Sir,
I am not about to argue with symantics of macro vs. micro evolution, nor am I equipped to discuss every exception to every rule. I will say that your eagerness to stratify objectivists into distinct categories (pro/con macro-evolution) I find to be of questionable intent and utility, but such are merely the egotistical judgements of one Man, and as such, not of any more particular utility;)
As a professional engineer who utilizes objective science (specifically, principles of abstract math and computation, combined with theories about the reproductive effectiveness of particular algorithms (organisms) within particular computational environments), My interest in science and objectivity is entirely and completely functional in nature. I could not care less about the ontological Truth of any given theory, only it’s ability to help me predict, and hence engineer the given domain in which I work.
That said, the biggest problem I have Ever had with ID is simply this- I have yet to find a single situation where an ID theory provides any additional functional predictive benefit above and beyond it’s evolutionary antithesis. To try and clarify- So yes, There are plenty of Scientifically rigorous Intellectual Theories which falsify parts (or all, I don’t claim to know) of macro-evolution by proving the predictions of macro-evolution wrong in specific cases, but is there a single I.D. Theory which, in addition to falsifying some aspect of macro-evolution, also provides verifiable, testable and practical rules of thumb which enable scientists and practical professionals such as my self to better predict, model and affect their world? Could you give me an example of a practical engineering breakthrough brought about by I.D. Theory that would not have been possible with merely macro-evolutionary theoretical modeling?
If there is, then I will admit that perhaps I’ve mis-judged ID.
Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
[[I find to be of questionable intent and utility,]]
I didn’t mark you as a macroevolutionist- so your objection isn’t relevent
[[My interest in science and objectivity is entirely and completely functional in nature. I could not care less about the ontological Truth of any given theory, only it’s ability to help me predict, and hence engineer the given domain in which I work.]]
That’s fine- just poijnting out hte differences between designed computational info and natur’es metainfo
[[That said, the biggest problem I have Ever had with ID is simply this- I have yet to find a single situation where an ID theory provides any additional functional predictive benefit above and beyond it’s evolutionary antithesis.]]
Huh? Since when is ID suppsoed to ‘add’ anything? ID and IC are already complete- created in whole
[[So yes, There are plenty of Scientifically rigorous Intellectual Theories which falsify parts (or all, I don’t claim to know) of macro-evolution by proving the predictions of macro-evolution wrong in specific cases, but is there a single I.D. Theory which, in addition to falsifying some aspect of macro-evolution, also provides verifiable, testable and practical rules of thumb which enable scientists and practical professionals such as my self to better predict, model and affect their world?]]
Sure- ID is falisifiable (Not htat htis is even a requirement of sciebce- Popper imposed his opinion about falsifiability and testabiliy upon science- but it’s not actually necessary, but yes, ID is falsifiable- if it can be shown that nature is capable of ID and metainfo, then the hypothesis is falsified- As well, IC systems can be tested for. Can it help you in your profession? I guess- if we udnerstand metainfo better and see how it predicts what is to come within species specific parameters, we can then ttranslate that I think to computational models- but hten again I don;t know much about digital algorithms and such- so not sure.
[[Could you give me an example of a practical engineering breakthrough brought about by I.D. Theory that would not have been possible with merely macro-evolutionary theoretical modeling?]]
Sorry- wasn’t aware that ID had to jump through htis hoop requirement too in order to be concidered science?