Colorado-based Access Research Network keeps a top ten list of stories in the intelligent design controversy:
“For years the scientific establishment has tried to brush off intelligent design claiming that there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting the theory and no research being done from the intelligent design paradigm,” stated ARN Executive Director, Dennis Wagner.
Of course, anyone who has seen the Expelled documentary with an open mind will realize why that is true - because you can't do it and keep your career. At least, not until recently.
Gaining top honors on the list was a peer-reviewed article by intelligent design theorists William Dembski and Robert Marks II in the September 2009 journal IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (abstract here). The authors used computer simulations and information theory to challenge the ability of neo-Darwinian processes to create new functional genetic information. This research provides validation for the core ideas in Dembski’s 2001 book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence.
The number 2 spot went to Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009):
Signature in the Cell. Stephen Meyer forcefully outlined the positive case for design and refuted arguments that ID isn’t science in his seminal book, Signature in the Cell, published by HarperCollins in June of this year. Dan Peterson, in a review of the book in the September 2009 issue of The American Spectator, says “Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life's origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind” and “this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read”. In a series of university lectures and debates in the second half of the year Meyer defended his thesis that the information content in DNA and the biological machinery that processes that information is positive evidence for intelligent design. A companion three-minute animated video, Journey Inside the Cell was released providing a stunning visual illustration of Meyer’s points.
Here's the rest.
Here are previous Top Tens.
Truth in advertising: I am regularly consulted, if seldom heeded, in compiling the list. Anyway, obviously, something is happening here.
Comments
So many errors in such a short article.
First, "Expelled" is a joke of a pseudodocumentary. Anyone interested in understanding what really happened to the ID martyrs, and the real reasons, can get a wealth of detail at www.expelledexposed.com -- with links to primary sources.
Second, Dembski and Marks paper did not "challenge the ability of neo-Darwinian processes to create new functional genetic information." The full paper is available on the web for those interested. There is no such thing as conservation of information, for any commonly used definition of the term. Further, Dembski and Marks never apply their mathematics to any biological artifact, nor do they take into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms.
The Intelligent Design "controversy" is political, not scientific. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for ID, there is no scientific theory of ID, ID makes no predictions, and ID is not testable. In short, ID is scientifically vacuous.
I like how O'Leary says "anyone who has seen the Expelled documentary with an open mind." Apparently her definition of "open-minded" is agreeing with her viewpoint. Sorry, O'Leary, I watched expelled with an open mind, and I concluded after rational examination that it is nothing but an untruthful propaganda piece.
Patrick, everything you say in your last para applies also to Darwin's schema of random/purposeless change. Change from what BTW? Nothing perhaps? Come on now, get real please.
huh?
O'Leary says:
"everything you say in your last para applies also to Darwin's schema of random/purposeless change"
No, it doesn't. Only someone totally ignorant of modern evolutionary theory, or someone dishonest enough to ignore the truly incredible amount of scientific evidence supporting that theory, would make such a statement.
Present the objective, empirical, scientific evidence for Intelligent Design or have the integrity to admit that it is, as demonstrated in Dover, nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo (as so aptly described by Nick Matzke).
If Darwin is correct, and we all evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?? Check and mate, Darwinists!!
Everyone knows that intelligence can produce information. The question is, can non-intelligence? Would you believe a message like this could be produced by a non-intelligent source (rimshot)? Sure, a computer program could do it -- the rough equivalent in nature of a natural, i.e., mindless, insentient process. But a message like this with no originating intelligence behind it? I doubt it.
Well, the amount of information embedded in our DNA would fill a library -- volume after volume after volume. So, it's not magic, and it's not miracle, and it's not God of the gaps -- it's inference to the best explanation. One prediction from ID would be that the designs would be apparent, investigable, and potentially reusable -- which is exactly what we find in biomimicry. Even Dennett talks about reverse-engineering what "evolution" has wrought!
The primary propaganda in this controversy is that there is any evidence at all to support the assertion that the Darwinian mechanism of random variation and natural selection can produce the prerequisites for new life forms.
There is no evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can create new cell types.
There is no evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can create new tissue types.
There is no evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can create new organ types.
There is no evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can create new body types.
Consequently, there is no evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can create novel life forms.
Evolution is a fact. The Darwinian mechanism is a fantasy - indistinguishable from magic.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!