The brilliantly written 139-page decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District drove a stake through the heart of the intelligent design (ID) movement. Besides tracing the shameful origin of ID back to its primitive ancestor, full-blown creationism, Judge Jones also detailed the numerous ways in which ID fails to qualify as science. We wrote about that and quoted Jones’ opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science?, where the judge said:
As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
But since that humiliation, which caused the Discoveroids to return to Seattle with their tails tucked between their legs, and carrying not only their heads but also their backsides, which had been handed to them in the courtroom, they haven’t been idle. No, they’ve taken the Kitzmiller opinion and attempted to use it as a road-map to the promised land of intellectual respectability. As we said in The Intelligent Designer’s Identity Crisis:
The obvious failure of the Discoveroids’ “theory” to qualify as science (it’s an untestable, unfalsifiable concept) has goaded them into erecting a Potemkin village that simulates the appearance of scientific activity, complete with their own captive “peer reviewed” journal (BIO-Complexity), and their own creation science lab (Biologic Institute), and their own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation (Discovery Institute Press). Their imitation of the accouterments of science has caused intelligent design to be described as a cargo cult.
We’ve posted before about their attempts to get their “theory” into the professional, peer-reviewed literature. For example, see Discovery Institute’s Long March to Respectability, and also Discovery Institute: Their Peer-Reviewed Papers. We described the Discoveroids’ desperate publishing campaign as “getting insignificant survey articles published in journals that are the scientific equivalent of Toilet Tissue Technology Today.”
With that background you can appreciate the latest article we found at the Discoveroids’ blog. It’s by Klinghoffer, and the title is Where’s the Beef? Here It Is. Klinghoffer claims he got this question from a reader:
I was listening to the Michael Medved show and the debate between Casey Luskin and Zack Kopplin, and Casey mentioned that there are hundreds of mainstream peer-reviewed science papers that show critiques of some mainstream ideas of evolution. I would be very interested in a list of all of these papers. Masatoshi Nei was one scientist mentioned and I am interested in learning about more scientists who also critique the common Darwinian views. It is very tough to find any critiques of evolution in the mainstream so this would be very helpful!
Here’s what Klinghoffer says, with bold font added by us:
We got some ruder responses as well. But he is politely asking, “Where’s the beef?”
Over the years we’ve been watching, it’s been obvious to us that there isn’t any beef. But who knows? Maybe they’ve really got something. Klinghoffer continues:
There is no complete bibliography available at present for one-stop shopping, though volunteers are encouraged to start working on the formidable task of assembling one right now.
The “formidable task”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is great! Okay, here comes the beef:
Meanwhile, just for starters, see here. Check out our:
That first link takes you to a list of stuff compiled by Discoveroids Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells at the start of 2004. That was before the Kitzmiller case at the end of 2005, when it was established that they had no peer-reviewed publications, so we can ignore that 2004 collection. The second link is to a list compiled in February of 2012. The first item was published by Baylor University, and we’ve already discussed that paper in Discovery Institute: Their Peer-Reviewed Papers, where we said:
Specifically, it’s a survey of the evolution-creationism controversy. Even more specifically, it’s a survey of the alleged “weaknesses” of the theory of evolution, such as the origin of life, the so-called irreducible complexity of some cellular features, the artificial distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, the scarcity of transitional fossils, etc. It cites the writings of various creationist authors, such as Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc. — footnote 36 even cites Casey Luskin! In other words, this peer-reviewed article of which the Discoveroids boast is just like a Discoveroid blog article.
The other items are mostly by Discoveroid authors. If there were any genuine research that had described verifiable evidence of intelligent design we would have heard about it, so we won’t spend any time going through this material. But if you, dear reader, want to delve into that trove of scientific lore, go ahead. If you find something, let us know.
Klinghoffer concludes with this:
To mix metaphors, that is the tip of the iceberg. [And then he gives a few more links that don’t interest us.]
Is that the tip of an iceberg, or the last glimpse of a sinking garbage scow as it slips beneath the waves? We’ll let you decide. It shouldn’t be difficult.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.