Posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
A team of Princeton University scientists has discovered that chains of proteins found in most living organisms act like adaptive machines, possessing the ability to control their own evolution.
The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature...
(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...
The ignorance and belated knowledge lies completely on the godless materialist side of the equation. Creation and ID scientists have been predicting directed mutation for years.
...but it is logically more consistent to assume that there are uncaused events. It’s certainly consistent with experiment.
This is twice you have made this assertion without any proof. Something from nothing! Now, may I ask you to do an exercise. Try to grasp the concept of nothingness...no time, no space, no matter, no energy...Nothing! The idea of the universe, or anything coming to be out of nothing is worse than magic. At least a magician has a hat and a rabbit. But you have nothing....out of that you create the universe? Explain this to me from a naturalistic materialistic world view. I think if you are honest you will not assert the maddness of a universe springing from nothing. Observationally we never see things come from nothing. You don't sit in your living room and watch Jack Baur on '24' and suddenly, with nothing to account for it, a porcupine appears between you and the television. You don't think about porcupines obscuring your view of the next killing by Jack Baur....it just never happens. Yet you assert it could happen. This principle is consistently verified by scientists, policemen, engineers, mothers....we just don't need to worry about such things. The evidence points away from your assertion, not toward agreement with it.
Now, these quantum particles, if they exist, and many physists think they do not, do not come from nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people think when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. To the contrary, it is a sea of fluctuating energy locked up in the vacuum-an area rich in physical structure and can be described by physical laws. The particles, if they exist, are thought to arise by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. So, it is not a good example of something coming from nothing, or eminating without cause.
All you do is push back the question of creation one step. Now you have to explain how the fluctuating sea of energy came to be. If quantum physics operates in the domain described by quantum physics you cannot legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of the domain. You must provide something transendent of the domain to explain quantum physics. It becomes circular reasoning and defeats itself philosophically and logically.
I think I agree with this statement, although some modern scientist refuse to assent to this assumption.
Any system of thought that assumes causation is a necessity leads to an infinite regress.
Assuming that causation is not necessary may be counterintuitive, but many things in physics are counterintuitive.
So you can choose between counterintuitive physics or a logical absurdity.
In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. Now perhaps you believe that generating fallacious arguments is somehow support for philosophical naturalism, but that is only because you lack the critical-thinking capability needed to recognize your error.
That you continue to insist on maintaining your position even after I have showed you the fallacies supporting it merely proves the point that a belief in philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability.
Have you and I been arguing on the same side of the issue all along? :)
This statement is not true beyond the point of singularity of origin of the universe. If you believe what you said, please regress cause to the step "one point" prior to the universe coming to be. I will not ask you to infinitley regress....just that one step.
I don’t recall mentioning philosophical materialism.
Actually, more accurately it's: "It appears that proteins were designed with future evolution in mind, but it can't be because we're already wedded to a materialist paradigm."
What do you mean by one step prior to the universe coming to be? Is that anything like one step prior to God coming to be?
I suspect when the antichrist does something similar they will embrace him as God not knowing who God really is.
Clearly, the Big Bang cannot be methodologically repeated, yet philosophical naturalism believes in it. Clearly, abiogenesis cannot be methodologically repeated, yet philosophical naturalism believes in it. Clearly, evolution cannot be methodologically repeated, yet philosophical naturalism believes in it.
Equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism is a fallacy no matter how you present it.
"If that assumption can be shown to be incomplete or wrong it can be changed."
Science assumes much more than methodological naturalism or it would not believe in non-methodological, unobservable events. Clearly you are not able to think critically.
"Creationists, on the other hand, willfully accept a philosophical position that destroys their critical-thinking ability--they are absolutely unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs. They misrepresent, pick and choose, and otherwise mangle any data that contradicts their religious beliefs, and that which they can't so treat they ignore. Creation "science" is pure religious apologetics, and everyone knows it."
Philosophical naturalists, on the other hand, willfully accept a philosophical position that destroys their critical-thinking ability--they are absolutely unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts their philosophical beliefs. They misrepresent, pick and choose, and otherwise mangle any data that contradicts their philosophical beliefs, and that which they can't so treat they ignore. "Science" is pure apologetics for philosophical naturalism, and everyone knows it."
"So don't lecture scientists about critical thinking.
You commit the fallacy of equating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism and don't think you need to be lectured about critical thinking? You generate an ad hominem attack that needs few wording changes to be equally applicable to philosophical naturalists and you don't think you need to be lectured about critical thinking?
Clearly, your belief in philosophical naturalism has completely destroyed your ability to think critically.
Just because you don't mention it doesn't mean that the assumption doesn't lie at the foundation of your responses. Does that make sense?
Clearly your commitment to philosophical naturalism has completely destroyed your ability to think critically such that you commit fallacy after fallacy without even being aware of it. It is just natural for you to think that way, I believe, as a consequence of your belief in philosophical naturalism.
Again, pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes. Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers.
In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism in your question. Now perhaps you believe that generating fallacious questions is somehow support for philosophical naturalism, but that is only because you lack the critical-thinking capability needed to recognize your error.
Definitions matter. "Methodological materialism" in your context changes to fit each new discovery, so discoveries like the Big Bang and the catastrophic formation of the Channeled Scablands which were derided in scientific circles because of their tangential support of Biblical accounts don't satisfy your question. But at the time, they did indeed require abandoning what were considered at the time to be "methodological materialism" for a seemingly religious explanation. After which, the definition of methodological naturalism expanded to account for each.
The problem is there have been no sudden changes except extinction events from the Cambrian “explosion” until now. Those plants and animals that did not go extinct are pretty much the same today as their counterparts in the fossil record. This presents a huge challenge for evolutionists (even for the notion of guided evolution IMHO).
Interesting. Now please answer the question: when has science ever used non-materialistic data with tangible results? If you cannot answer this question then you should not be using the fruits of science -- things like computers, cars, medicine, etc. None of these exist without the scientific method and the fact science is grounded in the physical universe.
I await a direct answer, not philosophical musings ending in personal attacks.
'Kind' cannot be a 'scientific' term by definition because it is not based in philosophical naturalism. Truth by definition is not any rational support for evolution.
"Can you please describe what you mean by "kind" -- starting with its use in the original language of the Bible and tracing its etymology to the current colloquial use of the word and any potential rigorous scientific application?"
A 'kind' is a group of interbreeding species, of which there are multitudes of examples.
What makes you think this latest discovery is directed? Does it violate the laws of physics?
In which of your examples was "methodological naturalism" expanded to include an intelligent designer or the direct hand of the Creator?
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.