A Simple Request

[Washington]

Over on the Discovery Institute's Evolution News & Views page there's an article* on "academic freedom." that begins with:

"Academic freedom doesn't protect a professor's right to talk about the scientific evidence favoring intelligent design.'
​

Never having seen any scientific evidence that favors intelligent design, I'm asking all the creationists here to furnish just one such example.

Please note; the evidence MUST be

1. scientific, which means published in a legitimate professional science journal

2. be peer reviewed, and

3. MUST unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution.



* source

 

[Cabal]

Yeah, pretty typical how they focus on the "debate" rather than on the evidence.

 

[Maxwell511]

1. scientific, which means published in a legitimate professional science journal

2. be peer reviewed, and

Peer reviewed does not equate to correct or true.

There has been alot of crap published in a legitimate professional science journals.

The test is not publication.

 

[[serious]]

Peer reviewed does not equate to correct or true.

There has been alot of crap published in a legitimate professional science journals.

The test is not publication.

True, but we aren't saying they have toe right, just scientific.

As they say, that's not right, that's not even wrong

 

[juvenissun]

3. MUST unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution.

Would you give an example to illustrate what format would this be?

 

[Naraoia]

Would you give an example to illustrate what format would this be?

I don't understand the question. Do you not know what the evidence for your own position looks like?

 

[keith99]

Over on the Discovery Institute's Evolution News & Views page there's an article* on "academic freedom." that begins with:

"Academic freedom doesn't protect a professor's right to talk about the scientific evidence favoring intelligent design.'
​

Never having seen any scientific evidence that favors intelligent design, I'm asking all the creationists here to furnish just one such example.

Please note; the evidence MUST be

1. scientific, which means published in a legitimate professional science journal

2. be peer reviewed, and

3. MUST unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution.



* source

Wait a second. If the claim is that scientific evidence of ID is being supressed then getting published refutes the claim. Points 1 and 2 are simply too far in the 'accepted' direction.

But if we go back a step and remember the thing that puts ID completely outside of science is that it is not testable we can go way way farther in giving ID their chance.

Anyone cite any piece of scientific evidence that supports ID. Scientific limited to things like biology, chemistry, physics and geology. Archeology is right out, that we find a stone tablet that is 6000 years old saying 'God did It' doesn't work.

For lazy guys like me I' give the devils advocate challenge. Try to think of something that would fit the bill of being scientific evidence as defined above. It does NOT have ot exist, just somethign that if it did exist would support ID.

Oh and one caution. Something that creates problems for Darwinian Evolution does NOT mean it supports ID, despite what may Creationists seem to think.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Peer reviewed does not equate to correct or true.

There has been alot of crap published in a legitimate professional science journals.

The test is not publication.

Exactly.

And the fact that ID falls below even that level of crap is telling.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Peer reviewed does not equate to correct or true.

There has been alot of crap published in a legitimate professional science journals.

Indeed peer review is not "bulletproof", nor is it mistake-proof. But it's really one of the better systems out there.

But just for curiosity's sake, how many peer reviewed journals have you written?

How many times have you been a reviewer for a peer reviewed journal?

Those of us whohave done both of these things know that it is a good system that is not inerrant. But it is hardly a bad thing.

If creationists and ID proponents would bother with more peer-reviewed science and less with political and judicial actions to wedge their "opinions" in as scientific hypotheses, they'd do more for their goals than they currently do.

The test is not publication.

Spoken from actual experience in publication? How many peer-reviewed science articles do you have?

What is your prime critique of the peer-reviewed process? Data and even your own experience would be interesting to see.

 

[juvenissun]

If creationists and ID proponents would bother with more peer-reviewed science and less with political and judicial actions to wedge their "opinions" in as scientific hypotheses, they'd do more for their goals than they currently do.

He (washington) could not answer my question. So I am turning to you:

What format should a paper look like in order to "unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution"?

