Creation Science House Bill 3826

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thanks for the kind words.

You want to apply the same yardstick to measure both abiogenesis and ID, the amount of ¨research¨ being done.

No. When I compare ID and abiogenesis, all I can offer is philosophy. Both are viable hypotheses in the sense that they are logically possible and that neither can be ruled in or out at this time. I have said that they can be ordered in terms of likelihood of being correct, however, according to Occam's principle of parsimony - the simplest hypothesis that accounts for all of the relevant evidence s the preferred one until such time as new evidence makes a different hypothesis more tenable. I am not saying that naturalistic abiogenesis occurred. I am saying that it is the likelier of only two possibilities that I can conceive for the origin of life in the universe without reference to the amount of research done on either..

Regarding research, what I have said is that if we have two competing ideas for how reality is, and one is correct, we ought to see more and better progress being made investigating the one that has a correlate in reality. If Bob and Tom are each suspected of committing the same crime, and one of them but not the other is guilty, should, how should we expect the investigation ("research") of the two of them to progress.Is t meaningful if we keep finding circumstantial evidence implicating Tom, but little or none implicating Tom?

This is the situation with ID and abiogenesis investigations. We keep finding ways that simple chemistry can self-organize itself spontaneously under specified conditions thought to have existed in nature when this process is thought to have occurred, but no analogous findings suggesting intelligent design. This is proof of nothing just as we have not proven Bob guilty, but the findings to date are more than meaningless. They help us decide where to focus our attention and resources looking for answers.

Abiogenesis enthusiasts simply do not address the issues of things like where did the matter come from that produced life, and they usually ignore questions of why, substituting chance in itś place.

The origin of matter is not not part of the origin of life problem. Wherever matter came from, it is logically possible that life might have arisen spontaneously from it thereafter. or that life required an intelligent designer.

We have a very good idea of where matter came from. The standard Model for cosmology describes the evolution of matter from the first tiny fraction of a second of the universe's life when the first particles appeared through the decoupling of matter and light associated with the cosmic microwave background radiation, and beyond to the first formation of stars and galaxies.

This moves the origins problem back to whatever is the source for the singularity. We have naturalistic hypotheses there as well. My favorite is the multiverse hypothesis, which proposes the existence of an unconscious substance that has always existed, and which produces uncounted universes of every possible type, including ours. What so appealing about this hypothesis is that it can account for the fine tuning argument, and does so with invoking the existence of a conscious, potent, volitional agent such as a god..

So you want scientific evidence of Divine creation.

I'd like to see any evidence that supports the divine creation hypothesis better than its alternative, abiogenesis. That evidence can be physical, a compelling argument, or a combination of these.

What would you expect me to provide ?

Anything that you think might convince a rational skeptic - a person who needs a sound reason to believe that which he believes. What have you seen that convinced you?

You allude to an interesting tangent that we might take someday - is there any evidence conceivable that could only be explained by assuming the existence of a god. I can't imagine what that would be. What evidence, including such astonishing and superhuman things such as the stars in the night sky being shuffled about to spell out, "I am your god," couldn't be the result of an exceptionally advanced alien race that itself arose and evolved naturalistically, but now has godlike powers? None, to my knowledge and imagination.

If so, who could convince us that they were a god or a race of gods, and not just pretending to be so?

You tell me life arose from non living matter

Yes, the first life in the universe either arose in passive obedience to the blind laws of nature, or under the direction of a divine intelligence. I think that you agree, correct?

If I can impeach your science evidence, and as you have pointed out, there are only two possibilities, my position becomes more tenable.

Agreed, although others here do not. I have often read the opinion that ruling out naturalistic abiogenesis does not rule divine creation in, but I don't see how that can be if we agree that one of them is correct.

Good discussion. Thanks.

Incidentally, did you want to refute my rebuttal I made earlier to one of your arguments? Or if not, to explicitly agree with it? Shouldn't you do one or the other?

 

[Jollybear]

False equivalence. We are fully aware of the process which creates books and are unaware of any natural process that produces them. DNA reproduces naturally.

So books are not produced naturally? I know thats not what you meant to say is it?

DNA produces naturally? How?

But it isn't the same thing, no matter how you try and interpret it. It is still just physical forces acting in accordance with physical laws. You first have to demonstrate an intelligence exists that created it before you can meaningfully assert design.

