Michael Behe muses on design and COVID-19

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 12, 2020

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

COVID-19 — *A coronavirus, by CDC/ Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM / Public domain.*

He stands by what he wrote on Ebola virus six years ago:

The bottom line is that, while of course the virus is dangerous, the situation can be compared to a strong storm on the ocean. The waves may be huge and the surface roiling, but the deeper waters continue as they always have, essentially undisturbed. In a similar way, although superficially it changes very rapidly, some researchers think that the coronavirus and many other virus types have remained basically the same for tens of millions of years…
So, do I think viruses were designed? Yes, I most certainly do! The viruses of which we are aware — including the coronaviruses, Ebola, and HIV — are exquisitely, purposively arranged, which is the clear signature of intelligent design. Well, then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer? No, not necessarily. I’m a biochemist, not a philosopher. Nonetheless, I see no reason why a designer even of such things as viruses should be classified as bad on that basis alone.
I started this post with an analogy of a storm on the ocean. Certainly, if we were on a ship in a powerful storm, we might be excused for thinking storms are bad. But in calmer moments we understand that on balance the ocean is very good and that, given an ocean and the laws of nature, storms will arise from time to time. What’s more, we just might get caught in one. In the same way, most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware. (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good.
Michael Behe, “Evolution, Design, and COVID-19” at Evolution News and Science Today

Ebola six years ago? Ebola six years ago? Behe, M. J. 2014. Evolution and the Ebola virus: Pacing a small cage.

Comments

Biological warfare is prohibited by the Geneva conventions because it was recognized as evil. Mike Behe is just telling us he doesn’t have that same level of ethics.
Hahaha. 'Biological warfare' is 'Natural Selection' in action. Naturalists are funny.Truthfreedom_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

We are forgetting evolution. Even the best of viruses can mutate to become harmful or lethal.ET_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

No reason the designer of harmful viruses has to be benevolent. Intelligent design is ambivalent about intentions and nature of said designer. All ID can do is detect that design happened.EricMH_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Jim Thibodeau, Thank you for proving that you have reading comprehension issues. Do you really think that your ignorance is an argument? Really?ET_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

And JT, just how does an atheist, since he denies the reality of God, account for the existence of evil?
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
bornagain77_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Biological warfare is prohibited by the Geneva conventions because it was recognized as evil. Mike Behe is just telling us he doesn’t have that same level of ethics.Jim Thibodeau_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

seversky:
It’s a small point but it seems to have escaped the attention of some that the theory of evolution was not – and is not – intended as an explanation of the origins of life.
And yet how life originated dictates how it evolved. It is only if blind and mindless processes produced life from non-life would we say that those same processes produced its diversity. And the contrary PoV is if life was intelligently designed then it evolved by means of intelligent design. Meaning organisms were intelligently designed with the ability to adapt and evolve. So the OoL is key to evolution. But we all understand why evos don't want people to understand that basic factET_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

