Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - It would ‘become the death of science’

MSNBC ^ | 23 Sept 2005 | Ker Than

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Read the article and found it silly. Some bacteria can digest nylon, which is synthetic so there are 3 possible explanations for this and scientists "prefer" the third one (that a nylon eating gene recently evolved) for some very unconvincing reasons. The other argument against intelligent design was (I kid you not) that it is "boring" because it would answer everything.

Seems to me that there is a missing possibility. The "nylonase" gene could exist because it served another purpose -- maybe to break down something that was similar to nylon.

[Tax-chick]

The matter is in the hands of the Almighty Mod :-).

[wallcrawlr]

aw crap...it formatted correctly on my screen prior to posting...

sorry about that.

[trisham]

I believe it was Julian Huxley (but it might have been a different Huxley) who said, "Darwin's theory allowed us to get rid of God, and God was really getting in the way of our sex lives."

My memory of the exacting wording and source of the quote is sufficiently vague that it's not verifiable without more effort than it's worth.

**************

I googled it, but couldn't find it among any of his writings available online. Which doesn't really mean anything. Nor does it justify you being accused of lying.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What do you mean? I thought Rolexes evolved into existence.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Actually, there could be evidence of manipulation, but there isn't, which is why the Discovery Institute isn't participating in the trial. They know there is no way to test ID.

I'm unclear here.... Do you mean there is no way to identify manipulation. Or that there could be evidence, but none has turned up.

And would that be turned up or turned up yet, but there's still possibilities that haven't been looked at? Seems there are a lot of species and a lot of genes to consider.

[Tax-chick]

Nor does it justify you being accused of lying.

No, I don't think so, either, but I'm not going to have a Spasm over it. Given how vague my memory was, it was a poor decision to offer something so fuzzy.

[Clemenza]

I.D. is based entirely in the metaphysical, positing that nature works through an unprovable supernatural being. It is NOT science, nor does it belong in any science curriculum.

What makes you think, btw, that ALL nonreligious folks are leftists?

[Right Wing Professor]

I have requested that it be removed.

Then I retract and apologize for posting my belief that you were lying.

As a matter of policy, I find it's so easy to check quoted material out these days, and the likelihood of being refuted is so high if one doesn't and is wrong, that I try to check out even things I'm sure I remember.

[laredo44]

Of course then there is that sticky problem of when time began and where did all that matter come from that was involved in the big bang.

Unlike IDers who see no problem issuing NOYB explanations for whence the intelligence came. Are you postulating that the explanation you mock scientists for not currently having is one they will never understand?

[js1138]

I could say something equivalent about you, and it would show up on google in a few days. Inflammatory quotes by famous people will show up.

It's a false quote, even if it was qualified with an "I'm not sure".

Why would you say something derogatory about an entire family if you're not sure?

[wallcrawlr]

you stated you weren't sure about the quote when you originally posted it and have even offered to remove it.

you are more admirable and honorable than any of the hundreds of postings done by others (that will remain nameless) stating false/misleading/disparaging/inflammatory comments on Christianity.

thanks for taking the high road.

[trisham]

No, I don't think so, either, but I'm not going to have a Spasm over it. Given how vague my memory was, it was a poor decision to offer something so fuzzy.

****************

I know much more about Julian Huxley now. I consider it a gift to my continuing education. :)

[trisham]

I could say something equivalent about you, and it would show up on google in a few days. Inflammatory quotes by famous people will show up.

It's a false quote, even if it was qualified with an "I'm not sure".

Why would you say something derogatory about an entire family if you're not sure?

****************

I didn't say it. Someone else did and was called a liar.

[trisham]

you stated you weren't sure about the quote when you originally posted it and have even offered to remove it.

you are more admirable and honorable than any of the hundreds of postings done by others (that will remain nameless) stating false/misleading/disparaging/inflammatory comments on Christianity.

thanks for taking the high road.

****************

Agreed.

[Right Wing Professor]

Tax-chick did the right thing. When she did, I asked the moderator to remove my response, and retracted my accusation. I would hope that this is also the right thing, and the matter is closed. I request that you treat it as such.

[js1138]

Do you mean there is no way to identify manipulation.

The kinds of manipulation being done in laboratories would cause trouble if found in the wild. Pig genes in tomatoes and such.

The problem for ID is that everything found in the wild supports a common genetic lineage, a family tree.

The greater problem with ID is that it doesn't know how to predict anomalies, and hasn't predicted any. I suppose if we found a stray gene, someone would try to say, Ah Ha!

But predications after the fact don't carry much weight. What is it that ID would look for? None of the ID advocates have been able to come up with anything.

[headsonpikes]

I.D. is based entirely in the metaphysical, positing that nature works through an unprovable supernatural being. It is NOT science, nor does it belong in any science curriculum.

One can't put it much plainer than that.

Just what is it some folks don't get about science?

It's a method, folks, not Revealed Truth.

Sheesh!

[wallcrawlr]

"The most basic problem [with ID] is that it's utterly boring," said William Provine, a science historian at Cornell University in New York. "Everything that's complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it."

< snip>

It begins with complexity — a Supreme Being — and also ends there.

He doesnt realize how close to the truth he is.

[js1138]

The phrase "why would you" was a figure of speech. It wasn't directed literally at you.

All of us have made claims in the heat of argument that we had to retract, or should have retracted. This has been done, and the case is settled.