Joined: July 2007
|Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 11 2019,13:52)|
|Well that was fun.|
Besides the binary categorization of designed/not designed, what have ID scientists learned in the last 20 years or so?
And how is this binary categorization helpful?
What is its practical use for biologists?
Where does a scientist go from "This was designed"?
Hey, asshole, worry about your own lame-ass position.
No one uses evolutionism for anything.
No advances in science have been made thanks to evolutionism.
That said- yes the binary categorization is helpful as it gets the root of one of the 3 basic questions science asks: How did it get to be the way it is? We know it matters to an investigation that it matters if nature did it or some intelligent agency involvement was required. We definitely study Stonehenge differently than if it was deemed a natural formation.
Practical use- genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design. And only ID offers up and explanation/ accounting for what determines form.
From "this was designed" now we have new and interesting questions to explore. And we would start looking for that something besides physics and chemistry that ID says exists (in living organisms).
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t
simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW
"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton