MIRROR: Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover

If people like the Discovery Institute want to put forward hypotheses such as intelligent design as an origin for the information in DNA, then that's fine, but if they want it to be taken seriously, they must provide some evidence to support it. The user C0nc0rdance has provided exactly such a method for them to do this. Its simple, find a gene without an evolutionary heritage. The genomes of about 180 life forms have been sequenced containing maybe a million genes, and thus far the Discovery Institute has shown saintly resistance to look for a single gene that shows signs of non-evolutionary origin.
If you are an Intelligent Design Proponenist and think this would be an excellent method for presenting evidence to support ID, then arguably your best course of action would be to contact the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/ ) at info@discovery.org and suggest that the largest pro-intelligent design organisation actually looks for evidence to support their hypothesis.



The core of this video was made by user C0nc0rdance
http://www.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance
He makes excellent videos on science and defending science against dis-information.

Personally I think the Discovery Institute will do their best to ignore this, after all they must have thought of this before, they just do not want to invalidate their hypothesis by trying.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Discovery
• Institute
• intelligent
• design
• evolution
• testing
• science
• theory
• hypothesis
• arena
• peer
• review
• genes
• genome
• DNA
• RNA
• proteins
• test
• information
• president
• steven
• meyer
• religion
• Christian
• Christianity
• creation
• teach
• the
• controversy
• strengths
• and
• weaknesses
• disinformation
• C0nc0rdance
• thunderf00t

[benthemiester]

"That does not make him an expert on biology, medicine, or evolution"

There is no such thing as an expert in these fields because they encompass to much. Everybody has there own niche. No one is smart enough to understand all there is in biology & genetics, especial right now. The new epigenetic paradigm is forcing people to literally go back to the drawing board & rethink much of everything we thought we knew. More and more are starting to admit the staggering complexity & misunderstandings.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

Fine. I amend my statement to, "That does not make him an expert in any subfield of biology, medicine, or evolution." The point is the same.

I'm not sure you really get the big picture of gene regulation and where epigenetics fits in, but I think you might be overstating its importance in modern biology. The field's been around since 1942, so it's not exactly the latest and greatest new idea in biology. Important, yes, but not a revolution.

[benthemiester]

"He directs the strategic pro-creation activities of the DI" Please back up your claim, are u saying the DI has a pro creationist department or are you just making this stuff up. I have to say you sounded fairly intelligent up until that last statement. I've spoken to many of these people and I have never heard of a pro creationist department or of them trying to promote creationism. Like thunderfoot, this demonstrates a profound ignorance in Intelligent design. Others get it, but some don't.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

According to the leaked Wedge Document, the purpose of the the "Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture" is to "replace it [materialism] with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." and "We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith"

Have you read this document? It dispels any pretense of secularism. It's "apologetics". Their word!

[Looking4Coffee]

Archeology is the study of man made objects. Do these objects reproduce on their own? Do they mutate on their own? Does their genetic information change over time?

How about ID predict something. How can you tell a designed from non designed living organism? Should be pretty simple.

Also, might be a good idea if it's science, to submit to peer review once in a while instead of trying to get your ideas taught in schools through legislation.

I know who has science on their side.

[rabbaj]

Sorry, but that does not compute. You say:

"Maybe it is outside of nature, maybe it isn't. That's not the point.".

Then you go on to say:

"Agency is capable of information generation, top down design, and symbolic representation which nature is not capable of. All of these qualities are observed at the molecular level."

How do you know that if it's outside nature?!?! You couldn't, could you? So, it must be in nature. Therefore, how do you distinguish between the two, scientifically?

[adkinsjr]

@umborriquitocomotu

No, they've responded, but not with the evidence asked for. They just regurgitated the same old "homology does not imply relatedness" canard. Same old system of denial...

[benthemiester]

I was speaking specifically of the in vitro selection process using pool RNA that Szostac uses in his work. I think the bigger question concerning the RNA world is the instability of RNA and difficulties with storing large & complex amounts of information which it would need to store if we are to believe that RNA could evolve into the DNA protein based life that we see today. Again, if you have done work on this field and have been able to answer some of these questions please cite your work.

[benthemiester]

Correction....... I meant to say it is not supported by the NCSE and Eugenie Scott although there are also some members of the Nas that don't support it either for the reasons previously mentioned. The fact that even Massimo Pigliucci is calling for a relaxation of the assumptions made by the current Darwinian synthesis and is in favor of a new extended synth based on an epigenetic model is big news in my opinion.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

It takes more than a basic technical degree to be a scientist. One must be engaged in the process of science, a part of the scientific community, and contributing new knowledge to a scientific field.

But I will grant that he worked as an oilfield geologist in 1984, 26 years ago. That does not make him an expert on biology, medicine, or evolution. If he would be a bit clearer, it might dispel any illusions that he more than a layperson with regards to biology.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

I apologize for the mistake. Stephen Meyer is DIRECTOR of the CSC, not the President of the DI.

Again, "excepted" is not correct in this usage, "accepted" is.

If we allow for natural forces to be designers, then, by all means, I am in favor of Natural Design. It's the top-down idea that gets them into trouble.

[benthemiester]

@C0nc0rdance He has a degree in physics and earth science and has worked as a geophysicist. He is also philosopher as well. Why would you have a problem with that? If someone has a degree in science and has done scientific work, why should someone be in error calling him a scientist. What is your point? Please cite who has misrepresented his scientific credentials. I have to tell you, each thread seems to be getting more and more out there.