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).


This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in The Design Inference, well-known physicist and science writer Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).


In this book Behe develops a critique of the mechanism of natural selection and a positive case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the presence of “irreducibly complex molecular machines” and circuits inside cells. Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists.
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).


In this book Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen develop a seminal critique of origin of life studies and develop a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems.
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)


This is a collection of interdisciplinary essays that addresses the scientific and educational controversy concerning the theory of intelligent design. Accordingly, it was peer-reviewed by a philosopher of science, a rhetorician of science, and a professor in the biological sciences from an Ivy League university. The book contains five scientific articles advancing the case for the theory of intelligent design, the contents of which are summarized below.
Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Prominent Trade Presses

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).


Gonzalez and Richards develop a novel case for the theory of intelligent design based on developments in astronomy and planetary science. They show that the conditions necessary to produce a habitable planet are extremely rare and improbable. In addition, they show that the one planet we are aware of that possesses these characteristics is also a planet that has characteristics uniquely adapted to scientific exploration, thus suggesting not simply that the earth is the recipient of the fortunate conditions necessary for life, but that it appears to be uniquely designed for scientific discovery.
William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002).


Dembski refines his scientific method of design detection, responds to critics of his previous book (The Design Inference) and shows how his method of design detection applies to the kind of molecular machines analyzed by Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985).


Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, provides a comprehensive critique of neo- Darwinian evolutionary theory. In a penultimate chapter, entitled “The Molecular Labyrinth,” he also develops a strong positive case for the design hypothesis based on the integrated complexity of molecular biological systems. As a religiously agnostic scientist, Denton emphasizes that this case for design is based upon scientific evidence and the application of standard forms of scientific reasoning. As Denton explains, while the case for design may have religious implications, “it does not depend upon religious premises.”
Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Academic University Presses

Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (State University of New York Press, 2001).

Michael C. Rea, World without Design : The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.


In this article, Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gödel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.” As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”
John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.


Otto Schindewolf once wrote that evolution postulates “a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way.” In this peer-reviewed article from a prestigious Italian biology journal, John A. Davison agrees with Schindewolf. Since “[o]ne can hardly expect to demonstrate a mechanism that simply does not and did not exist,” Davison attempts to find new explanations for the origin of convergence among biological forms. Davison contends that “[t]he so-called phenomenon of convergent evolution may not be that at all, but simply the expression of the same preformed ‘blueprints’ by unrelated organisms.” While discussing many remarkable examples of “convergent evolution,” particularly the marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats, Davison’s meaning is unmistakable: This evidence “bears, not only on the questions raised here, but also, on the whole issue of Intelligent Design.” Davison clearly implies that this evidence is expected under an intelligent design model, but not under a Neo-Darwinian one.
S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.


This article argues for intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of the Cambrian fauna. Not surprisingly, it created an international firestorm within the scientific community when it was published. (See Klinghoffer, The Branding of a Heretic, WALL STREET JOURNAL, Jan. 28, 2005, as well as the following website by the editor who oversaw the article’s peer-review process: http://www.rsternberg.net.) The treatment of the editor who sent Meyer’s article out for peer-review is a striking illustration of the sociological obstacles that proponents of intelligent design encounter in publishing articles that explicitly defend the theory of intelligent design.
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.


In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe’s case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.


This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” Axe concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.” Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.


This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach is non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably the work of design theorists Michael Behe and William Dembski.
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.


The opening paragraph of this article reads: Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.”
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.


This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and teleological. It looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit.
D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.


This study published by molecular biologist Douglas Axe, now at the Biologic Institute, challenges the widespread idea that high species-to-species variation in the amino-acid sequence of an enzyme implies modest functional constraints. Darwinists commonly assume that such variation indicates low selection pressure at the variable amino acid sites, allowing many mutations with little effect. Axe's research shows that even when mutations are restricted to these sites, they are severely disruptive, implying that proteins are highly specified even at variable sites. According to this work, sequences diverge not because substantial regions are free from functional constraints, but because selection filters most mutations, leaving only the harmless minority. By showing functional constraints to be the rule rather than the exception, it raises the question of whether chance can ever produce sequences that meet these constraints in the first place. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails 'severe sequence constraints'. The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Anthologies

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)


Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis.
Granville Sewell, Postscript, in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (Springer Verlag, 1985). (HTML)


In this article appearing in a 1985 technical reference book, mathematician Granville Sewell compares the complexity found in the genetic code of life to that of a computer program. He recognizes that the fundamental problem for evolution is the "problem of novelties" which raises the question "How can natural selection cause new organs to arise and guide their development through the initial stages during which they present no selective advantage"? Sewell then explains how a Darwinist will try to bridge both functional and fossil gaps between biological structures through "a long chain of tiny improvements in his imagination," but notes that "the analogy with software puts his ideas into perspective." Major changes to a species require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Natural selection, a process which is "unable to plan beyond the next tiny mutation" could never produce the complexity of life.
Five science articles from Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003) (hereinafter DDPE):

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, DDPE Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines. DDPE Pp. 287-302


Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of “irreducible complexity.” Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the “no end in view” mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Nelson, P. & J. Wells, Homology in biology: Problem for naturalistic science and prospect for intelligent design, DDPE, Pp. 303-322.


Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells reexamine the phenomenon of homology, the structural identity of parts in distinct species such as the pentadactyl plan of the human hand, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a seal, on which Darwin was willing to rest his entire argument. Nelson and Wells contend that natural selection explains some of the facts of homology but leaves important anomalies (including many so-called molecular sequence homologies) unexplained. They argue that intelligent design explains the origin of homology better than the mechanisms cited by advocates of neo-Darwinism.
Meyer, S. C., Ross, M., Nelson, P. & P. Chien, The Cambrian explosion: biology’s big bang, DDPE, Pp. 323-402. (PDF, 2.33MB)


Meyer, Ross, Nelson, and Chien show that the pattern of fossil appearance in the Cambrian period contradicts the predictions or empirical expectations of neo-Darwinian (and punctuationalist) evolutionary theory. They argue that the fossil record displays several features—a hierarchical top-down pattern of appearance, the morphological isolation of disparate body plans, and a discontinuous increase in information content—that are strongly reminiscent of the pattern of evidence found in the history of human technology. Thus, they conclude that intelligent design provides a better, more causally adequate, explanation of the origin of the novel animal forms present in the Cambrian explosion.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, DDPE, Pp. 403-418.


Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.


Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.


In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.


Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.


In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.


Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).


This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).


This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.
Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals


Behe, M.J., Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 67:155-162 (March 2000)

Craig, W.L., “God, Creation, and Mr. Davies.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1986): 168-175

Craig, W.L., “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1988): 389-395.

Craig, W.L., “The Anthropic Principle.” In The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: an Encyclopedia, pp. 366-368. Ed. G. B. Ferngren.

Craig, W.L., “Design and the Anthropic Fine-Tuning of the Universe.” In GOD AND DESIGN: THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND MODERN SCIENCE, pp. 155-177. (ed. Neil Manson. London: Routledge, 2003).

steve said...

Well now that we have removed the silly no peer review articles debate we can look at other points.

"As for all the transitional fossils. We have loads but you refuse to accept them. In fact we are all transitional fossils. Everything has evolved. Look at the fossil record, simple at first then more complex. almost as if they changed over time."-Brett

No one is arguing against adaptation. Evolution is not about change over time or passing on biological information to descendents. No one argues against that. Evolutionists need to stop lowering the bar to try to say since species adapt and change that it proves we evolve into other species. It is like saying the Utah Bonneville Salt Flats proves the Flat Earth theory because it is a micro-flat Earth. Micro-Evolution is misleading. Evolution needs to show one species turns into another. The central principle of Evolution is that given enough time random undirected mutations will continually make an animal more fit and eventually change it into another animal. Like leaping squirrels over time will grow wings, change their musculature and their skeletal structures, becoming bats by overwriting the highly stubborn body plan blueprint stamped into every gene of DNA. Everything else is inference not fact. You can see time and time again that science assumes Evolution to be true and therefore views everything through this preexisting beleif.

A comment like we are all transitional fossils is totally unsupportive of the theory of evolution it is a totology. It is not capabale of being disproven. It is like saying "survival of the fittest" proves evolution. Really? Which ones are the fittest? Why, the ones which survive. Oh look, it happens every time. Circular logic is destroying free thought in the sciences.

Brett said...

Well no, they don't. They are all from ID magazines and publishers that don't require per-reviews or are sympathetic to ID and therefor not actual science magazines (ID is religion masquerading as science.) I don't see any of the actual science publishers, Nature and the like. And even if a few did get through (philosophy is not science,) they have all be refuted. Repeatedly. I'd say you wasted a bunch of time doing this but since you just copied and pasted this from the DI (I've seen it there myself) I don't feel obligated to waste my time getting references. Why not stop just looking at what the DI says and research this for yourself. Maybe you'll actual learn what science is, The quest for truth.