If you see what looks like a code of instructions, is it such a leap to infer intelligence?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

So books are not produced naturally? I know thats not what you meant to say is it?

DNA produces naturally? How?



If you see what looks like a code of instructions, is it such a leap to infer intelligence?

Can you prove that the designer is real?
What objective evidence do you have?

 

[ecco]

I know nothing about ICR, I have never read anything from them or gone to their site.

And I have never heard of a creationist who has never heard of the Institute for Creation Research.

I sure am glad that no atheist scientist has ever lied and been censured for bogus science and research. ( LOL )

Do religious scientists ever lie?
Are there any religious scientists?



ETA: I should note that you have contributed greatly to the topic of this thread: christian-creationist-ignorance-and-idiocy-still-shining-bright

 

[Polymath257]

So books are not produced naturally? I know thats not what you meant to say is it?

Whenever there is a book produced, there is some intelligence that helped produce it.

DNA produces naturally? How?

This happens all the time in living things. And, it requires no intelligence to make it happens. It happens just as readily in bacteria as it does in humans.

If you see what looks like a code of instructions, is it such a leap to infer intelligence?

Except that is NOT what DNA actually looks like. It is actually a chemical signal to promote other chemical reactions that lead to protein formation. It really doesn't look like a book of code or a blueprint or anything like that.

 

[Jollybear]

So, now, let's consider whether the arrangement of 'letters' on the strand of DNA is more likely the result of a guiding intelligence as opposed to the more complex process of natural selection.

Sometimes, you see, the best signal for an intelligence is the *simplicity* of the design. Think of a well designed machine: every part fits together perfectly with every other part. There is efficiency and simplicity of common design.

Things that are produced by natural selection, on the other hand, are unnecessarily complex. They are jury-rigged, have things that are spliced together, have duplications that have no effect, use similar structures for wildly different tasks, etc. The whole still works, but it is far from being streamlined or simple.

What do we see in DNA? The second and not the first. The 'book' has randomly ordered directions, often conflicting, often turned off, often duplicated, repetitious in unnecessary ways, having a lot of nonsense (strings of the same letters in the same order over and over), etc.

Wheres the evidence (source) that DNA is like that?

Even if DNA is repetitious, and randomely ordered, it still information.

When i drop off deliveries everyday, i get many copies of bill of ladens. I sign each one. All those copies are repetitious. But, its still comes from intelligence.

This is what is produced by selection and NOT by a designer!

Natural selection does not account for the origin of the information itself.

Natural selection to DNA is like a editor is to a book. Ok, but the book still originates with intelligence.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Wheres the evidence (source) that DNA is like that?

Even if DNA is repetitious, and randomely ordered, it still information.

When i drop off deliveries everyday, i get many copies of bill of ladens. I sign each one. All those copies are repetitious. But, its still comes from intelligence.



Natural selection does not account for the origin of the information itself.

Natural selection to DNA is like a editor is to a book. Ok, but the book still originates with intelligence.

You have still failed to provide objective evidence of a designer or god.

 

[Polymath257]

Natural selection does not account for the origin of the information itself.

Yes, actually, it does. Duplication of genes and subsequent mutation produces information.

Natural selection to DNA is like a editor is to a book. Ok, but the book still originates with intelligence.

Any evidence of this in the case of DNA?

 

[Jollybear]

We do not know. He certainly believed in a God as creator - so did virtually everyone else as there was no other explanation.

So did vertually everyone else!? Man you atheists are beyond irrational in things you say. There wer just as much atheists around then as now. Humans dont change much through history. Percentages will remain relatively constant.

And to say newton would not be a God believer if he lived after Darwin is to say he was a dumb a s s who held to his heliefs without deep thought into it. I strongly dont think thats how he was.

There was plenty of evidence given by the science side.

I don't think it is me who is burying my head!!

Oh yes, your head is burried DEEP.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence.
ID scientists will gain respect when they publish papers for peer review. Until they do that they are just make believe.

They have, but theres resistance. Stephen myer published his. Then there was a ruckus about it and the guy who let it in lost his job.

You and the science community wanna criticize the IDers about publishing peer review journals, but when they do, theres resistance. And the resistance is not brought with refutation, but handwaving.

 

[Jollybear]

You exist, there is no evidence that you engage in critical thinking ... quite the opposite.

Your right, there is no evidence i engage in critical thinking. Theres proof i do.

Please list a few of your publications, or stop pretending that you have "done research too."

Im not a scientist. Also why should i listen to you? Whats your credentials and publications? And yes, ive done research. Does that make me perfectly informed? Absolutely not. Nor are you. Thats why you had to throw at me a mammoth article in your other post. I wonder if you even read what you gave me.

Shakespeare got to make up words, you are not anywhere near his level.

I was never interested in shakespear and i dont care what level he was at. And Ill make up words if i want to and theres not a dam thing youl do about it.

stephen myer (sic) is not to be taken seriously and is far from famious (sic) for anything except his scientific incompetence and predilection for duplicity.

Heres your problem, you wanna belittle me and my sources that i trust, but dont wanna have a deep discussion of the evidence.

Ok, well, move along, go find some other sucker to belittle, who will tolerate it, because i wont.

 

[Jollybear]

"Dave" blogs:

One of the many variations of modern creationism (the folks that claim ‘god did it’ is the right answer) is called “Intelligent Design”. There they attempt to refute evolution via the promotion of scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, and also attempt to make it more palatable by omitting all religious terms from what is essentially a religious claim. Well, if they wish to take a scientific approach, then this becomes quite interesting because this is a measurable claim, all we need to do is to take a look and see if they have published any credible peer-reviewed articles within any recognised scientific journals.

Does this matter? Sadly yes it does, a good percentage of the public do still seriously doubt the reality of evolution as a well-established scientific fact, they have been successfully conned by some supposedly credible claims, so it is indeed appropriate to throw a spotlight upon the intelligent design community and reveal that their aura of credibility is simply an illusion.

Almost two years ago, I went through the list of Peer-reviewed articles posted up by the Discovery Institute, a well-financed US-based group that promotes Intelligent Design. What did I find? … (Oh come on, you can guess) … yes, that’s right, exactly nothing, they did not have anything credible, not one jot.

They have since then revised their list and greatly extended it, so the time is now right for a return visit to this bastion of creationist “peer-reviewed” fodder.

The title remains the same, “PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED)“. My approach will be the same as last time – basically apply an initial filter to remove the junk, then take a look at what remains. But first, there is an observation to be made about some initial commentary they have added. They now make this claim …

Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper.

Seriously!! … Origin of Species, published in 1859, was not published in a peer-review journal, so that justifies adding books to their list. Do they not know that the Peer review process has only been a touchstone of the modern scientific method since the middle of the 20th century. No, the bottom line here is simple, books are out, anybody can publish anything (Harry Potter is evidence that Magic is real … right?), if they wish to refute evolution and propose an alternative, then they need to engage with the scientific community with real data, and publish it within a credible and appropriate scientific journal.

The Filter

OK, on to my initial filter:

• There are articles from a Journal called BIO-Complexity : This is not a credible peer-review journal, instead it is a creationist journal issued by the Biologic Institute. They in turn are funded by the Discovery Institute … yes, it is their own pet journal and has exactly zero credibility within the scientific community, we can ignore all that.
• There are also articles from Life : Yet another journal that has no scientific credibility and is treated as something to laugh at, we can ignore that as well.
• The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics : This is a fringe publication of the featherweight Wessex Institute of Technology, in other words it is also not a real scientific journal, but is simply a vanity journal that publishes papers written by its own editors. McIntosh, the author of a listed paper, is on their Editorial Board, and one of their other editors is the young earth creationist Stuart Burgess
• Papers published as part of the proceedings of a conference are not recognised peer-reviewed journals, we can ignore these.
• Chapters within books are not peer-reviewed journals, so they can also be tossed.
• Peer-Edited and Editor-Reviewed articles are not peer-reviewed articles … finding these tossed in to inflate the list really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
• Articles in Philosophy journals … er no, we can ignore these, if you want to make claims regarding biology, you publish in a biology journal, and you also need real data.
• Anything by David Abel, all his papers consist entirely of non-evidentially supported, non-laboratory confirmed, pure fabrication (I let a couple through this filter so that you can see what I’m on about). About 17% of the list is by him and can happily be ignored.
  • Least you pause on the thought of a named individual being a filter, it is simply a short-cut to eliminate papers that are long-winded assertions that contain no data at all — no experiments, no measurements, and no observations … nada. Should he write a paper that contains some analysis of actual data, then this filter does not apply.
  • So who exactly is this guy? He is David Abel, Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life. Science Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr. Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA, at least that is the title on his papers. Wow, sounds impressive … but google that address and you discover it is an ordinary residential house. Yes, the entire foundation is in his garage, and he is the sole representative. Somebody checked him out, this impressive sounding title and organization is a sham and is not real. The claimed title is completely fraudulent.
  • But why does he get published? … well because Abel is making an argument, of sorts, and is backing it up with a reasonable amount of scholarship and some fancy sounding mathy stuff. On the surface it looks credible, so you need to read it all several times to work out that the assertions being made are not actually credible. Rarely do you find bull**** so tortuously Byzantine as the stuff churned out by him, which I guess is by intention.

