Scientists Vie To Break Junk DNA's Secret Code

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | Roger Highfield

[Modernman]

I am the exact opposite, the more I see of the Human Biology, the more I believe it is evolution, and not Intelligent Design, the more I believe that God got it all started, and then stepped away and let it happen.

Hmmm... I think that's where I stand, too. If ID is a code word for "God is involved on a day-to-day basis," I think that's dead wrong and pretty hubristic. If ID means "God started the whole thing, but that's about it," I can buy it.

[AdamSelene235]

He has a little book of anecdotes out entitled "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" which makes for good light reading.

[Ogmios]

A single cell is not at all like a computer component.

Living cells can recreate, and as they recreate, Mutate. When you have billions of them, some of them are gonna get a good mutation that works for them, and survive and reproduce, and those that get a bad one, will die off.

Mutation, and natural selection, 2 engines of evolutions, that help drive it and have driven it to where it is. Computer Components do not do this.

Evolution could very easily be the explanation for the human body, because in all honesty, I would be kind of embarassed if it turned out that my God actually created us from nothing, because he obviously was new at this God thing, if he did. And far from perfect.

Please nobody get all offended, that is my personal opinion only.

[Prince Charles]

Huge tracts of human DNA, previously written off as meaningless junk, have been found to contain a hitherto unrecognised "genetic grammar", making the language of our genes much more complex than previously thought.

Hmm.. perhaps it's the code for "instinct" or handed down long-term species memory.

[riri]

Computer Components do not do this

Yet.

twilight zone music....

[Ogmios]

That is not at all what ID claims, Now, if ID claimed this, but claimed that it was faith based, I could go for it rather easily. But ID claims that it is somehow scientific.

As soon as ID stepped across the line from faith, to scientific, that is where I cross the line and say, I don't think so.

ID as faith, I can go for that, ID as science, laughable in it's claim, completely and totally laughable.

My belief is not at all scientific, it is a faith, I have faith that this is probably what God did. It is ID, yes, but it is based on faith, but if anyone tried to tell me that faith was actually science, I would tell them that they were A: Completely off their rocker, or B: are clueless as to what science is actually about.

And I have, LOL

[Ogmios]

Yet...

I can go for that!! ;)

[Publius6961]

I'm no scientist, but I will forever be sure that there is no such thing as "Junk DNA".

[r9etb]

I'll respond to both of you, as you seem to be addressing the same point.

Science can only use natural rules and laws as causations for explanations.

At root, you're approaching the problem from the materialistic standpoint, which a priori assumes that God plays no active role in the universe.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that God exists, and that He was/is involved in the creation of life. In that case, your version of science would appear to be futile. But that's not a failure of science, per se, so much as it is a failure of your assumptions to account for all possible explanations. Your definition of "natural" would obviously be inadequate.

God is outside of those rules, he can break any rule he wants at any time, therefore any explanation using God as a causation will only be true when and if God decides to intervene.

This is a strawman argument, whereby you assume what God will or will not do, and then use it as a "proof" that God can play no role in scientific studies. However, we can just as easily assume that God is consistent, meaning that even if He chooses to break a rule in a particular case (i.e., perform a miracle), he does not therefore change the rules, which remain in force.

This is a very old idea. In Romans, for example, St. Paul says:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:19-20)

At any rate, if God exists, then any science that excludes God among a list of possible causes would obviously be flawed.

In a sense, though, God really is "outside" of science, in the sense that He would necessarily be outside the universe in some manner. Science, being limited to what it could measure within the universe, would be unable conclusively to prove or disprove His existence.

That is not the same as saying we can't know He exists -- the idea of revelation offers a non-scientific means to understanding it.

Finally, if we assume (again for the sake of argument) the idea of a living and aware God, then we'd have to take into consideration the idea that He has reasons (whatever they may be) for not simply revealing Himself unambiguously to us

[RightWhale]

What is the 98% of the code that our cells don't use? Easy, it's viral infections our ancestors caught.

[Ogmios]

In scientific study, God cannot be used as a causation, you may see this as a fault, I do not.

Faith is for God, scientific evidence, and laws are for science, the 2 are different and do 2 different things, you mix God with science, you get religion, so keep God in religion, because that is exactly where he belongs.

Science cannot use God as a causation and still be science.

Therefore any question of God, must be made at a faith based level, or religion, and science cannot use faith, therefore science cannot use God.

Easy stuff, and I don't want science using God, because then it's answers become useless, and all study stops.

Why should we study why and how, if God did it? God did it, OK, we know the answer, we're done.

I don't want science using God for anything, because that is not what it is for. And science agrees with me, it cannot use God as a causation, because God is beyond physical laws, and can break them at any time he wishes.

And also the fact that you cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God, which is a REALLY good reason for science to stay away from such faith based thinking.

[r9etb]

Science cannot use God as a causation and still be science.

For that to be a non-psychotic concept, science has to assume that God can never cause anything. Not to mention that this assumption presumes an overarching knowledge of "How Things Are," and that God is not among those "Things."

You can relegate God to "faith" if you want, but in so doing, you also need to be very clear about the assumptions you're making with regard to science.

If, as you say, God played a role at some level in the creation of life, then either you're admitting a serious limitation on what science can do; or you're improperly constraining science such that it cannot reach the proper conclusion.

[Ogmios]

Science is limited, why is that such a problem for you?

Faith in God should be enough for you, for yourself, but science cannot place it's evidence in God, it cannot place it's faith in God, because it is not a tool designed for such use.

I am properly constraining science, for it cannot answer the question, what is God? Therefore it cannot use God as any sort of causation, and yes, it is therefore limited in it's scope.

It is a tool for a purpose, to add something to it that is unexplainable by it, is not just wasting it, but destroying any value that it has, as the tool that it is.

Science and human beings are limited, God is not, therefore to try and use something that is unlimited, in something that is limited, is pretty psychotic as far as I am concerned.

[Modernman]

You can relegate God to "faith" if you want, but in so doing, you also need to be very clear about the assumptions you're making with regard to science.

I just don't see any scientific way to prove the existence of God. Can we use the Hubble telescope to see him? Can we check for the DNA of the Holy Spirit?

You can make the argument that God started the whole thing, but that's a theological premise, not a scientific one. Why would we want to introduce that debate into schools, for example?

[js1138]

Science has as a necessary and fundamental prerequisite, the concept of uniform natural laws. As a practical matter, most scientists assume our knowledge of these laws is incomplete, and that our statements of these laws are approximations.

Presumably, any action taken by God that is not in accordance with uniformitarianism would be perceived as a miracle and would be unexplainable by science. However, the history of science contains numerous instances of explanations for events that were formerly regarded as discontinuous. So science habitually assumes that anomolous events can be studied and understood as resulting from uniform laws.

We are al free to choose what we perceive to be miraculous and what we perceive to be the uniform outplaying of natural law. Science, however, is defined by its assumption of natural law. Without this assumption, it isn't science.

[r9etb]

Science is limited, why is that such a problem for you?

It's not a problem for me. All I'm doing is trying to clarify assumptions.

For example, you say that science "cannot use God as any sort of causation, and yes, it is therefore limited in its scope."

But again -- if God exists and created the universe, and I'm a scientist hammering away at the idea of what caused the universe, then I've got a real problem if I don't include God among the possible causes.

Now, I tend to agree with you when we discuss scientific stuff in a purely mechanical sense.

[r9etb]

Science, however, is defined by its assumption of natural law. Without this assumption, it isn't science.

But it's also just an assumption.

[r9etb]

You can make the argument that God started the whole thing, but that's a theological premise, not a scientific one. Why would we want to introduce that debate into schools, for example?

But we can turn that around, too. You can also make the argument that the whole thing just sort of randomly happened, in some way. But that, too, is a "theological" premise, and not a scientific one. Why would we want to introduce that debate into schools?

[js1138]

Of course. But it's a assumption that has several hundred years of results.

[r9etb]

I just don't see any scientific way to prove the existence of God.

I think the only "scientific" way to prove the existence of God would be if He came down to Earth in a real and tangible way, so that nobody could deny His existence. Like, maybe by showing up as a human being, or something. And maybe being killed and rising from the dead....

Or (and here we're getting into theology) maybe for whatever reason he just makes Himself known to us individually.