Major Advance in Design of Life
by chunkdz
This is old news by now, but I haven't heard anyone comment on the telic implications of this achievement. Scientists from Harvard have succeeded in creating a synthetic ribosome in e.coli. George Church and Michael Jewett, working under the auspices of Harvard University's "Origin of Life Initiative" originally thought that the utter complexity of the ribosome would have made the task daunting. To their amazement, they were able to accomplish it in about a year.
The surprising ease with which Church and Jewett were able to accomplish their task speaks to the amazing power and utility of working with protein based life. Their clever approach of using enzymes to deconstruct and then reconstruct the ribosome may or may not reveal how life was actually created, but it does provide a powerful proof-of-concept in demonstrating that even the most complex machinery in the cell can be intelligently designed.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Very interesting, but does this information make it more or less likely that the first ribosomes a few billion years ago were created by Jesus instead of having evolved without divine interference? Please explain your answer.
Comment by Raevmo — June 11, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
The difficulty intelligent, trained designers have in constructing cellular constructs and the narrow conditions within which such endeavors are possible argues for an intelligent causal source.
Comment by Bradford — June 11, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Raevmo,
Does it make it more or less likely that some blind idiot watchmaker created life?
Currently, OOL research doesn't really hope to find out exactly how life was created. At best we hope for proof-of-concept examples like this one – a lovely example of intelligent design in action.
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Bradford,
What interested me about this breakthrough is how amazingly easy it was for the intelligent designers to accomplish their task. For the blind idiot watchmaker, the difficulty remains.
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
chunkdz:
True enough. Changing a flat tire is easy enough too. Difficulty is not always the mark of design. The suitability of undirected alternative explanations is very relevant however.
Comment by Bradford — June 11, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Undersoring the old adage, "It's easy…when you know how".
I really think this breakthrough will be considered a huge landmark someday. With a little tweaking, this baby can become the biological equivalent of the Star Trek "replicator".
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Bradford:
Why? So far we haven't been able to create a sustained nuclear fusion reaction. Does that argue for an intelligent causal source of the sun?
Comment by Raevmo — June 11, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Chunck:
Easy or difficult, in both cases it's evidence for ID. You guys should publish these deep insights.
Comment by Raevmo — June 11, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Try keeping in mind the dual points raised. The plausibility of a natural (i.e. blind watchmaker source) is pertinent. Get enough hydrogen mass and the reaction is inevitable and self-sustaining. The reason- gravity- is readily apparent. Not a good analogy to the key feature enabling cellular life- a mapping between codons and amino acids or functional commands.
Comment by Bradford — June 11, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Has nothing to do with whether it's easy or hard. If it took Church and Jewett 40 years to synthesize a ribosome it would still be an example of intelligent design in action.
The ease with which they accomplished their task merely speaks to the idea that protein based life is an excellent medium to work in, should one want to make life. Interesting, but I wouldn't consider it "evidence".
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Chunkdz, ribosomes exists – how is it relevant whether humans are capable of creating them from scratch (or not quite from scratch) ? To what extent does it increase or decrease the plausibility that a Designer created the first ribosomes?
Comment by Raevmo — June 11, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Raevmo:
How is it relevant whether the blind idiot watchmaker is capable of making them from scratch?
Well, like I said it is "proof-of-concept". Should scientists ever observe a living cell spontaneously emerging from a puddle, that would be a "proof-of-concept" for the capabilities of the blind idiot watchmaker.
Neither scenario, of course, would have much to say about what actually happened 4 billion years ago.
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I have to say that whenever I read these types of posts (often they concern either OOL research or systems biology) it just reminds me of the sad state of affairs of actual ID research. Sad, because it appears that the only research being done is actually not done by people who thing ID has any merit.
I know, I know, data is data– and the ideological worldview of an experimenter is irrelevant to the outcome of the experiment… yet, it's still a sad state of affairs.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
hrun:
How would the research look different if Church and Jewett were pro ID?
Comment by chunkdz — June 11, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
June 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I don't know. That's what's so sad about it. Don't you think it would be nice if there were biologists like Church and Jewett around who actually had a pro-ID perspective? Wouldn't you like to know what kind of experiments they would come up with?
If, however, you don't think it wouldn't look any different, then I really don't think a pro-ID perspective can be very important to biology.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 8:29 am
If Church and Jewett were pro-ID mainstream scientists would be crying "foul" after reading their paper- if it was published.
Also this is NOT evolutionary research vs ID research.
This is SCIENTIFIC research.
That is the issue- Should scientists be allowed to conduct scientific research and then be allowed to reach an objective inference based on the outcome?
And if an ID inference is gained then all some other scientist would have to do is show that the same results can be achieved without a call for a designer.
hrun thinks it is a sad state of affairs. But look at the anti-ID position- they have absolutely nothing to support their position other than the refusal to accept design.
That is a sad state of affairs.
Comment by ID guy — June 12, 2009 @ 8:29 am
June 12th, 2009 at 8:31 am
How is a pro-ID perspective helpful to biology?
For one we would be looking at biology through the lense of reality. And that is always helpful.
Comment by ID guy — June 12, 2009 @ 8:31 am
June 12th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Strange!
A few months ago, at ARN forum, Joe Gallien (who posts as Joseph at UD) was arguing that because functional ribosomes could not be synthesized, this was evidence for ID.
Now they have been synthesized, this is also evidence for ID!
This is an odd state of affairs.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 12, 2009 @ 8:34 am
June 12th, 2009 at 8:45 am
If it can be synthesized by intelligent humans – that's evidence for ID. If it can't be synthesized by humans, why, that's also evidence for ID because if intelligent beings can't do it then the blind watchmaker can't do it at all.
Let's generalize this and we can all go home: X supports ID and (not X) supports ID.
Comment by Raevmo — June 12, 2009 @ 8:45 am
June 12th, 2009 at 9:10 am
And if an ID inference is gained then all some other scientist would have to do is show that the same results can be achieved without a call for a designer.
I take it that is just too difficult for Alan and Raevmo to understand.
Am I to understand that neither of you can support your position?
And your only recourse is to try to smear ID?
Is that about right?
Comment by ID guy — June 12, 2009 @ 9:10 am
June 12th, 2009 at 9:27 am
[...] (HT: chunkdz) [...]
Pingback by In the News « — June 12, 2009 @ 9:27 am
June 12th, 2009 at 10:45 am
ID guy, did you even read what I wrote?
This was posted on an ID friendly blog. I was simply wondering what a pro-ID perspective would bring to this (and other) research. I have asked this question before and I will ask it again. So far, I have never received any clear answer.
So, I ask you specifically, do YOU think that if such research as done by Church and his co-workers would have been done by researchers with a pro-ID bent, would they have maybe done different experiments?
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 10:45 am
June 12th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Fine. Reality vs. make believe. But SPECIFICALLY, how would biology be any different with a pro-ID perspective?
