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 ...
==I thought THEY said ID had no connexion to Creation Science?
Creation Science and ID overlap because they both deal with detecting intelligent design. The difference is that Creation Scientists investigate the historical claims of the Bible, whereas ID scientists are searching for evidence of intelligent design without the aid of divine revelation. Thus, most of ID can be fit into Creation Science, but most of Creation Science cannot be fit into ID.
[[I don’t think that we should toss out evolution altogether, but, like the chemist quoted, the accepted view of evolution just doesn’t seem to pass muster when you get down to the biochemical level.]]
It sure doesn’t! I can see how some people might accept generalizations about how ‘arms evolved out of fins’ or soem such very vague assumptions, but when you actually start diggign deep, down into the microbiolgical systems that make up each species, it becomes, not increasingly less complex as one might expect, but infact MORE complex abnd intricate, and we discover how much more interelated and interdependent each system really is. Gald to see that at least chemists are able to state their itnellectually honest assessments abotu hte issue
Too funny, we both pretty much provided the same answer :o)
A Christian , Republican judge appointed by Bush.
The singularity? See M theory.
What’s your SCIENTIFIC theory to explain the origin of the creator? Cause if you don’t have one, it’s religion. Not science.
[[A Christian , Republican judge appointed by Bush.]]
good golly- that just proves then he couldn’t have been biased or that hte judgements weren’t activist DESPITE the FACTS that proved he WAS biased and hostile toward ID. Great reply- You’ve just managed to undo ALL the FACTS- don’t know why I waste my time with such redicuolousness as your statmeent. Judge Jones can profess to be anyhtign he lieks- His blatant bais and hostility and moronic judicial judgement PROVE he is blinded by hte lie of Evolution- MANY peopel CLAIM to be Christian, but hteir words and actions tell a MUCH different story-
I mentioned to you that it would be wise to just stick to the FACTS of each case instead of stooping to the idiocy of peopel with axes to grind agaisnt positions they dissagree with- but I guess that was askign too much from you- Your past several statements have shown that you prefer a lie to hte truth- Good day.
I am a registered Independent.
[[I am a registered Independent.]]
Lol good answer
Try reading the transcript of the trial. I did. The ID'ers lied over and over and it was proven in court that they did. The judge had no choice
Since hwen does a forensic scientist HAVE to explain how a creator arose? Cripes- you people will go to any dishonest length to try to discredit the evidence which refutes your preferred hypothesis.
ALL a forensic scientist MUST do is present enough evidence to show that something could NOT have happened naturally, and that an intelligent agent MUST have been responsible- when enough evidence is gathered to show this, then it MUST be reasonably assumed that an intelligent agent wwas behind the causation of an event or creation of an object. The forensic scientist doesn’t even need to identify the intelligent agent, their only obligation is to provide evidence to show that intelligence is the correct line of reasoning to take.
Your statement is factully false- how about concentrating on the scientific issues instead of stooping to false accusations and opinions? How abotu addressing hte biolgical impossibility of both Macroevoltuion and abiogenisis
lol- Yeah- that’s why judges and lawyers all over hte country were stunned at the judges bias- Don’t give me that crap- I’ve read it as well and MANY sites have the LIES that were perpetrated by the evos well documented- so go preach to someone who will beleive your crap- The Judge himself even made many critical lies abotu hte case, AND he even copied word for word the ACLU’s complete claptrap- spelling errors and factual misrepresentations and all.
The whole issue where ID supposedly lied abotu the book of pandas and people was a COMPLETE LIE itself- the ID side requested that they be able to present evidence that they werre NOT lying, but hte judge DISSALLOWED it while allowing your side to rail on and on about FALSE ACCUSATIONS that had NO basis in reality- ID got railroaded! But again- you only care abotu hte false accusatiosn and hte judgement, so you don’t bother to conentrate your investigation on the ACTUAL FACTS
Beleive what you want- but the FACTS do NOT support your accusations
And just for the record- the following PROVES that the judge LIED abotu what Behe said, LIED abotu what Behe infered, LIED about ID, and just goes to prove the judge was nothign but an ignorant agendist who was compeltewly CLUELESS abotu what ID is or even what Behe meant-
Behe goes down htrough every one of the Judges LIES and exposes just how ignorant the activist judge really was- Behe exposes the judge’s ignroance point by point!
(4) ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. ... (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 (“implausible that the designer is a natural entity”).
Again, repeatedly, the Court’s opinion ignores the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. If I think it is implausible that the cause of the Big Bang was natural, as I do, that does not make the Big Bang Theory a religious one, because the theory is based on physical, observable data and logical inferences. The same is true for ID
(10) Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few selectsystems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
In this section, despite my protestations the Court simply accepts Miller’s adulterated definition of irreducible complexity in which a system is not irreducible if you can use one or more of its parts for another purpose, and disregards careful distinctions I made in Darwin’s Black Box. The distinctions can be read in my Court testimony. In short, the Court uncritically accepts strawman arguments
(13) As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)).
