Magic embryology:extensive programming on display (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 27, 2018, 00:22 (1657 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As for “prejudiced” scientists, you have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance that they are right, since nobody can tell from the outside whether intelligent behaviour stems from intelligence or from preprogramming. If you think these dedicated scientists, who have spent a lifetime studying cell behaviour, are prejudiced because they opt for the 50% you don’t like, I’m afraid your espousal of the other 50% makes you just as prejudiced.

DAVID: My background in biochemistry allows me to disagree with your scientists on the basis of more than prejudice. You cannot deny their Darwin bias. My ID science folks agree with me.

dhw: Cellular intelligence plays no part in Darwin’s theory, and I do not believe for one second that “my” scientists’ conclusions have been influenced by a belief in common descent – a belief you share with them. The concept actually provides a potentially devastating blow to Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations. And I cannot see why you think experts with both background and foreground in cytogenetics, biochemistry, biology, bacterial genetics, cell biology etc., who share your belief in common descent, are prejudiced, whereas you, with your background in biochemistry and your firm belief in divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, are not.

We are left with our same disagreement. Common descent is not the issue. It is the total Neo-Darwin synthesis from the 1950's, about which I have presented many articles on the current discussions and disagreements, because the newer science doesn't fit the earlier suppositions. Your folks come from that era. Much of this has been revealed by Susan Mazur's reporting:

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum