Life’s irreducible structure—Part 2: naturalistic objections (materialist evolution impossible)

CMI ^ | Alex Williams

[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)

[GodGunsGuts]

==the box is made of components as are the wheels. They reduce to molecules and then to atoms and then to subatomic particles.

As with the spring, cog, and lever, they reduce to molecules, atoms and subatomic particles that DO NOT EXPLAIN how the box becomes a box, or the wheel becomes a wheel.

Once again, your argument fails.

[GodGunsGuts]

Come again? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.

[Soliton]

Once again, your argument fails.

It only appears to fail because we are using examples of things that WERE designed. The electron and proton of the hydrogen combine because they get close to each other in space-time, the hydrogen atoms combines with oxygen atoms and form water just because they are close to each other in space-time. And so it goes all the way to GodGunsGuts. Everything exists because of serendipitous proximity and the laws of nature. You are simply a factory with a process control system

[ZX12R]

Evolution by natural selection as a just-so antitheory designs to halt thinking. I just might have to go out and buy Laughlin’s book!

You might enjoy it. He tries to open new vistas for exploration, from our current understanding of things. He is by no means a creationist, but like you, he is obviously no fan of current darwinism.

[RightWhale]

Polanyi: ‘. . . there is always a conceivable doubt as to the convincing power of reproducibility; it is for the scientist to decide in the light of his own judgment whether to consider such doubt as reasonable in any particular instance.’

These doubts will affect the fundamental guesses of scientists. GUESSES.

[CottShop]

[[Besides, materialist evolution is fully compatible with Biblical genesis (if you let it be)]]

Lol- Yup- if you close your eyes really tight, ignore al lthe evidnece against Naturalistic Megaevolution, and beleive really really hard that God didn’t infact intelligently Design the incredible irreducible complexities seen and testified to in nature, then yup by golly you can ‘let naturalism be the guiding force behind the species’ and ‘let naturalism be’ ‘compatible with hte bible’.

[[and yet there is this need to continually attack it.]]

Since hwne is presenting FACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that itself refutes something ‘attacking’? Did scientists ‘attack’ all those scientific hypothesis that turned out ot be wrong in the past? Or were they practicing good old fashioned OBJECTIVE science? Is it only ‘attacking’ when ID shows that Macroevoltuion is impossible by presenting FACTS that htemselves refute the hypothesis?

‘Attacking’ Lol-

[CottShop]

[[Read some of Dawkin’s books.]]

Which books? The ones where he admits that naturalism can’t account for hte complexities seen in nature? Those books?

On one side of his face, he admits nature isn’t capable of producing IC, but on the other side of his face, he claims hte process must still be possible because any other explanation is simply out of the question- in the real world, we call that being twofaced.

[CottShop]

[[Lots of scientific sounding words. Now let’s see his experiments that have validated his hypothesis.]]

Let’s see hte experiments that move a jawbone into the inner ear and create a complex hearing system- Let’s see the experiments that remodle a fin into a weight bearing leg, let’s see the experiments that change water breathign lungs into air breathign ones-

Apparently, in your mind, Macroevoltuion must be nothign but “philosophy resulting in an hypothesis, not science.”?

[Soothesayer]

You might be right. I have a history of severe mental illness so there might be something there clouding my reasoning and perception. I wrote the first comment more out of confusion. Now I am angry that there are far too many unanswered questions with regard to phylogeny and population genetics and how they could or could not fit into a creationist defense (Williams uses neither data source). There are some things that Williams did NOT challenge that are frustrating. It’s more what he didn’t mention than what he did. When he says “no explanation”, that’s the worst.

Things are not as they seem. I don’t give a s*** about evolution or about science anymore but it’s not easy to just push them aside when there are unanswered questions. The problem is that I have not found a thorough analysis yet and there are so many things that authors like Williams could be doing but don’t do with their arguments. I have never been able to find a complete resolution to the question of the origins (or creation) of life though I am pretty sure about the compatibility of mainstream evolutionary with Genesis. You mentioned a book called “Persuaded by the Evidence”. What is that like?

This is going to be a horrible Christmas season for me. I hope that yours will be much better.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Everything exists because of serendipitous proximity and the laws of nature.

Wrong. Take enzymes for instance. They are designed to facilitate cellular processes by taking specific molecules and binding them together to form new molecules. Cells cannot live without them, as they are responsible for all biological reactions. In many cases these molecules would take billions of years (or never) to chemically react if left to themselves. But enzymes make this happen in mere miliseconds. For instance, the enzyme anhydrase prevents us from suffocating by removing carbon dioxide from our blood 10 million times faster than it would on its own! These reactions cannot be explained by mass action chemistry. So much for serendipitous proximity and the laws of nature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111073845.htm

Once again, your argument fails.

[Soliton]

Let’s see hte experiments that move a jawbone into the inner ear and create a complex hearing system- Let’s see the experiments that remodle a fin into a weight bearing leg, let’s see the experiments that change water breathign lungs into air breathign ones-

You do realize that if you were able to prove everything about evolution was wrong, it wouldn't do anything to prove ID was right?

If you support ID, produce some data and then you can call it science.

[Soliton]

They are designed to facilitate cellular processes by taking specific molecules and binding them together to form new molecules

Once again you make unsupported assertions. You assume they are designed, and having assumed it, you use it as proof. It ain't science.

