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.
I had forgotten that thread but in you said you believe everything in the universe is designed (had a designer).
From this article:
"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."
This is what I have a problem with. If everything's designed how can you test for design scientifically?
Any differences we find between natural objects can't be due to the presence or absence of design because every natural object and process is designed.
You post this article arguing for a scientific test yet following your logic such a test isn't possible in our universe.
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Again, from a scientific standpoint, SETI and forensic science use design detection – along with other branches of science. We use design detection all the time – should not really a hard concept to grasp…
Again, a lot of cutting pasting to sidestep the VERY simple question I asked:
How can all this sophistry be applied using scientific rigor? TToE is applied in medicine, particularly immunology (viruses EVOLVE in line with TToE models, which are applied to reagents).
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain what reproducible rules can be modeled, applied and used as tools? How does this explain the billions of data points already in support of TToE?
These are easy questions if you know of what you speak. Any fool can copy and paste without understanding what he/she is saying.
And many do.
I'll take that assertion seriously when an intelligent design proponent points me to some things that aren't designed.
Again, from a scientific standpoint, SETI and forensic science use design detection – along with other branches of science. We use design detection all the time...
The SETI analog would be assuming all signals received from space are from ET intelligences, just as every object in the universe is designed.
If there aren't any natural signals what are you comparing to, just as if there aren't any undesigned objects, what are you comparing to?
It appears the term “intelligent design” has been conscripted. As used in the OP and by some here it is mere word play. A lot of words to describe “pattern detection.”
Although I think it is very amusing the term has been stolen from creationists, they share one major attribute: neither is even CLOSE to a Scientific Theory. They have not even reached the “guess” stage, much less a testable H0.
Asimov, God rest his soul, would be proud.
It's incredibly frustrating.
I have great respect for people of faith and don't argue against their beliefs, but so many feel the need to shoehorn their religion into a scientific paradigm.
I don't know if it's insecurity with their faith or what but they're destined to fail. And they do.
In the process they sully their religion and try to do the same to science.
It's sad, unnecessary and absolutely futile, but on the other hand there are a few bucks to be made so...
You were not here for the CRevo wars, were you?
Lurking. That's what got me hooked.
Ichneumon lives!
Lol. Yes he does. On DC (Met him in person as well. Really top notch guy).
I am pretty sure I am the sole survivor.
One tin soldier, if you will :)
Yes, that is the essence of what you said, but apparently you aren’t even fathoming the ramifications of your own arguments.
Before I go on, I must address this. I, as well as others on this thread, have supplied information on the subject matter as well as links for further knowledge. I even supplied a phys.org article I had read the other day that was pertinent to the subject matter. I tried explaining how analogia, a fortiori and vera causa can easily be used with ID the same way Darwin used it to formulate his theory. I showed how forethought would be required for cell replication. I linked to the many other ID peer reviewed articles and created the links on this post. Science has been part of my job and the ID debate has been a hobby of mine for decades. In many cases I was copy and pasting my own words.
That said, you have supplied nothing – nada. All you have done is whine and complain. Any fool can whine and complain – any fool can demand more answers without contributing anything – any fool can ignore information because they don’t like it or just don’t understand it.
I think I see the problem now. What I believe regarding a designer (God) has no bearing on ID theory. A rock is not designed - an arrowhead is designed - DNA could be designed by space aliens. ID is not concerned with who designed – it tries to determine if something is designed – which is why I gave the examples of SETI and forensic science.
OK, now I'm confused. In the previous thread you pointed me too you said:
Ultimately I believe there was a designer to all...
By all I assumed you meant rocks too.
Or do you think the rock designer is different from the designer who injected specified complexity in biological information systems.
I don't want to belabor the point but it's at the heart of the debate. If everything's designed the whole concept of detecting design is silly.
And I suspect that like you nearly all ID proponents believe God created everything.
Or is it that the designer left his fingerprints on some natural elements but not others?
Is what we're doing looking for things that are designed in a way humans would do it?
Isn't that just a form of anthropomorphism?
In the previous thread I also told you ID proponents like Berlinski and Denton are agnostic – and Behe (and others) believe in common descent.
>>Before I go on, I must address this. I, as well as others on this thread, have supplied information on the subject matter as well as links for further knowledge<<
You have copied and pasted sophistry. I have asked a pointed question about the applicability in science of your long-winded paste jobs.
You have ignored my very simple question. It is not when we are discussing a subject and the main defender of the topic REFUSES TO ASNWER HOW THE OP RELATES TO THE SUBJECT.
One MORE time:
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain how your posts and your position fit into Science. I provided even a TINY subset of parameters for science.
Instead you post lengthy philosophical screeds — not of your own making and clearly which you cannot summarize as you do not understand them.
As for my contribution: I have proven, through your inability to answer my questions, what you are saying is NOT SCIENCE.
That is my only goal and I have fulfilled it.
Enjoy your mental masturbation. Please stay away from science as you not qualified to address it.
>>Yes, that is the essence of what you said, but apparently you aren’t even fathoming the ramifications of your own arguments.<<
The ramification are straightforward: If it is part of the natural universe, it is science. If it is supernatural it is philosophy. There can be no joining of the two.
When you say you have ID as science, I will then demand it be testable, repeatable, consistent, falsifiable and all the rest of the criteria demanded by science.
It does not get easier. Put up or admit this is just sophistry.
Oh, and just for fun, I noticed the OP does not mention a “designer,” which means it is not even traditional creationist ID.
Which really makes it fun for the whole family.
OK let's come at this a different way.
Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
Fine. Once it's proven CSI can't exist in undesigned objects we'll have something to go on.
What are the undesigned objects we can look at to test this notion?
Again, taking your beliefs out of it, I want to hear about undesigned natural objects from the ID proponents you keep posting.
I have proven, through your inability to answer my questions, what you are saying is NOT SCIENCE.
You have proven something – but it’s not what you think…
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.