Those do not contain ID evidence. Please quote where, in those papers, he states that the data discussed shows that life was designed by a god or other intelligent being, and supports it with evidence.
BTW, two obscure and insignificant articles from the single most important and accomplished scientist in the ID movement. That tells you all you need to know. Compare that to the output of one single evolutionary scientist, who is the frequent target of Behe’s criticisms. As a Freudian psychoanalyst, I have some thoughts on what’s going on there.
Yeah to be clear, there is no positive evidence for ID in those papers. Behe has attempted to argue that they detail evidence against evolution(but even that isn’t actually concluded in the papers).
But even were that the case, that’s not evidence for ID. IDcreationists of course confuse those two (evidence for ID vs evidence against evolution) all the time.
first: i dont think that falsification is the only test for scientific claim. i think that any scientific claim that we can test is scientiifc. including the abillity to prove it and not only to falsify it. second, we cant flasify evolution either, so i see no difference.
and how you suggest to do that? you need to suggest such a test to check it. if you cant then we cant test this idea either.
and how do you know that? how you can prove that if we see 2 fins of 2 different fish its not the result of convergent evolution? (or convergent design). if we cant prove that it will be just an assumption.
Easy enough. Phylogenetic analysis. It should work within kinds but fail between kinds. Since we find no level of the tree of life beyond which analysis fails, life is one “kind”.
Don’t you think there is a good deal of bad faith to blame ID scientists for not publishing their positive evidences in professional scientific journals when these same journals are wielding the rule of MN to prevent them from doing so?
There are two possible reasons for not being able to falsify something - either because it’s true, or because it is compatible with all possible observations. The latter is not the case for evolution.
A fossil record without faunal succession would falsify evolution. A fossil record without correlation between successive faunas would falsify evolution. A lack of correlation between hierarchies inferred from different data sets (e.g. morphology and genetics) would falsify evolution, or at least common descent.(The ID movement didn’t have the courage to put money into DNA sequencing in an attempt to falsify evolution; the scientific community did.) A biota in which different groups of organisms have different, uncorrelated, genetic codes would falsify evolution, or at least common descent. That evolution hasn’t been falsified doesn’t means that it’s philosophically speaking unfalsifiable; it means that it’s well supported by observation.
Do you concede that the existence of junk DNA falsifies ID, or was the ID movement mistaken when they offered this as a test of ID?
So you think evidence for “Intelligent Design” is necessarily supernatural, and so impossible to discover using methodological naturalism, aka empirical methods?
Not at all. That’s just a lame excuse the ID-Creationists give to their scientifically illiterate True Believers since they have no positive evidence, no actual scientific research or results to publish. ID-Creationists don’t even bother to submit their nonsense for peer review because they know it won’t come within a mile of passing. It’s easier and cheaper for them to whine and cry “censorship!” than it is to do any actual scientific work.
If there was any actual positive evidence for ID-Creationism it would be all over social media and the internet. But there isn’t. There is just Christian apologetics disguised as pseudo-science and pushed by a single religious organization, the Discovery Institute. That’s all, brother.
Wow. That story clearly has been spun beyond any resemblance to the actual facts in the tiny echo-chamber you seem to inhabit. The problem in the Steinberg affair was that Meyer’s article was published by a person sympathetic to his creationist claims thru bypassing the peer-review process. So it is a perfect illustration of @Timothy_Horton’s claim.
No - because there is no such rule, because there’s no indication that ID papers are being rejected, because MN isn’t what you think it is, because MN isn’t relevant to what the IDers are doing, and because the IDers keep claiming that they aren’t talking about ‘God’ anyway.
Time after time it’s been claimed that IDers can’t get published because of bias against them, and time after time they’ve been unable to show that they’ve even tried to get anything published except via nefarious routes to sneak irrelevant poor-quality work past the review process.
There is no conspiracy among editors to suppress positive evidence for ID - there’s only a lack of submissions, and given the ‘quality’ of the ID papers that have been self-published there’s one obvious reason why they haven’t submitted their work to the scientific peer-review process: their work is appallingly bad.
That would be the time when an IDer didn’t submit his nonsense paper which didn’t contain any positive evidence or actual research to peer review because he knew it wouldn’t come within a mile of passing. Right?
Then there should be a gap in the lineage of one or the other fish where an ancestor had major adaptations to its fin only to reappear again later. If it simply lost its fin it’s possible that the trait was suppressed and not actually lost, genetically.
For example, if penguin descendants were to regain flight, then the morphology would have to adapt from what was available. Penguin fin bones are solid but flight wing bones are hollow. So the penguin would need to reduce weight and maintain strength, but coming up with the same genetic code for hollowness doesn’t have to be the only solution.
Every profession sets its boundaries and rules. Methodological naturalism is the rule framework agreed to by the scientific community. If you want your publication to be regarded as scientific by the scientific community, it has to conform to MN. Full stop.
Someone who wants to discuss the philosophical implications of phenomena reported by scientists is free to publish to a different community such as philosophy or religion where MN is not the norm.
