It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SCI/TECH: First Intelligent Design paper in scientific magazine already under attack

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:24 AM
Recently, the first ever scientific paper about Intelligent Design was submitted to the relatively unknown scientific paper Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article is "Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories.". Intelligent Design believes that all life was created by an intelligent designer and that macroevolution is not the cause of the current biodiversity. This paper is already under attack by other scientists.
The mistakes and omissions in Meyer’s work are many and varied, and often layered on top of each other. Not every aspect of Meyer’s work can be addressed in this initial review, so we have chosen several of Meyer’s major claims to assess. Among these, we will take up the Cambrian explosion and its relation to paleontology and systematics. We will examine Meyer’s negative arguments concerning evolutionary theories and the origin of biological “information” in the form of genes.

An expanded critique of this paper is in preparation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It is always good to have a healthy discussion about the current theories of science. However, there is much wrong with the paper. This article, Review of Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239 by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry, at the Panda's Thumb explains the worst problems with the paper.

Other articles about certain sections of the paper can be found in the Panda's Thumb's archives. These include posts about precambrian ancestors, universal genetic code and Meyer vs. Gilber.

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 06:13 PM

Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of “intelligent design” presented, just as in all previous work on “intelligent design”. Just as a detective doesn’t have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn’t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. “An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.

This phrase says it all about "Intelligent Design" Why do these fundamentalists keep trying to impose their views on the Public school system(And everyonelse to boot).
Im not really mad, just sad that people still wish we were in the intellectual dark ages...

[edit on 4-9-2004 by sardion2000]

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:50 PM
These religious types are silly. Can they or their supposed God do anything that goes against physics? No? I didn't think so.

In a way you almost have to feel sorry for these people. They so want to believe even when the facts won't support it.

But the trouble is they tend to be spendthrifts on many fronts. Proposing Theories/Ideas without reasonable proof is sort of like trying to get a loan without sufficient collateral. Maybe they are wishing for easy credit.

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 01:25 AM
Wow. Can the concept of Intelligent Design even be discussed? If not, then clearly science HAS BECOME the new religion. That's what I find sad about this.

Read this article on ID Theory. It's a fairly decent overview IMO. I am a scientist (by education not trade) and I found it quite interesting to say the least.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:18 AM
Okay we are looking at a concept "intelligent design," effective to the development of diversity in life, in the DNA factor.

So thinking that whatever religion attempts to consider about that "intelligent design," is a paucity compared with the actuality of the godliness about it, is a value that we may consider with an eye toward science rather than religious dogmatism.

Let us think about that, and remember that an expansive divine concept is about something far more than our folkways and religious terminologies could place in words. The faith part is a point about the ineffable, anything we say about it is also neither beneath nor below it, since reality does not deal with social hierarchies in any way shape or form as to life itself. It is rather a conveyence, a fiction to suggest that chemistry and physics involved in living processes is in any way part of a social hierarchy inclusive of religions telling us "what to believe."

If we remember Einstein once said "God does not play dice with the Universe," we may touch upon what science would have to theorize about the divine. In fact Science is a search for something more than our traditions and customs pretend to observe, that cultural factor placing blinders on what we are permitted to view. Neither should science do that. By the same token, when considering "intelligent design," one could think about it in the same light as Einstein, rather than say another typical TV preacher as "Elmer Gantry."

Sure I will go with the flow on this intelligent design thing, but only as would a serious and critical thinker. Beyond that I would still field into natural selection as not implausible if not the best and most useful explanation.

Unlike the author of this intelligent design paper, I argue that possibility as not necessarily implausible but also occasionally operating. It is too bad that scientists argue upon mutually exclusive premises.

I like the idea of "intelligent design," if only because it is less limiting, and may even point to say enlightened "space aliens," doing the same thing our scientists do when splicing DNA. But again say these hypothetical "space aliens," are doing it while being billions years ahead of us in useful experience. Presumably they are at an advantage, having discarded political absurdities and atrocities also billions of years previously.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by SkipShipman]

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:34 AM
Jammer, of course it can be discussed - it was when ID was brought up a half decade ago or more.

