The Forum > Article Comments > Intelligent design: scientifically and religiously bankrupt > Comments
Intelligent design: scientifically and religiously bankrupt : Comments
By Michael Zimmerman, published 14/5/2010From both a scientific and a religious perspective, intelligent design is dead and buried.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Page 57
-
- All
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 10 June 2010 2:02:46 PM
| |
Dan,
I can only tell that you don't understand from what you write yourself. Good ideas and theories tend to produce dynamic and progressing research programs. About ten years or so ago, John Mattick, a Professor at UQ, started to write about RNA regulation, especially by non-coding RNA (ncRNA) and microRNA (miRNA). miRNA was relatively unknown back then and noone really knew what it did or what possible significance it could have. Mattick argued from an completely evolutionary basis what he thought they would be doing, and why. http://ai.stanford.edu/~serafim/CS374_2006/papers/Mattick_NRG2004.pdf This, he argued, is how we get from microbes to men. Since then a lot more has been discovered and thousands of papers have been written about new discoveries on miRNA happening every day. But keep looking for your ID research program man, I'm sure you'll find one out there somewhere! Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 10 June 2010 11:56:59 PM
|
Sorry for the delayed response (I’ve been a bit busy, being exam week).
You say you know that I don’t understand what you’re writing. Is that a comment reflecting on your abilities of self expression and clarity?
I have tried to understand what you’re saying. After claiming that evolution was ‘useful’, you are supporting that by saying that making evoltionary reconstructions helps predict protein functions.
So have you made any useful predictions? While we’re considering that, could you also explain how this relates to a man arriving from a monkey or a microbe (as some definitions of ‘evolution’ are rather slippery and really only speak of simple selection traits and don’t really relate to the grand theory of our evolutionary origins).
I must admit, I haven’t found the sort of paper you asked me for (my day job is not in scientific research) but I’ll keep looking. However, the usefulness of design theory is really in the basic principles. Most of our methods and understanding of the pracitcal sciences, medicine, etc. were established pre-Darwin, at a time when most scientists recognised the hand of the creator (or perhaps some post dating Darwin, such as Mendel and Pasteur who also acknowledged their creator). Even today we’re living of the borrowed capital.
Just last night, when flipping through the stations, I heard on Radio National (I usually don’t bother listening to the ABC because of systemic anti-Christian bias), they were interviewing one researcher who was involved in synthesising artifical genes for use in some medical practice. The interviewer and interviewee were marvelling at the DESIGN features of the genetic code, enabling them to mimic and replicate those genes to their advantage.
There are many researchers around the world who recognise that the design in ‘nature’ is worth copying. I find it illogical, or at least counter-intuitive, that we apply ourselves to mimic design in nature but not acknowledge the design (let alone the designer).
Biomimetcis has grown in modern times. Here’s one example that was found to be useful:
http://www.poc.com/pressroom/new/new_LEXID_usatoday.asp