Can any creationist tell me ...

[blü 2]

Muslim-UK

"more than half of all college professors view Christians with hostility and take every opportunity to belittle them and their faith."​

In your view, does telling a student that evolution is a fact of reality and that the theory of evolution explains it, amount to 'belittling' someone and / or their faith?

I'd have said it didn't.

Also, in your experience, were professors who were not believers outwardly aggressive towards believers as such? (They weren't in mine.) I'm also conscious of a few writings well circulated by creationists in the US a few years back which featured an arrogant professor bullying a fresh-faced young fundie who turns the tables on him. (They made a movie, God's Not Dead (2014), with that plot afterwards.) So I'm slow to take such casual allegations at face value when they imply 'aggression towards religion' is the norm.
.

 

[Grandliseur]

In 1859 The Origin of Species hit the stands, and most scientists and thoughtful people were very rapidly persuaded by the power of its arguments and demonstrations.

Though creationism never wholly went away after 1859, it was greatly overshadowed until, in 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, and, particularly in the US, put enthusiasm into the bible literalists' cause again. The book also marks the birth of 'creation science'.

I address this question to creationists here:

If, as creationists say,

─ the theory of evolution is truly wrong, and

─ 'creation science' is valid science

then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?

Some centuries ago, and actually, until fairly recently historically speaking, there was a religious war in which the inquisition brutally, against all teachings of Christ, killed all whom they could find who supposedly were heretics, protestants, what-nots. The ones who translated the Bible were burned or dug up from the grave and burned - John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and who knows how many others were likewise killed for their faith. That church also tried strictly to control all things of science they didn't like. It was a war on the Bible and those who believe.

A great many breathed a sigh of relief when atheism taught that they didn't have to stand for that church's, or any other church's beliefs for that matter. God was seen as the devil due to the evil doings of the churches. In my long life, I have seen time and again the Bible being found true in archaeological finds. (I don't expect you to agree) Now, the Catholic church's inquisition has been replaced with anti-theism, in all its forms, even in its simplest most basic atheist format.

It is again a war on believers of the Bible and on the Bible itself. No prisoners are taken, no agreement reached, and for sure, this world would rather go up in atomic fire than admit that God exist, that the universe is fine tuned by him, etc. We saw this when scientists at first realized how extreme the fine tuning is. It caused them to invent the Multiverse so that they could logically discard the need for God to be the fine tuner.

Do you not know this -' . . for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. '

We are in a war, and few shall survive. Christians do not expect ever to have this world admit anything that would support Creationism, even OECs.

There are creationist PhDs if you should like to debate these.
--------------
I have a hope to God, that though I am so flawed and sinful that he may have mercy on me.
You have the hope that in less than about 100 years, this earth shall become unfit for human and animal life - except perhaps roaches, etc.

We are now in the much proclaimed sixth extinction - biological annihilation by human hands. What fine work our science has produced. Don't you think!
And, still, you think science has anything at all to brag about! Yes, I like my Android tablet, my phones, and PCs, my cars, and washing machines, but at the expense of the earth! No, thank you. That is, if I had to choose between one or the other.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Muslim-UK

"more than half of all college professors view Christians with hostility and take every opportunity to belittle them and their faith."​

In your view, does telling a student that evolution is a fact of reality and that the theory of evolution explains it, amount to 'belittling' someone and / or their faith?

I'd have said it didn't.

I was never a Christian, so can't speak for them. I agree it's not belittling, though it would rattle some who were weaker in faith than others.

I would imagine having a inerrant book from God telling me the first Man was created approx 7,000 years ago vs College Professor telling me Science confirms Humans have lived on the Earth for Hundreds of thousands of years would definitely lead to some to question their Religion.

Also, in your experience, were professors who were not believers outwardly aggressive towards believers as such? (They weren't in mine.) I'm also conscious of a few writings well circulated by creationists in the US a few years back which featured an arrogant professor bullying a fresh-faced young fundie who turns the tables on him. (They made a movie, God's Not Dead (2014), with that plot afterwards.) So I'm slow to take such casual allegations at face value when they imply 'aggression towards religion' is the norm..

Professionals are usually very sensitive to people from varying backgrounds. They are there to teach, not get into theological or historical debates.

Clearly though, the studies done appear to show Christian students feel targeted. We need some of the Christians on the forum to give their views on this.

 

[Looncall]

Nice to meet you too.

There are various organisations set up by ID proponents, and one which is quite well organised and researched is:

Discovery Institute | Advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.

