>Chris
>Can you, or anyone else, name *one* person who is finding it
>*scientifically*
>You've made this same unsupported assertion before, and others have made
>similar points in response (as have I). As far as I know, you did not
>provide an instance of anyone finding it useful *then*, either. *This*
>time, could you provide one such instance?
Hi Chris.
I believe Denton suggested "Junk" DNA would turn out not to be junk. Mike
Gene has claimed that design has motivated him to look for purpose in systems
that were thought to have no purpose. Whether true or not, Mike Gene claims
to find a design inference useful. I should think any scientist who looks
for a purpose for a seemingly useless piece of biology, might well be using
a design inference. Any scientist who looks for something beyond random
processes is probably using a design inference. Any ecologist looking for
meaning in a biosphere that was once thought to be a random collection of
unrelated parts might be using a design inference. I'm not about to conduct
a survey of scientists just to satisfy critics. However I assume any
scientist who considers design a possibility finds it useful. There are
some, in spite of the disapproval of critics. If it proves productive, there
will be more. (Please don't tell me "yes but anyone who works under
different assumptions than I do is not a "real" scientist.)
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 15:44:39 EDT