Perspectives on Discussion of Science and Religion

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Don_Mc

Note first that Dan appeared to acknowledge a problem that “cuts both ways” just before he said “Maybe even harder the other way.”

I note that. I also note that it was in response to Dan pointing out the massive lack of admissions in the ID literature. Do you agree?

@Don_Mc

Even if I agree, somehow you have to read disagreement into it instead. For another recent example, the uncontroversial proposition that “all proteins are made from the same set of 20 amino acids (with a few very rare exceptions)” is perfectly acceptable when your colleagues say it, but “spectacularly false” when someone from the creationist/ID crowd says it.

Yet I clarified what I wrote, as it was completely dependent on one’s use of “made of.” Do you disagree?

@Don_Mc

Seems we can’t even agree on basic facts in evidence.

We definitely agree on that!

As an example, here is a statement of fact that is highly relevant to @theaz101’s focus, translation:

“A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction…”

Do you agree with it?

I’m interested in your response to:

@Don_Mc

[I]…encourage the teaching of systems theory rather than evolution as a neutral unifying theoretical paradigm of biology.

It is not clear to me how systems theory or biology is (or can be) in any way an alternative to (or in opposition to) evolutionary theory or biology. I’m all but certain that none of the systems biologists whom I know, or the even larger number I have met, would see that either. Can you elaborate? What is the meaning of “neutral” there?