@10 Seversky
It’s a small point but it seems to have escaped the attention of some that the theory of evolution was not – and is not – intended as an explanation of the origins of life.
-How one thing develops and how that same thing has being originated are not intimately related?
As for purpose, if God can conceive a purpose why can’t we?
Of course we can. My life's goal is to harm as many people/ animals as possible. There it is. A purpose.Truthfreedom_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Seversky is hardly alone in making a self-refuting theologically based argument for evolution. Darwin himself, as well as modern day Darwinists, (since they have no real time empirical evidence) are also heavily reliant on these self-refuting theologically based arguments for evolution.
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
In fact, although Darwinists often claim that theology has no place in science, it turns out that evolutionary biology itself is crucially dependent on these faulty theological presuppositions.
Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't - Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02 The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma. On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains. https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44
Darwinists, with their vital dependence on faulty theological presuppositions, instead of on any substantiating scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
“In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).
Of supplemental note, in keeping with the Christian's presupposition that we live in a 'fallen world', there are now reason to believe that viruses. (and bacteria), and contrary to popular belief, start out as being beneficial and then, from time to time, degrade into being pathogenic.
Trillions Upon Trillions of Viruses Fall From the Sky Each Day - Jim Robbins - April 13, 2018 Excerpt: Whatever the case, viruses are the most abundant entities on the planet by far. While Dr. Suttle’s team found hundreds of millions of viruses in a square meter, they counted tens of millions of bacteria in the same space. Mostly thought of as infectious agents, viruses are much more than that. It’s hard to overstate the central role that viruses play in the world: They’re essential to everything from our immune system to our gut microbiome, to the ecosystems on land and sea, to climate regulation,,,. Viruses contain a vast diverse array of unknown genes — and spread them to other species.,,, In laboratory experiments, he has filtered viruses out of seawater but left their prey, bacteria. When that happens, plankton in the water stop growing. That’s because when preying viruses infect and take out one species of microbe — they are very specific predators — they liberate nutrients in them, such as nitrogen, that feed other species of bacteria.,,, Viruses help keep ecosystems in balance by changing the composition of microbial communities. As toxic algae blooms spread in the ocean, for example, they are brought to heel by a virus that attacks the algae and causes it to explode and die, ending the outbreak in as little as a day.,,, The beneficial effects of viruses are much less known, especially among plants. “There are huge questions in wild systems about what viruses are doing there,” said Marilyn Roossinck, who studies viral ecology in plants at Pennsylvania State University. “We have never found deleterious effects from a virus in the wild.” A grass found in the high-temperature soils of Yellowstone’s geothermal areas, for example, needs a fungus to grow in the extreme environment. In turn, the fungus needs a virus.,,, Tiny spots of virus on the plant that yields quinoa is also important for the plant’s survival. “Little spots of virus confer drought tolerance but don’t cause disease,” she said. “It changes the whole plant physiology.” “Viruses aren’t our enemies,” Dr. Suttle said. “Certain nasty viruses can make you sick, but it’s important to recognize that viruses and other microbes out there are absolutely integral for the ecosystem.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/science/virosphere-evolution.html Viruses: You've heard the bad; here's the good - April 30, 2015 Excerpt: "The word, virus, connotes morbidity and mortality, but that bad reputation is not universally deserved," said Marilyn Roossinck, PhD, Professor of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology and Biology at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park. "Viruses, like bacteria, can be important beneficial microbes in human health and in agriculture," she said. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430170750.htm Not All Viruses Are Bad For You. Here Are Some That Can Have a Protective Effect - CYNTHIA MATHEW - AUGUST 2019 Excerpt: Some viruses can actually kill bacteria, while others can fight against more dangerous viruses. So like protective bacteria (probiotics), we have several protective viruses in our body. Protective 'phages' Bacteriophages (or "phages") are viruses that infect and destroy specific bacteria. They're found in the mucus membrane lining in the digestive, respiratory and reproductive tracts.,,, Recent research suggests the phages present in the mucus are part of our natural immune system, protecting the human body from invading bacteria. Phages have actually been used to treat dysentery, sepsis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, salmonella infections and skin infections for nearly a century. Early sources of phages for therapy included local water bodies, dirt, air, sewage and even body fluids from infected patients. The viruses were isolated from these sources, purified, and then used for treatment. https://www.sciencealert.com/not-all-viruses-are-bad-for-you-here-are-some-that-can-have-a-protective-effect NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it's impacting us more than previously thought - February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing "germs" or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens." http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles - Falkowski 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf
bornagain77_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 4, after listing several pathogenic viruses, states,
