Friday, January 2, 2009

Six Simple Questions for Creationists

Here are questions that creationists have never really given answers to. Several of them are pretty important, and without giving any answer to them, Intelligent Design and Creationism can't be considered scientific. I refer of course to the questions about the theoretical and peer reviewed background of Intelligent Design. Let the answering begin. I have posted this on several Christian groups to see if anyone tries.

  1. List at least one scientific acievement by any member of the Intelligent design community, which contributed scientific support of the concept of Intelligent design.

  2. What peer-reviewed articles have given support to intelligent Design?

  3. Name one discovery or paper made by a supporter of Intelligent Design that has been useful in furthering our knowledge of science via Intelligent Design.

  4. A scientific theory is understood to be "A testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation." Where has someone published a theory of Intelligent Design?

  5. What scientific evidence is there for Intelligent Design? Note: Evidence cannot simply be a criticism of the Theory Of evolution.

  6. Michael Medved, a Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute (the main promoter of Intelligent Design) Said:
    "The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else."
    In light of this comment, is he correct or incorrect?

8 comments:

Pocket Nerd said...

I'd be interested to see if anybody attempts to answer those questions. You could post links to the other groups in question, if you felt so inclined.

Questions like these frequently come up in the talk.origins newsgroup, and most creationist posters won't answer them. Oddly enough, I've noticed that the creationists who will answer them tend to be those who are thought irrational, heretical, or downright insane by the rest of the creationists.

Incidentally, t.o has lists of similar questions at these two URLs:

http://toarchive.org/faqs/fabnaq.html

http://toarchive.org/faqs/stumpers.html

David W. Irish said...

AHere's the first response. He doesn't attempt to answer anything.

------------------

Ted L wrote:On Jan 2, 2:06 pm, Psycho Dave wrote: >

> Yeah, I know, it's not very creative to come up with these "questions
> __group__ can't answer" posts, but well, I was bored...

> I'd like some creationists and/or Intelligent Design people to answer
> these.


> (1) List at least one scientific acievement by any member of the
> Intelligent design community, which contributed scientific support of
> the concept of Intelligent design.



God gave you the description of Creation, and the evidence therof.


> (2) What peer-reviewed articles have given support to intelligent
> Design?



God the Father blessed God the Son's design, and then he called it
'good'. Then we corrupted the Creation with our sin.
But God the Son so loved the world that he took the punishment of all
sin by the shedding of his blood as the sacrifical lamb of God.
Without shedding of blood, there could be no remission. Without his
spotlessness, he couldn't have paid for your sin. He became sin, and
it pleased God to bruise him, just for the purpose of reconciling the
world to Him. Thus He punished the sin while saving the sinner. All
those who believe in Him anyway.


> (3) Name one discovery or paper made by a supporter of Intelligent
> Design that has been useful in furthering our knowledge of science
> via
> Intelligent Design.



We'll start with the history of origins given to us in God's word,
then proceed from there. Research that requires millions of years,
evolution-as-fact, and other fallacies, will be fruitless and fantasy.


> (4) A scientific theory is understood to be "A testable model capable
> of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being
> tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical
> observation." Where has someone published a theory of Intelligent
> Design?



Creation isn't a theory; like God's word, it just _IS_.


> (5) What scientific evidence is there for Intelligent Design? Note:
> Evidence cannot simply be a criticism of the Theory Of evolution.



That which may be known of God is manifest in you. Romans 1:19


> (6) Michael Medved, a Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute (the
> main promoter of Intelligent Design) Said:



Michael Medved is NOT the 'main promoter of' ID.


> In light of this comment, is he correct or incorrect?


In light of Genesis 1:1, ask the author.

David W. Irish said...

Allfiredup from Ray Comfort's forum, preferred the lazy-assed approach, and just blitzed me with a huge cut-and-paste answer from a Creationist website. Most of the "articles" listed here are nothing like what was being asked for (peer-reviewed support for ID), but were excerpts from existing creationist books that merely make claims.

----------------

AllFiredUp said...
David Irish wanted to ask six questions: I'd like to address his #2 question:

(2) What peer-reviewed articles have given support to intelligent Design?

"Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don't publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists "aren't published because they don't have scientific data."

"Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals -- as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books -- including Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, Newton's Principia, and Darwin's Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.

We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. The articles are grouped according to the type of publication. The first section lists featured articles of various types which are of higher interest to readers, which is then followed by a complete list of the articles. The featured articles are therefore listed twice on this page (once in the featured articles section and again below in the complete list)." (Discovery Institute)

Answer: "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington"

"Proceedings is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that, while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning."

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.

article title "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."


Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.

Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302

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

Stephen Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

and then... Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses.

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating

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

Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)

and further... Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Academic University Presses

Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (State University of New York Press, 2001).

Michael C. Rea, World without Design : The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2004).

further...Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals.

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, "Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis," International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) "The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law," Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

further...Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Anthologies.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)

Granville Sewell, Postscript, in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (Springer Verlag, 1985).

in addition: Five science articles from Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003) (hereinafter DDPE):

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, DDPE Pp. 223-285.

Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines. DDPE Pp. 287-302

Nelson, P. & J. Wells, Homology in biology: Problem for naturalistic science and prospect for intelligent design, DDPE, Pp. 303-322.

Meyer, S. C., Ross, M., Nelson, P. & P. Chien, The Cambrian explosion: biology's big bang, DDPE, Pp. 323-402.

Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, DDPE, Pp. 403-418.

also...Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings.

Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000).

And...Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

As well as...Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals.

Behe, M.J., Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 67:155-162 (March 2000)

Craig, W.L., "God, Creation, and Mr. Davies." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1986): 168-175

Craig, W.L., "Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1988): 389-395.

Craig, W.L., "The Anthropic Principle." In The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: an Encyclopedia, pp. 366-368. Ed. G. B. Ferngren.

Craig, W.L., "Design and the Anthropic Fine-Tuning of the Universe." In GOD AND DESIGN: THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND MODERN SCIENCE, pp. 155-177. (ed. Neil Manson. London: Routledge, 2003).


More recently... Protein engineering: opportunities and challenges
Matti Leisola1 and Ossi Turunen1

Journal Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
SpringerLink Date Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Received: 28 February 2007 Revised: 20 March 2007 Accepted: 21 March 2007 Published online: 3 April 2007

Abstract: The extraordinary properties of natural proteins demonstrate that life-like protein engineering is both achievable and valuable. Rapid progress and impressive results have been made towards this goal using rational design and random techniques or a combination of both. However, we still do not have a general theory on how to specify a structure that is suited to a target function nor can we specify a sequence that folds to a target structure. There is also overreliance on the Darwinian blind search to obtain practical results. In the long run, random methods cannot replace insight in constructing life-like proteins. For the near future, however, in enzyme development, we need to rely on a combination of both. (William Dembski)

Pocket Nerd said...

I guess TedL didn't get the "ID is NOT Creationism!" memo from the Disco Institute. On the other hand, ever since the Disastrous DI Defeat at Dover, they've mostly stopped pretending they aren't religiously motivated.

That said, neither respondent really answers ANY of those questions. Pretty pathetic, really... even I could answer them better, and I don't buy the claims of ID for one second.

Here goes:

1) William Dembski's discovery of Complex Specified Information (CSI).

2) None. Mainstream science publications routinely censor any research favorable to intelligent design. Scientists have even lost their jobs for merely daring to suggest that evolution, the atheist "statement of faith," is not completely accurate in all respects. (See the award-winning blockbuster documentary Expelled for details.)

3) The discovery of complex specified complexity— a reliable way to distinguish random data from non-random— has enormous implications for cryptography, steganography, computer science, communications, and the military.*

4) Intelligent design is not a "theory" in the Darwinist sense. It is an observation coupled with an explanatory filter. The neo-Darwinist conception of "theory," limited to a mechanistic description of the universe which explicitly forbids intelligent actions or non-material agencies, is itself something that Intelligent Design seeks to challenge.

5) Biological structures exist which cannot have arisen by evolution. Since evolution did not produce these structures, some other Force must be at work.

6) Medved is correct. Intelligent Design does not seek to "replace" the entire theory of evolution; micro-evolution is well-supported by evidence. Intelligent Design supporters only want atheistic neo-Darwinists to acknowledge the OVERWHELMING evidence that something else is at work in the "macro-evolutionary" leaps which are completely inexplicable by materialist means.

* Gee, I wonder why the DI isn't up to their ears in lucrative telecomm and defense contracts?

Quantum_Flux said...

Intelligent design is very much alive and well these days. Everything I own is intelligently designed by some designer or another, or should I say invented!?

Pocket Nerd said...

Intelligent design is very much alive and well these days. Everything I own is intelligently designed by some designer or another, or should I say invented!?

Of course, that's not what the Discovery Institute means when they talk about "intelligent design." Nobody argues that your tabletop computer or your sneakers weren't the product of an intelligent agency. Even if we couldn't walk into a factory and see people building such things, the materials and methods of manufacture are consistent with a known intelligence (humans) and we can describe the process in exacting scientific terms.

On the other hand, ID's only positive claim is "somewhere, somehow, at some time, someone did something that wasn't evolution." And then they add in a stage whisper, "and that Someone was GOD!"

Intelligent design creationists have no interest in science, or even in basic honesty. Their only goals are to weaken public science education and to stuff religious indoctrination into public schools.

sunnyskeptic said...

They'll never learn that god isn't an answer that's acceptable to science.

David W. Irish said...

It's not that God "isn't an answer that's acceptible to science". That's not the point at all. It's that God is not an answer. Blindly saying "God did it, the Bible says it, so it's true" doesn't answer any question. If you ask "Why does the sun rise and set?", "God did it" doesn't tell you anything about how and why the observed phenomenon occurs. It doesn't give you any useful information. Saying "God did it" is no different than saying "Shut up and stop asking stupid questions, you Nerd!"

History speaks for itself on this issue. The people who said "God did it, this is what the Bible says, now shut up or we'll imprison you" have always been proven to be wrong when a scientist observes and publishes findings that anyone can duplicate.

That is the fundamental difference between what scientists do and what creationists do. Creationists simply do not do science, nor publish procedures and experiments that others can duplicate.