I'm almost done reading The Design Matrix for the second time. I'll probably read it a third time. I thought I would just post some of the passages that I especially enjoy. Feel free to comment on them, or post your own favorite passages from Mike's book.

It is my belief that there are people in the world like me — people who are tired of the heated debates, name-calling, innuendo, and political fights. Such people might find themselves in the middle ground and would rather focus on the hypotheses, the arguments, and the evidence. We might not be completely convinced that life was designed, yet we find the hypothesis to be tremendously intriguing. Rather than belaboring the concern as to whether the study of Intelligent Design should be labeled science, metaphysics, or religion, it is my belief that there are people who would rather just ponder the issues that are raised by design and evolution.

(Introduction, p.xi) Read the rest of this entry »

I imagine that in one of his two upcoming volumes, Mike Gene will discuss whether DNA and RNA were optimal design materials. When I read Robert Shapiro's comments that Mike linked to here:

http://www.edge.org/documents/life/Life.pdf

I found this:

There's famous set of experiments from about ten years ago when Albert Eschenmoser, a brilliant Swiss synthetic chemist, set out to prove why
nature had a select DNA. With enormous Swiss skill and manpower he set
students out to make DNA-like molecules using different sugars, one after the
other, expecting that in every instance he would fail. But in fact he succeeded and
he found that different sugars in many cases was superior to DNA. They had
greater stability; they had fewer complications in replication.
I thought that he would arrange to have the Swiss government declare that from
now on every Swiss life form would adapt his symbiosis and dispense with DNA
as quickly as possible. There's PAN, and someone else came up with TNA "”
there's endless ones "” and so to me DNA is probably what evolution stumbled
upon through accident, and it's the easiest thing that could be come upon by slow
trial and error that would make a molecule that could be replicated by proteins
and that's how it came into being.

Read the rest of this entry »

Awhile back I offered what I considered to be an inductive argument for ID here:

http://telicthoughts.com/inductive-argument-for-id/#more-1609

Even though it wasn't an argument from ignorance, it was criticised as being such. Recently, MiKe Gene has brought up the topic of proteins here:

http://telicthoughts.com/an-amazing-design-material/

What I consider to be interesting is that we can make an inductive argument for ID in regards to proteins. First, let's review the form of an inductive argument:

(1) All known Bs are Cs.
(2) X is B.
(3) Therefore X is probably C.

There is an inherent weakness in any inductive argument: How do we know our sample of Bs is large enough to allow a valid inference to C? And the answer is: We never know. That doesn't stop us from using inductive arguments in order to draw probabilistic conclusions. What it means is that we should realize the weakness, and be cautious about our conclusions. With that in mind, here is the following argument: Read the rest of this entry »

Somewhere in Telic Thoughts, Mike Gene went on record as saying that he did not consider SETI to be science. Meanwhile, Zachriel said:

SETI is based on a well-defined, albeit weak, scientific hypothesis.

SETI's (the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence) hypothesis, if I understand it, is that if we found a narrow bandwidth radio signal from outerspace, it would be reasonable to conclude that it was generated by an extra-terrestrial intelligence. This is based on (1) the prior experience that we human beings generate such narrow signals, due to the energy required to produce a radio signal powerful enough to send long distances, and (2) the lack of knowing what non-intelligent causes would produce narrow bandwidth signals. Further evidence might come, if the signal is of a type unlikely to be produced by non-intelligent means, such as the prime numbers, from 2 to 101 (as in the movie, Contact).
Read the rest of this entry »

Mike Gene has pointed out that the identity of the designer need not be God. However, for theists, if living organisms were designed, the most likely agent is God. Many modern theists have objections to God directly designing organisms. Some see it as "tinkering" and beneath God's dignity. Others think that it means God would be forcing His will on the universe, and contrary to His nature, which allows as much freedom to His creation as possible. And others think the idea of God directly designing organisms is more vulnerable to the philosophical problem of evil than a God who leaves the universe alone. Read the rest of this entry »

Well, after that lengthy discussion over chapter 1, I think we are ready to move on to chapter 2 of Mike's The Design Matrix, "The Explanatory Continuum."
Read the rest of this entry »

Thought I would do a play-by-play, as I'm reading.
Read the rest of this entry »

I haven't finished chapter 1, yet, but I wanted to comment on the introduction in Mike's book:
Read the rest of this entry »

Over at Uncommon Descent (UD), Salvador Cordova inivited "ERV" (Abbie Smith) to debate her objections to Behe's arguments. He offered her a place where her ideas could be discussed fairly by all parties. Ah! What a sweet, naive young man Sal is. I could have told him at the start that Dave Scot would never let this happen. You see, Sal, Dave's role at UD is to make sure that NOBODY is allowed to present a coherent argument either against ID or against UD's political agenda. If it starts to look like they might, then his job is to ban them. And so he did:

erv can also take her sarcastic mouth elsewhere

Frankly, I was surprised Dave let her get to say as much as she did.

Well, Sal, I hope you begin to understand the sort of people you call your friends. If not, maybe a few more invitations to the opposition, along with their banning for minor infractions will open your eyes.

If enough of us agree on something, we can kick anybody's butt!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

Don't worry. It has a happy ending.

Sigh. I'll have to work on that link thingy some more.