FAQ 3 Open for Comment
|February 26, 2009||Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design|
3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research
Judge Jones of Dover and those who follow him are simply wrong: despite opposition and harassment, there is a significant and growing body of ID-supportive research and peer-reviewed scientific publications. (For instance, the Discovery Institute maintains a list of such research-based publications here. [In an earlier form, this list was actually submitted to Judge Jones, but he unfortunately ignored the brute facts it documents when he wrote his ruling based on misleading and inaccurate submissions by the NCSE and ACLU.])
A few plain words are also in order. For, there has been significant harassment and career-busting that have been targeted at ID proponents. For example, Dembski and Marks were recently forced by Baylor to return a research grant due to the implications of the research possibly being in favor of ID. ID proponents desire to increase the amount of research being done but Darwinists usually block the way. (If you are making this argument then how can you not see the hypocrisy in saying that ID proponents should do research then blocking or opposing every attempt to do so?)
Moreover, it is important to remember that biological research, when properly done, is an example of science at its best: an impartial search for true data and explanations about our world, based on empirical evidence. Such findings are “owned” neither by darwinists nor by IDists. For, at the end of the day, good scientific research is good scientific research, period.
Furthermore, even if the researcher has a specific starting point and conviction, or arrives at specific conclusions, his data are a property of the whole scientific community, and can be legitimately evaluated and interpreted by all. In that sense, all biological research is ID research (or, if you want, darwinist research). ID and darwinism are different, and under many aspects mutually exclusive, theoretical interpretations of the causal origin of biological information. That’s why any new acquisition of biological data has relevance for both.