Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Life’s irreducible structure—Part 1: autopoiesis (ID and the Evos make big mistake?)
Journal of Creation ^ | Alex Williams

Posted on 08/08/2008 9:26:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only some aspects of life are irreducibly complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle autopoiesis (self-making)-—to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; behe; creation; crevo; evolution; intelligentdesign; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last

1 posted on 08/08/2008 9:26:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

This paper is absolutely fascinating!


2 posted on 08/08/2008 9:29:13 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; betty boop; DaveLoneRanger; Alamo-Girl; editor-surveyor; BlueDragon; AndrewC

ping!


3 posted on 08/08/2008 9:30:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


4 posted on 08/08/2008 9:33:03 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This paper is absolutely fascinating!

Creation "science" is getting more ingenious all the time!

As ingenious, and fundamentally wrong, as phlogiston chemistry.

5 posted on 08/08/2008 9:37:07 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

There is something that is motivating the mechanisms of life as we understand them. What says take this blueprint and make a protein now? What tells the what when to do this? Maybe there is a naturalistic explanation for this, maybe not. Maybe it’s like an onion - there’s something behind the something behind, the something behind........


6 posted on 08/08/2008 9:37:46 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I suppose it depends on how determined you are to remain ignorant.

Not knowing how something works inspires some people to find out. So most of us no longer believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it. Most of us no longer believe arrows in flight need to be pushed along by angels.


7 posted on 08/08/2008 9:38:36 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

What a load of poop.

No evolutionary biologist has suggested that vacuum cleaners are animals.


8 posted on 08/08/2008 9:39:26 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Darn! Wish I could read it. I can’t get the site to open.


9 posted on 08/08/2008 9:40:43 AM PDT by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This fellow's argument is certainly obscure, but obscurity does not equal profundity.

There is an unbridgeable abyss below the autopoietic hierarchy, between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environment and the perfect purity, the single-molecule precision, the structural specificity, and the inversely causal integration, regulation, repair, maintenance and differential reproduction of life.

This argument makes no sense. Cells just seem too clean and orderly to be of naturalistic origin? Guess this can't be natural either:

Basically every creationist argument, no matter how gussied up, seems to come from simple-minded incredulity. "That can't possibly be the case," because, well, "it just can't!"

10 posted on 08/08/2008 9:42:39 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
There is something that is motivating the mechanisms of life as we understand them.

Every day for the last few billion years, the sun has taken millions of tons of Hydrogen and fuses it to produce Helium, releasing huge amounts of energy. What's the sun's "motivation?" What's gravity's motivation?

11 posted on 08/08/2008 9:45:00 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Preferred over “As lame, and fundamentally wrong, as evolutionary theory”.


12 posted on 08/08/2008 9:45:33 AM PDT by G Larry (I'm investing in "Pitchfork Futures"!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Very good observations. Shouldn't science be allowed to ask obvious questions, like “Does the design we see in life require a designer?” Or “Does life's blueprint require an intelligent architect?” Or “Does the program of life require an intelligent programmer?” etc, etc.
13 posted on 08/08/2008 9:46:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Basically every creationist argument, no matter how gussied up, seems to come from simple-minded incredulity. "That can't possibly be the case," because, well, "it just can't!"

Not "can't because it just can't." Extremely unlikely because we don't see it happening in the universe on any consistent enough basis. (Remember the principles of actual science.)

14 posted on 08/08/2008 9:54:56 AM PDT by unspun (Mike Huckabee: Government's job is "protect us, not have to provide for us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Was just watching the Cosmos series again the other night, and Sagan eloquent and passionate as always, explained that there have been multitudes of competing theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe etc., and because one theory appears to be wrong, the scientific method insists that it be given all possible latitude to prove it’s case.

Creationists are almost certainly wrong, but the world needs all ideas to be explored to their fullest before judgements are made.

Science and God are not mutually exclusive. Many evolutionary biologists are religious. Who’s to say that evolution was not God’s tool to get here from there?


15 posted on 08/08/2008 9:57:30 AM PDT by agooga (Struggling every day to be worthy of their sacrifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If silver were to remelt and resolidify every time it didn’t come out round, and this occurred many trillions of times, do you think you wouldn’t get a round deposit of silver?

Likewise on it being iterative...a round disk might not look like much of a coin, but it could be an intermediate step, even if it doesn’t meet the modern neumistmatist’s needs. So even if an eyespot doesn’t provide true vision, it can be an intermediate step toward an eye.


16 posted on 08/08/2008 9:58:52 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

We have good understanding of the mechanism of solar activity. We have a good theory to explain every every molecular reaction from a few seconds after the big bang until today.

A more accurate analogy would be what motivated the Big Bang.


17 posted on 08/08/2008 9:58:54 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Actually a few microseconds after the big bang.


18 posted on 08/08/2008 10:00:11 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Is it a valid question to then ask where the hypothetical uber-complex intellegent designer came from, or am I supposed to show reverence and stop there? If the hypothetical complex designer is somehow declared eternal and didn’t require a creator itself, what is the basis for that conclusion, other than pure faith?


19 posted on 08/08/2008 10:00:41 AM PDT by PC99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agooga

If the Creator truly left as much evidence for Evolution as we have, but Evolution didn’t actually occur, then our Creator’s name is Loki.


20 posted on 08/08/2008 10:00:47 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson