Posted on 01/13/2003 10:33:14 AM PST by Heartlander
|
John G. West, Jr. Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology January 9, 2003 |
| Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
|
Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle dealing with national and international affairs. The Institute is dedicated to exploring and promoting public policies that advance representative democracy, free enterprise and individual liberty. For more information visit Discovery's website at http://www.discovery.org. Please report any errors to webmaster@discovery.org |
Neither is drinking whiskey and playing poker.
Considering that the above testimony is from the same person that has claimed that Hitler was Catholic and the Pope is not, I think I shall take it with a few grains of sand - as many as are in Florida's beaches.
You are asking IDers to engage i actual science. Don't hold your breath. I mean, if things are designed, one could write a decompiler that would tease out all the algorithms in DNA, so that we could predict the exact effect of any hypothetical change.
That is, if there are real algorithms that function in a deterministic system.
That would be interesting science. I wonder why IDers haven't proposed it as a line of research?
So, if we are observing a population in nature can you predict which mutations will occur during particular time period?
In some areas, I believe we can. The most simple example might be a lysogenic virus. It enters a host cell, insert its DNA into the host DNA. The inserted DNA may permit some of its genes to produce products which are good for the host. Or it may alter it, transform the host to a tumor, make toxins or go lytic, releasing more viruses.
Do we have to do this again? Here are the major points we've discussed, broken down by topic. Note that I give you credit for Simon Conway Morris' answer to you. As for everything else, you're basically full of it:
A. The Apostles were originally building an army
In post 138, you make the astounding claim that "the apostles were originally building an Army, but after they were killed, their teachings were perverted into religion. It's about POWER and always has been." I called you to back up your claim in post 151, you gave a non-commital response in post 152, and in post 153 I once again asked you to cite sources and informed you that I was aware of no secular or church documents (and there are thousands of such documents) that even remotely hint of your claim. Your reply in post 155 was that "Secular documents would be a good start. There, sorry, but that is all I am going to give you today." Again in post 158 I ask you to cite sources and then offered to point you to many references that refute your position. In post 164, you backed off and said that the proof documents were ones you "have read and seen and looked at" but "are NOT on the web, nor ... available to the general public." Yeah, right. If anyone had such documents they would be the most important archeaological find in 2000 years.
I include this because it is evidence of your propensity to make outlandish statements and, I believe, your true motive, which is to use evolution or any other tool because you believe that it somehow discredits belief in a higher power. To your credit, you ultimately backed down.Result: I won, you lost.B. Scientists living before Darwin cannot be called creationists
In post 23 I pointed out that scientists "from Galileo to Newton to Faraday" believed in God, as do "many, many thousands of scientists today." In post 169, rmmcdaniell made the ludicrous claim that "Galileo and Newton lived long before Darwin's time, [thus] you can't call him a creationist since evolution had not been considered."In post 174, you explained that before Darwin, "creationism was it, there were NO other theories at the time, therefore there were no what you would call today, creationists." We argued back and forth a bit, then in post 176 you claimed "The word creationist did not exist at that time, there were no creationists per se, because there was no need for it, there was NO other theory." In post 177, I replied that "what you can't stand is the fact that so many of the greatest scientists throughout history and today have come to the logical conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of life." I don't think I've ever written truer words.We argue some more, and in post 180 you belligerently state (emphasis yours): "THERE WAS NO COMPETING THEORY AT THE TIME." You do basically more of the same in post 189.In post 192, I point you towards an article showing that that the rudiments of the idea of evolution have been around since the ancient Greeks. I learned that in high school and I assumed that most everyone else had, too. I don't know what you were doing. The fact is that here were competing theories to creationism before Darwin. Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Faraday, and modern-day scientists as well known as Werner von Braun, Louis Agassiz, and Fred Hoyle all hold to creationism or intelligent design.In post 207, you wrote: "So far I have given you FACTS and links, you have given nothing but rhetoric." Funny, but you had given me no links at all, even when I pressed you for them. The only link was one I had given you!Even as late as post 228, you were still writing nonsense like "the term creationist DID NOT exist at the time of Galileo, Newton etc, because there were no other theories at the time." It's your continued talk of nonsense like this that truly makes me wonder how capable you are of rational thought.Result: I won, you lost.C. Peer-reviewed paper on ID
Also in post 207, you wrote: "Name me ONE paper that has been published on ID, give me names, a link, anything, on ANY paper that has been published on ID that has been peer reviewed, JUST ONE!! That's all I want."I pointed you to the 2000 paper by Conway Morris in which he states: "...if evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose. It is no coincidence that interest in the Anthropic Principle, which broadly seeks evidence for the boundary conditions of the Big Bang and the ensuing physics and chemistry uniquely favoring the emergence of life...is being extended to the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology."I know you don't recognize it, but that's a very strong statement. Even in the refute that you linked me to, he wrote, "we must admit the real possibility that life arose but once, and that we are alone and unique in the cosmos—with an awesome and, to many, unanticipated role as stewards of all other living things." In another link to refute my assertion that Morris was a proponent of intelligent design, the article descrbes him as a "proponent of an unorthodox stance" and says that his "conclusion that there is a kind of ‘direction' in evolution is part of the reason why Prof. Conway Morris's ideas are so controversial." His ideas are controversial precisely because traditional evolutionists argue that there is no design or purpose in the development of life.I will give you bonus points for e-mailing Dr. Morris and getting a reply. You are correct that he denies being an intelligent design theorist and I have to take his word at that. However, even you can't argue that his theories make the evolution establishment very nervous. He ought to make you very nervous, too. Even though I give you the victory here it's not one that you can be particularly proud of.Result: You won, I lost.D. Evolution does not explain how all the chemicals "evolve" to the right place at the right timeIn post 240, I discuss the idea of irreducible complexity with blood clotting. It's actually a complicated process and if any one of the chemicals is absent, blood doesn't just clot less well -- it doesn't clot at all. I point out that "if Darwinian evolution explained complex chemical systems, we would expect the body to be full of millions of compounds in the evolutionary hope that they might work together to the benefit -- not harm -- of the organism. That just isn't the case." Neither you nor anyone else made any attempt to answer that question.In post 247, you provide a link refuting my proposal that blood clotting is just one example of a system that is too complicated for evolution to produce. The author agrees with Michael Behe that "if we take away part of this system, we're in trouble" and admits that we can't know for sure how blood clotting evolved. According to him, all we know (drum roll for the standard answer here) is that it did evolve. We go from a very simple clotting system that the author outlines to the very complex system that we have today. All it takes it time. Where all those extra chemicals that traditional evolution theory predicts should be hanging around the body?In short, the article you provided does not "tear apart" Behe's hypothesis, as you say, but merely presents an alternative theory. Believe it or not, scientists disagree all the time. The thing that irritates you is that intelligent design theory is making greater and greater inroads among scientists, especially chemists and biochemists. The evolution establishment is threatened.And by the way, you make a mistake in assuming that evolution and intelligent design are an either/or situation. Evolution does occur, it's a question of degree. Behe believes that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. I'm not sure the evidence is there for that, but it wouldn't affect my religious beliefs if that were irrefutably proved to be the case. Kenneth Miller, whom you cite in your defense, is a devout, practicing Christian. Things that Conway Morris writes leads me to believe that he is, too. Your use of evolution to disprove religion will get you nowhere. Likewise, using religion to disprove evolution is a dead-end street, too.Result: Tie (and I'm being extremely generous).
Indeed, the study of self-organized complexity in biological systems is challenging. The following link explains the issues in more detail: Origin-of-Life Prize
Seems to me that the term 'random choice' is an oxymoron.
In cases where change does not result in death, the "benefit" or "harm" is determined in the dance between organism and environment. Nothing is absolute or permanent, so long as the organism is viable.
From the outside looking at the organism thus invaded, perhaps not. But what's going on inside?
For example, there may be restriction endonucleases which the host cell has “coded” to degrade incoming viruses. And some viruses may be incorporated in the host as latent DNA.
I don't see how vaccines could work if the mechanism of B-Cells and T-Cells didn't adjust to the invader.
Speaking of T-Cells, the following article on a new discovery about messaging is very interesting: Protein Essential for Switching On T-Cell Response
In some areas, I believe we can. The most simple example might be a lysogenic virus.
Ok, in this case we may say something about possible mutations. But is this true in general? Your statement about 'the randomness pillar' was pretty sweeping.
Regards,
Lev
Your statement about 'the randomness pillar' was pretty sweeping.
Indeed it was sweeping, but my research has been much more focused on the mathematics, physics and information theory involved. That is where the randomness pillar is in greatest peril because these disciplines are epistemologically zealous. Here are a few links so you can see for yourself:
The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut
Complexity International – Brief Comments on Junk DNA (pdf)
Language Like Features in Junk DNA
Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger Origin of Life Prize
Actually among the the real differences is that "intelligent design" claims the necessity of a "designer." As the "intelligent design" proponents fail to publish, it's rather difficult to say what else they propose.
Actually among the the real differences is that "intelligent design" claims the necessity of a "designer." As the "intelligent design" proponents fail to publish, it's rather difficult to say what else they propose.
The major players are fellows at the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. On their website, they define intelligent design as follows:
With regard to publishing, there has been an effort since last October to transform intelligent design to a scientific discipline. Personally I don't think that's necessary - because if evidence of design is there, it will be found by the mathematicians, physicists and information theorists already at work. People who work in your and related disciplines will not likely ignore inconvenient results.
The sciences you mentioned allow or will allow us to predict with various degrees of accuracy what will happen to the genome of a particular population given a particular set of initial conditions. But I still don't see how this makes mutations that occur in earth's organizms non-random. Yes, your research may show that certain virus V causes mutation M in organism O. But it doesn't tell us whether O will actually come into contact with V. You may reseach other areas and predict that too, but what about 'second order' causes? What about other factors that cause mutations? (known and unknown) That's a whole lot of things you need to research.
Regards,
Lev
People who work in your and related disciplines will not likely ignore inconvenient results.
I did not mean to imply that molecular biologists and the ilk would overlook inconvenient results. The historical sciences - like anthropology, archeology, egyptology and evolutionary biology - argue amongst themselves continually because their work is highly subjective.
The disciplines that I mentioned go far beyond the task of modeling evolution. They are looking at the genetic code itself, what mechanism may give rise to autonomy and self-organizing complexity, functional complexity, information content and more.
Randomness is counter-indicative to order, complexity, symbolization, memory and conditional processes.
Why does RNA have to learn anything new? RNA has always had an intriguingly right mix of properties. (It both stores genetic information and catalyzes reactions.) It wouldn't be RNA if it didn't. RNA World (Overview).
Whatever you do, don't skip The For-Dummies Intro!
Alamo-Girl has shown nothing about prediction of mutations that is anything more than random. Most of the virus example doesn't have anything to do with DNA damage. When viruses do cause damage, it's random.
Alamo-Girl has shown nothing about prediction of mutations that is anything more than random. Most of the virus example doesn't have anything to do with DNA damage. When viruses do cause damage, it's random.
Viral evolution is often used as evidence for the theory of evolution - e.g. Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics
Germinal mutations can also be caused by viral infection, i.e. it is not limited to chemical mutagens and background radiation. Targets of Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressors: Key for Understanding Basic Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis
IMHO, if the viral mutations of DNA were not largely predictable (e.g. not random) - medicine would have great difficulty in treating infections and developing vaccines. Predictability also helps to determine offspring prone to certain kinds of cancer.
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.