Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leela said:
I can only speak for myself, but this nonbeliever is scared to death to read this book. Based on the strong arguments contained in this book that you and ricmat have related to us, I worry that if I read this book I would have to give up dispairing in my belief that life is a meaningless absurdity and have no choice but to start believing in God and a purposeful existence. And if I started believing in God then God would save me from eternal torment and force me to live in eternal bliss upon my death, and we atheists just hate bliss and all that is good, so it makes perfect sense that I would fear reading this book. I just wish you wouldn’t point it out. It’s so embarrassing for people to know about how scared I am of this book, but the truth is the truth.

Actualy, I got so far as to open the cover one time but became very freightened and slammed it shut. It’s still sitting there on my shelf staring at me with those loving eyes and offerring eternal salvation. Boy does that give me the creeps since I love only sin and death.

Regards,
Richard Dawkins
Click to expand...
Like the Geico eyes?
 
Touchstone said:
Oh, it’s a huge area of interest, and ongoing research. It’s hard to justify in practical terms all the resources being invested in this subject, and the only convincing argument for doing it is insatiable human curiosity about the origins of life.

The inquiry is daunting, which further attest the power of man’s drive toward discovery; the prospects for an actual explanation, a specific chemical pathway we might invest some confidence in as the history here are extremely humble. But progress continues apace on developing in abiogenesis research in discovering plausible and even probable pathways. We are unlikely to know with sufficient depth what the environmental context was to provide some selective constraints for the chemical pathway, and we are unlikely to establish the chemical pathway with enough confidence to extrapolate the environmental particulars.

Lots of good work has been done and continues in developing hypotheses that posit plausible and practical combinations, though.

I think part of tjm190’s comment may rely not on apathy – it’s a fascinating, compelling subject for a great many in the scientific community – but on a distinct lack of dissonance, dissonance many creations suspect should obtain, about the difficulty of obtaining robust explanations for process of assembly for the first living organisms. We don’t know the path taken, and we may never know with any confidence or detail, but even so, that’s an unknown that is frustrating from a curiosity perspective, but unremarkable given the context – the nature of that process and event set is such that it’s very difficult to imagine how we would expect to discover the details billions of years later. These are chemical processes that aren’t amenable to fossilization, or any kind of forensic discovery this long after, that we can think of.

Which means we’re interested (of course!), but not holding our breath, nor troubled by the lack of details. It’s expected.

-TS
Click to expand...
Glad to hear a reasonable response to the question. In my opinion, this is one of those situations in which hypotheses – by necessity – are advanced far in advance of scientific verification.

About three thousand years ago, people started wondering whether the Earth was round, at which point it became clear that “the earth is flat” was a hypothesis, not a fact. Long before anyone thought of verifying the fact (through triangulation, for example) people held the “unsubstantiated” opinion that the Earth was round – an “inference to the best explanation”, as it were. I.D. supporters have a similar hunch: that, when we have reliable methods to ascertain the probabilities here, the creation of DNA anywhere, at any time, in a finite universe is so improbable as to constitute a miracle.

Personally, I’m not convinced by the explanations of I.D. I’ve read so far, but I’m curious to hear more, and that’s why I plan on reading Signature. The criticism that “Intelligent Design isn’t science” is perfectly irrelevant, depending on an *ad hoc *definition of science. Inferring to intelligent design, if such an inference is warranted by the evidence, is an empirical claim about the world. It is either true or false. Whether it’s “scientific” is nothing but a red herring.

(“Inferring to intelligent design can never be warranted by the evidence” is another empirical claim. And yet how could one possibly justify such a statement empirically?)
 
tjm190 said:
I agree, we should not pick and choose- if we’re going to look at one chemical compound and try to discover its origin, then we should do so for all of them.
Click to expand...
If science didn’t pick and choose, it would be blind as a bat. 😉
 
ricmat said:
Could you elaborate some on exactly what you mean by “DNA analysis” and testable aspects of it?
Click to expand...
I’m interested in discrete objects generally, and since DNA is a sequence of nucleic acids that only have 4 possibilities each, DNA is a discrete object. I don’t care about fossils, or the second law of thermodynamics, or any of the other aspect of evolution.

I’m a mathematician, so I like to check my answers. All this arguing about abiogenesis and where the first cell came from is never going to end, because there is no way to check the answer. Seems like a waste of time to me. It doesn’t affect my faith either. Jesus Christ came down to Earth 2000 years ago to die for my sins. I’m certainly not going to stop believing in Him just because some chemist can demonstrate that certain chemicals can assemble themselves in certain ways.

But when it comes to claims about how DNA can and can’t evolve, I do want to check my answers. That’s why I’m interested in testable results, as opposed to endless debates. That’s why I’m very disappointed in the field of Intelligent Design, because it seems like they go to extremes to avoid having testable results. “Sure we can detect intelligent design, but only about things that were created billions of years ago; sorry we can’t use our methods to detect design in any recent objects where you already know the answer.” Reminds me of Uri Geller, who can only perform his psychic powers when no one is watching too closely. Pretty much the exact opposite of how real science works.
 
Just_Lurking said:
I’m interested in discrete objects generally, and since DNA is a sequence of nucleic acids that only have 4 possibilities each, DNA is a discrete object. I don’t care about fossils, or the second law of thermodynamics, or any of the other aspect of evolution.

I’m a mathematician, so I like to check my answers. All this arguing about abiogenesis and where the first cell came from is never going to end, because there is no way to check the answer. Seems like a waste of time to me. It doesn’t affect my faith either. Jesus Christ came down to Earth 2000 years ago to die for my sins. I’m certainly not going to stop believing in Him just because some chemist can demonstrate that certain chemicals can assemble themselves in certain ways.

But when it comes to claims about how DNA can and can’t evolve, I do want to check my answers. That’s why I’m interested in testable results, as opposed to endless debates. That’s why I’m very disappointed in the field of Intelligent Design, because it seems like they go to extremes to avoid having testable results. “Sure we can detect intelligent design, but only about things that were created billions of years ago; sorry we can’t use our methods to detect design in any recent objects where you already know the answer.” Reminds me of Uri Geller, who can only perform his psychic powers when no one is watching too closely. Pretty much the exact opposite of how real science works.
Click to expand...
Google David Berlinski - he is a mathematician.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top