Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[reggieM]

In any case, evolution theory has already shown how certain alleged IC systems can be explained naturally.

Actually, they haven’t. There have been six attempts to refute Michael Behe’s work and all have failed.

But yes, I’d like to see your scientific papers that show evidence of the step-by-step evolutionary path that created the bacterial flagellum, or better yet … the Class II topoisomerase.

You might enjoy watching this video of an IC system and then explaining how Darwinian processes explain the step-by-step evolution, complete with functional intermediates from a prior organism.

How Does Evolution Solve this Knotty Problem?

 

[reggieM]

I don’t see the alleged contradiction.

Let’s try again:

The Church investigates miracles, as you stated. First, **it must rule out all possible natural explanations **in a very lengthy investigations before it reaches a conclusion.

When the Church works with scientists to investigate claims of the miraculous, how do you think they “rule out all possible natural explanations”? Through philosophical discourse, or through empirically observing the evidence and drawing scientific conclusions?

Science does not prove that a miracle occurred – so that’s where your contradiction lies. Science merely shows that natural processes could not have produced the effect. Thus, the inference remains that something other than nature was involved.

The Church declares the event a miracle – based on the scientific evidence that supports it.

You’re on record claiming that this is flawed philosophy – confusing design with finality.

You’re also on record claiming that science cannot explain human consciousness – through exactly the same process of reasoning (which is exactly what ID does, and exactly what the Church does in the case of miracles).

The question is not whether Michael Behe is right, but whether one should condemn a scientific investigation on philosophical grounds. I notice that you refer to science and not philosophy as the means for refuting Behe’s work. Again, you’re confusing the categories here.

 

[itinerant1]

I’ll be back later. I’m off to do some nature photography. The Autumn colors are awesome!

 

[reggieM]

Forensics does not look for clues that involve supernatural causes. There was a case investigated by two experienced New York homicide detectives of a Boy Scout who killed his parents and then almost decapitated himself with his little folding Scout knife. Of course, one cannot decapitate themselves with a scout knife. The detectives personally concluded that demonic possession was involved. They also found evidence that the boy had recently become involved in satanic activities of sorts. Still, the detectives cannot officially conclude in their investigative summary that a demon was involved in the decapitation. That goes beyond the specific competence of forensics and criminal investigation.

Actually, this again is an excellent analogy for the work of ID. You mistakenly think that ID posits supernatural causes. Additionally, you’re thinking that ID serves as a proof for the existence of God. It claims to do neither of these things. There are some ID supporters who are atheistic. Others think that the Intelligence could be alien life forms.

uncommondescent.com/faq/#scivsup
Read point #39 – actually, you might want to read it all.

ID is not proposing “God” to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation. Instead ID theorists start from empirically observed, reliable, known facts and generally accepted principles of scientific reasoning

But the example you give above is excellent. Researchers look at the data. They find supporting evidence. Demonic activity is a possiblity. Then the find that the boy was involved in satanic activity. Natural processes make it hard to explain a decapitation with Scout knife. What is the most reasonable conclusion that one can draw?

The choices are
– he killed himself with the Scout knife in unknown ways
– there was demonic influence in this death
– there is not enough evidence to be conclusive

Einstein looked at the universe and concluded that there had to be some organizing intelligence at work in its creation. That’s the inference based on empirical data. If the universe did not correspond to mathematical equations – perhaps he’d never say that. If it looked like a jumble of objects with no symmetry or collaborative action, then there’d be less evidence.

The same is true of the flagellum or of other biochemical systems.

The atheist, Anthony Flew considered the functional-complexity of the DNA world and concluded that some kind of God had to exist.

“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

 

[itinerant1]

Actually, this again is an excellent analogy for the work of ID. You mistakenly think that ID posits supernatural causes. Additionally, you’re thinking that ID serves as a proof for the existence of God. It claims to do neither of these things. There are some ID supporters who are atheistic. Others think that the Intelligence could be alien life forms.

uncommondescent.com/faq/#scivsup
Read point #39 – actually, you might want to read it all.
ID is not proposing “God” to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation. Instead ID theorists start from empirically observed, reliable, known facts and generally accepted principles of scientific reasoning But the example you give above is excellent. Researchers look at the data. They find supporting evidence. Demonic activity is a possiblity. Then the find that the boy was involved in satanic activity. Natural processes make it hard to explain a decapitation with Scout knife. What is the most reasonable conclusion that one can draw?

