Life 2.0 (Science plays God)

The Economist ^ | 9/10/06 | The Economist

[metmom]

And you know that these *natural processes* weren't desgined and put into motion by intelligence... how?

[Ichneumon]

Are you not starting with the assumption, however, that the universe came into being without intelligence?

No I'm not.

I have demonstrated that whether it was or not, your claims about what natural processes can or can not do are grossly false.

Things behaving according to the laws that govern them are not evidence that order and complexity can arise without intelligence.

Sure they are.

If someone creates a machine that performs a certain function and it does that faithfully, the machine was still created by intelligence so, not only is the machine a result of intelligence but the product it produces is also, even though the intelligent source was not directly active in the creation of each and every product.

Okey dokey, as soon as you can demonstrate that the laws of physics were actually cranked out on an assembly line, you might have some basis for your currently unfounded conclusions. As it is, you're engaging in a classic example of circular reasoning.

In the meantime, your attempts to claim that natural processes cannot increase order or complexity are still gross falsehoods. They can and do. Your claims are as vapid and incorrect as claiming that a computer can't sort a list of numbers, because, gosh, computers were built by people. Nice non sequitur.

[Ichneumon]

And you know that these *natural processes* weren't desgined and put into motion by intelligence... how?

Where did I claim to know such a thing, and where did you hallucinate that I had based any of my post upon any such requirement?

[Ichneumon]

Life 2.0 (Science plays God)

So... Why is recombining or tweaking genes considered "playing God" while planting corn isn't?

[Ichneumon]

And you know that these *natural processes* weren't desgined and put into motion by intelligence... how?

As I already mentioned, I claimed no such knowledge. However, when *you* write something like, "Order and complexity are a result of intelligence" (in your post #12), perhaps *you* could answer the following question: "And you know that these *natural processes* were designed and put into motion by intelligence... how?"

[TN4Liberty]

Why did you address this reply to me?

[Ichneumon]

Why did you address this reply to me?

Because I cut/pasted a name from the wrong post in the thread. ;-)

[PatrickHenry]

It's not based on snobbery [PH's snobbish "I won't ping creation threads"], and again your gross misrepresentations do not help your cause.

Oh, but it is! I'm such a snob that I don't post for lots of other "science" threads, such as those about astrology, UFO anal probes, crystal power, ghosts, hollow earth, Nostradamus prophecies, etc. My whole ping list (now 396 names) is dedicated to such snobbery. We even have a word for it -- "rationality."

[freedumb2003]

Give me one example where order and complexity are known to arise from a non intelligent cause

Human beings.

[grey_whiskers]

In order to make these blanket statements, scientists would need to demonstrate that they indeed know all there is to know about all DNA and WHY it's the way it is. They're presuming they know more than an intelligent designer capable of creating an entire universe and the life in it. A bit presumptuous.

Worse than that, actually. One of the favorite refutations of theistic arguments is "How are *you* so specially favored to know what God is like. It's only your opinion, not falsifiable, etc. etc."

But they have no compunction, when considering life and/or "God", in jumping to the conclusion (but treating it as 'axiomatic') that God worked and thought primarily as an engineer. Why not a hacker, or even an artsy-fartsy "creative" type?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Nice post, but off-target / Wöhler PING!

"How" .NE. "Why"...

Cheers!

[freedumb2003]

CREATING life from scratch is the sole province of G-D, ain't it?

No more than mapping the genome. Or discovering penicillin. Remember, it used to be that death was God's will. Interfering with it was "playing God."

If God didn't want us messing around He would have made the information unavailable.

Nowhere in any Biblical text does it say "thou shalt stop scientific exploration when it gets to THIS point."

[freedumb2003]

We even have a word for it -- "rationality."

Within which we attempt to practice niceosity.

[PatrickHenry]

Even if you wouldn't prostitute your ping list for it, you love a good UFO-anal-probe article ...

The article, not the experience. However, I confess to using the ping list for crop circle threads. It is not yet a ban-able offense to ridicule that brand of idiocy.

[Liberal Classic]

ID means never having to say you're sorry.

[VadeRetro]

Has anyone else noticed that the science-literate posters get viciously attacked for "invading a religious thread" or "attacking religion" when they post on creationist/ID threads, yet the creationists/IDers cry about being ignored (or about "snobbery") when the science-literate posters decide to acquiesce and leave the creationists to their own sandbox?

You mean like metmom and mamzelle screaming at people making non-prayer comments on a "prayer thread" posted to News?

[VadeRetro]

Oh, but it is! I'm such a snob that I don't post for lots of other "science" threads, such as those about astrology, UFO anal probes, crystal power, ghosts, hollow earth, Nostradamus prophecies, etc. My whole ping list (now 396 names) is dedicated to such snobbery. We even have a word for it -- "rationality."

You forgot crop circles, the-moon-landings-were-faked, "Electric Universe," instantaneous light (AKA "Ralph Sansbury was right"), and "the Kronia Hypothesis." We could mention Halton Arp, Black Light Power, and white supremacist invocations of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

[PatrickHenry]

You forgot crop circles, the-moon-landings-were-faked, "Electric Universe" ...

Yes, the snobbery never ends.

[metmom]

The world around us is filled with a plethora of cases where order and complexity are known to arise from intelligence, either directly or indirectly. There are cases where the best that could be said is that no one knows for sure. But it is not reasonable to decide with no basis for that decision, that there is no intelligence behind order and complexity. There's simply no precedent for it.