What's the current state of Intelligent Design?

[pitabread]

So I ask again, what limit?

There isn't one. The only true limits in nature seem to be regarding what constitutes a viable biological organism or not.

Creationists have never demonstrated any of the biological limits they've claimed that put limits on evolution.

 

[pitabread]

except mutations are decrease in information.

It comes down to how one defines "information", but for any definition that pertains to genetics, mutations can increase available genetic information.

 

[sesquiterpene]

The current state of intelligent design is...moribund:

 

[Tinker Grey]

The current state of intelligent design is...moribund:
View attachment 281746

What is that a graph of? Publications?

 

[pitabread]

The current state of intelligent design is...moribund:
View attachment 281746

I was wondering what the heck happened in July 2016 re: evolution searches. Looks like the spike at that time was the result of Pokemon Go.

 

[pitabread]

What is that a graph of? Publications?

Google searches.

 

[sesquiterpene]

I was wondering what the heck happened in July 2016. Looks like the spike at that time was the result of Pokemon Go.

The only spikes for Intelligent design were related to the Dover trial - which they lost, badly. It's been downhill ever since.

 

[sesquiterpene]

What is that a graph of? Publications?

Publications tell the same story. Intelligent Design's premier (and only) journal BIO-COMPLEXITY published a total of three papers last year. In contrast, one of many journals publishing research relating to evolution Evolution published a total of 2544 pages in 12 issues in 2019. I didn't try counting the individual articles, it simply wasn't worth the effort.

 

[HitchSlap]

Other than Stephen Meyer's Dissent From Darwinism and Behe's Darwin Devolves* being published in the past few years, I haven't heard much from the ID camp these days.

What exactly are they up to these days? Any ID breakthroughs to talk about? Any new or exciting things coming out of the ID camp?

Have they figured out how to detect design in biological organisms yet?

(* On a side note, I find it interesting that Darwin is referenced in the titles of their books. I've always found it odd that those in the creationism/ID camps continue to fixate on Darwin.)

Ever since Dembski left the ID camp, it's been crickets.

 

[loveofourlord]

except mutations are decrease in information.

By definition mutations are a increase, decrease, or no change in information.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ever since Dembski left the ID camp, it's been crickets.

Did he say why he left?

 

[HitchSlap]

Did he say why he left?

Yep. He got bored with it.

 

[pitabread]

Publications tell the same story. Intelligent Design's premier (and only) journal BIO-COMPLEXITY published a total of three papers last year. In contrast, one of many journals publishing research relating to evolution Evolution published a total of 2544 pages in 12 issues in 2019. I didn't try counting the individual articles, it simply wasn't worth the effort.

Speaking of Bio-Complexity, I did an analysis awhile back of the citations on the papers published in it: Intelligent Design's research impact on science

They averaged a mere 3 citations per published article, which is quite abysmal for scientific publications. It shows that purported ID research has had virtually no broader impact in the scientific community.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. He got bored with it.

Well ... I believe you know me well enough that you know I don't support Intelligent Design.

I support Creationism.

Intelligent Design is too weak of an argument for me.

 

[Strathos]

appealing to blind faith evolution as assumed fact -- regardless of having no science demonstrating the mechanism

How is this a response to anything I just wrote?

 

[pitabread]

Yep. He got bored with it.

I also wonder if the hijacking of ID by creationists might have had something to do with it. He did state in an interview that he thinks creationism is nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

I also wonder if the hijacking of ID by creationists might have had something to do with it. He did state in an interview that he thinks creationism is nonsense.

Okay, what's wrong with this picture?

Dumbski hijacks Creationism and calls it Intelligent Design.
Dumbski then abandons Intelligent Design.
But Dumbski calls Creationism ... not Intelligent Design ... "nonsense".

Is that the logic that you find acceptable?

 

[pitabread]

Is that the logic that you find acceptable?

Huh? I'm not making an argument here. I'm just speculating as to his motivation and pointing out what he said in an interview.

I have no idea what you're going on about.

Have you ever read anything by Dembski? Do you even know what his views are?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is that the logic that you find acceptable?

cdesign proponentsists 101.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you ever read anything by Dembski?

Negative.