You have just destroyed your credibility. The creationist outfits publish "statements of faith" that require their members to lie through their teeth. They are not scientific enterprises, they are political conspiracies whose aim is the establishment of theocracy (the worst possible form of government). I suggest that you check out the "Wedge Document".

 

[blü 2]

Grandliseur

I have seen time and again the Bible being found true in archaeological finds. (I don't expect you to agree)​

I'd expect the bible's statements about ancient times to be correct some of the time ─ neither Pepys' Diary nor Fleming's Bond made mistakes with the geography of London, for example.

anti-theism, in all its forms, even in its simplest most basic atheist format​

While the philosophical arguments of Richard Dawkins and the other anti-religionists are very largely correct, I can't agree with his conclusion that religion is a threat to society or (except for fundamentalism) an assault on the intellect. I have too many friends, rellies and acquaintances who are believers and decent, intelligent people to think that's right.

It caused them to invent the Multiverse​

I doubt very much that concern for religious views led to the scientific hypothesis of the multiverse.

If you're a scientist, even one who's a believer, you'll see at once that the explanation 'God did it' explains nothing ─ unless you can go on to describe the method by which God did it, and the reasons why that method works &c. As far as I'm aware, there's no branch of theology devoted to the theory of miracles from the point of view of reproducing them, for example, because religion doesn't think like science. But for those who believe in miracles, the question remains ─ how do you turn water into wine? What are the forces working on the water to make this happen? Where do the extra materials come from and how are they guided to the wine? Whose analysis of the particular wine to be created is used to find those materials and combine them?

Christians do not expect ever to have this world admit anything that would support Creationism, even OECs.​

All my Christian friends understand evolution and are extremely confident that creationism is wall to wall hooey. So I suggest you limit your claim to 'Fundamentalist Christians' or some other suitable term.

There are creationist PhDs if you should like to debate these.​

Have you read Kent Hovind's thesis that earned him his PhD from Patriot University? It's hard to credit how bad, how infantile, it is. So I hope you're talking about PhDs from reputable fully accredited universities. If so, bring 'em on if that's what you want.

You have the hope that in less than about 100 years, this earth shall become unfit for human and animal life - except perhaps roaches, etc.​

You don't know me very well if you attribute that to me. Privately and in society and in elected office I've done my best to keep this planet green, cool and lovely for our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, and so on.

What fine work our science has produced. Don't you think!​

Why are you blaming science for what particular kinds of humans are doing for their own financial gain?

 

[blü 2]

Muslim-UK

Professionals are usually very sensitive to people from varying backgrounds. They are there to teach, not get into theological or historical debates.

Clearly though, the studies done appear to show Christian students feel targeted. We need some of the Christians on the forum to give their views on this.​

Well said.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"19%" etc That merely points out the (already well known) abysmal state of education in the US.

by that rationale, atheists states like North Korea, Communist China, USSR had/have fabulous education systems

The US has been the global leader in science, for a century or more, because of a strong and unparalleled tradition of free independent thought and expression of it.
So yes it continues to be a leader in moving beyond old Victorian ideas like Darwinism and anthropomorphic weather, which still lingers in much of the old world

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well over 50% of Americans believe that Evolution is accurate according to Gallup. The theory of evolution does not discount the existence of God in any way. The Pope has even stated that evolution is accurate. Evolution is strictly limited to speciation. It does not even speak to the origin of life itself.

It explicitly discounts God's involvement, claiming a purely natural unguided mechanism, 81% are skeptical of this claim. Which would probably be far higher if it were not taught as 'undeniable fact' in school and pop science/culture

Not being able to account for the origin of life is merely another weakness of the theory. ID can account for both.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

We are now in the much proclaimed sixth extinction - biological annihilation by human hands. What fine work our science has produced. Don't you think!
And, still, you think science has anything at all to brag about! Yes, I like my Android tablet, my phones, and PCs, my cars, and washing machines, but at the expense of the earth! No, thank you. That is, if I had to choose between one or the other.

I'd agree that in some respects science has led to a world massively over populated by people, who are putting a strain on natural resources as a result. That is because science has helped to massively reduce disease, infant mortality, it has made mass production of safe food possible, and then there is the technology that makes life so much easier, people are living longer as a result of all these things. What we need if we are going to avoid "biological annihilation" is a reduction in population, along with less personal greed in the world, and with more care of our planet of course. Religion could help the population decrease by not wailing about birth control measures as a "sin", especially in countries already poor and bursting at the seams with people.

Science may well be the only way we avoid annihilation, I'd give it more chance than turning to a holy book.

