I asked Google:
Have any of the peer reviewed scientific papers that the Discovery
Institute has claimed as supporting intelligent design creationism ever
been confirmed to be scientific support for intelligent design?
QUOTE:
The short answer is no. The broader scientific community does not
recognize any peer-reviewed paper as confirming or validating
intelligent design creationism.
The Discovery Institute frequently promotes a bibliography of articles
they claim support intelligent design. However, the vast majority fall
into one of two categories:
Mainstream Misattributions: These are legitimate scientific papers describing evolutionary mechanisms, genetics, or cellular structures.
The institute claims these findings inherently imply design, but the
authors of these studies and the broader scientific community state they
do not. For example, a paper by biochemist Michael Behe in Protein
Science was cited by the Discovery Institute, but the journal and
scientific community confirmed the paper provided no evidence for intelligent design.
Advocacy Literature: Other papers promoted as "peer-reviewed support"
are published in specialized, alternative journals created by
intelligent design advocates (such as BIO-Complexity or the Journal of Evolutionary Informatics). These lack objective, external scientific
peer review and are rejected as valid scientific evidence by mainstream institutions.
A high-profile example of this occurred during the landmark Kitzmiller
v. Dover Area School District trial. The Discovery Institute submitted
an amicus brief claiming that a review essay by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was a peer-reviewed paper supporting intelligent design. Following its publication, the governing council of the Biological Society formally released a
statement repudiating the paper, declaring it did not meet the journal's scientific standards and that its conclusions did not represent the society's consensus on intelligent design.
Ultimately, the presiding judge in the Dover trial concluded that intelligent design "has not generated peer-reviewed publications" and is
not considered a valid scientific theory.
If you want, I can:
Detail the findings of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial regarding peer review.
Explain the difference between mainstream science and intelligent design methodology.
Let me know if you would like to explore this topic further.
END QUOTE:
I asked the initial question because I have been unable to find anything produced by the ID perps or anyone else that demonstrates any scientific publications that they claim to support intelligent design is actually positive support for intelligent design.-a Anyone that understand the ID scam as it has been run for the last 30 years (since the mid 1990's)
should realize that any actual scientific support for intelligent design would not be any secret.-a It would obviously be a momentous scientific achievement that would be an amazing addition to our scientific
knowledge.-a Untestable claims are not scientific support for anything.
Both Behe and Minnich prevaricated that irreducible complexity was
testable in their Kitzmiller testimony, but the test that they both put
up was bogus and would likely never lead to any definitive answer, and
both acknowledged that they had never attempted the testing, nor have
they ever done so in the 20 years since Kitzmiller.-a All the ID perps
have are the claims with no attempt to verify the claims having ever
been attempted.
After Behe admitted the failure of IC (he admitted that IC systems could evolve, but kept claiming that his type of IC systems could not evolve)
at the turn of the century he was unable to demonstrate that his type of
IC systems, that could not evolve, existed in nature.-a Behe started claiming that 3 neutral mutations that had to have occurred in a single
cell lineage within some limited period of time to form a new function
would create his type of IC system.-a He no longer needed multiple parts, just multiple neutral mutations in the same gene.-a Behe has noted that
his claim was testable in that two neutral mutations had been identified
to have occurred to create a new function by other researchers.-a The components of Behe's IC systems would need to be subjected to
evolutionary sequence analysis and the ancestral sequence would have to
be inferred by looking at the sequence in related lineages that branched
off at the time that the IC system was evolving (or being designed).
Once the ancestral sequence had been determined the sequence could be evaluated in how it had changed through time to create the new function.
-aBehe has noted that 2 neutral mutations have been identified to have created a new function in steroid receptors that evolved over half a
billion years ago, but Behe has never tried to look for his 3 neutral mutations in his IC systems.-a There is no evidence that 3 neutral
mutations have ever been needed to form a new function.-a Such events
would have been very rare events, and all Behe could hope to figure out
was how those parts of his IC systems had actually evolved.
The Meyer's paper described by the Google answer was the infamous paper published in a taxonomy journal that did not publish such papers.
