Life’s irreducible structure—Part 1: autopoiesis (ID and the Evos make big mistake?)

Journal of Creation ^ | Alex Williams

[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...

[Caramelgal]

You do remember tomatoes being poisonous right?

Unless you’re talking about the recent salmonella outbreaks (and that tuned out to be in Serrano peppers and not the poor and often misunderstood tomato), then no, that was a “little” before my time :) ,

In truth, most of the world never considered the tomato to be poisonous. Originating in South America, tomatoes were eaten there and cultivated and eaten in Central America and Mexico and the South West long before the Europeans arrived. The Spanish and Italians took the fruit back with them and thank goodness they did because Paella and Lasagna as well as many of my other favorite dishes, would not be as nearly as yummy without them.

It was mostly in Protestant England and the Puritan Colonies, that tomato was given a bad rap. (And who in their right mind thinks that the cuisine of England is superior to any other?).

The “belief” that the plant was poisonous was because it bared a “resemblance” to belladonna and deadly nightshade (although it is true that the leaves and stems of the tomato plant are poisonous). In other words, it was contempt prior to any real investigation and therefore a very unscientific assumption.

I have found that science through the centuries have been wrong most of the time and failed to acknowledge real facts until years, and sometimes centuries, had passed.

Perhaps some of this stems from the fact that before the Age of Enlightenment and Reason and the birth of truly objective science in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s starting with Newton and his contemporaries; “science” was closely intertwined and interconnected with religious belief, dogma, local superstitions, the whims of Kings exercising their Devine Right and basic ignorance due to the lack of the tools necessary to investigate like the microscope and telescope.

That’s what got Galileo in trouble. He was proven to be absolutely right in his observations about a heliocentric solar system but the Church at the time, one that not only had great moral authority over everyone, but also great civil and legal authority to punish “heretics”, placed him on house arrest and suppressed his writings because it contradicted the commonly accepted literal interpretation of scripture that the religious were selling during his time.

And even the Christian Church at that time, admitted that Galileo was right but they didn’t want him to publish his findings because they thought it would be “bad for business”. The Catholic Church, after many centuries, eventually apologized for their mistake.

[raygunfan]

you are another one, impugning thoughts to me or opionions i am not expressing...

science is wonderful, exhilirating, but when all opposition is shot down without a fair hearing....and when all other ideas are classifed PURPOSELY as outside of science, so as to eliminate any competition, then science is no longer science, it is philosphy, and a poor one at that.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Perhaps some of this stems from the fact that before the Age of Enlightenment and Reason and the birth of truly objective science in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s starting with Newton and his contemporaries;

"Objective Science" is a myth. Read Kuhn on the "priority of the paradigm"

[GodGunsGuts]

Let me know what you think of it. The article blew me away the first time I read it.

PS Did you ever get around to taking a look at the Duesberg pape? Just curious...

All the best—GGG

[agooga]

I apologize if I misinterpreted your hostility.

Science is not perfect because men are not perfect. But, by all practical definitions, science is incapable of operating the way you would like it to operate.

Science is OBLIGATED by it’s very essence to seek answers that dwell within the observable, testable, physical world.

Hopefully, it will never do otherwise— for then it will no longer be science.

My advice to you would be to stop agonizing over science’s inability to comprehend spirituality. It is impossible. Do not view it as a sleight against your beliefs. View it as COMPLETELY alien to your beliefs. As I said before, there is no overlap. Science and religion are separate entities.

And, it’s nothing personal.

[raygunfan]

science is under NO OBLIGATION to assume nature and nature only.

where do you get that nonsense from?

the greatest scientists of the last five hundred years, many were solid christians, who, GASP, used science to investigate and research God’s creation...did any of these ronowned men of science throw up their hands and stop researching? where was the obligation that you speak of?

it is an ATHEISTIC OBLIGATION that forces science to assume the current materialism stance....the humanist religion of evolutionism, the state religion of the public school system....surely you have heard of it....

[adorno]

thus I am a creationist

My thoughts in my prior post would leave open the possibility of a creator.

A creator doesn't have to be organic. There could be a creator for what is known as life on earth. And there could be others just like him/her/it.

[Coyoteman]

science is under NO OBLIGATION to assume nature and nature only.

where do you get that nonsense from?

the greatest scientists of the last five hundred years, many were solid christians, who, GASP, used science to investigate and research God’s creation...did any of these ronowned men of science throw up their hands and stop researching? where was the obligation that you speak of?

They used the scientific method, not rattles and divination and entrails.

That's why they are called scientists instead of shamans.

[agooga]

“where do you get that nonsense from?”

I’m not sure what you mean. Science, as currently practiced, deals exclusively with what is testable, observable and based on physical properties and laws.

There are still many scientists who profess a belief in the spiritual. I for one, accept and welcome the possibility of the spiritual. But, I also know that most of these scientists have greatly modified their beliefs to coincide with what is known about the world today.

And the great Christian scientists of the past centuries did not have the depth of knowledge we have available today.

You are wrong about an atheistic obligation. Amongst all of my scientist friends (and I know a great number of prominent individuals in the realm of astrophysics and astronomy, some are my direct family members), they are all Christians, with a deep and abiding love of God, and they do not use science as a tool to cut the heart of God out of our lives, but to seek the answers to questions that they believe God presented to us.

I understand where your discomfort is coming from. There was a time when God was so close as to be almost touchable. Everything was a miracle and a product of design. Science has chased God back from our world of everyday perception, but science will probably never be able to destroy God.

And that is a good thing.

Take care— and I will read but respond no further.

[raygunfan]

yes, science investigating God’s creation......and not one said ‘we are obligated to assume materialism, and nothing else”

odd how that has changed......atheism makes the rules, i guess

[GodGunsGuts]

==My thoughts in my prior post would leave open the possibility of a creator.

That’s good. But what I’ve read, you definitely seem to be leaning towards pantheism. The question I have, if you posit multiple creators, then how do you explain the harmony of the laws that govern nature???

[Coyoteman]

The question I have, if you posit multiple creators, then how do you explain the harmony of the laws that govern nature???

It was done by committee.

That would explain a lot!

[metmom]

Col. 1:17 17 And he [Jesus] is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Imagine that. The human body being held together by perfectly proportioned cross shaped structures.

They can run, but they can't hide.

[GodGunsGuts]

Hi Metmom,

Thanks for the verse. Do you know where I can get a blowup of the graphic you posted. I can see the point of it, but I can’t read it. Thanks.

All the best—GGG

[metmom]

Just google “laminin”. It’s one of the first images.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thank you :o)

[Gondring]

heh...use the fallacy while pointing the finger. cute.

[Gondring]

A theory that God made the Heavens and the Earth can at least be proved: God only has to make Himself known.

Nope. Could be an inter-multiversal creature who has no creative power of his own.

Can't prove or disprove either. All we can do is describe what's within our system...and there's no way that any "special" environment of our existence can support one claim or another.

[GodGunsGuts]

==It was done by committee...That would explain a lot!

Actually, if you ever get around to reading the article on autopoiesis above, I think even you will find that it is inconceivable that life could have been created by committee.

[Gondring]

You cannot create matter out of nothing, unless of course you have super powers that don’t seem to exist anywhere that I have looked

Guess you haven't looked in the physics literature.