“How far would he have to go before you began to suspect he might not be as favorably disposed towards us as you like to think?”
To which Martin_r at 6 responds,
so do you finally accept that we and the viruses were designed ?
As Martin_r alluded to, Seversky simply has no evidence that viruses could arise by evolutionary processes. In fact, as Martin_r alluded to, "Darwinian common descent idea does not work with viruses," since "More than 95% of the viruses in sewage data have “no matches to reference genomes [in databases],”" Furthermore, as has been pointed out time and again to the Darwinists here on UD and elsewhere, Darwinists simply have no evidence that unguided material processes can create even a single protein,
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA
Nor do Darwinists have any evidence that Darwinian processes can transform one protein of an existing function into new protein of a new function,
"Enzyme Families -- Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - December 4, 2014 Excerpt: If enzymes can't be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,, Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn't test the right mutation(s), and that we didn't use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF's entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine. Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It's because modern enzymes can't be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don't evolve! That is precisely the point we are making. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/a_new_paper_fro091701.html Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: ,,, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start. This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic. Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space. Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/ Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: To the extent that Tawfik’s selection experiments were successful, it is because mutations were localized and contextualized. Mutation had a key but confined role. If evolution proceeded, the prevailing architecture of the active sites and protein shapes nonetheless remains intact. Changes were not to central structures, but to peripheral loops. A great deal of flexibility was discovered. Still, it is hard to see how any of this could build proteins—that is, in the sense of building their fundamental shapes, or scaffolds; and build proteins in terms of explaining the key catalytic strategies of each active site. Even in the impressive demonstration of a transition through nine orders of magnitude, in which a full exchange of a promiscuous activity for the primary activity was seen, the overall geometry of the protein was unchanged, and, although substrates had changed, the fundamental active site strategy stayed the same. ,,, “Modern neo-Darwinism and neutral evolutionary treatments,” remark Leonard Bogarad and Michael Deem, “fail to explain satisfactorily the generation of the diversity of life found on our planet.” It is not that they did not evolve, they say, but that “... most theoretical treatments of evolution consider only the limited point-mutation events that form the basis of these theories.” Their sober conclusion is that “point mutation alone is incapable of evolving systems with substantially new protein folds.”60,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins
Nor do Darwinists have any evidence that Darwinian processes can create new protein "complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins."
"The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146
In fact, as John Sanford has shown in his book Genetic Entropy, and as Michael Behe has shown in his book "Darwin Devolves", Darwinian processes are far, far, more likely to degrade a preexisting function in order to gain an adaptive advantage than Darwinian processes are ever likely to create anything new, i.e. Behe's "First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: “Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.”
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: “Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.” - Behe https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_first_rule_of_ad/
Since Darwinian processes can't even transform one protein of a preexisting function into new protein of a new function, nor build up the functional complexity of proteins past Behe's "edge of evolution", then it is not surprising that Darwinists do not even have any evidence that Darwinian processes can transform one type of bacteria into another type of bacteria, nor transform prokaryotic into eukaryotic cells, much less do they have any evidence that it is possible to transform one multicellular organism into another multicellular organism. As Alan Linton noted, "Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organism"
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
Since Darwinists have no real time empirical evidence that Darwinian evolution is even remotely feasible, Darwinists, as Seversky has done here in this tread with his comment, i.e. "How far would he have to go before you began to suspect he (God) might not be as favorably disposed towards us as you like to think?”, Darwinists will often, as Seversky has done here, resort to theologically based arguments. In short, Seversky is resorting to the theologically based "argument from evil". Yet the 'argument from evil' is a blatantly self refuting argument for an atheist, such as Seversky, to make. For evil to even exist in the first place, as Seversky is presupposing in his argument from evil, then there necessarily must be an objective moral standard of good that has been departed from. As C.S. Lewis noted, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
And as David Wood puts it in the following article, By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.
Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist - By David Wood Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist
In short, if good and evil exist, as the atheist necessarily presupposes in his 'argument from evil', then it follows that God necessarily exists:
If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM
And as Michael Egnor states in the following article, Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/
bornagain77_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

