The Dogmatists' New Clothes
Creationism is an example of what Richard Dawkins calls a “virus of the mind,” ...
... Why have those resources been used to elevate pseudoscience? The Stanford community deserves an explanation.
An article by Paul Laddis, see at
http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html
posted by Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz at 10:19 AM
1 Comments:
"Intelligent Design" (or "Creation contra Evolution") is not at all a new debate - and it focuses not even on science (but on politics). It is not new since it is arguable if e.g. trees are "intelligently designed" since the same blueprint to grow one leaf can be used to grow many, or the "design" is not that intelligent, since lots of trees "junk" all their leaves in the fall. (Or if "built-in obsolence" may be the truly intelligent design e.g. for the car industry, perhaps Nature is "intelligent" likewise?) The vehemence (vitriol, rather) of the new flare-up of an old debate around "junkDNA" is portrayed here only to show that the "Junk/Regulatory DNA" scientific and technological explosion leaves no stone unturned. Fortunately, Stanford "deserves an explanation" mainly of the regulatory function of 98.7% of (human) DNA... Comment on the 18th of May, 2005 by A. Pellionisz
9:11 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home