Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 77 of 107 (406445)
06-20-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Processes
Jaywill writes:
Modulous writes:
However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process.
I take this sentence to mean (if not a typo) that you don't deny that ID research is science.
This seems rather twisted since Modulous then goes on to quite clearly say why he doesn't consider any of the current ID 'research' to be science. What he very specifically says is that research into the topic ID claims to be about, could be done scientifically, the fact that the ID movement does not approach it in such a way, with some rare exceptions, is one reason why it is not taken seriously.
In those instances where ID researchers have approached the issue scientifically, such as in Behe and Snoke's published research on the evolution of simple structral motifs (2004), what they have found has given no support at all to ID hypotheses.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:38 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 81 of 107 (406759)
06-22-2007 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by jaywill
06-22-2007 7:38 AM


Re: Processes
Well then why don't you click on the reference link I provided and read the abstract of the paper? Or indeed read the whole paper since that is linked to from the abstract and is now freely available.
I'm still not sure what point you think you are making. If their point wasn't to provide any support for an ID hypothesis, either directly or by casting doubt on the efficacy of traditional evolutionary theories then it should be an even clearer indication of the paucity of ID research.
When the most prominent IDist researchers, i.e. Michael Behe and Doug Axe, aren't producing anything which touches on ID except in the most indirect manner by casting doubt on the feasibility of 'neo-darwinian' mechanisms, one has to wonder whether any science of ID actually exists.
The Biologic Institute, which Axe heads, was set up 2 years ago now to perform ID research in secret, we have yet to see any super secret results. I don't complain about that, my own publishing record is pretty meager, but I am but one man not a research institute. Indeed Axe has been funded by the Discovery institute to do research on design related issues for the past 8 years and none of his published works seem to offer any support to ID, for all they have been held up as peer reviewed ID research.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:38 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024