quote:
Even though these people are scepictal of ID, they sure did take a large amount of interest into this "unscientific" theory.
How does this make ID an accurate scientific model? It seems that scientists are taking interest in ID because some of the public actually think it is a valid science. In order to show that it is in fact a pseudoscience they must get all of the details first.
quote:
ID scientists also do their own research, too. If they have their own conferences, then at least one person probably thought of doing some of their own research, but if you still don't believe me, I'll provide an example of additional research they have done on the bacterial flagellum. . . .
Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria
The bacterial flagellum represents one of the best understood molecular machines. Comprised of 40 parts that self-assemble into a true rotary engine, the biochemistry and genetics of these systems has revealed an unanticipated complexity.
This is a great example of ID research, and a great example of why it is pseudoscience. They simply describe a system and then say it is complex. Woopy doo. They then commit a logical fallacy (Fallacy of Incredulity) by proclaiming "See, nothing this complex could be caused by evolution".
Let's compare this to evolution, and how research in evolution is done. Evolution makes the prediction that DNA sequences will fit into a nested hiearchy. They then find distinct sequences that are common to closely related species. They then find that these sequences, such as pseudogenes and ERV's, fit into a nested hiearchy, just as the theory predicts. These are specific claims, specific models, and falsifiable predictions. ID is left with one argument: "Wow, it is so complex God must have done it."
™ Version 4.2
