Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the



 Religions > Atheism > Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 3

1

 

2

 

3

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Date: 17 Oct 2006 04:38:07 AM
Object: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006
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advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed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British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern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.
Featured Articles
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. (PDF, 1.13MB)
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. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)
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). (PDF, 620KB)
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent
Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance
through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).
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)
Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published
by Prominent Trade Presses
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged
Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for
Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).
William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity
Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2002).
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler &
Adler, 1985).
Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books 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).
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, 2006, Vol
28(4), 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.
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.
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). (HTML)
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. (PDF, 1.13MB)
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. (PDF, 2.33MB)
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, DDPE, Pp.
403-418.
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). (HTML)
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).
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).
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 - Seattle, WA 98101
206-292-0401 phone - 206-682-5320 fax
email:

.

User: "Bobby Bryant"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 17 Oct 2006 11:46:20 AM
In article <E56dnemI2_roOanYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> writes:


Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


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.”

How come their list includes stuff that isn't actually peer reviewed,
and peer-reviewed stuff that doesn't actually support intelligent
design?
Is this kind of like their list that includes mechanical engineers
in the list of "scientists" who reject Darwinism?
Is honesty part of the Discovery Institute's culture?
Oh, wait -- honesty and propaganda are inherently at odds.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 17 Oct 2006 12:31:58 PM
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:46:20 GMT,
(Bobby Bryant)
wrote:

In article <E56dnemI2_roOanYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> writes:


Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


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.”


How come their list includes stuff that isn't actually peer reviewed,
and peer-reviewed stuff that doesn't actually support intelligent
design?

They don't seem to understand that they only need one genuine example.
It's just like Mr. Hallerud's list of early mentions of Christians
rather than Jesus.
As if quantity means more than quality.
A list like this, none of which actually are what he is supposed to be
providing, sends the message that there is none.
Although there was one creationist (not ID article which got beyond
the peer review process to publication.
Once it reached a more general audience it was rapidly refuted.
I'm talking about Gentry and his polonium halos.
But once it had been refuted the writer turned to the standard ad
hominems, attacking science and scientists - even though he had been
one.

Is this kind of like their list that includes mechanical engineers
in the list of "scientists" who reject Darwinism?

Is honesty part of the Discovery Institute's culture?

Oh, wait -- honesty and propaganda are inherently at odds.

.
User: "Jon G"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 17 Oct 2006 01:40:01 PM
Christopher A. Lee wrote:

They don't seem to understand that they only need one genuine example.

I agree with this. According to the rules of this forum if one poster
is challenged to provide references (s)he has to or shouldn't post
again.
So, Mr Lorr, can we have ONE (only one, your favourite, the one that
convinced you) genuine scientific article published in a scientific
journal with a good Impact Factor (of at least 5 for evolutionary
biology jnls but higher for general science) that presents evidence to
support the Intelligent Design understanding of evolution, or lack
thereof, of life on the planet.
We will check the journal's credibility (ISI list of Impact Factors),
examine the article and discuss the conclusion the author/s came up.
In your words, finding an article is good now. For your ease, you can
obviously pick the best from your list, or ask your "peers" to suggest
one.
I hope you can show what it was that convinced you.
Jon
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 12:07:24 PM
Jon G wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

They don't seem to understand that they only need one genuine example.


I agree with this. According to the rules of this forum if one poster
is challenged to provide references (s)he has to or shouldn't post
again.

So, Mr Lorr, can we have ONE (only one, your favourite, the one that
convinced you) genuine scientific article published in a scientific
journal with a good Impact Factor (of at least 5 for evolutionary
biology jnls but higher for general science) that presents evidence to
support the Intelligent Design understanding of evolution, or lack
thereof, of life on the planet.

We will check the journal's credibility (ISI list of Impact Factors),

Of course you will. You will do anything you could possibly can to be
right. But you're wrong. ID is science because it can be tested. On
the other hand you cannot test nature self-creation. Sorry.
JM

examine the article and discuss the conclusion the author/s came up.

In your words, finding an article is good now. For your ease, you can
obviously pick the best from your list, or ask your "peers" to suggest
one.

I hope you can show what it was that convinced you.

Jon

.
User: "Dana Tweedy"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 12:27:17 PM
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-1161191244.657965.107360@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


SNIP

We will check the journal's credibility (ISI list of Impact Factors),


Of course you will.

Unlike creationists, who don't bother to check anything.

You will do anything you could possibly can to be
right.

It's a matter of investigating, to see if one is right or wrong.