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 10:46 am
June 12th, 2009 at 10:46 am
As a scientific discipline, many people have casually dismissed Intelligent Design without carefully defining what they mean by intelligence or what they mean by design. Science and math have long histories of proving things, and not just accepting intuition — Fermat's last theorem was not proven until it was proven. And I think we're in a similar space with intelligent design. What Freeman suggests is that we are moving into a phase which is different, not only in that it's like
Web 2.0 where we're all sharing all of our parts like we used to, but maybe more fundamentally, we're moving into intelligent design big-time, and we need to understand what that means, and what we should be designing…
We didn't design them; we're copying the design.
http://www.edge.org/documents/life/church_index.html
"Proof-of-concept"? What "concept"?
http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html
Are you sure, chunkdz, you fully appreciate the difficulties involved?
And what are the "telic implications"?
Comment by Rock — June 12, 2009 @ 10:46 am
June 12th, 2009 at 11:26 am
hrun-
For one ID says that living organisms are not reducible to the chemicals.
Therefore we would look for something beyond energy and matter being acted on by chance and law.
And that should lead us to find what really does make us tick. And I think that is very importatnt.
Comment by ID guy — June 12, 2009 @ 11:26 am
June 12th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Alan,
Your link to ARN doesn't work.
Was that designed so that we couldn't see what was actually said?
Comment by ID guy — June 12, 2009 @ 11:28 am
June 12th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I think Mike Gene has offerred a way to do ID research: look for Rationality and Foresight. Let's take the ribosome as an example: Would there have been a better way to design it? Assuming the original cells had the same ribosomes, did that design lead to future advantages?
A non-ID researcher could ask the same questions and do the same research. But would they be as likely to do so? Or would they just assume that the ribosome was a frozen accident?
Comment by Bilbo — June 12, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
That's really what ID says?
Sure. But how? What experiments would biologists do? You think a biologist could devise and experiment that would "look for something beyond energy and matter being acted on by chance and law"?
See, this is exactly what I mean. And ID view supposedly would have important implications for biology, yet, apparently you really can't articulate how it would impact actual biological experiments.
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I don't think that Mike Gene suggested "Rationality and Foresight" as types of experiments to form. Rather, they are part of his scoring of the likelihood of design.
In any case, aren't those experiments already done by biologists? For example, I seem to remember experiments about the optimality of the genetic code. And I would think that similar considerations cross the minds of Church and coworkers.
Why would a biologist stop his research at the conclusion that the ribosome might be a 'frozen accident'? Why would they not research what future advantages (and disadvantages) arose due to the original ribosome structure?
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
But most people dismiss Intelligent Design as a scientific disipline because it doesn't carefully define "intelligence" or "design". Those people understand that it's not their responsibility to try to turn slopping thinking into a scientific discipline before they reject it.
Comment by don provan — June 12, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Yes, they are part of how he scores things. But they are also ways of guiding research (which would lead to raising or lowering the scores).
Let's hope so.
If researchers think the ribosome is a frozen accident, it might not occur to them to determine whether it has present or future advantages. Just as, if they think non-coding DNA is junk, it might not occur to them to look for other ways it could have function. Such researchers need not let such beliefs stop them from doing further research, but such beliefs might lead to less motivation to do that research, which could result in less research in those areas.
But now, let's say that our non-ID researcher does do additional research on the ribosome, and finds that indeed, the current structure of the ribosome is optimal over other possible structures. And that it allowed for certain advantages in evolution. Further, there is no evidence that other possible structures of the ribosome ever existed.
Should that count in raising the score for Rationality and Foresight?
Comment by Bilbo — June 12, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Yeah, good thing those ID researchers uncovered that problem. Oh, wait. That's right, I forgot: it was just normal scientists that noticed function in junk DNA. It had nothing whatsoever to do with ID. It's almost as if scientists never really considered it "junk", just non-coding.
Comment by don provan — June 12, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Plausibility that the first cell was intelligently designed.
This is the first step. Church and Jewett have stated that they would like to use their findings to make designer ribosomes.
I'm certain I don't.
I don't want to read too much into it. I just think that this reverse engineering approach is not so different from Stanley Miller working from the bottom up.
If Miller, Szostak, Orgel, De Duve or any other bottom-up OOL researcher ever succeeded in finding a demonstrably plausible pathway to a living cell, then I'd say it was proof-of-concept that life could have generated spontaneously. Shouldn't this hold true for a top-down intelligent design approach too?
After all, neither side holds out much hope for ever finding out what actually happened. We are just looking for plausible pathways.
While the naturalistic approach seems to be revealing complicated and kludgy Rube-Goldbergs, the intelligent approach is revealing that ribosomes are not so difficult to synthesize after all.
If the easiest pathway to life turns out to be the pathway of intelligent design, then why shouldn't there be telic implications as a result? At the very least could we say that life could have been intelligently designed?
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
See, this is again a perfect example of what I mean: It was not pro-ID researcher or a pro-ID mindset that led to the research in non-coding DNA. It seems to me that there is just never a true difference between how a pro-ID and a regular biologist would design their experiments.
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Strange, this is the first time I have heard an ID proponent arguing something can't be done through Intelligent Design!
What they did is disassembled and reassembled the Ribosome, the first is called reverse engineering, mostly a process of mapping inputs with corresponding outputs. The second step was simply to work backwards. This is mostly why it took them only 1 year to do, and nothing was left in the hands of an undirected blind chance process.
Comment by computerist — June 12, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Church seems to think that what he is doing is, in some sense, “Intelligent Design.”
So what is he doing differently? Nothing as far as I can tell. He certainly doesn’t claim to have performed a miracle.
Comment by Rock — June 12, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
hrun:
What is ID research? I think there are two big areas to consider.
The first is the Doug Axe, Michael Behe, J.B Haldane, Bill Dembski approach of defining limits.
Then there is the research that occurs outside of those limits. This would include work in artificial intelligence and synthetic life by guys like Russel, Norvig, Church, and Venter.
While the first approach is important in setting the groundwork, I think you will find that the second group is much more exciting and fruitful. The beauty of it is you don't have to be pro ID to do ID research. You just have to believe that intelligence is the best way to create life.
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
This is neither support for or against ID. It sure ain't support for Darwinian Evolution.
ID already knows about intelligent causes. If anything this has only re-enforced that point. Next is to cover the blinds and let the Darwinian fairytale do its thing.
Comment by computerist — June 12, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Because he didn't.
But clearly Church prefers using intelligent design, rather than waiting for the right puddle recipe.
I'd call this an endorsement of intelligent design.
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Why do you have to believe that intelligence is "the best" way to create life? Why not the second best? And how would you define best anyway?
But apart from that, this come back to the point: Is all biological experimentation that uses "intelligent design" ID research? If so, then there is SOOOO MUCH ID research going on, that the cries of oppression against the ID friendly researchers is utterly laughable.
I guess that remains one of the biggest puzzles to me: On the one hand pro-ID researchers are supposedly persecuted yet one the other hand, there is supposedly all this ID research going on in the systems biology and OOL departments of all the major universities.
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Really? Are you serious?
