Posted on 12/08/2008 8:10:28 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
In Part I of this article,1 I argued as follows:
(i) Autopoiesis (self-making) is universal and therefore essential to life, so it is required at the beginning for life to exist and is thus not the end product of some long naturalistic process.
(ii) Each level of the autopoietic hierarchy is separated from the one below it by a Polanyi impossibility, so it cannot be reduced to any sequence of naturalistic causes.
(iii) There is an unbridgeable abyss between the autopoietic hierarchy and the dirty mass-action chemistry of the natural environment.
In this part, I test the integrity of this argument in the face of naturalistic objections to intelligent design. I then go on to assess evolutionary arguments for a naturalistic origin of life in the face of universally contradictory evidence...
(FOR PART 1 OF THIS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT PAPER, SEE LINK IN REPLY #2)
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
PING!
And then I touch myself.
You said — “And then I touch myself.”
I hope you didn’t catch any STDs... LOL...
Is this satire? That’s one of the worst anti-evolution arguments I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t even accurately address Darwin’s theory and the modern synthesis. Most of the arguments in this article attack positions that don’t even exist in evolutionary biology. It’s just one gigantic strawman.
Besides, materialist evolution is fully compatible with Biblical genesis (if you let it be) and yet there is this need to continually attack it. Dawkins isn’t even a scientist, he’s a natural historian. His understanding of the scientific method is subpar at best.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
“Here I use another principleautopoiesis (self-making)to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations.”
This has to be a joke.
Soothsayer, you obviously haven’t read this article. Nor have you responded to it or refuted it by calling it names.
Alex has done a reasonably good job outlining one of many reasons by naturalistic evolution provides only a very limited explanation for the structure and organized complexity of life. It’s time to stop pretending that it can work miracles and get on with science.
Can’t argue with that...
His understanding of the scientific method is subpar at best.
How would you know?
Interesting.
Begin bringing XPP-788 Nuclear-Fired Popcorn Popper to full reactivity. Withdraw control rods to maximum and stand by.
Read some of Dawkin’s books.
Dawkins tries to mix philosophy with science and doesn’t succeed.
Perhaps he means beyond his ability to explain ...
Sounds like you have a personal problem that falls under the category of TMI.
==Is this satire?
You wish.
==Thats one of the worst anti-evolution arguments Ive ever seen.
Proof that you didn’t read either paper.
==Most of the arguments in this article attack positions that dont even exist in evolutionary biology.
That’s because the Evos are behind the curve, as per usual. Nevertheless, these two papers DESTROY meterialist evolution.
==Besides, materialist evolution is fully compatible with Biblical genesis
Care to elaborate?...
I think I accidentally pinged JASONC when I meant to ping ANDREWC. If so, I apologize—GGG
Lots of scientific sounding words. Now let’s see his experiments that have validated his hypothesis. Without it, it is philosophy resulting in an hypothesis, not science.
==Lots of scientific sounding words. Now lets see his experiments that have validated his hypothesis.
Did you even bother reading the papers? From Part II:
“Here in Part II the argument from autopoiesis is tested against commonly cited naturalistic objections to intelligent design. It comes through soundly intact, even strengthened because the opponents of design agree on the facts.”
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.