Home » Intelligent Design » Help us compose a standard anti-intelligent design disclaimer for research papers!

Help us compose a standard anti-intelligent design disclaimer for research papers!

Friend Malcolm Chisholm writes to say,

Some fascinating research on electron transport chain proteins from Princeton.

These guys say:

“Our new theory extends Darwin’s model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness.”

Apparently they have self correcting proteins, but they seem to think it goes beyond that to proteins that can find optimal energy levels.

“In this paper, we present what is ostensibly the first quantitative experimental evidence, since Wallace’s original proposal, that nature employs evolutionary control strategies to maximize the fitness of biological networks,”

Oddly, they cite as an inspiration A. R. Wallace, Darwin’s co-founder of the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection (whose ID views gave Darwin regular heartburn).

They also feel the need to deny the possibility of ID. Apparently no publication in this area is complete without one. Maybe such denials should be turned into a standard disclaimer, like the ones at the bottom of email messages for these guys.

And maybe if William Paley had stubbed his toe on an atomic clock they would still claim it was produced by chance.

That’s an idea! Why not compose a standard disclaimer that all these people can just insert at the bottom of their papers: Something along the lines of “Please rest assured that this intricate machinery is not designed, no matter what it looks like.” But doen up in obfuscated research paper style.

List, can you help?

While we are here, more fun with Chisholm,

About circumcision, believe whatever you like: Darwin certainly did.

Darwin’s co-founder Wallace accepted intelligent design?

His online evolution games:

A physicist directs you to online evolution games

Master of the games: Richard Dawkins vs. you

Rainy morning? Try out this new game!

(Note: If you evolve any trolls, do not send screen captures to Uncommon Descent. We do not sponsor beauty contests for trolls. Just delete the file and start over.)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

12 Responses to Help us compose a standard anti-intelligent design disclaimer for research papers!

  1. How about:

    “Some readers might be tempted to infer from the data we have presented that an intelligent agent somehow played a role in [insert as appropriate "bringing about the irreducibly complex system described herein” or “creating the highly complex and specified information investigated herein”]. The authors hereby certify that creating this temptation was not their purpose in writing the [article, book, etc.]. Any such temptation is a wholly unintended side effect of the work, and it is devoutly to be wished that all who read it will be sensible enough to resist the siren’s song of nasty unscientific “design-ism.” We do not subscribe to “design-ist” views and consider all who do to be ignorant rubes.

    “The authors further wish to assure their employers (and any future prospective employers) and government agencies/private foundations considering making grants to fund our research, that we have strived mightily to hew as closely as possible to the materialist orthodoxy which is at the core of the received wisdom we venerate so much. If we expressed an original or independent thought, we apologize profusely and assure one and all that it will not happen again. We are content in our serfdom. Indeed, each of us has erected a shrine to materialism in our home, where daily we prostrate ourselves before a framed 8X10 glossy photograph of the smiling visage of our great Overlord, Master, and Munificent Benefactor Richard Dawkins, and fortnightly we light a candle to venerate the memory of St. Charles.”

  2. ROTFL Barry…tooooo funny & perfect.

  3. Seriously, now…

    Don’t you folks think it makes you look just a tad desperate (nobody thinks you’re ignorant) to suggest that the authors actually deigned to mention intelligent design in a journal article, when you are drawing only on a press release?

    Would anybody like to wager on whether the scientist brought up intelligent design during an interview on the research, or the interviewer did? My money is on the the interviewer.

    In the original thread addressing the press release, I tried to get discussants to engage the journal articles themselves. The articles are online, and I gave a link to them. But everyone kept making hay of the press release.

    “It’s all about the science.”

  4. Barry Arrington,

    “creating the highly complex and specified information investigated herein”

    No, no, no! The Discovery Institute might sue if I suggest in my disclaimer that intelligent design is creation of information.

  5. “In this paper we do not present findings favorable to a design inference, and we promise never to do so again.”

  6. “It might look like a duck, waddle like a duck, quack like a duck BUT we assure readers that it is NOT a duck”.

  7. russ,

    that’s really funny| :-)

  8. The Richad Dawkins Human Evolution Revolution and the Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge have some of the funniest commentary I’ve seen. I especially like the appearance by Dr. Zaius LOL

    The side with the sense of humor is the side that’s going to win.

  9. Ohh I am so saving those links Tribune, thanks!

  10. “In this paper we do not present findings favorable to a design inference, and we promise never to do so again.” Russ, that is ultura-perfect! I will start using it myself.

  11. “This paper confirms the long held view that the more an organism appears to be designed the more unlikely that is to be the case.”

Leave a Reply