Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Abiogenesis Challenge

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over on a recent thread, we witnessed some flailing about with respect to abiogenesis (see comments 374-376). Thoroughly confused about critical distinctions, such as the difference between deterministic forces and contingent possibilities, some seem to think that the fact that “nature forms stars and planets” means that nature can do just about anything. No need to ask any hard questions, kids! Just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities.

This is what so much of the materialistic abiogenesis creation story amounts to.

I have posted essentially this challenge before, but for Zachriel and anyone else who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is anything more than a laughable made-up story, here it is again:

—–

For purposes of this challenge, I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arginine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, comets, dust clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown.

Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all for the present exercise.

Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed?

—–

Note:

I also reiterate my open invitation for Zachriel, AVS, billmaz and anyone else to do a guest post laying out their strongest evidence for abiogenesis. There have been no takers yet, but the invitation remains open.

Comments
We might start with what we do know, that the Earth is billions of years old, and life began within millions of years after it cooled enough for liquid water to form.
Except we really don't know that. Everything we do know says that living organisms are the result of an Intelligent Design and our place in the universe just adds to that inference.Virgil Cain
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Zachriel: "There are a number of speculations about abiogenesis, but none of them form a complete theory." I know you have always been "cautious" about OOL, and I appreciate that attitude. OOL is such an easy win for ID that there is almost no fun in debating it. (I know, you will not agree :) ) But believe me, the origin of eukaryotes is no smaller problem. And metazoa. And, and...gpuccio
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Joe/Jack/virgil/Frankie/whoever, evolution just proposes the mechanism, not a step by step account of how it occurred. Much in the same way that I can propose the mechanisms involved in the production of a car without knowing the step by step process that is actually used.brian douglas
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: heterogeneous cell What is a "heterogeneous cell"?Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
I am sorry about what happened to you and your family KF, I have noticed that when it comes to Opponents of ID that many of them are not balanced mentally, they are like the rabid SJW's that go after people. We are dealing with some seriously screwed up people.Jack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson: Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed? Not from amino acids. There are a number of speculations about abiogenesis, but none of them form a complete theory. We might start with what we do know, that the Earth is billions of years old, and life began within millions of years after it cooled enough for liquid water to form.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
At the origin of the heterogeneous cell, you have to create utility through representation. A thing must be specified if it is to appear in genome and be formalized into heritable memory. Those who believe life came about through unguided material means, must therefore be able to demonstrate some material principle behind representation arising in an inanimate environment. And not only representation, but spatially-oriented representation, or they will not have the infortmation-bearing capacity required for the cell to record itself into memory (and begin the cycle of life). That's a damn high hill, even for a stepper. Basically, its a delusion, driven by commitments to ideology.Upright BiPed
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
KF, They should be called irrationalwiki because they certainly aren't rational and as you and me and born and box and others have pointed out, materialism cannot ground rationality but undermines it.Jack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
JJ, stalking is serious . . . and in my case it has been real world also including extended family (yes, I have had to go to the police). Post Umpqua, it is downright irresponsible to the point of potential bloodguilt. That said, we do not need to resort to schoolyard level name twisting and name calling. A spiral to the bottom in a mud puddle fight with a pig is a losing proposition as he is more vicious and experienced. There is a reason we are counselled not to throw pearls to pigs who cannot appreciate value and will viciously turn on you -- have you thought about their canines? Trolls crave attention so beyond a certain point of speaking for record, studiously ignore as is happening with a penumbra of attack and hate sites. Let us focus the empty chair on the debate stage and the two stand-ins so far. The implication is, if you all don't put up something substantially better the strawman you allowed to stand by default is in for a major, point by point dissection. The clock is ticking, and remember abiogenesis is the root of the evolutionist tree of life. Where, the "natural selection (etc) works magick . . . yes I point to the occult roots . . . dodge is off the table as code using vNkSR reproduction integrated with metabolic automaton in a smart gated encapsulated cell is what is to be explained. Just codes and communication alone imply language, communication systems, and arguably purpose to effect co-ordination. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
PPPS: Rational Wiki (which imposes philosophical materialism on science via so-called methodological naturalism) is even more revealing:
Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents.[1][2] This hypothesis has yet to be empirically proven although the current evidence is generally supportive of it. Give those crazy scientists a half billion or so years to play,[3] though, and they might do just as well as nature once did!
Fallacy of confident manner, anyone? KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
PPS: What you have to be a lot better than, courtesy WIKI:
