Biological Design Argument?

[rossum]

It is only possible if you make the unverified assumption that abiogenesis is possible under the undirected rules of chemistry! After all, life has a direction whereas inanimate molecules do not…

What do you mean by “life has a direction”? Please indicate the scientific evidence to support your assertion.

Chemistry has a direction. Mixtures of chemicals move towards the lowest energy configuration available to them. Does that suffice to meet your criterion?

There is no verifiable evidence that that abiogenesis is possible under the rules of chemistry without any other factor!

There is no verifiable evidence of the presence of ‘any other factor’ on earth at the time of abiogenesis. There is verifiable evidence that chemistry can produce lipid bilayers, purines, pyrimidines, ribozymes and amino acids. Where is you evidence of the requirement for this additional factor?

There is plenty of philosophical evidence that design is an intelligent activity.

Agreed. Humans design things a lot of the time. However, there are also things that are not designed, such as snowflakes, that give the appearance of being designed. Human perception is not a reliable indication of design.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Reasoning is a mental activity not a physical process. It is a philosophical mistake to discard it as rossum appears to do, thereby ruling out spiritual development.

And why cannot a mental activity be an emergent process? Do dogs exhibit mental activity? Do they exhibit more mental activity than an earthworm? There are different degrees of mental activity.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

And why cannot a mental activity be an emergent process? Do dogs exhibit mental activity? Do they exhibit more mental activity than an earthworm? There are different degrees of mental activity.

If mental activity were an emergent process it would be mechanistic and we would not be responsible for our decisions, conclusions and - spiritual development.

 

[ngill09]

If mental activity were an emergent process it would be mechanistic and we would not be responsible for our decisions, conclusions and - spiritual development.

Mental activity is, at heart, neurological. By altering the chemistry and physical properties of your brain, I can change the way you think and what you perceive. However, because we are conscious beings, we must still necessarily hold eachother accountable for our actions.

 

[tonyrey]

Mental activity is, at heart, neurological.

Only in a materialist’s opinion.

By altering the chemistry and physical properties of your brain, I can change the way you think and what you perceive.

To be precise, you can interfere with the transmission of thought and perceptions from the mind but you cannot prevent a person from thinking unless you are a magician!

However, because we are conscious beings, we must still necessarily hold eachther accountable for our actions.

Consciousness alone does not confer responsibility. If it did we could be biological robots - which is what your view amounts to…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

There is ample scientific evidence for abiogenesis.

Well, the evidence is not ample at all. That fact that it occurred is obvious.
**
There is no scientific evidence for design as a part of the process of abiogenesis.**

Except that it is reasonable to presume design rather than blind chance.

Show us the scientific evidence, and science will change just as the theory of gravity changed. Without evidence then personal incredulity has no weight.

Without showing us the scientific evidence that abiogenesis could occur by blind chance, your personal credulity has no weight.

 

[rossum]

If mental activity were an emergent process it would be mechanistic and we would not be responsible for our decisions, conclusions and - spiritual development.

Cause and effect. Things that are not eternal have causes. Since human mental activity is not eternal then it must have causes. Things that have causes are emergent effects – they emerge as effects from their causes.

You are reifying again. It appears to be a common habit of yours, and reifying is always a mistake.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Well, the evidence is not ample at all. That fact that it occurred is obvious.

Indeed, which suffices for science. We also have some, though not all, details of how it probably happened.

Except that it is reasonable to presume design rather than blind chance.

No scientist presumes blind chance; that is a creationist strawman intended to disguise the real science. Chemistry has strict rules and is not blind chance. The YEC websites put this lie around and unfortunately a lot of people believe it. YEC has so little evidence that the YECs have to resort to lies to support their case.

Abiogenesis is a result of chemistry and chemistry is not blind chance.

Without showing us the scientific evidence that abiogenesis could occur by blind chance, your personal credulity has no weight.

