David K.Y. Chiu and Thomas W.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,”
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 4(3):766-775 (September 2002).
- Chiu and Lui do mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
- This paper does not actually support ID – Fail
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).
- Here we find that Denton and Marshall and Legge et al. deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. explicitly refers to natural law. – Fail
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,”
Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).
- Annual Review of Genetics does not publish new research results; it publishes review articles, which summarize the current state of thinking on some topic. Although the thrust of the article is in opposition to the modern evolutionary picture, nowhere does it mention “design”. It references Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out. This article does not support ID – Fail
Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,”
Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
- Axe finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple of proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe’s paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said at the time that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42). – Fail.
Solomon Victor and Vijaya M. Nayak, “Evolutionary anticipation of the human heart,”
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 82:297-302 (2000).
- Quick summary, “Gosh this is really complicated, I have no idea how it could have happened naturally, so God must have done it“, and so this is what happens when you stray outside your area of expertise – Fail
Solomon Victor, Vljaya M. Nayek, and Raveen Rajasingh, “Evolution of the Ventricles,”
Texas Heart Institute Journal, Vol. 26:168-175 (1999).
- Yes, it is just an earlier draft of their appeal to ignorance – Fail
Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,”
American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).
- A rather daft paper that gives guidance on how to teach “God did it”, but does not offer any actual evidence – Fail.
William G. Pollard, “Rumors of transcendence in physics,”
American Journal of Physics, Vol. 52 (10) (October 1984).
- Another daft and rather old paper that claims that because our mathematical laws of nature explain the world, it is a miracle — er no, it can’t be otherwise. The laws of nature describe the world we know and that world is a reflection of our thinking and our language. – Fail
Really? Was that a debate between the two? No, it wasn't. It was a court case, that was decided by a judge, not on scientific grounds, but on legal grounds effecting First Ammendment rights.
Yup, with a clear decision that ID is just another religious dogma that does not belong in the nation's schools. That it violated the
Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Read the trial transcript ... it is on line:
RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript - RationalWiki
But please let me hit a few high points:
Behe conceded 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."
Behe maintained that astrology is a scientific theory: "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well."
Under oath Behe accepted that his simulation modelling of evolution described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the
Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", but that the paper actually indicated that the specified biochemical systems could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were altered to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.
A witness to the trail descibes Behe's faceplant:
... set the stage for the crucial face-off at the trial. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a cell biologist and textbook author who has written extensively on evolution and creationism, was the lead witness for the plaintiffs. Over the course of his testimony, Miller did his best to explain to the nonscientist audience the mechanisms of antibody gene rearrangement and the evidence corroborating the transposon hypothesis. Then, 10 days later, Behe took the stand. During cross-examination by the plaintiffs' lead counsel Eric Rothschild, Behe reiterated his claim about the scientific literature on the evolution of the immune system, testifying that "the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers on how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection."
Rothschild then presented Behe with a thick file of publications on immune system evolution, dating from 1971 to 2006, plus several books and textbook chapters. Asked for his response, Behe admitted he had not read many of the publications presented (a small fraction of all the literature on evolutionary immunology of the past 35 years), but summarily rejected them as unsatisfactory and dismissed the idea of doing research on the topic as "unfruitful."
This exchange clearly made an impression on Judge Jones, who specifically described it in his opinion: "We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution."
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.'
Actually, I saw how well Professor Behe supported his explanation of Design inference, during the debate with Ken Miller and Pennock at the American Museum of Natural History.
I thought Behe got his head handed to him, people can judge for themselves:
You can ignore ID proponents all you want -- that's the preferable treatment among Darwinian Evolutionists -- but the evidence they present remains.
No it doesn't. In a rather short time I've disposed of most of it.
Many of the answers (given by DE's) are, "We don't know." And that's fine. ID'ers don't know the 'why's', themselves / ourselves. But that doesn't keep us from recognizing there's an intelligent Source behind it! Example: we have no idea who built Stone Henge, but we know someone did. Has that stifled any study of it? Not at all. If anything, we reason it was built for a purpose. That might even enable further discoveries!
This is standard IDer boilerplate, sheer malarkey ... the false analogy falls apart as soon as you recognize that trying to compare an inanimate non-self-reproducing structure has nothing in common with a living self-reproducing organism.
I have, therefore I believe in an Intelligent Creator/Designer.
Bully for you ... you are demonstrably wrong, as we have seen.
Ok. But you'd have to read "Signature In the Cell" by Meyer, "Undeniable" by Axe, and "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe, for starters.
I doubt you're willing.
Doubt away, I am nothing if not a well prepared scholar who reads at a rapid rate. I stay up on the literature, of both sides. Have you read, cover to cover, On the Origin of Species (Darwin), The Selfish Gene (Dawkins), The Ancestor's Tale (Dawkins), Why Evolution is True (Coyne), Evolution (Zimmer), Only a Theory (Miller) and Evolution and the Theory of Games (Smith)?
