Intelligent Design

[Hans_W]

An interesting paper demonstrating that single mutations would not effect any functionally significant change in enzyme families. What would be required are a minimum of three simultaneous mutations to effect any change that would result in a significant development. The difficulty is that three correlated mutations would take an inordinately long time.

The details are here…

bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4/BIO-C.2014.4

I haven’t read the entire paper yet, but will this evening. Just a head’s up.

The journal Bio-Complexity is an online, open-access, pro-intelligent design journal that claims to incorporate peer review. However, peer review doesn’t mean much when all your peers are highly sympathetic to your hypotheses and conclusions.

All the editorial board members of this journal are ID supporters. I wouldn’t take this publication seriously, unless you want to see your beliefs confirmed with some scientific-looking lingo.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Whatever questions may be asked about the Designer are really irrelevant to the believable probability that abiogenesis was a designed event and the unbelievable probability that abiogenesis was designed by and in the dark unconsciousness of the Blind Watchmaker.

Argument from ignorance (of the science of abiogenesis). When it comes to the “Blind Watchmaker”, this quote is apt (it refers to evolution, but can be applied to abiogenesis as well):

“If biology remains only biology, it is not to be feared. Much of the fear that does exist is rooted in the notion that God is in competition with nature, so that the more we attribute to one the less we can attribute to the other. That is false. The greater the powers and potentialities in nature, the more magnificent must be nature’s far-sighted Author, that God whose “ways are unsearchable” and who “reaches from end to end ordering all things mightily.” Richard Dawkins famously called the universe “a blind watchmaker.” If it is, it is miracle enough for anyone; for it is incomparably greater to design a watchmaker than a watch. We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design.”

Stephen Barr, The Miracle of Evolution

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes, they are. On paper… or rather on a computer monitor.

…and in real life applications.

Have you read the article?

The Bio-complexity one? It was brought up (on this forum, I think) a while back and I read it then. It is exactly what one would expect from a Journal published by Behe and his pals at the Biological Institute as a platform for their beliefs. It uses the typical trick of imagining one way a thing, in this case a protein, might evolve, try to show that that way does not work, and conclude that the ‘thing’ in question could not have evolved at all.uch:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Both questions are directly relevant to intelligent design, and you clearly felt that they were relevant when you demanded that we answer the equivalent question.

We have met your demand. You are still frantically avoiding the reciprocal questions. And you repeated the demand in an even more extreme form back in post #308

In post 308 you asserted there never was a time when life appeared suddenly.

That is an absurdity on the face of it.

A thing is either alive or it is not alive. There is no in-between state. There is no evolution from non-life to life. Evolution cannot possibly apply to abiogenesis for the simply reason that the theory of evolution is circumscribed by the absolute condition of life evolving from life, not life evolving from non-life.

The question concerning the Creator and whether we have seen the Creator do his work is also absurd on the face of it. How would we be able to see the Creator do his work when we did not exist at the time of Creation?

Inferences can go backward as well as in present and future time. The inference to be drawn from the complexity of the simplest living organism is that it was designed to exist.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, of course, but you forget that many, if not most, scientific discoveries of note were made by the kind of “rooting around in arcane areas” that were often overlooked by everyone else.

Seems to me you are trying very hard to dissuade people from wasting their time and not yours merely because you have a particular view about what science “should” be. What does it matter to you how arcane the area is that they root around in?

That assumes you are a designer with limited resources and cannot afford, very much, to have your designs fail.

If, however, you are an omnipotent and omniscient designer with unlimited resources, failed designs may not matter so much, now would they? Just something to keep you occupied on a Sabbath afternoon. Depending, of course, totally upon what your ultimate aims are.

I would venture to guess that God doesn’t have your constraints, nor your reputation to uphold. Recall that pride, for God, is not a virtue.

As a student of the history of invention, I could cite a number of cases where an expected result ended up in a different result, or a medication for one thing, which proved not very effective, turned out to have useful effects for another problem. Take Dark Matter. Clearly a case of an idea looking for an answer. Bias occurs in science, accidental discoveries occur and hunches are even made that sometime give good or even great results.

Pride is a big problem in all areas of life. Humility and accepting praise are good things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[DrTaffy]

Your assumption is that human intelligence, itself, was the product of blind forces and random chance and therefore natural process are, too.

No, my observation is that the naturalistic explanation ( a.k.a. ‘Science’) is doing very well so far. It has yet to find anything that requires a supernatural intervention, and you have failed to provide any argument to the contrary.

The alternative is that human intelligence as a “product” has not been sufficiently explained by naturalists and, therefore, its genesis and the genesis of design in nature - both seen hand in hand - are not so easily explained as you suppose.

Sure, there are still major questions to be answered, but when you point at them and claim that "God must have done that by magic " you become a bad parody of the ‘God of the Gaps’ proponent.

 

[DrTaffy]

In post 308 you asserted there never was a time when life appeared suddenly.

Errm… You wrote post #308, not me.

The question concerning the Creator and whether we have seen the Creator do his work is also absurd on the face of it. How would we be able to see the Creator do his work when we did not exist at the time of Creation?

Yet you were happy to ask us if we had observed abiogenesis. Yet when we turn your own criterion back on you you find it unfair?

 

[stewstew03]

…
And when these guys do ‘science’ they start with the answer and go looking for questions that are applicable.
…

In case you weren’t aware, you’ve just described about 90% of the academic output here in the US. For example, social scientists who favor gay marriage tend to find that – SURPRISE – children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as those raised by biological parents! My guess is that your gut reaction is to **accept **that particular line of research produced by those scientists who favor such outcomes, as opposed to dismissing it out of hand (as you’ve done here).

 

[stewstew03]

Errm… You wrote post #308, not me.

Check your meds time, maybe?

How about you check your lack of charity…?

.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yet you were happy to ask us if we had observed abiogenesis. Yet when we turn your own criterion back on you you find it unfair?

Well, not really.

You were asking the unreasonable. I was asking for scientific evidence that you cannot produce because you cannot be present at the time of abiogenesis. If you are going to think like a scientist, you have to follow the protocols. If I am going to think like a philosopher, I have inferential logic to fall back on. You have neither science nor inferential logic to fall back on. All you have is the assumption that what appears to have been designed really was not designed. It’s an assumption and nothing more.

Yes, I took my meds this morning. Have you taken your afternoon meds?

 

[DrTaffy]

You were asking the unreasonable.

…which was exactly what you asked of us.

I was asking for scientific evidence that you cannot produce because you cannot be present at the time of abiogenesis.

As you cannot be present at the time of (alleged) creation. Same problem (origin of life)yet you are applying different standards of evidence to different theories. :ehh:

If you are going to think like a scientist, you have to follow the protocols. If I am going to think like a philosopher, I have inferential logic to fall back on. You have neither science nor inferential logic to fall back on.

I am a scientist, science has no problem with anything that might reasonably be called ‘inferential logic’, and since both theories (creation or naturalistic abiogenesis) explain the same thing, they should meet the same criteria. You don’t get to call one ‘philosophy’ rather than science and so apply a vastly lower standard of evidence!

After all, one of the key goals of “Intelligent Design” is to dress creationism up as ‘science’!

All you have is the assumption that what appears to have been designed really was not designed. It’s an assumption and nothing more.

Again, the hypothesis is that it was designed, but by a mindless iterative process, not a sentient being. That hypothesis explains a lot that creationism cannot. e.g. The recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Yes, I took my meds this morning. Have you taken your afternoon meds?

Psst: time difference. So I am taking my evening meds as we speak, but I think they need a dash more ginger wine. Toodles!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

…I am a scientist, science has no problem with anything that might reasonably be called ‘inferential logic’, and since both theories (creation or naturalistic abiogenesis) explain the same thing, they should meet the same criteria. You don’t get to call one ‘philosophy’ rather than science and so apply a vastly lower standard of evidence!

Logic is not a “lower standard of evidence” than science. Please keep in mind that logic created science as a separate discipline by itself. Having done so, logic placed limits on science that are not applicable TO LOGIC ITSELF.

Philosophy is not inferior to science. It has its own methodologies that allow a wider range of thought than science (confined to observable and measurable data) is allowed.

To deny this is to be a victim of scientism, whereby any investigation that does not follow the protocols of science is inferior to science.

I don’t accept that. Logic itself does not follow the protocols of science.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, of course, and scientists are now “intelligently” mapping the genome and finding successive layers of coding that is only being discovered because of deep insights into mathematics and algorithms by very intelligent human beings.

And those intelligent human beings are only now - with intelligence - designing and engineering complex assembly plants that do not even come close to rivalling what occurs in each and every living cell. What we don’t see occurring are complex manufacturing plants self-assembling without the assistance of intelligence.

Your assumption is that human intelligence, itself, was the product of blind forces and random chance and therefore natural process are, too. The alternative is that human intelligence as a “product” has not been sufficiently explained by naturalists and, therefore, its genesis and the genesis of design in nature - both seen hand in hand - are not so easily explained as you suppose.

You are correct. Chemicals have properties but they are unintelligent. To say human beings are mobile bags of chemicals that respond to outside stimuli, reproduce, or not, and die would be a materialist definition. Chemicals do not have emotions, imaginations or creativity.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Logic itself does not follow the protocols of science.

It just doesn’t make sense that a mousetrap could invent itself for the purpose of trapping mice, never mind invent itself for the purpose of replicating itself in other mousetraps.

Where’s the science for arguing this?

There is no science. It is all speculation.

 

[Bradski]

Are Darwin’s credentials and chutzpah in doubt?

His credentials aren’t and he wasn’t exhibiting chutzpah. He was exhibiting faith. His work and his faith were not incompatible.

And here’s some info on the evolution of the pre-cursers of life. Or maybe you class them as being alive. Perhaps not. Maybe you can give your definition of life. Should be easy.

Haldane: the first molecules constituting the earliest cells “were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order.”

Irene A. Chen and Jack W. Szostak (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2009) amongst others, demonstrated that simple physicochemical properties of elementary protocells can give rise to essential cellular behaviors, including primitive forms of Darwinian competition and energy storage. Such cooperative interactions between the membrane and encapsulated contents could greatly simplify the transition from replicating molecules to true cells.

…findings suggests that metabolism predates the origin of life and evolved through the chemical conditions that prevailed in the worlds earliest oceans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This version fails to account for why they would be rooting. If they already know the answer, why would they bother searching for it? What is more likely true is that they have strong suspicions about the answer but have certain criteria they still uphold because they know that those are necessary for proving the answer.

In any scientific endeavour, you search for evidence that supports or rejects your hypothesis or theory. What the Discovery Institute and all their supporters are doing are looking for gaps in the knowledge base and then, when they find something that they perceive to be a problem, yell out: ‘Design! (but shhh, we won’t mention The Designer)’. You can call this an argument from ignorance (we can’t understand it so it must be supernatural) or a God of the Gaps argument (look, we found something that can’t be easily explained so God – oops, sorry ‘a designer’ must have done it).

And of course, there is absolutely no confirmation bias in declining to read the works of others because you “already know the answer” before you start rooting around in their work.

You seem to be able to string a grammatically coherent sentence together without falling over your own feet so I’m going to grant you a reasonable amount of intelligence and a decent education. And you have been around this forums for some time. I don’t have to treat you as some half-baked fundamentalist who wants to know why there are still monkeys around if we evolved from apes. You know about the DI.

I don’t have to go through their history. I don’t have to tell you about their initial stand on creationism, or the Dover trials or the Wedge document or Pandas and People. I don’t have to tell you their aims but I’ll post them anyway:

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

And…

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

This is the basis for that paper to which you linked. This is the ‘why’ that you asked earlier. These are the reasons they root about. These are the reasons they issue papers. These are the reasons they want us to think they are doing science, when they are not. But you knew that anyway.

The DI are Christian fundamentalists. Which is not a problem in itself. But they are also liars and charlatans. Anything that is linked to them is, by those very facts, tainted. I would no more treat a paper by anyone with a connection to these people with any respect whatsoever than I would a paper on astrology or homeopathy. And you say that’s bias? Please, give me a break…

As I said, you know these guys. Maybe you are embarrassed about being fellow travelers (you certainly should be). But maybe you thought that linking to a paper with a heading Biologic Institute would slip through without anyone making the connection with the farcical DI. Maybe lots of impressive looking science looks good to anyone who doesn’t make the connection or doesn’t know the history of these clowns.

