If this article were in an "Intelligent Design" blog or journal, then this wouldn't be significant.
But this is in a "secular scientific" journal. So I am curious about the backlash. e.g. "Dembski, Axe, and Behe come up, and the paper includes essentially a review of just about all ID arguments we’ve heard. This is a secular journal, but does make me wonder about who the editor was and who reviewed it. It is hard to imagine this paper surviving an unbiased review." Now there's this: *Editor’s Disclaimer* *The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not endorse in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of intelligent design. Since the publication of the paper it has now become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper was being reviewed. Moreover, the keywords “intelligent design” were added by the authors after the review process during the proofing stage and we were unaware of this action by the authors. We have removed these from the online version of this paper. We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.* That sounds better, I guess. @philipthrift On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 5:08:10 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > And we, and the biosphere, could exist without the universe being > fine-tuned for us, IF there were a God who do miracles. A miracle would be > evidence for such a God. So fine-tuning=no-miracle cannot be evidence for > a God. The same facts cannot be evidence both for and against a > proposition. > > So for fine-tuning to count as evidence for some creator, it has to be a > creator who is limited by natural laws, e.g. some super-alien engineers. > Not a god. > > Brent > > > On 10/4/2020 5:29 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:44 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Journal of Theoretical Biology* >> *Volume 501, 21 September 2020* >> *Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines >> and systems* >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071 >> > >> * A science journal publishes an article supporting Intelligent Design.* > > > I don't see how. If the universe really is fine-tuned (a very big if) then > an explanation for that fine-tuning needs to be found, but the God > Hypothesis is a very poor explanation for two reasons. > > 1) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God created the universe. > 2) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God came into existence > other than to say He has always existed, but if you're going to do that > you might as well just say the universe always existed and save a step. > > It seems to me that when a mystery is found, and Science has plenty, a > good honest "I don't know" would be a better response to it than offering a > theory that is obviously silly. > > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv33YuxM7Gw32q3JYQCzGG%3D1remSnw6i8q0HFCjzSUS_0Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv33YuxM7Gw32q3JYQCzGG%3D1remSnw6i8q0HFCjzSUS_0Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eac99389-f2c5-4b8d-b579-2a667d5b6a0fn%40googlegroups.com.
