Raliegh Marsden wrote:Well it's a big old list. I'm asking if someone can go through each and every one on that list, and demonstrate, in simple terms, how it does not constitute peer review. So far not one of you has been able to accept the challenge.

Well, every single item that is a book excerpt is excluded right of the bat, for starters.

A number of them are from philosophy journals. Irrelevent.

This one:

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

Was withdrawn because it had violated the usual peer review process.

How many does that leave?

BTW:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

Cue "I.D. is peer-reviewed" in 3,2,1...

clinton huxley wrote:Cue "I.D. is peer-reviewed" in 3,2,1...

Won't happen. Only an unprincipled little shit would regurgitate that bollocks again.

klazmon wrote:

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Well it's a big old list. I'm asking if someone can go through each and every one on that list, and demonstrate, in simple terms, how it does not constitute peer review. So far not one of you has been able to accept the challenge.

So which one do you think is the best?

I don't know which one Raliegh thinks is best, but the DI puts the ones they feel are of "highest interest" in a category at the very beginning, so let's see how those fair:

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.

Book chapter. Not peer reviewed.

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009).

Not a biology journal. Does not support ID. Attempts to discredit a computer simulation of natural selection written by Richard Dawkins. And fails.

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

As already mentioned, was not peer reviewed.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119

Does not support ID.

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

As quoted from the DI website, itself (my emphasis):

In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer.

Doesn't seem to be any actual evidence there, besides Wells' "assumptions". Also, TalkOrigins' thoughts on this "journal" are worth repeating:

Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.

Continuing:

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).

From Wikipedia:

In 2004 Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer presented a paper to an engineering conference, the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, entitled "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits". The Discovery Institute lists this as one of its "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design". However, in his testimony for Kitzmiller v. Dover, Minnich admitted that the paper was minimally peer reviewed :

Q: And the paper that you published was only minimally peer reviewed, isn't that true?
A. For any conference proceeding, yeah. You don't go through the same rigor. I mentioned that yesterday. But it was reviewed by people in the Wessex Institute, and I don't know who they were.

Not a biology publication. Not peer-reviewed.

So from the DI's own list of cherry-picked papers that are supposed to represent the very best of the best of scientific reasearch supporting ID, in terms of papers published in peer reviewed biology journals that actually support ID we have a grand total of, let me see, um, yeah: Zero.

chairman bill wrote:

Raliegh Marsden wrote:... It's peer reviewed.

Still ignoring my post I see. What's wrong? Questions too hard?

Same here.

Raliegh

I see that you are in the habit of simply ignoring questions put to you, so I'm not holding my breath, but how do you explain the extreme skepticism that other established "Christian scientists" like Giberson and Enns over at a Christian evangelical site like BioLogos have with ID. Aren't they the "peers" we are looking for? If you are not aware of the history of this, and if you need an example of the state of that relationship have a look at the recent spat between Myers and them over there, that culminated in e-books and much martyrdom. I can post you a link if you need one.

Excellent post, Shrunk.

Btw, it's funny to see that only one of all those "papers" and books, actually refers to actual experimentation done. In other words, ID proponents, like the creationists they truly are, approach the subject from a position of just making shit up as they go along.

Of course, that's what they have to do, when reality refutes their bullshit assertions.

trubble76 wrote:For example, one of the papers that "critiques" modern genetics is authored by a "professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory".

Who is, in any case, the UK's foremost (Christian) Young Earth Creationist. So we know who his "designer" is.

I'm confident that I've had my high school 2nd grade homework subject to more rigorous scrutiny than the most intensely scrutinized entity on that pathetic list of ID screeds.

Raliegh! Coo-ee! Over here. Don't ignore us. Come on, you've questions to answer. Oh dear. Do you think he's left us?

chairman bill wrote:Raliegh! Coo-ee! Over here. Don't ignore us. Come on, you've questions to answer. Oh dear. Do you think he's left us?

Give him some time, he's probably peer-reviewing the latest ID scientific paper.

mindyourmind wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Raliegh! Coo-ee! Over here. Don't ignore us. Come on, you've questions to answer. Oh dear. Do you think he's left us?

Give him some time, he's probably peer-reviewing the latest ID scientific paper.

Or searching the Disco. 'Tute's website for more materiel to "challange" us with.

Just so long as he doesn't go to that fount of all wisdom, Mirriam-Webster on-line dictionary

Hey, Raliegh 'peered' at it twice, so it really is peer-reviewed.

Amazing. Still no one has managed to go through every item on that page, and explain, in simple terms, how it's not peer reviewed (just saying that it's not doesn't count). Calilasseia at first said that ID is not peer reviewed, and then when it was demonstrated that it is, he/she and others decided all of a sudden to redefine what peer review means. Changing the goalposts to suit you is as transparent as it gets.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Amazing. Still no one has managed to go through every item on that page, and explain, in simple terms, how it's not peer reviewed (just saying that it's not doesn't count). Calilasseia at first said that ID is not peer reviewed, and then when it was demonstrated that it is, he/she and others decided all of a sudden to redefine what peer review means. Changing the goalposts to suit you is as transparent as it gets.

Oh please, it doesn't take much to see the problems with it. If you don't see them, then you really don't want to see them, and there's nothing we can say to change it. Why such a desire to be fooled by such a transparent ploy?

Oeditor wrote:"Centre for Intelligent Design" www dot c4id dot org dot uk Based in Glasgow.
They appear to be following the now traditional pattern of creationists wearing a veneer of ID. Of course, they don't say so.

The primary aim of the Centre for Intelligent Design (CID) is to promote the public understanding of Intelligent Design (ID) and its implications.

The Centre for Intelligent Design is an independent organisation which has been set up by a network of volunteers across the UK and who have professional interests in education, science, medicine, business, and the law. It is funded by contributions from individuals and organisations who support its aims.

Its specific objectives are to:

* promote the professional investigation and public debate of Intelligent Design
* challenge, on the scientific evidence, the neo-Darwinian claim that the development of life is purely the result of undirected forces
* encourage consideration of the wider implications of Intelligent Design.

CID will mount a range of public and academic lectures, and distribute both print and electronic

Sounds remarkably like the Wedge Strategy and no doubt will be just as lacking in actual science to back up its claims. Its a political campaign and little more but sadly there are enough fuckwits in the public and in education for this to gain some ground in the UK.