Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: ID Promises To Open Up New Avenues of Scientific Research
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
ID Promises To Open Up New Avenues of Scientific Research
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Empty promises
None of these promises have much relevance to ID as a concept nor have few if any come to fruition. The proof is in the pudding, the saying goes and ID so far has remained scientifically without content and while it surely makes a lot of promises, it has made little or no progress to actually live up to said promises.
As to the 'hostility' towards intelligent design, scientists have come to realize that ID's foundations and its lack of scientific content make it an enemy of reason, as an unconstitutional attempt to introduce a yet to be proven scientific concept into our public schools. As guardians of science, scientists and their organizations have a duty to speak out as to the nature of ID.
ID has the right to speak, but that does not mean a right to be heard.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 6:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
New avenues?
The only reason there would be more research into junk DNA would be because ID supporters have misunderstood what ID has to say about junk DNA - which is precisely nothing.
Might I suggest that the main reason why the authors think that ID would open up new avenues of scientific research in animal biology is because they don't know the meaning of the word 'vestigial'?
- Hawks September 17, 2008 8:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not just vestigial
I am always tickled by claims of ID advocates that "Darwinism" stifles inquiry and that only ID creationism will 'break the shackles' that "Darwinism" puts on the mind, that ID creationism will open 'avenues of insight' into practically everything.
I am tickeld by this because when you look at the scientific output of one who has subcsribed to the ID creationist paradigm, you see next to nothing. Once prolific scientists become ID advocates, they stop producing anything of merit. Look at Kenyon. Look at Behe. Look at Gonzalez.
If ID creationism were so liberating, why are not ID advoactes the ones making all the grand discoveries?
For example,ID creationists like to claim that they 'predicted' all along that 'JunkDNA' would be functional. Ask them to document their prediction. You won't see a thing. Especially since function was known to exist in some junk DNA as early as the 1950s.
They are co-opters, embellishers, and fabricators who prey on the gullible and the uninformed and the culturally conservative.
ID is not scientific, certainly not in an honest fashion.
- slpage September 18, 2008 7:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why listen to non-scientific nonsense?
"It also means that scientists who hold legitimate scientific views deserve to be heard even if their views differ from the consensus."
You claim that these "scientists" hold legitimate scientific views - but that is the very topic under contention. It would seem that you claim that they deserve to be heard and have not been heard - but that is also under dispute. I assert that they have been heard and their arguments have been refuted and thus they are legitimately ignored until they come up with some actual scientific evidence and arguments.
"ID holds merit because the acceptance of ID will not only encourage new avenues of scientific research,"
Well, it has not happened in the last 20 years - why should there be the slightest chance that this non-scientific nonsense will "encourage" "new avenues" of scientific research in the future? And, if this is the actual goal of "intelligent design", why is there such an emphasis on trying to get this nonsense introduced into the public high school classroom?
"With about 70 billion stars..."
This number seems to be in error by a factor of a trillion or so. What fool wants credit for this sentence? :-)
" ... 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth),"
So what? 3 billion years of evolution is a loooong time.
"... the universe is a stunningly complex place."
Nonsense. The universe that we can see so far is quite simple. It's only the evolved life forms on this Earth that appear to be complex. It is amazing that evolving DNA with only 4 components can produce such a complexity of life, but it obviously has, so there's no need to claim that this is "stunning". And even if it was "stunning", that is a meaningless adjective with respect to the discussion of the nonsense that is "intelligent design".
- onein6billion
September 18, 2008 7:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What non-scientific nonsense?
"I assert that they have been heard and their arguments have been refuted and thus they are legitimately ignored until they come up with some actual scientific evidence and arguments."
At least Luskin actually provide something to back up his "asserts."
"Well, it has not happened in the last 20 years - why should there be the slightest chance that this non-scientific nonsense will "encourage" "new avenues" of scientific research in the future?"
Actually..............
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/more_similarities_between_flag.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/biology_replaces_technology_as.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/video_molecular_machines_and_t.html
....so therefore there is pretty good reason to assume that it will.
"And, if this is the actual goal of " intelligent design ", why is there such an emphasis on trying to get this nonsense introduced into the public high school classroom?"
Ummm, I'm pretty sure if the goal of ID is to encourage new avenues of research (which you say is the goal of ID), then it definitely has it's place in the classroom.
"This number seems to be in error by a factor of a trillion or so. What fool wants credit for this sentence? :-)"
Where in the article you're commenting on does it use that value?
"So what? 3 billion years of evolution is a loooong time."
Yeah, though the debate is whether it's long enough.
"The universe that we can see so far is quite simple."
Yes, in a sense. Though no one can argue the laws have no structure.
