Maybe "ID theorists" are interested in what scientists are studying. But are scientists interested in what "ID theorists" are studying? The answer is a resounding "No!" Show me a single, peer-reviewed article from "ID theorists" that has made a contribution to any branch of science. ID theory has no value as far as science is concerned. That "ID guiding research" is just wishful thinking on the ID theorists' part.
James Bond 3rd: What nonsense! You think Darwinism guides scientific research? How in the world can accident and coincidence guide scientific research? For something to be a guide it must exhibit regularity, repeatability, predictability. The Darwinian mechanism exhibits none of these features, hence it's useless as a guide. Look at any productive study of how any phenomena in biology works and you will find a project trying by successive approximation to find out how a biological system accomplishes some goal. It is the neo-Darwinian model that is sterile and that has been abandoned by scientists. You will find essentially no productive research based on neo-Darwinian principles. In fact, you will not find anyone able to actually provide a testable predictive neo-Darwinian hypothesis that can explain how even simple mechanisms actually work. Put the issue to a test. Present an explicit set of hypotheses compatible with neo-Darwinian principles that 1)is not easily falsified and that can explain 2) a feedback loop, plasticity, epigenetic change, or even a heart pump. I am willing to bet you canât do it. It is not enough for you to point to ongoing research and claim it is based on neo-Darwinism. You need to be able to show that the research is based on actual neo-Darwinian principles. Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, claims that "Darwinism isn't the cause for breakthroughs in experimental biology". See my next post.
The regularity is in the scientists guessing that ignorant chance is behind what they can't measure, quantify, or see a pattern in.
Darwinism isn't the cause for breakthroughs in experimental biology By: Dr. Philip S. Skell Philadelphia Daily News February 13, 2006 Excerpt ...Should students learn about weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory? Some insist the weaknesses are trivial because Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. Actually, it isn't, and high school biology students would be better served if they understood that. Students could begin by reading a comment by Darwinist A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays: My research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's earlier discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. Recently, I asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they'd thought Darwin was wrong. All said no. I examined the great biodiscoveries of the 20th century - the double helix, the mapping of genomes, the characterization of the ribosome, research on medications and drug reactions, improvements in food production and sanitation, new surgeries. I even queried biologists in areas where you'd expect Darwinian theory to most benefit research, as in the emergence of antibiotic and pesticide resistance (antibiotic resistance was first recognized in the clinic, from fatal relapses among tuberculosis patients). Darwin's theory provided no discernible guidance. Instead, it was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. This, too, is its function in the many academic papers in experimental biology I considered. All this confirmed my suspicion: modern experimental biology gains its strength from new instruments and methodologies, not from historical biology... Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - isn't the cause for breakthroughs in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with frameworks like the atomic model, which opened up structural chemistry and led to the synthesis of many new molecules of practical benefit. What should be taught in high school biology classes? Focus on the variety of living organisms in our biocosm and on two questions: How do those organisms function so admirably over their lifetime, and how do they interact with one another? For students aspiring to benefit society through experimental biology, Darwinism is simply beside the point. Philip S. Skell is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, emeritus, at Penn State University.
Nope, it's all the same over here, 2c. They generally post articles from other believers (appeal to authority) interspersed with gems like these ones from Zeleologist "ID is a viable theory because the world looks designed to me!' or 'Can you prove that God doesn't exist? No? You can't? Well then, he must exist!" or "Here is a testable hypothesis for ID: My hypothesis is that the first life on earth appeared to be organized by an intelligent entity" Actually, 2c, if you review recent posts, Teleologist has actually admitted that he believes extra-terrestrial entities 'seeded' the earth with life (his words). I always had him down for a run-of-the-mill mystic but he apparently has hidden depths to his beliefs, he just felt reluctant to come right out and say it.
teleo's a lost cause... he believes that God = causality, and can't deal with even the thought of a-causality... same with zizzz to an extent... but we need guys like that to deliver our pizzas... what can u do...
TraderNik: Don't put words in my mouth. All hypotheses begin with observation (what something looks like). Darwin's main argument in his book was that things in nature look like they evolved. TraderNik: I've never made such an argument. Once again, don't put words in my mouth. ID has nothing to do with God. It's you ID critics that keep bringing God into this debate. TraderNik: Life at it's core looks to me like the product of bioengineering. So what do you expect me to do with this observation? Ignore it and embrace your speculation that the first cells evolve from simple, sloppy, quasi-life forms that were spawned from geochemistry? I proposed a hypothesis to account for my observation. That's the scientific method in action. TraderNik: Do you know the difference between a belief and a hypothesis?
cute, coming from a declared theist! do YOU personally believe in god/ultimate causality, or do YOU simply hypothesise that the concept, however ill-defined, may make some sense (and could serve as a useful premise to "guide" scientific enquiry)...?
If intelligent design's premise is a "personal god" rather than a transcendental god as a principle then it is a bunk. Plain and simple pseudo science. now having said this much of the scientific community considers safe science like darwin's theory of evolution is also incomplete (and I am using the most generous terms for it)