Intelligent design, as a scientific hypothesis, is in trouble if it doesn’t have peer-reviewed papers establishing, analysing and providing evidence for its core ideas – so it’s no surprise that proponents of ID are quite adamant that such papers do in fact exist.
Casey Luskin, intelligent design expert and apparent head writer over at Evolution News & Views, is naturally no exception, and he recently answered an objection to the claim that over 50 peer-reviewed articles support ID: namely, that the majority of the articles cited by the [...]
» Continue reading ““Pro-ID”, “endorse ID” and “ID-friendly” – Holy terminological ambiguity, Batman!”
Intelligent design news from the 16th of March to the 22nd of March, 2011.
So, another week of intelligent design! The Discovery Institute was fairly quiet this week, with only five posts published on Evolution News & Views, a below average result, but quite a bit of it was pure gold. Well, for me, anyway. The fact that I do this every week means that I must be getting some entertainment out of it, right? I hope so – I don’t see myself as the masochistic type…
But anyway, this week’s [...]
» Continue reading “This Week in Intelligent Design – 22/03/11″
The ID community seems to be bursting with peer reviewed papers at the moment, all clamoring for attention, and no doubt all being claimed by proponents as breakthroughs into the anti-ID world of academia. The latest of these is by Wolf-Ekkehard [...]
» Continue reading “The ID community isn’t Lönnig from their mistakes”
If you’ve been around any of the major intelligent design blogs over the past year, you’ll probably be familiar with BIO-Complexity already. For those unfamiliar, it’s an online, open-access, pro-intelligent design journal that claims to incorporate peer review – an essential part of the modern scientific process – into its operations. However, peer review doesn’t mean much when all your peers are highly sympathetic to your hypotheses and conclusions, and the intelligent design community has always been partial to letting sympathetic scientists endorse [...]
» Continue reading “BIO-Complexity’s opinion on intelligent design isn’t complex”
One of the major criticisms, by the scientific community at least, of the intelligent design movement since its creation however many years ago in the mind of Phillip E. Johnson has been (and continues to be): if ID is science, then why don’t you guys publish scientific papers about ID, explaining its scientific nature through the communicative medium of the working scientist, perhaps with a few meaningful detours to the mystical land of Positive Evidence? So far, this criticism has withstood all attempts to negate it. Until… now? Perhaps not.
» Continue reading “ID proponents publish a peer-reviewed paper, paper is unrelated to ID, everyone yawns”