Here is another post to mark Darwin Day.
The pro-intelligent design (ID) internet echo chamber has been making a big thing of late about “peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design.” Their “Center for Science and Culture” has even published an updated list. (PZ Myers has provided a more accessible version of the list at More bad science in the literature).
This of course does raise some questions about what they mean by “peer review” and the real nature of some of the journals these papers are in (have a look at their in-house journal Bio-Complexity). But leaving those issues aside for now I just don’t think any of these papers are reporting “ID research.”
The nature of “ID research”
To me research supporting intelligent design should postulate some structured hypotheses for ID and seek to test them or validate them against reality. But none of the articles do that. Most, especially ones that are published in credible journals, deal with aspects of evolutionary science.
Sure they may postulate a problem, an example or issue where they feel current science does not have an answer. That’s what I expect in a scientific paper. Identification of problems and reporting work on them.
Like all areas of science, evolutionary science has its so far unanswered questions, its problems and anomalies. perfectly natural and perfectly acceptable to identify and investigate them. But calling such work “supporting intelligent design” is just dishonest. No specific ID hypotheses have been advanced, let alone tested.
This always seems to be the case for any list of “peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting ID.”
“Theistic science” – or argument by default
Nor, by the way, do these papers display any example of the alternative to “materialist” science. Their declared aim of replacing modern science with a “theistic science.” (See Wedge Strategy and Theistic science? No such thing). If they were doing any work like this why isn’t that demonstrated by the publications? I would love to see examples of such research and identify the different methods characteristic of such science.
To list these papers as supporting ID is simply assuming that any criticism, any problem, any gap in evolutionary science is, by default, evidence for ID.
Relying on cranks
Another issue with this publication list which does supply some mirth is the frequent occurrence of publications by David L. Abel (17% of total list). He has raised some attention because he published a paper in the journal Life which had recently received attention for its publication of the whaky paper “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life,” by Erik D. Andrulis. (See The comparison to jabberwocky is inevitable for PZ Myers’ in depth discussion of that paper). Abel’s article is titled “Is Life Unique?” – Myers describes this as “Intelligent Design creationism crap,” and “drivel” (see More bad science in the literature). But Myers was impressed with Abel’s address and affiliation:
Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc., 113-120 Hedgewood Drive, Greenbelt, MD 20770
“That’s every intelligent design creationism institute of scientific thinking: a cheap sign tacked up on a garage, with some guy with delusions of competence twiddling his thumbs inside.” (see Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation)
Abel himself describes his institute as a “science and education foundation with corporate headquarters near NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center just off the Washington, D. C. Beltway in Greenbelt, MD.” If you are not careful in your reading you might assume he was actually based at a NASA site!
And here is the information on Abel held in his profile at the ID journal
David L. Abel
|Affiliation||The Gene Emergence Project; The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation|
|Bio statement||Director, The Gene Emergence ProjectDepartment of ProtoBioCybernetics & ProtoBioSemioticsThe Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc.|
These lists of “peer reviewed papers supporting ID’ are getting rather desperate.