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
hrun:
ironic, isn't it?
Since I look at ID as an approach rather than a movement, it doesn't really seem that odd to me. ID as an approach is the most promising approach that we know of so far. It doesn't matter whether the researcher thinks life was intelligently designed because right now nobody is even trying to find out what actually happened. We are just looking for plausible pathways.
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I'm still stunned. Even if you view ID as an approach, it is very surprising to me that all those regular run-of-the-mill biologists are doing nothing different than a pro-ID researcher would be doing.
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
hrun:
Not all. But if you were an ID research scientist, wouldn't you want to demonstrate that life CAN be intelligently designed?
And if you were a materialist research scientist, wouldn't you want to demonstrate that life CAN spontaneously emerge from a puddle of goo?
ID research is alive and growing, even if it hasn't become self-aware just yet.
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
But if you were to show this, it would still be proof positive of intelligent design, right? Because presumably, some scientist would have created a very specific (or a number of) puddles of goo just for this purpose. So in the end, ALL experiments of this sort are ID research, aren't they?
But in my question I was not just referring to OOL research. Or is OOL the only thing where ID posits that design occurred?
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
No. Experiments that are limited to plausible pre-biotic parameters do not qualify as ID research. We are talking "blind idiot watchmaker" vs. "sighted intelligent watchmaker".
This particular post happens to relate to origin of life. I imagine there are plenty of applications in other disciplines.
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
There's the issue of information and it not being explained soly by referencing laws governing chemical reactions.
Comment by Bradford — June 12, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
The approach that comes closest to actually generating life where none exists?
Comment by Bradford — June 12, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
June 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I might add that no approach has even come close yet. That's why I say you just have to believe that you are using the right approach.
Personally, I'll bet on the visionary intelligent designer over the blind idiot watchmaker any day.
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 3:56 am
Sorry about broken link upthread. Try this link to the ARN thread. The link should take you to the beginning of the discussion where JoeG appears to claim that the (previous) inability to synthesize ribosomes is evidence for ID.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 13, 2009 @ 3:56 am
June 13th, 2009 at 7:18 am
I think Charles Thaxton put it best when he spoke of the fact that nearly all research done in the field of origins and the plausibility for the proper sequence of chemicals to eventually produce life, if at all possible, never deal with the issue of random negative cross chemical reactions that would take place in real world scenarios without the aid and guidence of a systematic process requiring intelligents. I dont see why most scientist dont adress or even want to deal with this question. Unfortunatly this is were science has to rely on its worst enemy, faith… a faith that rivals any metaphysical belief system including ETs.
Comment by themayan — June 13, 2009 @ 7:18 am
June 13th, 2009 at 8:48 am
It's answering a non-objection. The vast majority of biologists agree that it is—in principle—possible to construct a primitive organism. That's because all known biological processes are based in chemistry.
Intelligent Design is an historical claim, that a designer was involved in the origin (and diversification) of life. Yet, Intelligent Design makes every attempt to avoid looking for scientific evidence of the designer claiming that knowledge of the designer is not relevant to its claims.
May as well build a fan and call it an argument that the winds are caused by
godstelic entities. "You just put your lips together and…blow."Comment by Zachriel — June 13, 2009 @ 8:48 am
June 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Zachriel:
Yet if we put all the proper chemicals together a living organism does not form.
The evidence for the designer(s) is the DESIGN.
And as with all design-centric venues the designer is sought by looking at the evidence.
So first design has to be detected. Then the evidence gone over and over and over.
With Stonehenge we still don't know who designed and built it.
All we have are guesses based on the research.
Also I have yet to hear one valid reason for identifying the designer.
If you are looking for "proof" then you aren't interested in science.
And in the end all YOU have to do is to support your position by showing unguided processes can account for what IDists say is designed.
So stop griping and get to work.
Comment by ID guy — June 13, 2009 @ 9:41 am
June 13th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Sure we do. We have strong evidence it was built by a rather peculiar form of bipedal ape.
Building your position on the extent of your ignorance will always leave Gaps. Intelligent Design remains a fallacious argument regardless of the validity of alternative theories.
Comment by Zachriel — June 13, 2009 @ 9:57 am
June 13th, 2009 at 10:17 am
From the same article:
ID needs to show how a Designer can manipulate specific atoms. This takes energy: Where does it come from, and how is it delivered?
Comment by John Wendt — June 13, 2009 @ 10:17 am
June 13th, 2009 at 11:17 am
There is plenty of evidence of when and how Stonehenge was built. It is certain that the builders were Neolithic people who lived around the site during the construction and development period, from before 3000 BC to 1500 BC or later. Plenty of them are buried in and around the site. We obviously don’t know their names or their exact purposes as no written records exist, but there is ongoing archaeological work which continues to bring new insights. Wiki has some good links if you are interested.
ETA I see Zachriel has pipped me to the post!
Comment by Alan Fox — June 13, 2009 @ 11:17 am
June 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
How do you know it wasn't Aliens? In fact, there are a bunch of people that believe the Egyptian pyramids were created by Aliens. Everyone agrees that they were designed by some intelligence but not everyone agrees about its origins.
Comment by computerist — June 13, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Just my point, DP. By not assuming it was junk, researchers are more motivated to find function for non-coding DNA. Those who assume it is junk are probably less motivated to do that kind of research. Contrary-wise, someone who believes that the first cells were designed is less likely to do origin of life research.
Agreed. Meanwhile, nobody has answered my question:
Comment by Bilbo — June 13, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Any OOL claim or line of investigation is based on an historical claim. The claim that life formed spontaneously is an historical claim. That experiments can be designed to supposedly investigate the possibility of spontaneous generation in no way validates that theory above the theory that life was designed by an intelligent being. Remember, just because you can show that something could have happened a certain way in the past does not neccessarily prove that it did.
Your theory of OOL is in no way superior to anyone elses theory just because you use naturalistic reasoning to set up experiments. Even if we as a scientific community could prove that naturalistic processes did cause life to spontaneously generate the question would still remain regarding the existence of those processes in the first place.
Regarding OOL we are all dealing with what we know not and never will know (scientifically). The order in the universe allows some of us to accept the likelihood of a designer. The real challenge is for those with no concept of a designer to expain order out of chaos. To me logic appears to be on the side of ID.
Comment by 0112358 — June 13, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I don't know it wasn't aliens. But as there is no evidernce whatsoever that alien beings have visited this planet, or are present near enough to this planet to be able to visit, I see no necessity to consider the idea, when a perfectly reasonable explanation with mounds of evidence for it, bodies, artifacts, antler picks, remains of dwellings, debris from feasting and much more is already available.
Bizarre! Ancient Egypt by the time the construction of the Ghiza pyramids has written records. Do I have to consider a crazy idea purely on someone's conviction? No, I prefer to look at evidence.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 13, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Alan, you missed the point entirely. The common ground held by everyone is that the pyramids weren't the result of earthquakes, wind, rain, erosion etc… Do you think that even these crazy Alien believing lunatics are that crazy? When you consider how many resources it took, the people and the amount of time to shape and stack up those stones and consider that even modern civilization with its advanced technology would have trouble imitating such structures, it becomes a little difficult to pin down the source even if traces of tools and such were left by. Some believe the Egyptians hijacked the pyramids long after the Aliens were gone and as a result of modifications overtime made it look (to us) as if they built them from scratch.
