Intelligent Design's research impact on science

[pitabread]

Ah, Intelligent Design's Impact on Science. That explains it. No impact, so time to change the subject!

What, you don't think 17 research papers in 9 years isn't a big deal?

 

[sfs]

40 of these citations were attributed to a single article (Model and Laboratory Demonstrations That Evolutionary Optimization Works Well Only If Preceded by Invention - 2015).

I'd be interested in who is citing this. Google Scholar only gives one citation, a book by Douglas Axe, another Discovery Institute guy. (My usual go-to source for citations, Web of Science, doesn't list the article at all.)

(BTW, for comparison, during the same period I've been an author on 38 research papers and 2 reviews, according to Web of Science. They've been cited 15,235 times.)

 

[pitabread]

I'd be interested in who is citing this. Google Scholar only gives one citation, a book by Douglas Axe, another Discovery Institute guy. (My usual go-to source for citations, Web of Science, doesn't list the article at all.)

My mistake. When I was counting citations, I inadvertently counted the number of references for that article, not citations. I was used to seeing the # of citations on ResearchGate in the same location on the screen, where it happened to list references instead. That article does have zero citations.

I have updated the OP to reflect this correction.

(BTW, for comparison, during the same period I've been an author on 38 research papers and 2 reviews, according to Web of Science. They've been cited 15,235 times.)

Well done!

It speaks to the rather significant discrepancy between ID and real biological sciences.

 

[xianghua]

What, you don't think 17 research papers in 9 years isn't a big deal?

think about that: millions articles about evolution with zero evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

think about that: millions articles about evolution with zero evidence.

Yeah, those scientists are so stoopid!

 

[xianghua]

Yeah, those scientists are so stoopid!

they are actually smart. their interpretation isnt.

 

[pitabread]

think about that: millions articles about evolution with zero evidence.

That's completely false.

But don't take my word for it. See what Creationist Todd Wood has to say on the subject: The truth about evolution

 

[Jimmy D]

they are actually smart. their interpretation isnt.

Right. But your interpretation of those “millions of articles” (that you haven’t read) is correct?

You should step back and think about what you’re saying for a moment.

 

[pitabread]

they are actually smart. their interpretation isnt.

What are your qualifications re: biology to make that determination?

 

[pitabread]

You just changed your comment substantially, from science, period, to various types.

When I refer to "anti-science" individuals, I'm implicitly referring to individuals that reject one or more scientific conclusions. Given the history of discussions on this forum, I didn't think that need to be spelled out.

Not to mention, that has nothing to do with opposing science itself, but the conclusions drawn using a process we refer to as science, however wrong or right.

True. Though most individuals who reject such conclusions usually also advocate for some form of pseudoscience as a replacement.

In certain cases (e.g. anti-vaxxers) this can have devastating consequences.

 

[pitabread]

You should step back and think about what you’re saying for a moment.

And he was never heard from again...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And he was never heard from again...

One thing I've learnt from creationists is the art of calculating probabilities based on "numbers I find convincing". Without showing my working, I claim the probability of xianghua never posting again is...... 0. I will even put my reputation on the line here and state that the probability of xianghua making the same erroneous claim as being 1/1

See, I can use creation science to make predictions

 

[Ophiolite]

One thing I've learnt from creationists is the art of calculating probabilities based on "numbers I find convincing". Without showing my working, I claim the probability of xianghua never posting again is...... 0. I will even put my reputation on the line here and state that the probability of xianghua making the same erroneous claim as being 1/1

See, I can use creation science to make predictions

There is however, one huge difference. Your predictions will most likely come true.

And if they don't we shall never have to endure robot penguins again, so it's a win-win situation.

 

[xianghua]

Right. But your interpretation of those “millions of articles” (that you haven’t read) is correct?

sure. because they base their ideas on belief when im not. simple as that.

 

[Speedwell]

sure. because they base their ideas on belief when im not. simple as that.

Apparently you base your beliefs on nothing but imaginary robot penguins, with no actual lab or field work at all.

 

[Jimmy D]

sure. because they base their ideas on belief when im not. simple as that.

Have you read these "millions of papers"? How do you know they contain "zero evidence"?

 

[xianghua]

That's completely false.

But don't take my word for it. See what Creationist Todd Wood has to say on the subject: The truth about evolution

who care? i talking about evidence. not belief.

 

[pitabread]

who care? i talking about evidence.

So am I. The fact is there is ample evidence for evolution.

Denying it doesn't change that fact nor make the evidence go away.

 

[xianghua]

Have you read these "millions of papers"? How do you know they contain "zero evidence"?

because i have read many of them. and every one of them was base on belief.

 

[pitabread]

because i have read many of them. and every one of them was base on belief.

We already know that's not true. You're not fooling us, kiddo.