"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

[Shermana]

More people have died in the name of Karl Marx than of any religious leader.

You can look up the carnage left in the wake of Marxism, and compare it to the carnage left in the wake of religious leaders. Marx is ahead by an order of magnitude.

Could you get more off the thread topic if you tried? Hello, evolution? Got anything to say about it? How about "Darwinism?"

And a hat trick it is.

1. Goat made a comment about how religion has killed people . who disagree. (Not off topic at all of course).

2. Pax responded to Goat's concept in a counter to show that non-religious people have killed as well.

Bonus: Marx considered himself a scientist. Marxists consider Marxism a "science".

. Finally, the very nature of Marxism – a science and a philosophy closely bound up with (political or scientific) practice – represents an additional difficulty, perhaps the greatest of all. If one neglects the constant reference to practice, which Marx, Engels, and their followers insistently call to our attention, one is liable to misunderstand the significance of Marxism entirely, and to interpret it as an ‘ordinary’ philosophy.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... arxism.htm

Proponents of Marxism put lots of people to death who disagreed with it.

Who is to say it isn't?

[TheJackelantern]

More people have died in the name of Karl Marx than of any religious leader.

You can look up the carnage left in the wake of Marxism, and compare it to the carnage left in the wake of religious leaders. Marx is ahead by an order of magnitude.

Could you get more off the thread topic if you tried? Hello, evolution? Got anything to say about it? How about "Darwinism?"

And a hat trick it is.

1. Goat made a comment about how religion has killed people . who disagree. (Not off topic at all of course).

2. Pax responded to Goat's concept in a counter to show that non-religious people have killed as well.

Bonus: Marx considered himself a scientist. Marxists consider Marxism a "science".

. Finally, the very nature of Marxism – a science and a philosophy closely bound up with (political or scientific) practice – represents an additional difficulty, perhaps the greatest of all. If one neglects the constant reference to practice, which Marx, Engels, and their followers insistently call to our attention, one is liable to misunderstand the significance of Marxism entirely, and to interpret it as an ‘ordinary’ philosophy.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... arxism.htm

Proponents of Marxism put lots of people to death who disagreed with it.

Who is to say it isn't?

It's really not relevant if he considered himself a scientist. Science has nothing to do with Marxism, or does it operate under such... Philosophy btw is an individual thing, or personal belief... Pantheists for example are another example of science used with philosophy. Both of which are quite a bit different from naturalism to which I outlined above.

Another problem is that you can't take one man, say Hitler, or Pol Pot and then generalize everyone, or even a subject like science being equivalent to them. Yes, atheists can be bad people and kill millions just as nut case theists can.. The difference being is that Atheists don't have a doctrine in which tells them to, or incites them to, or governs their lives to the point where they would. That's a big difference. Hence, me as an atheist have nothing in common with some other atheist who kills other than a statement of GOD doesn't exist. But a Christian has a doctrine of commonality with another christian who kills because the bible tells them to kill non-believers.. They both worship the same GOD / book. But even then we can't say all Christians are evil killers because of these associations.

Religion is Theocritus by nature however, and that I think is much of why it's more potentially dangerous

[THEMAYAN]

RESPONSE TO BUST NAK


THEMAYAN wrote:
The theoretical (or should I say hypothetical)l proto cell/precursor to first living cell was supposedly non living and could not replicate itself until later and eventually chemical evolution allowed it to become life, and as for radios, yes thats right, they cant replicate. (Also take note I was not the one that brought up radios into the subject)

That's not right, the precursor to first living cell were non-living but could replicate itself.


It is exactly because of that extra complexity in the living cell that lets it evolve.
You are judging the merit of evolution, by looking at an example that doesn't have the ability to evolve. The inability of a radio to evolve, is beyond weak as an argument against evolution. It is as crazy as rejecting the theory of electromagnetic waves because digital watches can't transmit radio waves.

