Bullsh!t. SO because ID cannot produce scientifically sound research resutls, you have to scream discrimination. How pathetic. If ID had any substance, it would be eagarly published. But for people coming from the religious right, who are used to style over substance and who value an appeal to authority over preponderance of evidence, this is to be expected. Also, private companies engage in research work. There is likely more scientific knowledge there than in the academic community. And, from experience, I know many companies are actually ahead of academic research, even if it is from an applied perspective. Private companies exploit evolutionary theory because it helps them commercialize products that makes money. If ID was valid, the private sector would exploit it more than a bunch of charlatans trying to sell ID literature to the uninformed.
B.S. to you. It can and does regularly, while evolution theory continuously falls on it's face. There are thousands of them(predictions) now swept under the rug in embarrassment by evolutionists.
You are such a shallow thinker, you know that? My first suggestion to you is to go back to community college and take a reading for comprehension course, for you are sorely in need of it.
This being said, again note, I didn't "scream discrimination". This is merely your irrational, knee-jerk reaction to what I said. It is not that Id doesn't produce scientifically sound results, it is that evolutionists are afraid to publish anything that might even look like it could call their cherished worldview into account. Evolutionists don't publish ID results because of the weakness of ID, but because of the intellectual hobbling that comes about as a result of evolutionism.
If ID had any substance, it would be eagarly published.
No it wouldn't, because it would undermine the fundamental philosophical premises of people such as yourself, and would never be allowed.
Also, private companies engage in research work. There is likely more scientific knowledge there than in the academic community. And, from experience, I know many companies are actually ahead of academic research, even if it is from an applied perspective. Private companies exploit evolutionary theory because it helps them commercialize products that makes money. If ID was valid, the private sector would exploit it more than a bunch of charlatans trying to sell ID literature to the uninformed.
This paragraph tells me that you really don't have a clue what you're even talking about.
As stated in a previous post - "evolution" and natural selection are two different things. Evolution is a philosohical concept, one which its proponents use to develop and justify their particular worldview. Natural selection is observable science. But NS does not even require the philosophical premises of evolution to function - NS would work, regardless of whether we "evolved" naturalistically, or whether God created life and set it in motion.
Now, if you were familiar with the substance of the debate between ID and evolutionism, you would know that IDers (and YECers, too) don't take issue with natural selection and related concepts (often referred to by them as "microevolution"). The debate involves primarily philosophical and cosmological theatres of battle. Nobody doubts that we can genetically engineer E. coli and other microorganisms to express any number of different proteins. What they DO doubt is that life arose through naturalistic means, happened by random chance, without a designer and Creator.
All of which has absolutely ZILCH to do with the practical application of laboratory science in industry and the private sector. Why you think "exploitation of ID by the private sector" would be a necessary evidence for the validity of ID, when the ID-evolution debate doesn't really even touch anything done in the private sector, is beyond me.