Sternberg was editor of the journal at the time and picked the peer reviewers instead of going through the normal peer review process for
the journal.-a Sternberg quit science and hasn't seemed to have published
a peer reviewed paper for the last 20 years.-a He has worked for the Discovery Institute since 2007.-a He has never produced any positive evidence for ID since joining the bait and switch scam.-a He was an invertebrate taxonomist, but could not use his research to support the
ID scam.-a His most talked about ID research has been his review of the
gaps in the whale fossil record.-a The Meyer paper was not any credible support for intelligent design.-a It was just the usual Cambrian
explosion gap denial (#5 of the Top Six and was dropped out of the Top
Six by Sewell in his attempt to make the Top Six more viable as support
for Biblical creationism).
I requested Google to: "Detail the findings of the Kitzmiller v. Dover
trial regarding peer review." as Google had offered to do.
QUOTE:
In the landmark 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III evaluated whether intelligent design
(ID) qualified as a scientific theory. A core component of the legal
test for what constitutes valid science was the presence of peer-
reviewed research.
The court's specific findings of fact regarding peer review ultimately exposed a complete lack of empirical, peer-reviewed support for
intelligent design:
1. The Complete Absence of Peer-Reviewed Literature
The court concluded that a final and definitive indicator of IDrCOs
failure to establish itself as science was the "complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." Judge Jones noted in
his final ruling that intelligent design had fundamentally failed to
publish its claims in peer-reviewed journals, engage in actual research
and testing, or find acceptance within the scientific community.
2. The 'Exquisite Importance' of the Peer Review Process
Mainstream scientists, including expert witness Dr. Kenneth Miller, testified that the peer review process is rCLexquisitely importantrCY to the progress of science. It functions as a strict quality control system
where empirical hypotheses are opened up to external experts for replication, criticism, and testing. The court noted that even the
defense's own chief expert witness, intelligent design proponent Dr.
Michael Behe, acknowledged the "publish or perish" rule of science. Yet,
the defense could not produce a single peer-reviewed research paper detailing positive, testable empirical evidence for intelligent design.
3. An Unreasonable Burden of Proof
The defense argued that mainstream scientific literature did not explain every single step of evolutionary history, particularly concerning
complex biochemical systems. However, the court found this argument logically flawed.
Dr. Miller presented the court with 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9
books, and numerous immunology textbook chapters detailing exactly how
the complex biochemical systems targeted by ID advocates had evolved. Despite this overwhelming evidence, Dr. Behe insisted it was still "not
good enough." Judge Jones ruled that the intelligent design argument
relied entirely on setting a "scientifically unreasonable burden of
proof" for evolution while failing to provide any peer-reviewed evidence
of its own.
4. Redefining Science to Fit Intelligent Design
During a pivotal cross-examination, Dr. Behe conceded under oath that
the definition of a scientific "theory" would have to be dramatically broadened for intelligent design to be included. He admitted that under
the loose criteria required to count ID as science, astrology would also qualify as a valid scientific theory.
Consequently, the court ruled that intelligent design is not science. Instead, Judge Jones declared it to be an "interesting theological
argument" that merely uses the same arguments as traditional creationism.
If you want, I can provide more information on:
The "Of Pandas and People" textbook evidence that proved ID was renamed creationism.
The specific biochemical systems (like the bacterial flagellum) that
were debunked during the trial.
Let me know how you would like to proceed.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a
professional. Learn more
END QUOTE:
Both Behe and Minnich admitted that they had done no research and
testing to support ID.-a Both prevaricated about being able to test irreducible complexity, and the both put up the same bogus test when no
one knew how to create the initial conditions for such a test, and that
was not a positive test for IC.-a It was a test that might indicate that
a system was IC by not being able to evolve a functional system, but any negative results would have just indicated that they likely did not get
the conditions correct for how the system had evolved in the first
place.-a Both admitted that they had never attempted any such testing,
nor have the done so in the last 20 years since Kitzmiller.-a Minnich did claim that his work on the bacterial flagellum indicated that if you
removed some parts that the system quit working, but Behe had already
noted that such an IC system could evolve, and that there was no
evidence that had found Behe's type of IC system could not evolve by
natural mechanisms.-a Behe has continued to claim that the flagellum may still be his type of IC because no one has developed a step by step mode
of how the flagellum evolved by natural mechanisms.-a So even though Behe has no evidence that his IC systems could not evolve, it is still
possible that they might be Behe's type of IC.-a Behe had come up with
his 3 neutral mutations, but Minnich had not done anything to support
that they existed in the flagellum.