If there was a precursor, then there had to be a time when it could not replicate itself. Unless of course you believe that this ability of spontaneous generation happend instantaneously but I thought miracles were excluded. I don't think even the most ardent advocates of this hypothesis believe this. The current paradigm is the (RNA world) hypothesis, and even RNA would have had to take time through some kind of chemical evolution process before it eventually become RNA. Furthermore just to form the right semi permeable membrane to protect this RNA from external negative chemical reactions would have also taken times. Before this happens nothing can replicate. Scientist will sometimes speak of spontaneous generation in terms of abiogenesis in the modern sense.

Some people mistakenly believe that in biology the word spontaneous means instantaneously, but this is not the case. I haven't even yet mentioned the 300 lb. Gorilla in the room, and that's (Homochirality) which is one of the biggest logistical nightmares associated with OOL/ origin of life. The point is at somewhere we had to start with non living non replicating inert material. A radio is also non living inert material and this is what the analogy was based on. You ignored much of what was said and instead accused me of this whole radio business being the foundation of my entire argument and turned your response into a rhetorical one. I have not tried to distort or re color the points concerning the questions asked of me. I only ask the same of others.

Like I said before, it does sound silly to believe that inanimate inert material can assemble it self and eventually evolve, and this is what abiogenesis states, that non living matter came to life through a process of physics and chemistry alone and evolved. A radio is just as non living as the the non living material we supposedly came from. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand and again it's a simple analogy.

You are still equating complexity with design. The basic permise of creationist - if something simple needs a builder, something more complex also needs a builder. This notion have been shown to be false, variation + selection works as a mechanism to generate complex pattern, even if we ignore biology all together

In a sense one can equate all complexity and information with design, and can do so based on the fact that we live in a fine tuned universe that require double exponents just to calculate the probabilities of it happening on its own.
The material physical universe itself would not exist without this exquisite fine tuning. The appearance of design even on a cosmological scale is abundantly overwhelming and can be measured. As for complexity in the non bio material world, we can say mountains are complex, but Mount Rushmore shows a specified complexity and we can infer design from this specified complexity even in a case where we might not know or may never know who or what designed it, however biological complexity is a whole different animal. We're talking about a whole different level of complexity.

I.e. specified complexity, integrated complexity, nano technical machinery, motors with rotors staters, t rings, s rings, drive shaft, digital encoded information with in nuclear DNA and regulatory DNA with encoded information that is only useful by way of a sophisticated transcription process allowing this code to be read and translated forward and reverse at the same time, Multiple redundant safe guard systems, signal transduction systems, bio feedback systems, Emergent systems, Locks, keys, master switches and I could go on for many pages. And yes radios have integrated complexity also but on a much simpler level to say the least. Design can be reasonably inferred from both.

I've already given the reference to Venter's work - he used nothing but physics, chemistry and biology to manufacture/minic/copy/create/duplicate, or whatever term you would like to use, a living cell, from non-living material.

Again you distort the points I have made. Several times. I said that (physics and chemistry alone) could not accomplish this task. He did not use only physics and chemistry alone. He used intelligent process to achieve a desired and specific goal and effect. He and his team systemically repeated and intelligently manipulated several procedures until they achieved a desired outcome. Natural process are supposed to be unguided and non planned by intelligent agents.
If anything, what you have done is give more evidence to support the fact that it requires an intelligent agent just to synthesize DNA and mimic a living thing. I'n the end even Venter admits that he did not create life.

In Venters own words…….

The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be “creating life from scratch� but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA"

creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA"
creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA"
Life means living. Not dead.

The New York Times wrote:
To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,� said David Baltimore, a leading geneticist at Caltech. Dr. Baltimore described the result as “a technical tour de force� but not breakthrough science, but just a matter of scale…. “He has not created life, only mimicked it,� Dr. Baltimore said .Indeed, it is easy to exaggerate what Venter and his team actually did. They modified or replaced only 12 genes of the entire genome and used pre-existing (organic) cells. Synthetic DNA has already been inserted into living cells many times before, albeit on a smaller scale.In addition, many experts note that the experimenters got a big boost by placing the synthetic genome in a preexisting cell, which was naturally inclined to make sense of the transplanted DNA and to turn genes on and off. Thus, they say, it’s not accurate to label the experiment’s product a true “synthetic cell.�

How does any of that contradict what I've said - that a) Venter's team made living cell out of non-living material. b) Bacteria with their DNA removed aren't living.

