Skip to comments.Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3
click here to read article
Actually, if life is designed, then true science is by definition consonant with theistic convictions. Even Richard Dawkins is forced to admit that living things “overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design.” In short, ID merely seeks to apply science to the investigation of Dawkin’s very own admission.
I believe this thread is about ID, not Creation Science. And if the links I posted do not stand up to critical examination, feel free to critically examine them.
well, junk is a very predjudiced and inaccurate description of something that scientists are still searching for the function of.
I don’t need to read anymore, actually, for a simple textbook definition can be rewritten by whoever holds the typewriter, and the use of the term has always been more than the simple phrase of “ DNA that exists that we do not know the usage for”, it has always had the context that it is an evolutionary leftover.
Just like the Appendix used to.
And Tonsils, too.
Oh, here’s another inconvenient fossil that has the Church of Darwin’s collective panties in a twist (also see the Carbon 14 link at the bottom...the Darwinist assumptions are piling up faster than geocentric epicycles):
I have posted critiques on many occasions, particularly regarding radiocarbon dating. I have convinced nobody here because in spite of what is claimed, ID is creation "science" with the serial numbers filed off in an attempt to sneak it into science classes.
If ID and creation "science" were about science, then facts, logic, and reason -- scientific evidence -- would prevail. What shows that ID and creation "science" are both religion is that belief (scripture or revelation) prevails over scientific evidence.
Those links you posted are good evidence of this, as are several creationist/creation "science" websites. Look up the Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Studies Institute, and Answers In Genesis and see what their Statement of Belief, Tenets of Scientific Creationism, Mission, and Statement of Faith are (respectively). I can provide links if you need.
This is good evidence that they are doing religion, not science. They state clearly that religious belief supersedes science.
That is not science, and a critical examination of their writings confirms this.
Fundamentalists take many shapes. Orthodox Environmentalists already control Europe. Radical Darwinists still rule universities and many "respected" publications worldwide, too.
The poor scientist who dares publish DNA code skipping (the death of Evolutionary Theory) will be trashed, just as you predict above, by those entrenched fundamentalists.
intelligent design has made successful predictions on the question of "junk-DNA."
I will accept
"Sounds to me as though they predicted that the things we don't know are just as important as the things we think we do know. That it is foolish, in fact dangerous, to ignore them. And that it is disingenuous to ignore them because the prevailing bias has relegated them to 'junk'."
as fact and be quite happy to do so.
Actually, it was your very own Richard Dawkins who said that “The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question...”
And the fact that you keep mixing up Creation Science with Intelligent Design indicates that you are ignorant about both.
"It's wasn't a prediction, it was a statement of accepted fact."
I will accept: "
Sounds to me as though they predicted that
"The things we don't know are just as important as the things we think we do know. That it is foolish, in fact dangerous, to ignore them. And that it is disingenuous to ignore them because the prevailing bias has relegated them to 'junk'" as fact.
And be quite happy to do so.
No, they predict that most of what the Darwinists call “junk DNA” will later turn out to be functional DNA. It’s a solid prediction that flies in the face of Darwinist expectations, and science is starting to confirm the the same.
It's going to be someone other than a journalist. After all, there had been (up to a few months ago) a thriving school of neo-Darwinian thought that held that "junk DNA" segments were leftovers from antiquated or functionally discarded and/or "broken" genes, and were being moved thorugh evolutionary methods into non-existence.
More recently we've been hearing that we have retro-viruses "inserted" into our genomes that do incredible things such as controlling the size of the brain, making the placenta functional, etc., etc.
Pretty profound stuff to me if not to you ~ and not at all a surprise if life as we know it here on this little planet in a vast cosmos was "designed" in some "life factory" somewhere, some time in the distant past ~ maybe even in a different universe.
Ergo, ID is not just another restatement of Creationism, particularly if our particular form of life is just a clustering of bio-engines and sensors useful in machines the function of which we cannot yet imagine.
Creationist view 55%
Theistic evolution 27%
Naturalistic Evolution 13%
“In many cases darwinists assume they know and then go out and teach that mislead assumption only to find that they dont know.”
Your statement is unfair. Those who believe in evolution are the ones who made this discovery. It didn’t have anything to do with the Discovery Institute or those who support Intelligent Design. Scientists had a theory that the dna was a relic, and therefore not important. It has been disproven by the scientists who made this discovery. That is how it is supposed to work.
If the Discovery Institute had actually made this scientific discovery, I would be impressed. But I don’t know that they actually do any scientific research. It appears that they criticize the works of those doing the research, but provide little of their own scientific research data.
This results of this study are being used to criticize those who support evolution. But, those who support evolution are the ones that have done this study, made the discovery and published the results. They did not make an assumption and treat it as fact. They made an assumption, tested it scientifically, and shared the results with others. Even though the results are not what was expected, it is an advancement in science, which will be taught to students.
As long as we're demanding citations....
There's gotta' be something roughly the equivalent of a "Patent Pending" followed by a long number in there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.