Which peer-reviewed journals does Discovery Inst., Answers in Genesis, or CreationScience Inst. contribute to?

Question

Since intelligent design is another theory, at least on par with evolution, I'd like to know which peer-reviewed journals the theory has been published in!

Perhaps the theory is in the Journal Nature, Journal Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the Royal Society, perhaps? Or are they more specific, focusing instead on biology, and are their findings more likely to be in the Cell (journal), or Ecology Magazine?

The only thing I could come up with was this:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, has apologized for it and promised to review its editorial process as a result:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp

Answer 1

None. As you found out, they've had ONE paper published, which was later pulled and the journal apologized. Apparently it was slipped in without review -- subterfuge by religious people supposedly seeking the truth, how un-hypocritical :)

No, ID is not a theory on par with evolution or anything else. Scientific theories provide testable means of verifying their propositions -- ID does not.

If there wasn't such a battle going on over this it would be funny. The entire premise of ID is:
"There are things so complex that we don't understand them, therefore they must have come from god."

The conclusion -- they must have come from god -- would be laughed out of a courtroom as "assumes facts not in evidence." Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it came from god, it only means we don't understand it -- yet. Time is the thing they don't account for, time for human knowledge to grow. And even their initial premise doesn't work -- several of the things they've claimed as "so complex we don't understand them" now have solid evidence for natural understanding, so they have to keep revising what it is that we "don't understand." They keep running out of examples to use to "prove" their invalid conclusion.

It's not science. Not even the people who invented it think it's science, they know better. They're just trying to weasel their religious beliefs into schools, nothing more. And to do so they're deceptive, they lie, they deny existing evidence...
Sad, ignorant, silly people.

Answer 2

Morganie: actually one in all those you listed is an academic mag. some thing are all books! everybody with money and a writer can write a e book about inspite of they prefer. the single and really mag you stated (the Italian "Quarterly overview of Biology") did not even discuss sensible layout. It actually stated that there appears to be like a range organic and organic constants for which there is not any clarification. an honest scientist leaves it at that and is going out in search for for the reply, they don't only bull nonsense from their rear end and say "ok. it is the reply!". it is the concern with sensible layout advocates. They grab any hollow in the clinical counsel and use the hollow itself to justify their position "Oh properly you word! God ought to've performed it!". this is fantastic to have self belief God "did" each thing. yet "God" is a useless end answer. It nonetheless would not clarify how such constants arose, or if there is any importance to them. to respond to the question: i do no longer understand of a unmarried peer reviewed academic mag that explicitly endorses sensible layout, and that i have subscriptions to "Nature", and "Lancet" (medical). also, i have not seen a unmarried mag at my college that has recommended such. they only do no longer exist because sensible layout has been time and time back shown to by using definition no longer be technological know-how.

Answer 3

Intelligent design in not even an intelligent theory. But lets draw it out to it's logical conclusion. If god create man who created god? By extention of this theoru it would have to be another god. Jesus offend talke to his dad but at some point he started to say he was god. The only conclusion you could come to is that god his father died then Jesus became god. Other wise all those times he was talking to his dad, was really wacky.

Answer 4

In any other country, ID is considered ridiculous by the majority.

The fact that so many Americans support it and disbelieve evolution is a joke and makes our country look even dumber than our President and foreign policy already do.

Answer 5

All the "peer-reviewed journals" are highly biased toward evolution and will not allow any viewpoints to the contrary, no matter how much data has been gathered or how sound the arguments. It's really a joke, and when I hear people ask about peer-reviewed journals, it just makes me want to laugh. They don't even realize that those "peer-reviewed" journals are supporting a religion as well - the religion of evolution. It takes just as much faith to believe that a dog and a cat had a common ancestor (something unproved and unprovable) as it takes to believe that God did it. It's just a case of little boys saying, "You can't join my club."

Answer 6

I see evidence to support Genesis on the IamGod.com websites. That should be a big red flag to most people.

Answer 7

I don't think they should submit to peer reviewed journals. Their views are so radically different, their theories (if true) undermine the credibility of those reviewing them. Not a good situation for either camp.

Answer 8

Creationists are quacks at whom science laughs! Godzilla will crush them!