It's a small point but it seems to have escaped the attention of some that the theory of evolution was not - and is not - intended as an explanation of the origins of life. As for purpose, if God can conceive a purpose why can't we?Seversky_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

@4 Seversky
I have to say your designer has an odd way of demonstrating his affection for us.
From the naturalist POV, affection is an evolutive 'trick' to enhance social cohesion for the purpose of achieving... nothing really. So what is the value of that affection you are mentioning? - A consistent naturalist knows his/her feelings are a waste of time. A trick or a spandrel, very useful mechanisms to achieve... to achieve...to achieve... no-thing. No directive, no goal, no purpose,. No-thing.Truthfreedom_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

and once again, let me very briefly repeat a scientific fact: evolutionary theory can't explain the origin of the MOST ABUNDANT ORGANISM on Earth - the viruses.martin_r_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Kairo @5 you wrote: "Viruses are dependent on cells and seem to therefore be derivative. Is there good reason to reject such an inference?" you can make up thousands of stories - you guys always been very skilled storytellers ... BUT PLEASE SHOW US SOME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE .... SHOW US HOW LIFE ORIGINATED FINALLY SHOW US HOW PHOTOSYNTHESIS EVOLVED SHOW US HOW THOUSANDS OF UNIQUE KINDS OF VIRUSES ORIGINATED... 2019: In an unprecedented global survey of the viruses in Earth's oceans, an international team of scientists has now expanded the number of known marine virus populations to nearly 200,000, most of which don't match any previously characterized family of virus In other words, they discovered 200,000 new kinds of viruses never seen before !!! 200,000 !!!! Your absurd theory can't explain the origin of one type of virus, let alone 200,000 :))))))))))) Kairo, isnt it strange? EVERYTHING HAPPENED IN THE DEEP PAST AND FROM THAT MOMENT, NOTHING... SUDDENLY, WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO OBSERVE THESE THINGS, EVERYTHING STOPPED EMERGING :))))) i am tired of all your stories and fairy tales - "how it might" .... You guys have been telling stories for 150 years... after 150 years, it is time to PROVE SOMETHING... And the only thing you guys have proved is, that biology is so sophisticated, that only mentally ill person can believe that these things arose by coincidence after coincidence after coincidence.... especially in 21st century ...martin_r_{March 13, 2020
March
03
Mar
13
13
2020
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Seversky, you wrote: "How far would he have to go before you began to suspect he might not be as favorably disposed towards us as you like to think?" so do you finally accept that we and the viruses were designed ? that is a huge progress.martin_r_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

Viruses are dependent on cells and seem to therefore be derivative. Is there good reason to reject such an inference?kairosfocus_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

So, do I think viruses were designed? Yes, I most certainly do! The viruses of which we are aware — including the coronaviruses, Ebola, and HIV — are exquisitely, purposively arranged, which is the clear signature of intelligent design. Well, then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer? No, not necessarily. I’m a biochemist, not a philosopher. Nonetheless, I see no reason why a designer even of such things as viruses should be classified as bad on that basis alone.
So viruses were designed? Viruses like: Ebola Zika Polio Rabies Yellow Fever Dengue Measles Hantavirus Marburg Hepatitis Influenza Smallpox Rotavirus HIV To name but a few. I have to say your designer has an odd way of demonstrating his affection for us. How far would he have to go before you began to suspect he might not be as favorably disposed towards us as you like to think?Seversky_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

We could debate whether or not a virus, any virus, is an organism. It doesn't have the ability to reproduce. There isn't any metabolism. And growth is only with respect to the population may grow, as long as there is a host.ET_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

in regards to viruses, let me repeat the following: Viruses are the most abundant organism on Earth, viruses outnumber bacteria 10 folds. yet, evolutionary theory can not explain the origin of the most abundant organism on Earth (viruses). Also, the common descent concept does not work with viruses, because viruses are a completely different 'system', not made of cells. And it get worse: each virus is unique, so it is like to explain the origin of life thousands of time, over and over... A few quotes from a mainstream virology-blog at Virology.ws "In a phylogenetic tree, the characteristics of members of taxa are inherited from previous ancestors. Viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic – they have many evolutionary origins." "No single gene has been identified that is shared by all viruses. There are common protein motifs in viral capsids, but these have likely come about through convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer." "Cells obtain membranes from other cells during cell division. According to this concept of ‘membrane heredity’, today’s cells have inherited membranes from the first cells that evolved, and provides evidence that cells are derived from a common ancestor. Viruses have no such inherited structure." http://www.virology.ws/2009/03/19/viruses-and-the-tree-of-life/martin_r_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

as to:
, some researchers think that the coronavirus and many other virus types have remained basically the same for tens of millions of years…
this is of related interest:
Viral novelty doesn’t surprise Elodie Ghedin of New York University, who looks for viruses in wastewater and in respiratory systems. More than 95% of the viruses in sewage data have “no matches to reference genomes [in databases],” she says. Like Abrahão, she says, “We seem to be discovering new viruses all the time.” Elizabeth Pennisi, “Scientists discover virus with no recognizable genes” https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/what-a-virus-with-no-recognizable-genes/ Darwinian common descent idea does not work with viruses, because viruses are a completely different system, not made of cells. Most people don’t realize that, but to explain the origin of viruses, it is like to explain the origin of life like thousands times over and over again, if not hundred-thousands times … Because most viruses are unique (a biologist would use the term – polyphyletic – many evolutionary origins) https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/what-a-virus-with-no-recognizable-genes/#comment-692576
bornagain77_{March 12, 2020
March
03
Mar
12
12
2020
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply