Truth in advertising: IDEAcenter


FAQ: Why isn’t intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?

Before reading further, we recommend that if you are interested in seeing the scientific underpinnings of intelligent design, that you read our article, “The Science Behind Intelligent Design to become familiar with the scientific basis for intelligent design.


I clicked the link “The science behind intelligent design” ([…]nce.htm_)and was greeted by the following message:

Page not found The requested URL:[…]otfound.html could not be found.

Use the search below if you are looking for something in particular

I appreciate the level of honesty here…

The real reason ID is not found in peer-reviewed science journals is because there is no scientific theory of intelligent design. At least not one beyond the God of the Gaps argument (Not X thus Y).


The IDEA center is one of the disgusting examples of creationist apologetics ever written.

I sincerely hope that a forthcoming thorough documentation of the dissembling and mispresentation contained on that site would provide the California Bar reason to pause for a considerable length of time before admitting any of the site’s authors.

How absurd and sick does it get?

By the way, you may be wondering why I don’t here simply provide a list of peer-reviewed articles by design theorists from the biological literature that support intelligent design. The reason is that I want to spare these authors the harassment they would receive if I listed their work.

Jesus just called, Casey. He wants his religion back.

You can find it here:[…]s.php/id/832

And, BTW, you’ll lose nothing skipping it… A couple of well done graphics, with the information content of the space vacuum.


From Marco’s Link, the Big Lie from whose orifices all the Little Lies squirm forth:

In its current form, intelligent design theory also can say nothing about the designer other than that the designer was intelligent.

False, because *if* “ID theory” can say the “designer” was intelligent (which it doesn’t, as a matter of fact), then ID theory can say a great deal more about the “designer.” For example, an honest person with a high-school level intelligence will quickly realize that *if* the conclusions of the ID peddlers are correct, then we can automatically assign some minimal properties (aka “powers”) to the designer(s).

Funny that so-much “information theory” hoo-hah can be spewed forth by these “brilliant” “paradigm-shifting” scientists but this fundamental point is ALWAYS ignored (in favor of repeated assertions that there is nothing “mystical” or “unscientific” about the theory).

I certainly like

as free-thinking responsible scientists, we must test a theory ourselves and see if it holds up and not judge a theory based upon its apparent lack of presence in mainstream journals,

gee, i always thought it was a little more like,

as free-thinking responsible scientists, we must test a theory ourselves, see if it holds up, and then strive to publish the theory, our data, and our test cases, in order to independently verify that our methodology is applicable and accounts for other variables and has a “control” case, our data not mis-interpreted, our calculations and reasoning clear of obvious logical flaws or contradictions, so that other scientists can duplicate it using alternative data sets to see if the theory holds.

We also respect the value that the peer-review process brings to the methods of scientific research by helping scientists consider alternative explanations, alternative example data, or obvious flaws in logic that lead to unsupported conclusions, before publishing a work full of errors that permanently harms the author’s professional reputation.

We also must respect and realize that when criticism of our work comes from the peer-review process before even going to publication, that rejection is not a personal attack, nor have we alone been singled out for public or professional ridicule based on our beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are relevant to the subject matter of our research. In fact, we realize that the point of the peer-review before publication is to PROTECT scientists from such ridicule should the work be, in fact, in error, by keeping the work private between the authors and the editors of the publication.

but i suppose those sentences are too long for a…nah, that’s a cheap shot.

I also like the examples at the bottom of the page on other “paradigm revolutionists” (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin) who published straight to book rather than through peer-review periodical.

My understanding on Copernicus and Galileo was that at the time, books were the *primary* means of publishing works of this complexity. The only other common means were pamphlets (inappropriate for the subject matter) and newspapers (such as they were). The periodical hadn’t really built up until much later. Otherwise, most scientific communication was done in sending letters around to other scientists throughout Europe, usually through a central post office in Paris or Amsterdam.

I believe but I might be wrong, both Copernicus and Galileo DID send letters to other mathematicians and scientists for some verification before publishing their books (thus, an early form of peer-review after all).

In addition, the only other *review* anybody got was from the church who were usually paying the bills, and did just that for Copernicus. His job was to get a more astronomically accurate calendar to help the church find Easter and other moving holidays correctly. In the course of that he realized the geocentric model simply couldn’t be accurate enough.

Newton’s Principia was more mathematics than science, and he uses mathematical proofs to support it. Thus, its a bad example to use.

Had Darwin published in peer-review form instead of book form, some of the mistakes in conclusions or applications of his theory that he DID make might have been caught earlier, though none of them would have destroyed the core of the theory, as nothing since has done. Of course, given the nature of the theory and the resistence to it, he might not have been published at all (and someone else who was racing to publish at the same time, might have beaten Darwin to publication by bypassing peer-review or by only publishing part of the theory that would have not rocked the boat so much).

One thing to consider is that then, as now, one must consider whether or not a peer-review process will even lead to your work being published at all. And more importantly, why.

If your hypothesis involves changing the very definition of science itself, then of course you’re not going to get past a peer-review.

And as point A shows in that page, changing the definition of science itself seems to be their # 1 goal, since nothing else can get their “work” (such as it is) to be considered scientific at all.

The IDEA people write:

It is quite correct to assert that there are very few papers explicitly advocating intelligent design theory in mainstream scientific journals.

There are various ways to address this objection

Overlooking the best of all possible ways to address the objection: Just actually conduct and publish solid scientific research under an Intelligent Design pardigm. For example, identify a series of 10 irreducibly complex systems, noting the previously identified evolutionary pathways proposed for each of these systems and explaining why those CANNOT work.

That would be a an accomplishment and sure to be published.

For a hoot, check out the ‘FEATURE FAQ’ linked from their homepage. It attempts to address this question:

Can irreducible complexity be evolved via gene duplication and co-optation of parts?

After you’ve checked it out, read this pandasthumb blog. Notice the date.

Matt that’s hilarious.

I guess those “revisions” required a bit more work than was originally anticipated last May.

Although an admission of wankery by the site owner would be ideal, we should acknowledge the modicum of intelligence and honesty demonstrated by the removal of that admittedly defective apologist tract. It would have been a great shame for a scientifically naive child or confused parent to run across that garbage.

Come on, now, guys. They are just trying to catch up with the literature.

The last 100+ years of it. ;-)

Is there even a single example of a system that truly fits the concept of “irreducibly complexity?” What kind of experiment could be set up to test a system for potential irreducible complexity? If there is such a system out there, I would really love to get beyond descriptions and see the demonstration. If ID could really present a scientific case for design, I for one would look twice.

Can anyone think of such an experiment?

Is there a cached copy of the document anywhere?

katerina asked

Is there even a single example of a system that truly fits the concept of “irreducibly complexity?” What kind of experiment could be set up to test a system for potential irreducible complexity? If there is such a system out there, I would really love to get beyond descriptions and see the demonstration. If ID could really present a scientific case for design, I for one would look twice.

Since Dembski revised the definition of irreducible complexity, I don’t think it’s possible to show that anything is IC. See my critiques here and here, Mark Perakh’s critique here, and Richard Wein’s critique here. As far as I can tell, Dembski has operationally eviscerated the notion of irreducible complexity.


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on February 3, 2005 8:02 PM.

Science teachers! Here’s your chance to speak out on talk radio! was the previous entry in this blog.

Evolution on Television. Help! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter