Wednesday, December 21, 2005
How is ID doing in the scientific community?
Anyway, for you, my reader, I've put together some of the papers that I'm familiar with that deal with some aspect of ID in a favorable way, or is specifically against neo-Darwinism in a way that is open to ID interpretations.
- Cell Biology International 2004: Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
- Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005: Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information
- Rivista di Biologia 2005: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
- Rivista di Biologia 2005:Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? (viewing centriole action as a holistically designed mechanism rather than having arisen through sequential adaptation)
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2002: On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of A Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System (not quite ID, but very critical of the neo-Darwinian establishment)
- Protein Science 2004: Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues
- Annual Review of Genetics 2002: CHROMOSOME REARRANGEMENTS AND TRANSPOSABLE ELEMENTS
- Journal of Theoretical Biology 2002: The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law
- Rivista di Biologica 2004: A Survey of Dynamical Genetics
- and of course, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 2004: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories (this was later withdrawn by the publisher, though they did note that it did in fact pass peer review)
In addition, there are a number of papers that are highly suggestive of design, including the ability of microbes to modify their genome intelligently and regulate the process, the ability of animals to sense predators and change the phenotype of their progeny, and the ability of organisms to alter their DNA to turn on specific sets of genes in response to environmental conditions all indicate that there is a system that is designed for environmentally-induced adaptations.
So, ID is alive and well, and is getting more attention in journals, not less. The only thing is that those publishing in those journals tend to keep quiet about actually using the _word_ Intelligent Design for fear of Sternberg-esque backlash. While still a minority viewpoint, it is present and growing, and has not, as many assert, been refuted by science.