At 03:44 PM 09/13/2000, you wrote:
> >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?
Nelson:
I wrote about this before in my one of my first responses to Susan. I used
the design principle of one molecular motor, the F-ATPase, to predict the
mechanics of another unrelated another, the cytoskeleton.ID is indeed
extremely useful.
>
>
>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.)
Chris
That "Junk" DNA might turn out not to be junk has nothing to do with
purpose or design; it has to do with biological function (if any).
Nelson:
Actually this was an evolutionist prediction. Much like how evolutionists
thought of the cell as a bag of goo. Design theorists would not discount it
as "junk" or the cell as a bag of goo. What they would predict is that junk
DNA really isn't junk. And that the cell is actually not a bag of goo, but a
complex factory.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 14:24:33 EDT