[ RadSafe ] DNA Repair
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Wed Oct 21 11:36:52 CDT 2015
"We don't know" or the more optimistic "We don't know yet" are, in my opinion, the most valid statements someone engaged in scientific thinking can make (even in things that we know there is something we don't know, if you dig deep enough). I am actually comfortable with a fairly high level of uncertainty in a number of areas, both because I understand (or at least I think I understand) how knowledge is accumulated, and because I am enough of an engineer to realize that a model doesn't need to be perfect in order to be useful enough to get on with things (Brennan's Assumption #1: All models are wrong, and some are useful.)
There are a couple of data points that lead me to reject Intelligent Design as a useful model:
(1) The main players in ID were also players in Scientific Creationism, and in Creationism before that (allowing for death, retirement, and replacement). Their goal is to have the Biblical story of creation taught in Public Schools as a valid alternative to the Theory of Education, because it would make them feel good. They have added no science content as they moved from one to the other, in hopes that they could find a court that would not label their product "religion".
(2) Their argument of, "You admit you don't know and we claim we do know, therefore we are right about everything" is not convincing.
(3) When asked, "What new lines of inquiry does assuming an Intelligent Designer open up?" most ID proponents I've talked to are silent. I have talked to a couple who have said, "You can pray for the answers to be revealed to you", which I suppose is true, but I am not sure how you would footnote that in a paper.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dimiter Popoff
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:02 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DNA Repair
I wonder how this pseudo debate has been used so successfully for so long.
Proving that evolution exists does not prove intelligent design does not, evolution could simply be desinged into whatever has been designed.
Proving that life is the result of an intelligent design is simply impossible given the data we have to date; then if we are someones design, who designbed the designer. It is just a classic "han or egg" debate.
The only answer we can manage so far on the beginning of all beginnings is "we don't know". The answer will not come as a result of head scratching or some other form of deep thought - future research may get us closer.
As it is now any person or institution claiming to have an answer is simply trying to cheat for some purpose - we know enough to know we don't know.
Obviously I do not dwell a lot on all this (as my post might suggest), I have some real design work to do :D. Not as intelligent perhaps but well, it is the best I am capable of I suppose.
Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DNA Repair
>From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
>To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:19:23 +0000
> Hi, Joe.
> A couple of points:
>>(2) I don't see resorting to Intelligent
>Design as either indicated or useful. I played in the Theory of
>Evolution vs Intelligent Design for years, and believe the evidence
>that ID is just "Creationism dressed in a lab coat". It is political,
>not scientific, with the goal of getting Creationism (by another name) ....
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe