____
A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. The paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. But critics say that it could still be used by advocates of intelligent design to get the subject on to US school curricula (see Nature 416, 250; 2002).
The article comes from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, a leading promoter of the theory. In the article, senior fellow Stephen Meyer uses information theory and other techniques to argue that the complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by darwinian evolution (S. C. Meyer Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117, 213–239; 2004).
_____
I thought people who participate in these threads would appreciate that bit on info.
As far as the Ring of Life study, as usual it won't be discussed in any coherent manner here.
Aye, there's the rub. To argue that something "cannot be explained" by blah, blah, blah. This is a purely subjective judgment, (substitute 'opinion.')
The criticism referenced by VR in post #10 goes into some detail on this point but how many times do we have to revisit the same invalid arguments?
One cannot "Prove a Negative" (i.e., "cannot be explained") and even if one could - that wouldn't prove a "Designer" since another explanation not yet considered may be the actual answer.
Therefore, proving evolution wrong does not prove anything other than evolution is wrong. This has not been done and cannot be done. Evolution can be abandoned for lack of evidence, but not 'proven' wrong.
Proving the existence of a "Designer" apriori to the experience of the "designed," which is the prerequisite of proof that life is "designed" is logically impossible.
Thus the question shifts from - is there any evidence for the theory of evolution - to - is there any evidence for anything else? And this, so far, is what has never been done.
The latest release from the journal says the article in question got by their otherwise good peer-review process and that the journal in question regrets publishing the article. 'Course, you'll never post that -- creationists prefer partial truths, as they help the creationist cause.