rationalskepticism.org

I will just point and laugh at the serious level of mental retardation involved in making the aforementioned assertion, the fact that it is high impact does not make it easy for pro-evolution papers to be published, it means that the journal's standards of empirical rigour lead to it being extensively used as a source for further research, and you have shown the fundamental inability (perhaps wilfully) to understand the fact that Nature is a multidisciplinary journal and it is easy to get articles published if they are empirically very good in a wide variety of fields, which has not being going into your head due to Morton's demon.

High-Impact journals are high impact not because they allow easy publication of articles supporting a non-existent doctrinal committment, but because the scientific community regularly uses the work published therein to inform and guide their own work.

Which just means that a lot of people cite work done in that journal. That does not make it good in and of itself. It simply means it's popular. Popular does not make it good.

[1] The Wedge Strategy, that the DI only sought to push religion into classrooms through the use of underhanded propaganda tactics to try and replace science, by creating a wedge between the public and academia.

The Wedge strategy was known before the Dover. It has nothing to do with „underhanded propaganda“. It was on the same level as NCSE's agenda to keep evolution in school. Or when Dawkins said on TV that his goal is to destroy religion.

[2] The typical discoursive malfeasance of people like Michael Behe, who among other things indulged in dismissing evidence without having even considered that evidence in the first place, in other words, Olympic standard handwaving and dishonesty under oath.

Show me an example.

[3] The total no-show of DI representatives except Behe at the trial.

How is that exposing anything?

[4] The admission by Michael Behe that the inclusion of ID as science would stretch the boundaries of what constituted science so far that things like astrology would fall under its remit, in other words, the very inclusion of ID as science would require treating unadulterated bullshit as scientific.

Basicly that means that anything has the right to be called scientific if it works. Even astrology. But if it has been shown not to bring good results, it can be discarded.

[5] The Wedge inspired nature of the ID attempt at sneaking Cretinism through the back door, "Cdesign Proponentsists"
comes to mind.

How is that different from NCSE's goal to keep evolution in school classrooms?

I want a citation that this lugubrious satirized version is actually what is presented/supported by Nature.

This is what is known as abiogenesis, google it.

Another paper from a journal without an impact factor which has only been cited by the author himself when writing for a theological publication that aims to get missionaries involved with fields of technical importance.

It's a less known journal, doesn't mean it's non-existent.

The paper per se says nothing about ID being scientific, just that if we assume nature to be designed in the same way machines are designed, it appears coherent (a subjective judgement) since some areas of nature look designed (Watchmaker argument restated).

So by definition, if it says that we should look at nature as being designed, it's arguing for ID.

So your attempt to present this is nothing more than a quotemine, offering a subjective opinion without reasoning using debunked canards in a paper abstract that no one other than one of the authors per se has endorsed somehow makes ID scientific?

Yes, nobody has to endorse the paper to be scientific. I never saw where it says in the scientific method itself, that somebody has to endorse your view, for it to be scientific.

Well, obviously, since engineering is the exploitation of natural processes and forces to human ends and some scientific research at least depends on altering and manipulating natural events and processes in order to study the effects of said manipulation on the processes being studied.

Engineering is a product of design.

Bzzzz, say hello to arse backwards reasoning. Anything that is reverse engineerable must be engineered in the first place? And the empirical evidence to show that this invariably must be the case is? And it makes for a compelling argument how?

No, it simply claims that an engineerd world is a good working hypothesis for science.

The old "Let us attach things with a purpose" line of obfuscatory navel gazing, never mind the fact that attributing purpose to things automatically constitutes the use of question-begging, since it has to be demonstrated that everything is a mark of intenionality or that everything must have an intention in the first place.

We are not automatically attributing purpose to patterns. We are simply saying that it's a good hypothesis for scientific investigation.

The Anthropic Principle Canard and the Fine Tuning Canard rolled into one.

And you have shown them to be false how?

Satisfying? Appeal to emotion much?

Satisfying as in good scientific explanation.

Engineering Influence? Lack of evidence much?

Everything stated above is the evidence. The fact that we can describe the workings of the universe as parts of an engineerd machine is the evidence. If we couldn't describe it like that, like we can't with a random chunk of rock, then we wouldn't have any evidence for design. Just like we can't claim that a random piece of rock was designed. But we can claim that for certain other feautres of the universe. Because they very well fit the description of a designed mechanism.

Recognition of purpose? Begging the question much?

No, this is the starting hypothesis.

And all this notwithstanding the fact that practically nobody else except the author himself has taken the aforementioned opinions, even if we were to ignore the shoddy nature of the assertions contained in the abstract (since you haven't posted the full paper) seriously is yet another reason why your assertion that this somehow shows that ID is scientific is laughable.

No, what this shows is that pro-ID papers exist in scientific literature. Regardless of your opinion.

The fact that you quoted a snippet which didn't take the context of their subjective assertion making while asserting that they somehow had found teleological explanations the "most coherent" constitutes a quote mine ipso facto.

I would disagree. One of the authors of the paper was a guest at ID The Future podcast. So, yeah, he is obviously arguing for ID with this paper.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/01/a_be ... unive.html