 

[thaumaturgy]

He (washington) could not answer my question. So I am turning to you:

What format should a paper look like in order to "unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution"?

Well, the main issue I see in both ID and Creationism is that they almost never positively inidicate a supernatural designer, rather they attempt to point to the "unlikelihood" of natural processes, which apparently they take to mean "it must be a supernatural designer".

But even if we strip out the explicit requirement of "supernatural", just the indication that a feature is "somehow unlikely" means it must therefore have been designed is an "Excluded Middle" fallacy.

It is far more important in science to prove a point than merely to assume ones point is accurate by disproving one other.

In the case of ID data they must provide a preponderance of evidence not just that a natural feature is unlikely by natural (non-design processes) but that a designer is the far-more preferable result.

There are a huge variety of natural processes to account for the rise of a feature. Disproving one does not mean that there is only one other option (designer) that is on the table.

But further, disproving one by merely resorting to some "chance" calculations is not sufficient when the amount of potential parallel trials and mass of time over which these multiple parallel trials could have been run is ignored.

Again, it is never the job of anyone else to prove the other sides point for them. We are dealing with a battle of models; one rather parsimonious model utilizing effects of known form and format and the other model utilizes masses of unknowns (the nature of some unknown designer) and leverages controversy to wedge this massive unknown in as the only reasonable explanation.

Unfortunately in such a battle of models, the former will have a distinct advantage over the latter.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, the main issue I see in both ID and Creationism is that they almost never positively inidicate a supernatural designer, rather they attempt to point to the "unlikelihood" of natural processes, which apparently they take to mean "it must be a supernatural designer".

But even if we strip out the explicit requirement of "supernatural", just the indication that a feature is "somehow unlikely" means it must therefore have been designed is an "Excluded Middle" fallacy.

It is far more important in science to prove a point than merely to assume ones point is accurate by disproving one other.

In the case of ID data they must provide a preponderance of evidence not just that a natural feature is unlikely by natural (non-design processes) but that a designer is the far-more preferable result.

There are a huge variety of natural processes to account for the rise of a feature. Disproving one does not mean that there is only one other option (designer) that is on the table.

But further, disproving one by merely resorting to some "chance" calculations is not sufficient when the amount of potential parallel trials and mass of time over which these multiple parallel trials could have been run is ignored.

Again, it is never the job of anyone else to prove the other sides point for them. We are dealing with a battle of models; one rather parsimonious model utilizing effects of known form and format and the other model utilizes masses of unknowns (the nature of some unknown designer) and leverages controversy to wedge this massive unknown in as the only reasonable explanation.

Unfortunately in such a battle of models, the former will have a distinct advantage over the latter.

Well said. Even I can make some arguments, but it is not necessary in this thread.

So, the requirement set in the OP: "unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution" is not a proper one.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Well said. Even I can make some arguments, but it is not necessary in this thread.

So, the requirement set in the OP: "unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution" is not a proper one.

Pls to splain how you deduce that.

 

[Washington]

Peer reviewed does not equate to correct or true.

Never said it did. *sigh*

There has been alot of crap published in a legitimate professional science journals.

A "lot of crap," huh! Glad you're not prone to exaggeration.

The test is not publication.

You set up your criteria and Ill set up mine. Okey dokey?

3. MUST unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution.

Would you give an example to illustrate what format would this be?

"Format"? I only expect that the information come from a peer reviewed article published in a legitimate professional science journal. As for the form of the evidence itself, that's up to the submitter. Other than that, I'm open.

(Addressed to thaumaturgy) He (washington) could not answer my question.

Sorry about that. I go tied up in other endeavors, and this is the first time I've revisited the thread.

So, the requirement set in the OP: "unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution" is not a proper one.

