What do Religious people say to this?

[buffalo]

Timely peer reviewed paper - more support for IDvolution

Andy McIntosh’s Peer-Reviewed ID Paper–Note the Editor’s Note!

(4) (2009): 351-385International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics4

Abstract: This paper deals with the fundamental and challenging question of the ultimate origin of genetic information from a thermodynamic perspective. The theory of evolution postulates that random mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information over successive generations. It is often argued from an evolutionary perspective that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is proposed that the entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce due to energy (name removed by moderator)ut from an outside source, especially the sun when considering the earth as a biotic system. By this it is proposed that a particular system can become organised at the expense of an increase in entropy elsewhere. However, whilst this argument works for structures such as snowflakes that are formed by natural forces, it does not work for genetic information because the information system is composed of machinery which requires precise and non-spontaneous raised free energy levels – and crystals like snowflakes have zero free energy as the phase transition occurs. The functional machinery of biological systems such as DNA, RNA and proteins requires that precise, non-spontaneous raised free energies be formed in the molecular bonds which are maintained in a far from equilibrium state. Furthermore, biological structures contain coded instructions which, as is shown in this paper, are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules carrying this information. Thus, the specified complexity cannot be created by natural forces even in conditions far from equilibrium. The genetic information needed to code for complex structures like proteins actually requires information which organises the natural forces surrounding it and not the other way around – the information is crucially not defined by the material on which it sits. The information system locally requires the free energies of the molecular machinery to be raised in order for the information to be stored. Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it. This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.

 

[Moonstruck888]

A set of instructions can be complicated but replicate according to instructions. A very simplistic analogy is that old standard computer programme:

10 print “potatoes are best utilized in the formulation of potato cakes”
20 goto 10

Then you just have to press RUN.

Nonetheless, the programming has to take place, and the computers don’t just invent themselves - that would just be silly

That example bears no relevance whatsoever to biological replication. Not logically, not mathematically and not scientifically.

The argument also reeks of passing the buck. If DNA needed a programmer, and God is that programmer, then the question becomes “Who programmed God?” and all you’re doing is adding a layer of regression to the same fundamental problem.

 

[Moonstruck888]

“Information and Entropy—Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 4(4) (2009): 351-385

Abstract: This paper deals with the fundamental and challenging question of the ultimate origin of genetic information from a thermodynamic perspective. The theory of evolution postulates that random mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information over successive generations. It is often argued from an evolutionary perspective that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics…

Heard it. Not impressed.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

That example bears no relevance whatsoever to biological replication. Not logically, not mathematically and not scientifically.

The argument also reeks of passing the buck. If DNA needed a programmer, and God is that programmer, then the question becomes “Who programmed God?” and all you’re doing is adding a layer of regression to the same fundamental problem.

The buck stops somewhere. We call the buck stopper, “God”. It sure wasn’t a primeval soup.

I also get annoyed when an attempt is made to push the problem off onto other planets, so that hopefully the origin of life came from somewhere else and seeded it here. The trouble with that is that the other planets are subject to the very same physical laws as we are, and therefore under the same constraints.

On minimum complexity - for the human ear to work, it had to develop, concurrently, a convoluted shape of the ear lobe, the ear drum (which can sense differences in air pressure less than the difference in atmospheric pressure if we step off the floor onto a piece of paper, a hammer-anvil-stapes complex which magnifies the sound by 120 dB due to the air / liquid interface in the ccchlear, an inlet valve for the pressure and an outlet valve for the release, develop “hairs” in the cochlear, skin in the ear which renews itself laterally so wax and other particles are carried outwards, wax glands to protect the ear surface and provide an environment that insects don’t like much, and make sure the ear canal is small enough that we can’t get our fingers down there to damage our ears.

Plus of course the nervous network to direct and interpret the sound so it makes sense, particularly in the case of language, and then direct this interpretation to the jaws, tongue and larnyx so that we can respond. iif you think blind unguided chance did all that, you’ve got a lot of faith in gambling as a way of life.

 

[Moonstruck888]

if you think blind unguided chance did all that, you’ve got a lot of faith in gambling as a way of life.

I have never heard of any scientific theory that suggests or would lead one to believe that blind random chance did anything.

Selection is not random. Chemistry and Physics are not random.

youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I have never heard of any scientific theory that suggests or would lead one to believe that blind random chance did anything.

