Posted on 10/27/2020 2:02:13 PM PDT by Heartlander
In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins defined biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Though our generation’s arch-atheist recognizes the tendency of human intuition to attribute things wonderful and complex to the work of a designer, he goes on to argue that life is not designed at all. His prior commitment to a worldview that understands the universe to be the product of eons of accidents and natural selection only imitates design is reflected in the book’s title: the blind watchmaker.
For a long time now, the scientific establishment has shared that assumption. In classrooms and peer-reviewed journals, only naturalistic explanations for life are allowed. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences openly admits this presumption, insisting that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” Of course, that assumption is itself not testable by the methods of science.
But what if the claims of design are testable? What if our intuition that paramecia and porpoises and people are too exquisitely complex to have arisen by mindless, purposeless forces of nature could be expressed in, say, mathematical terms?
The authors of a groundbreaking new paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology argue precisely this. In it, Steinar Thorvaldsen of Norway’s University of Tromsø and Ola Hössjer of Stockholm University ask a simple question: Can we detect “fine-tuning” in biology as we can in physics? In other words, do the chemistry and construction of living things give Darwinian evolution any “wiggle room” for mistakes and do-overs, or are they precise? Will they, like a puzzle piece, only fit in one place, one way?
Employing a lot of math, math too complicated for me to understand or articulate, the authors answer the question. Their use and definition of “fine-tuning” will sound familiar to anyone familiar with the language and work of the intelligent design movement. Something in biology can be described as “fine-tuned,” they say, if it is “unlikely to have occurred by chance” and if it conforms to “an independent or detached specification.”
As an article over at Evolution News points out, this is nothing other than what ID theorist William Dembski has called “specified complexity.” In fact, the authors of the paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology even cite Dembski by name. As if that weren’t risky enough, they also invoke biochemist Michael Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” as a measure of the fine-tuning in life, credit him by name, and mention other Intelligent Design notables Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer.
These Scandinavian scientists offer, for the first time, a statistical framework for determining whether certain features in living things are fine-tuned or were “evolve-able.” Using this method, they demonstrate how functional proteins, cellular networks, and the biochemical machines found in cells exhibit evidence of “design.”
“Fine-tuning,” the authors say, “is a clear feature of biological systems. Indeed, fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems.” And, in a shot over establishment’s bow, they say bluntly: “It is detectable within the realm of scientific methodology.”
Not only were their arguments compelling enough to be published in a major scientific journal, it challenges the long-held assumptions that design cannot be tested using scientific methods. Of course, the real reason design is so controversial within the scientific establishment is because of a deeply embedded and unscientific pre-commitment to the idea that every effect in nature must be explained by causes within nature. As expected, under pressure from critics who were unhappy about the fact this paper was published, the Journal of Theoretical Biology issued a rebuttal, (and a weak one at that), to Thorvaldsen’s and Hössjer’s paper.
Of course, that’s a sign of the vulnerability of materialism, which is most vulnerable when scientists arrive at the edges of nature and find it pointing beyond itself. Those committed to fine tuning out the ever-increasing evidence of the world’s fine tuning will demand that papers like this never make it past peer review. Those willing to follow the evidence where it leads will find themselves in a small but growing company of scientists who find their observations are confirming their intuitions.
Again, a rock compared to an arrowhead. And again SETI is a good analogy...
Hey, and also in that previous thread you said you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness. I’m curious how you trust your own thoughts to be true? Also, where do you think our Constitutional rights come from?
But according to you, and I suspect the others although they won't say, a rock is designed.
I need to see undesigned objects so I can make sure they don't also contain CSI.
>>Are you being serious? <<
I read the article. The conclusion is it is an interesting direction of thought. It does NOT say it has supplanted TToE, but it might augment it.
The fact you cannot summarize this tells us all you do not understand it. Mindlessly copying and paste is no way to go through life, son.
I did indeed prove my point. And your latest non-response underlines it.
Again, we are talking about ID theory - not me or what I believe. This should be very basic and easy to grasp.
Right, because I believe there was a time on earth before conscious humans existed so by definition consciousness emerged.
You never directly answered; do you think the universe was created with conscious humans in place? If not you also believe human consciousness emerged.
I’m curious how you trust your own thoughts to be true?
Do you only trust your thoughts because you think God put them there? Really?
I never said supplanted TToE – but you read the article at www.sciencedirect.com and it is science – which proves my point – thanks BTW.
I did indeed prove my point.
Again, you have proven something – but it’s not what you think…
Oh, and I could try to explain to you ‘what you have proven’ – but you probably wouldn’t understand that either… it’s a shame…
So where do you think our Constitutional rights come from?
Yeah, but you're dodging the question you asked me.
Was there ever a time before human consciousness? If so, consciousness emerged via some mechanism.
So where do you think our Constitutional rights come from?
The Constitution, which is a product of men.
This is no mystery, as you are aware I am a Christian like most on this forum.
The Constitution, which is a product of men.
I could go on about this for quite some time – but if you haven’t figured it out by now – when you started asking the same question over and over without trying to even try to understand - and knowing I've answered this on the other thread - I figured turnabout is fair play. So as I said earlier, we’ve already danced this dance… Do you want to continue?
Of course. You have strong faith and it informs your worldview, which I respect.
What I have trouble with is your unwillingness to leave it at that. You keep posting ID articles that are incoherent, logical messes in an attempt to wedge your faith into a scientific paradigm.
I'm not arguing that your beliefs are wrong, just that they're not scientific and in my view the teachings of the Bible were never intended to be.
You seem to have a strong belief system as well – what do you believe? Atheist, agnostic?
>>Again, you have proven something – but it’s not what you think…<<
Yes. That you should stay in areas you understand.
Yep - didn’t think you’d understand... sad really...
LOL. You're the one who keeps bringing up your faith.
I want to know where are the undesigned objects. I guess it's not fair to ask you to defend the other ID proponents but you posted the article.
Do not put YOUR ignorance on me. Let us revisit this discussion:
Me: explan in your own words show how this science.
You: copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste
Me: No, in YOUR words explain.
You: copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, COPY-paste, copy-PASTE, “So there!”
Me: Really, explain IN YOUR WORDS how this fits science (lists a few requirements).
You: copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste COPYPASTE!!!COPYPASTE!!!! COOOOOPY aaaaaand. paste. “and it has the word science in it.”
Me: *shrug* Well, thanks for the most fun I have since DLR. He confused sophistry with science, too since he also had no knowledge of the latter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.