Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
This isn’t about positive proof. This is about the fact that the irreducible structure of life makes naturalistic explanations impossible (and that “only Intelligent Design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.”)
As the paper states, whether you start with inorganic matter, or whether you start with a first proto-cell, autopoieses (self-making) renders naturalistic evolution impossible.
All excellent points. But let’s not forget about the self-making part of the argument (which renders naturalistic evolution IMPOSSIBLE)!
So our choices are limited to either (A)Naturalist abiogenesis, or (B)Intelligent Design and creation of life, already speciated as it exists today.
Even if you start with a hypothetical first proto-cell (from who knows where), life’s irreducible structure renders materialist evolution impossible.
Thanks for posting. While I don’t have time to participate I hope to read some good discussions here.
If there had to be an Intelligent Designer, who designed the Intelligent Designer?
Does anyone think about who or what created God?
Or is it that all of creation, by definition has to have a creator?
That would seem to imply that no mutation from the origial form is survivable.
==If there had to be an Intelligent Designer, who designed the Intelligent Designer?
Irrelevant to the argument. As the author states in Part 2:
Identity of the Designer
“Richard Dawkins argues that intelligent design is a nonsolution to the origin of life issue because it begs the question of the identity of the designer:
‘If complex organisms demand an explanation,
so does a complex designer. And it’s no solution
to raise the plea that the Intelligent Designer is
simply immune to the normal demands of scientific
explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in
the foot. You cannot have it both ways.’
This is a red herring. There is a pencil on my desk that I can deduce was intelligently designed, and Richard Dawkins would agree with me. But neither of us need to know the identity of the designer in order to come to that conclusion. All we need is the evidence of objective knowledge and the logic of historical inference. The identity of the designer is a separate issue to the evidence of design.”
My pleasure. If you find a spare moment, feel free to join in :o)
==That would seem to imply that no mutation from the origial form is survivable.
Single mutations have very little to do with the argument. The argument is that all life exhibits an irreducible structure that cannot be explained via materialist evolution. If you haven’t already, I suggest reading both papers above as they constitute the affirmative.
You nailed it. Anytime darwinism is challenged, in any way shape or form, it’s ALWAYS attacked as a religious insult to science, thus rendering evolution no longer theory, but a cult hijacked by godless liberals.
Like journalism, education in general, politics, law...etc. science is not immune to the corosive godless liberal agenda and people that have severe hang-ups with God.
Hey Tpanther. Did you read the papers above. Would very much like to hear your comments on the same.
If the affirmation is submitted as an absolute, then then anything that may be relevant is a consideration.
I think about it all the time!
I don’t think human reasonng within it’s current confines is able to begin to even properly address such a question.
And I don’t know that we’ll reach a plane of existence that will ever allow us to fully wrap our minds, such as they are, around such a concept.
That’s fine, but it would be nice if you at least attempted to address the broader argument (i.e. autopoiesis as being a prerequisite for all life; inversely-causal, information-driven, structured hierarchy of autopoiesis not being reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry; the unbridgeable abyss between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environment; perfectly pure, single-molecule precision of biochemistry, etc, etc).
I’m reading it now, off and on, in bits and pieces, thanks for asking!
I’ll try to get around to that after work.
Talk to you then. All the best—GGG
That's where it's going to go. Get used to It.
The silence is deafening in here. Are those on the other side of the debate stumped? Usually, there would be over a hundred replies by now.
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.