Selection is not random. Chemistry and Physics are not random.

youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M

Ah, determinism. But it’s a nonsense to say these things are not random if they are not thought to be deliberately determined. All this particular redefinition of probability does is brush all the absurd unlikelihood of intelligent beings just happening ‘by fluke’ out of sight, and hence out of mind, so we don’t notice it.

Any scientist, or philosopher, who stoops as low as this particular evasion should, in my opinion, be ashamed :tsktsk:

I’ll explain why, if you want

 

[Moonstruck888]

Ah, determinism. But it’s a nonsense to say these things are not random if they are not thought to be deliberately determined. All this particular redefinition of probability does is brush all the absurd unlikelihood of intelligent beings just happening ‘by fluke’ out of sight, and hence out of mind, so we don’t notice it.

Any scientist, or philosopher, who stoops as low as this particular evasion should, in my opinion, be ashamed :tsktsk:

That is utter rubbish. There are many processes that are not random but no deliberately determined.

Whirlpools, rainstorms, chemical reactions, radioactive breakdown, gravitational acretion… Processes just off the top of my head that are not random and not directed deliberately. I could think of many more if I spent a few minutes on it.

I’ll explain why, if you want

I’d rather you let someone who understands that random processes and intelligence are not the only two possibilities do the explaining. Anyone with a basic high school education should understand this.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I’d rather you let someone who understands that random processes and intelligence are not the only two possibilities do the explaining. Anyone with a basic high school education should understand this.

I’ve had it explained to me a dozen times, and it fails to work on any truly logical level in the same way it did the first time, every time. You can explain things anyway you want, but if it’s unreasonable, it’s unreasonable. Deterministic obscuring of the inevitable need for cause is the most mindnumbing of the many pretensions of modern science (well, OK, maybe not - there’s a lot of competition )

If you’re scared to hear the explanation as to why it doesn’t work, that’s fine. Just don’t try and act like you’re being reasonable

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’ve had it explained to me a dozen times, and it fails to work on any truly logical level in the same way it did the first time, every time. You can explain things anyway you want, but if it’s unreasonable, it’s unreasonable. Deterministic obscuring of the inevitable need for cause is the most mindnumbing of the many pretensions of modern science (well, OK, maybe not - there’s a lot of competition )

Why is it that philosophers can sit with an orange in front of them, an orange that everyone can see, and they can swear blind that logic dictates it must be an apple?

It doesn’t matter what logic says, selection works, it can be seen to work. Branched heirarchies work and can be seen to work.

What is completely and utterly counter to reason and beggars logic is postulating the existence of a superbeing that by definition is too subtle to be understood in order to explain why complexity exists.

If you’re scared to hear the explanation as to why it doesn’t work, that’s fine. Just don’t try and act like you’re being reasonable

My friend, if I were not prohibited by the forum administrators from discussing certain arguments that provide a foil for certain modes of doctrinarianism, you fine people wouldn’t know what was hitting you at the moment.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

What is completely and utterly counter to reason and beggars logic is postulating the existence of a superbeing that by definition is too subtle to be understood in order to explain why complexity exists.

Without doubt one of the most ludicrous aspects of religion. Life is to complex it needed a designer, so lets introduce an infinitely more complex entity as the designer.

How on earth can one actually believe they have solved the issue complexity, by ADDING MORE complexity. LIKE DUH! Then we add into the equation that EVERY SINGLE observation EVER MADE by man has shown that complexity emerges incrementally from simplicity.

How anyone that has even a basic knowledge of science can believe in god baffles me.

 

[buffalo]

Why is it that philosophers can sit with an orange in front of them, an orange that everyone can see, and they can swear blind that logic dictates it must be an apple?

It doesn’t matter what logic says, selection works, it can be seen to work. Branched heirarchies work and can be seen to work.

What is completely and utterly counter to reason and beggars logic is postulating the existence of a superbeing that by definition is too subtle to be understood in order to explain why complexity exists.

My friend, if I were not prohibited by the forum administrators from discussing certain arguments that provide a foil for certain modes of doctrinarianism, you fine people wouldn’t know what was hitting you at the moment.

Faith that flows from Revelation and science are complementary. Philosophers by definition draw upon more reality than science does.

We are trying to put together a puzzle.

Science by its own definition can only pick certain pieces. When science puts together the puzzle can it really expect to see all of reality? What does such a limited view produce? Since it’s picks are limited the picture it produces can convince us it is a real and complete representation.

Philosophers can pick any piece.

 

[buffalo]

Without doubt one of the most ludicrous aspects of religion. Life is to complex it needed a designer, so lets introduce an infinitely more complex entity as the designer.

How on earth can one actually believe they have solved the issue complexity, by ADDING MORE complexity. LIKE DUH! Then we add into the equation that EVERY SINGLE observation EVER MADE by man has shown that complexity emerges incrementally from simplicity.

How anyone that has even a basic knowledge of science can believe in god baffles me.

By studying history you will know that Revelation let’s us know He exists. We should be able to confirm this through investigation. Catholics have understood that the universe is intelligible which gave rise to modern science.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Faith that flows from Revelation and science are complementary. Philosophers by definition draw upon more reality than science does.

Philosophers haven’t even settled on whether a strawberry has a taste, colour and smell while possessing size and shape.

We are trying to put together a puzzle.

Hopefully, it won’t be long until, if nothing else, I prove to you that “we” are not a we…

Science by its own definition can only pick certain pieces. When science puts together the puzzle can it really expect to see all of reality? What does such a limited view produce? Since it’s picks are limited the picture it produces can convince us it is a real and complete representation.

Yeah. Science is limited to the realms of what is real. That is quite a limitation indeed my good chap.

Philosophers can pick any piece.

Philosophers can’t even fully accept their own existence, let alone solve any puzzles. Philosophy is the last bastion of the man who has far too much time on his hands and no girlfriend.

 

[JohnDamian]

Philosophers can’t even fully accept their own existence, let alone solve any puzzles. Philosophy is the last bastion of the man who has far too much time on his hands and no girlfriend.

Even Descartes accepts that he exists; Cogito Ergo Sum. ( I think therefore I am )

The same goes for Solipsism in general.

 

[StAnastasia]

How anyone that has even a basic knowledge of science can believe in god baffles me.

Hooding Trees, what model of God are you imagining? There are numerous learned scientists – Catholic, Protestant and other – who believe in God. I don’t understand the nature of your confusion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Hooding Trees, what model of God are you imagining? There are numerous learned scientists – Catholic, Protestant and other – who believe in God. I don’t understand the nature of your confusion.

Hooding Trees, like many people who need an excuse, have a very poor understand of thee relationship between religion and science. An even poorer understanding of science.

 

[Cristiano]

…How anyone that has even a basic knowledge of science can believe in god baffles me.

People with a basic understanding of science should have the intellectual honesty to say that science is not about Truth but about determining the simplest model about reality. With increased knowledge the scientific models fall apart and new and more refined ones come to be. If people considered the scientific method as a method to identify the Truth, then they would have abandoned the method long time ago.

Another thing that we need to consider about science is that usually a close (complete) system cannot be complete at the same time (see Gödel). That presence of such breakdown (e.g. the liar or the barber paradoxes) is evident in the evolution of quantum mechanics. Just look at classical quantum mechanics that has to use classical mechanics not as a macroscopic limit but as a necessary framework to build the quantum mechanical framework. Should we say that physics is just an intellectual fraud because we had for fundamental forces, then we unified three of them but we could not handle the fourth one?

Why should scientist should not believe in God,but then it is fine to pursue string theory?
Is it an intelligent scientific statement that reduction to simpler forms eliminates complexity? I think that it is idiotic answer, just look at what can of worms was open when they tried to solve a simple three- body problem in classical mechanics.

 

[grannymh]

Yeah. Science is limited to the realms of what is real. That is quite a limitation indeed my good chap.

.

It is only a limitation when one freely chooses to limit one’s curiosity.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[Moonstruck888]

People with a basic understanding of science should have the intellectual honesty to say that science is not about Truth but about determining the simplest model about reality. With increased knowledge the scientific models fall apart and new and more refined ones come to be. If people considered the scientific method as a method to identify the Truth, then they would have abandoned the method long time ago.

Science is not about determining the simplest model of reality. That is a misunderstanding, if I’m not mistaken, of the precept Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor, when translated literally, actually says that the explanation with the least assumptions will usually be the correct one.

Should we say that physics is just an intellectual fraud because we had for fundamental forces, then we unified three of them but we could not handle the fourth one?

We should suspend judgement for the moment.

In the beginning, the Universe was so small that all four forces could encompass the entire Universe. We now know that of the four forces there are two that can still encompass the entire Universe. Trying to understand this actually raises more questions than answers at present.

Why should scientist should not believe in God,but then it is fine to pursue string theory?

He shouldn’t. String theory is science fiction.

 

[Moonstruck888]

It is only a limitation when one freely chooses to limit one’s curiosity.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

There are realms of subjective truth and realms of objective truth. It is vital to seperate them.