Before a vaccine can be produced the drug company has to understand which version of the disease they will find next year… not the version that has already come and gone…
1 Like
Correct. Politics has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Support of evolution is based upon evidence. Much like other areas of science which were once explained by nothing more than “God did it”, lots of Christians recognize evolutionary processes as just another of God’s creations.
2 Likes
No. Forensic science and archaeology are based on evidence which we recognize as indicating human activity. For example, archaeologists understand the various building methods humans have used through the ages. So when archaeologists finds specially shaped clay+straw kiln-dried brick and link them to human activity, there is no “ID of the gaps” argument. They know that humans produce such bricks while natural processes have not been observed to do so.
That’s a good example of a philosophical argument. (It is also a theological argument.) It is not science.
It sounds like you are assuming that all processes are telic.
If Dover was so easy to refute, why did the Discovery Institute representatives who were supposed to testify along with Dr. Behe all abandon him and leave town without testifying? (Did they recognize that they couldn’t address the issues raised? I can’t read their minds but many have assumed that they left without testifying because they recognized a public relations disaster and a major drop in funding from donors.)
Lots of scientists have done so. What you call “IC” is caused by physics and chemistry, just as God intended.
1 Like
Have you heard of a political advocacy group called the NCSE?
No one has supported this claim yet. Care to take a shot?
Are you telling us that the NCSE and evolutionary biology are synonyms? Seriously?
Of course, there are scientists who are also members of educational organizations and even political parties. That hardly makes science (including evolutionary biology) “Republican” or “Democrat” or the same thing as political advocacy.
(My apologies. Upon rereading, I realized that you were making a joke.)
2 Likes
First you need to establish that the very concept and definition of “IC” has survived peer-review. The burden of proof doesn’t require me to chase a nebulous ghost which has never been established. Meanwhile, plenty of scientists have shredded the concept of “IC”.
1 Like
Ok. The claim remains unsupported.
To shred it you first need to support the claim 
1 Like
No. I am telling you that evolution is being supported by a political advocacy group in the same way ID is.
The nebulous ghost, conscious intelligence, has the capability to produce functional information.
Allen, ID is based on evidence too. Evidence which we recognize as indicating intelligent agency activity. We do so based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. There isn’t any gap.
> ID is an argument against blind watchmaker evolution having sole dominion over evolutionary processes. God’s guidance would be telic and as such part of ID.
BlockquoteThat’s a good example of a philosophical argument. (It is also a theological argument.) It is not science.
Nope it is science and the same as forensics and archaeology, which make then same argument.
No, I have never said, thought nor implied all processes are telic. It is a given that genetic algorithms use telic processes as solutions are actively searched out.
Dover was refuted- did you even read what I linked to? Read it and respond to it. Or admit that all you have is hand-waving
And finally you are sadly mistaken as no one has ever demonstrated non-telic processes can produce biological IC You have no evidence and only you sadly mistaken say-so.
This is why I am leaving this forum. People here just say stuff and they think that is all they need to do. You guys are clueless when it comes to science.
Good luck with that
ID isn’t about God. But science can and does tell us when telic processes were used to do something.
It has. No one with any knowledge disagrees with it. And even if they did they still wouldn’t’;t have a mechanism capable of producing it.
No one knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via stochastic processes so the claim that it did is not scientific. There isn’t anything in peer-review to support ATP synthase arising via stochastic processes
So what ID paper has survived peer review?
What blind watchmaker evolution paper has survived peer-review?
Thousands… there are scientific journals in all the world’s major languages dedicated to publishing them.
Nope, that is false. Not one peer-reviewed paper supports blind watchmaker evolution.
Can you define that for me? I’m a physical chemist and not a biologist. I’m not sure what you mean when you say “blind” or “arising via stochastic processes”.
NCSE is NOT a political advocacy group.