It should be noted that even the non peer reviewed literature produced
by the ID perps has never contained positive testable evidence for intelligent design.-a YEC ID perps like Nelson would have never joined
the ID scam in order to support the Wedge religious and political goals
if the ID perps had, any positive and testable support for the Top Six IDiotic gap denial arguments.-a Like the positive and testable support
for biological evolution, any such support for the ID scam would have
just been more for creationists like Nelson to deny.-a Nelson would not
have accepted any positive support for the design of the flagellum over
a billion years ago, and he definitely would not have supported any
positive evidence for a designer being responsible for the Cambrian explosion when Meyer's argument for design depended on 25 million years being too short of a period of time for all the phyla to have evolved
over half a billion years ago.-a For a YEC like Nelson the creation is
only a few thousand years old.-a 25 million years may be too short of a period of time for natural mechanisms, but it was too long of a period
of time for his designer.
The fiasco of Behe's testimony about scientific theories is noted as possible perjury since his initial false statement was designed to
mislead the court, and is described in the Kitzmiller Wiki.-a The fact
that ID was not a scientific theory came out under cross examination.
QUOTE:
Michael Behe testified on the morning of 2005-10-17, day 10 of the
trial, that "... Intelligent Design is a scientific theory."[49] But in
his 2005-10-18 afternoon testimony, during cross-examination, Behe said
that his definition of a scientific theory differs from the accepted definition and would allow both the long-disproved ether theory of light (idea of luminiferous aether) and astrology to be classified as
scientific theories.[50] Since the standard definition of a scientific theory includes "... a well-substantiated explanation ...", Behe's
personal definition would allow for disproved ideas to be considered scientific theories, whereas the standard definition does not. Behe
defended his version of the definition of scientific theory as being one that is commonly used among scientists. Who these scientists are and
where they use the Behe definition was not clarified. But Behe's
employer, Lehigh University, in an undated proclamation, stated the department faculty's unequivocal support for evolution and "... It is
our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in
science ..."[51]
END QUOTE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
The ID perps still lie about having a scientific theory of ID to teach
in the public schools.-a After Dover they came out with their Briefing Packet for Educators where they claim that the Kitzmiller decision was
wrong and that even though ID was found to be no science worth teaching
in the public schools that it is still legal to teach ID outside of
Dover.-a The Bait and Switch ID scam has gone down 100% of the time any creationist rubes have wanted to teach ID in their public schools before
and after Kitzmiller.-a The bait and switch has been Discovery Institute policy since Meyer ran the first bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes
in 2002.-a The ID perps sell the rubes ID, but all the creationist rubes ever get is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing to do with ID.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
Ron Okimoto
On 7/7/2026 7:33 PM, RonO wrote:
I asked Google:
Have any of the peer reviewed scientific papers that the Discovery
Institute has claimed as supporting intelligent design creationism
ever been confirmed to be scientific support for intelligent design?
QUOTE:
The short answer is no. The broader scientific community does not
recognize any peer-reviewed paper as confirming or validating
intelligent design creationism.
The Discovery Institute frequently promotes a bibliography of articles
they claim support intelligent design. However, the vast majority fall
into one of two categories:
Mainstream Misattributions: These are legitimate scientific papers
describing evolutionary mechanisms, genetics, or cellular structures.
The institute claims these findings inherently imply design, but the
authors of these studies and the broader scientific community state
they do not. For example, a paper by biochemist Michael Behe in
Protein Science was cited by the Discovery Institute, but the journal
and scientific community confirmed the paper provided no evidence for
intelligent design.
Advocacy Literature: Other papers promoted as "peer-reviewed support"
are published in specialized, alternative journals created by
intelligent design advocates (such as BIO-Complexity or the Journal of
Evolutionary Informatics). These lack objective, external scientific
peer review and are rejected as valid scientific evidence by
mainstream institutions.
A high-profile example of this occurred during the landmark Kitzmiller
v. Dover Area School District trial. The Discovery Institute submitted
an amicus brief claiming that a review essay by Stephen C. Meyer in
the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was a peer-
reviewed paper supporting intelligent design. Following its
publication, the governing council of the Biological Society formally
released a statement repudiating the paper, declaring it did not meet
the journal's scientific standards and that its conclusions did not
represent the society's consensus on intelligent design.
Ultimately, the presiding judge in the Dover trial concluded that
intelligent design "has not generated peer-reviewed publications" and
is not considered a valid scientific theory.
