Nelson:
I read a great example once,where one design principle was used to learn
about a completely unrelated system.A system that is like the F-ATPase, I
can predict that, given it is IC, that I will find all of the F-ATPase
subunits will be found in every bacterial genome employing the same
mechanism and that similar systems will employ the same mechanism.
If we test this with an unrelated but similar molecular machine,
what will we find? The cytoskeleton actually works exactly like the F-
ATPase.Both bind ATP. And just like the parts of the F-ATPase, we
find that the cytoskeleton needs minimal parts to function. You can
then safely hypothesize, that if F-ATPase binds to GTP, that the
cytoskeleton will bind to GTP. And if that was my prediction, that
would be true.And if the F-ATPase uses only one protein to hydrolyze
it, I would predict that the cytoskeleton only uses one protein to
hydrolyze it. And that would be true, it only uses the beta tubulin
How was design or ID used here? It has not even be shown that IC is a
reliable detector of design or even worse intelligent design. And to top it
all off it has not even been shown that intelligent design can exclude a
natural designer. So the claim that "design was used to learn about a system"
still fails to show design itself has any scientific value. What does ID add
that at present science does not have?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 09 2000 - 15:09:48 EDT