Creation Bits

Many people say things such as "ID has been refuted by the scientific community". Unfortunately, lay people have very little ability to confirm or refute such pronouncements, and basically have to take them or reject them on authority or faith. The fact is, science journals do not have articles like "is ID true or not" or "lets bury neo-Darwinism". For example, the best anti-neo-Darwinistic paper I've ever read is On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of A Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System. And the abstract discusses how the paper will analyze the functioning of repetitive DNA in genomes. Of course, if you actually read the paper, it includes about a 6-page destruction of neo-Darwinism buried within it. So, short of reading the scientific journals themselves, there is very little a lay person can do except to take the word of self-appointed science publicizers on how well Darwinism or ID is doing in the scientific field.

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Society of Washington 2004: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories (this was later withdrawn by the publisher, though they did note that it did in fact pass peer review)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.