Maybe you didn't read the part where they only modified or replaced 12 genes out of the entire genome. You said that they removed there DNA there fore they were non living. Again they only replaced or modified 12 genes out of the entire genome.

Good. Now you know how I feel when I'm asked to believe in something that defies all common sense.

common sense is a poor standard to use for judging scientific theories

Apparently so, and on this point I believe many neo Darwinist obviously agree with you.

[McCulloch]

If there was a precursor, then there had to be a time when it could not replicate itself.

We are now entering an area where in truth, very little is known. It is known that there are a number of self-replicating molecules that are not life. We speculate that the precursors to life may have been something like one of them. Or at least that is the avenue of thought that is currently being explored, until someone comes up with a more plausible idea.

Basically it boils down to this: We don't know how life started. We can look for naturalistic causes for this phenomenon consistent with what we already know about biology, physics and chemistry or we can abandon centuries of human progress and claim that some almighty spirit spoke and turned mud into beasts. Which approach is more likely to get closer to the truth do you think?

[THEMAYAN]

REPLT TO BUST NAK


Bust Nak let me ask you a question. Biologist are now using the aid of design theorist in the field of systems biology and bioinformatics to help them better understand these bio systems. The question I ask is.... why would they require the aid of design theorist on systems that are not designed?


design |dəˈzīn|
noun
1 a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made : he has just unveiled his design for the new museum.
• the art or action of conceiving of and producing such a plan or drawing : good design can help the reader understand complicated information | the cloister is of late twelfth century design.
2 purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object : the appearance of design in the universe.

[Bust Nak]

I highly disagree, you're comparing interpretations of evidence on a "micro-adaptation" scale to electronic gadgetry, radically different concepts. It's not anywhere close to being "Good enough for ape-things to men".

You are comparing the current scientific consensus again, I specifically said the methodology used to come up with electronics and the methodology used to come up with evolution is the same; The methodology is the same, which does not imply "micro-adaptation" and "electronic gadgetry" are simular concepts.

Just to reiterate: I am talking about observations, forming falsifiable hyprothesis, doing experiments etc is what scientists do in every field. Working computers are evidence this methodology works. This is what I mean by what is good enough for computing is good enough for biology.

Might be kind of tough to understand that there are times the Scientific method doesn't always produce truthful results, it's as if you think every single scientific theory has always been true.

This is a strawman, just look at how many times we acknowledged Darwin got things wrong; Or that Darwinism is an outdated concept and scold creationists for referring to modern evolution as darwinism. This is just another attempt to paint scientists as dogmatic.

Wow, I would like to see anyone who accused me of appeal to authority to give Autodidact the same thing. I will DEFINITELY be quoting this post if I am EVER accused of appeal to authority or popularity or anything like that ever again. Bookmarked!

There is nothing wrong to appeal to expert opinion in a debate, along as you don't imply said opinion is necessarily true, and that the authority is actually an expert in the topic being discussed.

[THEMAYAN]

Bust nak the Neo Darwinian synthesis is the modern synthesis. They are one in the same. Look up the definition of neo Darwinism or the neo darwinian synthesis. This is the current theory. It never ceases to amaze me how little people understand the theory they support.

[TheJackelantern]

THEMAYAN wrote:
The theoretical (or should I say hypothetical)l proto cell/precursor to first living cell was supposedly non living and could not replicate itself until later and eventually chemical evolution allowed it to become life, and as for radios, yes thats right, they cant replicate. (Also take note I was not the one that brought up radios into the subject)

You might want to look up the periodic table and what atoms are. Yeah, atoms can do that sort of thing..

That's not right, the precursor to first living cell were non-living but could replicate itself.

Atoms don't replicate themselves, they can however make up a self-replicating molecule.