What do we have left after filtering?

Well, let's take a look at the remains, go to: Claims of Peer Review for Intelligent Design examined ... and debunked • Skeptical Science

I clicked on the article that just gives a general argument to each journal and then says fail.

That in itself is a fail.

The other mammoth part, sorry, im not gonna read all that. Ill scan through it and pick some things out if you want to discuss it, but if not, carry on.

Oh wait, it wasnt mammoth, that was comments. Oops.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Your right, there is no evidence i engage in critical thinking. Theres proof i do.



Im not a scientist. Also why should i listen to you? Whats your credentials and publications? And yes, ive done research. Does that make me perfectly informed? Absolutely not. Nor are you. Thats why you had to throw at me a mammoth article in your other post. I wonder if you even read what you gave me.



I was never interested in shakespear and i dont care what level he was at. And Ill make up words if i want to and theres not a dam thing youl do about it.



Heres your problem, you wanna belittle me and my sources that i trust, but dont wanna have a deep discussion of the evidence.

Ok, well, move along, go find some other sucker to belittle, who will tolerate it, because i wont.

What objective evidence do you have for discussion? You finally going to provide evidence of a god?

 

[Jollybear]

What objective evidence do you have for discussion? You finally going to provide evidence of a god?

Im sorry, i know you have kept posting to me, but this backlog of posters is alot to get ahead of. Im thinkin mayby i should summerize or something.

The DNA is the evidence. We are going through it in bits here.

 

[Jollybear]

Know why the Discovery Institute doesn't push for it? Because they know it's against the law. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. And do you know why they say school districts should focus on the so-called "problems" of evolution? Because it's all they have left. And guess who's at the ready to supply them with these so-called "problems," Yup, you guessed it.

Why would they say they dont believe its unconstitutional if they know it is? People dont truely believe something is true if they know its false. That just dont make any sense. Basically what it boils down to is your calling them liers. You dont trust them. Thats really it. I believe them. In fact i even told you i dont believe its unconstitutional. I said also the constitution is not against evidence.

They may say they believe, there is nothing unconstitutional about discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom., but they know there is. And, of course, they oppose efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in a pedagogically appropriate manner." And so do I. I don't believe wishing for anything is a "persecutable" (prosecutable?) offense.

Its not unconstitutional because ID is not religion. Its simply not.

Read it again

JB, and carefully. In part:

Peer-reviewed scientific journals in which scientists favorable to intelligent design have published their work includeProtein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling,Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews,​

Note that it doesn't say they've published papers on creationism in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It simply says there are scientists who have published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which, for all we know, could be on the issue of Peanut Butter or Jelly First on a PB & J Sandwich. who also happen to be "favorable to intelligent design." It ain't the same, and, unfortunately, the Discovery Institute is relying on just such weasel words to mislead people, as it has you.

By definition a peer review details its information. So, it will be sourced. It will state who the author is, the publisher, ect.

Its not like a penut butter sandwich article, lol.

But, the scientists favorable to ID, that isnt a bad thing, it simply means the OTHER scientists are BIASED against ID. And biased is NOT objectivism.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Im sorry, i know you have kept posting to me, but this backlog of posters is alot to get ahead of. Im thinkin mayby i should summerize or something.

The DNA is the evidence. We are going through it in bits here.