The choices are
– he killed himself with the Scout knife in unknown ways
– there was demonic influence in this death
– there is not enough evidence to be conclusive

Einstein looked at the universe and concluded that there had to be some organizing intelligence at work in its creation. That’s the inference based on empirical data. If the universe did not correspond to mathematical equations – perhaps he’d never say that. If it looked like a jumble of objects with no symmetry or collaborative action, then there’d be less evidence.

The same is true of the flagellum or of other biochemical systems.

The atheist, Anthony Flew considered the functional-complexity of the DNA world and concluded that some kind of God had to exist.

“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

There are different versions of ID theory. Your post does not make the distinctions but glosses over the differences.

If ID is honest science why did Behe say in court that the intelligent designer might even be a super-intelligent alien?

 

[itinerant1]

To you ID guys,

You need explain why an inference from the empirical data to an intelligent designer is not a philosophical or theological inference, but a strictly scientific inference.

This is where your logic takes an epistemological leap, unless you can show otherwise.

I infer that the intellect is immaterial, but my inference from the empirical data and my personal experience is not a theological but a philosophical inference. It belongs to the subject of philosophical psychology, not scientific psychology.

Again, What makes your inference any different? Why is your inference to an intelligent designer not a theological or philosophical inference?

 

[reggieM]

I infer that the intellect is immaterial, but my inference from the empirical data and my personal experience is not a theological but a philosophical inference. It belongs to the subject of philosophical psychology, not scientific psychology.

Again, back to forensics. When an accident scene is evaluated, scientists can determine if something happened by chance, by a natural process, or by an intelligent plan.
The scientific, empirical evidence is evaluated through a scientific process. The inference that can be drawn from the analysis is that the crime occured – it was not an accident.

So, by analogy, when one observes indications of the work of intelligence in nature – it’s reasonable to conclude, through scientific means, that the object being observed was formed or developed with the influence of a coordinating intelligence. Why? Because science can observe the products of human intelligence and can recognize patterns that are the hallmarks of purposeful, intelligent design.

You ask why Michael Behe would say that the evidence that ID uncovers could point to alien beings (and not necessarily to God) – and that is because the nature of the designer (the owner of the intelligence at work) is not the subject of ID research.

The only difference in this view as with your conclusion that the mind is immaterial, is that ID proposes a model for “designed things” – some kind of definition that would separate products of intelligence from what is created through random or natural processes.

This is done through probability studies. If known natural laws cannot explain the object, and the object gives evidence that parallels what is only produced by intelligent agents – then a reasonable conclusion is that some intelligence (of some kind, from some source) was involved in the creation of the object.

When you posit that the mind is immaterial, after investigating the empirical evidence, you are proposing something that cannot be modeled in nature (immaterial things). So, yours would be a philosophical inference. The difference with ID is that “intelligently designed things” can be recognized by science – analogously through what human beings produce.

If chance or natural laws do not have the power to produce the object in question – and the object resembles only what we know to be produced by intelligence (for example, software language) – then the inference that this object was produced with the help of some intelligence is a reasonable one.

In the case of the Mind – you can see that chance and natural laws cannot explain the origin or function of human consciousness. Now to draw the inference that the mind is therefore immaterial, however, is a different sort of conclusion. It would be philosophical because science cannot directly study immaterial things.

Whereas, science can study the products of intelligent design.

Researchers, for example, finding some logs piled up in a stream – could recognize a pattern, order and purpose. They conclude that the log pile was intelligently designed. In this case – not by supernatural intelligence, but by animal intelligence (it’s a beaver dam).

Now if they had never heard of beavers, the researchers could still conclude that some intelligence was at work. To conclude that God created the dam would be incorrect. But ID doesn’t seek to identify who the designer is - because that is outside of what science can do.

ID cannot tell us precisely what designer is indicated by the empirical data. Some aspects of the designer can be identified – great intelligence, great power, organizing properties … a few things like that.

 

[itinerant1]

ID cannot tell us precisely what designer is indicated by the empirical data. Some aspects of the designer can be identified – great intelligence, great power, organizing properties … a few things like that.

I see. So you think ID tells us the following:

1. There is a designer, (but not who are what it is).
2. It has great intelligence (but not infinite intelligence).
3. It has great power (but not infinite power).
4. It has organizing properties (If it has properties, then the designer must be a material being).