It is exactly because of that extra complexity in the living cell that lets it evolve.

Again learn what atoms are, the differences in atoms, and what the hell the periodic table is. Your argument is as bad as saying atoms can't become amino acids ect.

You are judging the merit of evolution, by looking at an example that doesn't have the ability to evolve.

Incorect

If there was a precursor, then there had to be a time when it could not replicate itself.

The precursor would be a state prior to being the thing it is to which does replicate.. You're equating it as if it existed as is prior to it's supposed state to where it can replicate.. Hence, you are making a mistake in your thinking here

Unless of course you believe that this ability of spontaneous generation happend instantaneously but I thought miracles were excluded.

You don't know much about chemistry, physics, or the properties of energy and atoms do you?

I don't think even the most ardent advocates of this hypothesis believe this. The current paradigm is the (RNA world) hypothesis, and even RNA would have had to take time through some kind of chemical evolution process before it eventually become RNA.

Umm yes it's believable.. Far more so than claiming magic man done it.

Furthermore just to form the right semi permeable membrane to protect this RNA from external negative chemical reactions would have also taken times.

Please post your peer review journal... You are now making stuff up off the top of your head and assuming things.. And of course things take time... Just like it would take an incredible amount of time to evolve cognitive systems that are far more complex than these simple reactionary systems you like to, out of ignorance I believe, claim can't do anything..

Before this happens nothing can replicate.

Stars replicate heavier elements all the time. That's how you got here.

Scientist will sometimes speak of spontaneous generation in terms of abiogenesis in the modern sense.

Spontaneous generation happens all the time.. Please see chaos theory. And guess what, that's another thing that cognitive systems can't function without.

Some people mistakenly believe that in biology the word spontaneous means instantaneously, but this is not the case.

No, people understand what chemical reactions are.. Do you know what fire is? Do you know that fire for example can fit into most definitions of life on semantics alone? Curious, do you think fire can replicate it self? Do you understand that life like fire is an electromagnetic phenomenon and that life burns energy?

I haven't even yet mentioned the 300 lb. Gorilla in the room, and that's (Homochirality) which is one of the biggest logistical nightmares associated with OOL/ origin of life.

That's a really small gorilla..

Homochirality is said to evolve in three distinct steps: mirror-symmetry breaking creates a minute enantiomeric imbalance and is key to homochirality, chiral amplification is a process of enantiomeric enrichment and chiral transmission allows the transfer of chirality of one set of molecules to another.

It's not really a nightmare as much as you think.. But did we mention the 10 billion pound gorilla in the room? Explaining cognitive systems vs the reactionary systems to which you continue to ignore having to deal with?...

The point is at somewhere we had to start with non living non replicating inert material.

Non replicating sure, inert? Might want to take a chemistry class and learn something about electromagnetism.

A radio is also non living inert material and this is what the analogy was based on.

Now we have you pretending to know what you are talking about again... If a radio is inert, then why would it react to acid being poured on it, heat, or radio waves? How are you measuring "inert"?

You ignored much of what was said and instead accused me of this whole radio business being the foundation of my entire argument and turned your response into a rhetorical one. I have not tried to distort or re color the points concerning the questions asked of me. I only ask the same of others.

Using a radio was your way of trying to play the clock work Universe argument to which tries to hold desperately to the Newtonian ideals that have since collapsed to a world we know is far more reactive and chaotic from which order arises from a system with feedback. Yeah, we are well beyond Newton to! QED

Like I said before, it does sound silly to believe that inanimate inert material can assemble it self and eventually evolve, and this is what abiogenesis states, that non living matter came to life through a process of physics and chemistry alone and evolved. A radio is just as non living as the the non living material we supposedly came from. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand and again it's a simple analogy.

Again you obviously know nothing about atoms, chemistry, or the reactivity of molecules ect to even remotely make that statement.

In a sense one can equate all complexity and information with design, and can do so based on the fact that we live in a fine tuned universe that require double exponents just to calculate the probabilities of it happening on its own.