If you want, I can:
Detail the findings of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial regarding peer
review.
Explain the difference between mainstream science and intelligent
design methodology.
Let me know if you would like to explore this topic further.
END QUOTE:
I asked the initial question because I have been unable to find
anything produced by the ID perps or anyone else that demonstrates any
scientific publications that they claim to support intelligent design
is actually positive support for intelligent design.-a Anyone that
understand the ID scam as it has been run for the last 30 years (since
the mid 1990's) should realize that any actual scientific support for
intelligent design would not be any secret.-a It would obviously be a
momentous scientific achievement that would be an amazing addition to
our scientific knowledge.-a Untestable claims are not scientific
support for anything.
Both Behe and Minnich prevaricated that irreducible complexity was
testable in their Kitzmiller testimony, but the test that they both
put up was bogus and would likely never lead to any definitive answer,
and both acknowledged that they had never attempted the testing, nor
have they ever done so in the 20 years since Kitzmiller.-a All the ID
perps have are the claims with no attempt to verify the claims having
ever been attempted.
After Behe admitted the failure of IC (he admitted that IC systems
could evolve, but kept claiming that his type of IC systems could not
evolve) at the turn of the century he was unable to demonstrate that
his type of IC systems, that could not evolve, existed in nature.
Behe started claiming that 3 neutral mutations that had to have
occurred in a single cell lineage within some limited period of time
to form a new function would create his type of IC system.-a He no
longer needed multiple parts, just multiple neutral mutations in the
same gene.-a Behe has noted that his claim was testable in that two
neutral mutations had been identified to have occurred to create a new
function by other researchers.-a The components of Behe's IC systems
would need to be subjected to evolutionary sequence analysis and the
ancestral sequence would have to be inferred by looking at the
sequence in related lineages that branched off at the time that the IC
system was evolving (or being designed). Once the ancestral sequence
had been determined the sequence could be evaluated in how it had
changed through time to create the new function. -a-aBehe has noted that
2 neutral mutations have been identified to have created a new
function in steroid receptors that evolved over half a billion years
ago, but Behe has never tried to look for his 3 neutral mutations in
his IC systems.-a There is no evidence that 3 neutral mutations have
ever been needed to form a new function.-a Such events would have been
very rare events, and all Behe could hope to figure out was how those
parts of his IC systems had actually evolved.
The Meyer's paper described by the Google answer was the infamous
paper published in a taxonomy journal that did not publish such
papers. Sternberg was editor of the journal at the time and picked the
peer reviewers instead of going through the normal peer review process
for the journal.-a Sternberg quit science and hasn't seemed to have
published a peer reviewed paper for the last 20 years.-a He has worked
for the Discovery Institute since 2007.-a He has never produced any
positive evidence for ID since joining the bait and switch scam.-a He
was an invertebrate taxonomist, but could not use his research to
support the ID scam.-a His most talked about ID research has been his
review of the gaps in the whale fossil record.-a The Meyer paper was
not any credible support for intelligent design.-a It was just the
usual Cambrian explosion gap denial (#5 of the Top Six and was dropped
out of the Top Six by Sewell in his attempt to make the Top Six more
viable as support for Biblical creationism).
I requested Google to: "Detail the findings of the Kitzmiller v. Dover
trial regarding peer review." as Google had offered to do.
QUOTE:
In the landmark 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III evaluated whether intelligent
design (ID) qualified as a scientific theory. A core component of the
legal test for what constitutes valid science was the presence of
peer- reviewed research.
The court's specific findings of fact regarding peer review ultimately
exposed a complete lack of empirical, peer-reviewed support for
intelligent design:
1. The Complete Absence of Peer-Reviewed Literature
The court concluded that a final and definitive indicator of IDrCOs
failure to establish itself as science was the "complete absence of
peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." Judge Jones noted
in his final ruling that intelligent design had fundamentally failed
to publish its claims in peer-reviewed journals, engage in actual
research and testing, or find acceptance within the scientific community.
2. The 'Exquisite Importance' of the Peer Review Process
Mainstream scientists, including expert witness Dr. Kenneth Miller,
testified that the peer review process is rCLexquisitely importantrCY to
the progress of science. It functions as a strict quality control
system where empirical hypotheses are opened up to external experts
for replication, criticism, and testing. The court noted that even the
defense's own chief expert witness, intelligent design proponent Dr.