Again with the “blind chance”. Why to you believe YEC websites that lie to you?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

What do you mean by “life has a direction”? Please indicate the scientific evidence to support your assertion.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed, which suffices for science. We also have some, though not all, details of how it probably happened.

No scientist presumes blind chance; that is a creationist strawman intended to disguise the real science. Chemistry has strict rules and is not blind chance. The YEC websites put this lie around and unfortunately a lot of people believe it. YEC has so little evidence that the YECs have to resort to lies to support their case.

Abiogenesis is a result of chemistry and chemistry is not blind chance.

Again with the “blind chance”. Why to you believe YEC websites that lie to you?

Materialists suppose that the ultimate factor in abiogenesis was **fortuitous **combinations of molecules - followed by random genetic mutations in the development of life…

YEC is an HRH! {Not Her Royal Highness but a Hackneyed Red Herring }

 

[rossum]

By any standards the development of life from unicellular organisms like amoeba to Buddhists is directional!

You need to learn more about the development of parasites from originally free-living ancestors. It wuould also help if you studied random motion in the presence of a barrier on one side only.

Your criterion rules out spiritual development.

Since when is a material body required for spiritual development? I suggest you read up about anagamis.

Snowflakes are not purposeful organisms.

Irrelevant, I never said they were. Snowflakes give the appearance of design, yet they are not designed but are the result of physical effects on accreting ice crystals. My point was that the human mind is not an accurate detector of design – our minds can be fooled by the non-designed appearing as design.

The power of reason is overwhelmingly powerful evidence for Design.

Which came first, reason or design? Can we have reason without design? Can we have design without reason? If they require each other then you need something else to get the whole thing started. You are backing yourself into circular logic here.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Materialists suppose that the ultimate factor in abiogenesis was **fortuitous **combinations of molecules - followed by random genetic mutations in the development of life…

Neither chemistry nor natural selection are “fortuitous”. If you want to follow Ken Ham into non-science then you are free to do so. However, do not expect those who know something about the subject to treat you with any seriousness.

Is is “fortuitous” that water is always H[sub]2[/sub]O and never H[sub]1[/sub]O or H[sub]3[/sub]O? Ken Ham is not a scientist, he is a propagandist and what he, and his ilk, say cannot be trusted.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

*Materialists suppose that the ultimate factor in abiogenesis was **fortuitous ***

1. Do you deny that - in your opinion -abiogenesis was fortuitous? If so you need to explain how physical and chemical laws selected the precise values for the formation of life…
2. Do you deny that **random **genetic mutations are the source of variety in the development of life? If so you need to account for them in terms of physical and chemical laws.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
Abiogenesis is a result of chemistry and chemistry is not blind chance**.

In your opinion abiogenesis must be, since you don’t believe it is intelligently designed.

Also, you have a habit of dismissing people as Creationists instead of replying intelligently to the point that are made.

The bottom line is that to say something is the result of chemistry says nothing about how the chemistry happened. Obviously abiognesis is the result of chemistry. No one is disputing that. But who is the chemist? Blind Chance or an Intelligent Designer.

Next time you go to your chemistry lab see if you can concoct abiogenesis without designing an experiment to do so.

And please please please stop accusing people of being Creationist when they have not identified themselves as such.

 

[rossum]

1. Do you deny that - in your opinion -abiogenesis was fortuitous?

I do so deny. Anything with a beginning has a cause. Since the current material universe has a beginning then it has a cause. The properties of our current universe arise from that cause, they are not fortuitous.

If so you need to explain how physical and chemical laws selected the precise values for the formation of life…

Justify “precise”. How many different possible forms of life are there? What range of values allow the existence of each different form of life? What range of values allow the formation of a universe at all? Only when you have calculated the values of the two different ranges can you be specific about how “precise” the values we see are.

Remember also the anthropic principle. The fact that we rare here to observe it places a constraint on the possible universe we could be observing. For example, a de Sitter universe contains no ordinary matter at all.

