The ID Publication Record

(Ann Gauger) #1

Here you go.

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:

The Abuse of Science by Scientists?
(T J Runyon) #2

Here’s part one of a three part series examining the peer-reviewed literature listed on the DI’s website that is supposedly supportive of ID

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #3

@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?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #4

Very interesting paper worth reading. I am pretty sure it was pulled by the editors, which is a shame.

(Ann Gauger) #5

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.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #6

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?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #7

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.

(Ann Gauger) #8

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.,

The Abuse of Science by Scientists?
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #9

That is a fair request. It does not take a lot of papers to make an important point. It is not about the quantity, but the quality.

I will point out again, however, that I’ve been saying publicly since summer 2017 that @Agauger’s population genetics work is distinct.

(Ann Gauger) #10

[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.

@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.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #11

I can see that, and also want to identify him as an exception on important and critical things.

That is right. Do you see what is different about this work and why it has had a larger impact?

(T J Runyon) #12

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!

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #13

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.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #14

I agree.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #15

Thanks for the EvoGrad article. It was a well done assessment of ID publications.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #16

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.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #17

Not sure what you are getting at here, but I think his work does, indirectly, advance the validity of Christian beliefs.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #18

What I am getting at is … too hard to explain. I am going to delete the thought. Senior moment.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #19

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.

(T J Runyon) #20

Fair point @swamidass