But you're wrong. ID is science because it can be tested.

How do you test ID? If anything can be "intelligently designed", how do
you tell if it is or isn't?

On
the other hand you cannot test nature self-creation.

You can test the evidence, something that ID has no capability of doing.

Sorry.

Yes, you are a sorry individual.
DJT
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 02:22:18 PM
Dana Tweedy wrote:

<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-1161191244.657965.107360@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


SNIP

We will check the journal's credibility (ISI list of Impact Factors),


Of course you will.


Unlike creationists, who don't bother to check anything.

You will do anything you could possibly can to be
right.


It's a matter of investigating, to see if one is right or wrong.

But you're wrong. ID is science because it can be tested.


How do you test ID? If anything can be "intelligently designed", how do
you tell if it is or isn't?

Well, you can test if intelligence can design things. It's up to the
abiogenesis advocates to prove that non-intelligence can design things
on it's own. Of course abiogenesis point out that life creates life,
or rather the material world reproduces itself, all the time, proving
that nature can do it. No, that only points to a preexisting code as
found in the DNA that allows for reproduction. How that code came to be
has to be proven naturally. But of course that is not scientific.


On
the other hand you cannot test nature self-creation.


You can test the evidence, something that ID has no capability of doing.

Sorry.



Yes, you are a sorry individual.

If I'm a sorry individual according to your standards, I wonder how you
derive those standards from which you judge me, from the fact that you
cannot establish the fact the nature can create itself.
JM


DJT

.
User: ""

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 08:25:09 PM
wrote:

Dana Tweedy wrote:

<

> wrote in message
news:mccoy-1161191244.657965.107360@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


SNIP

We will check the journal's credibility (ISI list of Impact Factors),


Of course you will.


Unlike creationists, who don't bother to check anything.

You will do anything you could possibly can to be
right.


It's a matter of investigating, to see if one is right or wrong.

But you're wrong. ID is science because it can be tested.


How do you test ID? If anything can be "intelligently designed", how do
you tell if it is or isn't?


Well, you can test if intelligence can design things.

Is that what ID is about? That intelligence *can* design things? I
don't know anyone who disagrees with that statement.
This is pretty typical of you. You take a hypothesis, and a piece of
non-contradictory evidence (e.g. a chariot wheel at the bottom of the
Red Sea does not contradict the story of Moses parting the waters).
Then someone else will point out that there are other non-contradictory
interpretations of the evidence which are more likely (the wheel fell
off a boat). Further investigation will reveal more reasons why the
alternative interpretation is more likely (the wheel is from an
Assyrian chariot, not an Egyptian one). At this point, you invent a
justification (the Egyptians could have used captured Assyrian
chariots) and declare your hypothesis vindicated, when in fact all you
have done is placed it back in the category of "unlikely but not
impossible".
In this case, you've taken a hypothesis (living things are
intelligently designed) and a non-contradictory statement (humans
design things). At some point in the ensuing argument, you're going to
claim that someone designed the computer you're using, and preen
victoriously, without realizing that you haven't done anything at all
to argue the point in contention.

It's up to the
abiogenesis advocates to prove that non-intelligence can design things
on it's own.

Or that non-intelligent processes can create the appearance of design.
Of course, it would help a lot if the ID crowd could provided us with
an actual test for design like they said they would, but I guess we're
going to have to wait for Dembski's seventh book to find out what it
is.

Of course abiogenesis point out that life creates life,
or rather the material world reproduces itself, all the time, proving
that nature can do it. No, that only points to a preexisting code as
found in the DNA that allows for reproduction. How that code came to be
has to be proven naturally. But of course that is not scientific.




On
the other hand you cannot test nature self-creation.


You can test the evidence, something that ID has no capability of doing.

Sorry.



Yes, you are a sorry individual.


If I'm a sorry individual according to your standards, I wonder how you
derive those standards from which you judge me,

I value honesty, curiosity and humility. You demonstrate none of these.
You make statements that are not true, or that you cannot show to be
true. You will not seek knowledge that contradicts your assumptions.
You are certain you know the truth, even in the face of evidence that
you are wrong.

from the fact that you
cannot establish the fact the nature can create itself.

And you cannot establish the existence of a single textbook that claims
Piltdown Man is evidence of evolution. Which task is harder?


JM


DJT

.

User: "wf3h"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 06:59:14 PM
wrote:


Well, you can test if intelligence can design things.

how?
.



