Further to: Blocking “junk” DNA can prevent stroke damage (so it obviously does something, right?):
In a book review in a Darwin lobby journal, “A deeper confusion,” (of The Deeper Genome and Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome), we read a note of concern:
If taken uncritically, these texts can be expected to generate even more confusion in a field that already has a serious problem when it comes to communicating the best understanding of the science to the public.
Hmmm. Anything, “taken uncritically,” can be expected to do that. So… ah, now we come to it:
They will also certainly provide ammunition for intelligent design proponents and other creationists. The debunking of junk DNA and the quest to find function for the whole of the human genome have constituted major focus points for such groups in their crusade against evolution (Wells ; Tompkins ; Wells )—it is assumed (justifiably or not) that a creator would not design genomes full of “junk”, therefore any scientific result that seems to show that more of the genome is functional than previously thought is warmly embraced by them as evidence against junk DNA theory as a whole.
When someone argues that a fact helps the wrong sort of people, better pay attention to the fact, not his opinion.
Put another way: Is one better off with the wrong people with the right answer or the right people with the wrong answer. Or … ignore the Darwin lobby and have a nice day.
See also: Junk DNA hires a PR firm
Jonathan Wells on junk DNA (Yes, the guy cited above)
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Note: Posting light until later this evening, due to O’Leary for News’ alternate day job.
Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista