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.
Neither theory of the origin of life can be tested scientifically. That’s why the constant cry of “science!” in response to claims of intelligent design is so foolish. Over time we have developed an undeserved and misplaced faith that “science” can answer every question. That’s just absurd. Science is not some all-powerful arbiter of truth. In fact, in many cases it is wholly incapable of determining what is true, because “science” is nothing more than a methodology for studying what is currently observable. That certainly doesn’t mean, of course, that materialistic scientists don’t frequently try to force every square peg of a question into the round hole of “science.” It’s the classic saying that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
However, when it comes to origins there is a commonly-used methodology that can be applied to the question of the origin of life, and that is the application of deductive reasoning and evidence. Courts decide weighty issues every day, sometimes involving life and death, without necessarily having direct observable proof. They make these decisions by weighing evidence and applying reason and logic. When that approach is taken to the question of the origin of life, the evolutionary theory is found severely lacking, and intelligent design is clearly the more likely explanation.
Basically all your argument boils down to is that nothing whatsoever could falsify ToE, which of course, is essentially an admission that ToE is not a scientific theory at all.
You’re correct - they don’t know how it works and there is no rigorous math to support the theory.
Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. – Evolution explains everything.
– William J Murray“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
~ Cornelius Hunter
My best guess is something beyond our mental capabilities threw out the dice to see what would happen. He/She/It may have instilled certain laws of physics in the original super condensed/heated basketball that physicists claim.
My bigger question is why he chose this rock to develop sentient beings. Or did he just let it happen as may be the case all over the universe.
That said, I have always subscribed to Judea/Christian ethics. Why? "Do unto others as you will have them do unto you". That makes a lot of sense when you consider the better traits of humans, like compassion, sympathy, empathy, and even the indescribable trait of love.
I don't believe in a conscience after life. I think a person just blanks out, as they were before they have a heart beat and central nervous system. Still, I hope so and it would be cool.
Also, sorry I don't believe much of the Bible. Much was written when mankind believed the world was flat and lighting was an angry action from god[s].
As for Jesus Christ, he was a most amazing man, but don't believe he is the son of any god.
Faith? I believe that is human construct to keep us from wallowing in our ultimate fate of death. I don't fear non-existence as I didn't know I would exist.
All that said, what a fun ride it's been. If there is a over-looking forgiving god, I thank you. If not, still a long strange trip it's been...ha.
That is not what I said at all.
Reading is FUNdamental.
I said science is in the natural realm. I already said upthread that if this guess (which is what it is scientifically) turns out to be the Einstein version of natural science to Darwin’s Newton, so be it.
NONE of it has a SINGLE thing to do with ID as used by creationists. The article does not either.
The fact you learned a science word today and almost used it correctly was pretty amusing, though.
So here we are on the brink of an election between the godless and lawless, evolutionist mobs, and Christians who believe God created the heavens and earth, and, lo, we have a thread with the same godless evolutionists bashing Christians for their creationist belief.
What are they doing here on FR? The owner of this site is Christian, this site is a conservative Christian site. Why, I wonder, are they here and not out rioting with their godless evolutionist buddies?
You seem not to know what science is. It is a tool used by man to UNDERSTAND the physical universe and APPLY what is learned.
If science purported to know all, it would not be science. That is why there is theoretical physics and other similar knowledge pursuits.
BUT it is always in the natural world. ALWAYS.
I get all that. However, it is possible that only observing the physical world, and present physical laws, cannot get at the answers to some questions. Maybe everything can be explained by simply observing (and theorizing about) the physical universe. But then again, maybe it can’t.
This is where logic becomes more powerful than mere science. If the origin of life involves supernatural actions, especially supernatural actions that were not constrained by current laws of physics, biology, and chemistry, and that happened only once, then science is utterly powerless to offer a coherent opinion on it. And if that is so, then continuing to expect science to provide the answer is rank foolishness, and is analogous to looking under the streetlight outside for your lost keys, when you know for sure you lost them in the house, because “the light is better out there.” If life arose because of actions taken by a designer (God) who is not constrained by time, space, and physical laws, then materialistic science that refuses to consider anything beyond the physical will ALWAYS reach the wrong conclusion.
