Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Do creationists/ID'ers publish peer-reviewed papers?

Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

"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Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication.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Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term).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."


Those of you who have asked whether there are peer-reviewed materials available, the above site gives you a few dozen examples if you really wish to know. Go, read and learn if you really do want to know.

33 comments:

creeper said...

No sign of young Earth - no sign of Noah. Can we take it you're simply conceding the issue then?

radar said...

The subject of Noah - He is a historical character and is not a candidate for scientific study in and of himself.

No sign of young earth? I have posted quite a bit about that. What do you mean?

highboy said...

Don't forget the fact that damn near the entire scientific world had access to this stuff when it was presented in court.

creeper said...

cranky old fart had repeatedly asked if there were peer-reviewed scientific papers to support not the position of ID, but your own position of young earth creationism. You repeatedly claimed that such papers existed. It now seems you're trying to dodge the issue, which is why I'm asking if you're conceding that they don't exist.

"The subject of Noah - He is a historical character and is not a candidate for scientific study in and of himself. "

It may surprise you to learn that the story of Noah's flood is a matter of some controversy, not least because it is supposed to have taken place at a time when other civilizations do not record such a noteworthy event as a flood that annihilated them all.

"No sign of young earth? I have posted quite a bit about that. What do you mean?"

(sigh)

Don't play dumb again, Radar... You claimed that there were peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting the young earth idea.

Either produce them or stop pretending they exist.

creeper said...

highboy,

doesn't matter how many people had access to it, it's still not what Radar said he had. It's a simple bait and switch.

highboy said...

creeper says: it is supposed to have taken place at a time when other civilizations do not record such a noteworthy event as a flood that annihilated them all.

Because they were annihilated. (that was supposed to be funny. I'll go away now)

creeper said...

highboy,

Except they weren't. That was the point.

And if there was no flood at the time the bible claims there was (if one were to insist on taking it literally), then that draws the whole young earth thing into question.

cranky old fart said...

radar,

Noah not a candidate for scientific study?!?!?

Unless I'm missing the boat, Noah is essential to young earth, no?

Why the continuing lies, er, deceptions radar?

highboy said...

creeper says: Unless I'm missing the boat

Heh. Did anyone else get the pun?

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

Hey, that was MY pun!

highboy said...

cranky: my bad. it was good for a chuckle.

Hey, for a totally unrelated laugh, let me tell you guys about the genius I met today. The U.S. students up here all finally got their income tax papers in the mail. one guy, whose name I won't mention for the sake of sparing him embarassment, asked how to fill out his tax forms. I asked him "Haven't you done your taxes before?" Apparently he is fresh out of high school. I walked him through it and said "Make sure you have all your ducks in a row." He replied, very sincerely, "I don't have any ducks." True story.

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

Dude, that really quacks me up!

I promise to stop now.

radar said...

Just wanted to say I am not trying to duck the issue....

wink

Lies, cranky? Trying to get me stirred up? What lies? creeper? Are you putting words in my mouth?

I didn't specify what subjects were covered in the list of peer-reviewed papers and books, but simply that ID/creationist papers and books do get submitted for peer review. I believe two of the papers in that list do deal with the likelihood of flood-related fossil records. However, that is not one of the hot issues of the day. Much of the infighting between Darwinists and ID/creationist is at the cellular level and below. Most of the list concerns those issues.

Guys, we aren't going to expect to find scientific papers on whether or not there was a Noah. He is a historical figure.

That every culture seems to have some kind of flood story in their culture is a good clue that the flood actually occurred. The Biblical account is the only one that makes sense and could plausibly have happened.

Furthermore, the entire Biblical Flood thing has been covered extensively in books by Duane Gish, Dr.s John and Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, among others. Going to the ICR site, you will find several of those books listed and available, probably some found in large libraries, etc.

Frankly, no matter how compelling the evidence, the bulk of the Darwinist people aren't prepared to let go of Darwinism. It will take a long time. My blog is a tiny pebble added to a growing mountain of evidence that will someday be impossible to ignore. That's my story.

Back to work. Had to work late last night and may have to tonight as well.

creeper said...

I am not putting any words in your mouth, Radar.

"I didn't specify what subjects were covered in the list of peer-reviewed papers and books, but simply that ID/creationist papers and books do get submitted for peer review."

cranky old fart: "Shall I repeat? Where are those peer reviewed papers supporting the young earth Noah thing."

you: "I posted sites where such papers are available for your perusal, have you checked them out?"

[...]

cranky old fart: "What's that got to do with peer reviewed scientific papers supporting young earth and Noah?"

you: "Cranky, there are lots of peer-reviewed materials at Answers in Genesis, at the Institute for Creation Research and at ID the Future. These three sites are listed on my blogroll."

[...]

cranky old fart: "Show me the papers supporting young earth and Noah, not some list of folks who make a vanilla statement that "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". Hell, who wouldn't agree with that? It's what science does. What scientists also do is present data in papers for review by the entire scientific community, to be poked and probed. It's how science and knowledge advances.

If you have no real evidence to present however, you pass papers around with your buddies and complement each other on how brilliant you are. Put the evidence out there, for review by the 99% of scientists who are more than a little sceptical about Noah and the 6k world. That is real test. That is science."


you: "Of course the scientists listed have submitted papers for peer review. I already said as much."



This is a case of you, Radar, putting words into the mouth of you, Radar. At least you have the presence of mind to dodge the challenge in the second and third examples.


"That every culture seems to have some kind of flood story in their culture is a good clue that the flood actually occurred."

That may well be; the problem with the one in the Bible is that it claims a specific and very unlikely time for it.

"The Biblical account is the only one that makes sense and could plausibly have happened."

Why do you think it makes more sense than, say, the epic of Gilgamesh?

And how does a global flood annihilating all but eight people in the world, right when the Bible says it does, make any sense when there are civilizations who are not killed off by it?

A flood in ancient times makes sense; a flood the way it is described in Genesis (taken literally) does not.

highboy said...

creeper you didn't comment on my story. it was funny.

creeper said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
creeper said...

"creeper you didn't comment on my story. it was funny."

Yeah, sometimes it's amazing what kind of people make it into college.

Anonymous said...

Ah, this old chestnut.

You don't get peer-reviewed books - so we can dismiss about half of that list. And, after the Dover Trial, to continue to claim Darwin's Black Box was peer reviewed when the most important peer reviewer had not even seen the book before it was published is disengenuous.

We discount the books because they aren't peer-reviewed. That leaves the really rather small number of papers. (I've got a friend currently finishing her PhD with more papers to her name). The Discovery Institute does not make a distinction between an abstract written up in a conference journal off the presentation of a poster and a peer-reviewed paper. (A poster is what you present when you have interesting results but are not yet ready to publish and face peer review - or anyone can present a poster just by paying the conference and will have the abstract written up).

Also never mind that AFAIK only one of the papers (Axe) presents new data and he is emphatically not a designist. Or that Behe and Snoke manage, despite extremely conservative estimates, to prove that Irreducible Complexity is inevitable given the number of bacteria in the world (link on previous thread). Or that all the other papers provide similarly scant support for ID.

Let's see what Behe himself had to say under oath.

Q Professor Behe, right before the break you said that the findings accumulated over 140 years that support the contention that Darwinian processes could explain complex molecular systems total a number of zero, correct?

A I'll -- I think I did, yes.

Q Okay. And that's a proposition you stand by.

A Well, again, you have to look at the papers. And what I meant by that is ones which fully explain how random mutation and natural selection could build a complex system; yes, there are no such explanations.

Q Zero papers.

A I don't think I said zero papers, perhaps I did, but there are zero explanations.

Q And zero is the same number of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that argue for the intelligent design of complex molecular systems?

