Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Intelligent Design - Peer Reviewed Publications

As much as some scientists would like to eliminate the concept of an Intelligent Designer from the discussion of origins, there is a growing number of scientists who are willing to embrace ID as an alternate and competing theory to Darwinistic evolution.

At personal financial and professional risk, some of these brave scientists have dared keep an open mind to the possibility of Intelligent Design showing that there is easily as much evidence to support that theory as there is the various evolution theories.

Allegations that proponents of Intelligent Design have no peer-reviewed scientific theories are a deliberate distortion of the facts. Inspite of attempts that have been made to marginalize and even censure scientists who support ID, they've been able to credibly articulate ID in peer-reviewed publications.
Organizations and scientists that support ID, such as the Discovery Institute present Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.

A few of these examples are:

** DNA and the Origin of Life: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302;

**Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.

**The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”

**Dynamical Genetics

**“Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,"

** Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,”

A few of the many publications that support ID.

**The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

**Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).

**The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).

**Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).

While I would like to see ID presented alongside Evolution taught as a theory of Origins, I have to admit that such teaching would not necessarily support my particular faith. Many ID scientists have a very different concept of the Designer than my Christian-Trinitarian idea of a personal God. Of course I know I'm right. ***smile***

Oh, by the way did you know that there is recent evidence to support the crossing of the Red Sea and the drowning of Pharaoh's army and the real Mt. Sinai?

1 comment:

Thayne said...

Intelligent Design is not science because it leads to dead ends.

All it can do (or, I should say, all it claims it can do, but really can't) is say: "this is too complex to have a natural origin."

That's it. It explains nothing. We can't learn anything at all about the way nature works through ID, even if it could be used to identify things which cannot have a natural origin.

But, as it turn out, ID can't even say "this is too complex to have a natural origin." I challenge any ID advocate to prove that high degrees of complexity require designer.

I know Behe says that there is such a thing as "irreducible complexity" and that things fit his definition of it must have been designed. But he has done nothing but made an assertion. Basically his argument boils down to "I can't imagine how an irreducibly complex system could derive from more simple systems, therefore they can't."