"It's only the evolved life forms on this Earth that appear to be complex."
Not to mention the earth which sustains them.
"It is amazing that evolving DNA with only 4 components can produce such a complexity of life, but it obviously has, so there's no need to claim that this is "stunning"."
If it didn't happen by unguided forces, then yes it is.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/leading_origin_of_life_researc.html
"And even if it was "stunning", that is a meaningless adjective with respect to the discussion of the nonsense that is "intelligent design"."
What "nonsense?"
- F2XL
November 6, 2008 8:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Irrelevant nonsense
If there's something on " evolution news", it's irrelevant to "intelligent design" and/or distorted beyond all scientific recognition.
"the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human"
So what?
"But sometimes engineers find that biology itself is a superior replacement..."
So what?
"without supplying adequate sequential evidence"
No amount of "sequential evidence" would ever satisfy a creationist.
"I think genetic information more or less came out of nowhere by chance assemblages of short polymers."
Now that makes good scientific sense - "chance" was sufficient.
"Might I suggest that intelligent design is a better explanation?"
Might I suggest that your suggestion is without evidence or merit? It's just unfounded speculation.
- onein6billion
November 7, 2008 6:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On your part.
"If there's something on " evolution news", it's irrelevant to "intelligent design" and/or distorted beyond all scientific recognition."
That sentence alone tells me you either need to get out more, or need to at least read what the blog is actually about. Or maybe I'm asking for too much. Then again, you did take the time to at least read SOME of the article, and you seem to have conceded that it is on the topic of ID.
"So what?"
Seems like you'd rather throw those words out to some of the statements in that article instead of actually refuting them. If biology leads to new design if it is viewed in that context, then ID obviously does encourage new avenues of research.
"No amount of "sequential evidence" would ever satisfy a creationist."
While I agree this is true for ID skeptics, I must ask: what do "creationists" have to do with this?
"Now that makes good scientific sense - "chance" was sufficient."
You do realize that your saying the millions of organized base pairs in the first cell just came out of nowhere right?
"Might I suggest that your suggestion is without evidence or merit? It's just unfounded speculation."
Ahem, might I suggest that your suggestion is without evidence or merit? It's just unfounded speculation.
- F2XL
November 9, 2008 11:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Try reading the other side for a change
"If biology leads to new design if it is viewed in that context,"
And it never has and never will. So, irrelevant nonsense.
"You do realize that your saying the millions of organized base pairs in the first cell just came out of nowhere right?"
Nope. Your ignorance is abysmal.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/exploring-the-o.html
"It's just unfounded speculation."
Nope - it's well-founded speculation. See above.
- onein6billion
November 9, 2008 1:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That's been taken care of. Your turn now.
"And it never has and never will. So, irrelevant nonsense."
And it has, and always will. So therefore, relevant perspective.
http://biologicinstitute.org/2008/10/17/the-genius-behind-the-ingenious /
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/biologic_explores_the_successe.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/as_engineers_turn_to_marine_bi.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/engineers_improve_human_techno.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/the_human_eye_is_so_poorly_des.html
"Nope. Your ignorance is abysmal.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/exploring-the-o.html "
Speak for yourself. In order to explain how RNA could have been the prime starter for the origin of life you must explain how all four nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, uracil), the five-carbon sugar ribose, and a phosphate group could have formed in the same primordial soup when all six of those things develop under completely DIFFERENT chemical conditions. It would be like baking a cake by manufacturing the flower, eggs, sugar, yeast, etc. in the exact same bowl. It can't happen:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/ribo171.htm
And let's not forget the dreaded Spiegelman monster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster
"Nope - it's well-founded speculation. See above."
After seeing the above, I must ask: well-founded on what?
BTW: Should we stick to cellular origins for now?
- F2XL
November 10, 2008 8:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The "other side" has never written anything honest
The "Biologic Institute"???
My, my, what nonsense.
Many stupid "evolutionnews" and "arn" references.
I ignore nonsense.
"let's not forget the dreaded Spiegelman monster:"
"Such a short RNA had been able to replicate very quickly in these unnatural circumstances."
Yes, "unnatural circumstances" often shed light on the real world. So what?
"I must ask: well-founded on what?"
Science, you ninny.
- onein6billion
November 11, 2008 10:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm so confused.
So your argument is, by pushing scientists to find more junk DNA (it is, in fact, useless to the organism,) vestigial limbs (my tailbone does nothing and has no purpose, and I could have it removed with no damage to my functioning,) and other disproofs of Intelligent Design, ID serves the purpose of annoying scientists into progress?
Couldn't you just advance the cause of science by doing experiments and recording data?
- sharky
September 24, 2008 6:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.