Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
see upload.Cite or retract.
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design
Selected List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design
The list below provides bibliographic information for a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:
Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).Again, for a more complete list of peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific publications, please download the full bibliography.
Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).
Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).
Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).
Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).
Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).
A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).
Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
With all these peer reviewed articles on ID, why hasn't ID been able to establish itself as legit science?
Do you have a working hypothesis for ID?
Do you have a scientific definition of ID?
Do you have an objective test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?
I have provided plenty of links that answer these questions, the links actually contain videos and audio that answer all of your questions, no need to read, just listen and watch. You might be interested in the debates where those who believe we need to be silenced debate with those who believe that only allowing one voice is an erosion of our freedoms, this is the deeper issue.
On another note, this type of elitist censorship is exactly what the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is all about. I believe your questions are also answered in the movie, the movie is very telling as we move more and more to a society where only one voice is allowed.
That would be an entirely different thread; though, I fear we are marching lock step into a time where only one voice will be allowed. When I went to school we were taught how to enquirer and evaluate different positions; today, questions are discouraged in favor of memorize and regurgitate.
Welcome to the New World Order.
In other words, why does the universe exist and how did it originate with all the laws of physics, chemistry and life on this planet with the sun located exactly where it needs to be?
This conversation reminds me a lot of this: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Not quit true, it is one hand clapping, only one side is allowed to talk, if the other side presents an argument, they are suppressed and punished. The motivation for the movie is because of what happened to Richard M. Sternberg after he allowed peer reviewed Stephen C. Meyer's paper on Intelligent Design to be published by the Smithsonian.
If you do not find this type of suppression of our freedom unthinkable; you may, as our freedoms are eroded. The implications are staggering when you look at how these types of ideas have played out in history.
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).
None of you links contains any of the following:
-a workable scientific hypothesis for ID
-a workable scientific definition of ID
-an objective test, to determine when ID is present, that is falsifiable
The lack of the above, is what tripped up Michael Behe at the Dover trial.
Oy vey. Not this again.
I have provided plenty of sources and none of them are Wikis; though, it is obvious by the responses that they have not been referenced.
Niles Eldredge is still alive. He is opposed to the gene-centered view of evolution. Along with Gould they also for all practical applications rejected the modern synopsis. Although were under academic pressure to keep that low key.
For those that do not know Gould and Eldredge proposed the theory of Punctuated equilibrium in their 1972 book.
This conversation reminds me a lot of this: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Basically, you are saying Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico is wrong when he disagrees with the following:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
He is not alone: Dissent From Darwinism "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution
Not quit true, it is one hand clapping, only one side is allowed to talk, if the other side presents an argument, they are suppressed and punished.
The motivation for the movie is because of what happened to Richard M. Sternberg after he allowed peer reviewed Stephen C. Meyer's paper on Intelligent Design to be published by the Smithsonian.
see upload.
please note that this article was written by an evolutionary biologist
I have provided plenty of links that answer these questions,
the links actually contain videos and audio that answer all of your questions, no need to read, just listen and watch.
You might be interested in the debates where those who believe we need to be silenced debate with those who believe that only allowing one voice is an erosion of our freedoms, this is the deeper issue.
Instead of us cut'n pasting articles, here is audio of a debate between Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, Donald Prothero concerning the issues we are discussing where you can cheer on your side and I, mine: Debate on Origins of Life
There are other debates that provide the same level of entertainment: Debates
In all of these debates, you will see your proponents position to be superior and I, mine; beyond that, we can agree to disagree.
Instead of us cut'n pasting articles, here is audio of a debate between Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, Donald Prothero concerning the issues we are discussing where you can cheer on your side and I, mine: Debate on Origins of Life
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?