Nelson Hears an Echo
by MikeGene
Since I'm always late for an important date, time is not on my side. But I can't help but pause and notice something that Paul Nelson just noticed:
But check out George Church's comments if you really want your head to pop. I think Mike Gene must have been channeling Church when he (MG) wrote The Design Matrix.
Or maybe it was the other way around. Wild days, folks. Wild days.
So this bunny hops over to the Land of Edge to indeed find echoes of the Matrix bouncing all over the room.
First things first. It's too easy for people to interpret the DM from within the context of the current ID debate. Tsk, tsk. But then you won't really see what's happening. That Nelson heard the echoes tells me someone out there "gets it." Oh, my.
Second thing. When I gets some of that time (maybe tonight), it's time to savor the moment and ponder Church in the Matrix.
Wild days indeed.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Very glad to see your book mentioned again, MG.
As for the article itself, it was interesting. I found it amusing how at one point Brockman mentioned how angry religious people would be if they knew what was being discussed at their conference. Meanwhile, some of the topics the conference hit on was 'Darwinian evolution is probably over, and design is the future for known life', 'The universe is computing and life sure seems like a part of the plan and this all looks intentional but please I'm not saying it is, don't hit me', 'We went around asking theologians and philosophers if designing a new genome would be wrong, they said no, so it must be because genomes aren't in their holy books'.
I can't help but get the feeling 'this would tick off religious people' is more wish than reality. And the idea 'a lot of this would actually be viewed positively by some religious people' is too dreadful to contemplate.
Comment by nullasalus — January 19, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
January 19th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Hi nullasalus,
I have not had the chance to read through it all (yet), but that attitude does come across even in the Church section (note also that while they don't buy into irreducible complexity, they treat it as more of a challenge than the culture warriors who pronounce it nonsense and dead).
The talk about designing synthetic life is priceless. It's as if they are determined to demonstrate that life is not a miracle, whether it's the supernatural miracle of divine intervention or the naturalistic miracle of extreme luck. But why conflate miracles with design? I think they will eventually succeed in designing synthetic life as that is what the design of life entails. If life was designed, then sooner or later, other designers will figure out how to design its analog. Especially, if they are learning from and being trained by what someone else designed.
While this is exciting from an ID perspective, it is also quite scary. A community of designers will eventually succeed in designing synthetic life. They will have brought into existence something that not only perpetuates itself, but a) something that current life is not adapted to and b) something that will evolve.
Insert fav scifi "things gone wrong" movie at this point.
Comment by MikeGene — January 19, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
January 20th, 2008 at 1:59 am
MG,
The attitude I noticed was 'Whatever we come up with, it can't be something that people can point at and claim is IC." As in, such an idea would be discarded on that basis alone. And some of the attendees were none too happen with RNA world precisely because they believe it can be pointed at as evidence of ID that requires an exceptional appeal to get around. Quite a lot of fun to be had with that idea.
I also liked the exchange between Dawkins and Dyson at the end. I believe, since then, another well-known biologist argued as much (the importance of group selection versus single selection.)
Comment by nullasalus — January 20, 2008 @ 1:59 am
January 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Venter's quote left me stunned.
Venter knows his comparative genomics. And this is such a radical departure from the orthodoxy.
Comment by chunkdz — January 21, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
I would also point out that for years, I have been hypothesizing something other than front-loading with some "super-cell." Old-timers might recall that I have been long suggesting the planet was seeded with a consortium of cells.
Comment by MikeGene — January 22, 2008 @ 12:12 am
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
From the given context, the statement seems rather vague. However, Venter certainly does accept Common Descent as it applies to the majority of taxa.
However, the root of the phylogenetic tree may be tangled.
Comment by Zachriel — January 22, 2008 @ 7:11 pm