Michael Behe, acknowledged the "publish or perish" rule of science.
Yet, the defense could not produce a single peer-reviewed research
paper detailing positive, testable empirical evidence for intelligent
design.
3. An Unreasonable Burden of Proof
The defense argued that mainstream scientific literature did not
explain every single step of evolutionary history, particularly
concerning complex biochemical systems. However, the court found this
argument logically flawed.
Dr. Miller presented the court with 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9
books, and numerous immunology textbook chapters detailing exactly how
the complex biochemical systems targeted by ID advocates had evolved.
Despite this overwhelming evidence, Dr. Behe insisted it was still
"not good enough." Judge Jones ruled that the intelligent design
argument relied entirely on setting a "scientifically unreasonable
burden of proof" for evolution while failing to provide any peer-
reviewed evidence of its own.
4. Redefining Science to Fit Intelligent Design
During a pivotal cross-examination, Dr. Behe conceded under oath that
the definition of a scientific "theory" would have to be dramatically
broadened for intelligent design to be included. He admitted that
under the loose criteria required to count ID as science, astrology
would also qualify as a valid scientific theory.
Consequently, the court ruled that intelligent design is not science.
Instead, Judge Jones declared it to be an "interesting theological
argument" that merely uses the same arguments as traditional creationism.
If you want, I can provide more information on:
The "Of Pandas and People" textbook evidence that proved ID was
renamed creationism.
The specific biochemical systems (like the bacterial flagellum) that
were debunked during the trial.
Let me know how you would like to proceed.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a
professional. Learn more
END QUOTE:
Both Behe and Minnich admitted that they had done no research and
testing to support ID.-a Both prevaricated about being able to test
irreducible complexity, and the both put up the same bogus test when
no one knew how to create the initial conditions for such a test, and
that was not a positive test for IC.-a It was a test that might
indicate that a system was IC by not being able to evolve a functional
system, but any negative results would have just indicated that they
likely did not get the conditions correct for how the system had
evolved in the first place.-a Both admitted that they had never
attempted any such testing, nor have the done so in the last 20 years
since Kitzmiller.-a Minnich did claim that his work on the bacterial
flagellum indicated that if you removed some parts that the system
quit working, but Behe had already noted that such an IC system could
evolve, and that there was no evidence that had found Behe's type of
IC system could not evolve by natural mechanisms.-a Behe has continued
to claim that the flagellum may still be his type of IC because no one
has developed a step by step mode of how the flagellum evolved by
natural mechanisms.-a So even though Behe has no evidence that his IC
systems could not evolve, it is still possible that they might be
Behe's type of IC.-a Behe had come up with his 3 neutral mutations, but
Minnich had not done anything to support that they existed in the
flagellum.
It should be noted that even the non peer reviewed literature produced
by the ID perps has never contained positive testable evidence for
intelligent design.-a YEC ID perps like Nelson would have never joined
the ID scam in order to support the Wedge religious and political
goals if the ID perps had, any positive and testable support for the
Top Six IDiotic gap denial arguments.-a Like the positive and testable
support for biological evolution, any such support for the ID scam
would have just been more for creationists like Nelson to deny.
Nelson would not have accepted any positive support for the design of
the flagellum over a billion years ago, and he definitely would not
have supported any positive evidence for a designer being responsible
for the Cambrian explosion when Meyer's argument for design depended
on 25 million years being too short of a period of time for all the
phyla to have evolved over half a billion years ago.-a For a YEC like
Nelson the creation is only a few thousand years old.-a 25 million
years may be too short of a period of time for natural mechanisms, but
it was too long of a period of time for his designer.
The fiasco of Behe's testimony about scientific theories is noted as
possible perjury since his initial false statement was designed to
mislead the court, and is described in the Kitzmiller Wiki.-a The fact
that ID was not a scientific theory came out under cross examination.
QUOTE:
Michael Behe testified on the morning of 2005-10-17, day 10 of the
trial, that "... Intelligent Design is a scientific theory."[49] But
in his 2005-10-18 afternoon testimony, during cross-examination, Behe
said that his definition of a scientific theory differs from the
accepted definition and would allow both the long-disproved ether
theory of light (idea of luminiferous aether) and astrology to be
classified as scientific theories.[50] Since the standard definition
of a scientific theory includes "... a well-substantiated
explanation ...", Behe's personal definition would allow for disproved
ideas to be considered scientific theories, whereas the standard
definition does not. Behe defended his version of the definition of
scientific theory as being one that is commonly used among scientists.