You can't calculate it.. Probability arguments are worthless.. And claiming a fine tuned universe is a bit laughable... Is it fine tuned to allow cognitive systems? Oh yeah, you don't want to discuss that gorrilla in the room did ya? Can't imagine the the triple exponents of cognitive systems and a conscious state happening on their own.. Yeah, magic must be the answer! The probability of consciousness is far less than the probability of simple basic life emerging and evolving.. You might want to try a better argument.

The material physical universe itself would not exist without this exquisite fine tuning.

Nope.. It exists because a reality made of nothing doesn't exist.. Reality tunes itself and doesn't require you or any conscious entity to do it. In fact, you can't have cognitive systems without it, and that is how irrelevant your argument is.

The appearance of design even on a cosmological scale is abundantly overwhelming and can be measured.

So your argument is that Existence looks designed and thus must had a designer from outside of existence? I wonder if you even bothered to stop and think about that. Especially when we can make the exact same observation about cognitive systems. I can't even express how much of a fail this argument of yours actually is..

As for complexity in the non bio material world, we can say mountains are complex, but Mount Rushmore shows a specified complexity and we can infer design from this specified complexity even in a case where we might not know or may never know who or what designed it, however biological complexity is a whole different animal. We're talking about a whole different level of complexity.

Again a classic case of bad analogy by intentionally using something man did to try and prove everything is magically "designed".. And if you think bio-logical complexity is a whole different animal, I can't imagine your argument on cognitive complexity to which can't exist without the same principles and mechanisms of bio-complexity. Yeah, that is a whole different level of complexity there son!

I.e. specified complexity, integrated complexity, nano technical machinery, motors with rotors staters, t rings, s rings, drive shaft, digital encoded information with in nuclear DNA and regulatory DNA with encoded information that is only useful by way of a sophisticated transcription process allowing this code to be read and translated forward and reverse at the same time, Multiple redundant safe guard systems, signal transduction systems, bio feedback systems, Emergent systems, Locks, keys, master switches and I could go on for many pages. And yes radios have integrated complexity also but on a much simpler level to say the least. Design can be reasonably inferred from both.

We can infer exactly the same in regards to cognitive systems and what is required to support cognitive functionality. BTW, DNA isn't encoded digitally.

Again you distort the points I have made. Several times. I said that (physics and chemistry alone) could not accomplish this task.

Sure it can.. It can even accomplish forming cognitive systems..

He did not use only physics and chemistry alone. He used intelligent process to achieve a desired and specific goal and effect.

Please prove your statement and please explain to us how cognitive systems work and what is required to support them vs the reactionary systems you claim can't do anything.. You are making up a lot of assumptions you can not support my friend...

[TheJackelantern]

Maybe you didn't read the part where they only modified or replaced 12 genes out of the entire genome. You said that they removed there DNA there fore they were non living. Again they only replaced or modified 12 genes out of the entire genome.

What are atoms? ... Are atoms living or non-living? What are genes made of? Could it be atoms?... Yeah, you might want to work on that failed backpedal.

[Bust Nak]

If there was a precursor, then there had to be a time when it could not replicate itself.

Surely that would be the precursor to the precursor, ordinary chemical.

Unless of course you believe that this ability of spontaneous generation happend instantaneously but I thought miracles were excluded. I don't think even the most ardent advocates of this hypothesis believe this. The current paradigm is the (RNA world) hypothesis, and even RNA would have had to take time through some kind of chemical evolution process before it eventually become RNA.

Right, this is what I was referring to, the precursor to life, the self-replicating molecular that came before RNA, self-assembling yet not alive. As an aside, RNA aren't alive either.

Furthermore just to form the right semi permeable membrane to protect this RNA from external negative chemical reactions would have also taken times. Before this happens nothing can replicate. Scientist will sometimes speak of spontaneous generation in terms of abiogenesis in the modern sense.

Some people mistakenly believe that in biology the word spontaneous means instantaneously, but this is not the case.

Well as spontaneous as chemical reactions takes place.

