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)

[DallasMike]

I have a history of severe mental illness so there might be something there clouding my reasoning and perception.

You have my deepest sympathy and I will pray for you. You are not alone. And God really does care. I am not promoting my blog because I rarely write to it any longer. However, I still receive e-mail regarding this post that I wrote almost 3 years ago. While it mainly addresses schizophrenia, it applies to depression and other illnesses as well. While things are improving, Christians haven't always had the compassion for mental illness that we should.

Get with a good doctor if you don't have one, seek prayer, and seek the compassion of caring friends and relatives. Feel free to Freepmail me.

May God bless you and give you healing or relief from your heavy burden. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.

[tpanther]

Why do sunflowers follow the sun? Why do white people tan?

Just out of nowhere? With no purpose...all this design you see around you was totally by chance, with no intelligence behind it?

That is too unbelieveable and bewildering to imagine. I don't see it as a plausible possibility myself.

[Soliton]

That is too unbelieveable and bewildering to imagine. I don't see it as a plausible possibility myself.

Sunflowers turn and people tan based on the simple properties of chemical compounds. That is level 0 of process control.

[DallasMike]

See the quote in Post 77 as an example of what I was saying about so many people with a chemistry background not fully accepting the current Darwinian view. 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.

[Liberty1970]

By God’s grace, may you have a blessed Christmas! I can’t imagine what you struggle with, but I will pray for you and that you are able to find solace and peace in the memory of our Saviour’s birth.

Regarding ‘Persuaded by the Evidence,’ it is a collection of testimonies by former evolutionists who have become creationists. I wrote the first chapter. Some are fairly mundane, but a number of them are interesting, such as those of Dr. Jerry Bergman (who holds 9 or 10 earned M.Sc. and Ph.Ds) and Dr. John Sanford (a Cornell biologist and inventor of the ‘gene gun’ for genetic engineering), and Dr. Raymond Damadian (inventor of the MRI).

A common theme (see Ray Bradford’s chapter, for example) was that they believed what they had been told about the explanatory power of evolution, until some reason (such as a financial challenge) cause them to dig into the evidence to try to justify belief in evolution as a total explanation.

It turns out that while biological variation does occur, it is very limited in its capacity to construct new systems and structures. The great theme of evolutionary biology today is genomic degeneration and decay (I would recommend Dr. Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy, on this point). This is consistent with the perfect beginning followed by the Fall decribed in Genesis, but inconsistent with naturalistic evolutionary theory.

Regarding phylogeny and population genetics and so forth, various authors have explored those subjects in more detail than you will find in a single article. Here are a couple recommendations: The Biotic Message by Walter Remine is a good choice for population genetics. For general critiques of evolutionary apologetics, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s are among the best (see Refuting Evolution I and II, and the just published work By Design).

As far as evolution and Genesis, I would have to disagree with your comment that they fit well together. Genesis teaches a perfect origin without sin and death, whereas suffering and death is integral to evolution. There will not be roadkill in Heaven! Sarfati’s book Refuting Compromise is a helpful critique of the idea that evolution can be fit into Genesis.

(This is not meant to imply that creationary biology is about stasis. It is not. But there is a great difference between the limited variation and accumulation of genetic defects by mutation at error catastrophe rates that we see in evolutionary biology studies today, and the idea of innovative mutations creating new structures and bio-systems as in evolutionary theory).

Again, my heart goes out to you - May God heal your mind and give you hope and comfort until your final rest. I hope to see you in Heaven someday!!

Emmanuel,
Eric

[tpanther]

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

SUPREME IRONY since the evo-cultists have to enforce their dogmatic view of science VIA the courts isn't it?

ALSO another lesson about what a joke peer review of the cult of evo really is, because anytime the cult is criticized, questioned or challenged, it's "not science".

BTW it's just another strawman along with peer review...plenty of scientists say ID very much IS indeed science:

Scientists from MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton and too many others to ignore.

[tpanther]

Sunflowers turn and people tan based on the simple properties of chemical compounds. That is level 0 of process control.

OK, so why do insects live days while mammals live years?

Why do some white people tan, while others burn? Why do some get skin cancer and others don't?

[Soliton]

you asked about process control. I thought you wanted to know about it. Level 1 is timing.

[tpanther]

Oh okay. So there’s an intelligent creator. How exactly did that entity arise? When you can explain that you can get back to me.

I've seen this queastion asked a thousand times.

It finally occurs to me to ask:

How is it that you feel that you're entitled to this information from God or anyone, in this world, let alone the next?

[tpanther]

It’s apparent you’re back to asking questions while ignoring them from others.

No time for this tonight. The panthers bucs game is coming up!

[metmom]

Oh okay. So there’s an intelligent creator. How exactly did that entity arise? When you can explain that you can get back to me.

Oh okay. So there’s an intelligent creator singularity. How exactly did that entity singularity arise? When you can explain that you can get back to me.

A source without a creator to answer to.....

[metmom]

Schrodinger’s Dog?

[fightinJAG]

bfl

[Oztrich Boy]

There’s no need, it has already been published in a far superior publication, the Journal of Creation.

I thought THEY said ID had no connexion to Creation Science?

[CottShop]

[[Perhaps we will continue this later when you are rested and more receptive. As for myself, I am not receptive to either evolution as presented or to ID as presented.]]