Who these scientists are and where they use the Behe definition was
not clarified. But Behe's employer, Lehigh University, in an undated
proclamation, stated the department faculty's unequivocal support for
evolution and "... It is our collective position that intelligent
design has no basis in science ..."[51]
END QUOTE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
The ID perps still lie about having a scientific theory of ID to teach
in the public schools.-a After Dover they came out with their Briefing
Packet for Educators where they claim that the Kitzmiller decision was
wrong and that even though ID was found to be no science worth
teaching in the public schools that it is still legal to teach ID
outside of Dover.-a The Bait and Switch ID scam has gone down 100% of
the time any creationist rubes have wanted to teach ID in their public
schools before and after Kitzmiller.-a The bait and switch has been
Discovery Institute policy since Meyer ran the first bait and switch
scam on the Ohio rubes in 2002.-a The ID perps sell the rubes ID, but
all the creationist rubes ever get is an obfuscation and denial switch
scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing to do with ID.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
Ron Okimoto
This is in my sent folder, but it never showed up on my reader.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/7/2026 7:33 PM, RonO wrote:
I asked Google:
Have any of the peer reviewed scientific papers that the Discovery
Institute has claimed as supporting intelligent design creationism
ever been confirmed to be scientific support for intelligent design?
QUOTE:
The short answer is no. The broader scientific community does not
recognize any peer-reviewed paper as confirming or validating
intelligent design creationism.
The Discovery Institute frequently promotes a bibliography of articles
they claim support intelligent design. However, the vast majority fall
into one of two categories:
Mainstream Misattributions: These are legitimate scientific papers
describing evolutionary mechanisms, genetics, or cellular structures.
The institute claims these findings inherently imply design, but the
authors of these studies and the broader scientific community state
they do not. For example, a paper by biochemist Michael Behe in
Protein Science was cited by the Discovery Institute, but the journal
and scientific community confirmed the paper provided no evidence for
intelligent design.
Advocacy Literature: Other papers promoted as "peer-reviewed support"
are published in specialized, alternative journals created by
intelligent design advocates (such as BIO-Complexity or the Journal of
Evolutionary Informatics). These lack objective, external scientific
peer review and are rejected as valid scientific evidence by
mainstream institutions.
A high-profile example of this occurred during the landmark Kitzmiller
v. Dover Area School District trial. The Discovery Institute submitted
an amicus brief claiming that a review essay by Stephen C. Meyer in
the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was a peer-
reviewed paper supporting intelligent design. Following its
publication, the governing council of the Biological Society formally
released a statement repudiating the paper, declaring it did not meet
the journal's scientific standards and that its conclusions did not
represent the society's consensus on intelligent design.
Ultimately, the presiding judge in the Dover trial concluded that
intelligent design "has not generated peer-reviewed publications" and
is not considered a valid scientific theory.
If you want, I can:
Detail the findings of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial regarding peer
review.
Explain the difference between mainstream science and intelligent
design methodology.
Let me know if you would like to explore this topic further.
END QUOTE:
I asked the initial question because I have been unable to find
anything produced by the ID perps or anyone else that demonstrates any
scientific publications that they claim to support intelligent design
is actually positive support for intelligent design.-a Anyone that
understand the ID scam as it has been run for the last 30 years (since
the mid 1990's) should realize that any actual scientific support for
intelligent design would not be any secret.-a It would obviously be a
momentous scientific achievement that would be an amazing addition to
our scientific knowledge.-a Untestable claims are not scientific
support for anything.
Both Behe and Minnich prevaricated that irreducible complexity was
testable in their Kitzmiller testimony, but the test that they both
put up was bogus and would likely never lead to any definitive answer,
and both acknowledged that they had never attempted the testing, nor
have they ever done so in the 20 years since Kitzmiller.-a All the ID
perps have are the claims with no attempt to verify the claims having
ever been attempted.
After Behe admitted the failure of IC (he admitted that IC systems
could evolve, but kept claiming that his type of IC systems could not
evolve) at the turn of the century he was unable to demonstrate that
his type of IC systems, that could not evolve, existed in nature.