Do you deny that **random **genetic mutations are the source of variety in the development of life? If so you need to account for them in terms of physical and chemical laws.

Genetic mutations are not random. They can be caused by certain chemicals and by radiation for example. Mutations are random with respect to their effect – the majority have no effect, most of the remainder are deleterious and a very few are beneficial.

What is not random is natural selection which acts as a strong filter on the pool of mutations and selects the advantageous ones. The overall combination of mutation followed by selection is not random. Pass random sized gravel through a sieve and the resulting pile of gravel is no longer randomly sized.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In your opinion abiogenesis must be, since you don’t believe it is intelligently designed.

Abiogenesis is the result of chemistry. If you believe that chemistry is intelligently designed, then there is no need for direct intervention in abiogenesis. All the requirements are in place with the rules of chemistry.

Chemistry is the result of physics. If you believe that physics is intelligently designed, then there is no need for direct intervention in chemisry. All the requirements are in place with the rules of physics.

You need to specify at what level you see design. Is the universe “designed for life”? If it is then we should expect life to arise naturally within that universe as a consequence of the original design. Abiogenesis merely tells us the details of how life actually started inside the universe which was designed for it.

Abiogenesis only needs special intervention if the universe was not designed for life, and so life needed an extra nudge to get started.

The bottom line is that to say something is the result of chemistry says nothing about how the chemistry happened. Obviously abiognesis is the result of chemistry. No one is disputing that. But who is the chemist? Blind Chance or an Intelligent Designer.

Chemistry arises from physics. What did your proposed Intelligent Designer arise from? We can all ask the question, “What caused X,” for a great many values of X.

Next time you go to your chemistry lab see if you can concoct abiogenesis without designing an experiment to do so.

Experiments are designed. Observations are not. We observe that life on earth originated about 3.7 billion years ago. Scientists are working on the details of how it originated.

How many details do you have about how your designer originated?

We know how amino acids originated through chemistry. Do you have any amino acids originated by your designer? Where are your lab experiments to support your hypothesis of a designer?

And please please please stop accusing people of being Creationist when they have not identified themselves as such.

Do you believe God created the world? If so then you are a creationist of some sort. There is nothing inconsistent in believing that God created the universe and life, while using the science of abiogenesis to elucidate the details of how God arranged for life to start.

YEC non-science is ludicrously bad and I will criticise it when I see it. Christians should be ashamed that their religion is associated with such nonsense. In many ways YECs do as much damage to Christianity as Westboro’ Baptist – they bring Christianity into disrepute.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
Abiogenesis only needs special intervention if the universe was not designed for life, and so life needed an extra nudge to get started.**

Aren’t you an atheist? Then obviously you see design nowhere, whether for life or not.

**Chemistry arises from physics. What did your proposed Intelligent Designer arise from? **

Again, your atheist slip is showing. The Intelligent Designer is uncreated. Which is more than you can say for this universe you live in.

Do you believe God created the world?

Yes.

**If so then you are a creationist of some sort. **

But not the sort who believes literally in 7/24 hour days of creation. Do you think all Creationists are stupid?

There is nothing inconsistent in believing that God created the universe and life, while using the science of abiogenesis to elucidate the details of how God arranged for life to start.

Nobody here is saying abiogenesis did not occur. What we are challenging is your belief that it could not have been Intelligently Designed … a proposition for which there is literally no evidence whatever.

YEC non-science is ludicrously bad and I will criticise it when I see it. Christians should be ashamed that their religion is associated with such nonsense. In many ways YECs do as much damage to Christianity as Westboro’ Baptist – they bring Christianity into disrepute.

Here is where your atheism really shouts its bias against anyone who is religious, Christian in particular. You are letting your philosophy get in the way of your science, thereby bringing into disrepute your science.

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

Francis Bacon Author of Novum Organum, the first British manual for describing the scientific method.

