Posted on 04/16/2019 5:55:59 AM PDT by Heartlander
Answer: It would be a commitment to scientism/materialism because I fail to see how the ATP synthase would emerge from a series of happy accidents.
Furthermore, we know DNA has the following
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
DNA contains multi-layered information that reads both forward and backwards - DNA stores data more efficiently than anything we've created - DNA contains meta-information (information about how to use the information in the context of the related data). It is a closed system dependent on all operations to be functioning. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. Put simply, a message assumes a protocol (agreement, set of rules) between the sender and the receiver, to help correctly encode and interpret the contents of the message. A simple example would be codons, they only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS). This cannot just happen by accident and the design inferences are obvious and inescapable.
VIDEO - James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life (yes, I know Darwinism does not deal with life’s origin – but this is a great video and has implications to the theory regardless)
Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer – an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff – hardware – but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.
– Paul Davies
“virtually all of science proceeds as if ID is true – it seeks elegant and efficient models; it reverse engineers biological systems; it describes evolution in teleological terms; it refers to natural forces and laws as if there is some kind of prescriptive agency guiding matter and energy; it assumes that the nature of the universe and human comprehensive capacity have some sort of truthful, factual correspondence.”
– William J Murray
The 2019 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith videos are now online
The comments at the article are brutal.
However, the association with intelligent design and possible academic consequences keeps many from signing.
Do you know what that proof is? It is the following: It only LOOKS like design but it is really randomness and that randomness can look like design.
Sorry but Darwin’s insight is still the very best explanation to explain the diversity and complexity of multiple species other than a belief in mystical creation. Many religions have come to terms that Darwinian evolution is consistent with the existence of a divine plan since the details and scope of that plan are unknown. What is inconsistent with Darwinian theory is a literal interpretation of scripture and reading scripture as a scientific treatise. Human brains are probably the only species that has a high capacity for mysticism which is at the core of wonderment. It is why humans ask “why” and “how”. As long as those questions continue to be freely made, and people are allowed to reach their own conclusions however right or wrong without retribution, civilization and progress will continue.
No. Darwin's theory does not remotely come close to explaining what is claimed.
It cannot explain how life originated.
Heck, they are still proposing Spontaneous Generation which has been laughed at as stupidity for the last few hundred years.
The conclusions from those experiments is life comes from life.
The now call it abiogenesis the same theory as spontaneous generation.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abiogenesis+definition&atb=v122-5__&ia=definition
One word - ALIENS.
Darwin isn’t about origins. That windmill is unworthy of tilting.
Defining evolution is key. At the basic level of change over time, even Young Earth biblical creationists agree. At its most specific level of the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, many legitimately question evolutionary theory as it stands. The word is often used interchangeably without distinction, but even when used technically in academic biologist circles, real skepticism exists about the theory.
In my day, we learned evolution as genetic expression. There was no new genetic information/mutation. Black moths already existed but the pollution (dark trees) offered better survival. Pollution solved, the white moths came back...…………………….
If you don't go back to the origin of the species, then the theory is flawed in its application.
As I noted before...Darwin cannot address the origins of life.
And as I noted, Darwin does not attempt to.
If that can be proven... and factoring in mathematical probabilities, I'd argue that it's likely... then you quickly start running up beyond the age of the planet itself in the thinking of the scientific community.
After that, you'd have to start bulldozing through dates of epochs that have been taught for decades. It's a house of cards.
” No. Darwin’s theory does not remotely come close to explaining what is claimed.
It cannot explain how life originated. “
The theory of evolution has never attempted to explain how life originated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Summary_of_Darwin's_theory
Sure sounds like it tries to explain life's origins.
Origin of whales
In the first edition of “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:
“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,” he speculated.
The idea didn’t go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.
Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal. Instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamuses.
The story of the origin of whales is one of evolution’s most fascinating tales and one of the best examples scientists have of natural selection.
https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
And yet, it makes no mention of such.
Evolution is change, as you say. It operates on things in existence. How they came into existence, Darwin sayeth not.
Darwinism does not explain the origins of life.
I'd be stunned if he could find a biologist anywhere who thought Darwin's theory explained all of biology.
It illustrates that Behe either doesn't understand or wants to misrepresent the scientific process.
The notion that 160 years ago one man could formulate a theory that explained all facets of a field like biology only makes sense if your model for acquiring knowledge is received wisdom.
Darwin questioned Darwinism on his death bed.
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.