Is DNA the evidence for a god?

 

[Polymath257]

So did vertually everyone else!? Man you atheists are beyond irrational in things you say. There wer just as much atheists around then as now. Humans dont change much through history. Percentages will remain relatively constant.

Simply false. As our understanding of the universe has changed, so has the percentage of those who don't believe in the local deities. For example, during the 4th and 5th centuries, there was a LOT of religious fervor and superstition in western Europe. During the 18th century, it became much more possible to be an atheist that was intellectually honest. Today, with how much we have learned over the past 100 years, it is much eaiser to disbelieve in the religious stories that were commonly accepted in the past.

The percentages change pretty dramatically. newton lived in a time of a lot of religious fervor. Today, not so much.

And to say newton would not be a God believer if he lived after Darwin is to say he was a dumb a s s who held to his heliefs without deep thought into it. I strongly dont think thats how he was.

Well, we have no way of knowing. But it is not as difficult to be an atheist as it used to be. Most of the standard arguments for the existence of God have been soundly refuted (first cause, design, etc) by thinkers since Newton lived (Hume, for example).

Oh yes, your head is burried DEEP.

Says the person who denies that science has evidence.

They have, but theres resistance. Stephen myer published his. Then there was a ruckus about it and the guy who let it in lost his job.

You and the science community wanna criticize the IDers about publishing peer review journals, but when they do, theres resistance. And the resistance is not brought with refutation, but handwaving.

Even peer review journals make mistakes. The question is what consensus develops based on the evidence published in such journals.

Im sorry, i know you have kept posting to me, but this backlog of posters is alot to get ahead of. Im thinkin mayby i should summerize or something.

The DNA is the evidence. We are going through it in bits here.

Well, you have to be a LOT more specific about what it is about DNA that provides the evidence for your case. Be specific: what strands do you see as giving the clearest signal? Why do you think no other process could arrive at the DNA that we see?

Im not a scientist. Also why should i listen to you? Whats your credentials and publications? And yes, ive done research. Does that make me perfectly informed? Absolutely not. Nor are you. Thats why you had to throw at me a mammoth article in your other post. I wonder if you even read what you gave me.

Well, I very much doubt you have done what a scientist would call research (as opposed to what a journalist would call research). You have probably looked at a few articles in popular magazines and decided from their what best corresponds to your preconceptions.

Sorry, but that isn't research. At the very least, you have to do a *thorough* literature search, which means reading research level articles in peer reviewed journals. That means having enough background to understand what those articles say.

Heres your problem, you wanna belittle me and my sources that i trust, but dont wanna have a deep discussion of the evidence.

Ok, well, move along, go find some other sucker to belittle, who will tolerate it, because i wont.

it isn't about belittling you. But your sources are not reliable. I would suggest that you take a few references from whatever source you use and go check whether the references actually say what yor sources says they do. That alone can show how honest or dishonest the sources are. I have done this with many creationists claims and have found they lie. Habitually.They *expect* nobody to check them. They expect people to take what they say at face value. So they lie freely and easily, unfortunately.

 

[Jollybear]

Is DNA the evidence for a god?

Yes.

 

[Sapiens]

Your right, there is no evidence i engage in critical thinking. Theres proof i do.

Please present said proof(s).

Im not a scientist.

Really? I'd never have guessed.

Also why should i listen to you? Whats your credentials and publications? And yes, ive done research.

Please tell us what you researched and where your results were published.

Does that make me perfectly informed? Absolutely not. Nor are you. Thats why you had to throw at me a mammoth article in your other post. I wonder if you even read what you gave me.

Why would you wonder that?

I was never interested in shakespear and i dont care what level he was at. And Ill make up words if i want to and theres not a dam thing youl do about it.

Please do. I makes you look foolish and ill-educated and that makes your claims less credible.

Heres your problem, you wanna belittle me and my sources that i trust, but dont wanna have a deep discussion of the evidence.

You belittle yourself, no need for me to, and your choice of sources to believe just puts the nail in your coffin of belief.

Ok, well, move along, go find some other sucker to belittle, who will tolerate it, because i wont.

Then walk away with your tail between your legs and put me on ignore.

I clicked on the article that just gives a general argument to each journal and then says fail.

