I still think ID and evolution go hand in hand and that they both exist. The evolution theory is of course more reliable but it doesn't rule out the theory of ID.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I.D. underlying theme is that God created everything and there is no evolution. Everything else is a smoke screen. This program covers the subject well
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Nice to see that ID has returned! I missed those discussions. Anyway, 2 comments on the paper posted by ID.
First, publications in science take 2 forms. There are primary research papers, which contain new data and provide new insight into a particular problem. In addition, there are review papers, which discuss other published papers and propose new hypotheses or interpretations of other peoples work. The paper ID posted falls into the second category. That is, its an opinion piece and lacks any actual data, as is common with all ID publications. So it provides no new data to either support or disprove evolutionary theory.
Second comment: On line publishing has allowed virtually anyone to create papers which look like real scientific papers. Reading through the peer review process for this journal, it appears that the editorial board consists solely of ID supporters, and that they do not use blind peer review. That is, the paper is not sent out to independent, confidential experts in the field of evolutionary theory for evaluation.

---

Pseudoscience according to Wikipedia... It leans more towards religion then.

Yes,

This link "Cdesign Proponentsists", probably gives the clearest example of the introduction of "Intelligent Design".

It shows the changes through various editions of the book Of Pandas and People, which in the last edition shown, illustrates the problems if you don't do a "search and replace" correctly.

The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)

Why don't you start this thread in the Science corner then?

He did, but as Intelligent Design has been ruled not to be science by the US government, then it was moved here by the mods.

It's not the 1st time and ID should know better. It is not the way to win friends and influence people.

Pseudoscience according to Wikipedia... It leans more towards religion then.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)

Why don't you start this thread in the Science corner then?

He did, but as Intelligent Design has been ruled not to be science by the US government, then it was moved here by the mods.

It's not the 1st time and ID should know better. It is not the way to win friends and influence people.

The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)

Why don't you start this thread in the Science corner then?

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

So you have shown us a paper by a member of the Discovery Institute, with a review on the Discovery Institutes web page.
That claims it has been peer reviewed, but on examination of the publications web pages, we find that it hasn't, see Batter Up's last post.

And that the chief editor of this so called scientific journal is a creationist. That isn't surprising as we all know Intelligent Design is really creationism.

We also find out that the paper's author is a supporter of Sun Myung Moon, who's followers are called moonies. And is an AIDS denialist for which he has been criticised for promoting without scientific proof.

With all this, is it surprising that most of us reject what in this link and your support of it.

To apply false logic...

It is written by a leading Neo-Darwin supporter.
It is published by an Neo-Darwin organisation.
It is peer reviewed by Neo-Darwin supporters

I can only draw the logical conclusion it is Neo-Darwinism.

Therefore not Science.

Of course neo-darwinism isn't science, because there is no such thing called neo-darwinism.

We just happen to think that the Theory of Evolution is true, and although it hasn't been proved to true, and like many things in science, may never be, it has not been disproved.

To apply false logic...

It is peer reviewed by Neo-Darwin supporters


Therefore not Science.

It has not been "peer reviewed" it is in pre-publication peer review. The ID people don't have enough peers to review this and don't want to pay for a true peer review.

Anyway, even given that the paper is science it does nothing to prove g-d; it only shows that there is more than just DNA involved in being. Prove it is g-d don't just blow smoke.

---

To apply false logic...

It is written by a leading Neo-Darwin supporter.
It is published by an Neo-Darwin organisation.
It is peer reviewed by Neo-Darwin supporters

I can only draw the logical conclusion it is Neo-Darwinism.

Therefore not Science.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Who peers review Neo-Darwinism? Jimmy Swaggart?

You have once again applied politics to a science problem.

Actually the paper was written by a Moonie but I won't go there. I will explain it to you one more time but if you don't have ears to hear no one can help you; pre-publication peer review is double speak for peeing on my leg and telling me it is raining.

Peer Review Process

Philosophy

The most significant form of peer review begins when a completed work is made publically available for examination and response. The goal of pre-publication peer review should therefore be to decide whether the work in question merits the attention of experts, rather than to predict the final result of that attention. BIO-Complexity uses an innovative approach to pre-publication peer-review in order to achieve this goal.

Batter you are on to the smoking gun.

---

I see a thread lock coming and another banishment.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Who peers review Neo-Darwinism? Jimmy Swaggart?

You have once again applied politics to a science problem.

Actually the paper was written by a Moonie but I won't go there. I will explain it to you one more time but if you don't have ears to hear no one can help you; pre-publication peer review is double speak for peeing on my leg and telling me it is raining.

Peer Review Process

Philosophy

The most significant form of peer review begins when a completed work is made publically available for examination and response. The goal of pre-publication peer review should therefore be to decide whether the work in question merits the attention of experts, rather than to predict the final result of that attention. BIO-Complexity uses an innovative approach to pre-publication peer-review in order to achieve this goal.

---

It is a paper placed in a highly respected place. Who are you disrespecting and why would you do that?

With a chief editor who say's he is a creationist.

Who are you trying to fool.

Who peers review Neo-Darwinism? Jimmy Swaggart?

You have once again applied politics to a science problem.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is a paper placed in a highly respected place. Who are you disrespecting and why would you do that?

With a chief editor who say's he is a creationist.

Who are you trying to fool.

It is a paper placed in a highly respected place. Who are you disrespecting and why would you do that?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is written by a leading Intelligent Design supporter.
It is published by an Intelligent Design organisation.
It is peer reviewed by Intelligent Design supporters

I can only draw the logical conclusion it is Intelligent Design.

Therefore not Science,

+1

It needs to be reviewed by independent peers and not "in house" ones for it to be judged as science.

Have a nice day.

Cheers.

It is written by a leading Intelligent Design supporter.
It is published by an Intelligent Design organisation.
It is peer reviewed by Intelligent Design supporters

I can only draw the logical conclusion it is Intelligent Design.

Therefore not Science,

Please use logic, it would be nice for a change. It is also science. You have applied politics to a science problem. Please try again.

The topic would be..."More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again..." and I ask you read the piece before responding, thank you.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...