Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 3

message: The sentence " Intelligent design has been unable to penetrate a single peer-reviewed scientific journal." was removed. I'd like the names of a peer-reviewed scientific journal in which an intelligent design article was published, as well as the name of that article. - snoyes 17:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the citation is entirely gratuitous. The article does not cite [10] again, invokes neither the methods nor conclusions of intelligent design, and in fact never mentions CSI or any other ID concept again after that first sentence. Those facts, plus the fact that one of the authors is an IDologist when not publishing real scientific research, are generally taken to mean that the citation was a stealth attempt to address the common criticism that ID does not participate in the peer-reviewed literature. — B.Bryant 09:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  They cite Behe and Dembski twice each, always in long citation lists used to indicate that a variety of opinion exists. They refer to neither author by name, and the word "design" does not appear in the article. — B.Bryant 12:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text:  The article does not say anything about intelligent design, and I don't recognize any of the usual suspects' names in the bibliography. In what sense do you claim this article to be a penetration of ID into the peer-reviewed literature? You're grasping at straws — par for the course among ID advocates. — B.Bryant 12:43, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's an interesting result and I don't see how it has anything to do with design. In many instances genes will decay to the limit of selective pressure on them - that is, they will degenerate to the point where any further mutations will become critical (and thus selected against). Also, enzyme exteriors ought to be sensitive to perturbation. The effect of introducing hydrophobic groups on soluble enzyme surfaces could be drastic in some instances. I don't see what this has to do with design at all - just says that some mutations can't be tolerated. That's well-known and uncontroversial. Graft 01:36, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text:  No, you are merely trying to define ID as "anything non-Darwinian". Notice that the second article's subtitle explicitly appeals to evolution by natural law, the very antithesis of intelligent design. — B.Bryant 09:14, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: scientific peer review

message: The article states that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community oppose Intelligent Design, but unfortunately is unable to back the claim up with dependable statistics. I seriously doubt the validity of the statement. Many scientists of the past were religious, and I have many Christian friends who are scientists, though of course my circle of friends does not count for much in this argument. The founder of the Scientific Method, Roger Bacon, was Christian. Science as it is today is heavily based on the Scientific Method. Bacon believed in God and his orderly creation of the universe as told in the book of Genesis of the Bible. Bacon therefore concluded that if God's creation has order to it, same experiments with the same parameters would yield the same results (Theoretically), and this gave birth to the Scientific Method. You do not have to oppose Intelligent Design to be a Scientist. Belief in God, leads to a belief in an order to the universe, which is the basis of Science.
P.S. Sorry if this was posted in the wrong area. I am new to wikipedia and have no idea how to start a new section. Still learning :) Cheers
- Angsana
:New topics probably ought to go at the bottom of the page.  Answering your question though, yes many scientists are religious.  As mentioned in the article, Kenneth R. Miller is a Christian who has spoken out against intelligent design.  Many scientists are also atheists and do not require belief in God to have order.  What you have in that argument is part of the underlying philosophy rather than ID per se.  On the numbers, Project Steve gives a rough idea of how the scientific community thinks, but the condemnations by various bodies such as American Association for the Advancement of Science should be evidence enough. The point is that within the scientific community's discourse there is no debate; (and hence really no need for polls) the theory of evolution by natural selection is accepted and intelligent design is rejected. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking further about your points, I think you have intelligent design confused with basic deism.  ID is on some level a form of deism but so is evolutionary creationism.  Advocates of ID argue that (1) there is evidence for design in nature and (2) that Darwinian processes cannot account for life that we observe.  Evolutionary creationism accepts Darwinian processes do account for life and rejects the idea of design as being unscientific, but argues God is somewhere else, at a quantum level of order perhaps.  That's why there is a large see also sectionDunc|☺ 11:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism that the [[Intelligent design]] page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations