The Truth about the Dover Intelligent Design Trial

http://www.discovery.org Myth #1: There are no peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting intelligent design.

Judge Jones said that ID "has not generated peer-reviewed publications."

FACT: Judge Jones is simply wrong. Discovery Institute submitted an amicus brief to Judge Jones that documented various peer-reviewed publications, which he accepted into evidence. This is a fact based question which is hard to get wrong. The fact is there are peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design.

For a list of peer-reviewed ID papers go to: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

For the truth about the Dover intelligent design trial go to www.intelligentdesign.org.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/DiscoveryCSC
Website: http://www.discovery.org

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• science
• evolution
• Dover
• intelligent
• design
• Darwin
• Judge
• Jones
• Discovery
• Institute
• education
• philosophy
• creationism
• debate
• dawkins
• hot topics
• educational

[oaajbs]

@VaiRoth more to the point, you can't start a "science" journal for the purposes of reviewing you OWN materials and still call it peer review. That is impossible by definition. You lose discovery institute. I won't even dignify the name of your organization by capitalizing it.

[doGoNsIylbaborPerehT]

Surprise surprise there's some controversy regarding these "peer-reviewed" articles "supporting ID".

In fact enough controversy for at least two Wikipedia articles: "Darwinism,_Design_and_Public_­Education" and "Sternberg_peer_review_controv­ersy".

Of course that alone does not invalidate them but once again it looks like there's always some dishonesty around Intelligent Design. They just can't play by the rules.

That says a lot... :-/

[jinxxedlikeshit]

@oaajbs Sure you can, it's been done before, but the evidence has to be open to the community and revealed with all it is so others can test it, and since there are no tests made.... it's not peer reviewed, not falsifiable and not science at all, it's an assertion being tried, not what the assertion proclaims.

[jinxxedlikeshit]

There has not been ONE peer review of the evidence, not EVEN ONE. the reason being is that there has not been ONE study, not ONE, not ONE... get it?

Not even one study, just a counter to some things in Evolution which BTW have been fully disproven and rejected but hey, good job, you managed to get some scientists to work on an answer for them.

Michael Behe and his likes are just sitting around and despite being disproven, they persist.

THAT is pathetic.

[jinxxedlikeshit]

I saw the trial myself, and you are wrong.

[SqueakerAlpha]

the judge was entitled to allocate a "weight" to the evidence presented to him. He may have desided that since a bunch of witnesses for the defense chose NOT to appear after giving depositions that perhaps their testimony was less weight than the plaintiffs.

Since the DI appears to have no standing in this case they have no grounds for appeal.

[cyberpup1000]

Oh get a ife and stop bieng so silly. Reminds me of Grey's Elegy concerning the village school master "for even though vanquished he could argue still"

[AkasakaS2000]

Can they have a basic respect for science? Peer-reviewed doesn't mean that you review your own paper!

I respect anyone who does science out of intellectual curiosity and skeptical, honest questioning of the existing theory.

However...

Please, don't ever think of cheating your way through science. This disqualifies any of those who did that as scientists. Intellectual honesty is the minimal requirement for science.

[mrdarkevilme]

Well of course you would say that wouldn't you. The whole point of intelligent design is to rebrand creationism so it can get past the first amendment. Judge Jones's ruling means that you have failed and intelligent design has no reason to exist. It's no wonder you've got your panties in a bunch as a result.

[puffin51]

Intelligent design: the assertion that an intelligent agent created an unknown number of unspecified features of unspecified lifeforms. This was done an unspecified amount of time ago by unknown means for an unknown purpose, using a process that left no evidence whatsoever.

[dimefeet]

Typical creationist propaganda.

Fail.

[Waltham1892]

Wow, the points this video makes are really interesting.

Of course, they are bull shit.

Because if a word of it was true then they would have appealed the judge's verdict instead of posting video's on youtube.