What is creationism?

[SkepticThinker]

Your interpretation of the Dover trial varies wildly from others. And setting up a scientific priesthood to pass judgment on what is peer- reviewed or not is simply a method used to silence the dissenting voices against evolution, IMO.

It is actually a self-correcting method used to weed out the bad science.

 

[Skwim]

Here is a link to two articles which looks into every article cited by the Discovery Institute as being peer-reviewed evidence of intelligent design:

http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/intelligent-design-examined-peer-review/
http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/claims-peer-review-intelligent-design-examined/

In short, not a single article is credible as evidence for ID. They are either completely unrelated to I.D "science" - often as stated by the authors themselves - , or have been since retracted by the journals they were published in, or have not actually been subject to peer review and/or have only been published in creationist journals.

One of the publications listed in your links is

Article 6 – S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004)

• All we actually have here is an very bad attempt to reorganize already existing information. This article was not peer-reviewed according to the standards of the Biological Society of Washington, but rather slipped into the journal by an editor without proper review. The publisher repudiated the article; – Fail.

Meyer's article also appears at the top of the list in the link rusra02 gives for examples of "Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design." Here is a comment on the peer-reviewal of meyers submission.

"The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) is a respected, if somewhat obscure, biological journal specializing in papers of a systematic and taxonomic nature, such as the description of new species. A review of issues in evolutionary theory is decidedly not its typical fare, even disregarding the creationist nature of Meyer’s paper. The fact that the paper is both out of the journal’s typical sphere of publication, as well as dismal scientifically, raises the question of how it made it past peer review. The answer probably lies in the editor, Richard von Sternberg. Sternberg happens to be a creationist and ID fellow traveler who is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College in Tennessee. (The BSG is a research group devoted to the determination of the created kinds of Genesis. We are NOT making this up!) Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institute’s “100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism” statement. [3] Given R. v. Sternberg’s creationist leanings, it seems plausible to surmise that the paper received some editorial shepherding through the peer review process. Given the abysmal quality of the science surrounding both information theory and the Cambrian explosion, it seems unlikely that it received review by experts in those fields. One wonders if the paper saw peer review at all.

Although this critique has focused on the scientific problems with Meyer’s paper, it may be worth briefly considering the political dimensions, as the paper is likely to become part of the ID creationists’ lobbying machine. The paper has been out since early August, so it is somewhat puzzling that the Discovery Institute and similar groups have yet to publicize this major event for ID theory. Are they embarrassed at its sub-par (even by ID standards) content, or are they are waiting to spring it on some unsuspecting scientist at a future school board meeting or state legislature hearing? Regardless, once the press releases start to fly, responses to the paper should be careful to not assume facts not in evidence (such as the review, or lack thereof, of Meyer’s paper), and should be careful to distinguish between issues that are scientifically important and unimportant. Whether or not editorial discretion was abused in order to enable “intelligent design” to make a coveted appearance in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is not currently known, and is at any rate not the most important issue. The important issue is whether or not the paper makes any scientific contribution: does it propose a positive explanatory model? If the paper is primarily negative critique, does it accurately review the science it purports to criticize? The fact that a paper is shaky on these grounds is much more important than the personalities involved. Intemperate responses will only play into the hands of creationists, who might use these as an excuse to say that the “dogmatic Darwinian thought police” are unfairly giving Meyer and PBSW a hard time. Nor should Sternberg be given the chance to become a “martyr for the cause.” Any communication with PBSW should focus upon the features that make this paper a poor choice for publication: its many errors of fact, its glaring omissions of relevant material, and its misrepresentations of the views that it does consider.

The ultimate test of the value of a peer-reviewed paper is whether it spawns actual research and convinces skeptics. Applicability and acceptance in science, not in politics, is the ultimate test of proposed scientific ideas. As we have stated before, all ID advocates have to do is demonstrate to scientists that they have something that works. They need a positive research program showing scientists that ID has more to offer than “Poof, ID did it.”

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom – continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the “intelligent design” movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They’re not even playing the same sport.

Postscript

As we have said, the errors in this paper are too numerous to document more than a few here. We invite readers to find more mistakes and misrepresentations in this work and add them to our comments section, and/or email them to us to add to the full online critique.
source
Emphasis is mine. The source I've provided also takes a look at Meyer's claims as well.​

​

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know of any physicist that I have run across that believes that our universe is "an illusion". Secondly, exactly how do you supposedly know the "laws of God"? Which "laws"? How exactly do you know they "change little"?

Don't you?
Well, for starters, Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Google it, if you want to know what he meant. The 'laws of God' can be found in the Bible & Qur'an.
Just as an example .. in secular laws, marriage is no longer important and sexual orientation is irrelevant.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't you?
Well, for starters, Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Einstein was very well known for speaking in poetic, allegorical language. Are you honestly suggesting he was being literal?

Google it, if you want to know what he meant. The 'laws of God' can be found in the Bible & Qur'an.

Or, better yet, we could read more about Einstein's actual opinions instead of enforcing a religious viewpoint on the words of a man who roundly rejected traditional religion.

Just as an example .. in secular laws, marriage is no longer important and sexual orientation is irrelevant.

What does that mean and why is it relevant?

 

[metis]

Don't you?
Well, for starters, Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Google it, if you want to know what he meant. The 'laws of God' can be found in the Bible & Qur'an.
Just as an example .. in secular laws, marriage is no longer important and sexual orientation is irrelevant.

I have over a half-dozen books on Einstein, but what you have done is to not put what he said in context, and that context were his Theories of Relativity. If "Reality is merely illusion" in all regards, then why are you responding to my post above?

Also, how do you know that the "laws of God" are in the Bible and Qur'an? Provide such evidence, please. Are they also in the Bhagavad Gita? How about the Pali Canon?

"Marriage" is a legal contract, so it is automatically secular in nature. What a religion may or may not do in regards to marriage is of their choice, and religions vary on what they allow versus not allow. Regardless as to what a religion may believe about marriage, it is actually the country that establishes the laws of marriage.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have over a half-dozen books on Einstein, but what you have done is to not put what he said in context, and that context were his Theories of Relativity.

That is right .. and that's about the nature of the universe. Why do I have to spell it out for people? Aren't they able to put 2 & 2 together?

Also, how do you know that the "laws of God" are in the Bible and Qur'an? Provide such evidence, please.

You know very well which laws I refer to .. this constant call for evidence is rather childish..

"Marriage" is a legal contract, so it is automatically secular in nature. What a religion may or may not do in regards to marriage is of their choice, and religions vary on what they allow versus not allow. Regardless as to what a religion may believe about marriage, it is actually the country that establishes the laws of marriage.

And what has that to do with God's laws not changing while our secular ones are??
We don't have to go back many years to find that man's laws were more in line with God's.
Trust mankind's judgement by all means, but we have to accept the consequences.

 

[metis]

That is right .. and that's about the nature of the universe. Why do I have to spell it out for people? Aren't they able to put 2 & 2 together?


You know very well which laws I refer to .. this constant call for evidence is rather childish..



And what has that to do with God's laws not changing while our secular ones are??
We don't have to go back many years to find that man's laws were more in line with God's.
Trust mankind's judgement by all means, but we have to accept the consequences.

You have offered up nothing with the above-- no evidence and no logic. You obviously have never spent any time studying the ToR's, you don't understand what they actually do and do not say, and your charge of my response being "childish" is complete unadulterated nonsense. You cite Einstein, who was a scientist, and we in science rely on objective evidence, and yet you say I'm being "childish" when I ask for evidence?

Pathetic.

 

[Sapiens]

What are you trying to say? That only a few scientists like Einstein or Hawking are the only ones?

Mankind has been endowed with intelligence. They are able to investigate 'how the universe works' to some extent, unlike other creatures that we share this planet with .. and you expect me to believe that this was accidental, and that one day mankind will be more knowledgable than God?
Now that's absurd!

No, your's is an appeal to ignorance?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..
You cite Einstein, who was a scientist, and we in science rely on objective evidence, and yet you say I'm being "childish" when I ask for evidence?

What evidence are you looking for?
Do you even remember what subject is being discussed?

Why do people have to derail all threads to being about 'proof of God' ?
Stop pretending .. you might not agree with 'the laws of God', but that's something else .. not about the subject we were discussing

 

[Sapiens]

What evidence are you looking for?
Do you even remember what subject is being discussed?

What evidence have you got?

Why do people have to derail all threads to being about 'proof of God' ?
Stop pretending .. you might not agree with 'the laws of God', but that's something else .. not about the subject we were discussing

If there is no god, then there are no "laws of god" and your argument becomes completely ridiculous.

 

[Scott C.]

The belief that the world was created by magic, rather than mechanism; God rather than the natural laws of physics and chemistry.

I believe that God used the natural laws of physics and chemistry, including laws unknown, unimagined, and incomprehensible to mere mortals, to create the world. I consider that creationism. Do you?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Making assertions is not presenting evidence.

Exactly. So which part do you want me to present evidence for?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If there is no god, then there are no "laws of god" and your argument becomes completely ridiculous.

What is my argument?

 

[metis]

What evidence are you looking for?
Do you even remember what subject is being discussed?

Why do people have to derail all threads to being about 'proof of God' ?
Stop pretending .. you might not agree with 'the laws of God', but that's something else .. not about the subject we were discussing

Why don't you admit that you just cannot provide any objective evidence that there are any "laws of God"? Is that so difficult for you to admit that you just try and twist everything around and accuse me of being "childish"?

If you are going to try and use science, then let me recommend you use science and not the same kind of approach that was used in medieval mythology.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you are going to try and use science, then let me recommend you use science and not the same kind of approach that was used in medieval mythology.

I think that I'm wasting my time in this thread..
People are so at each others throats, they are blinded .. on both sides!

 

[Sapiens]

I think that I'm wasting my time in this thread..
People are so at each others throats, they are blinded .. on both sides!

Ah, the pigeon chess end game, figures.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ah, the pigeon chess end game, figures.

I'm sorry? Have you no manners at all?
You must be one of those 'evolutionists'

 

[Sapiens]

I think that I'm wasting my time in this thread.

I'm sorry? Have you no manners at all?
You must be one of those 'evolutionists'

Not very good at doing what you say you are going to, eh?

 

[Valjean]

I believe that God used the natural laws of physics and chemistry, including laws unknown, unimagined, and incomprehensible to mere mortals, to create the world. I consider that creationism. Do you?

That would be a deistic God, then, as the creation of the world did not involve any active intervention, just the natural interplay of existing laws. No active God required.

 

[Scott C.]

That would be a deistic God, then, as the creation of the world did not involve any active intervention, just the natural interplay of existing laws. No active God required.

That's not what I believe. I believe that God proactively created the world using his intelligence.