Behe started claiming that 3 neutral mutations that had to have
occurred in a single cell lineage within some limited period of time
to form a new function would create his type of IC system.-a He no
longer needed multiple parts, just multiple neutral mutations in the
same gene.-a Behe has noted that his claim was testable in that two
neutral mutations had been identified to have occurred to create a new
function by other researchers.-a The components of Behe's IC systems
would need to be subjected to evolutionary sequence analysis and the
ancestral sequence would have to be inferred by looking at the
sequence in related lineages that branched off at the time that the IC
system was evolving (or being designed). Once the ancestral sequence
had been determined the sequence could be evaluated in how it had
changed through time to create the new function. -a-aBehe has noted that
2 neutral mutations have been identified to have created a new
function in steroid receptors that evolved over half a billion years
ago, but Behe has never tried to look for his 3 neutral mutations in
his IC systems.-a There is no evidence that 3 neutral mutations have
ever been needed to form a new function.-a Such events would have been
very rare events, and all Behe could hope to figure out was how those
parts of his IC systems had actually evolved.
The Meyer's paper described by the Google answer was the infamous
paper published in a taxonomy journal that did not publish such
papers. Sternberg was editor of the journal at the time and picked the
peer reviewers instead of going through the normal peer review process
for the journal.-a Sternberg quit science and hasn't seemed to have
published a peer reviewed paper for the last 20 years.-a He has worked
for the Discovery Institute since 2007.-a He has never produced any
positive evidence for ID since joining the bait and switch scam.-a He
was an invertebrate taxonomist, but could not use his research to
support the ID scam.-a His most talked about ID research has been his
review of the gaps in the whale fossil record.-a The Meyer paper was
not any credible support for intelligent design.-a It was just the
usual Cambrian explosion gap denial (#5 of the Top Six and was dropped
out of the Top Six by Sewell in his attempt to make the Top Six more
viable as support for Biblical creationism).
I requested Google to: "Detail the findings of the Kitzmiller v. Dover
trial regarding peer review." as Google had offered to do.
QUOTE:
In the landmark 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III evaluated whether intelligent
design (ID) qualified as a scientific theory. A core component of the
legal test for what constitutes valid science was the presence of
peer- reviewed research.
The court's specific findings of fact regarding peer review ultimately
exposed a complete lack of empirical, peer-reviewed support for
intelligent design:
1. The Complete Absence of Peer-Reviewed Literature
The court concluded that a final and definitive indicator of IDrCOs
failure to establish itself as science was the "complete absence of
peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." Judge Jones noted
in his final ruling that intelligent design had fundamentally failed
to publish its claims in peer-reviewed journals, engage in actual
research and testing, or find acceptance within the scientific community.
2. The 'Exquisite Importance' of the Peer Review Process
Mainstream scientists, including expert witness Dr. Kenneth Miller,
testified that the peer review process is rCLexquisitely importantrCY to
the progress of science. It functions as a strict quality control
system where empirical hypotheses are opened up to external experts
for replication, criticism, and testing. The court noted that even the
defense's own chief expert witness, intelligent design proponent Dr.
Michael Behe, acknowledged the "publish or perish" rule of science.
Yet, the defense could not produce a single peer-reviewed research
paper detailing positive, testable empirical evidence for intelligent
design.
3. An Unreasonable Burden of Proof
The defense argued that mainstream scientific literature did not
explain every single step of evolutionary history, particularly
concerning complex biochemical systems. However, the court found this
argument logically flawed.
Dr. Miller presented the court with 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9
books, and numerous immunology textbook chapters detailing exactly how
the complex biochemical systems targeted by ID advocates had evolved.
Despite this overwhelming evidence, Dr. Behe insisted it was still
"not good enough." Judge Jones ruled that the intelligent design
argument relied entirely on setting a "scientifically unreasonable
burden of proof" for evolution while failing to provide any peer-
reviewed evidence of its own.
4. Redefining Science to Fit Intelligent Design
During a pivotal cross-examination, Dr. Behe conceded under oath that
the definition of a scientific "theory" would have to be dramatically
broadened for intelligent design to be included. He admitted that
under the loose criteria required to count ID as science, astrology
would also qualify as a valid scientific theory.
Consequently, the court ruled that intelligent design is not science.
Instead, Judge Jones declared it to be an "interesting theological
argument" that merely uses the same arguments as traditional creationism.