If I conducted such an experiment and no flagellum were evolved, what Darwinist would believe me? What Darwinist would take that as evidence for my claims that Darwinism is wrong
Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller -8- and ID is right? As I testified to the Court, Kenneth Miller claimed there was experimental evidence showing that complex biochemical systems could evolve by random mutation and natural selection, and he pointed to the work of Barry Hall on the lac operon. I explained in great detail to the Court why Miller was exaggerating, was incorrect, and made claims that Barry Hall himself never did. However, no Darwinist I am aware of subsequently took Hall’s experiments as evidence against Darwinism. Neither did the Court mention it in its opinion. The flagellum experiment the Court described above is one that, if successful, would strongly affirm Darwinian claims, and so should have been attempted long ago by one or more of the many, many adherents of Darwinism in the scientific community. That none of them has tried such an experiment, and that similar experiments that were tried on other molecular systems have failed, should count heavily against their theory
(14) We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” ... As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God.
Again, repeatedly, the Court confuses extra-scientific implications of a scientific theorywith the theory itself. William Paley would likely think that the Big Bang was a creative act by God, but that does not make the Big Bang theory unscientific. In fact I myself suspect that the Big Bang may have been a supernatural act, but I would not say that science has determined the universe was begun by God — just that science has determined the universe had a beginning. To reach to a conclusion of God or the supernatural requires philosophical and other arguments beyond science. Scholarly diligence in making proper distinctions should not be impugned as craftiness. I do not “refuse to identify the designer” as the Court accuses. Starting in Darwin’s Black Box and continuing up through my testimony at trial, I have repeatedly affirmed that I think the designer is God, and repeatedly pointed out that that personal affirmation goes beyond the scientific evidence, and is not part of my scientific program
(16) Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the“purposeful arrangement of parts” is based upon an analogy to human design. ... Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed inthe two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.
The Court has switched in the space of a paragraph from calling the argument for ID an “inductive argument” to calling it an “analogy”. That is a critical confusion. As I testified, the ID argument is an induction, not an analogy. Inductions do not depend on the degree of similarity of examples within the induction. Examples only have to share one or a subset of relevant properties. For example, the induction that, ceteris paribus, black objects become warm in the sunlight holds for a wide range of dissimilar objects. A black automobile and a black rock become warm in the sunlight, even though they have many dissimilarities. The induction holds because they share a similar relevant property, their blackness. The induction that many fragments rushing away fromeach other indicates a past explosion holds for both firecrackers and the universe (in the Big Bang theory), even though firecrackers and the universe have many, many dissimilarities. Cellular machines and machines in our everyday world share a relevant property — their functional complexity, born of a purposeful arrangement of parts — and so inductive conclusions to design can be drawn on the basis of that shared property. To call an induction into doubt one has to show that dissimilarities make a relevant difference to the property one wishes to explain. Neither the judge nor the Darwinists he uncritically embraces have done that in respect to intelligent design
It is clear hte judge can’t even keep his facts straight, nor is he apparently capable of honestly making claims abotu hte trial. It is also clear that he LIED many times- so don’t give me your petty little arguments agaisnt ID by claiming hte trial was ‘fair and balanced’- it was NOT! Period
Thanks for the detailed response. I am tired mentally and physically trying to communicate with you. I am logging off for a month or two except to post my refutation of Ray Rogers on the twelfth.
Please use spell check in the future.
I’m tired mentally & Physically too due to conditions beyond my control, but it doesn’t stop me from checkign out hte actual FACTS concenring issues, nor does it prevent me from exposing the usual agendist bias displayed by folks that don’t take hte time to check whether their accusatiosn are true or not. There have been a LOT of false claims made about ID, creationsim, The Dover trial etc, and I’ve posted the refutations time and time again here on FR only to have them ignored and brushed under the carpet as though the Truth meant nothing.
As I mentioned- I’m tired mentally and physically too, and really could care less about taking hte added time to spell check when I’m doing so much research on issues to refute hte claims- Bwesides, you get hte general Idea of what I’m stating just fine, and it’s good for yor brain to do a little extra work to figure read words that are spelled out of sequence, so don’t knock the bad spelling- it’s good for brain power.
hopefully you’re not leaving because of any thing i said? My responses can be reactionary- I admit that- but don;’t take anythign i say personally- we can agree to dissagree- even heatedly-
Anyway- get rested & take care.
“I just might have to go out and buy Laughlin’s book!” [excerpt]For a second I though you were talking about Harry H. Laughlin. (Pro Nazi Eugenist, etc)
“What’s your SCIENTIFIC theory to explain the origin of the creator?” [excerpt]False assumption.
LOL...definitely not that one!
That is acceptable for religion. It doesn’t work with science. I just wish the ID folks would just fess up and admit it.
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.