Selected List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design
The list below provides bibliographic information for a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:
@Agauger I’ve seen this list before and read most of them very carefully. Do you know why your work has been received more positively then, for example, Dembski’s, Axe’s, and Behe’s work?
No. Their arguments are worth reading, and point out some significant observations concerning biological processes and searches through probability space. Some of the work you dislike I contributed to.
I know you would say the human origins work is better because it is mathematical and quantifiable. And testable. I think the above work is laying the groundwork for more testable models like mine.
How did that lay the ground work for you? I can see any reason you couldn’t have done this work in a secular institution, without reference to them? It seems one of your team members is doing the same. In what has been taken up by others, what about this has anything to do with ID.
There is more than just this too. Do you really not see the large differences (to your credit) in your work?
I have read them closely and agree they are are worth understanding. Reserving the right to identify exceptions, I’ve found them to have important errors. It is not about “liking” them, and it is not that just because you’ve become a friend that I like your direction. There are several large differences between your population genetics work and this prior work.
@T.j_Runyon,
The list I provided has been cleaned up some to eliminate non-peer reviews or dubious journals. I can’t eliminate ad hominem in this report you cite. All I ask is that you look at the papers themselves. These peer reviewed articles. Bio-Complexity sends out to 3 referees, at least 1 or more are not ID.,
[quote=“swamidass, post:6, topic:1017”]
How did that lay the ground work for you? I can see any reason you couldn’t have done this work in a secular institution, without reference to them? It seems one of your team members is doing the same. In what has been taken up by others, what about this has anything to do with ID.
[\quote]
@swamidass,I did not claim that other ID work laid the groundwork for what I am doing. I made the claim that the work that has been done is laying the groundwork for future ID research that will be more quantitative, like Winston Ewert’s work.
My work is only tangentially related to ID. It in part addresses the question of common descent between chimps and humans. The question of our relatedness based on genetic differences and similarities is of great interest to many people. Richard Buggs has recently published his review of the genetic similarity between chimps and humans.
I’m sorry, but the review I linked to was very civil and well researched and even praised the work of Denton. The author even said along the lines we shouldn’t rush to judgement, let’s examine the papers. I saw no Ad-Homs. Now I know ID’ers do face some vicious words. But you can’t fall back on that accusation every time someone criticizes you. I saw nothing rude in that review. The reviewer just cleaned up the list. Obviously you thought it needed cleaning up as well. I’ve looked at a handful of those papers and I’ll be sure to get to the ones i haven’t. Thanks!
Thanks for sending these papers. I perused them but I did read the ones published in IEEE Transactions and Journals. I didn’t see anything that supports the existence of an Intelligent Designer or anything resembling Intelligent Design in any of them. All data presented seem to be suggestive and evidence of purely well known natural processes. Can you point me to evidence and data supporting such extraordinary claims of ID.
You work doesn’t relate to ID at all. Addressing the common descent of chimps and humans is part of active scientific research that you contributed to. The active scientific research has been going one for over a hundred years and includes the contributions of thousands of researchers in many disciplines of the sciences.
Dr. Buggs is a scientist who has made many contributions to science.
Perhaps, but I’m not sure how it is applicable to the list posted by @Agauger. She seems to have posted a different list, that is much more carefully chosen.