And why is it not proper? There's a lot of science that goes on in which the evidence presented favors one claim rather than another, so why is it not possible to present evidence that favors ID? It's the claim of Anika Smith, the author of the quote I presented, that such evidence exists. All I'm asking for is evidence that's on par with other science evidence. Don't have it? Then don't call it "scientific evidence." Simple as that.

Wait a second. If the claim is that scientific evidence of ID is being supressed then getting published refutes the claim. Points 1 and 2 are simply too far in the 'accepted' direction.

The suppression was about a professor's right to talk about the "evidence." Not of the evidence itself.

 

[mpok1519]

well, the evidence for ID is more of an opinion, than anything.

"Lifes too complicated to just be random; there has to be some intellegent guiding force behind it."

Thats my idea of "ID". Yet, this one also seems logical:

"Life is complicated, and the chances of spontaneous biological formation is slim; yet slim chances simply implies probable, possible, and by all means, inevitable."

Both seem like logical arguments; however, the latter makes more sense to me than the former. One out of a trillion kajillion is still a good chance considering the size of the universe.

 

[keith99]

Doh,

I finally did think of one thing that IF it were found would at least to me be pretty strong evidence for a creator, at leat if there were multiple instances. And half way to breaking the conditions I proposed it is somethgin Darwin said would refute his theory. That is one species that seemed to exist or have traits that server only to help some other species.

Of course such has never been found.

 

[juvenissun]

So, the requirement set in the OP: "unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution" is not a proper one.

And why is it not proper?

An example:

"If I see ________, then it "unmistakably" favors ID."
What type of statement should be in the blank?

On the other hand, could you fill the same blank for evolution?
"If I see ________, then it "unmistakably" favors Evolution."

This format does not apply well to either case.

So, what type of research work are you looking for, which could "unmistakably" favor anything? If you take this word out in the OP, would it affect what you want to say in the OP?

 

[TeddyKGB]

An example:

"If I see ________, then it "unmistakably" favors ID."
What type of statement should be in the blank?

On the other hand, could you fill the same blank for evolution?
"If I see ________, then it "unmistakably" favors Evolution."

This format does not apply well to either case.

So, what type of research work are you looking for, which could "unmistakably" favor anything? If you take this word out in the OP, would it affect what you want to say in the OP?

You seem to be hung up on the word "unmistakably." Change it to "strongly" or "heavily," then reapply the question to peer-reviewed literature as per the original formulation.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to be hung up on the word "unmistakably." Change it to "strongly" or "heavily," then reapply the question to peer-reviewed literature as per the original formulation.

OK, that is the first problem.

The second one: we need to identify WHAT are the features of "design". If we do not do that first, then even someone has done a lot publications on ID, you would not know it.

For example, a geologist suggested the Grand Canyon is 200 million years old. Is that a paper strongly favor ID? Why not? What is a criterion which says: Aha, this strongly favors ID?

----

Start to feel the heat? Creationism is much more complicate than simple questions posed by the OP can cover.

 

[Washington]

On the other hand, could you fill the same blank for evolution?
"If I see ________, then it "unmistakably" favors Evolution."

Yes, but don't expect me to do so.

So, what type of research work are you looking for, which could "unmistakably" favor anything? If you take this word out in the OP, would it affect what you want to say in the OP?

I used the word to indicate scientific evidence so strong that it could not possibly be construed as favoring any other concept. Some scientific evidence can be argued as favoring two or more opposing theories---hence the many scientific debates that take place--- which is what I want to eliminate. I want the ID evidence to be free of any possibility of evolution wiggling its way in. I'm looking for evidence that ONLY points to ID. As for the type of research that could do this, I haven't the faintest idea. Of course I don't think there's any scientific evidence that ever will favor ID; however, the author of the material I quoted, John West, says that such evidence does, in fact, now exist.

There is a lot of scientific evidence that unmistakably favors evolution, so I think it only fair to ask the same of ID proponents. Now if John West doesn't really think that the evidence he speaks of is unmistakably in favor of ID, then I might consider dropping the requirement.