Design

[buffalo]

Your interpretation of the Bible is your interpretation of the Bible. Unless you have DNA sequences form Adam, Eve or a close relative then you have no evidence. Remember also that if Adam’s DNA was too far away from modern human DNA then Adam would not be human. He must have been at closer to modern human DNA than., say, a chimpanzee in order to be classified as Homo sapiens. Too much difference and he would be a different species.

rossum

Do you deny genetic entropy?

 

[rossum]

You are ignoring the specified complexity portion of the argument.

Specified Complexity is Dembski’s argument, not Behe’s. Unless and until Dembski, or the DI, can produce an objective way to measure specified complex information then they do not have an argument. Currently what they have is effectively “it sure looks designed to me” because all the measures proposed so far are subjective, not objective.

Known evolutionary processes can increase information. We need to be able to measure SCI before and after to see if the SCI has increased or not. In the absence of an objective measure then that is not possible. SCI is currently an untested hypothesis, and will carry little weight until it has been tested.

Behe’s IC was tested, and Behe, correctly, modified his hypothesis to take account of the tests. What started as “IC cannot evolve” became “IC is less likely to evolve” after testing the hypothesis.

We do not yet know how well Dembski’s hypothesis will fare under testing.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Or this variant is present in the 500 or so conserved genes that life has.

Manifestly this gene was not conserved, since it has a fatal error, IIRC a mutation causing a STOP codon near the start of the coding sequence.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Do you deny genetic entropy?

Do you deny natural selection?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Dawkins doesn’t speak for thousands of Catholic scientists. The ‘evolutionists’ among them alone may be more than there are Catholic ID fans.

Yet again you have ignored the reasons for believing in Design rather than Chance and Physical Necessity:

The theory of the Big Bang is compatible with the Catholic Church’s teaching on creation and belief in both is possible, Pope Francis has said. The Pope insisted that God was responsible for the Big Bang, from which all life then evolved.

The Big Bang - the theory that the universe was born in a cosmic explosion about 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and evolved since - “doesn’t contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it,” the Pope said.

The beginning of the world was not “the work of chaos” but part of **a divine plan **by the Creator, he said.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worl…e-Creator.html

The Pope believes evolution has occurred by Design rather than Chance. Nor does he believe God never intervenes:

The prayers of the faithful, not the pope, bishops, priests or nuns, have the power to make miracles happen in the most impossible situations, Pope Francis has said.

catholicherald.co.uk/news…racles-happen/

Do you really believe God created the universe for no reason or purpose whatsoever?
Have miracles never occurred? In fact do you deny that God created the universe? If so what distinguishes you from a deist or atheist?

 

[buffalo]

Specified Complexity is Dembski’s argument, not Behe’s. Unless and until Dembski, or the DI, can produce an objective way to measure specified complex information then they do not have an argument. Currently what they have is effectively “it sure looks designed to me” because all the measures proposed so far are subjective, not objective.

Known evolutionary processes can increase information. We need to be able to measure SCI before and after to see if the SCI has increased or not. In the absence of an objective measure then that is not possible. SCI is currently an untested hypothesis, and will carry little weight until it has been tested.

Behe’s IC was tested, and Behe, correctly, modified his hypothesis to take account of the tests. What started as “IC cannot evolve” became “IC is less likely to evolve” after testing the hypothesis.

We do not yet know how well Dembski’s hypothesis will fare under testing.

rossum

It seems our arguments have not changed much over the last few years.

As you know it is done by odds.

 

[buffalo]

Do you deny natural selection?

rossum

As a creative process yes. Do you deny genetic entropy?

 

[buffalo]

Manifestly this gene was not conserved, since it has a fatal error, IIRC a mutation causing a STOP codon near the start of the coding sequence.

rossum

A gene has to be played by epigenetics as a piano key is played by the player.

 

[tonyrey]

**buffalo **

A false dilemma!

 

[rossum]

It seems our arguments have not changed much over the last few years.

indeed.

As you know it is done by odds.

More than odds. SCI requires a “specification”, and I have not so far seen a good objective specification of a “specification” in this context. Without a specification we have merely “complex information”, and even Dembski does not deny that natural processes can produce complex information. The positions of every atom in a lump of rock constitute complex information, but they are not “specified”.