When we see analogous information processing systems in Biology we are justified into believing based on the evidence that they were designed by Alien beings, God, the Flying Spaghetti monster etc…What we are not justified into believing is that they were the result of NS & RM. The simplest explanation for information processing systems is that a proactive being created them. Call it an Alien, Human, God, the flying spaghetti monster etc…I'd like to call it intelligence since its a testable and predictable quality minimally inherent in humans but I might get Aiguy on my tail.
Comment by computerist — June 13, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I guess I took you too literally!
Comment by Alan Fox — June 13, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Comment by Bert — June 13, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I think ID and computerist have very valid points. As far as my limited mind, I believe the only other way around this problem for the evolutionist is for the future discovery of some unknown intrinsic fundamental dynamic of nature to self organize and produce living things that doesnt soley rely on the notion of time/decay and blind random events, in other words a unifying theory yet to be observed or explained at this time. Something like the biological equivalent to the anthropic principle, but then again if we did discover such a thing, the next question would be, were did all this enchanted star dust come from. That darn chicken and egg!!
Comment by themayan — June 13, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
June 13th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/naturearticle.htm Nature’s mind
No one knows how biological novelty originates. All, including RM&NS, is speculation. After being beaten over the head with RM&NS for most of my life I don’t find it very interesting any more. Most of the others contain an interesting thought here and there.
.
Bertvan
Comment by Bert — June 13, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 4:50 am
The quantum hologram…very interesting hypothesis, as a person interested in the science of sound I find it contains many simularities to my own unfounded speculations about frequencies, perception and so forth, as a theory its still an up hill battle, but nice to know people are being less afraid to step out side of the box and challenge the old restrictive ideas of what is good and bad science. After all, science is never wrong. It only corrects the perceptions and beliefs of hopefully reasonable people. It never corrects itself, because it doesnt have to.
Comment by themayan — June 14, 2009 @ 4:50 am
June 14th, 2009 at 5:59 am
This is no explanation!
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 5:59 am
June 14th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Read John A. Davison's papers, many times if needed! Even Craig Venter seems agree with them given his statements about chromosome position effects.
Comment by computerist — June 14, 2009 @ 7:50 am
June 14th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Yes agreed and point taken, it is not an explanation and even if it was, it still would not answer the fundamental question of why, who or what was responsible for the causation factor. From a perspective of naturalism it seems that the vastness of the known universe with its countless galaxies and solars systems and heavenly bodies would do just fine with out us/life. I dont believe in ETs but I cant say its not a facinating subject, besides based on what ive read so far, it seems to center around what some would refer to as synchronicity and or esp, and offers only speculation on cosmological and biological evolution, but none the less interesting.
Comment by themayan — June 14, 2009 @ 7:57 am
June 14th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Yes.
Yes, but multiple lines of evidence, including showing that primordial conditions inevitably lead to life, would be convincing scientific evidence.
It's not superior because one uses "naturalistic reasoning", but because it leads to testable hypotheses (entailed, specific, distinguishing empirical predictions).
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2009 @ 8:20 am
June 14th, 2009 at 8:29 am
That's simply not true. It's only a matter of cost. It's a question as to why modern people would bother. It's sometimes said that the ancient Egyptians couldn't move such heavy stones, but Greeks and Romans moved similar sized stones.
Some people think all sorts of things. Handwaving dispenses with all arguments. That doesn't constitute evidence of the validity of the claim. Case in point:
Yet, your claim is rejected by the vast majority of scientists working in biology, genetics, paleontology, bioinformatics, etc. In science, justification is based upon validation through the scientific method, not analogy to your common sense preconceptions.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2009 @ 8:29 am
June 14th, 2009 at 9:36 am
With Stonehenge we still don't know who designed and built it.
We think it was but we do not know for sure. And what you posted doesn't tell us anything.
And everything we do know about Stonehenge came from research.
Zachriel:
YOUR position is based on ignorance. That much is obvious given that you cannot find any scientific support for it.
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 9:36 am
June 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Alan Fox:
All that evidence was gained via years of investigation.
And we still do not know exactly who.
The people who lived around it could have migrated there well after it was built.
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 9:38 am
June 14th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Johm Wendt:
Evolution needs to show that genetic mistakes can allow for the changes required.
So far you have absolutely nuthin' that would show that changes required are even producible via mutation & selection.
But I take it that you cannot support your position so you gave to erect strawman after strawman.
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 9:43 am
June 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I am already familiar with the man and his body of work. I hosted a website for him for a while. I have exchanged many emails with him. Believe me when I say I am unconvinced by his semi-meiosis "hypothesis".
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 9:45 am
June 14th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Zachriel:
Yet those scientists cannot support their position.
With evolution they threw out the scientific method.
There isn't any way to test the basic tenets.
For example what scientific methodology was used to determine that the bacterial dlagellum evolved in a population of bacteria that didn't have one through selected genetic mistakes?
I say it went somethjing like this:
1- There isn't any designer
2- Therefore it evolved via genetic mistakes that just happened to get selected.
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 9:48 am
June 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am
No. That's not what the archaeology tells us. The wealth of evidence of human activity is concurrent with the period of construction.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 9:51 am
June 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Which itself answers a non-objection. There is no dispute that cells operate according to underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The issue is are such laws sufficent to explain their causal origin? Transcending this issue is another one namely, are natural laws deterministic with respect to the generation of information systems like those found in cells? Given a set of specifiable conditions and substances over time x, will information based systems inevitably arise in the absence of intelligent guidance?
Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2009 @ 10:33 am
June 14th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Alan Fox:
There's more evidence for UFOs and alien visitation than there is for the alleged evolution of the bacterial flagellum through unguided processes.
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 10:44 am
June 14th, 2009 at 10:50 am
The people who lived around it could have migrated there well after it was built.
Alan Fox:
Reference please.
I know that people can dig around sites, die and be buried such that it looks like the two were concurrent.
And I don't doubt that there was plenty of human activity around the site.
BTW the period of construction isn't even a settled case.
And I bet archaeologists came to design inference before they found any other evidence for a designer- alleged or not.
That is how it works in the real world- the design is evidence for a designer and design is determined before figuring out who designed it.
If you know who designed it then you don't waste your time trying to figure out of it was designed. And the only way to figure the "who" is by studying the design- that is given only the design to work with.
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 10:50 am
June 14th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Alan Fox:
What are you convinced by?
Or is taking cheap shots at ID the best you have to offer?
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 10:52 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Well, there's absolutely no evidence for alien visitation. Whilst the exact sequence of events that led to the arrival of bacterial flagella will probably never be known, I don't see the use of wringing our hands and saying "God did it!"