[CottShop]

[[Sounds like neither evolution by chance mutation nor related to any version of creation. Merely refuting evolution would not award points to creation. I know Polanyi, destroyer of Einstein’s Relativity theory.]]

ID awards the points, AND it refutes naturalism, and is a more reasonable explanation for hte complexities witnessed in nature. As GGG suggested, ID better explains the scientific evidence- when one hypothesis is dead, then another must be proposed. Mutation= Millions of years can’t explain life because of impossibilities it faces biolgically, so another proposal MUST be made, and when the evidences coincide with what one proposal such as ID suggests, it can’t simply be dismissed out of hand- that’s not to say that another ‘naturalistic’ proposal can’t be proposed, (Lateral gene transference comes to mind) to explain life, but it needs to be ceeded that Microevoltuion + Accumulation + millions of years can produce what we see today, and at least come up with another hypotheisis that is at least biolgically probable.

[RightWhale]

millions of years can produce what we see today

I have never thought of using the term autopoeisis but it is a good one. I have always thought in terms of self-directing, kind of a bio level Bildung rather than self-making. This is because there are only so many tricks you can make C N H and O do, just as a writer in English has only so many letters to work with. The basics are not made by the organism, but the number of possibilities of form is not limited even while some forms are impossible.

[CottShop]

[[You do realize that if you were able to prove everything about evolution was wrong, it wouldn’t do anything to prove ID was right?]]

ID makes no such claims- insinuating that it does is dishonest- hopefully you aren’t insinuating that ID makes any such claims?

The fact that the evidence by ID does infact show Naturalism is impossible though, is just ONE of the aims of ID- the other is to present enough evidnece to show a high probability that an intelligent design MUST HAVE been behind the IC that we’ve discovered. Any courtroom in the world works on these principles- to show enough evidence to suggest a high probability that an intelleigence is behind somethign and that it cvould NOT have happened naturally. When there is enough evidence to show an intelligent causation, it is just silly to keep denying it

Say that 10 archeologist uncovers 1000 intricately created metal urns- 5 beleive they were caused naturally, while 5 beleive they are caused intelligently- which do you think has the stornger case? To simply state that hte ones who beleive that an intelligence was behindthe causation are ‘practicing psuedo science’ when they present all the FACTS of the case that show a high probability that they were intelligently designed is just silly and unscientific- it’s an a priori bias/agenda to try to discredit thsoe scientists by claiming that htey ‘are practicing religion because they present evidnece which shows a high probability that an intelligence was behind the causation of hte urns’, and htat is essentially the same silly argument that Atni-ID folks are attempting to level at ID scientists.

The FACT is that the evidence speaks for itself, and after 150 years of investigation, it has been found to both refute naturalistic creations of IC systems, AND it shows a high probability that an intellgience is needed-

So no- NOONE is statign that simply showing evidnece which refutes Megaevoltuion automatically proves ID- We’re saying that the evidence itself shows a very high probability of design and intelligence- Again, the evidence does the speaking and stands on it’s own merrit and validity.

[Soliton]

Any courtroom in the world works on these principles

But science doesn't

ID isn't science and neither is most of their criticism of evolution

[CottShop]

I personally think ‘self-assembling, and self-organizing’ is a more precise biological terminology, and I think the evidence points strongly to the fact that IC can’t be produced naturally because of many reasons- 1: it violates the second law 2: it violates mathematical probabilities 3: it violates known biolgical truths.

It’s the first point that I think is probably the most important, because IF Macroevoltuion werre even a biolgicqal possibility, it would have needed to violate this second law, not just in a few improbable instances, but billions of times in millions of species, (and htis of course violates rthe mathematical probabilites as well)

As well systems simply were not capable of self-organizing without prior instructions which apparnetly all arose beforehand in billions of instnaces? Sciecne can’t even show a few scant evidences which would even begin to hint at such complex self-assembly, but we’re to bleeive millions of species all violatedc al l 3 laws trillions of times to result in self-assembling’ systems that were all more complex than their predecessors?

Bah- too tired to noodle htis over today-

[Soliton]

Say that 10 archeologist uncovers 1000 intricately created metal urns- 5 beleive they were caused naturally, while 5 beleive they are caused intelligently- which do you think has the stornger case? To simply state that hte ones who beleive that an intelligence was behindthe causation are ‘practicing psuedo science’

If the urns were created consistent with the laws of physics by living beings that evolved naturally, then the urns did occur naturally. That is what science suggests has happened. The other person's belief that the urns were magical in origin is inconsistent with everything science has discovered to date.

[GodGunsGuts]

==You assume they are designed, and having assumed it, you use it as proof. It ain’t science.

I am justified because Biology points to ID. Evo scientists assume mindless materialism even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. Talk about faith!

[CottShop]

[[ID isn’t science and neither is most of their criticism of evolution]]

Solition- you will increase your credibility by being intellectually honest- makiong pettyy accusations that are false won’t help your credibility one iota.

Either prove ID isn’t science, or retract the statement- I’m not itnerested in your OPINIONS on this matter- I am interested ONLY in the scientific FACTS and disciplines, and it is CLEAR from the actual evidence that ID is FULLY SCIENTIFIC. You can either be petty and stick to false claims about ID, or you can actually look into ID and discover for yourself that it is a STRICT SCIENTIFIC Discipline that doesn’t resemble your accusation one bit.

But htnaks for playing. and P.S science DOES work on those objective principles, denying that it does is just silly.