If you want, I can provide more information on:
The "Of Pandas and People" textbook evidence that proved ID was
renamed creationism.
The specific biochemical systems (like the bacterial flagellum) that
were debunked during the trial.
Let me know how you would like to proceed.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a
professional. Learn more
END QUOTE:
Both Behe and Minnich admitted that they had done no research and
testing to support ID.-a Both prevaricated about being able to test
irreducible complexity, and the both put up the same bogus test when
no one knew how to create the initial conditions for such a test, and
that was not a positive test for IC.-a It was a test that might
indicate that a system was IC by not being able to evolve a functional
system, but any negative results would have just indicated that they
likely did not get the conditions correct for how the system had
evolved in the first place.-a Both admitted that they had never
attempted any such testing, nor have the done so in the last 20 years
since Kitzmiller.-a Minnich did claim that his work on the bacterial
flagellum indicated that if you removed some parts that the system
quit working, but Behe had already noted that such an IC system could
evolve, and that there was no evidence that had found Behe's type of
IC system could not evolve by natural mechanisms.-a Behe has continued
to claim that the flagellum may still be his type of IC because no one
has developed a step by step mode of how the flagellum evolved by
natural mechanisms.-a So even though Behe has no evidence that his IC
systems could not evolve, it is still possible that they might be
Behe's type of IC.-a Behe had come up with his 3 neutral mutations, but
Minnich had not done anything to support that they existed in the
flagellum.
It should be noted that even the non peer reviewed literature produced
by the ID perps has never contained positive testable evidence for
intelligent design.-a YEC ID perps like Nelson would have never joined
the ID scam in order to support the Wedge religious and political
goals if the ID perps had, any positive and testable support for the
Top Six IDiotic gap denial arguments.-a Like the positive and testable
support for biological evolution, any such support for the ID scam
would have just been more for creationists like Nelson to deny.
Nelson would not have accepted any positive support for the design of
the flagellum over a billion years ago, and he definitely would not
have supported any positive evidence for a designer being responsible
for the Cambrian explosion when Meyer's argument for design depended
on 25 million years being too short of a period of time for all the
phyla to have evolved over half a billion years ago.-a For a YEC like
Nelson the creation is only a few thousand years old.-a 25 million
years may be too short of a period of time for natural mechanisms, but
it was too long of a period of time for his designer.
The fiasco of Behe's testimony about scientific theories is noted as
possible perjury since his initial false statement was designed to
mislead the court, and is described in the Kitzmiller Wiki.-a The fact
that ID was not a scientific theory came out under cross examination.
QUOTE:
Michael Behe testified on the morning of 2005-10-17, day 10 of the
trial, that "... Intelligent Design is a scientific theory."[49] But
in his 2005-10-18 afternoon testimony, during cross-examination, Behe
said that his definition of a scientific theory differs from the
accepted definition and would allow both the long-disproved ether
theory of light (idea of luminiferous aether) and astrology to be
classified as scientific theories.[50] Since the standard definition
of a scientific theory includes "... a well-substantiated
explanation ...", Behe's personal definition would allow for disproved
ideas to be considered scientific theories, whereas the standard
definition does not. Behe defended his version of the definition of
scientific theory as being one that is commonly used among scientists.
Who these scientists are and where they use the Behe definition was
not clarified. But Behe's employer, Lehigh University, in an undated
proclamation, stated the department faculty's unequivocal support for
evolution and "... It is our collective position that intelligent
design has no basis in science ..."[51]
END QUOTE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
The ID perps still lie about having a scientific theory of ID to teach
in the public schools.-a After Dover they came out with their Briefing
Packet for Educators where they claim that the Kitzmiller decision was
wrong and that even though ID was found to be no science worth
teaching in the public schools that it is still legal to teach ID
outside of Dover.-a The Bait and Switch ID scam has gone down 100% of
the time any creationist rubes have wanted to teach ID in their public
schools before and after Kitzmiller.-a The bait and switch has been
Discovery Institute policy since Meyer ran the first bait and switch
scam on the Ohio rubes in 2002.-a The ID perps sell the rubes ID, but
all the creationist rubes ever get is an obfuscation and denial switch
scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing to do with ID.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
Ron Okimoto
This is in my sent folder, but it never showed up on my reader.
Ron Okimoto
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 55:01:18 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,444 |