Replies

"It doesn’t refute evolution (except in the sense that it shows that mutations almost always cause harm/devolution). But my main point in posting this article is to show that the Darwinists, who have been trying to find a cure for cancer based on mutation theory, have been leading us down the wrong path for over 30 years. It’s time for a new breed of scientists who are willing to look at the problem differently. Duesberg is one of those scientists. ID scientists would also bring a fresh perspective to the War on Cancer. For instance, rather than being hamstrung by Darwinian random mutation, IDers would not be adverse to looking for controversial cancer causes that lie outside of the neo-Darwinian paradigm (such as common mechanisms, the possibility that the body grows cancer in response to some deeper/holistic health problem, etc)."

Are you saying that cancer is designed?

Are you also saying that common causes, environmental causes and concurrent disease causes are somehow outside of normal medical investigation and the development of treatments?

Perhaps you are suggesting that the body can make an intelligent decision based on health problems to become or initiate cancer? Are the cancer cells themselves intelligent?

What should we do if CSI is found in a cancer cell, email the intelligent agent and request he stop?

If you are simply saying that current science is too constrained by modern methods and the new blood of the very inventive IDists would open up whole new pathways, then perhaps we should invite a few children to come up with ideas, they are even more inventive than IDists (mostly). You insult every scientist working on cures for cancer by your statements, statements I might add which have nothing but your opinion to back them.