Absent an objective specification then Complex Specified Information fails as a useful measure.

You might wish to read my Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector in this context.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Do you deny genetic entropy?

No.

rossum

 

[STT]

There is no intelligence design since otherwise a good God is in charge of evolution of harmful bacteria and viruses too.

 

[inocente]

The Pope believes evolution has occurred by Design rather than Chance.

The Pope wouldn’t bow before either of those idols. They are a false dichotomy, and he wouldn’t have a clue what you mean by either of them anyway.

But if you agree with the Pope in accepting evolution, you seem at variance with your fellow travelers, who disagree on which bits of science they accept, whether the universe is less than 6000 years old, whether cavemen fought dinosaurs, etc. Only thing I’d say is that if they keep claiming the choice is between whatever they believe or atheism, don’t be surprised if they create atheists.

I’ll leave the discussion here, unless anything interesting happens, as people who are not employed in the life sciences can discuss their beliefs as earnestly as they like but it won’t get magic taught in biology classes.

 

[Vonsalza]

But if you agree with the Pope in accepting evolution, you seem at variance with your fellow travelers, who disagree on which bits of science they accept, whether the universe is less than 6000 years old, whether cavemen fought dinosaurs, etc. Only thing I’d say is that if they keep claiming the choice is between whatever they believe or atheism, don’t be surprised if they create atheists.

Maybe you don’t “see it” because you’re not Catholic, but Catholics are fairly free to hold a diversity of opinions on things not defined by dogma.

I don’t find that this diversity spawns atheism. I find that it spawns discussion.

And just because most on the forum are, presumably, not employed in a “life-science” field does not mean that they somehow can’t hold a sound opinion. As the old adage goes, “Ask 10 doctors, get 11 different opinions.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Maybe you don’t “see it” because you’re not Catholic, but Catholics are fairly free to hold a diversity of opinions on things not defined by dogma.

This is right on.

A pope accepting evolution does not make evolution a dogma, and evolution, because it is science, can be wrong.

What the pope said (all he can say) is that accepting evolution is not a heresy, which is altogether different from saying it is a truth.

 

[buffalo]

indeed.

More than odds. SCI requires a “specification”, and I have not so far seen a good objective specification of a “specification” in this context. Without a specification we have merely “complex information”, and even Dembski does not deny that natural processes can produce complex information. The positions of every atom in a lump of rock constitute complex information, but they are not “specified”.

Absent an objective specification then Complex Specified Information fails as a useful measure.

You might wish to read my Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector in this context.

rossum

The higher the amount of FunctionalSCI the greater the odds that it was designed. Hopefully science will be able to fine tune this.

 

[buffalo]

There is no intelligence design since otherwise a good God is in charge of evolution of harmful bacteria and viruses too.

Not really. Front loading life with complex instruction and adaptability does not mean that God would not allow the consequences of a fallen world.

 

[STT]

Not really. Front loading life with complex instruction and adaptability does not mean that God would not allow the consequences of a fallen world.

That is no a fair answer. So ID is applicable theory when it comes human and is not applicable when it comes to bacteria and viruses! By they way, you are at least accepting that bacteria and virus evolve naturally.

 

[rossum]

The higher the amount of FunctionalSCI the greater the odds that it was designed. Hopefully science will be able to fine tune this.

You say “amount”. That is a measure. How do you accurately and objectively measure FSCI? Now you have to objectively define both “specified” and “functional”. Your new acronym has just doubled the work you have to do.

Calculating odds requires numbers. If you do not have numbers then you have no odds. How do we objectively measure those numbers?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The Pope wouldn’t bow before either of those idols. They are a false dichotomy, and he wouldn’t have a clue what you mean by either of them anyway.

But if you agree with the Pope in accepting evolution, you seem at variance with your fellow travelers, who disagree on which bits of science they accept, whether the universe is less than 6000 years old, whether cavemen fought dinosaurs, etc. Only thing I’d say is that if they keep claiming the choice is between whatever they believe or atheism, don’t be surprised if they create atheists.

I’ll leave the discussion here, unless anything interesting happens, as people who are not employed in the life sciences can discuss their beliefs as earnestly as they like but it won’t get magic taught in biology classes.

Magic, the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) is being taught in biology class.