User: "wf3h"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 06:58:17 PM
wrote:


Of course you will. You will do anything you could possibly can to be
right. But you're wrong. ID is science because it can be tested. On
the other hand you cannot test nature self-creation. Sorry.

JM

ID can be tested? since when? what mechanism? what lab experiments?
even its adherents say it's supernatural...
.

User: "Bobby Bryant"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 07:33:52 PM
In article <mccoy-1161191244.657965.107360@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
mccoy@sunset.net writes:


Jon G wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

They don't seem to understand that they only need one genuine example.


I agree with this. According to the rules of this forum if one poster
is challenged to provide references (s)he has to or shouldn't post
again.

So, Mr Lorr, can we have ONE (only one, your favourite, the one that
convinced you) genuine scientific article published in a scientific
journal with a good Impact Factor (of at least 5 for evolutionary
biology jnls but higher for general science) that presents evidence to
support the Intelligent Design understanding of evolution, or lack
thereof, of life on the planet.

We will check the journal's credibility (ISI list of Impact Factors),


Of course you will. You will do anything you could possibly can to be
right. But you're wrong. ID is science because it can be tested.

What testable predictions does ID make?
A single example will suffice.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.

User: "Ye Old One"

Title: Re: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 12:56:50 PM
On 18 Oct 2006 10:07:24 -0700,
enriched this group
when s/he wrote:


Jon G wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

They don't seem to understand that they only need one genuine example.


I agree with this. According to the rules of this forum if one poster
is challenged to provide references (s)he has to or shouldn't post
again.

So, Mr Lorr, can we have ONE (only one, your favourite, the one that
convinced you) genuine scientific article published in a scientific
journal with a good Impact Factor (of at least 5 for evolutionary
biology jnls but higher for general science) that presents evidence to
support the Intelligent Design understanding of evolution, or lack
thereof, of life on the planet.

We will check the journal's credibility (ISI list of Impact Factors),


Of course you will. You will do anything you could possibly can to be
right. But you're wrong.

Nope.

ID is science

Nope - several courts have agreed it is not.

because it can be tested.

Can it? Please explain exactly how those tests would work.

On
the other hand you cannot test nature self-creation. Sorry.

Sorry for being an idiot? Sure you are.


JM


Now McClueless, about these textbooks which promoted Piltdown Man as
evidence for evolution. Your inability to post the names of authors
and the titles of the books has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that
you claim was a lie.
Do you like being seen as a liar McClueless? I know you like to
support liars like con-man Wyatt, tax evading Hovind and of course
unscientific Gish. But there is no need to start emulating their
propensity for lying as well.
--
Bob.
.





User: "johac"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 18 Oct 2006 02:10:19 AM
In article <E56dnemI2_roOanYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


Editors's Note:: Critics of intelligent design often claim
that design advocates don¹t 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 ³aren¹t published because they don¹t have
scientific data.²

She's right.


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.

They don't.

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 Copernicus¹ De
Revolutionibus, Newton¹s Principia, and Darwin¹s 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).

They wrote before peer review had been implemented.

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.

See below.


Featured Articles

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. (PDF, 1.13MB)

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, ³The Origin of Biological Information and the
Higher Taxonomic Categories² 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. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)

Jonathan Wells, ³Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection
Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, ³Genetic Analysis of
Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,²
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design
& Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A.
Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)

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

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance
through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).

Michael Behe, Darwin¹s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge
to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).

Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The
Mystery of Life¹s 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)

There is only one peer reviewed journal up there, Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington, and the Meyer paper was later
retracted as 'unsuitable'.
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html


As far as the Lönnig and the Wells papers:
http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=404
Not very convincing. The other articles appear to be from books.



Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published
by Prominent Trade Presses

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged
Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for
Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).

William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity
Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2002).

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler &
Adler, 1985).


Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books 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).


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, 2006, Vol
28(4), 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, ³A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,²
Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, ³The Origin of Biological Information and the
Higher Taxonomic Categories,² Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, ³Simulating Evolution by Gene
Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino
Acid Residues,² Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, ³Chromosome Rearrangements and
Transposable Elements,² Annual Review of Genetics, 36
(2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, ³Integrated Use of Multiple
Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,²
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September
2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) ³The Protein
Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian
Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,² Journal of
Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

Books are not peer reviewed as scientific journal articles are.
It is a different process. All you need to do is to find a friendly
publisher. Reviews AFTER publication may tear them apart but they
remain in print.



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). (HTML)


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. (PDF, 1.13MB)

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: biology¹s big bang, DDPE, Pp. 323-402. (PDF, 2.33MB)

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


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

Jonathan Wells, ³Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection
Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician¹s View of Evolution," The
Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)


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, ³Genetic Analysis of
Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,²
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).

See above.



Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in
Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals

Philosophy is not science.
Nothing to see here.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Ye Old One"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Support evolution. 17 Oct 2006 10:42:56 AM
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


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.”

That is 100% true.


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.

That is also true. And it is true that some IDiots get published on
other subjects - but not on ID as that is not science.

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).

times have changed. This is now the 21st century, these days it is
peer-reviewed if you want it to be taken seriously.

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.

See above.

We provide below
an annotated bibliography of technical publications of
various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of
intelligent design.

Featured Articles

[snip all non-peer reviewed or non-scientific publications]
Opps - none left.
--
Bob.
.
User: "Bobby Bryant"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Support evolution. 17 Oct 2006 11:51:54 AM
In article <5nt9j25vkch5084vk317gmpppojrk37o1h@4ax.com>,
Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> writes:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


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.”

8<

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).


times have changed. This is now the 21st century, these days it is
peer-reviewed if you want it to be taken seriously.

It's also curious that they would attach such an argument to an
inflated list of "Peer Reviewed" literature. It's as if they know
their list won't pass muster.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Support evolution. 17 Oct 2006 11:14:03 AM
Ye Old One wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


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.”



That is 100% true.

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.



That is also true. And it is true that some IDiots get published on
other subjects - but not on ID as that is not science.

Congratulations on your graduation from obedience training
school.



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).



times have changed. This is now the 21st century, these days it is
peer-reviewed if you want it to be taken seriously.

Tools change, people don't.



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.



See above.


We provide below
an annotated bibliography of technical publications of
various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of
intelligent design.

Featured Articles


[snip all non-peer reviewed or non-scientific publications]

Opps - none left.

Congratulations on your graduation from obedience training
school.
.
User: "Bill M"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Support evolution. 17 Oct 2006 12:09:20 PM
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:y4SdnQXt3cXdnKjYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com...

Ye Old One wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory
of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


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.”



That is 100% true.

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.



That is also true. And it is true that some IDiots get published on
other subjects - but not on ID as that is not science.



Congratulations on your graduation from obedience training school.

Congratulations on snide remarks with no basis in fact.


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).



times have changed. This is now the 21st century, these days it is
peer-reviewed if you want it to be taken seriously.


Tools change, people don't.



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.

Where is the list of Scientific Journals that have published any articles
supporting
IE? Claims with no evidence is evidence of falsehood. The only articles I
have seen
are the ones indicating the total lack of any scientific support for ID!

See above.


We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of
various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent
design.

Featured Articles


[snip all non-peer reviewed or non-scientific publications]

Opps - none left.


Congratulations on your graduation from obedience training school.

.



User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 17 Oct 2006 09:28:04 AM
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Darwinism, Design, & Public Education

Is a book published in the "Rhetoric & Public Affairs Series." It's not a
science journal nor peer reviewed.
By the way, this bit:

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).

Is one of the most breathtakingly dishonest things ever written. Newton,
Darwin, et al, didn't published in peer reviewed journals for the same
reason they didn't use email. The system we use now developed *later.
You people are so relentlessly dishonest...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
User: "TomS"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 17 Oct 2006 09:52:18 AM
"On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:28:04 -0500, in article
<XvadncBe88DpdanYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo stated..."


On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Darwinism, Design, & Public Education


Is a book published in the "Rhetoric & Public Affairs Series." It's not a
science journal nor peer reviewed.

By the way, this bit:

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).


Is one of the most breathtakingly dishonest things ever written. Newton,
Darwin, et al, didn't published in peer reviewed journals for the same
reason they didn't use email. The system we use now developed *later.

You people are so relentlessly dishonest...

C. Darwin & A.R. Wallace,
'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of
Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection',
Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 20 Aug. 1858, 3, pp.
45-62.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"...works of Nature are not like the works of art which are made only by
progressing from one part to another ... unlike an artisan, Nature ... can
act on all of the parts at once just as well as on a single one ..."
Pierre Gassendi, De Generatione Animalium, Chapter III (1651)
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 19 Oct 2006 11:48:37 AM
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:52:18 -0700, TomS wrote:

"On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:28:04 -0500, in article
<XvadncBe88DpdanYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo stated..."


On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Darwinism, Design, & Public Education


Is a book published in the "Rhetoric & Public Affairs Series." It's not a
science journal nor peer reviewed.

By the way, this bit:

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).


Is one of the most breathtakingly dishonest things ever written. Newton,
Darwin, et al, didn't published in peer reviewed journals for the same
reason they didn't use email. The system we use now developed *later.

You people are so relentlessly dishonest...


C. Darwin & A.R. Wallace,
'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of
Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection',
Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 20 Aug. 1858, 3, pp.
45-62.


Hm... oops!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
User: "John Wilkins"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 19 Oct 2006 06:54:46 PM
Mark K. Bilbo <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:52:18 -0700, TomS wrote:

"On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:28:04 -0500, in article
<XvadncBe88DpdanYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo stated..."


On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Darwinism, Design, & Public Education


Is a book published in the "Rhetoric & Public Affairs Series." It's not a
science journal nor peer reviewed.

By the way, this bit:

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).


Is one of the most breathtakingly dishonest things ever written. Newton,
Darwin, et al, didn't published in peer reviewed journals for the same
reason they didn't use email. The system we use now developed *later.

You people are so relentlessly dishonest...


C. Darwin & A.R. Wallace,
'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of
Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection',
Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 20 Aug.
1858, 3, pp. 45-62.


Hm... oops!

You still aren't wrong. It was a technical paper, yes, and published in
a technical proceedings, but it wasn't peer reviewed because, as you
said, the peer review system had yet to evolve. Nobody went through the
papers Darwin and Wallace published and commented on the content or
advised revisions, the way we now do this. Instead, the filter came from
later usage of those papers (and Darwin's book) by citation and
discussion. The peer review system we have developed later as a result
of the establishment of _Science_ in America and _Nature_ in Britain,
and other later journals in Europe. It was necessary because the editors
were being asked to publish papers about which they had no knowledge,
and so the reviewer system developed over time.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 20 Oct 2006 09:51:20 AM
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:54:46 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:52:18 -0700, TomS wrote:

"On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:28:04 -0500, in article
<XvadncBe88DpdanYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
stated..."


On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Darwinism, Design, & Public Education


Is a book published in the "Rhetoric & Public Affairs Series." It's
not a science journal nor peer reviewed.

By the way, this bit:

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).


Is one of the most breathtakingly dishonest things ever written.
Newton, Darwin, et al, didn't published in peer reviewed journals for
the same reason they didn't use email. The system we use now
developed *later.

You people are so relentlessly dishonest...


C. Darwin & A.R. Wallace,
'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the
Perpetuation of
Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection',
Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 20 Aug.
1858, 3, pp. 45-62.


Hm... oops!


You still aren't wrong.

Actually, I was referring to the Lorr claim that Darwin (at least)
"published not in scientific journal articles" when it appears he, um,
kinda did. <g>

It was a technical paper, yes, and published in a technical proceedings,
but it wasn't peer reviewed because, as you said, the peer review system
had yet to evolve. Nobody went through the papers Darwin and Wallace
published and commented on the content or advised revisions, the way we
now do this. Instead, the filter came from later usage of those papers
(and Darwin's book) by citation and discussion.

Which is also still important. The cretinists are trying to sneak in the
back door by creating their own "peer review journals" but publishing is
a first step. If nobody finds a paper useful enough to cite, having had it
published is, well, maybe something to put on a resume? <g>

The peer review system
we have developed later as a result of the establishment of _Science_ in
America and _Nature_ in Britain, and other later journals in Europe. It
was necessary because the editors were being asked to publish papers
about which they had no knowledge, and so the reviewer system developed
over time.

The cretinists are grasping at straws. Wonder if Lorr will be doing the
parade of dead scientists next...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.




User: "Ken Denny"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 17 Oct 2006 11:27:51 AM
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Darwinism, Design, & Public Education


Is a book published in the "Rhetoric & Public Affairs Series." It's not a
science journal nor peer reviewed.

By the way, this bit:

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).


Is one of the most breathtakingly dishonest things ever written. Newton,
Darwin, et al, didn't published in peer reviewed journals for the same
reason they didn't use email. The system we use now developed *later.

You people are so relentlessly dishonest...

I find it interesting that he includes Darwin's Origin of Species among
the "most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science".
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 17 Oct 2006 09:42:13 AM
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Congratulations on your graduation from obedience training
school.
.
User: "Mike Dworetsky"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 17 Oct 2006 04:15:37 PM
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EI2dnYXWVNQndqnYnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com...

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:


Congratulations on your graduation from obedience training
school.

Y'know, Roy, I think your instant insult generator is broken. You're
supposed to come up with a new insult for every post. I understand there
are actually web sites that can do this for you. It's bad enough you are
foolish; don't bore us too.
I fart in your general direction.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
.



User: "Harlequin"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 17 Oct 2006 04:39:31 PM
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote in
news:E56dnemI2_roOanYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


Editors's Note:: Critics of intelligent design often claim
that design advocates don't publish their work in
appropriate scientific literature.[snip]

[snip all]
The list is still pathetically small.
Going through the list one notices that the vast majority
of entries are from the creationist literature itself.
Gee, why not also list several decades worth of
the young-earth creationist "peer reviewed" journals
as well? I also see stuff not published in biology
journals. I see a withdrawn article was not peer-reviewed
as far as anyone can tell listed more than once. A
good chunck of the list are chapters
from a single creationist book. I very much doubt
that any papers and book chapters from the creationist
publications were "peer reviewed" by outside of the
"scholars" of the Intelligent Design community.
Remove all those and what you have left can be counted
on one hand.
And oh yes, peer review is not just getting published.
The most important peer review comes from scientists
at large after publication. This group of people is
not impressed. The claims made by those "papers"
have been refuted countless times. Those papers have
pathetic rates of being cited by bone fide scientific
literature. Most of the citations are by the news
and editorial sections of those journals keeping
their reader informed about the thread of
creationism and the occational negative revew. One
never sees creationist sources bragging about their
"impact factor" or any other measure of scientists
using their works.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
.

User: "leo"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 17 Oct 2006 05:29:01 AM
Roy Jose Lorr ha escrito:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006


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.

Featured Articles

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. (PDF, 1.13MB)

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. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)

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). (PDF, 620KB)

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

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance
through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).

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)


Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published
by Prominent Trade Presses

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged
Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for
Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).

William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity
Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2002).

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler &
Adler, 1985).


Peer-Reviewed Philosophical Books 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).


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, 2006, Vol
28(4), 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.

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.


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). (HTML)


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. (PDF, 1.13MB)

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. (PDF, 2.33MB)

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


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). (HTML)


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).


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).


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science


Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 - Seattle, WA 98101
206-292-0401 phone - 206-682-5320 fax
email:


OK, then what?
I did not understand why some atheists have put so much emphasis in the
publishing of this rubbish. It would be no the first time some bogus
scientists have published a lot of scientific crap.
This is not the basic question. The basic question is "where is the
intelligence of the Intelligent Designer?"
For if the intelligence designer were only the "stupid blind Nature", I
can forgive all the wrongs and mistakes and errors that can be found in
nature. I can forgive the that a goat would be born with two heads,
of the babies sharing the same heart or lung, or the same lliver. I
can forgive Nature, cause it is blind, if it gives us sunamies and
hurricanes, and tornados, and plagues, and all the fucking miseries to
have to suffer from time to time.
But I cannot accept an Intelligent Designer that is an almighty god.
This idea is utterly absurd, and deserves only the greatest of our
human scorn.
Leopoldo
.
User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the 17 Oct 2006 05:57:25 AM
On 17 Oct 2006 03:29:01 -0700, "leo" <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1161080941.100320.258030@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>


Roy Jose Lorr ha escrito:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications
Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
August 1, 2006

:


Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 - Seattle, WA 98101
206-292-0401 phone - 206-682-5320 fax
email:



OK, then what?
I did not understand why some atheists have put so much emphasis in the
publishing of this rubbish. It would be no the first time some bogus
scientists have published a lot of scientific crap.
This is not the basic question. The basic question is "where is the
intelligence of the Intelligent Designer?"
For if the intelligence designer were only the "stupid blind Nature", I
can forgive all the wrongs and mistakes and errors that can be found in
nature. I can forgive the that a goat would be born with two heads,
of the babies sharing the same heart or lung, or the same lliver. I
can forgive Nature, cause it is blind, if it gives us sunamies and
hurricanes, and tornados, and plagues, and all the fucking miseries to
have to suffer from time to time.

But I cannot accept an Intelligent Designer that is an almighty god.
This idea is utterly absurd, and deserves only the greatest of our
human scorn.
Leopoldo

Mr. Lorr deserves not scorn, but sympathy.
He is not at all mentally well.
.
User: "Roy Jose Lorr"

Title: Re: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting 17 Oct 2006 09:30:25 AM
Michael Gray wrote:
Congratulations on your graduation from obedience school.
.