No, under each remaining reference there are bulleted and succinct refutations, then there is a supported conclusion ... as a journal article they FAIL! If you fail to understand that, it is you who fails.

That in itself is a fail.

The failure(s) belong to the author(s) and to you. The author(s) fail for the bulleted reasons and you fail because you do not understand the bulleted reasons.

The other mammoth part, sorry, im not gonna read all that. Ill scan through it and pick some things out if you want to discuss it, but if not, carry on.

Oh wait, it wasnt mammoth, that was comments. Oops.

We are waiting for your insights concerning the bulleted reasons.

Why would they say they dont believe its unconstitutional if they know it is? People dont truely believe something is true if they know its false. That just dont make any sense. Basically what it boils down to is your calling them liers. You dont trust them. Thats really it. I believe them. In fact i even told you i dont believe its unconstitutional. I said also the constitution is not against evidence.

Its not unconstitutional because ID is not religion. Its simply not.

No, the court found that ID is a religion ... that is how we affirm or reject constitutionality is the US of A.

By definition a peer review details its information. So, it will be sourced. It will state who the author is, the publisher, ect.

Its not like a penut butter sandwich article, lol.

But, the scientists favorable to ID, that isnt a bad thing, it simply means the OTHER scientists are BIASED against ID. And biased is NOT objectivism.

There are a few crackpots and failed scientists favourable to ID, do you really believe that the vast majority of the best minds on the planet are all biased against ID? Why would that be? Have you ever considered that perhaps their rejection of ID is based on knowledge and finely tuned critical judgement?

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, actually, it does. Duplication of genes and subsequent mutation produces information.

I can get 10 duplicate copies of bill of laden papers from shippers, the last copy may have smudged ink or loss of ink (e.g. mutation) but none of that accounts for the origin of the bill of laden itself. The origin is intelligence.

Any evidence of this in the case of DNA?

Well, what is natural selection? Its omition of weak or bad things in favor of strong or good things. So, DNA, gets edited. That is selection going on.

As i make this post and submit it, if i see i placed a period in a wrong spot or if i did a typo, i can press edit and naturally select it out by fixing it.

Anyhow, you asked for a source that says DNA has this happen.

Heres an exerpt from Life’s deliberate typos

"Typos creep into the transcripts. Some of these are genuine errors where the wrong letter is put in place – proofreading proteins usually fix these mistakes. Other typos are deliberate edits – for example, proteins called deaminases will often convert some As into Gs, and (more rarely) some Cs into Us."

 

[Skwim]

Why would they say they dont believe its unconstitutional if they know it is?

Could it be because they want to dupe people? Of Course It Is! They are hell bent on trying to save the veracity of Genesis, and with their back up against the wall, thanks to court rulings, it's about all they have left: duping people. And as with all pro-creationism organizations, misleading and lying to its readers is now a matter of course.

People dont truely believe something is true if they know its false.

No, but many will say they do if it profits them, which in this case is done to dupe the reader into buying their creationist tale.

Basically what it boils down to is your calling them liers.

Yup, but not in this particular case, Here their aim is to mislead the inattentive reader. Don't pay attention to every word and you'll come away with just the misunderstanding they are hoping for.

You dont trust them. Thats really it.

Should be obvious, I hope. Not only have they never given me reason to trust them, they've given me plenty of reason to distrust them.

Its not unconstitutional because ID is not religion. Its simply not.

Of course it isn't a religion, but it is a religious belief, which is why the courts outlawed it in public schools.

By definition a peer review details its information. So, it will be sourced. It will state who the author is, the publisher, ect.
Its not like a penut butter sandwich article,

Sorry you missed the point. Try reading it again, C A R E F U L L Y. Or here, in edited form:

"it doesn't say they've published papers on creationism in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

It says there are scientists who have published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Scientists who also happen to be "favorable to intelligent design."
​

All of which can only elicit a "So What?" Particularly after they said:

"9. Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?

YES!"
​

Which isn't backed up by a thing they said. They were very careful not to tie the work their scientists did to creationism, but slyly and by innuendo left the impression there was just such a connection.

By the way, the "open-access peer-reviewed biology journal BIO-Complexity," they tout, is an ID organization. Not an accredited scientific review journal.

In short, those behind the Discovery Institute are charlatans.

.

.