And it is certainly foolish and arrogant for “scientists” to dismiss out of hand those who propose a supernatural origin for life, simply because science can’t observe the supernatural. Again, basic logic. Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it’s not there (nor, of course, does it mean it is there either). That is why we have to weigh the evidence, both physical and circumstantial, to evaluate the question.
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
These 4 items are basic and necessary. It is a closed system dependent on all operations to be functioning. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. But beyond this, a formalization of semantic closure would need to be in place prior to the first cell. 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). To state the obvious, this cannot just happen by accident.
Furthermore, the code and the functional information do not depend simply from the chemistry which allows protein synthesis. Proof-reading, error-correction, editing and splicing, are not reducible to simple chemistry. Carrying out the genetic code is not reducible to chemistry. (Of course, they need that chemistry to work, but that is all another concept.)
Moreover, the first cell would need the ability to reproduce - and the many items necessary for this to occur would need to be already encoded in the DNA. This, along with everything else, would require forethought from the very beginning. The design inference is obvious.
It is neither foolish nor arrogant. A supernatural origin is OF NO USE TO SCIENCE.
It cannot be tested, modeled, applied, falsified, put to repeated rigor nor meet ANY of the rest of what makes science science.
Like so many, you do not understand what science is and its purpose and utility.
You have made a classification error: you speak of philisophy, not science.
“If is too hard for me to uderstand” is not a valid argument.
If it cannot meet the standards of science (and any supernatural explnation cannot) it is of no use to science. You can no more apply supernatural origins to the scientific method than you can pray a 747 into a flight.
Science does not eschew God, there is simply no way to craft a methodology to accomodate Him. Rather, a wise scientist praises Him and the never ending wonders, all of which can be eventually understood and modeled, He provides. And our capability to divine and define them.
As I stated, even the first cell would need the ability to reproduce - and the many items necessary for this to occur would need to be already encoded in the DNA. This would require forethought from the very beginning. Please explain how this logic is flawed.
Furthermore, what are the odds of all of this occurring as a cosmic accident?
We are left with the question, "Does human consciousness and conscience ultimately come from mindlessness?" and the philosophical ramifications of our response - the worldview that follows...
So now you stray into abiogenesis.
You can cut and paste until the cows come home and it changes nothing. If it is supernatural it is NOT science. All the torrent of words you can paste undermine your argument by hand waving.
Repeat: supernatural is not science.
I can spell it out for you but I cannot understand it for you.
“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
Please demonstrate how you put that philosophy into an experiment that can be repeated under controlled circumstances.
And I suggest you understand words before reacting. You are indeed speaking of abiogenesis.
And you realize NONE of this has anything to do with the OP, which does not speak of ID in the way creationists do.
And there is an avalanche of evidence that points toward a super-intelligence behind life. Key among that evidence is the enigma of the genetic code. Argue all you want over the origin of the physical substrate that the genetic code rides upon, but there is no materialistic explanation for the existence of a mind-bogglingly complex code, with mechanisms for encoding, decoding, error correction, and replication. Codes cannot exist or store or transmit information unless arbitrary elements (letters of the alphabet, dots and dashes in Morse code, sequences of amino acids in DNA/RNA, etc.) have been assigned MEANING by an intelligence that is external to the physical elements of which it is composed. Nothing is more indicative of an intelligence as its source than a code that can encode, store, decode, and transmit information, especially one that also incorporates sophisticated methods for correcting replication errors.
Can you point me to a few things in the natural world that weren't designed?
For the word design to have any meaning we need to have examples of undesigned things for comparison.
If everything in the universe has a particular quality that quality has no information value.
Darwin used analogia, a fortiori and vera causa to formulate his theory and it was an argument against Paley’s watchmaker argument.
The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.
- Darwin
Intelligent Design uses a vera causa argument - DNA contains functional information and we know functional information comes from intelligence - we know 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). Again, 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).
Darwin stated, “ There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Random breezes of wind does not cause this…Furthermore, “given enough time, luck can happen” is not a scientific theory. To quote Behe, Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.
Surely you know the difference between something designed and not designed – otherwise you’d be driving off roads and into buildings – and you’d have trouble reading this text… Design detection is something we do all the time. Now from a scientific standpoint, SETI and forensic science use design detection – more to the point, see also “The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code”
I have my notions but I'd like to hear from you something we can see that wasn't designed.
I want to know something you don't think your designer had a hand in.
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.