Intelligent Design in mainstream science

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Sean_McGinty

As for expending effort - you stated that there was not a single example of ID research being cited, I stated that was incorrect, you then asked me to explain how Woycechowsky uses Axe’s paper. But how he uses it isn’t relevant to my claim, …

I also asked you which of W…'s papers cited which of Axe’s papers, which is relevant, since not all of Axe’s work is about ID.

I also don’t mind giving examples of successful predictions made by the listed models: Ptolemaic - when retrograde motion would begin and end. Bohr - hydrogen spectral lines. Phlogiston - burning charcoal with metal ore will produce metal.

That burning charcoal with ore produced metal was known many thousands of years before phlogiston was proposed.

That ‘prediction’ is less impressive than predicting that the sun rose yesterday.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Sean_McGinty

Woycechowsky cites Axe’s paper. Would he not count?

I’ve just checked seven of Woycechovsky’s papers, and the only one that cites anything by Axe is this one. It cites Axe’s 2000 paper, not Axe’s later ID-focussed publications.

I’ve also tried Googling for “Woycechowsky” with the titles of Axe’s later ID papers, getting zero results.

(Axe cites Woycechowsky, but that’s the wrong way round). .

I’m now even less surprised that you refused to provide any details to support your claim.

So to answer your question, Woycechowsky does not count, because he didn’t cite ID ‘research’, he cited one of the non-ID papers Luskin included.

So unless you can provide a citation by Woycechowsky of one of Axe’s later papers, this is yet another claim of yours that has vaporised on inspection, leading to further confirmation that

(i) ID ‘research’ is not being used by anyone other than IDers, and so is not helpful/useful to science; and
(ii) Your claims cannot be trusted.