Biology Evolution

“Biologists of the Future”

Spread the love

Is it fair to say that the “biologists of the future” to whom Carl Woese is referring will not be Darwinian?

The idea of a last common community, with a communally sophisticated biochemistry, raises another question: how did all this evolve? This is for someone else to answer, says Woese. “We don’t understand how to create novelty from scratch – that’s a question for biologists of the future.”

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v427/n6976/full/427674a_fs.html

Is it too much to speculate that maybe, just maybe, creating novelty from scratch might be the work of a designing intelligence??

6 Replies to ““Biologists of the Future”

  1. 1
    Dark Matter says:

    Hi there Mr. Bill!

    William Dembski wrote:

    “Is it too much to speculate that maybe, just maybe, creating novelty from scratch might be the work of a designing intelligence??”

    You can speculate anything you want.
    You can speculate the Apollo Moon landing were faked.
    You can speculate the Nazca plateau glyphs were landing strips
    for alien spacecraft.
    You can speculate reptilian overlords from space are planning
    to take over Earth.
    You can speculate that the galactic overlord Xenu tried to solve his overpopulation problem by shipping them to a volcano on Earth to be H-bombed.
    You can speculate that Tolkien’s Iluvatar “did it” and the Silmarillion is a real account of Earth’s early history.
    You can speculate that humans are the descendants of creatures
    created by the servants of Lovecraft’s Great Old Ones.

    Got Evidence?

    No? That’s your problem. *YOURS*.

    PS-I think you may like that last one more than you may realize. A person says a “designing intelligence” created life but refuses to elaborate. And has a quasi-religious philosophy. And has a lot of influential followers.

    And seems to like pictures of nautilus a lot.

    Is it too much to speculate that maybe, just maybe, you
    and your friends are secret servants of the Great Old Ones?

    Be Seeing You.

    Dark Matter

    [This post illustrates that what constitutes evidence is itself not decided by evidence but by certain dispositions we have to accept things as evidence. To ID proponents, the high-tech nano-engineered systems we find inside the cell constitute overwhelming evidence of actual design, especially when coupled with the overwhelming lack of evidence for the power of material mechanisms to produce such systems. Doubt this last claim? Prove me wrong. Provide a detailed, testable Darwinian pathway to the bacterial flagellum. I’m not sure we will be seeing each other, Dark Matter. You’re out of here. –WmAD]

  2. 2
    MGD says:

    “You can speculate anything you want.”
    And thus Darwinism is born.

  3. 3
    jboze3131 says:

    my first thought when i read dark matter’s comment:

    -i see that the bogus argument of relating ID to nonsense is used (i’m surprised i didn’t see a flat earth mention and then comparing it to ID.) design in nature is equal to the belief that reptile aliens might take over the planet from space? someone help me, i forget the latin phrase- argument from the absurd.

    -i also see that you can take all these listed items and easily relate them to darwinism. (to me, the fruit flies and the e coli tests show it all- if skilled intelligence via a scientist cannot get a fruit fly to “evolve” into anything but a fruit fly- and very SICK and deformed fruit flies, at that, then how can we postulate that non-intelligent random events coupled with “natural selection” can magically do it?)

    i read two articles the other day that talked about how tests in the wild have shown that the mechanism labeled natural selection has little to no effect on a population, and these were papers from full fledged evolutionists. my point with that is- im not a scientist, but it doesnt take a genius to figure out that something with pure materialism is wrong. from studying this issue lately, it seems to me that only with this theory can someone claim that blind natural processes with no goal can do such miraculous things. in any other field of science or ANY study, apparent design would equal design in the minds of the people involved. if someone finds an stone tool next to a stone- they realize that the one was designed by an intelligent being for a purpose and the other next to it is just a rock that was buried by some dirt- in this field, someone can see the same thing and proclaim that both of them are purposeless blind processes and anyone who says differently is on the fringe, and in the minority- so theyre fools.

    can we call all the scientists before einstein fools, because if i remember correctly from my reading, his ideas proved many of newtons theories totally wrong, right? science has gone thru many phases where a large majority held to one set of rules that were found to be wrong, so this argument from authority (as it seems) is nonsense to me.

    in the end, i just dont get any of it. it all seems so obvious to me, but i feel like so many are dedicated to the idea that materialistic science is the only answer and that anything else is banned, no matter how little evidence the materialistic theory holds. fairly sad, since throughout most of science, the men and women who did great things realized that things arent just black and white, and that you have to take many things into account to understand the world around us.

  4. 4
    DaveScot says:

    Dembski:

    Is it too much to speculate that maybe, just maybe, creating novelty from scratch might be the work of a designing intelligence??

    Evidently. πŸ™

  5. 5
    DaveScot says:

    Dark Matter:

    And you can speculate that life is an accident.

    Got evidence?

    No? That’s YOUR problem. Even Dickie “Girly Man” Dawkins acknowledges over and over that life appears to be designed. When something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s up to someone claiming it isn’t a duck to prove it isn’t a duck. Duh. Thanks for playing.

  6. 6
    DaveScot says:

    jboze

    reductio ad absurdum

Leave a Reply