It was discussed, scrutinized, defended, and shelved. And people are still kicking at it trying to make it work.

The problem with the Evolution Vs. Creation fight, and the reason Evolution will win in the end:

The Scientific Theory of Evolution is comprised of and based upon hundreds of millions of facts and ideas that fit together quite alarmingly well. There are numerous holes in the theory, and it is definitely quite far from explaining everything, but it is the most logical, scientific explanation, and given time it could easily be expanded to tell the entire story of Organisms on earth, and perhaps elsewhere.

The Religio-Scientific Theory of Creation/Intelligent Design (Creation that allows for some Evolution, but not complete Evolution, Evolution from a specific set of starting creatures made by God.) is built upon Biblical accuracy, what the human mind can easily process in one fell swoop, (*Ahem, the old "How can a human be a monkey if there are still monkeys?" statement comes to mind.*) and of course, general contemporary religious beliefs as well as a double handfulled list of Evolution's holes, and natural anomalies that can't be explained by Evolution.

So, ask yoursef here, what's easier to knock down, a perfectly logical thought tree comprised of millions of sequential thoughts and ideas, a large amount of which have been tested, and that almost all seem to fit together, or something that could be described as "A Rag-tag group of facts, numbers, and texts, united in their crusade against a theory."

This is a story of biblical proportions, the story of Creation Vs. Evolution is going to be a longer, more drawn out version of David vs. Goliath, except this time, exactly what everyone expected to happen, will happen. Goliath shall triumph.

^^ That's all of my crazy-anti-creatiorants for today, onto the lighter stuff.

I don't get why the two theories can't go hand in hand. Apart from the Bible not being taken literally, and a couple of priests in the 1200's calculations of earth's age based on a literal point of view of the Bible, what part of religion is going to fall apart and die?

Say "God Created the universe, from a single nonexistent point, and exploded that point to what we see today, filling it with energy, and allowing the energy to cool to matter, which then, according to the laws that Our Lord set down, created us here today."

Really, why can't we have some bible that gives as accurate a depiction as science can give, but allows for the existence of some higher being? The two should not cancel each other out. The only beef I see rising is as follows:

Scientist: I'm sorry, but I will not let any unkown values exist. We can't work up to a certain point on solving a mystery then just say "Oh, for the rest, God did it!"
Theologist: Keep working as long as you like, God did all of it.
Scientist: Oh here we go, you always get like this, and stop listening.
Theologist: You're the one who stops listening!

and so on..

I have a Creationist friend. He's shockingly smart, we're both 16, and he's got most of the equations of relativity memorised in such a way that they're useable in a standard setting, ie, he wrote a program in a simple language, Turing, that tells you your mass (if you put it in) when travelling at x % of light speed - it also tells you the amount your body would be distorted. At the same time he's a gamer and a bit of a philosopher, yet he's about the most obstinate Creationist I've ever met. Oh well.

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:26 AM


The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings (“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (, and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence ( and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

The Council of the Biological Society of Washington
7 September 2004

Well even though it seems ID faithful have gotten what they wanted a paper published

My personal opinion on this matter has been well documented, I am open to all forms of arguments on this matter. With that being said Evolution has many holes in its theory, Creationism has HUGE holes in its theory if it can even be called that, and ID is still having a hard time seperating itself from Creationism. All of these telos for the origin of man require the subscriber to have a large amount of faith in the doctrines of one or the other. In the end I am still searching for the REAL answer whatever that may be and I have already surrendered to the idea that Mongo the Amazon God or any other number of deities may have actually been pulling the strings all along but I still need proof.

I gave up on pure faith a long time ago and even though evolution, ID, and creationism can all claim to be supported by certain scientific facts they all fall short of being an absolute truth. For now I am finished with my ramblings, I apologize to those who suffered through them.

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 10:52 PM
Here is a link to the actual article for all those who wish to read the article and formulate your on opinions.

new topics

top topics


log in