mns2012 (mns2012) wrote in biosemiotics,

Юзер Querius о дизайне


=== [To say that ID is science is] like saying if Astrophysicists want to ever make any progress they need to switch to astrology.

No, it’s not.

ID is simply the presumption of design, which encourages further investigation. In contrast, the presumption of an extremely unlikely confluence of random events over massive amounts of time does not encourage further investigation. Some examples include the presumption of purposelessness in “vestigial organs” and “junk DNA.” In both of these cases, scientists were satisfied with ignorance, while ID researchers were not.

И далее в той же ветке.


=== Investigation into what?

Using my examples, it’s investigation into what’s behind mysterious ductless glands (the thyroid was once considered “vestigial” by scientists) and “junk DNA,” now called non-coding DNA.

If the nature of this putative designer is undefined, something which ID proponents resolutely refuse to do, then there is no way to know what evidence might support such a claim.

How did you ever logically reach that conclusion? Why would a “putative designer” need to be identified to support the claim that something was designed? For example, researchers claim that chimpanzees made some stone tools that look like early human artifacts. Does it matter whether chimpanzees or humans made the stone tools to decide that they are not naturally formed?

Retired Physicist,

=== The other side, astrology, publishes approximately 5 papers per year.

Huh? The reference to astrology is irrelevant to what I posted.

ID researchers are performing scientific research simply with a presumption of design. They ask the questions like, “What might this so-called vestigial organ be producing?” or “What could this portion of so-called junk DNA actually be doing?”


Полужирный шрифт мой -- mns2012
Tags: intelligent design, цитата

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic