Evolution > Creationism

And like I explained to you before Con, just because "Intelligent" or "intelligence" is not directly in that journal, that does not mean the journal is not arguing for ID. The very cornerstones of ID is that proponents claim that nature is designed; they also constantly make references to machines as animals as designs of nature (which your journal has done). As for that video quote, I have already laid out my thoughts on that. Bejan can state whatever he wants on the matter; the fact remains that he is arguing that nature is designed, if he's too incompetent to fully understand the ramifications of stating that nature is designed (i.e implying a designer), then that is his problem. Because I was unable to respond to your 50, 000 quotes thing last time due to word count limitations, allow me to respond to it now. The point of contention is that this journal which you have referenced has *no* citations. None. Whether or not Bejan's other works have been cited is irrelevant at the moment, because I am talking about this specific journal which you have cited. This journal is what you have given to me to work with, and this is journal is all that I have to work with. If I were to go out and find another one of Bejan's works, and I bring up that specific work from Bejan which could be shown to be clap-trap, I run the risk of you stating that you did not source that specific journal, and therefore I would be trying to make you agree with Bejan's other works, and you might not even agree with it. So to avoid that hypothetical scenario, I will be looking at the sources which you yourself have given me. And this journal is the only source you have given me to work with. You have given me a source which is poorly written, has no citations, argues that animals and machines are both designed, it has no working out for equations (despite apparently supporting your notion of evolution as physics), and you expect this to fly? Meanwhile, the sources I have presented on the theory of evolution are credible, have a decent amount of citations are in a whole different league to the journal that you have referenced here. No actually. If you had been paying attention you would know that ID is an off-shoot of creationism; and there has been very large push-back against this from scientifically minded people. The very fact that I have brought up credible journals on the matter discussing the theory of evolution is validation that this discussion is most definitely one which belongs in the category of science; not philosophy or religion. We are discussing evolution, which is the change of allele frequencies over successive generations due to natural selection and other factors. Well, at least I am; I cannot say that Con is approaching this subject from one of science, as unfortunate as that may be. Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if Con did not try and put words in my mouth in order to make me say something I did not state (when in fact I have said the very opposite). And on that site of Constructal Informatics, I've come across some fairly questionable stuff. Underneath the heading, "Articles and Papers" (http://constructalinfonomics.org...) there are 3 entries. (i)The physics of spreading ideas - 24 citations (seriously, are you kidding me?) (ii)The Physics of Life: The Evolution of Everything (which is not as journal; it's a blasted book) (iii)Constructal theory of economics - 30 citations This is an obvious example of pseudo-science parading around as legitimate science due to their poor selection of so called "journals," as journal listed above as (i) is flat out ridiculous seriously that needs to be shown on the New Real Peer Review Twitter account. Point (ii) is a blasted book, and point (iii) is really the only case to be made for a legitimate journal. You can make a case that one journal in this list of 3 is competent. One journal. Because this journal has been listed with the website alongside (i) & (ii) as actual, papers that really throws the legitimacy of this website into serious question. Con would also do well to realise that bringing up the famous I, Pencil essay which goes over economics, is not relevant and does not belong in a discussion pertaining to science Isn't it funny how this "activity in the scientific community" is limited to a very small fraction of the community and wherever this is discussed, Bejan always seems to make an appearance eventually To exacerbate your bad habit of referencing atrocious material, you then go onto reference an article from Western Free Press - which is an online newspaper and thus has little to do with science. Not to mention that even the title of that article is wrong, as science does not concern itself with proof; mathematics is the discipline which deals with proof because the answers which are arrived at in mathematics are axiomatic in nature; not so the case with science. And before I get a "gotcha" stating that I said that physics is pretty much just math; science deals with the creation of theories to explain natural phenomena. It is a fact that allele frequencies change over successive generation, but how and why that occurs; that is the aim of science; to explain things. Proof cannot be applied to these instances because scientific theories which explain natural phenomena are subject to change. To summarise, whilst I have thoroughly enjoyed this exchange, I am at a loss as to how Con could actually bring up the sources that he has done, and then go on to claim that this has caused a massive stir in the scientific community without even batting an eye. Con's sources have been questionable at best; incompetent, baseless drivel at worst. Calling nature and machinations designed does not provide any explanatory power, nor does it predict natural phenomena (which is what science is all about). Nonetheless I thank Con for an enjoyable debate. May the odds be ever in your favour