Home » Design inference, News » Will cures for disease vindicate ID? Maybe.

Will cures for disease vindicate ID? Maybe.

A friend asks,

So if communication theory, which is a branch of information theory, which in turn is the basis of intelligent design, ends up helping scientists disrupt pathogenic clusters of bacteria and thereby curing disease, will ID be vindicated …

Thinking of this From “Bacterial Communication Could Provide Key to Developing Nanoscale Medical Devices”:

Over the next four years, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech; Atlanta) will be studying how bacteria communicate with one another on a molecular level. The scientists’ goal is to determine whether the principles of bacterial communication can be applied to how nanodevices will one day communicate to form nanoscale networks.

Headed by Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech professor of electrical and computer engineering, the research team hopes to pave the way for intelligent, communicative nanonetworks that could have wide-ranging and potentially life-changing ramifications. “The nanoscale machines could potentially be injected into the blood, circulating in the body to detect viruses, bacteria and tumors,” Akyildiz comments. “All these illnesses—cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, asthma, whatever you can think of—they will be history over the years. And that’s just one application.”

Maybe. But how likely is it that bacteria got to be so smart on their own?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to Will cures for disease vindicate ID? Maybe.

  1. Pfft….are you seriously going to conflate human design by scientists and engineers (with nothing in common with you folks) with “ID”?

    Why not just claim the Golden Gate Bridge, MRIs and the transistor as “ID” victories?

    What a joke you are.

  2. 2

    DrREC, feel free to make substantive comments that disagree with us. But if you just come in and fling insults, you will be escorted out.

  3. The logic of this seems to be – scientists are studying something with the word “communication” in it, the words “communication” and “information” are often used together, ID talks a lot about “information”. Therefore, any progress these scientists make may in part be due to ID. I think a little more detail would be useful. E.g what exactly these scientists might owe to ID methods and/or discoveries (although I am not aware of any ID discoveries to date).

  4. Correct MarkF.

    UD is legendary for dredging up legitimate scientific papers that contain words such as ‘design’ and ‘irreducible’ and then posting an article under the breathless tag-line “New ID Research?”. The answer is invariably “NO” but that doesn’t matter to the faithful.

  5. But if you just come in and fling insults, you will be escorted out.

    On the other hand if you just come in and fling insults at atheists, scientists or better yet Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins we’ll give you posting privileges.

  6. On the other hand if you just come in and fling insults at atheists, scientists or better yet Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins we’ll give you posting privileges.

    Do you not understand the difference between criticism and insults? It truly is a shame that Darwin and co. have gained some demi-god status within the naturalist community, seemingly beyond reproach.

    What did Chen say: “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

    So is Dawkins next to be added to that list of “holy men”. Skeptics indeed.

  7. markf,

    Skeptic’s Objection to Information Theory #1: “DNA is Not a Code”
    Excerpt: Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
    http://www.cosmicfingerprints....../dna-code/

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails
    Excerpt of comment: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, so I guess I have a different approach to this article that most would.

    And yet I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.

    Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another.

    But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....nt-8858161

  8. I think my comment was unkind, but had substance enough.

    It contained a question neither you nor the original poster have answered.

    Are you seriously going to conflate human design by scientists and engineers with the biological “ID” movement?

    How was this work influenced by ID? What ID hypothesis or design principle spurred it on? What ID notable was involved with it?

Leave a Reply