 

[leibowde84]

It explicitly discounts God's involvement, claiming a purely natural unguided mechanism, 81% are skeptical of this claim. Which would probably be far higher if it were not taught as 'undeniable fact' in school and pop science/culture

Not being able to account for the origin of life is merely another weakness of the theory. ID can account for both.

Can you provide a link to this gallup poll you are referring to? Also, where in the theory of evolution does it "explicitly discount God's involvement"?

Evolution is not "unable to account for the origin of life". That is extremely dishonest of you to say. It simply does not speak to the origin of life. Is the theory of gravity weak because it does not account for the origin of life? Is the theory of relativity weak because it doesn't account for the origin of life? Is quantum theory weak because it doesn't account for the origin of life?

Like the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, quantum theory and practically every other scientific theory simply do not speak to the origin of life. That in no way makes them weak. It is absurd to contend that a scientific theory not speaking in any way to the origin of life makes that theory weak.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you provide a link to this gallup poll you are referring to?

As of 2017, belief in a purely naturalist / materialist/ Darwinist process: 19%,

where in the theory of evolution does it "explicitly discount God's involvement"?

That was the whole point of the theory, to try to explain the diversity of life by a purely natural process-natural selection without any help from God

Certainly you could argue your point with the vast majority of Darwinists like Dawkins

"For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution" The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.249

Evolution is not "unable to account for the origin of life". That is extremely dishonest of you to say.

Didn't read past this- if you have any substantive point to make, try to do so without the ad hominem insults, that only discredits your beliefs

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi. Can you direct me to material that discusses the progress made by intelligent design and creation science in science the method? It would be much appreciated.

too many to list here, but here's some



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).
• 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).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Stop here and explain how the first RNA molecules would have to arise by unguided, non-biological chemical processes.

Why? I'm not qualified to answer that.

RNA is not known to assemble without the help of a skilled laboratory chemist intelligently guiding the process.

It's also not known to be unable to self-assemble in the conditions present on prebiotic earth over deep time.

No argument based on what we don't yet know is an argument against abiogenesis.

"The flaw is in the logic -- that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth."

Your source made a bad faith argument.

Science is not trying to replicate what they think may have happened naturally in the past. That's not possible, and it's unrealistic to demand that it try. We don't have a sterile planet to do the experiment. We expect that the presence of life would prevent another abiogenesis event inasmuch as living organisms metabolize the intermediaries that would presumably need to be left unmolested for eons.

And we don't have hundreds of millions of years.

What science can do is to show that a chain of events that proceeds from small molecules to macromolecules to a living cell does not violate the laws of physics or chemistry, and it will do that in laboratories under artificial conditions. That will have to be enough. Unless we find preserved primordial cells, we can never verify that such a laboratory created cell has the same specific features as the first cell.

Second, while RNA has been shown to perform many roles in the cell, there is no evidence that it could perform all the necessary cellular functions currently carried out by proteins. Third, the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of genetic information.

I think that you are incorrect in your assertions, but I can concede them to you and repeat that what we don't know or what we haven't found yet is irrelevant to an argument against abiogenesis.

Furthermore, the supernaturalistic hypothesis, "God did it," explains nothing at all and has also never been observed. If those are your standards for belief, you have eliminated both the natural and supernatural hypotheses, and you'd probably agree that one of them must be correct, demonstrating that your method for eliminating hypotheses is flawed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

RNA world advocates suggest that if the first self-replicating life was based upon RNA, it would have required a molecule between 200 and 300 nucleotides in length.17 However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides. To explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 -- below the universal probability boundary, or events which are remotely possible to occur within the history of the universe ... The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.

This is a variation of Hoyle's fallacy, which has already been refuted on this thread. I reproduced Polymath's objections. You didn't address the specifics of the rebuttal, so there is no need to pursue that further. The argument still stands as it did when it was posted.

Fourth -- and most fundamentally -- the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of the genetic code itself.

You realize I hope that code is metaphorical here, do you not? RNA is a molecule that passively obeys the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no evidence that a code was written or deliberately implemented. What you call information is more properly called form. The molecules have a certain shape, permissible modes of movement, and distribution of charge that causes them to mindlessly reproduce themselves. You might as well call the movement of the planets around their stars a program.

My answer is the same to all of your, "You can't explain"s. I don't need to to. Science doesn't need to. It hopes to, and very well might succeed at explaining any number of these as yet unresolved issues.

But even if it never does, you cannot eliminate the naturalistic hypotheses from contention. Only your faith does that, and I've explained my objection to faith based thinking. How can faith be a path to truth when it lets you believe any idea or its polar opposite to the same degree.By faith, I could drop gods from my list of candidate hypotheses. It just doesn't seem right to me, therefore it's not.

Or, I can make the same argument that you're making. You've never seen a god create a cell, you can't explain how one could, so there is no reason to consider the idea further.

With the absence of a supernatural explanation for these problems, I look forward to more pie in the sky theories put forward by non believers.

You don't have a supernatural explanation now, and never have had one - just an unsupported claim.

FYI (from pie in the sky - Wiktionary ):

Pie in the sky - etymology - 1911, phrase originally in reference to the promises of religion taken from a song written by Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave"

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die​

The phrase has now been generalized to mean any unrealistic hope

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hi. Can you direct me to material that discusses the progress made by intelligent design and creation science in science the method? It would be much appreciated.

That is not possible because the methods used by Science can not be applied to GOD. He is outside the realm of Time and Space, and not subject to lab experiments.

• "When inventing a god the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." – anon

• "The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike" - Delos B. McKown

• "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." - Douglas Adams

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

talk about inferring what you want from relatively nothing, that's what evolutionists do. then they proclaim reason in their fairy tale theory. then they act like you need them for grounding in reality. well the church of evolution is junk science, bad puzzle fitters.

And yet the theory of evolution has more support for it now than ever.

I hope that you understand why we would prefer a scientific theory that unifies a mountain of observations, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found that have never been falsified, offers a mechanism for the production of the living and extinct forms we find, and has practical applications that have improved the human condition rather than replace it with an unsupported claim that has no explanatory mechanism, makes no predictions, and cannot be used for anything helpful.

Theists simply have no argument for why we should do that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

too many to list here, but here's some



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).
• 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).

I looked at two of the above chosen at random. Neither offered any evidence of intelligent design. One was from a journal, BIO-Complexity, that apparently has no peer review function, but a larger editorial staff than content. From the link:

Despite the intention to have one article per month, it took from May 2010 until December 2010 for another article to be published (by William Dembski, a member of the editorial team). Only one article was published in 2011, and three total are by Douglas Axe. For 2012, the Panda's Thumb blog points out:[7]

“…the 2012 volume contains exactly two research articles, one “critical review” and one “critical focus”, for a grand total of four items. The editorial board has 30 members; they must be kept very busy handling all those papers."

Despite its lackluster performance, the journal proclaimed, "Over 2,000 PDFs downloaded… In its first two months, BIO-Complexity has attracted a large readership."[8] The journal was panned in a review by young earth creationist and baraminologist Todd C. Wood:[9]

“In the larger scheme of things, I am sensing a discouraging pattern to BIO-Complexity publications. As I quoted above, the journal is supposed to be about "testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life," which is a great goal. But this is the fifth paper published by BIO-Complexity, and it's the fifth paper that focuses on perceived inadequacies of evolution. So when are we going to test "the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life?"

If a young earth creationist doesn't like it, who does?​

Of course, I've seen that list before, so I already knew what to expect. It's on the Discovery Institute's site. Perhaps you can show some science that points to an intelligent designer rather than a list of titles that don't.

 

[Jose Fly]

In 1859 The Origin of Species hit the stands, and most scientists and thoughtful people were very rapidly persuaded by the power of its arguments and demonstrations.

Though creationism never wholly went away after 1859, it was greatly overshadowed until, in 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, and, particularly in the US, put enthusiasm into the bible literalists' cause again. The book also marks the birth of 'creation science'.

I address this question to creationists here:

If, as creationists say,

─ the theory of evolution is truly wrong, and

─ 'creation science' is valid science

then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?

For me the more important observation and test is that creationism has not contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding of the world in at least a century, while evolutionary theory has not only contributed enormously, it's been the unifying framework of the life sciences for over 100 years.

As I've said before, there's a reason why universities, scientific organizations, agencies, and private firms all utilize evolutionary theory and none utilize creationism. Creationism is simply wrong....as wrong as flat-earth geocentrism. Conversely, evolutionary theory has proved to be accurate and reliable. That's really all there is to this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science may well be the only way we avoid annihilation, I'd give it more chance than turning to a holy book.

Agreed. The planet would be in better hands with humanists running it than apocalypse-welcoming, science-denying theists:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

Here's what a prominent humanist had to say:

• "It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ ... Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. " –Sam Harris

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That was the whole point of the theory, to try to explain the diversity of life by a purely natural process-natural selection without any help from God

The point of the theory was to account for the commonality and diversity of life on earth. It was able to do so with a naturalistic explanation, so there was no need to invoke gods. There was no goal to include or exclude gods.