Posted on 09/02/2009 4:50:19 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
When I learned that Dr. Stephen Meyer had written a new book on the evidence of design displayed in living cells, I expected to be impressed by it. I wasn’t prepared to have my mind blown—which is what happened. In Signature in the Cell, Meyer marshals the scientific facts and arguments to show that the staggering quantity of information contained in the “computer code” of our cellular DNA almost certainly cannot have been generated by undirected material processes. Instead, Meyer contends, in our combined human experience the kind of complex, functionally specified information that is present in living cells is known to be produced by only one source: an intelligent, purposeful mind.
The implications of that thesis are enormous, and the scientific arguments Meyer presents for it are compelling....
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
Ping!
The big question... can we genetically program all women to be hot... and to stay hot ?
The materialists may well start to drift over to ID when they realize that they can still be functionally atheist. ID does not imply GOd as religion thinks of it. Conceivably life and this whole universe could be an experiment run by a lab assistant in some meta universe in which our universe exists in a beaker on a bench.
Meyer will now become irrelevant.
Anyone that can believe that, and have difficulty with believing in God has a very strange mind.
Darwinists anymore have strange minds.
Just wait, it comes in flashes at about 45.
We blew that opportunity in a garden, a long long time ago. Now the quest is to be good, to be grateful for what we have, and to enjoy the beauty all around us.
For those who want to believe in Creation, it seems nothing will change their mind. In the past, humans didn’t understand the physical and biological basis of life and reproduction, It seemed miraculous. It was natural to believe it had a religious basis.
Today, we understand a great deal of how life works. One might think that greater understanding would reduce disbelief in scientific explanations. But, no. Instead we have the feeble argument that something this complex couldn’t have arisen naturally.
That argument is nothing but empty words. How in the world can anyone say what could or could not have come about naturally during the billions of years since life began on earth? Man’s intuition is not strong enough to grasp how long a period nature had to create life as it exists today.
“As Meyer notes, it has been calculated that the mathematical chance of producing a functional protein (any functional protein, not a specific protein) of a modest length of 150 amino acids long, is about one in 10^74. “
—What the heck is a “functional protein”? Can one tell by looking at a protein as to whether it’s “functional” or not? It seems to me that whether any protein is “functional” or not would depend entirely on the environment it’s in.
Bttt
As a "Philosopher of Science", who launched his book in a speech at at a political organization(Southern Heritage Foundation), he is already irrelevant.
“Darwin’s Origin of Species did not provide a theory about how life first arose, but he speculated privately that a protein compound “ready to undergo still more complex changes” might have been chemically formed in some “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc”
Why is that the ID/Creationists/ cdesign proponentsists have such a problem with the truth?
The fact is while the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – This is what Darwin said regarding that subject.
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).
Nice straw man he is setting up there. I know what the said but that is not what he really meant….
“PhD from Cambridge University in philosophy of science, with a thesis on origin of life research. Although not himself a biologist”
So a person who is not a biologist wrote a book about biology, I am not sure about you but I would much rather have my cerebral aneurysm treated by a board certified neurosurgeon than an orderly
The proponderance of evidence is on our side. What do the Evos have? What is their so-called “theory” is based on? Not only do they have zero evidence of macro-evolution ever happening, they also believe that life comes from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, super-sophisticated functionally specified digital codes from inanimate matter, etc, etc. ALL of the actual empirical evidence suggest just the opposite. Indeed, wasn’t it Richard Dawkins, the high priest of the Temple of Darwin, who declared that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose...but then turns around and tells us it is all just an illusion created by Darwin’s braindead natural selection god? LOL!
1. Your first point assumes a Hegelian view of the development of human reason. It is a convenient view which places the 21st century man as the smartest to ever walk the face of the Earth. It appeals to a man’s pride, so it is not to difficult to accept.
2. The second argument is called an “argument by assertion”, which appears to be the only form of reasoning being taught in the universities today. The “feeble” argument asks the question, given the complexity we see in every living thing, how much time is required for every undirected random mutation to occur at precisely the right moment, in conjunction with other random mutations, to build irreducibly complex functions, given the the probability of this not occurring, amongst reversible organic chemistry? This is an easy model to build and test, so why argue it, just go test the hypothesis. I am sure there is a computer somewhere with adequate memory and CPU to test this idea?
3. We cannot give God any credit, but it is okay if “nature” creates everything? What is nature in this context, another agent cause? What was wrong with the first one?
Here is the quote that you are referring to:
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ~ Richard Dawkins
Why did you not quote what Dr Dawkins said just a little bit further down the same page where he answers very question that he proposed?
“What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is no. It is a surprising answer, and we have known and understood it for only a century or so. When Charles Darwin first explained the matter, many people either wouldn’t or couldn’t grasp it. I myself flatly refused to believe Darwin’s theory when I first heard about it as a child. Almost everybody throughout history, up to the second half of the nineteenth century, has firmly believed in the opposite - the Conscious Designer theory. Many people still do, perhaps because the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education. It is certainly very widely misunderstood.”
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/dawkinsblindwatchmaker.doc
The statement that you are referring to is not in the correct context.
Why is that the ID/Creationists/ cdesign proponentsists have such a problem with the truth?
Also this has been pointed out to you many times, so you can no longer claim that is nothing but an outright attempt to mislead. The Evolutionary Theory does not address the origins of life. It shows how life has changed since its inception to make any statement other that that is simply untrue.
GGG your anti-science rhetoric paints all believers in a bad light, and is keeping many rational thinking people away from salvation.
You might want to rethink that whole “irreducibly complex” argument.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/
You call Darwin/Dawkin’s unscientific creation myth science?...LOL! How does the rest of Dawkins’ evo-religious quote change anything? He tells us that biology appears to be designed, even acknowledging that it is far more complicated than a sophisticated airline, but then turns around and tells us it’s all an illusion created by Darwin’s inanimate selection god. You guys crack me up!
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.