Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Many people have asked...

...the IDiots to explain exactly how the acceptance of "ID" (especially by biologists/evolutionary scientists) would change science for the better. What new and useful research avenues, methods, tools, etc., would be created and used?

Some IDiots (joe g, etc.) have said that reverse engineering would then be done on organisms, etc., but reverse engineering is already being done in every instance where it applies and can be done. The only other response IDiots have (when they have any at all) is that an "ID inference" could be made. Well, so what?

No matter how many times the IDiots are asked what new and useful difference the acceptance of "ID" would make in scientific research, they NEVER have a USEFUL answer, and they run from the question like chickens from a fox.

Let's take a little trip back in time:

Pay close attention to the fact that dembski never actually answered the question, and nothing has changed since, and of course the real reason the IDiots never answer the question (and run away) is because the acceptance of "ID" or the "ID inference" would NOT create ANY new or useful research avenues, methods, tools, etc.

So, IDiots, here's another chance for you to answer the question: EXACTLY HOW would the acceptance of "ID" or the "ID inference" usefully change the way scientific research (especially biology/evolutionary science) is done?