More Favorite Passages from The Design Matrix
by Bilbo Metaphors typically break down when we begin to take them literally. Any investigator who tried to use the literal interpretation of a metaphor as a research guide would quickly find themselves with a rather useless guide. For example, if the sky really is angry, this implies the sky contains some type of nervous system given that emotions, from a scientific viewpoint, are attached to nervous systems. However, since the sky has no brain, the understanding of meteorology is not at all advanced by seeking brains and neurotransmitters among the clouds. Neither will we find brains and neurotransmitters among the molecules that are hydrophobic. But all this changes when we turn to the use of metaphors in molecular biology.
The design terminology that is used in the language of molecular biology does not break down when interpreted literally. Consider the process of protein synthesis as an example. To make a protein, a specific sequence of twenty different building blocks, known as amino acids, must be linked together. Yet how does the cell know what sequence to put them in? That information comes from the DNA molecule, where a specific sequence of building blocks, known as nucleotides, encodes the amino acid sequence. The cell employs machinery that translates the nucleotide sequence of the DNA into the amino acid sequence of the protein. We can thus legitimately think of the DNA as literally encoding the amino acid sequence, just as it is valid to think of the process of protein synthesis as an event that literally translates the DNA code-script into an amino acid sequence. While the sky does not actually possess emotions, the cell does actually encode and translate things. (p.45)
May 20th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Page 106.
Comment by nobody — May 20, 2008 @ 12:49 am
May 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The passage depicted summarizes a process whose implications form the core of my ID beliefs. Putting it simply, I believe purposeful intent is an essential part of the causal dynamics of these kinds of encoding systems and that the physical nature of protein synthesis supports the conclusion. It's not a question of a gap unless one rules out a designer hypothesis a priori.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 11:18 am
May 20th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
All information is immaterial and can never interact with physical reality. The concepts in any message can never "do" anything. Such information must be interpreted by a physical entity that reads and understands the language. Then the physical entity may respond. The information from environmental signals must also be "read" — by the cells themselves, or by something that then tells a cell where to go and what to do. Cells listen to a language that we are only beginning to detect, much less decipher. We will never equal a "native speaker" of that language. We only beginning to deduce the existence of a cellular language because we have realized that language is necessary to convey information.
Materialists should feel perfectly free to ignore that part of reality by claiming the concepts are too complex and uncertain — can't be defined. They can leave investigation of all aspects of reality that involves information and intelligence to the non materialists.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — May 20, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
(p.45)
Comment by Bilbo — May 22, 2008 @ 4:47 pm