A The number of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals which show that life is composed of molecular machinery that exhibits the purposeful arrangement of parts in detail on term, you know, many many many thousands. There are -- I think there are just one or two that mention intelligent design by name.

Q That argue for the intelligent design of complex molecular systems in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

A No, I don't think -- now that you mention it, I think that I was thinking of something else.

Q And there are zero articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals arguing for the irreducible complexity of complex molecular systems?

A There are none that use that phrase, but as I indicated in my direct testimony, that I regard my paper with Professor David Snoke as to be arguing for the irreducible complexity of things such as complex protein binding sites.

Q So one, according to your count?

A Could you repeat the question, I am afraid --

Q I asked you, is it correct that there are zero articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals arguing for the irreducible complexity of complex molecular systems?

A I would count some other papers as, as impinging on that, on that topic, but I don't -- they certainly don't use the term irreducible complexity.

Source

I suppose it depends what you mean by "supporting the theory of Intelligent Design". Certainly not arguing for irreducible complexity...

Anonymous said...

For the record, that last anonymous comment was by me.

- F

Anonymous said...

Oh, and there are two closer looks into some of the papers here and here.

- F

Anonymous said...

... and PZ goes into the method of getting an abstract published here.

This is too easy.

- F

radar said...

Let's see........we have a gaggle of "peers" who are mainline Darwinists who criticize the works of ID proponents in a prejudiced manner. ID people then begin submitting their work only to people who will actually review them fairly. The mainline people are bypassed. Then they claim the ID papers and books aren't peer-reviewed. Nice scam. I am not impressed. When Darwinists decide to try having open minds, maybe that will change.

Anonymous said...

radar wrote:
Let's see........we have a gaggle of "peers" who are mainline Darwinists who criticize the works of ID proponents in a prejudiced manner. ID people then begin submitting their work only to people who will actually review them fairly. The mainline people are bypassed. Then they claim the ID papers and books aren't peer-reviewed. Nice scam. I am not impressed. When Darwinists decide to try having open minds, maybe that will change.

So you're going to give up your assertion that Creationists/IDers publish peer-reviewed papers and instead produce a conspiracy theory.

Fair enough but I claim game on this thread.

highboy said...

anonymous: Fair enough but I claim game on this thread.

Which of course makes it true.

creeper said...

highboy,

what is true is that Radar has not been able to dig up these peer-reviewed scientific papers backing up either the young earth position or Noah's flood. Once again he's opened up his mouth too wide and is now acting dumb and once again having to eat crow.

Anonymous said...

highboy wrote:
>anonymous: Fair enough but I claim game on this thread.

Which of course makes it true.


Radar claimed that IDers had a number of peer reviewed scientific papers and provided a link. After I debunked those papers, Radar now claims that there are reasons that IDers don't publish peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Radar has therefore agreed that IDers and creationists do not publish peer-reviewed scientific papers - and therefore conceeded the whole premise of the thread and therefore I can legitimately claim game on this thread. Your inability to understand this is not my problem.

I have a few questions for radar (and any other creationists and IDers):

* If they genuinely can't get papers published under peer-review, why do they not point out examples of this rather than trying to pretend that they do have peer-reviewed papers?

* Why does the Discovery Institute think that an acceptable standard of peer-review involves the "reviewer" not having seen the work (Darwin's Black Box) before it was published.

* If there is a conspiracy against IDers, how come Behe can get published under peer-review? (The Behe and Snoke paper)

* Even if they can't get published in biology, why can't they in mathematics or computer science?

* Why are they trying to claim Posters, abstracts and books as peer-reviewed?

* Why, given the thorough debunking at the Dover trial, don't they update the page to take this into account?

* What, if anything, has the entire creationist and ID movement contributed to human knowledge?

- F

radar said...

I was asked if there were peer-reviewed papers. I said I would post "such papers". I never specifically said there were young earth papers and frankly I don't see the point of looking for them considering the asker's attitudes.

