A New Deal for Intelligent Design?

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

Ha! I have no idea. But what I was getting at is some people have a pretty definitive term for the current model… excluding the use of the word Darwin. And the more definitive we can be, the more confident our audience can be.

Your approach is a little loosey-goosey for the prevailing circumstances.

My approach is fluid because the theory is massive and very fluid. How do you sum up a theory that is spread over hundreds of thousands of primary papers with more papers being published right now?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@pnelson

The new view is so radical, in fact, that several of the DI fellows find it uncomfortable. But that is Rick’s story to tell, which he will, in due time.

I’ll look forward to reading it. I was impressed by how far outside my expectations Sternberg was in how he understood DNA. His views are radical.

[T_aquaticus]

@pnelson

Rick teaches in the DI natural sciences summer seminar (his lectures are among the most popular in the course), travels to universities to speak – most recently, to South America – but mostly, he is working on a massive book laying out a radical new view of genetics. The new view is so radical, in fact, that several of the DI fellows find it uncomfortable. But that is Rick’s story to tell, which he will, in due time.

The size of the book is worrying, but I am always entertained by radical new views of genetics, even if they turn out to be wrong.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

His views are radical.

For those of who haven’t looked at this, could you summarize his views?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

His views are radical.

For those of who haven’t looked at this, could you summarize his views?

He takes essentially a hyperfunctional view of DNA, even farther than anyone would think to take it. In that way he is legitimately redefining the range to extend far beyond the pan-adaptationalists. ID in general is biased against neutral features of DNA, but Sternberg pushes it farther than I thought anyone would think possible.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@swamidass

He takes essentially a hyerfunctional view of DNA, even farther than anyone would think to take it. In that way he is legitimately redefining the range to extend far beyond the pan adaptionalists. ID in general is biased that direction but Sternberg pushes it farther than I thought anyone would think possible.

@swamidass

What is an example of pushing DNA to “this extreme”? I really have no idea how you mean this without an example.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I’d let Sternberg make his own case. Honestly I don’t understand the logic behind it. He is writing a book, so let’s see how that shapes up and take about it then.