Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

I said to "those to whom it matters"......it doesn't matter to you. You have demonstrated that very clearly.
If you want actual proof, more than what is already in front of you? Sorry, I cannot offer it any more than you can offer actual proof for your theory to me.
By the time you acknowledge the actual proof you require, you'll probably wish you had done it sooner.

My belief gives me hope of a better future that does not rely on man to accomplish it. That fills me with confidence. What future do you see? And who will deliver it....science?

Reality does not hinge on what you want to be true or what you want to believe or what makes you feel good. It just is.

 

[Sapiens]

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).

A paper that was fraudulently published, it never passed peer review.

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).

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"[43] and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify.[44] Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years."[43][45][46]

Many of Behe's critics have pointed to these exchanges as examples they believe further undermine Behe's statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. John E. Jones III, the judge in the case, would ultimately rule that intelligent design is not scientific in his 139-page decision, citing Behe's testimony extensively as the basis for his findings:
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[47]
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[47]
"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[48]
"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[49]
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[50]
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe's argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[51]
"Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[52]
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."[53]
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."[54]
"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."[55]

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

Douglas Axe is the director of the Discovery Institute-run Biologic Institute.[1] co-author of Science and Human Origins Axe is also a signatory to the Discovery Institute petition A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Axe’s work has been hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence supporting their views. Interestingly, even Axe himself has admitted that this is not the case.[2]

Credentials
Axe is a molecular biologist, and is, as such, one of the relatively few people affiliated with the intelligent design movement with credentials the least bit relevant to the issue at hand — not counting the numerous supporters who rely entirely on fake or trumped-up credentials, as opposed to "merely" out-of-context credentials.

Drawing on his knowledge of biology, Axe has authored a few relatively mundane papers, at least some of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals.

Although none of these papers contain – or even attempts to mount – any refutation of evolution, much less evidence for intelligent design. He has published extensively in the Biologic Institute’s house journal BIO-Complexity, but that obviously does not count towards anything meaningful.

Fallacies and ignorance
Axe is on the record arguing that problems with evolution are evidence for intelligent design,[3] insofar as if the theory of evolution cannot explain some data it means that there can somehow be no naturalistic explanation at all. In other words, Axe seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would have to be correct — which is, of course, false insofar as Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to begin with, and is thus not even in the running.

His actual expertise in the fields relevant to assessing evolutionary explanations has also been questioned.[4]

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).

Behe and Snoke article
In 2004, Behe published a paper with David Snoke, in the scientific journal Protein Science that uses a simple mathematical model to simulate the rate of evolution of proteins by point mutation,[26] which he states supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers. Nevertheless, the Discovery Institute lists it as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design."[27]

Michael Lynch authored a response,[28] to which Behe and Snoke responded.[29] Protein Science discussed the papers in an editorial.[30]

Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. When the issue raised by Behe and Snoke is tested in the modern framework of evolutionary biology, numerous simple pathways to complexity have been shown. In their response, Behe and Snoke assumed that intermediate mutations are always damaging, where modern science allows for neutral or positive mutations.[31] Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory nor attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to random chance.[32]

Many of Behe's statements have been challenged by biologist Kenneth R. Miller in his book, Finding Darwin's God (1999). Behe has subsequently disputed Miller's points in an online essay.[33]

Two hacks.

All the other articles are of the same ilk, unacceptable in modern science not because they threaten evolution but because they are poor work that does not stand up to even cursory examination.

 

[metis]

Just as Christ's disciples had to separate from the apostate Jewish system, so today, sincere ones have to separate from all ties with Babylon the great. But you can't "get out of her" unless you first identify her. There was only one ark in Noah's day...I believe that there is only one "ark" today. (Matthew 14:37-39)

Jesus and the apostles were at least at first very much a part of that system.

Again, with the above, you are again defying what the gospel says by adding elements that go beyond having a basic belief in God and Jesus. IOW, the JW's are doing exactly what the early church accused the Pharisees of. John 3:16 does not say to believe in A, B, C, D, E, and God and Jesus in order to be "saved".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because it shows up in other literature, according to the theologians I've read. Also, why would the author use the feminine form for "Babylon" if he was referring to the actual town of Babylon? That would make no sense.