Adaption is evolution, change is evolution. There is no such thing as micro evolution that something IDer's made up. It's all evolution. Your first sentence refutes your entire argument.

Evolution has been observed in the Aids virus and through molecular biology. That is why we can't 'cure' it, it's constantly changing. Your willful ignoring the science.

And don't bother with circular reasoning. You Ider's 'invented' that. Survival of the fittest is a catchy phrase and completely incorrect. If you'd actual read about how evolution works maybe you'd stop using phrases that haven't been used in decades. We are transitional fossils, we have the last ancestor we just have to wait for the next, but of course we'll all be dead when that happens.

I've had it with having to prove stuff to IDer's and Creationists. You know what, how about YOU provide some proof. How about some evidence for your flood, or the skeleton of a nephillim or SOMETHING that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that ID is correct or even plausible. This has yet to happen. The fact is you require very little evidence to believe in ID since it agrees with you view on religion. If there is on missing fossil you say "See, God must have done it!" When is fact we have lots of transitional fossils, but have yet to find them all (not that it's possible sine not every dead animal the ever existed gets fossilized and then there is plate tectonics and volcanism and water erosion that can destroy fossils.) If you actually had SOMETHING don't you think it would be all over the news? Wouldn't Pat Roberts and the like cling to that as proof? It has yet to happen.


Why not head over to the science blogs and see what actual scientists think of ID. I'd stay away from PZ Meyers sine he hates you guys. But some of the others are more tame.

I'm done on this subject, I've had it with talking to the brick wall that is ID/Creationism. I've got better things to do.

steve said...

Hmmm...I wonder why more peer review articles about ID don't get printed. When they do, apparently they don't count. And the publications which carry them suddenly become sympathetic to IDists? And lawsuits are filed and jobs are lost. Do you have any idea how twisted that is?

I'm not afraid of science blogs. given a little time I can figure the gist of most things out. The problem with most evolutionists is they have a hate-on for IDists. There isn't even the oppurtunity for discussion. Also they constantly try to confuse creationism and Intelligent Design and then accuse us of being stupid. Obviously they don't think enough of having an honest discussion to even figure out the difference between the two.

The aids virus in not an example of Darwinian Evolution. Viruses are not animals and are not species. Evolution is not about viruses, it is not about adaptation, and it is not about passing on genetic information through common reproduction. Science continually changes the definition of Evolution so it becomes more applicable to areas which are better explained by other scientistic disciplines. Check out Wikipedia and try not to laugh at the current definition of evolution (In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next.) According to this current definition of passing on traits, my children are proof of evolution. Really? Before Darwin no one figured out that kids looked like their parents? Or families shared similar traits? Of course this is nonsense. Check out a science book from the 80's and you will find a different definition for evoution (Just for giggles I love to read old science books from second hand stores, it is amazing to see how much info was taught as true and is now discarded as being wrong.)

When I say Evolution is false I mean what Darwin means. Animals do not at a species level randomly mutate over time into other species.

I'm an IDist because I wanted a plausible understanding of the evidence of science and why it seemed to contradict my faith. It was only once I studied non-creation sources dis I realize how little proof for Darwinian Evolution exists, and also for supposedly being objective scientists a lot of Evolutionists just hate the concept of God and falsely think Evolution disproves God. Science is the study of our natural world, supernatural things like God or religion exist outside of its boundaries. It can not comment on religous matters or can it offer proof for or against anything supernatural. That is why intelligent design in not supernatural design. We are capable of using existed tried and true scientific methods to recognize the involvement of intelligence. Anyways, even if Evolution was true it would not disprove God. The real reason most atheists love evolution is they think Evolution, if true, frees them to live in a Godless existance.

Brett said...

Go here for your answers to Id/creationism from a per-reviewed magazine:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

N, those publishers who are sympathetic to your cause do not count because, they will overlook lies and not per-review properly.

No, Evolution it is not simply random mutation, by that does play a part. Darwin go the base right, things change over time, but we now know there are other mechinisms. The fact that you keep clinging to Darwin specifically, in an evolving science is... strange and proves my point. You don't really know how science works. And I don't think you can figure this out since you obvious have not.


More fun about those 'great' scientist at DI;

http://pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=Discovery+Institute+

Since this is my blog, I'm closing down this one. Any more posts will be deleted. Since I sense this is about to get vicious.