Comments on: Evaluating Intelligent Design

By: Loren

Loren — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:49:39 +0000

I guess I'd just like to see an agenda shift. Too often the conclusions reached by research are in line with the conclusions of those paying for it. Science/research is fine but when it's accompanied by scientists' assumptions which they treat as dogma, it casts a pall on the research as a whole. Scientists don't have the best track record of drawing accurate conclusions from their findings. Maybe agendas should just be left out of it entirely…but I have a feeling that's where the funding for lots of research comes from.

By: Vlad

Vlad — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:48:44 +0000

Abiogenesis is the toughest one and someone's always working on it, likely funded by tax dollars and university endowments. Doubt any of the ID people would be interested in helping them out. As to the kind of evolution you point out, an organism's beneficial genetic mutation passed to succeeding generations, that happens all the time (depending on how you parse "mutation"), which is why you need a different flu shot every year. As to "proving" the broader theory of common decent, you should read the previous post on Problematic Words.

By: Loren

Loren — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:45:47 +0000

It’s an interesting question. Anything I come up with involves more debunking and hole-poking. Personally I’m wondering if the answer is an earnest effort to prove evolution and/or abiogenesis. If I understand it correctly, the theory of evolution (with a little help from the principle of irreducible complexity) suggests that at some point under a specific set of circumstances, a “simple” organism underwent a beneficial genetic mutation which was passed down to succeeding generations. Abiogenesis says that at some point under a specific set of circumstances, a living organism was brought to life or created from non-living matter. Fund scientists to do their best to re-create those events. If another group has a problem with their methods, work with them to refine the experiments to that group’s satisfaction. If no one’s afraid of what they find, this seems like a perfectly logical approach. Call it the scientific equivalent of the Devil’s Advocate.