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 11:10 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
New discovery of 6000 year old dwellings at Stonehenge
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 11:12 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Scientifically speaking, all theories are provisional and subject to rejection or modification in the light of new evidence. Conviction isn't what drives me, rather it is curiosity.
There are no final answers.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 11:17 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Alan Fox:
Except for drawings, writings, artifacts and eye-witness accounts.
I didn't say "God did it", did I?
I don't see the use of wringing our hands and saying "it evolved". Especially seeing that there isn't any evidence it could.
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 11:17 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Alan Fox:
But the theory of evolution is built on ignorance not evidence.
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 11:20 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Not to mention radar and physical trace cases. Heck, former Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell is even convinced some UFOs are most likely extraterrestrial in origin. But oh wait, selective skepticism is a trait of UFO debunkers as well, hence the 'there's no evidence' creed.
Comment by Jean — June 14, 2009 @ 11:24 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Good grief! You're not an Erich von Däniken fan, are you?
I'll look at a reference if you have one.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 11:27 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:31 am
ID Guy,
If I want to know about evolution, there are sites, books, and scientists working on the subject to reference. For the moment, I am curious to know what evidence there is for supernatural intervention or whatever else any particular ID proponent claims.
It seems singularly lacking.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 11:31 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Wishful thinking is all I can see. I think it would be really neat to meet an alien (or maybe not!). It would fill in some blanks on the origin of life issue. They seem very adept at keeping themselves hidden. What, along with Bilbo and his conspiracy theories, this site is a real oasis of reason, lately!
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 11:36 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Alan Fox
Where you will read a bunch of "just-so" stories void of any science.
ID does not require the supernatural any more than the non-telic position does.
ID is based on observation and experience.
ID can be tested and either confirmed or refuted.
What else does it require to be scientific?
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 11:50 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Alan Fox:
And that is all the theory of evolution has.
"We don't know how (or even if) it happened but we are comforted by the fact it did."
Comment by ID guy — June 14, 2009 @ 11:51 am
June 14th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Actually Zach, the Gaza pyramids were built to such precision that in some cases make modern construction laughable. Approx 15 years to lay 2 million stones (Khufu pyramid) that weigh a minimum of 2.5 tons each is almost analogous to stacking up 2 million Cadillacs today considering sheer weight. The Gaza pyramids were built by the Egyptians using a 2 dimensional grid that served as the template for the outside and the inside of the pyramid. It has withstood the test of time standing tall 4500 years and counting. The Romans utilized more advanced cement technology rather then full fledged stone which was a lot harder to carve to precision so you are comparing apples and oranges.
Comment by computerist — June 14, 2009 @ 11:56 am
June 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Not at all, then! This is the consensus position on ID, is it?
More than these assertions. An example of a test that could refute ID, assuming you mean something specific here, would be a start.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Maybe I was comforted by bedtime stories as a kid. Now I prefer truth to comfort.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
OK. So a scientist develops a "testable" hypothesis. . . say, that pre-biotic conditions were such that would allow life to spontaneously generate. He finds that, yes, from what he can determine billions of years after the historical situation, conditions were such that life could have formed spontaneously. He has not shown that life formed spontaneously but he has added to his own chance inference.
An IDist, on the other hand, develops a "testable" hypothesis. . .say, that the flagellum of a bacteria is irreducibly complex and so is not likely to have evolved without design. He finds that, yes, none of the constituent parts of the flagellum will function without the others. He has not shown that the flagellum was designed but has added to his own design inference.
In neither case above is science directing the conclusion. The mindset of the researcher is the ultimate determining factor.
Comment by 0112358 — June 14, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Alan Fox:
ID, at its core in my view, holds that intelligence precedes rather than arises from inanimate matter. There are three points wherein this would be particularly relevant and all are origin issues: the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of consciousness. Therefore empirical data indicating that the universe is self-generating and that prior conditions giving rise to that also had self-generation (but not conscious intelligence) properties would refute ID on a cosmic level.
Empirical data supporting the contention that life arises on lifeless planets through undirected chemical reactions would indicate that life could arise from inanimate matter.
Empirical data providing a precise formulation linking physical construction factors like electrical flow, connections and organization to a process documenting the transition of an object in time from non-consciousness to consciousness would counter ID at this level.
Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I doubt these scientists actually take the claims of RM & NS as literally as you do. Most of these scientists work (generated data) in their subsequent fields have absolutely nothing to do with evolution, its mostly a matter of if they believe or not (which is important for many it seems). Secondly, I'm not convinced most of these scientists working specifically as evolutionary biologists weren't already neo-Darwinists. You have yet to present evidence of their conversion to neo-Darwinism after they became evolutionary biologists! Its a trend Zach, certain topics attract certain people.
Comment by computerist — June 14, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
But that viewpoint flies in the face of all empirical data.
Comment by 0112358 — June 14, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
1. Every multi-celled organism starts life as a single cell, a fertilized egg.
2. RNA in the egg (including ribosomes) begins to catalyze the formation of proteins
3. Some proteins form tissues; others activate genes that produce RNA to catalyze other proteins.
4. Rates of production, diffusion, and degradation of RNA and proteins establish timing of production of structural protein, hence gross structure.
5. Detailed structure is determined by expression of genes in increasingly localized places.
6. The expression of a protein is determined by non-coding sequences upstream of a gene, to which RNA polymerase binds.
7. One of the surprising discoveries of the last several decades is that a great many proteins, including many enzymes, have essentially the same function in every type of organism. This has lead to the paradigm that variation in phenotype is the result of changes in gene expression rather than in genes themselves:
Formation of an enhancer can be accounted for by mistakes in copying DNA. Any sequence is possible: if it functions chemically as an attachment region, a polymerase will attach there, and cause expression of the gen.
There are lots of other examples.
Show how the Intelligent Designer cause the appearance of an enhancer, and we'll begin to pay attention. Until then, ID just looks like a refuge for people who don't know much about biology, and don't seem to care to find out.
Comment by John Wendt — June 14, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Your arguments are interesting, but neither side's position has anything to do with science. Your positions are based on belief – period.
It's all about our ability to supply a believable (to us) causal mechanism for the things we see. Each person mentally constructs a causal history that fits with his or her already established worldview.
For someone who already believes in God, the design of life is readily apparent. They have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which God designs life.
For someone who does not believe in God, the possibility of producing life via natural causes is also readily apparent. They too have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which life builds itself.
Science has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Science is only used to bolster your claims.
Thus you will continue to argue in circles.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 14, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Hey, Dan,
Is this your first post? I think you'll fit right in here! Computerist is a John Davison fan, too!
Comment by Alan Fox — June 14, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I made what would generally be considered an uncontroversial claim. Lithic monuments are common around the world coincident with human neolithic technology. Recent evidence indicates that Stonehenge was built in phases, and that it was used for human burials from its earliest beginnings.
That's right. That's why we have good reason to believe it was built by a peculiar type of bipedal ape.
Sure there is. Indeed, the Theory of Evolution has spawned entire new fields of scientific study.
