Re: [asa] Rejoinder 1B from Timaeus: to Mike Gene, Jack Syme, et al.

From: Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>
Date: Wed Sep 24 2008 - 11:32:42 EDT

First off, thanks to David for his response to my questions. You've saved me some time responding. Timaeus' take on "theistic Darwinism" actually sounds a lot like some forms of ID with its emphasis on front loading.

Just a quick comment on this section here:

ID opens up new areas of scientific research by keeping open the possibility of design. .... Darwinism, with its insistence on freak mutations and lucky adaptations, was the science stopper regarding junk DNA.

If this was accurate, one would predict that (a) no research on suspected junk DNA would have been performed by "Darwinists" and / or (b) that ID advocates would do research to investigate the functions of junk DNA.

(b) is certainly not true, since ID has no experimental research program to speak of. Of the few publications from ID types that do exist, none that I am aware of investigate potential functions for what "Darwinists" consider junk DNA. I am willing to be corrected on this point if anyone knows of relevant peer-reviewed ID literature.

(a) is also certainly not true. Considering some DNA to be junk has not stopped the science in any way - all newly discovered functions for DNA previously thought to be non-functional have come from labs working under the "Darwinian" paradigm. That's not a criticism, that's simply the way things are.

Further, ID really does seem to be a "science stopper" - perhaps not in the ultimate sense, but certainly thus far in a practical sense from the ID movement.

Dennis

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 24 11:34:17 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 24 2008 - 11:34:18 EDT