Skip to comments.If National Review Wants Scientists To Take Conservatives Seriously, Jettison Discovery Institute
Posted on 08/01/2013 10:44:40 AM PDT by EveningStar
If National Review Wants Scientists To Take Conservatives Seriously, Jettison The Discovery Institute
How would editors at National Review regard the credibility of a controlled market publication that had its economic policy articles written by astrologers using the stars as their evidence?
They might not like it but so what? Can they prove astrologers can't make economic policy? No, it's just flawed logic, sort of like me challenging someone to prove I am not an alien from space. That is the problem with National Review paying someone from the Discovery Institute to spout anti-science nonsense about 35-year-old science under the guise of 'ethics'. Because misunderstanding and logical head-faking is the strategy the Discovery Institute uses to promote doubt about biology in general and evolution in specific ...
Conservatives, you can actually get a lot of votes among scientists - a whole bunch of them really dislike the social engineering and irrational naturalistic fetishes of the left. I know it doesn't seem like it, because the last 25 years has seen a real shift to liberalism in science academia, but the true enemies of the science behind food, energy and medicine are progressives - scientists know that, they write about it and I wrote a whole book about it). It is the left wing who embraces astrology, psychics and ghosts and that really makes scientists crazy. Just stop embracing nonsense and lots of science academics will abandon the goofiness promoted by progressives ...
(Excerpt) Read more at science20.com ...
Its WAY better than NPR taking its message from the sham liberal organization called “Center for Science in the Public Interest”
“Conservatives, you can actually get a lot of votes among scientists - a whole bunch of them really dislike the social engineering and irrational naturalistic fetishes of the left.”
Where do you think the impulse for social engineering, and the unhealthy emphasis on naturalism stem from? It’s certainly not from a belief that we were created by a higher power.
Some hacks petty argument with a writer at the Discovery Institute. Ho hum...let’s all run about waving our arms in alarm....or not.
This article has nothing to do with the policies of NPR.
This is where I don’t quite get a part of the “Intelligent Design” debate. If you believe in a God that’s in any way connected to the Bible, don’t you sort of have to believe that He designed it all in some way? You can quibble with others about how He did it, and you can even think that the people at Discovery are full of it, but you still have to agree with the premise that God designed it all. If not, I would really like to read an explanation. Does science demand Atheism or at least some oddball variant of Deism? I don’t think there’s that many scientists who will insist on that. What am I missing?
“If you believe in a God thats in any way connected to the Bible, dont you sort of have to believe that He designed it all in some way?”
Although I do believe the God in the Bible, even if the Bible did not exist, I would have to believe that some God somewhere created everything. It’s a no-brainer. So you are not missing anything.
I’m sure there are hundreds of votes nationwide to be gained by blacklisting anti-evolutionists.
You can both believe in God and have a strong pro-science stance. Many people do. I do.
The Discovery Institute is about intelligent design. ID is another name for creationism. IOW, it’s anti-evolution.
Isn’t it possible to believe that God created evolution? Many people think so.
During my life I’ve met devout Christians - many of them - who also believe in the theory of evolution.
Can scientists take liberals seriously?
They deny that its a human baby in the womb. They deny that a man in a dress is a man. They believe that climate never changed before man woke up the first day.
The left doesn’t believe in actual science.
The Discovery Institute does not have anything to do with Wesley Smith’s view on IVF.
ID is not creationism or anti-evolution, nor is it a religious position. It is the application of design theory to the natural and living world. Intelligent design theorists point to the existence of precise physical laws and the fine tuning of universal constants, the staggering complexity and nanotechnology of the living cell, and the digitally-coded information content of DNA as evidence for a designing intelligence. The latter is particularly persuasive as all our experience indicates that information of the quality in DNA only arises from prior intelligence.
DNA has the following:
1. Functional InformationHow could such a system form randomly without any intelligence, and totally unguided?
3. Error Correction
What would come first - the encoder, error correction, or the decoder? How and where did the functional information originate?
Thanks for the input. I think what’s tripping me up is mostly definitional. ID vs. Creationist etc... I didn’t recognize them as the same thing. I always took creationism to mean a very young Earth, literal Genesis creation, and so on, and ID to be mostly about poking holes in evolution. Should make for some fun reading.
Who said anything about random? Why not a mutation?
In living cells, information-carrying molecules (such as DNA or RNA) are like the DVD, and the cellular machinery that reads that information and converts it into proteins is like the DVD player. As in the DVD analogy, genetic information can never be converted into proteins without the proper machinery. Yet in cells, the machines required for processing the genetic information in RNA or DNA are encoded by those same genetic molecules -- they perform and direct the very task that builds them.
This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language. Not long after the workings of the genetic code were first uncovered, biologist Frank Salisbury explained the problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher:
It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.The same problem confronts modern RNA world researchers, and it remains unsolved. As two theorists observed in a 2004 article in Cell Biology International:
The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical "hardware" capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message "receiver." But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein "workers" produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.From: Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories