Intelligent Design and The Inner Life of the Cell

Studio Daily ^ | Jully 20, 2006 | Beth Marchant

[jas3]

That's correct. Are you familiar with Craig Ventner's new company?

jas3

[WhatsItAllAbout]

"Complex, ordered, logical, factual, goal oriented, bustling, teamwork."

I think you are absolutly correct in your assesment. Now lets multiply this by all the diffentent cell types that make up the 10,000,000,000,000 (10 Trillion) cells of the human and all the diffentent process and information they share, and it's looking more intelligent all the time.

[WhatsItAllAbout]

"That's correct. Are you familiar with Craig Ventner's new company?"

I have heard that some folks are working on syntactic/artificial DNA/Cells/Life, but if they are successful, they only strengthen the case for an Intelligent Designer don't you think?

[NonZeroSum]

What's simpler an Intelligent Designer, or untold countless Universes?

That's called a "false choice." Even a single universe doesn't require a designer.

[WhatsItAllAbout]

"What's simpler an Intelligent Designer, or untold countless Universes?

That's called a "false choice." Even a single universe doesn't require a designer."

Maybe "false choice" is the correct term, but to me one is simpler than many, and the more variables you have(in our case we said 30) the more intelligence you need to render any meaningful information or results from them.

[xenophiles]

Could someone please explain to me why it is that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive?

I'll take a crack at it.

ID, as stated by some people, says nothing. As stated by others it says that living species such as, say, elephants, were designed and built by one or more intelligent beings. That means that someone thought up elephants in some detail, then made them (after that the elephants made more elephants).

Evolution states that the process that gave rise to elephants was not directed by a plan. It was contingent on circumstances. Are big protruding teeth an advantageous feature? It depends. Should a large mammal spend most of its time on dry ground, or wading in the river? It depends. The animals in question will either perish or else survive and pass on their patterns-- there's no plan.

To say that both are true is to say that a designer knew exactly what an elephant should look like, then left it all up to chance and claimed that the results were exactly what was intended.

[ghostrider]

It is amazing how many folks can't see the forest because they are focusing so narrowly on the leaves.

[TChris]

Umm.... Wow.

Impressive animation. The human body is truly miraculous.

[xenophiles]

Oh, how could I forget this point:

Evolution explains (in general, not yet in detail) the origin of intelligence, ID does not.

[sleepy_hollow]

"And if cells were "intelligently designed" then the designer needs some remedial training for they are models of inefficiency, duplicity of function, are wholly insecure, and are enormously information intensive."


See, there you go! You are not making statements or drawing scientific conclusions, yourself!

You are, in fact, making statements about how you believe God must behave. You are denying that there is a creator OF A CERTAIN TYPE!

You are messing with the metaphysics, not the science. You really need to be honest about this, at least with your self, since I suspect you will deny to me that you are doing this.

[The Mayor]

I watched this 55 minute CD the other night from the author of this book. http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ it was excellent.

This will have the Darwin people pulling their hair out.

[NonZeroSum]

You apparently don't understand the phrase "false choice." This is a logical fallacy in argument, when someone states two positions, and asks someone else to choose one, even though there are in fact other possibilities.

[WhatsItAllAbout]

"You apparently don't understand the phrase "false choice." This is a logical fallacy in argument, when someone states two positions, and asks someone else to choose one, even though there are in fact other possibilities."

You are correct I didn't understand. Let me re-state, Of the two choices, "An Intelligent Designer of one Anthropic Universe" or "untold countless other Universes which are not hospitable to life" which would be a simpler explanation.

Keeping in mind we do have the current known hospitable Universe.

[jas3]

I am not just *implying* that "gut feelings" are irrelevant, but I am *stating* that "gut feelings" are not a rational means to arrive at scientific conclusions. If more people actually studied microbiology, these threads would be far shorter.

For the record, I am trained in Microbiology/Bacteriology.

For the record, how much of your science training required you to arrive at scientific *CONCLUSIONS* based on your gut feelings rather than by analyzing data? I did not type that one shouldn't examine specific phenomenon based upon what their gut tells them. I very pointedly stated that one cannot draw CONCLUSIONS from one's gut rather than from one's brain. The difference between the two should be apparent, but I will give an example in case others are still confused.

Example of using one's gut to reach a conclusion: I saw a TV show and at the end of it my emotional reaction was that the conclusions were incorrect because they invalidated some of my prior assumptions.

Example of using one's brains to reach a conclusion: I was sure that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects of the same size and shape but just less dense, so I ran dozens of double blind studies, and it turned out that my gut was wrong.

I am also trained to broaden my view and not to focus narrowly on what are perceived to be "knowns."

Nobody has asked you to focus on unknowns. However it is KNOWN, for example, that the urethra runs through the prostate gland leading to great difficulty in urinating for many men as they age. Human anatomy is well understood. It would be a much better design to run the urethra AROUND the prostate or to have located the prostate somewhere else. CONCLUSION: if urethra placement has been intelligently designed, then it was designed by someone with a twisted sense of humor and/or someone who enjoys the suffering of old men.

If you are trained in science, then you should know that a great many discoveries started out as "gut feelings" or a hypothesis based upon an analysis of factual data.

No argument there. However the original poster reached his CONCLUSION based on his gut feeling.

And if cells were "intelligently designed" then the designer needs some remedial training for they are models of inefficiency, duplicity of function, are wholly insecure, and are enormously information intensive.

Talk about a narrow focus - whew!

Really? Narrow? I would have thought just the concepts of information theory and thermodynamics alone would lead to the opposite response. Have you ever considered how much more secure your genome would be if it required authentication prior to your ribosomes accepting any old mRNA that happend to pass it in the night?

Humans will be designing our own cells in a few years, and they will borrow from nature, but will also VASTLY improve upon so called "intelligent" design.

It is certainly conceivable, and just possibly as in the case of breast milk, humans may find out at a later date that there was more than they originally thought. This is precisely why one should maintain a broad view and not focus narrowly on what are perceived to be "knowns."

You gravely underestimate what is actually now known.

jas3

[NonZeroSum]

Of the two choices, "An Intelligent Designer of one Anthropic Universe" or "untold countless other Universes which are not hospitable to life" which would be a simpler explanation.

I don't know. They both seem pretty simple to me. In any event, simplicity is only one criterion of many when evaluating theories. Invoking an untestable theory of an Intelligent Designer is a scientific cop out. And as I said, there remains the theory that is neither of these two options, which is what most scientists believe--this universe with natural laws that happen to result in intelligent life.

[jas3]

"That's correct. Are you familiar with Craig Ventner's new company?"

I have heard that some folks are working on syntactic/artificial DNA/Cells/Life, but if they are successful, they only strengthen the case for an Intelligent Designer don't you think?

Nope, I think that shows that if there were an intelligent designer, his designs fall well short of human ingenuity. There is not a single cell line which cannot be improved by humans from red blood cells to lymphocytes.

jas3

[jas3]

"And if cells were "intelligently designed" then the designer needs some remedial training for they are models of inefficiency, duplicity of function, are wholly insecure, and are enormously information intensive."

See, there you go! You are not making statements or drawing scientific conclusions, yourself!

You are, in fact, making statements about how you believe God must behave. You are denying that there is a creator OF A CERTAIN TYPE!

Yes...you are correct. There could be a creator who is a bad designer. But then the theory should not be called "Intelligent Design". I will suggest the name: "Good Enough For Now Design" instead.

You are messing with the metaphysics, not the science. You really need to be honest about this, at least with your self, since I suspect you will deny to me that you are doing this.

I never said there wasn't a creator. Just that if he actively designed humans, he did a bad job. I have a urology book of pediatric deformities for you to page through if you doubt that.

jas3

[mc6809e]

Where did the simple structures come from? How did they achieve their specific atomic weights in order to form the carbon molecules that are the basis of human life?

Who knows?

But if you're going to assume design, ask yourself why, if a designer could set such values, why he didn't do a better job? I mean, most of the universe looks like completely dead, empty space. Seems to me he could have designed something a little more hospitable to life.

[mc6809e]

Replace the word spontaneous with at some point in time, and it still boggles the mind.

But that would be a dumb replacement because it misses the point. It misses the point in the sense that there were many points in time, not just one, where small, incremental changes occurred, and these changes were occurring across potentially trillions of structures.

When I think about how much time has gone by, how many organisms there have been, and how those organisms that survived mutations reproduced, evolution seems obvious and magic unnecessary.

[sleepy_hollow]

I think you still misunderstand my point. In fact, you further underscore my point.

You seem to be trying to use evolution to disprove the existence of God. You say that you never said there was no creator, but you also seem to think you know what "creators" are like by your opinions on what constitutes design or good design or intelligent design. Where do you get this information/knowledge? How is it scientific to claim truths about the nature of a creator? Where does one go for scientific experiments on the types of creators? You observe soemthing you find inefficient, and then decide that proves there is no intelligent design, or that the creator has certain qualities/limitations. How do you prove this scientifically without having the same/superior knowledge as the creator? You are merely projecting your own beliefs (dare I say feelings, hunches, urges?) onto this flawed/limited creator idea you are willing to allow.

I would submit that you simply are using evolutionary theory as a metaphysical statement about you own beliefs. I don't think you do it intentionally, but are blind to it by your emotions and beliefs.

The fact is that evolution is not scientific either if it only leads to metaphysical conclusions that are, themselves, the beliefs being proven.

Evolution is about God, not about evolution. Think about it. Read all of the evolutionary giants. They all make pronouncements about God. Why? I submit it is because they are using evolution, not for scientific, but for metaphysical (dare I say religious?) purposes. THey are trying to deal with the problem of evil and evolution is their theodicy, their theory about why "bad things happen to good people."

I know you will chafe at this assertion, but please, then define evolution without reference to the metaphysical.

Purely scientific discussion does not require a belief, but somehow evolution does, and is still scientific?

It is a real problem that the evolutionists need to confront. Their logic is flawed, probably fatally.

By the way, I manage hundreds of scientists and engineers and I also do not buy the notion that the universe is bilions of years old, or that evolution is proven or that there are any transitional forms or homolgies that are conclusive or dating techniques that are without serious flaws, or any of the conventional wisdom. I see lots of problems with the "science" behind theose assertions. I believe that Truth and Reality are to be sought and discerned, not that conventional wisdom should be upheld for its own sake. I may be wrong, but I know I am right or wrong, one or the other. I am not confused about that in the least.

What say you? Do you believe in trying not to believe?