Utterly Meaningless

It looks like somebody took a blow dryer to the chimp prior to the picture.

Any science article that refers to non-coding DNA as “junk,” is flawed. Recent research confirms that the non-coding DNA has higher level function, similar to the “logic” in a computer program. Ya gotta love some of these evolutionists, if they can’t understand something, they just say its “junk.”

Stating that evolutionary theory underpins modern biology is propaganda. Evo theory predicts little to nothing. I don’t think many biologists could recite the “laws” of evolutionary theory. And they would say that evolutionary theory doesn’t directly affect or influence what they do. I’m not referring to Mendelian Genetics which does underpin modern biology, rather, I’m looking for the specific laws of evolution which explain the origin of novel biological features and new species.

Speciation of birds is interesting, but more of the same, minor change that evolutionists have been finding and touting for the past 150 years.

Enjoy it while it lasts, Dave. You’re about to be pwn3d.

Daryl:

Nice site. Glad to see there are more libertarians out here. I must, however, take some issue with the Science article.

(1) The “recreation” of the 1918 flu virus shows intelligent design–or as Fred (www.fredoneverything.net) shows, “intelligent plagiarism”. When a scientist is working in a lab to comsciously construct something, he is designing or building it via intelligence. Ergo, this is not an advancement for the case of evolution, which involves the nebulous and random nature of “natural selection” as the mechanism.

(2) Ther article cites “…a study on European blackcap birds which demonstrated how two different populations can become two separate species.”

Key word here is CAN. Thuat hardly demonstrates hard empirical work.

Don’t get me wrong, Daryl: there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of ID (as well as the fundies who champion it). I have long maintained that ID is not scientific because it is beyond the scope of the scientific method.

However, as an engineering graduate, ID makes sense from an ENGINEERING standpoint. It’s not so much that ID proves design as much as it provides a legitimate observation that has rational basis.

ID–in and of itself–hardly requires that one accept Biblical creationism (or any other theological framework in specificity). However, ID provides an observational basis for why reasonable people differ over elements of evolution.

At any rate, the discussion is one worth having.

Daryl:

One more thing: I don’t mean to knock the folks at Science magazine–we know that they usually provide very solid reporting on scientific matters.

However, they don’t always get it right either. In May of this year, stem cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk made some very significant claims regarding cloning and stem-cell research. Science magazine reported those with great fanfare.

We now know that Woo Suk was engaging in flagrant academic fraud. After well over $60 million in funding, all he had to show for his research was fraud.

That’s not to knock the entirety of the scientific community or even Science magazine. After all, no one gets it right 100% of the time, and scientists are like anyone else: they have a few bad apples among their ranks just as engineers do.

However, the takeaway of all this is that we should subject everyone to the scrutiny of free inquiry.