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

 

[rossum]

Aren’t you an atheist? Then obviously you see design nowhere, whether for life or not.

I am Buddhist. There are a great many gods in Buddhist scripture. They may (or may not) exist, but in either case their existence is not particularly important.

Again, your atheist slip is showing. The Intelligent Designer is uncreated. Which is more than you can say for this universe you live in.

You have an uncreated/uncaused designer. An atheist can have an uncreated/uncaused multiverse. That puts both of you in the same philosophical position.

As a Buddhist I define the whole universe as “all that exists”. That whole universe obviously cannot have been designed, because there is nothing existing outside the universe to do any designing. The material universe is only a part of the whole universe. The multiverse would also be just a part.

But not the sort who believes literally in 7/24 hour days of creation. Do you think all Creationists are stupid?

No, I do not think that. I referenced OECs and TEs as examples of non-YEC creationists. However, if you use stupid arguments, then I will criticise those arguments. The vast majority of arguments culled from YEC websites are stupid.

Nobody here is saying abiogenesis did not occur. What we are challenging is your belief that it could not have been Intelligently Designed … a proposition for which there is literally no evidence whatever.

Just as I am challenging your proposition that it was intelligently designed … a proposition for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

We have non-designed amino acids arising from pure chemistry. You do not have designed amino acids arising from your proposed designer. So far non-design is in the lead.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Just as I am challenging your proposition that it was intelligently designed … a proposition for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

No scientific evidence whatever that something that looks designed was never designed.
**
We have non-designed amino acids arising from pure chemistry. **

This says nothing.
**
You do not have designed amino acids arising from your proposed designer. **

According to Darwin, we have a good deal more from the Creator: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…"

So far non-design is in the lead.

You cannot prove undesigned abiogenesis arising from pure chance. Even attempts to make that happen would only be the result of intelligently designed experiments. So far design is in the lead.

You have an uncreated/uncaused designer. An atheist can have an uncreated/uncaused multiverse. That puts both of you in the same philosophical position.

Not so. Since design (fine tuning) is apparent from the moment of the Big Bang, whatever/whoever caused the Big Bang must be uncaused. After all, the principle of causality was created as part of the design of the universe, so the Creator cannot be subject to a principle he has created. An atheist always requires proof for everything. Where is the proof for a multiverse? There is none and can never be any. Multiverses and chance abiogenesis are equally unprovable. They are taken as givens by the atheist desperate to find an alternative to God.

I am Buddhist. There are a great many gods in Buddhist scripture. They may (or may not) exist, but in either case their existence is not particularly important.

Since they are not particularly important, these gods might as well not exist. Certainly you would have to work a lot harder to prove the existence of so many gods than the existence of just One. Certainly these gods are not omnipotent or omniscient, so they hardly rank as gods so much as angels or demons.

 

[tonyrey]

I do so deny. Anything with a beginning has a cause. Since the current material universe has a beginning then it has a cause. The properties of our current universe arise from that cause, they are not fortuitous.

Justify “precise”. How many different possible forms of life are there? What range of values allow the existence of each different form of life? What range of values allow the formation of a universe at all? Only when you have calculated the values of the two different ranges can you be specific about how “precise” the values we see are.

Remember also the anthropic principle. The fact that we rare here to observe it places a constraint on the possible universe we could be observing. For example, a de Sitter universe contains no ordinary matter at all.

Genetic mutations are not random. They can be caused by certain chemicals and by radiation for example. Mutations are random with respect to their effect – the majority have no effect, most of the remainder are deleterious and a very few are beneficial.

What is not random is natural selection which acts as a strong filter on the pool of mutations and selects the advantageous ones. The overall combination of mutation followed by selection is not random. Pass random sized gravel through a sieve and the resulting pile of gravel is no longer randomly sized.

rossum

Then you disagree with the Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod:

…[mutations] constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism’s hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that** chance** alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition — or the hope — that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised.

(Chance and Necessity, p. 112)