Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

To hell with closed systems. The thermodynamics argument is wrong because a change in allele frequencies in a population isn't a thermodynamic change. Evolution is not a negatively entropic process.

But there's no information present in the genetic "code". Code is, in fact, the wrong word to use - "sequence" would be much more accurate.If you're going to base your argument on false pretenses, you're going to have to pardon us if the first thing we do is attack your pretenses instead of your argument.

In what sense can a ribosome "read", or enter an agreement, or find something intelligible?The ribosome catalyzes chemical reactions on molecules. It doesn't read things, it doesn't interpret symbols, it doesn't decode a code. It doesn't have a brain so it's not capable of all the thinking you've just ascribed to it.

As usual? We've never spoken before. Oh? You looked around the entire universe?A code is something that, as you yourself defined, two speakers agree on as a way to link symbols and referents. Genetic sequences are specified by chemical interactions, not as a means of communication between two speakers. I mean, duh.DNA can't be a code because codes are a method of communication between speakers, which DNA is obviously not. Then why are you being childish and immature?

Why would an analogy help? The subject is DNA, not machine shops. Try to stay on topic, ok?It would be better for you to actually study DNA, not draw specious comparisons to machine shops and the like.

We don't need to do that to see that your proposal is invalid. It's ill-formed on the face of it.If you had the capability to step back and examine it honestly and dispassionately, you'd see that too.

Well, that would be rather surprising, since I did once hold a dogmatic view, but was swayed out of it - and into evolution - by logic, reason, and evidence.My track record makes it pretty obvious that I can be swayed by logic and evidence. How about yours? Then why do you keep posting to me? Looks like there's something you need, I guess.

You know, I did guess it. It's been my theory for several years now that engineers are much, much more likely to be creationists, indoctrinated as they are in a mindset that demands that every design have a designer, and every successful outcome be the result of a detailed plan.Engineers don't think like scientists, especially not like biologists. It's been my experience that engineers largely have a mindset that precludes them from the proper practice of biology. Exceptions abound, of course, but you don't appear to be one.

What fruit is that, exactly? I'm not familiar with a single successful predicition or effective model of creationism, Biblical or otherwise; on the other hand my wife's research, firmly grounded as it is in evolutionary models, is poised within a year or two to eventually save America's farmers millions of dollars in lost yields. (Perhaps I exaggerate from enthusiasm and affection, but she's definately getting results, results that will have a definate practical value for agriculture.)Why is that, exactly? Why is it that there are no creationist agronomists? You'd think America's midwest farmers, who are generally a very Christian sort, would flock to the idea of employing the Bible to increase their yields.But even farmers who I know are ardent creationists consult agronomists who base their expertise on evolution. Could it be because, as Christian as farmers are, they're also very skilled at the detection of chicanery and flim-flam, and that they'll go where the results are?Creationism is a fruitless as always. Evolution gets results and creationism never has. The "chasm" that you speak of exists only in your own mind.