The Science of Design

TheRealityCheck.Org ^ | 4/10/05 | Mark Hartwig

[MamaTexan]

Thank you for the link.

>a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum by N. J. Matzke

Out of curiosity, I did a search and came up with this, which claims Matzke's original data was faulty ;
Evolving the Bacterial Flagellum Through Mutation and Cooption by Mike Gene

A common criticism of design inferences is that they tend to boil down to the assertion of “it looks designed.” Yet it should be apparent that the major thrust of Matzke’s hypothesis is to present the bacterial flagellum in a manner where it looks like it could have evolved. To do this, Matzke offers the F0F1 ATP synthetase as something that looks like a precursor/homolog of the type III secretory machinery. However, given that the sequence data does not support this inference, Matzke turns to other data. CDART analysis succeeds in linking only one proposed example of homology (FliH/F0b), but even here, the link is extremely tenuous (as explained in the section on FliH).
(snip)
As can be seen clearly, the range used by Matzke draws from the most commonly sized proteins. Size might be a significant factor if we were talking about six proteins that were each over 500 amino acids in length, but we're not. We’re talking 70-270 amino acids. And what’s more, Matzke tolerates rather significant ranges in size where, for example, F0b is only 65% the size of FliH.

[frgoff]

Evolution doesn;t start with a puddle of amino acids and assemble a complete organism in one shot, but through multiple steps.

And that is the issue. Many biological systems must be assembled completely in one shot or they don't work at all; you can't assemble them in multiple steps.

[mike182d]

What is not rationally consistent is an omnipotent, omniscient god who creates anything that he considers evil.

Actually, that's far less rationally consistent than believing that a non-existent, contingent thing created itself.

[MacDorcha]

"I don't think people should even be asking those questions unless they have an answer ready."

Oh, ok. So we should never have asked "why do certain chemicals explode" (and then proceed to use them for generation in China for visual displays and scaring enemies) because we didn't know about complex chemical reactions at the time.

Gotcha.

[MacDorcha]

Free Will exists: Find out "why" isn't one of those?

Non-living things don't have free will. So why would we even have a perception of such a thing?

[Dataman]

PS. Free will is not a given. We have no evidence that we have free will. From a hypothetical standpoint, the universe is perfectly consistent with the absence of free will.

Then what are you doing trying to change minds that have no free will? Your argument, though consistent with the dementia called materialism, is self-refuting.

[betty boop]

OF COURSE you can create order spontaneously from disorder! Fill a glass with salt water (completely disordered) and let the water evaporate. What you get is a salt crystal, as ordered as you please. Happens all the time.

And of course YOU know, Physicist, that "order" and "organization" -- particularly self-organization -- are not the same things. "Order" pertains to non-living systems, where organization (self-organization) pertains to living systems. Or so I heard.

[mike182d]

I didn't say it was. Whatever evil is works perfectly well in that context.

Well, the point is the two don't "co-exist" as evil isn't an existent entity. Is it like light/darkness. Darkness isn't an actual quantifiable thing but rather a lack of something, namely light. So it is with God. God, as the source of all Good doesn't "create" evil as it is not a quantifiable thing that can be created, but rather it is a lack of God.

[betty boop]

Great post, Michael_Miachaelangelo -- very informative and helpful. I appreciate the lack of "jargon." Thanks so much for putting this up!

[AntiGuv]

Why would that make any [such] deity irrelevant?

I've already answered that. Because such a god would be either:

• dualist
• evil
• irrational
• capricious
• one of several gods
• nonexistent
• limited
• indifferent

All of those are irrelevant from a practical standpoint either because they are inherently so or because we cannot make a rational determination about them based on what evidence we have.

Any other formulation that preserves free will is irrational. The absence of free will would make the nature of god irrelevant from a practical standpoint because no decision would be our own.

[frgoff]

Entropy is the natural logarithm of the number of accessible quantum states. It is a measure of disorder. Entropy increases over time. The salt crystal is ordered. Where did that order come from?

Excuse me? That's a weird definition. Entropy is the movement of energy from high enthalpy to low enthalpy, commonly referred to as heat death.

A crystal has higher entropy than the ionic solution because the atoms are in a lower energy state.

[AntiGuv]

It is not rational to believe that anything - a god by example - created itself or was non-created. I already said arguments that gods exist are irrational or irrelevant of their own accord, so what's your point?

[MacDorcha]

BTW, thanks for the ping and all the posts!

(I really should show more gratitude)

[mike182d]

It is not rational to believe that anything - a god by example - created itself or was non-created. I already said arguments that gods exist are irrational or irrelevant of their own accord, so what's your point?

I was speaking of the universe as a whole. Time itself is finite and thus has a beginning. Since time, and the whole of the universe has a beginning, it means that, necessarily, there was a point at which they did not exist. Yet, you claim that it is completely logical to believe that this non-existant thing created itself? A thing void of intelligence in its own right, nonetheless?

How is this more "logical" that believing in a necessary being?

[AntiGuv]

Then what are you doing trying to change minds that have no free will?

I am not trying to change anyone's mind about this. Someone asked me a question and I answered it, and then was asked to defend my answer. It is you people that are trying to change my mind. Feel free to leave me alone if you want. LOL

[Dataman]

It is you people that are trying to change my mind.

You continue to refute yourself, but you can't help it because you have no free will.

[AntiGuv]

Fine, define it however you like. If evil is the lack of god and nothing more, then an omniscient, omnipotent god who creates the lack of himself is evil at least in part.

[DannyTN]

"If he defined the parameters to include the enactment of anything he deems evil, then he is either an evil god or a dualist god."

How do you structure free will without the potential for evil? Without that potential, it's not free will.

That God chose to introduce free will into the Universe, does not make Him evil.

The bottom line is that God is the Creator. His instructions for you are that you "depart from evil and do good". If you fail to do that, you will answer to Him. He will not answer to you. The sooner you understand that basic truth, the better off you are.

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Psalms 34:14 - Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.

Psalms 37:27 - Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore.

Proverbs 3:7 - Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Proverbs 13:19 - The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but it is abomination to fools to depart from evil.

Proverbs 16:6 - By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.

Proverbs 16:17 - The highway of the upright is to depart from evil: he that keepeth his way preserveth his soul.

Micah 6:8 - He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Regardless of what philosifical arguments you want to bring against God, the bottom line is that you will answer to Him, for the things that you have done and the things that you have failed to do. A pardon is available if you are wise enough to accept it.

[MacDorcha]

So we either have God, or God?

What you said would also imply that

A) God made us, thus he gave us freewill.

or

B) God made us, thus we don't have freewill.

but
C) Nothing made us, we formed ourselves.

would be wrong then, because freewill (even the illusion of it) would not exist, as we wouldn't have "not freewill" to compare it to.

Given that we have (even if it is an illusion) freewill, we must assume we have a God that gave it to us.

And if we DIDN'T have freewill, who's will would it be?

[orionblamblam]

> Dembski and Behe maintain the flagellum, being irreducible

Which it's not.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html


Since they are wrong from first principles, the rest of their arguement can be dispensed with.