Are there other things “like that”, i.e. the above aspects that can be identified?

How much intelligence and power is required to produce a system that is IC?

 

[itinerant1]

The only difference in this view as with your conclusion that the mind is immaterial, is that ID proposes a model for “designed things” – some kind of definition that would separate products of intelligence from what is created through random or natural processes.

This is a false dichotomy. All natural processes and their products are the result of Intelligence. You seem to think that Intelligence is not everywhere manifested and at work in creation? How do you justify that view?

When you posit that the mind is immaterial, after investigating the empirical evidence, you are proposing something that cannot be modeled in nature (immaterial things). So, yours would be a philosophical inference. The difference with ID is that “intelligently designed things” can be recognized by science – analogously through what human beings produce.

The immaterial soul is the determining principle, the life of the body itself. Without the rational soul, which is the form of human body, there would be no life processes such as respiration, digestion, and circulation. These processes do not exist apart or separately from the soul as if the soul were something implanted into a body. The soul is the principle or plan of structure for a living body. It is the body’s proximate intelligent designer. This is true also with animal and plant souls, which are not spiritual or physical.

So, now, if I am to apply your ID logic, the biologist studying plants or animals or the human body will detect a non-physical principle of structure and of life. He will say that his science reveals that the formal principle is evident. Hence, he takes on the role of what is normally considered a philosophical study, but call it now, according to your logic, natural science.

In the case of the Mind – you can see that chance and natural laws cannot explain the origin or function of human consciousness. Now to draw the inference that the mind is therefore immaterial, however, is a different sort of conclusion. It would be philosophical because science cannot directly study immaterial things.

But science directly studies the physical effects of immaterial things as physical things only. Propositional speech is the product of the body informed by the rational soul, and an intellectual power that is not the act of the body. Consciousness too, is dependent on the body, or, more precisely the body-soul relation. The inference to the existence of immaterial causes is philosophical. Are you saying that the ID inference to an intelligent designer is a designer that is material in nature and therefore a proper scientific inference?

 

[jakeorely]

jesus was black

 

[itinerant1]

reggieM,

Just FYI: I think it was you who said in one of your posts that I hate ID Theory. For the record I will always argue against ID Theory, but I do not hate it. The reason I do not hate it is because it is closer to the truth than are reductionist and materialist versions of evolution.

 

[grannymh]

I see. So you think ID tells us the following:

1. There is a designer, (but not who are what it is).
2. It has great intelligence (but not infinite intelligence).
3. It has great power (but not infinite power).
4. It has organizing properties (If it has properties, then the designer must be a material being).

Are there other things “like that”, i.e. the above aspects that can be identified?

How much intelligence and power is required to produce a system that is IC?

I would like a bit of clarification. Are these thoughts somewhat accurate?

At one time, I thought that Intelligent Design was the designation for an immaterial source for the material/matter of the world. I thought that Intelligent Design (immaterial source) was recognizable because neither evolutionary theory per se nor the philosophy of materialism could account for the fully complete human being. In other words, it is obvious that human beings are unique even though they being corporeal do consist of material/matter along with other living organisms.

Blessings,
granny

The universe is a joy to behold.

 

[reggieM]

I see. So you think ID tells us the following:

1. There is a designer, (but not who are what it is).
2. It has great intelligence (but not infinite intelligence).
3. It has great power (but not infinite power).
4. It has organizing properties (If it has properties, then the designer must be a material being).

Actually, none of the above.
ID tells us that some kind of intelligence was involved. It says nothing about the nature of the designer.

How much intelligence and power is required to produce a system that is IC?

ID just proposes that some intelligence was involved. Again, it does not directly study the intelligence or the nature of the designer(s). In the same way, SETI looks for intelligent communication from space. If the communication matches what they consider to be a non-random pattern – SETI concludes that some intelligence was involved in the communication. That does not require analysis of the nature or origin of the alien intelligence involved (at that point).

How much intelligence and power is required to produce human consciousness? What is the origin of the Mind?

Those are the same questions you’d have to answer.

 

[reggieM]

This is a false dichotomy. All natural processes and their products are the result of Intelligence.

True. But we have more evidence of this in some aspects of nature than in others.

You seem to think that Intelligence is not everywhere manifested and at work in creation? How do you justify that view?

No, that’s not what I think. In my view, God provided us with some evidence in nature of His existence. We can see that in the way St. Thomas explained – when we see a well-ordered house we can infer a governing intelligence. But not all of nature looks like a well-ordered house. Some of it does. God gave us the experience of randomness and blind-natural processes so we could see the difference between order and purpose.

So, now, if I am to apply your ID logic, the biologist studying plants or animals or the human body will detect a non-physical principle of structure and of life. He will say that his science reveals that the formal principle is evident. Hence, he takes on the role of what is normally considered a philosophical study, but call it now, according to your logic, natural science. But science directly studies the physical effects of immaterial things as physical things only.

That is true, but science also draws conclusions about the evidence – and the conclusions are based on philosophical principles. For example, the empirical evidence shows two fossils. Philosophically, evolutionists assert that two fossils that have similar characteristics mean that they are biologically related to each other. That is more than the empirical evidence provides. One has to believe, philosophically, that similarity in form necessarily means descent with modification.

Propositional speech is the product of the body informed by the rational soul, and an intellectual power that is not the act of the body. Consciousness too, is dependent on the body, or, more precisely the body-soul relation. The inference to the existence of immaterial causes is philosophical. Are you saying that the ID inference to an intelligent designer is a designer that is material in nature and therefore a proper scientific inference?

First – those two points are excellent, in my view. Propositional speech is produced through the body – so we can see the empirical effects and study that scientifically. But the origin of speech is from the rational soul - science cannot directly study the soul. But science can assert that the empirical data cannot be produced by natural forces alone. So, what causes the speech?
ID would say that the compex functionality of human speech resembles the kinds of things which are produced by human intelligence. So, the proposal that some kind of intelligence was involved in the origin of speech is a reasonable conclusion.

To study the immaterial soul would now require philosophy – not science. But ID would contribute to that study by showing that physical laws are not sufficient and what the data shows looks like the product of intelligence.

So, it’s two different studies – one scientific, then one philosophical following that. Then actually a third study – theological which gives more data about the nature of God.

Also – why can’t theology help inform the work of science? Theology supports the idea that intelligence was involved in nature. Why is that not a valid (name removed by moderator)ut into the work of Catholic scientists?

 

[reggieM]

I would like a bit of clarification. Are these thoughts somewhat accurate?

At one time, I thought that Intelligent Design was the designation for an immaterial source for the material/matter of the world. I thought that Intelligent Design (immaterial source) was recognizable because neither evolutionary theory per se nor the philosophy of materialism could account for the fully complete human being. In other words, it is obvious that human beings are unique even though they being corporeal do consist of material/matter along with other living organisms.

Granny – I think the question for ID is whether some kind of intelligence was involved. The concept of intelligence is understood scientifically by analogy to the intelligence that we already know – human intelligence. So, if there are aspects of nature or the universe that reflect what we know can only produced by intelligence (for example, the mathematical precision found in the universe) – then the conclusion that some kind of intelligence was involved.

But there are different sources of intelligence – some could be from supernatural sources, others from material sources (human, animal, alien life forms).

So, ID can only observe that there is some kind of intelligence at work. It cannot scientifically investigate the nature of the designer or the source of the intelligence. That’s a limitation that science provides.

Philosophy and theology could take the findings of ID research and then pursue the nature of the intelligence at work.

Again, with SETI studying communication in space – they assume that communications are not the product of natural laws, but of an intelligent source. But they won’t conclude that the intelligent source is necessarily a supernatural one.

So, the nature of intelligence itself is immaterial. But the source of intelligent design can be through a material body (as in human design).

Those are the two aspects that can be studied. The design itself can be studied through science (measuring the symmetry in the universe – fine-tuning aspects, the inability of randomness to produce biological structures, etc). But the actual intelligence that created it could be from God or perhaps from his angels – or in an extreme theoretical view, it could be some super-alien life form.

Philosophy and theology then helps us sort out which kind of intelligence is the most reasonable source of the design that we see in nature.

For atheists (like David Berlinski) who use ID research – they just conclude that science cannot explain certain features that we find in nature (like consciousness).

 

[buffalo]

Actually, none of the above.
ID tells us that some kind of intelligence was involved. It says nothing about the nature of the designer.

ID just proposes that some intelligence was involved. Again, it does not directly study the intelligence or the nature of the designer(s). In the same way, SETI looks for intelligent communication from space. If the communication matches what they consider to be a non-random pattern – SETI concludes that some intelligence was involved in the communication. That does not require analysis of the nature or origin of the alien intelligence involved (at that point).

How much intelligence and power is required to produce human consciousness? What is the origin of the Mind?

Those are the same questions you’d have to answer.

In a nutshell when the science indicates that the probabilities are highest that a thing is designed, then it is for the philosophers to hash the rest out. Science rests at this point.

The issue for materialists is they cannot even concede it for they know the implications. That is why it is fought tooth and nail.

 

[rossum]

In a nutshell when the science indicates that the probabilities are highest that a thing is designed, then it is for the philosophers to hash the rest out. Science rests at this point.

This is incorrect. There are many questions left for science to answer. When a forensic scientist concludes that the dead body she is examining is a result of design - i.e. murder - then she has plenty of further question to ask:* when did the designer operate?

• how did the designer operate?
• what tools did the designer use?
• what else has this designer done?
• was there more than one designer?

From what I have seen ID appears to be reluctant to examine these questions. For example I have seen some ID people assert a “front loaded” design where all the CSI in the universe was inserted by the designer at the time of the Big Bang, while others assert that the CSI was added gradually over time as each new species arose. What steps is ID taking to resolve which, if either, of these two hypotheses is correct?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

TFrom what I have seen ID appears to be reluctant to examine these questions.

The science of ID doesn’t care. It is simply searching for intelligence. Why do you think it should move into philosophy? That is an objection to evolutionism, the philosophy.

 

[reggieM]

*]was there more than one designer?

ID theorist, Walter ReMine has a book-length study that attempts to show that the scientific evidence supports the work of one designer (biological universals, common features found in unrelated species – and much more than that).

From what I have seen ID appears to be reluctant to examine these questions.

There may not be enough data available to develop ideas on these questions. Again, ID will have great value by merely showing that natural processes alone cannot account for some of what is observed in nature – and that nature gives evidence showing that some intelligence was involved in the development of the universe.

In the same way, SETI could find code that is not the product of random processes or physical laws. That is a finding on its own – and it has value. Trying to determine the mechanism used to produce the code, the nature of the intelligence that sent it and even the actual meaning of the code itself are separate questions.

For example I have seen some ID people assert a “front loaded” design where all the CSI in the universe was inserted by the designer at the time of the Big Bang, while others assert that the CSI was added gradually over time as each new species arose. What steps is ID taking to resolve which, if either, of these two hypotheses is correct?

The first step is in building and gaining support for the idea that CSI exists in nature and is not the product of physical laws alone.

Stephen Meyer’s newest book explores that concept. Obviously, with the immense backlash that ID research is facing by merely looking at that one aspect, there is a lot more work needed just to carve out a space for ID in the scientific discussion.

But you’re right that various ID theorists take different views on front-loading of CSI – when and how it happened, or even if CSI was front-loaded at all. That’s part of the debate and no one position speaks for all of ID on that.

The fact that front-loading is now discussed as a concept that ID’ers are familiar with is one of the intellectual concepts that has emerged from the ID debate. New research may yeild more results.

 

[buffalo]

ID theorist, Walter ReMine has a book-length study that attempts to show that the scientific evidence supports the work of one designer (biological universals, common features found in unrelated species – and much more than that).

There may not be enough data available to develop ideas on these questions. Again, ID will have great value by merely showing that natural processes alone cannot account for some of what is observed in nature – and that nature gives evidence showing that some intelligence was involved in the development of the universe.

In the same way, SETI could find code that is not the product of random processes or physical laws. That is a finding on its own – and it has value. Trying to determine the mechanism used to produce the code, the nature of the intelligence that sent it and even the actual meaning of the code itself are separate questions.

The first step is in building and gaining support for the idea that CSI exists in nature and is not the product of physical laws alone.

Stephen Meyer’s newest book explores that concept. Obviously, with the immense backlash that ID research is facing by merely looking at that one aspect, there is a lot more work needed just to carve out a space for ID in the scientific discussion.

But you’re right that various ID theorists take different views on front-loading of CSI – when and how it happened, or even if CSI was front-loaded at all. That’s part of the debate and no one position speaks for all of ID on that.

The fact that front-loading is now discussed as a concept that ID’ers are familiar with is one of the intellectual concepts that has emerged from the ID debate. New research may yeild more results.

I would say that ID is converging on the language of the DNA code, front loaded right from the beginning.