From ResearchID.org

One question that probably needs to be answered if we're to construct a useful "ladder" of possible achievements is to consider: what do you see ID giving back to the scientific community? Currently it appears to me that the only thing ID tells us is that there's a Designer that did some Designing. In and of itself that's not terribly useful.

By contrast, evolutionary biology gives us insight into why assorted cladistic techniques (palaeontologic, genetic, structural, plus a few others) all line up more or less perfectly. It explains why diseases are able to nullify the effects of antibiotics, and to predict which diseases are most likely to become virulent. It allows us to make predictions about creatures in the past (such as the much-hyped Tiktaalik) and creatures in the present (such as the human chromosome that's almost identical to two chimp chromosomes). By copying the processes involved, it allows us to design better computer programs, control systems, engines, wings, and so on. By comparing instances of convergent evolution, it allows us to determine which attributes of living organisms are worth mimicking and which are mere coincidence.

What mark does ID intend to leave on science? -- Corkscrew 15:22, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

ID's mark on science is currently a heavily disputed point. If I knew the answer I would not be here. If I knew the mark was null and empty, I would be at Talk Reason. If I knew the impact was certain, I would be at town hall demanding that my school board teach it. But I am in a mid-point. The evidence seems to indicate that what we see in the universe did not come about by randomness and blind regularity.

I would venture to say that even if I was to present you with the most eloquent and logical reasoning, you still would not begin to entertain ID as a true gateway to understanding the physical world. You seem to have some kind of vested interest in discrediting ID, and material on this website in particular.

Corkscrew, it seems that with Blind Watch Maker evolution, you have reached your own pinnacle of human knowledge. It would appear that you have found a satisfactory answer to every question that your heart and mind asks. I have to wonder: why are you at ResearchID.org if this is the case? Why aren't you at Panda's Thumb, patting yourself on the back as you wax on the wonderful aspects of evolution working through randomness and blindness, while all of the other Panda's Thumb folks cheer you on? -- JosephCCampana 01:05, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Well, one reason is because they're somewhat less likely to call me on it when I say something daft. That way lies intellectual stagnation and/or partisanship, neither of which appeal.

A second reason is because I know for a fact that I personally am not at the pinnacle of human knowledge. The science community itself isn't at the pinnacle of human knowledge in this area (although I suspect that they are the fastest climbers). If there is something to ID, it will completely overturn my current worldview, and that's something I don't feel I can risk being unaware of.

Thirdly, ResearchID is IMO a lot less (trying to put this tactfully and failing) bloodyminded than the majority of places where ID is discussed. That caught my interest.

Fourthly, ID represents a good foil for examining my own attitudes and making sure they're internally consistent (that's the backstory behind my essay on falsifiability, in case you were wondering). In particular, I hope that if I were presented with "the most eloquent and logical reasoning" I would accept the conclusion.

Fifthly, I'm interested to see if two groups of people, both following an approach resembling the scientific method, can in fact come to different conclusions. That too would be a major blow to my current worldview if true.

I wouldn't say I have a vested interest in discrediting ID and this website, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was mostly trying to highlight perceived differences between the attitude of the ID community and the attitude of the scientific community. Too many such differences would blow my fifth reason out of the water, so I would say that I have a vested interest in highlighting these differences. -- Corkscrew 06:45, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Corkscrew, question: what do you consider the 10 greatest scientific discoveries or achievements of all time? -- JosephCCampana 08:19, 10 April 2006 (CDT)