[I had a longer response that I accidentally deleted, so the above will have to do for now]

James 4:4

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Jesus and the apostles were at least at first very much a part of that system.

Again, with the above, you are again defying what the gospel says by adding elements that go beyond having a basic belief in God and Jesus. IOW, the JW's are doing exactly what the early church accused the Pharisees of. John 3:16 does not say to believe in A, B, C, D, E, and God and Jesus in order to be "saved".

Believing in Jesus requires an active faith. (James 2:17) It results in having God's Spirit.....
What does Jesus say? John 14:
15 “If you love me, you will observe my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you. 18 I will not leave you bereaved. I am coming to you. 19 In a little while the world will see me no more, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in union with my Father and you are in union with me and I am in union with you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. In turn, whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will clearly show myself to him.” 22 Judas, not Is·carʹi·ot, said to him: “Lord, what has happened that you intend to show yourself clearly to us and not to the world?” 23 In answer Jesus said to him: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word,...."

 

[savagewind]

he will observe my word,...."

Whose word?

 

[savagewind]

Believing in Jesus requires an active faith. (James 2:17) It results in having God's Spirit.....
What does Jesus say? John 14:
15 “If you love me, you will observe my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you. 18 I will not leave you bereaved. I am coming to you. 19 In a little while the world will see me no more, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in union with my Father and you are in union with me and I am in union with you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. In turn, whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will clearly show myself to him.” 22 Judas, not Is·carʹi·ot, said to him: “Lord, what has happened that you intend to show yourself clearly to us and not to the world?” 23 In answer Jesus said to him: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word,...."

τηρέω doesn't mean "obey".

 

[Deeje]

Because it shows up in other literature, according to the theologians I've read. Also, why would the author use the feminine form for "Babylon" if he was referring to the actual town of Babylon? That would make no sense.

Metis, theologians are trained by Christendom. All those theological colleges that educate these men teach the same things, except that the basic core of their teachings is not of Biblical or Christian origins. After they receive their doctorate, they simply modify their training to suit their denomination in the other areas where agreement cannot be reached.

The Pharisees had their schools of higher learning, but they meant nothing to Jesus because they were teaching a corrupted form of worship. He chose as his apostles men who had not attended those schools....they were derided because of their lack of education, yet they were taught personally by God's own son.

"The feminine form for Babylon" would apparently be because "she" is pictured as an immoral whore....not to her lovers, but to the one to whom she is supposed to be faithful. God accused Israel of "adultery" when she made excursions into false worship. All false worship is spiritual adultery.

"Revelation 17:4, 6:
"The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality......And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus."

This 'harlot' is guilty of the murder of saints. An immoral woman dressed in the finest clothing but drinking a cup of disgusting things.....drunk with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. Who in history fits that description? Who wears purple and scarlet? Who were the "saints" and "the witnesses of Jesus" in those early centuries who were killed by her?
Anyone who dared to question the authority or practices of "the Church" were burned alive at the stake. Were these like the prophets of old who were sent to God's errant people, but executed because they told Israel's leaders things they did not want to hear? Did history repeat? Jesus said it would.

Revelation 18:24; 19:1-2)
"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth.”
"After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying,

“Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God; because His judgments are true and righteous; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants on her.” (NSAB)

Christendom is the most reprehensible part of Babylon the great because she alone claims fidelity to the only true God (John 17:3)....yet she has betrayed him and his son at every turn. By committing the murder of "all who have been slain on the earth" this harlot (and her daughters) have so much blood on their hands. She is 'friends with this world', supporting its wars and its corrupt politicians, so there is no shame in her activity....it is fully justified by her. When Christ commanded that his disciples be NO part of this world, how can Christendom remain "friends" with God? (James 4:4) When he said to 'love our enemies and to pray for them' did Christendom's churches follow that admonition? She was always in bed with the military, sanctioning the killing....calling it "just war". The only "just" war is the one waged or sanctioned by God.

False religion is responsible for more bloodshed on this earth than anyone, or anything, else. There will be an accounting and according to Revelation 18:4-5 if we fail to remove ourselves from her before God executes his judgment upon her, we will be held in equal accountability for supporting her.

[I had a longer response that I accidentally deleted, so the above will have to do for now]

I sympathize...I have had that happen too. The "draft saved" feature has helped in this regard. And the "undo" feature of windows in the "edit" facility, helps restore what a click of a mouse accidentally erases.

 

[Sapiens]

False religion is responsible for more bloodshed on this earth than anyone, or anything, else.

I agree.

 

[McBell]

False religion is responsible for more bloodshed on this earth than anyone, or anything, else.

Define "false religion"

 

[Sapiens]

Define "false religion"

False = religion.

 

[Deeje]

You really didn't answer my question. It is people who may or may not be "saved", not churches or denominations. Therefore, what you are doing is resorting to a politically-correct form of legalism that actually defies what is written in the gospels.

OK......how does anyone get saved?...and what are they getting saved from?

There have always been faithful worshippers of the true God down through Biblical history. Starting with Abel and then Seth and onto others recorded in Biblical genealogies. In the days prior to the flood, it appears as if people generally strayed from the path of righteousness, but did not set up separate systems of false worship. Only after the deluge do we see false worship become institutionalized in various locations throughout the earth. It is these religious systems that influence people's beliefs, hence the titles they carry to identify which religious system they subscribe to......Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu etc....many of them are common in one location, so geographical location has a lot to do with the religion people adopt, being raised from birth with these beliefs.

These rival institutions were set up by God's enemy in an attempt to confuse and deceive as many as possible. They all have the appearance in some respects of good beliefs along with some odd practices. Idolatry features in most of them. So because we know that God hates idol worship, we can safely rule out all who practice it.

Then we have the beliefs themselves. Most also accept that humans have an immortal soul that departs from the body at death.....this is NOT a Bible teaching, but one that promotes the first lie the devil ever told...."you surely will not die".

God told Adam that death was the penalty for disobedience...nothing more. There was no mention of a heaven or hell.....just the end of life, making him equal to all other living things on this planet, when he alone, made in God's image, was offered everlasting life. (Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20)
So religions that teach that we have an immortal soul can also be ruled out. The Bible's teaching of a resurrection is completely different to some disembodied spirit flitting off to places unknown. (John 5:28-29)

Along with this idea of some immaterial part of man surviving death, comes the need for somewhere for this spirit to go after death. Some religions are very creative about this idea. Some believe in reincarnation, others in a heaven for the righteous and a hell of fiery torment for the wicked. Catholicism went far above and beyond anything the Bible teaches in this regard.
The Jews only believed in sheol.....the place where everyone went after death. It is not a place of conscious existence, but a sleep without dreams and without the awareness of the passage of time. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)

What about the nature of God himself? Many religions do not subscribe to the idea of one God who is a Creator. Yet the Bible clearly states that there is only one true God and that he directly created everything. Some believe in a multitude of gods but none of them make demands on anyone. The God of the Bible demands obedience to his laws.....laws that show up the base side of man's nature that resulted from Adam's disobedience.
By confusing the identity of the true God with the person of his son, Christendom has broken the first Commandment. They have put another god in place of the Father. (Exodus 20:3) So worshipping multiplicities or trinities of gods can also rule people out of contention for salvation......which brings us back to my original questions.....How do we get saved....and what are we being saved from?

Those who want to worship the true God must carefully study his word and ascertain what it is that God wants from his children. From day one, it has always been obedience. We can only be saved if we love the truth and live it.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: In speaking of the coming of the judgment, and satan's influence in this world, (1 John 5:19)
Paul wrote.....
"that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness." (NASB)

Taking pleasure in what God condemns will not earn any them citizenship in God's kingdom.

What are we getting saved from? God's anger, his condemnation and his eviction from the face of the earth.
That is pretty serious and very permanent.

John 3:16, for example, doesn't say that in order for one to be "saved" that they need to believe in some sort of this, that, and many other things that go beyond a basic belief in God and Jesus.

Belief is necessary....but it isn't enough.
James 2:19-21:
"You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected"

If the demons "believe" in God, what good is it doing them if they are not obedient? We have to back up what we believe with conviction and be prepared to demonstrate our faith in real and sometimes difficult ways...like Abraham.

Therefore, what you and the other JW's have been doing is adding things to that basic teaching that actually defies what the scriptures say.

Christians were not permitted to believe whatever they wanted to. They had to hold to the truth of God's word and to the teachings of Jesus Christ, to be in line for salvation. If you want to know who added to God's word, and defy scripture, you have to go back to the second century, when the weeds of Jesus parable began to take over in the field where the devil planted them. They have been growing and flourishing ever since with over 40,000 denominations. If Jesus were to return tomorrow, who would he recognize as his own among that mob?

We all need to do our homework....there is no substitute for knowledge because it creates a platform for faith to grow and gain strength. There is only one truth, and we have to find it.

 

[Deeje]

Define "false religion"

The kind practiced by those who only want to worship their own gods in their own way. "Worship" is practiced in many forms.

Sometimes a creator-god is called "natural selection" and the religion is science.

 

[Deeje]

All the other articles are of the same ilk, unacceptable in modern science not because they threaten evolution but because they are poor work that does not stand up to even cursory examination.

Seriously, Sapiens, "they are poor work that does not stand up to even cursory examination"....examination by whom?
Biased reviewers with a presupposed belief? I think you must be kidding. It is evolution itself that does not stand up to even a cursory review for the simple reason, it is all based on a flawed premise. There is not a single shred of real evidence that evolution ever took place. All the fossils tell us is that they existed at some point in history...the rest is made up. It is imagination disguised as science.

 

[Deeje]

Jesus and the apostles were at least at first very much a part of that system.

And don't you see that all "Christians" have been very much a part of Christendom since the birth of Roman Catholicism in the 4th century. That religious institution held tyrannical power over the people for 1500 years, keeping the word of God from their hands and teaching them all manner of false doctrines. The reformation did not unite Christianity, but rather it broke the power of the Roman Church, and carved it up into ever more bickering factions. True Christians needed to extricate themselves from that fractured system of worship that claimed unity of belief in Christ, (1 Corinthians 1:10) but willingly killed their 'brothers' on the battlefield, practicing what Christ condemned....demonstrating no love for one another, which Jesus said would identify his genuine disciples. (John 13:34-35)

Again, with the above, you are again defying what the gospel says by adding elements that go beyond having a basic belief in God and Jesus. IOW, the JW's are doing exactly what the early church accused the Pharisees of. John 3:16 does not say to believe in A, B, C, D, E, and God and Jesus in order to be "saved".

Answered in my previous post. If "belief" was all that was necessary, then the demons are also saved. (James 2:19)

 

[Olinda]

Seriously, Sapiens, "they are poor work that does not stand up to even cursory examination"....examination by whom?
Biased reviewers with a presupposed belief? I think you must be kidding. It is evolution itself that does not stand up to even a cursory review for the simple reason, it is all based on a flawed premise. There is not a single shred of real evidence that evolution ever took place. All the fossils tell us is that they existed at some point in history...the rest is made up. It is imagination disguised as science.

This only demonstrates that you do not understand the review process . . .hint, it is not about the reviewer's beliefs but about the quality of the information and deductions in the paper.

And btw, AIG is Answers in Genesis. I'm sure you don't quote it directly but JW publications quite clearly use it as a reference.
Isn't it odd that your religion is happy to use material provided by the 'Christianity' you condemn so thoroughly?

 

[Deeje]

This only demonstrates that you do not understand the review process . . .hint, it is not about the reviewer's beliefs but about the quality of the information and deductions in the paper.

Hint: presupposition about a subject cannot create anything but bias. How many peers review articles that are about something they already accept, and demonstrate no bias? The quality of the information and deductions are again the opinions of men, already indoctrinated......what does it prove?...not much IMO.

And btw, AIG is Answers in Genesis. I'm sure you don't quote it directly but JW publications quite clearly use it as a reference.
Isn't it odd that your religion is happy to use material provided by the 'Christianity' you condemn so thoroughly?

Oh thank you, now at least I know. Funny but I can't recall ever seeing them quoted in our publications...you aren't legally allowed to plagiarize someone else's words AFAIK. You have to cite your source.

I sometimes use material off the net....mostly to drive home a point with an images rather than just words. The source is irrelevant to me if it drives home the point. The pics are available to copy.

I don't find anything odd about my faith.....you are free to find anything odd if you like......

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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).

• 
  Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

Douglas Axe has been performing REPEATABLE scientific experiments for quite some time now and any scientist who feels that his experiments are incorrect can absolutely repeat the experiments to see if they are incorrect. The scientific method being used by ID scientists is the foundation of modern scientific inquiry and is open to refutation by the same methodology so you can accept the conclusion as stated or you can perform further scientific tests in an attempt to invalidate it but simple denial would be a belief centered action that has been historically attributed to religious adherents.

Hmmm books used in school that teach ID

Creationists in general are quite obviously cheered by these recent developments. John N. Moore, a "born again" professor of natural science at Michigan State University and a founder of the Creation Research Society, called the attention of a citizen's group to the appearance of the new texts, naming among these Biology: An Inquiry into the Nature of Life (Allyn and Bacon).

The Allyn and Bacon text pairs creation concepts with those of evolution in adjoining columns. One reads: "Creationists say ... the theory of evolution need not be accepted simply because most scientists support it," but "evolutionists say . . . agreed. Evolution should be accepted only as long as the evidence supports it." The several approaches to evolution inquiry are then cited, and the column ends with "Creationists say . . . evolutionists deny the creative power of God," and "evolutionists say . . . the hand of God is just as evident in evolution extending over billions of years as in creation occurring in an instant or a few days."

In 1975, this book, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (published by Zondervan, a fundamentalist publishing house), was chosen as one of seven officially approved biology texts by the Indiana state textbook commission. In two of Indiana's districts, it was the only ninth-grade biology text available to students.
But an Indiana court later barred the book for use in public schools in that state on the grounds that it was sectarian-based. In Dallas, Texas, a committee of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish clergy opposed it there and, in a compromise, got it relegated to library use as a reference work...
Genetics and Genesis: The New Biology Textbooks that Include Creationism | NCSE

Science 4 for Christian Schools (Home Teacher's Edition) Paperback – 1995

• Paperback: 242 pages
• Publisher: Bob Jones University Press (1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0890845697
• ISBN-13: 978-0890845691

Science 4 for Christian Schools (Home Teacher's Edition): Debra White: 9780890845691: Amazon.com: Books


Biology for Christian Schools is a 1991 school-level biology textbook written from a Young Earth Creation point of view by William S. Pinkston and published by the Bob Jones University Press.
Biology for Christian Schools - Wikipedia

So it would appear that there are school textbooks in existence that teach science from a specifically inferred intelligent designer

Excellent! You're my new hero (next to Meyer, Behe and Wells).

 

[Sapiens]

Seriously, Sapiens, "they are poor work that does not stand up to even cursory examination"....examination by whom?
Biased reviewers with a presupposed belief? I think you must be kidding. It is evolution itself that does not stand up to even a cursory review for the simple reason, it is all based on a flawed premise. There is not a single shred of real evidence that evolution ever took place. All the fossils tell us is that they existed at some point in history...the rest is made up. It is imagination disguised as science.

The more you bloviate the more you reveal how little you know about what science is, how scientists are trained and what scientists do ... and, more to the point, you reveal in stark clarity the intellectually dishonest world that you come from and that you project from the experiences that you have onto the screen of corruption that you erect. Yes, their work does not stand up. It is not a contest between science and religion, it is a contest between religious presupposition and bias and people like myself who trained for a lifetime to be skeptical of all claims and then to accept them only on a preliminary basis until the claims are supported by many mutually supporting yet independent lines of evidence and argument. When I was in school you got more strokes and rewards for using your skepticism to destroy your fellow student's claims than you did for the quality and defense of your own. That requires a rather open (and quick) mind. Your accusation of the reviews being biased is totally without foundation, it reminds of the tall tale of the Puritans coming to the new world seeking religious freedom when (in fact) what they were seeking was the freedom to persecute anyone who did not agree with their narrow view of things. You see evolution as a presupposition, I'm sure to one like yourself who takes inordinate pride in not understanding anything about evolution there can be no other view. But consider this for a moment. Where there an effective and truthful argument against evolution then that argument would be made and the one who made it could revel in their success and rewards for the rest of their life. There are an awful lot of people who are much brighter than you and I who have rigorously tested evolution and found it to be, at its core, bedrock solid.

 

[Deeje]

The more you bloviate the more you reveal how little you know about what science is, how scientists are trained and what scientists do ... and, more to the point, you reveal in stark clarity the intellectually dishonest world that you come from and that you project from the experiences that you have onto the screen of corruption that you erect.

Wow...that sounds like a plot for a movie.....its all there...bloviation!

What scientists are trained to do? (I think we know) the stark clarity of the intellectually dishonest world that I project from experiences onto the screen of corruption....!!!

OMG! Is there a screen writer in the camp?

Is this a clear picture of how an intellectual bloviates? I can only assume that I am making you feel irritated (I get that distinct impression) But why?
If what evolution teaches is such a foregone conclusion, why do you feel the need to even comment? Your replies reveal little more than insults from intellectual snobbery and an appeal to science's credentials as if they mean anything to the Creator or me.

Yes, their work does not stand up. It is not a contest between science and religion, it is a contest between religious presupposition and bias and people like myself who trained for a lifetime to be skeptical of all claims and then to accept them only on a preliminary basis until the claims are supported by many mutually supporting yet independent lines of evidence and argument.

You know, Sapiens, it must be hard to go through all that study and research, and then at the end of the day to stand up for something that can never be proven. I have faith that my Creator is real, probably because I am a spiritually minded person, but when I have done my own research I find no assurance in science that anything they believe today will stand up tomorrow. How do you dedicate yourself so wholeheartedly to something so fickle and largely unsubstantiated by anything more than educated guesswork?

When will science use terms that indicate substantiated fact instead of saying that something "might have" or "could have" taken place? Are scientists not screaming to the world that they hope that evolution took place the way they 'suggest', or else they are going to feel really silly?

If I 'suggest' that something 'might have' taken place, or that circumstantial evidence produced by a group of thoroughly biased individuals, has led to a theory......how convincing could their evidence be? They would all be trying to make the evidence fit the presupposed belief.
If you cannot substantiate your theory with anything more than supposition and nice diagrams, so what do you really have at the end of the day? No more than we do. You have a belief that cannot be proven, just like us.

When I was in school you got more strokes and rewards for using your skepticism to destroy your fellow student's claims than you did for the quality and defense of your own. That requires a rather open (and quick) mind. Your accusation of the reviews being biased is totally without foundation

Is it? Isn't it more correct to say that the entire theory of macro-evolution is based on micro-evolution (adaptation) and that there is not a single piece of solid evidence that any species' adaptation has ever been observed to go beyond its "kind"? This theory is not testable and micro-evolution demonstrates that all creatures have the ability to adapt to a changed environment, but they always remain within their genus. Under experimentation for speciation, the fish remained fish, and the flies remained flies.....there is no proof whatsoever that one kind of creature can become something other than their "kind", no matter how much time you throw at them. Anything over and above what can be observed is pure speculation, not scientific fact. Science just cannot seem to be able to admit that.

You see evolution as a presupposition, I'm sure to one like yourself who takes inordinate pride in not understanding anything about evolution there can be no other view. But consider this for a moment. Where there an effective and truthful argument against evolution then that argument would be made and the one who made it could revel in their success and rewards for the rest of their life.

I am sure that someone like yourself who takes inordinate pride in their intellectualism can have no other view either, so there is an equality here, isn't there? You apparently see no real need to understand the Bible and its teachings, (an area that I am well versed in) so you can make suppositions about it from ignorance too. How are you different from me apart from your superior academic education? A person can be a genius and not have an ounce of common sense or a spiritual bone in their body......what is so great about that?

Is there ever likely to be many among the scientific community, prepared to be caught dead asserting that evolution is NOT true? Would it be worth the derision and ruin it would mean to their careers if they dared to speak up? I see in your attitude exactly why they would choose to remain silent.

There are an awful lot of people who are much brighter than you and I who have rigorously tested evolution and found it to be, at its core, bedrock solid.

If all of those very bright people begin with a false premise and then all of them would be equally wrong.....collectively ignorant by choice...the very thing I believe that you accuse us of being.