Can you imagine if a “.gov” was publishing a web page that claimed that ID survives scientific scrutiny?

If a “.gov” were publishing such a falsehood — that the profoundly nonscientific survived scientific scrutiny [better to call it an insanity] — there would be an uproar!

Yet, I notice in certain sectors — like ‘states’ licensed health care — there is quite a largess of ‘epistemic charity.’

Here’s an example:

I’m quite familiar with naturopathy’s claim that their core beliefs are scientific [see http://www.oregon.gov/OBNE/Aboutnaturopathy.shtml , wherein such things as vitalism and spiritism and teleology are claimed to survive scientific scrutiny in this year 2007 at a ".gov"; with Oregon the trunk of the FNPLA 'naturopathy tree'].

Wow, the profoundly nonscientific [to the extent that the claims are best labeled a hoax or a 'moronic fantasy'] claimed as science goes unnoticed [because the inmates are running the asylum, e.g. I've actually complained to the California version of OBNE that are doing about the same...to no avail].

Listen to the uproar [cricket, cricket...].

So, a “.gov” blatantly promotes falsehoods, to the extent that it menaces the public’s understanding of what legitimately is science [particularly in terms of medical science].

And so:

A request: can we have a “why the profoundly nonscientific should not be taught as surviving scientific scrutiny” entry, Dr. N.?

A simple request!

I know it’s inane…but e.g. so is OBNE.

-rc.

#2 is correct, genetic homology is evidence for common ancestry. #1 is not correct. Genetic homology is independently derived from various lines of genetic evidence, such as amino acid sequence and DNA sequence.

These patterns are homologous because there is no possible functional reason for them – UUA and UUG both code of leucine, so there is zero functional difference between the two. Homology means similarity in specific details without a functional cause. Evolutionary theory predicts we will find a pattern of homology compatible with common descent – and we do. ID makes no predictions.

I have read yopur article a few times. I had a one paragraph comment for some clarifications. On a second reading I could reduce that to this much:

1. Common ancestry proves genetic homology

2. Genetic homology proves common ancestry

I am going in circle. I would appreciate very much, being not a Biologist (my PhD is in Nuclear Chemistry), if you would help me to break that cycle.

Where in the article is # 2 true without reference to # 1?

Please do not take this as an adverse criticism. I just want to get a grip on Homology. Iam not getting anywhere. Every one failed me.

This is important to me, because I am only trying to define and classify SENTIENCE, if at all possible on genetic basis.

Very many thanks

With best regards

Philip Benjamin, PhD
medinuclear@hotmail.com