Are you not receptive to scientific fact? What I write abotu ID isn’t opinion, it’s not assumptions, they are scientific facts that follow the evidence- I try to leave the opinions that fall outside of hte science out of my responses-

Anyway- think I’m getting cold- not thinking too well, and feel cruddy- so yeah- I’ll try to tackle soem questions or objections tomorrow- let’s just keep them evidence oriented- and determine whether or not they follow scientific priciples- those are always hte best discussions to follow, but I realize it’s hard not to interject opinion as the issue is indeed a heated one, but we can at least try not to.

P.S- I thought you were an Evo? Am I thinking of someone else? Seems I’ve had discussions with you in the past?

[CottShop]

[[It was proven in court that Intelligent Design is just another name for Creationism. It is religion, not science.]]

Lol- oh no- the dreaded ‘court descision’ lol Sorry Soliton- that was a kangaroo court held by an activist judge in which he made admissions that clealry showed he made a biased opinion judgement and NOT a judicial one- But that wouldn’t matter to someone liek you who only cares that ID lost- whether it was a fair and objective ruling (Which it wasn’t- not by any stretch of hte imagination) or not. Clap all ya like- but it’s a shallow biased joy to be sure.

Hint: Even lawyers and judges ALL across America were STUNNED at hte obvious bias and unfair trial- but again- this fact wouldn’t mtter to a non objective ID oponent like yourself.

[GodGunsGuts]

Dude, you're all over the map. First you say that evolution is a fact. Then you say evolution has its limits. Then you go on to tell me about “so many people” with chemistry backgrounds not fully accepting Darwinian evolution, and that the “accepted view” of evolution doesn't pass muster at the the biochemical level. It seems the more you type, the less you believe in Darwin's godless creation myth. So by all means, keep typing!

[CottShop]

Creation science CAN utilize the SCIENCE of ID, as the SCIENCE does NOT conflict with biblical principles concerning actual scientific evidence- However, ID does NOT need a connection to Creation science to stand on it’s own merrits- the SCIENCE of ID stands on it’s own merrits as ID makes NO inference as to who or what the intelligence might be, nor is that hteir goal- their only concern is the forensic SCIENCE, and presentign enough SCIENTIFIC evidence that strongly indicates that an intelligence is needed

While SOME people within ID have OPINIONS BEYOND the science, their opinions do NOT constitute the ACTUAL SCIENCE of ID, and htose tryign to intimate that their OPINIONS do are doign so dishonestly and hsoudl be shamed of htemselves.

There are whole groups of scientists who may have OPINIONS OUTSIDE of the science of Macroeovltuio, but do their OPINIONS OUTSIDE of hte ACTUAL SCIENCE automatically invalidate their science? Of course not! It’s an intellectually DISHONEST tactic to suggest that OPINIONS of scientists invalidate hteir science.

[CottShop]

[[BTW it’s just another strawman along with peer review...plenty of scientists say ID very much IS indeed science:]]

We know this, but intellectually dishonest Anti-ID folks with an ax to grind just love playing the ‘attack the messenger’ game as if it actually amounts to anythign significant, or as if it somehow makes the actual SCIENCE conducted by the individuals discredited.

It’s a silly petty tactic that really has no business being presented in discussions about science- it’s nothign but an attempt to avoid having to face hte serious impossibilties of Macroevoltion.

[CottShop]

[[It turns out that while biological variation does occur, it is very limited in its capacity to construct new systems and structures. The great theme of evolutionary biology today is genomic degeneration and decay (I would recommend Dr. Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy, on this point). This is consistent with the perfect beginning followed by the Fall decribed in Genesis, but inconsistent with naturalistic evolutionary theory.]]

Bingo- been saying htis for awhile, and it wouyld seem that anyone truly interested in the facts would investigate this more fully. Tim Wallace did a wonderful job over on trueorigins.org when he squared of agaisnt a scientist who tried to argue that an open system ‘could have facilitated’ systems that could ‘somehow escape entropy’, and hwo pointed to static ‘organizations’ like ice crystals and chemical bonds as ‘proof that Macroevolution could have violated hte second law in an open system’. Wallace did such a good job, that unfortunately hte scientist left in a huff (After engaging in some pretty petty character assassinations) started a blog that continued attacking Wallace, and never did address ANY of the points Wallace brought up. This was a preeminent scientist who attempted ot make Creationists look silly for ‘not really understanding the second law of thermodynamics’ but Wallace just gave the facts, and hsowed once gain that ID/Creationism really does understand it MUCH better than anti-ID folks are willing to admit

[[there is a great difference between the limited variation and accumulation of genetic defects by mutation at error catastrophe rates that we see in evolutionary biology studies today,]]

Another very important point that is either ignored or downplayed- but which can not be ignored by intellectually honest seekers who wish to discover the actual facts behind the hypothesis of macroevoltuion as to whether it is true or not. Wish more people woudl take soem time and actually check out this very important point. These are biological truths that have been tsted and tested and tested, and not simply opinions.

There have been a great many scientists who set out to disprove God, or to at least prove that God wasn’t needed, but who, after actually digging very deep into the actual facts, have discovered the very fingerprints of God all throughout the biolgical systems of species. These people were NOT influenced by religion, they simply confess that they simply could not reconcile their previous convictions abotu Macroevoltuion with hte actual facts that they were discovering after investigating beyond hte mere hype and assumptions.