Got any more…?

 

[Bradski]

It just doesn’t make sense that a mousetrap could invent itself for the purpose of trapping mice, never mind invent itself for the purpose of replicating itself in other mousetraps.

What is this fascination you have with mousetraps? How about using something animate to discuss. Like plants that trap insects. Does that make any sense?

 

[buffalo]

A paper by the Biologic Institute. Which is funded by (drum roll please)…the Discovery Institute!

A quote from one of their earlier papers: ‘We ourselves have become convinced that intelligent causation is essential as a starting point for any successful theory of biological innovation’.

Good grief. A paper by people who seem to already know where their investigations will take them. Very scientific. And funded by the DI, which, if you are even vaguely familiar with their antics and their risible rebranding of creationism as Intelligent Design (of course, we make no assumptions about who, or what that designer might be!) renders this paper utterly worthless.

Monstrous fail.

Argue the paper, not who wrote it.

 

[buffalo]

“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).

Are Darwin’s credentials and chutzpah in doubt?

Darwin would like IDvolution.

 

[edwest2]

His credentials aren’t and he wasn’t exhibiting chutzpah. He was exhibiting faith. His work and his faith were not incompatible.

And here’s some info on the evolution of the pre-cursers of life. Or maybe you class them as being alive. Perhaps not. Maybe you can give your definition of life. Should be easy.

Haldane: the first molecules constituting the earliest cells “were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order.”

Irene A. Chen and Jack W. Szostak (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2009) amongst others, demonstrated that simple physicochemical properties of elementary protocells can give rise to essential cellular behaviors, including primitive forms of Darwinian competition and energy storage. Such cooperative interactions between the membrane and encapsulated contents could greatly simplify the transition from replicating molecules to true cells.

…findings suggests that metabolism predates the origin of life and evolved through the chemical conditions that prevailed in the worlds earliest oceans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

In any scientific endeavour, you search for evidence that supports or rejects your hypothesis or theory. What the Discovery Institute and all their supporters are doing are looking for gaps in the knowledge base and then, when they find something that they perceive to be a problem, yell out: ‘Design! (but shhh, we won’t mention The Designer)’. You can call this an argument from ignorance (we can’t understand it so it must be supernatural) or a God of the Gaps argument (look, we found something that can’t be easily explained so God – oops, sorry ‘a designer’ must have done it).

You seem to be able to string a grammatically coherent sentence together without falling over your own feet so I’m going to grant you a reasonable amount of intelligence and a decent education. And you have been around this forums for some time. I don’t have to treat you as some half-baked fundamentalist who wants to know why there are still monkeys around if we evolved from apes. You know about the DI.

I don’t have to go through their history. I don’t have to tell you about their initial stand on creationism, or the Dover trials or the Wedge document or Pandas and People. I don’t have to tell you their aims but I’ll post them anyway:

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

And…

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

This is the basis for that paper to which you linked. This is the ‘why’ that you asked earlier. These are the reasons they root about. These are the reasons they issue papers. These are the reasons they want us to think they are doing science, when they are not. But you knew that anyway.

The DI are Christian fundamentalists. Which is not a problem in itself. But they are also liars and charlatans. Anything that is linked to them is, by those very facts, tainted. I would no more treat a paper by anyone with a connection to these people with any respect whatsoever than I would a paper on astrology or homeopathy. And you say that’s bias? Please, give me a break…

As I said, you know these guys. Maybe you are embarrassed about being fellow travelers (you certainly should be). But maybe you thought that linking to a paper with a heading Biologic Institute would slip through without anyone making the connection with the farcical DI. Maybe lots of impressive looking science looks good to anyone who doesn’t make the connection or doesn’t know the history of these clowns.

Got any more…?

Science is not as pure as the driven snow.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What is this fascination you have with mousetraps? How about using something animate to discuss. Like plants that trap insects. Does that make any sense?

What’s this fascination you have with avoiding mousetrap logic?

Afraid of being trapped in your own logic?