"Don't play dumb again, Radar... You claimed that there were peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting the young earth idea."

No, I didn't. I later pointed out there were several books on the subject and the authors. If you really want to read up on the subject you will pursue that. If you want to gloat about peer-review, you won't.

Like I said, currently peer review is like Galileo against the Catholic Church. ID proponents are up against a massive wave of propaganda.

Dover was a joke, an example of willful ignorance triumphing over good sense and reason and it illustrates the problem. Many, not all, but many Darwinists just want to shut up the naysayers and avoid the debate. They were high-fiving each other over the idea that critical thinking would be eliminated from Ohio science classes.

Also, Behe does well in dialogues on paper but not in person. He really doesn't seem comfortable in a live discusssion. Not sure what that it, but I have read the some of the rebuttals to "Black Box" and they do not directly address the problem. At lunch, and this evening, I need to post a more specific answer to this problem. Until then...

cranky old fart said...

Radar,

If it's true that the scientists won't let your bible buddies get published, I would think the rejection letters would be posted all over the Creationist sites. Where are they?

Please stop with all the "white lies" about non-existent peer reviewed papers supporting young earth and Noah. It's just getting sad.

Anonymous said...

Dover was a joke, an example of willful ignorance triumphing over good sense and reason and it illustrates the problem.

Indeed it was. And then they took the willfully ignorant (and the mendacious) to court and exposed their "breathtaking inanity" for all to see. And the really truly willfully ignorant continue to claim that there is strong evidence for ID and creationism.

Like I said, currently peer review is like Galileo against the Catholic Church.

*someone* doesn't know his church history. Urban was actually a patron of Galileo until Galileo called him a fool and a simpleton in print (or rather put all of his pronouncements in the mouth of someone called "Simplicio") and published in the vernacular. It was rather more personal and vindictive than it was a matter of academic disagreement.

Oh, and kindly stop twisting. The title of your post was "Do creationists/ID'ers publish peer-reviewed papers?" - to which the conclusion (tacitly admitted by you) seems to be that they do not.

Neither is the abstract from a conference proceeding peer-reviewed. Neither is a book from a trade press. And even if it was, I hardly think that a reviewer who had not seen the book before it was published counts as a good example of peer review - but it seems to be a good enough standard for your link.

I repeat my questions to you:

* If they genuinely can't get papers published under peer-review, why do they not point out examples of this rather than trying to pretend that they do have peer-reviewed papers?

* Why does the Discovery Institute think that an acceptable standard of peer-review involves the "reviewer" not having seen the work (Darwin's Black Box) before it was published.

* If there is a conspiracy against IDers, how come Behe can get published under peer-review? (The Behe and Snoke paper)

* Even if they can't get published in biology, why can't they in mathematics or computer science?

* Why are they trying to claim Posters, abstracts and books as peer-reviewed?

* Why, given the thorough debunking at the Dover trial, don't they update the page to take this into account?

* What, if anything, has the entire creationist and ID movement contributed to human knowledge?


I expect about as much of an answer this time as I got last time.

Oh, and as for teaching critical thinking, you can perfectly happily teach critical thinking in scientific lessons without exposing people to manufactured debates whipped up by people with an agenda (see the Wedge Strategy for details) and propoganda. There is a massive amount of controversy in the field of evolutionary biology and that will do every bit as good a job of teaching critical thinking as will presenting the case for so-called intelligent design.

- F

radar said...

Oh, brother...


"* If they genuinely can't get papers published under peer-review, why do they not point out examples of this rather than trying to pretend that they do have peer-reviewed papers?"

I gave you a long list of peer-reviewed papers and books. Were they too advanced for you to understand, is that the problem???

"* Why does the Discovery Institute think that an acceptable standard of peer-review involves the "reviewer" not having seen the work (Darwin's Black Box) before it was published."

Sounds like a personal problem between the two parties. Like, that is relevant to this debate?

"* If there is a conspiracy against IDers, how come Behe can get published under peer-review? (The Behe and Snoke paper)"

How did Rosa Parks take her seat on the bus? Of course, ID'ers can and do get papers peer-reviewed, it is just that the Darwinist establishment makes it difficult and then tend to ignore good evidence that is against their beliefs. So many ID'ers just don't bother. Dembski and his cohorts are continuing to submit anyway, good for them!

"* Even if they can't get published in biology, why can't they in mathematics or computer science?"

Huh? They are getting published in biology when they bother to submit. Most of the peer-reviewed paper list I gave you guys was for biology. Give me a break, computer science? You guys think THOSE evolved, too??

"* Why are they trying to claim Posters, abstracts and books as peer-reviewed?"

Go read their statement and see instead of asking me. You have some super-secret definition?

"* Why, given the thorough debunking at the Dover trial, don't they update the page to take this into account?"

Debunking? That was debunking like Hitler debunked Jews. It was not scientific, it was a kangaroo court experience. You guys should NOT be proud of yourselves for that.

"* What, if anything, has the entire creationist and ID movement contributed to human knowledge?"

Science is, as Newton and others have said, standing on the shoulders of the greats who have gone on before. Believing that God created, most great scientists of the past were believers and therefore expected that the laws and functions of systems and organisms would be found to be reasonable and knowledgeable.

Secondly, since it is about truth and not an excuse to dismiss God, creationism/ID is about knowing the truth without dismissing the possibility of the supernatural. Darwinism's fatal flaw is that it dismissed God right off the bat.

"I expect about as much of an answer this time as I got last time."

I need to get back to work, but I saw this and just got fed up. You guys are so dismissive of evidence you don't even investigate. You don't think I haven't read the anti-Behe stuff? They go around the horn trying to evade the real point. Therefore, when I get off of work today I will post the first of a two-part series to attempt to make rubber really meet the road. Cheers!

radar said...

"Please stop with all the "white lies" about non-existent peer reviewed papers supporting young earth and Noah. It's just getting sad."

Yes, it is getting sad. Cranky, I thought you were better than that. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. I gave you a list of various peer-reviewed papers and I never said specifically whether any of them addressed the young earth because it wasn't the issue at the time. The issue was whether there were any peer-reviewed papers by creationists/ID scientists. Since I gave you the list, you now want to change the focus. You are the one who is being deceptive here.

Again, Morris and Morris and Whitcomb and Gish are among those who have published books detailing the young earth. If you want to know, go look. If you want to gripe, fine, but do it with integrity.

creeper said...

"I was asked if there were peer-reviewed papers. I said I would post "such papers". I never specifically said there were young earth papers"

Umm...

cranky old fart: "Shall I repeat? Where are those peer reviewed papers supporting the young earth Noah thing."

you: "I posted sites where such papers are available for your perusal, have you checked them out?"

... yes, you did. I take it we can accept your retraction at this point.

"and frankly I don't see the point of looking for them considering the asker's attitudes."

Asking you to back up your claim makes you not see the point of backing up your claim?

"Let's see........we have a gaggle of "peers" who are mainline Darwinists who criticize the works of ID proponents in a prejudiced manner. ID people then begin submitting their work only to people who will actually review them fairly."

"Fairly" here being defined as "not being critical of them".

"The mainline people are bypassed. Then they claim the ID papers and books aren't peer-reviewed."

Were they?

"Nice scam. I am not impressed. When Darwinists decide to try having open minds, maybe that will change."

It will most definitely change once a testable hypothesis is proposed by an ID advocate. Posting long-rebutted arguments and strawman arguments will only damage the cause of ID, and will cause people to take it less and less seriously over time. That is why you should think carefully before promoting ill-considered essays (such as highboy's monkey thing) - it can backfire.

So now you're claiming that it's all a big conspiracy. It couldn't be anything else, of course, right? It must be thousands and thousands of scientists all over the world all conspiring to deliberately and secretly suppress any knowledge of the true path of ID. It couldn't be that ID simply hasn't come up with the good yet, could it? Keep in mind that the current brand of ID (ie. irreducible complexity etc.) is still very young.

Have you considered the possibility that the papers are simply not up to scratch?

All this is of course aside from the fact that young earth creationism, the stance you've opted for, has nothing to do with these ID papers. Where is the evidence for what you are claiming? How do you propose to address the evidence against, for example, Noah's flood taking place when the Bible says it did?

Anonymous said...

radar wrote:
I gave you a long list of peer-reviewed papers and books. Were they too advanced for you to understand, is that the problem???

And I pointed out that most of that list was not peer-reviewed. Is it too dificult to understand that when the person who was supposedly the principle reviewer on at least one of those books (and probably the most famous at that) has never actually seen the book before publication, that is not an acceptable standard of peer review.

And the whole point of presenting a poster at an academic conference, as I have said, is that you have material that you want looked over. This will make it into a peer reviewed publication as an abstract. All you have to do is pay.

In short, as I have shown in previous comments, the vast majority of your list of "peer - reviewed papers and books" were nothing of the sort.

Is that too hard for you to understand. In which case I shall make things very clear for you. The list you presented relies on trickery and fraud.

Sounds like a personal problem between the two parties. Like, that is relevant to this debate?

It is a problem for the debate because the Discovery Institute is lying through its teeth when it says that the book is peer reviewed. And were you to have actually read the article, you would realise that the peer-reviewer had nothing against Behe. (Possibly because he didn't realise he was meant to have been the chief peer-reviewer).

Go read their statement and see instead of asking me. You have some super-secret definition?

I am asking you because you wilfully support the deceptions presented by the Discovery Institute even when they have been pointed out to you. My belief is that there are two reasons for the Discovery Institute's page in question. The first is they present that page because they have nothing better to present. The second is that, in line with the Wedge Strategy, they are willing to take the measures they consider necessary to achieve their goal.

Huh? They are getting published in biology when they bother to submit.

I.e. almost never and when they do they manage to prove that irreducible complexity is inevitable. (Behe and Snoke)

Most of the peer-reviewed paper list I gave you guys was for biology. Give me a break, computer science? You guys think THOSE evolved, too??

Computer Science is for evolutionary algorithms - one of the major fields where evolutionary theory is providing dividends. Just because you fail to see the link doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Debunking? That was debunking like Hitler debunked Jews.

You mean ruthless, overwhelming, compelling, efficient and leaving the victims with not even dignity?

It was not scientific, it was a kangaroo court experience. You guys should NOT be proud of yourselves for that.

A "Kangaroo Court" presided over by a Conservative Republican judge and with jurors taken from an area that was supposed to have been favourable?

It was an incredible mismatch - in part because the Discovery Institute didn't support Behe. My belief is that they realised that under a genuine conservative Judge they were in for a pasting (I'd trust a genuine conservative for that more than I'd trust a liberal).

If they had thought they could even bloody the nose of their opposition, they would have pulled out all the stops. But instead most of the Discovery Institute was too chicken to show up, leaving Behe looking as stupid and deceptive as he is.

Darwinism's fatal flaw is that it dismissed God right off the bat.

And once again you demonstrate that you are either fighting a straw man or don't know what you are talking about. Many supporters of evolution are atheists and use it to dismiss God - but there are many who believe in God who are also Christian (or of other religions).

You guys are so dismissive of evidence you don't even investigate.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I have investigated the evidence with an open mind and found it to be complete crap.

Whereas you post links, seemingly without the understanding of what they say - and then proceed to refer back to them even when they have been thoroughly debunked - without bothering to engage at all with the arguments debunking them. So much for being "dismissive of evidence".

- F