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e?ba?.??d??n?s?s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-?-siss[1] U.S. English pronunciation: /?e??ba?o??d??n?s?s/),[2] or biopoiesis,[3] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[4][5][6][7] It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1[8] billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system.[9] The study of abiogenesis involves three main types of considerations: the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological,[10] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three. Many approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. It is generally accepted that current life on Earth descended from an RNA world,[11] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[12][13] The Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basic chemicals of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions intended to be similar to early Earth. Several mechanisms of organic molecule synthesis have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[14] Complex organic molecules have been found in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.[15][16][17][18] The panspermia hypothesis suggests that microscopic life was distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and other small Solar System bodies and that life may exist throughout the Universe.[19] It is speculated that the biochemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable epoch when the age of the universe was only 10–17 million years.[20][21] Panspermia hypothesis answers the question as from whence life, not how life came to be; it only relocates the origin of life to a locale outside the Earth. Nonetheless, Earth is the only place in the Universe known to harbor life.[22][23] The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years.[24][25][26] The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates at least from 3.5 billion years ago,[27][28][29] during the Eoarchean Era after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean Eon. There are microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia.[30][31][32] Other early physical evidence of a biogenic substance is graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in southwestern Greenland[33] as well as "remains of biotic life" found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia.[34][35] According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."[34]
As of now, that is what is in the empty chair. Hint, target rich environment. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
KF, If somebody wants to be treated with respect than they should act in a respectful manner. And when opponents are calling people by others names then it is fair to do to them also. And when they are not posting any content but just ankle biting, then it is fair to point it out. Furthermore, Thanks to Virgil posting the names on this threads of BD, sock accounts, Now I know that the person stalking me on UD is a sock account of somebody who also goes by the identity of william spearshake etc. I looked into what Mr Cain said and found this. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/11/pwned-by-lawyers-not.html William SpearshakeSaturday, November 14, 2015 5:20:00 PM Who is this Jack Jones joker? Is he another sock puppet of Joe G.? He has the same abusive nature. There is also this. William SpearshakeMonday, November 02, 2015 8:34:00 AM Jack Jones sounds very much like Joe G/Virgil Cain/Frankie, etc. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/11/florobama-speaks.html I don't know who Joe.G is but now I know that brian douglas is a sock account of this William. If you support People stalking people on UD with sock accounts and calling them with names of somebody else while not providing any content and just ankle biting, KF then that is up to you, but I think they do not deserve respect.Jack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
M62, crickets indeed (and empty chairs on the stage), for three years now. KF PS: Hint to materialists, please don't leave Wiki to stand in for the empty chair.kairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
VC and JJ, please moderate tone. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Andre- Anyone who is educated in evolution knows that evolutionism claims to have step-by-step processes for producing the diversity of life. brian douglas/ william spearshake/ carpathian/ puke breath is just an ignorant trolling sock-puppet.Virgil Cain
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Was it not Alicia that claimed we have a step by step account for life?Andre
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
OP: Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed? (Crickets)mike1962
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
@18 “brian douglas is obviously brain-dead.” "More than Brian Douglas realizes" hahahaha Everyone can see Brian is retarded. hahahaha Now...Brian is welcome to believe in the funny idea of nature existing before it existed or believe that chemistry acted differently in the past. But you notice that he cannot provide any logical arguments for abiogenesis. He is just on UD as an ankle biter. You can only laugh at morons like that. @14 "brian douglas is obviously brain-dead." Yep, that is Brain Deadouglass for you hahahaJack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
brain damage brian douglas, The reference is Darwin's "On the Origins of Species". In it he posited a step-by-step process for giving the appearance of design. The claim is repeated in biology textbooks that discuss evolution. Delusional people like you refer to it as the theory of evolution. Or are you admitting total ignorance?Virgil Cain
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
F/N: Years ago I found that trying to debate detail points with marxists (benchmark ideologues)without addressing the underlying worldview foundations problems was pointless. So, I learned to always connect to the foundational issue and punch that home. It will be resisted, but in the end that is what builds the critical mass for breakthrough. Just a thought for those pre-occupied with details and latest this or that. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
“brian douglas is obviously brain-dead.” More than Brian Douglas realizes
Atheists Don’t Really Exist: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14DktPLhEDt1rxJgUWbkpLCWuDZEJDz4xnrLLVfsXkk8/edit
bornagain
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
"brian douglas is obviously brain-dead." Thanks for the kind words. They always make for a more enjoyable discussion. " Why is it that our opponents are too dim to comprehend that theirs is the position that claims to have a step-by-step mechanism for not only producing living organisms but also the diversity of life." Reference please. If you are going to make a ridiculous claim like that, I would like to read the actual claim. Nobody ever said that we had a step-by-step mechanism for the development of life. Ease keep up Jack.brian douglas
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
BD Further to this, it is necessary to face the issue that by virtue of self referential incoherence that undermines responsible rational freedom -- required for reasoned, evidence and logic led discussion, warrant and knowledge -- evolutionary materialist scientism and fellow travellers [EMS & FT] is inherently self referentially incoherent and self-falsifying, even before we look at specific details, evidence etc. Just by its very nature of claiming to wholly account for human reality including the life of the mind. Nancy Pearcey has summed that up very well:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
I am strongly convinced on long experience that until this is faced, no serious progress will be possible. For this imposition is warping both the science and the institutions that carry science onwards to influence society and general opinion. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
The best materialistic explanation for the OoL comes from deep-sea vents- not the black smokers but the other, more alkaline vents. It is posited that the porous rock formations provided cell-like areas for the mixing of minerals, the start of macromolecule creation and the start of a Krebs cycle (Nick Lane "Life Ascending"). Of course it is untestable but it is the best they have.Virgil Cain
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
brian douglas is obviously brain-dead. Why is it that our opponents are too dim to comprehend that theirs is the position that claims to have a step-by-step mechanism for not only producing living organisms but also the diversity of life. ID does not make such a claim so ID does not have to posit such a thing. ID claims to have a step-by-step process for detecting design and we have shared that. Trying to turn their onus onto ID is a sure sign of ignorance and desperation.Virgil Cain
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
BD, Behind the debates on particular points, I find there is an imposition of a priori evolutionary materialist scientism and its fellow travelleers dressed up in lab coats. With such priors imposed, I think a predetermination of the general sort of thing that "must" have happened is undermining objective evaluation of the origin of FSCO/I challenge starting with the root of the tree of life (ToL). Johnson's reply to Lewontin's notorious cat out of the bag statement in NYRB, is a key start point for a better balanced discussion:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And if the latter is twisted into a caricature god of the gaps strawman, then locked out, huge questions are being oh so conveniently begged.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
BD, I assume you are familiar with the fact of genetically modified organisms and especially the much headlined Venter. Move molecular nanotech labs forward several generations in a context where initial level intelligent design of life is already a fact. Take that as a yardstick on feasibility, adequate cause that is observable and of the difference between the propagandistic "natural vs supernatural" and the longstanding actual design inference in light of Plato's contrast in The Laws bk X: the natural (= undirected chance and/or mechanical necessity) vs the ART-ificial (= intelligently directed configuration). In that context, highlight the von Neumann kinematic Self Replication (vNkSR) and code use involved in cellular replication, the integration of a metabolic automaton and of smart gated encapsulation. Thus, the manifestation of massive, undeniable, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I) and its commonly observed source, design. With a trillion member base of observations, backed by needle in haystack blind search challenges in the direct config space or the search for a golden search higher order spaces. KF KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
PS: The ghost of Paley in Ch 2 (not just the simple watch in the field of Ch 1 but the thought exercise of a self replicating time keeping watch), rides again, where the FSCO/I in self-replicating, metabolic automaton, encapsulated smart gated life is what is to be causally explained:
Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to
[--> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, "stickiness" of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]
all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [--> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] -- the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [--> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art
[--> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic "supernatural") vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]
. . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [--> i.e. design]. . . . . We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [--> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . . Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [--> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire m it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before. Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. "Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . , And the question which irresistibly presses upon our thoughts is. Whence this contrivance and design ? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapted hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question, this demand, is not shaken off by increasing a number or succession of substances destitute of these properties; nor the more, by increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that upon the supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of that other's movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we have a cause for the watch in my hand, namely, the watch from which it proceeded — I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to a use, all of which we discover in the watch, we have any cause whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all for the phenomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer. [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]
kairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
EA, well done. I add to it my own three years standing open invitation and challenge to address the ToL from roots to tip. To date there has been no really good response and the OOL issue has particularly been ducked. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Bob O’H: To be clear, you can ask for nucleotides, but not for long functional nucleic acids. Just as you can ask for aminoacids, nut not for functional proteins. IOWs, you cannot ask for "ready" complex functional information, that is exactly the ID point. I suppose that even asking for ready prokaryotes would be stretching Eric's generosity a bit! :)gpuccio
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply