Peer-Reviewed I.D.?

Haruko · Post by **Haruko** » 2005-07-15 11:08pm

What do you make of these?

The source.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-15 11:55pm

I'm not particularly inclined to believe their helpful "summaries" of the papers' conclusions. It seems all too easy for them to take any old paper where someone says "XX is unclear; further investigation is warranted" and turn it into "Dr. So-and-So concludes that XX could not have evolved and must have been created".

Post by **Edi** » 2005-07-16 01:49am

The source is Discovery Institute, which has been blatantly lying about ID for years, and the content is complete bullshit. When you get peer reviewed stuff from somthing like Nature, Scientific American or other reputable source, that I'll take a serious look at.

But they call Behe's book Darwin's Black Box and other such trash "peer reviewed", but that's a blatant lie. Nothing that the article says should be in any way, shape or form be taken at face value. I recognized several of the sources they claim as scientific as ones that have been totally discredited years ago, and I bet the others are as well.

Edi

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2005-07-16 04:19am

The Discovery Institute would be funny, if it didn't take itself seriously. It takes itself so seriously, in fact, that it has its own parody site.

Also, this would be more convincing if it showed that there was a trend within the scientific community of growing acceptance of ID. As it stands, these could be articles which were published, and subsequently ripped to shreds via peer review.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-07-16 01:43pm

Notice how the last section of articles are PHILOSOPHY journals.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-16 02:15pm

Darth Servo wrote:Notice how the last section of articles are PHILOSOPHY journals.

It would be nice if someone actually dug up the original papers they're citing and investigated their claims. Since ID is defined as the argument that you cannot find a physical mechanism to explain something, and all scientific theories take the form of "identify physical mechanism, generate predictions from mechanism, test predictions", it's hard to believe that any genuine peer-reviewed paper could have ID in it. It's much more likely that they're either bogus papers, bogus conferences, or grossly misinterpreted real papers.

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2005-07-16 06:29pm

Peer-reviewed means that a paper is written by scientists and reviewed by their follow scientists. Just reading through the summaries I am strucked by the standard I.D. lie of "this is irreducibly complex because I said so" so I doubt if this really qualifies as peer-reviewed.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-07-16 08:11pm

Does "subjected to peer review, during which the peers in question demolished the paper in every particular, and laughed the authors out of the building" count as "peer reviewed"?