To understand the evidence for such ancient transitions, we should establish how evolution works in more modern times. Start with Common Descent, for instance, of land vertebrates, or even just equines.
Not quite. We start with Common Descent. The reason organisms are the way they are is because of what they once were. It's the most powerful unifying pattern in biology.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Sorry, but no. Though modern manufacturing through interchangeable parts depends on a reasonable allowance in the components, modern technology is capable of far greater precision than required to duplicate the Gaza pyramids. However, no one would bother to do so. Even if reconstructed, it would be done with modern materials and methods.
Again, no. Though the Romans used the labor-saving technique of poured concrete, they still used large stones for aesthetic and engineering reasons. The Piazza del Popolo, a 75-foot 263-ton obelisk built by Seti I and erected by Ramses II, was moved from Egypt to Rome by Augustus in 10 BCE.
Comment by Zachriel — June 14, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Remove the smirk from yer face, Alan. You are not the candle of reason just because you think you are. Too bad the UFO subject is off-topic, I'm sure you have many misplaced presumptions and done little to no research.
Comment by Jean — June 14, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Jean:
You have the option of taking it to the open thread.
Comment by Bradford — June 14, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
The theory of Darwinian evolution is the only theory that I have known were scientist activist have enlist the help of the judicial system to validate the theory, as evidence of the National Academy's docket sheet, wich they proudly post on there website. Sometimes law suites are filed not just for informing students that there is a different opinion, as unpopular as it might be to the general scientific community, but also for just informing students that there is no such thing as proof when speaking of the historical sciences. Wich surprisingly enough is a statement that has been echoed by Eugenie Scott and associates. Darwinian evolution is the only theory that I know of that has attempted to incorporate the aid of clergy men and women ala The Clergy Letter Project, wich attemps to change or augment theological doctrin and replace it with Darwinian dogma. This is bad, not only for religion but even more so for science as a diciplin free of metaphysical dogmas.
Comment by themayan — June 14, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
June 14th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
I never said modern technology is unable to duplicate it. You are just arguing for argument's sake. I never said that Bill Gates had no intention of putting one up in his backyard either.
Right, but again you are just arguing for arguments sake. The engineering techniques were far more advanced then the ancient Egyptians. We could just as easily compare the vast differences between Roman and modern architecture as we could Roman and Egyptian. After all, its an approximate 2000 year offset in both cases even if we start counting at the beginning of the Roman Empire (ie: Roman Kingdom) all the way back to the Pharaonic Period, right before the Old Kingdom period where Egyptian architecture was most notable for (starting with the the Pyramid of Djoser, the Giza pyramids and the great Sphinx of Giza which followed)
Comment by computerist — June 14, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
June 15th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Daniel you have to remember, and speaking from the point of a novice, that the goal post you laid out for ID, in terms of the formation of enhancers through emergent systems including mutation, can easily be turned around, and the same question can apply in terms of a ground up evolutionary processes. You must keep in mind that while researchers have made many ground breaking discoveries that have increased our knowledge of the genome, very little is still known about gene expression,and noncoding regions,binding etc. The point is, lets not be unreasonable and incorporate dual standards.
Comment by themayan — June 15, 2009 @ 7:06 am
June 15th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Sorry Daniel I meant John W
Comment by themayan — June 15, 2009 @ 7:12 am
June 15th, 2009 at 8:00 am
You said, "… the people and the amount of time to shape and stack up those stones and consider that even modern civilization with its advanced technology would have trouble imitating such structures…" Which is untrue. It's only a matter of motivation. Imitation.
There is a history of moving large stones going back thousands of years. Ramses erected the original Piazza del Popolo obelisk more than a thousand years before Augustus. Surely the Egyptians became more adept over time, but the essential technology consisted of ropes, lubricants and coordinated labor. Clearly it wasn't the first stone structure the Egyptians built, nor the only large stone structure in the world built with primitive technology.
Comment by Zachriel — June 15, 2009 @ 8:00 am
June 15th, 2009 at 8:07 am
themayan:
I would add that there need be no presumption that these unknowns (gaps) will eventually yield data that is antithetical to ID.
Comment by Bradford — June 15, 2009 @ 8:07 am
June 15th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Mind readers abound here, apparently!
More mind reading. Why not take Bradford's suggestion and post your evidence of UFOs in the open thread. Though if you indeed have information that aliens have visited this planet, you should consider contacting the media. It will be a huge story!
Comment by Alan Fox — June 15, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
June 15th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Not my first, but the first to get a reply! Thanks Alan.
My point though is that we all have a mental "story" which we have accepted that determines our take on the facts. For those of us who believe in God (why hide it?), the facts point to undisputed design. For those who don't believe, the facts point to indisputable natural origins.
Same facts, different conclusions (though they really are not conclusions at all). The facts don't determine the conclusion, the bias determines the interpretation of the facts.
I've done thought experiments that prove this out on other forums. One involved a Stonehenge-like structure on Mars, the other a detailed face – also on Mars. In both cases, staunch anti-design posters unanimously agreed that such structures "must be" designed. When pressed as to why, the answers had nothing whatsoever to do with science or "design filters". The answer was simply that they could imagine a designer "like us" on Mars. End of story. We can all see design whenever we can supply a believable causal story. If you don't believe in God, that causal story will never be believable to you, so the facts will never support it.
Why argue the point?
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 15, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
June 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Which is precisely why conclusions in science depend on the proposal of testable hypotheses. And that's why Intelligent Design is rejected as vacuous by the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields.
Comment by Zachriel — June 15, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Science can be a strange bird in the sense of modern and current collective reasoning, in the sense that you have evolutionary naturalist that refuse to even entertain the possibility of a higher intelligence being even remotely responsible for the organic synthesis of life. I understand the importance and need to seperate and distinguish the difference, and all is fair enough, except for a few different subjects. Ill concentrate on one, extraterrestrial life, exobiology/astrobiology or the belief that some hold in the Panspermia hypothesis, including the late Francis Crick, and also the SETI Project, even Michio Kaku's theory of type 1, 2 and 3 civilizations are openly spoken of in the scientific litterature, and done so with out the worry of being labled a scurge to science, and with out having to worry about the threat to carreer advances in thier respective fields because of their metaphysical beliefs. The scientific world never labeled Carl Sagan a nutcase because he believed in little green men, and his belief in not just the possibillity of extraterrestrial life, but the necessity of extraterrestrial life being present in the universe based on numeric probabilities. In todays mind set numerical probabilties only apply to the cosmos, how dare IDers try to apply the same laws of probabilties to biology.
Comment by themayan — June 16, 2009 @ 1:32 am
June 16th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Hypotheses which provide no basis on which Daniel's contrasting concepts can be resolved.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2009 @ 7:38 am
June 16th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Planets orbit due to gravitational attraction. No angels required. By providing a simple and strongly supported mechanism, telic entities become scientifically superfluous. You can say the angels are there. You can say anything.
Comment by Zachriel — June 16, 2009 @ 9:16 am
June 16th, 2009 at 11:46 am
For those believe in God, the design is indisputable, facts or no facts. For those without an unquestioned belief in God, the currently known facts are consistent with natural origins and offer no evidence of design. But that conclusion is open to dispute.
See the difference? You believe in God — and congratulations for being proud of it, by the way — so your conclusions follow from that, perforce. People that have no premise that God exists and created the world around us can follow the facts to whatever conclusion fits, including a conclusion of intelligent design. But currently, the facts simply don't lead there, they lead to natural origins. But what of it? Doesn't the Bible tell you the evidence for God will only be obvious once you open your heart — not your head — to Him?
Comment by don provan — June 16, 2009 @ 11:46 am
June 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
It's more like one can only know God because God reveals himself to us. The knowledge of God, in turn, can enable one to see what he was hitherto blinded to.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Gravity does not offer any means of distinguishing between undisputed design or indisputable natural origins. I believe that was Daniel's original point.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
"I keep trying to get out and they keep dragging me back in!"
The real irony, Alan, is that I've been arguing lately with a 9/11 truther about ID. He keeps telling me how whacko ID is. I just can't win.
Comment by Bilbo — June 16, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
LOL! You can even invoke "gravitational attraction" – something so "simple" and "strongly supported" that we have no idea what it is!
Comment by chunkdz — June 16, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Adherence to naturalist theory has nothing whatsoever to do with science. We're all looking at the same evidence. Believers can read any paper and find that it conclusively supports design – because they're looking at it from the perspective of a belief in God. I've learned more about God from a biochemistry textbook than I ever did in a church pew! Life is full of wondrous creations that cry out "glory to God" to a believer.
A non-believer does not see these things as creations though, therefore his non-belief forces him to view all as natural phenomenon. He supplies the missing causal history mentally however – imagining selection acting upon all manner of unknown variations and coming up with all kinds of wondrous implements. These details are not supplied by science – they are supplied by the imagination. Science has no specific details as to how any complex system originated naturally.
Neither view therefore has anything whatsoever to do with science. Your insistence that your views are "scientific" while others are not is strategic cover – that's all.
Your views are no more scientific than mine.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 16, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Sure they do.
And that's why Intelligent Design construed as a scientific claim is rejected as vacuous by the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields.
Comment by Zachriel — June 16, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
A stone drops and you call it Intelligent Falling.
In the old days, it took a great deal of tinkering by highly skilled angels to make the planets trace their complex motions. The retrograde of Mars took a great deal of timing and dexterity, for instance. But then people figured out a very simple explanation based on a few simple relationships and rendered the angels superfluous.
Comment by Zachriel — June 16, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Zach, you are fixated on angels. Is there a known remedy for this obsessive compulsive tendency?
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Hi Daniel,
I've often wondered what it would be like if no Bible ever existed. I believe if God is the designer we don't really need a Bible to tell us that. People have believed in God/gods since the beginning by prescription. Either that intuition is completely wrong; an illusion of belief that is merely the result of some "junk biological property" or belief is really a designed property. Questioning belief/faith in itself is something practically every human who has walked the earthwas determined to ponder. The Bible is not necessary to infer design. The cheap shots Darwinists throw at ID when they reference YEC/Bible are considered irrelevant, ineffective and useless.
Comment by computerist — June 16, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Lol! No need to get snippy. I'm just pointing out that your agency is just as mysterious as any other mysterious agency.
I'm helping you to understand science. You should be thanking me.
Comment by chunkdz — June 16, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Zachriel your views seem very consistent with the status quo, wich tends to center around the effect rather than the cause as being sufficient to provide explanations to many questions. While I have to admitt that all inquiry into origins are more or less faith based either because of lack of empirical evidence or a lack of understanding on our part on what exactly is empircal. With out going into all the arguments for ID wich are to numerous for one thread. I believe ID should be given at least some respect by the scientific community, of course this is a my own personel opinion, but Ill tell you why. Even if everything thats been said by the Behe's, Dembski's, Thaxton's, Dentons, and everybody else advocating ID is proven wrong by future scientist. Then I would still believe that ID should be given the credit it deserves, even if just for rocking the boat and challenging old monolithic ideals, and to test them in light of new discoveries and understandings of the natural world, especially in the field of biochemistry and genetics. Science can only grow when people speak up and challenge theories, any theory that can't stand the test of scrutiny by even hostile opposition, is not worth its salt.
Comment by themayan — June 17, 2009 @ 1:17 am
June 17th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Once upon a time people couldn't imagine any unintellient force could account for the complex and stately motions of the planets. Now, scientists say they can account for those motions with a few simple interactions. It turned a highly trained and sought-after position into rote. A sign of the times, I suppose.
Gravity has known and measurable characteristics.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 6:12 am
June 17th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Scientific respect isn't a matter of personal opinion, but of being reasonably bound by the evidence and being able to propose and test valid hypotheses.
Sometimes crazy ideas can spur others. I completely agree. Unfortunately for your point, ID is virtually ignored by the scientific community. It's only relevant within the larger cultural context.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. — Carl Sagan
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 6:22 am
June 17th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Zachrieal I myself dont know of any crazy idea, unless you use the term crazy very loosly, that bore any fruit in science, but if you know of one, ill take your word for it. I also don't agree with your comments about the scientific community ignoring ID, as evidence of the activist and judicial stratagies that the NAS and others have resorted too in trying to shape public opinion wich should not be the role of the scientist, however whats even more disturbing is asking judges who probably know less about this field than most people on this blog, to decide what is scientifcally valid or not, when they dont have the proper training to do so. The NAS also shows zero tolerance for any crittiquing of the theory by any of its own members. They make no bones about this, and proudly post there law suites and docket sheets on their web page, wich is substantial. The Clergy letter project was actually the brain child of Eugenie Scott the director. If ID were being ignored I seriously doubt they would go through all this trouble to attempt to augment religious doctrin and dogmas with Darwinism. Every year in major universities and town halls scholars on both sides of the isle show up to debate these issues. These events are very popular and draw great interest among laymen and scholars alike. I also dont believe in science as a democracy. As far as opinions, when it comes to the historical sciences, all we have are educated opinions based on the observable evidence. This is the field that I have been interested in for many years. The interpretation of the observable evidence. Im sure you also feel your opinions are at least as valid as my own, whether or not we agree.
Comment by themayan — June 17, 2009 @ 8:35 am
June 17th, 2009 at 9:44 am
There's your problem. Scientists are describing the phenomenon of gravity through mathematical formulas. That does not account for the origin of gravity. In any case since noone at TT is claiming that angels push planets you do have a fixation with angels.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 9:44 am
June 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Correction: The effects of gravity are measurable. The agency behind gravity is unknown.
from Wikipedia:
Some people think that because the effects of gravity are predictable they know what gravity is. This is erroneous thinking.
Comment by chunkdz — June 17, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
chunkdz wrote:
That's straight out of John Baez's Crackpot Index:
Comment by olegt — June 17, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Bradford wrote:
10 more points.
