Even if ID is crap, don't you think it's useful in shedding new light on evoltuion and the origin of life

Question

Many scientists have pointed out that there are elements of language embedded in the DNA code. Grammar, syntax, organization, delivery of "messages," etc.

Whether this fact is the result of random development, or guided by an intelligence really doesn't matter - it's worth looking into, isn't it? Don't you find it fascinating?

It may help to solve some of the logical fallacies and conundrums of evolutionary theory, and theories on the origin of life.

But so many evolutionists are scared to death of "creationism" or any non-material explanation for the origin of life that they are missing a great opportunity for the progress of science and knowledge.

Love Jack

feral - if ID scientists believed that "the creator did it - end of story," why are they doing research?

Answer 1

You know Jack I am not convinced that we will find anything because this is based on a theory not a fact.

As far as evolution and creationism is concerned I am of the opinion that they both use HUMAN ARROGANCE on a continuum to justify their theories based on human ignorance because neither science or religion can really answer the origin of life. Current epistemology is really in the domain of science fiction.

I have another theory Jack....the sleepin dog theory that basically theorises that animals are much smarter then humans. Why? they don't ask questions that don't have any plausible answers.

Regards

Jojo

Answer 2

YES I do. BUT I don't think it should be taken as science, because it isn't in the modern sense. But as a form of critical theory, I think it's useful.

By critical theory I mean in the way that a lot of feminism is (where it's not saying "women should be in power" but simply says "only having men in power is a problem.")

I provide a solid example of where ID has actually produced something. Science published a front page article that was a direct response to the idea of "irreducible complexity" using computer models to show that the probability of amino acids combining randomly to form a protein aren't as bad as ID claims it to be. IF ID hadn't been thrown in to the limelight, it's unlikely researchers would have pursued its study, and even if they did, while it'd still get in to a good journal, it definitely would not have been published in Science and given a headline.

The important thing is for reasonable, logical, critical discussion, which is a responsibility of both ID proponents and ID opponents. But not something they always do...as I'm sure you'll get a response along those lines soon if it hasn't already been written.

Answer 3

The problem with Intelligent Design or the Giant Spaghetti Monster or any other creationist ideas is that they provide no why or how.

ID does not strive to determine why lions commit infanticide or why fireflights light up or why humans have such large brains. ID simply says a creator did it - end of story. There is no explanation of why transitional fossil or vestigial organs or shared DNA exists, a creator simply did it.

I have no issue with teaching religion or creationism is religion classes, but ID and other creationists ideas have no place in science classes. I agree with the theory of evolution, but do not believe its principles and points are set in stone. Theories evolve and change as scientific knowledge increases (or they may be discarded completely if disproven). But evolutionary theory does tell us why chimps and humans share DNA, why humans have appendices and why dogs have dew claws, and why we see similar but no longer present fossil organisms.

Answer 4

I think it is always good to ask serious questions and some ID people (or creationists) do just that.

Many, however, do not. they just want to create confusion and spread incorrect statements/lies about evolution to the public.

They say things like 'if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys'

or 'there are not transition fossils'

or 'macroevolution has never been observed'

statements like this are not helpful to anyone except a group that has a religious or political agenda and not a scientific one.

genuine questions are good.

In my opinion, there is no ID scientific research. The ID movement is basically to disprove evolution but not conducting their own experiments.

Answer 5

That is just the point. ID is not being researched and not one peer reviewed article has been published.
Science is the method we use to explain NATURAL PHENOMENON. " MAGIC MAN DONE IT " IS NOT SCIENCE. And I do not care what your ID backers say.

DNA is a digital code. Where, pray tell, do you see grammar and syntax in that? I think you need to sharpen your English usage skills also.

And feral is right. Something that proposes to explain everything, explains nothing.

I also find it less than honest for you to mount this assault on a holiday. Typical ID maneuver.

Answer 6

There is *information* in DNA - the information for making proteins, and so on. And there is information in language - information for conveying concepts.

That in itself is no evidence for "design" in DNA, any more than the complexity of a snowflake is evidence for design in it.

And evolution-researchers *are* looking in to the emergence of complexity by evolution: its what their research *is*! We don't need pseudo-scientific ID to do this, we already are doing it.

There are plenty of conundrums in evolution, but there are no logical fallacies. What fallacies are you referring to?

No-one is scared of "creationism", except that it will inevitably lead to a dumbing-down of society and a severe decline in science quality if it is taught as science. Philosophy - sure. Religion - absolutely. Science - definitely not!
And evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life (abiogenesis); they are entirely seperate fields.

Answer 7

Irreducible complexity yielded a little food for thought until it was disproven. The phrase "logical fallacies" of evolution is garbage. While there are unanswered questions, the "cdesign proponentsists", have only demonstrated that they deceive and cover their tracks poorly. There is no opportunity in inserting religious dogma sponsored by dishonest theologians into science.

Answer 8

yeah