I haven't even yet mentioned the 300 lb. Gorilla in the room, and that's (Homochirality) which is one of the biggest logistical nightmares associated with OOL/ origin of life. The point is at somewhere we had to start with non living non replicating inert material.

It's no secret that scientists don't know much about how life came about.

A radio is also non living inert material and this is what the analogy was based on. You ignored much of what was said and instead accused me of this whole radio business being the foundation of my entire argument and turned your response into a rhetorical one. I have not tried to distort or re color the points concerning the questions asked of me. I only ask the same of others.

Come on, anyone can see you were saying because a radio was designed, therefore a) something more complex has to be designed too. b) physics alone cannot explain it. My posts include replies that deals with those points specifically.

Like I said before, it does sound silly to believe that inanimate inert material can assemble it self and eventually evolve, and this is what abiogenesis states, that non living matter came to life through a process of physics and chemistry alone and evolved. A radio is just as non living as the the non living material we supposedly came from. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand and again it's a simple analogy.

Because a radio is not analogous to life or the precursor to life, nor to the chemical that formed the precursor to life. A radio lack the things that made it possible for evolution/abiogenesis to work.

In a sense one can equate all complexity and information with design, and can do so based on the fact that we live in a fine tuned universe that require double exponents just to calculate the probabilities of it happening on its own.
The material physical universe itself would not exist without this exquisite fine tuning. The appearance of design even on a cosmological scale is abundantly overwhelming and can be measured.

In other words the mere existence of order is evidence of design for you, where as I would treat order as evidence of order.

As for complexity in the non bio material world... I could go on for many pages. And yes radios have integrated complexity also but on a much simpler level to say the least. Design can be reasonably inferred from both.

According to common sense, maybe. We have a mechanism for generating the kind of complexity in the biology, but none for Mount Rushmore.

Again you distort the points I have made. Several times. I said that (physics and chemistry alone) could not accomplish this task. He did not use only physics and chemistry alone. He used intelligent process to achieve a desired and specific goal and effect.

There is no distortion, the point about electromagnetism and radio specifically deal with this: if one can understand radio well enough to manufacture one out of spare parts, mean physics alone is sufficient to explain the radio, despite the fact that someone used intelligent process to put the radio together.

He and his team systemically repeated and intelligently manipulated several procedures until they achieved a desired outcome. Natural process are supposed to be unguided and non planned by intelligent agents.
If anything, what you have done is give more evidence to support the fact that it requires an intelligent agent just to synthesize DNA and mimic a living thing. I'n the end even Venter admits that he did not create life.

So when there is no specific goal or desired outcome, as per abiogenesis and evolution, where is the need for intelligent?

"creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA"
Life means living. Not dead.

Do you think Venter would agree with you that bacteria with their DNA removed is still alive?

Maybe you didn't read the part where they only modified or replaced 12 genes out of the entire genome. You said that they removed there DNA there fore they were non living. Again they only replaced or modified 12 genes out of the entire genome.

Out of the genome of the bacteria, quite a different thing to out of the bacteria. The DNA in the bacteria is entirely synthetic.

Apparently so, and on this point I believe many neo Darwinist obviously agree with you.

Are you saying you don't agree, and that common sense is a good standard to judge scientific theories?

Bust Nak let me ask you a question. Biologist are now using the aid of design theorist in the field of systems biology and bioinformatics to help them better understand these bio systems. The question I ask is.... why would they require the aid of design theorist on systems that are not designed?

I don't know what you are referring to here but I would guess that it is because evolution do work as a mechanism to generate the appearance of design.

Bust nak the Neo Darwinian synthesis is the modern synthesis. They are one in the same. Look up the definition of neo Darwinism or the neo darwinian synthesis. This is the current theory. It never ceases to amaze me how little people understand the theory they support.

I am guessing this is referring to my comment that Darwinism is discarded and not the current consensus? Note the difference between "Darwinism" and "Neo Darwinism" - a clear counter-example of the picture of dogmatic scientists sticking to old theories that no longer works.