Comment by olegt — June 17, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Glad to see you entertained Olegt.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Bradford,
Newton famously wrote hypotheses non fingo. Keep that in mind.
Comment by olegt — June 17, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Hi Olegt,
I am not criticizing any theory of gravitation. Personally, I am a big fan of gravity. I just found it ironic that Zach would make fun of imagined agencies by invoking an imagined agency.
Comment by chunkdz — June 17, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Olegt:
Duly noted. What some of your cohorts need is a dose of humility. When you cannot identify entire causal chains you have an indicator that a discipline has boundaries. That in turn indicates that it is foolish to conflate theism with intentionally derogatory cliches like irrational, magic, nonsense etc. One is free to believe it but to assert prejudice as evidence of reason over faith is a form of self-deception at a very fundamental level.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Bradford wrote:
Of course every discipline has boundaries of knowledge. Haven't you heard the expression leading-edge research?
I don't think I have ever said that the belief in god is irrational. Theism is very much a product of human reason. It is nothing if not rational.
Scientific knowledge is a bit different: it is not acquired through pure reasoning, it needs experimental input and further experimental verification. That means it can be falsified. Theistic knowledge cannot be falsified: one can rationalize anything.
String theory, by the way, isn't science. It is a mathematical apparatus in development. One day it may become useful in physics, just like field theory is useful now. You cannot falsify field theory any more than you can falsify algebra. It's a product of mind.
Comment by olegt — June 17, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
No they don't.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 17, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Hello computerist,
I've found that anyone who is open to the possibility that God exists will see design in the universe. It's not about science or design filters – it's intuitive.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 17, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Let me add also that those who don't believe in God still have foundational beliefs that have nothing whatsoever to do with science.
The belief that nature can create life is held because they can imagine it happening that way – not because it has been scientifically demonstrated.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 17, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Would any seemingly intelligent person with any kind of pride, engage any one on this blog if the topic of the discussion was on whether or not Superman could defeat the Flash in a foot race. I know that I wouldnt waste my time. I think dialogue on this and many other forums attest to the fact that issues like ID that deal with science and the scientific reasoning of these viewpoints can be disgused by intelligent people, regardless of passive agressive posturing. To believe that main stream science is ignoring ID is to bury ones head in the sand. I know the original narrative is a little silly, because after all, every one knows Superman would take him to SCHOOL!!
Comment by themayan — June 17, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
You have it backwards. ID was the dominant explanation for the origin of the species for thousands of years. It was scientists such as Darwin that challenged old monolithic ideals. And unlike the current crop of ID "theorist" that merely complain about the real scientists not accepting their hypotheses and exploring their theories, the biologists that brought us evolution went out themselves to gather the evidence that would lead to the new conclusions.
Evolution is challenged every day, changed and adapted as new evidence shows that it needs to be refined. The idea that it is an unquestioned monolith is laughable.
And while it's true that most scientists ignored or laughed at ID because it was so obviously a rehash of the defeated creationist theories — we discovered in the Dover case how true that was, beyond anyone's imagination — some people such as the critics on this board listen to its case and evaluate it impartially and with fresh eyes. And we've discovered that it really is nonsense. It doesn't even amount to a scientifically competent challenge. Indeed, it seems to stem largely from an utter inability to understand what science is and how the scientific method works.
So don't give me this about ID deserving credit. There are real scientists making real contributions to biological science, raising real questions, really overturning established ideas by really doing research. Don't embarrass yourself by claiming ID pundits are in that group.
Comment by don provan — June 18, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I can imagine it happening either way. What of it?
So here's something for you to consider: I believe that nature can create life, and I believe that God can create life. The current evidence supports the idea that nature can create life. Do you really have some reason to question that evidence except that your belief that nature cannot create life? Whose beliefs are getting in the way here?
Comment by don provan — June 18, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Sorry, I didn't proofread fast enough, so I got locked out of editing. I meant to say the current evidence supports the idea that nature did create life.
Comment by don provan — June 18, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The first version of this is simply wrong and the second version is ridiculous. But before we move on to the ridiculous version, please provide evidence that nature can "create life". (Of course, I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "life", but I would assume you mean this system.)
Thanks.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 18, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Sure the current evidence supports the idea that nature created life, it also supports the idea that God created life. The "evidence" you'll cite only supports your conclusion when coupled with your imagination. When coupled with my imagination, it supports my conclusion. The evidence itself is non-committal. It doesn't support one or the other conclusion. The evidence supports the conclusion that life is unimaginably complex, and that many of its parts share similar characteristics. No specific details as to how all this happened are available based on evidence alone. Our minds fill in the gaps. The leap to either conclusion is just that – a leap of faith.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 18, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
You're making a very profound point, but you seem to be missing what it is. Our evaluation of the evidence is, indeed, warped by what we cannot imagine. If we cannot imagine something, we literally ignore evidence supporting it.
But I just told you that I can imagine God creating life. Anyone can imagine God creating life. It's the first answer our ancestors came up with; it's the first answer children come up with. Scientists, too, can imagine God creating life, and even if you discount atheists as having some kind of mental block, you still have to consider the unnumerable scientists who are Christians that not only can imagine God creating life, but believe as strongly as you do that he did do it. Yet they still agree that evolution explains the evidence. What they can imagine and you, apparently, cannot is God using evolution as His tool.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine molecular clouds light-years across, billions of years of time for events to unfold, unknown environments, on Earth and off, an initial replicator nothing like any current life, not to mention specific chemical reactions neither of you nor I can understand. Whose imagination is the limiting one?
You say the evidence supports either hypothesis. How do you know that? People that actually study the evidence for a living disagree with you and tells us that the evidence does, indeed, support the hypotheses involving natural processes. On what basis do you disagree with them? What other than your limited imagination are you using to say, "No specific details as to how all this happened are available based on evidence alone"? Is there anything but arrogance behind your accusation that they are pushing leaps of faith as a scientifically supported theory? And how do you explain those Christians in the field making the same "leap of faith" and seeing no conflict between it and their religious beliefs?
You might also want to think about why imagining God did it is so much easier than imagining natural processes did it. The answer is simple: God doesn't need a mechanism. All he has to do is say "Let there be light," and there will be light. Very simple to imagine. But unacceptable to you or anyone else when applied to natural processes. No, to prove natural processes did it, you can't just imagine that they could do it, you have to explain how they can do it.
This is where ID really shines. It provides two trusty imagination blockers: irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Both of these have the same point: there are some things you shouldn't even try to imagine could happen, because they can't. When anyone tries to overcome the blockers by imagining how a flagellum might have evolved, IDists club them with IC by saying they are making up a "just-so story". IDists forbid imagining the evolution of the flaggelum precisely so you won't believe the evidence that confirms that it evolved.
You argument hinges on your belief that something is wrong with people that support evolution, specifically in this case, a lack of imagination. I hope you can see now that there's only one side that lacks imagination. Take that into account.
Comment by don provan — June 22, 2009 @ 12:12 pm