Posted on 04/16/2019 5:55:59 AM PDT by Heartlander
It is just that it is increasingly clear that the long-reigning neo-Darwinian paradigm is collapsing – and despite many efforts to deny what is obvious – clearly “the emperor has no clothes.” The extremely sophisticated hardware and software systems that enable life simply cannot be built by any trial and error system. In particular – it is very clear that software can never be developed one binary bit at a time. Apart from a fully functional pre-existing hardware/software system, a single bit has absolutely no meaning. I feel that if we are to preserve our scientific integrity, we must acknowledge that we have a major explanatory problem, and we need to go back to the drawing board in terms of understanding the origin of biological information.
- John Sanford
DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.
- Bill Gates
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
Molecular biologists have introduced a new “high-tech” teleology, taking expressions, often self-consciously, from communication theory, electrical engineering, and computer science. The vocabulary of modern molecular and cell biology includes apparently accurate descriptive terms that nevertheless seem laden with a “meta-physics of intention”: “genetic code,” “genetic information,” “transcription,” “translation,” “editing enzymes,” “signal-transduction circuitry,” “feedback loop,” and “information-processing system.” As Richard Dawkins notes, “Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal.”I’ve read many books on this subject from differing views – from Dawkins to Dennon to Dennett – Meyers, Ruse, Myers, et al. Now if you are really interested in the subject I encourage you to watch this video by respected scientist James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life. It is well worth watching and he will explain the impossibility of it all without invoking a ‘creator’. He is a scientist doing actual science – not theoretical speculation. He is also an entertaining speaker.
- Stephen Meyer
Now to the mind from mindlessness question. The question posed was to make one think how this would ultimately result from mindlessness (no purpose, no direction, no intellect). Personally I do not believe human consciousness and conscience can ultimately come from mindlessness. Mindlessness can only bestow the illusion of consciousness and conscience – the illusion beauty and love – the illusion of any design we believe to see in nature. If our existence were to ultimately come from mindlessness, then everything we believe about ourselves and what we see around us is false. But again, don’t take it from me:
These are the so called ‘experts’ in the field. But here is the punchline – you cannot have the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds.
Again, we know the artificial intelligence (AI) we are creating comes from intelligence – it seems absurd to even need to make that statement. But somehow actual human intelligence (the mind - consciousness and conscience) came from mindless happenstance?
Well, it’s a free country and you can believe what you want but worldviews do have consequences. For example, -the constitution assumes:
In contrast, under the materialistic picture of reality pervasive in our culture, you get this:
Furthermore, we know DNA has the following
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
Just a technical correction.
DNA does not have all the above.
DNA has functional information and encoding information.
Other molecules in cells carry out the error correction and decoding.
“Evolutionary theory makes testable predictions.”
Yes, but ultimately evolutionary theory is not falsifiable.
It’s a scientific paradigm, not really a theory.
“Creationism and Intelligent Design, by their nature, do not.”
True. Not sciences.
And I can’t help but notice that you didn’t answer the question I posed - do you think human consciousness existed from the beginning of the universe or did it “emerge”?
As to the rest of your post, I agree that we’re talking past each other. The arguments you presented are from authorities who can’t imagine how things could have happened naturally (but don’t have a rigorous way to demonstrate that), or those who say that the adverse consequences of accepting a naturalistic approach are so dire that there must be a more comforting reality.
I’m not convinced but have no issue with those who are.
When I first posed the question I stated that I don’t believe human consciousness came from mindlessness – I then went on to explain why I believe it is absurd to think otherwise.
Francis Crick (one of the co-founders of DNA) knew that they discovered functional information and mathematical code in DNA – and knowing this cannot just happen naturally without intelligence – posed his theory of panspermia (life was seeded on planets by an advanced civilization). There are theories believed by many that we are living in a computer simulation. I believe even Dawkins conceded that life may have been created by an advanced civilization (but not God). Regardless, these theories believe life and consciousness did not just ‘emerge’ from mindless happenstance.
Now, I personally believe in a creator from outside nature created our universe and life – I am a Christian.
The arguments you presented are from authorities who can’t imagine how things could have happened naturally (but don’t have a rigorous way to demonstrate that),
Nope – I’ll say again, it is a vera causa argument – we know functional information comes from intelligence – and again, DNA and the cell contains multi-layered information that reads both forward and backwards (we know this comes from intelligence) - 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 (we know this comes from intelligence). 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 (we know this comes from intelligence). 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. We know it is intelligence that creates these type of systems – vera causa (true cause).
or those who say that the adverse consequences of accepting a naturalistic approach are so dire that there must be a more comforting reality.
Nope – the quotes provided are from those who accept the consequences of their naturalistic philosophy/worldview – they are the current experts in the field describing to what must flow from this worldview. These are the people who share your worldview that human consciousness comes from mindlessness. If you don’t like it – take it up with them and try to explain how it could be otherwise – good luck.
It seems we have gone beyond talking past each other to now wasting our time. Good day.
"Because we have a successful scientific enterprise, we can through various avenues of evidence and philosophical argumentation reach the conclusion that not only must there be an intelligent mind behind the cosmos but there must be something about the human person that has a rational kinship with that intelligence. Otherwise scientific experimentation, investigation, would never have been possible."
- Melissa Cain Travis
Very informative and persuasive. Thanks and Thank God.
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.